Muslim Apologist Syndrome

[PanzerJaeger]

Since 9/11, ive come to the conclusion that the islamic religion as represented by many leaders in that religion is a major reason, if not the biggest reason, for the rise in terrorism against the Western World. In mosques all across the globe people are taught to be hostile toward western culture and America in particular. The verses of the koran that deal with infidels are taken literally in many cases, and religious leaders use anti-western rhetoric to hide their own failings in making a good community.

But thats not what Im writing this about. What really angers me is the predisposition of some people, usually on the left, to ignore the fact that islam has some major problems itself. For some strange reason these people go to great lengths to blame poverty, ignorance, the west itself and a myriad of other reasons - but refuse to acknowledge the very simple fact that there are elements in the islamic world that are stirring these flames.

These people not only go to great lengths to defend islam, but attack any of those who try to criticize the religion. Bigot, racist, blah, blah, blah are common buzzwords used to stifle any real conversation about the subject.

And the height of hypocrisy is that these same people who go to such great lengths to stifle any criticism of islam are the same people who will dredge up the crusades and the inquisition to try and draw some parallel to what is going on today.

My point is that its common rhetoric that "to defeat terrorism, we have to get at its root causes". Well its seems that some people, usually on the left, dont want to address a key aspect of islamic terrorism for reasons of political correctness, hurt feelings or whatever.

Ive said it once and ill say it again. Islam as represented by many leaders in that religion is a major cause of the hatred and violence that breeds terrorism, and if we're serious about defeating these guys - we should worry a little less about muslim's feelings and a little more about what some muslims are being taught at mosque.

[Papewaio]

Religious fundamentalism of all religions is a bad thing... including Kansas religious nuts stating that creationism is a science and should be taught in science class.

[InsaneApache]

Religious fundamentalism of all religions is a bad thing... including Kansas religious nuts stating that creationism is a science and should be taught in science class.

With that I shall take my leave...thank you and goodnight :bow:

[Byzantine Prince]

I'm afraid I disagree with you on this one Panzer. Islam is a very peaceful relgion, even if you take the book literally. It's when people give their own interpretations that things get messy.

I've seen lot's of programs with experts, mullas, religious writers, etc. And they all agree that extremism has little to do with mainstream Islam, and more to do with extremist sects like the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, that send mullas all over the world to preach hate.

The fact that the left doesn't address the issue is of little importance. They are not even in power, so why mention them. If they attacked Islam have you any idea how bad America's image would become? Appaling to say the least.

[Proletariat]

Yeah, they're clearly in the same league. Let's pay homage to all those we've lost due to suicide bomb attacks from Kansas Christians.

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

oh come on Proletariat, don't you know that the crusades were conducted by Kansas protestants after the "peaceful" spread of Islam in the middle east?

[Don Corleone]

I thought we've been down this road. Islam itself to blame? I don't know. Are there sects within Islam that seek to subjugate the world and establish a heirarchy with themselves at the top? Well, read the papers, you'll see it's evidence.

I'm not being an apologist, but I'm not going to go out and condemn and ideology as vast and varied as Christianity or Islam. The Japanese are for the most part, Shinto, a form of Buddhism. Does the actions of the Japanese during WWII mean that any Buddhist is an imperialist and has no respect for life?

Yes, I think there are serious issues within branches of Islam that it's other adherents could do more to disavow. But that's a far cry from saying all it's adherents are responsible.

As far as the mindset of the Western apologists goes, I don't know what to tell you. There's a certain element, surprisingly large, that seems to have a certain amount of self-hatred, and that translates into a hatred of the West and all things Western, by Westerners. There's a fine line between trying to understand what role we may have played and assuming it's all our fault. I've seen faulty logic on both sides of that equation (we're guilty or we're utterly blameless).

Edit: Ooh, good grammar there, dufus. Changed to Are there sects

[InsaneApache]

Timothy McVeigh anyone ~:confused:

[Proletariat]

So no 'thank you and goodnight' as promised? Alas.

Keep on naming, 'em, Insane Apache. When one group has a body count of 3,000 plus 300, plus 48, we'll talk.

[Roark]

The issues are simply extremism and politics.

There are Christians in the islands of Indonesia who go on rampages against the non-Christian community. There are also those who simply perform missionary work in the form of medicine and dentistry for the community, who bear the brunt of Islamic attacks.

I've been to a couple of Islamic prayer meetings with a friend here in Australia, and there was nothing resembling the sinister agenda that Panzer seems so focussed on. They mostly deliberated on theological points, and discussed internal issues of faith, much like the Christian meetings I've attended.

There are extreme elements in most, if not all, of the world's religions. Islam in itself is not a threat. It's how it's applied and/or twisted to suit a political agenda that does the damage (and spawns these terrorists and preachers of hate...)

[Don Corleone]

Actually, McVeigh wasn't acting as a fundamentalist Christian. He was acting in rebellion to the Clinton White House (in general) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (in the particular).

You can't call Branch Davidians Christians. Christians believe Christ was God incarnate come to die for man's sins. Branch Davidians believe whomever their current leader is (such as David Koresh) also fits that role (except for the he has to die part). Branch Davidians are heretical Christians, if they're Christian at all (and I'd say they're not, and the Nicean Creed is on my side). I can call myself an elderly lesbian waterpolo player, but that doesn't mean I am.

[Proletariat]

It's politically correct non-sense to suggest Islam is suffering from anything other than a systemic problem.

And yes, I know. There are homicidal lunatics in every religon. But let's not kid ourselves.

How's it go? 'Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every Jihaddist is a Muslim.'

[Big_John]

what is islam? is it the strictest interpretation of the koran? is it also the teachings of holy men? of muslim kings? is it the set of beliefs of all muslims? the set of actions of all muslims?

what is christianity? is it the strictest interpretation of the bible (if so, which version)? is it also the teachings of saints? clergy? is christianity the contents of the book of mormon? do the beliefs and actions of all christians comprise christianity?

is saying that we worry "what some muslims are being taught at mosque" akin to blaming islam? is saying "islam is a very peaceful religion" denying a root cause of islamic terrorism?

is a post made entirely of questions annoying?

[Don Corleone]

Well, you could substitute Wahabist, which is a subset of Islam, into that equation and it holds up just as well.

The biggest problem I see in Islam, systemically speaking, is it's lack of willingness to take action to reclaim their religion. In trying to protect their dignity and pride in their religion, which I can certainly understand, they've allowed these lunatics the opportunity to claim to speak for all muslims, which I cannot. Were I a muslim, I would be begging my local Immam to issue some fatwahs of their own against not only the bombers themselves, but the imams that are spreading the message they responded to. Sadly, in an effort to distance themselves, it would seem the vast majority of muslims wish to pretend this has nothing to do with them, and how dare we insinuate that it does. I don't blame them for the actions of the bombers, but for allowing the climate that creates them to continue, I sure as shit do.

But, lest I come off as insensitve or ignorant, I'd like to point out the similarities I see between Islam at large, the jihadists in particular versus Roman Catholicism at large, and the pedophile protection brigade in particular. It's actually quite similar when you look at the actions and words of the vast majority of bishops & priests. While they themselves would never dream of engaging in these acts, the continue to allow an environment where it's all but certain it will continue to happen. The big difference here is the Catholic Church is experiencing a revolution from below, and if the leadership doesn't figure out what's going on and get on board, they're going to find themselves Princes of the Church, alright, Princes of empty buildings without a pot to piss in, because the laity with any conscience has already moved away from them on this. I'm waiting to see that sort of movement among peaceful muslims.

[Roark]

Sorry Proletariat, but if it was a systemic problem, wouldn't it have been prevalent from Day 1 of the inception of Islam, and continuing throughout the entire history of the faith?

Go ahead and call the opposing view "nonsense" if you like, but you've gotta offer up more if you want people to debate you seriously...

The muslim terrorists themselves have said that their actions are a response. To what? A climate that they perceive as being created and propagated by a decadent and evil Western world.

Now, whether or not you believe their actions are a justified "response" (and I personally don't), the issue is much deeper than a kink in their religious system.

[Don Corleone]

Sorry Proletariat, but if it was a systemic problem, wouldn't it have been prevalent from Day 1 of the inception of Islam, and continuing throughout the entire history of the faith?

Go ahead and call the opposing view "nonsense" if you like, but you've gotta offer up more if you want people to debate you seriously...

The muslim terrorists themselves have said that their actions are a response. To what? A climate that they perceive as being created and propagated by a decadent and evil Western world.

Now, whether or not you believe their actions are a justified "response" (and I personally don't), the issue is much deeper than a kink in their religious system.

Well, I guess I'm in camp #3, because I don't agree with this either. The jihadists can claim all they want is more chocolate ice cream, that don't make it so. They're out to conquer the world, put everyone under Sharia, and establish themselves as the amirs in a new worldwide caliphate. They've said as much. Why don't you believe them?

[Tribesman]

'Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every Jihaddist is a Muslim.'
Not quite Prole , ever heard of August Kries ? ~;)
But of course he isn't from Kansas , and though he calls himself a Christian and has a group that call themselves Christian they are just about as crazy as Al-Qaida .
Whoda thunk it , the Christian Jesus Christ Aryan race calling for Jihad ~D ~D ~D
Then of course on a different continent you have the Lords Army , they take their version of Christian crusading so seriously they crucify non-believers . :embarassed:

[Don Corleone]

Come on Tribesman. There's a world of difference between what's going on inside (and coming out of) Saudi Arabia these days on a systematic basis and some kooks holed up in (where is it, Rwanda?) an African country that's essentially had violent upheaval ever since it's liberation. You're comparing a street mugger (granted, a violent thief) to the entire US mafia (quite a bit larger in scale).

[Roark]

Well, I guess I'm in camp #3, because I don't agree with this either. The jihadists can claim all they want is more chocolate ice cream, that don't make it so. They're out to conquer the world, put everyone under Sharia, and establish themselves as the amirs in a new worldwide caliphate. They've said as much. Why don't you believe them?

I do, mate.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The West are "unworthy" as inheritors of the world, according to them. We are decadent, evil, and represent everything that Allah hates, and we should therefore be deposed.

[PanzerJaeger]

Man, even in this thread there seem to be some who have a knee-jerk reaction to hearing anything negative about any muslims.

Its like a mental trigger. People cant do anything but say Islam is mostly peaceful and Christians are just as bad.. well we all know most muslims are peaceful and theres no need to try and draw relativity to Christianity.

Please realize that it is possible to talk about the Wahabists and other sects that preach hate without broadening the discussion to all muslims.

Those terrorists in New York, Madrid, London and countless other places didnt just wake up one day and decide that the western world was against Islam. There was and is a whole network of religious leaders and believers who support such an ideology. Simply because there arent a vast number of muslims who embrace terrorism doesnt mean there arent a whole lot of them that passively support it.

That is a problem worth addressing, not closing our eyes in fears of hurting muslim's feelings. If a muslim doesnt embrace this ideology, there is no reason for him to get offended anyway.

[Roark]

Panzer, I most certainly agree with you that the teachings of the hateful extremist schools of Islam need to be looked at closely. I find it repellent that they are apparently able to operate in my own country, and to find new blood within our youth for their membership.

[Byzantine Prince]

They're out to conquer the world, put everyone under Sharia, and establish themselves as the amirs in a new worldwide caliphate. They've said as much. Why don't you believe them?
May we, the people, have some proof as well, because I've never heard about this.


Yeah, they're clearly in the same league. Let's pay homage to all those we've lost due to suicide bomb attacks from Kansas Christians.
There's plenty of Christian terrorists. I'm sure you know this. The fact that they don't come from Kansas is unfortunate because then you'd really be wrong.
Does this make me want to go out and start mouthing off about how Christianity kills people? No. Is it right for me to do so? No.
I have other reasons for bashing Christianity, I don't need to complain about let's say the IRA, the ETA, etc. And believe you me there's dozens of these organizations all over Europe, and the rest of the world. I could easily blame Christianity for their actions, but is that what Jesus was all about? I don't think so, unles Orthodox Christianity(the one I grew up with) is completely different from yours.


'Not every Muslim is a terrorist, but every Jihaddist is a Muslim.'
Well every arab is a muslim, and so only they can use the word Jihad to say what they are doing.

[Don Corleone]

I do, mate.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

The West are "unworthy" as inheritors of the world, according to them. We are decadent, evil, and represent everything that Allah hates, and we should therefore be deposed.
All because you're not a Wahabist muslim. This is what I call the Navaros argument (well, we are a bunch of sick fiends, we kinda deserve what we're getting) You could ban pornography, alcohol, put every woman into a burkha, go back to being kosher, basically adopt every last practice of their faith, but continue to call yourself a Christian and you'd change their views not one iota.

[Don Corleone]

May we, the people, have some proof as well, because I've never heard about this.


Last I checked, I wasn't in a courtroom, and you weren't a DA. But YOU certainly may have some evidence of it. Go read any of the letters from Osama bin Laden or al Zarqawi. Every single time, they say they won't stop until we all adopt Islam, and their particular brand of Islam. You show your ignorance when you make silly charges like that.

[PanzerJaeger]

Panzer, I most certainly agree with you that the teachings of the hateful extremist schools of Islam need to be looked at closely. I find it repellent that they are apparently able to operate in my own country, and to find new blood within our youth for their membership.

Thats all im asking for.

We need to differentiate between the majority of normal mosques and religious branches of Islam and the radical ones.

Many politicians and press people dont want to even go there, it seems to be off limits as it might offend some people. ~:confused:

[Big_John]

Well every arab is a muslim, and so only they can use the word Jihad to say what they are doing.say what? not sure what you're trying to argue with that sentence anyway, but just fyi, not all arabs are muslim.

[Don Corleone]

Well, dont' worry too much about Saudi Arabia, they're already here, pouring in from Mexico.... I'm starting a new topic on that...

[Roark]

All because you're not a Wahabist muslim. This is what I call the Navaros argument (well, we are a bunch of sick fiends, we kinda deserve what we're getting) You could ban pornography, alcohol, put every woman into a burkha, go back to being kosher, basically adopt every last practice of their faith, but continue to call yourself a Christian and you'd change their views not one iota.

Bingo. One of the reasons why I am forced to agree with the US-developed policy of non-negotiation with terrorists. These people are cultists and fanatics, in the most extreme sense of these words.

[Byzantine Prince]

Last I checked, I wasn't in a courtroom, and you weren't a DA. But YOU certainly may have some evidence of it. Go read any of the letters from Osama bin Laden or al Zarqawi. Every single time, they say they won't stop until we all adopt Islam, and their particular brand of Islam. You show your ignorance when you make silly charges like that.
You're joking right? Since when is Osama binLaden(LOL!!!) the poster boy for maistream Islam. That is false to the point of being offensive.

[Tribesman]

Don ,the first kook I mentioned is holed up in Pennsylvania I think after leaving Idaho , his call for Jihad was in a recent TV interview with CNN .
The other kooks are in Sudan , Uganda , Zaire (or whatever they are calling it this month), Ethiopia and Kenya .
You're comparing a street mugger (granted, a violent thief) to the entire US mafia (quite a bit larger in scale).
Yes the church of Jesus Christ Christian and the Aryan Nations are small groups an hav't killed many people , the Lords Army is a larger group that has killed many many thousands . But they constitute a very small proportion of persons who descibe themselves as christian , in the same way that Al-Qaida constitute a very small proportion of those persons who describe themselves as Muslim .
I am just being picky , but having a right wing nut calling for Jihad was just too good an opertunity to pass up as a response to Proles statement and Panzers those of the "left" post . ~:cheers:

[Pindar]

The Japanese are for the most part, Shinto, a form of Buddhism.


Just so you know: Shinto is not a form of Buddhism. It is distinct. Most Japanese do not identify themselves as Shinto.

And you are a elderly lesbian waterpolo player. ~:cool:

[Don Corleone]

You're joking right? Since when is Osama binLaden(LOL!!!) the poster boy for maistream Islam. That is false to the point of being offensive.

I wasn't talking about mainstream Islam. When I said 'they' want to subjugate the world to their particular brand of Islam, I was talking about OBL and the boys.

Edit: ~:furious3: And I SAID THAT in my post. I never referred to mainstream islam when I said 'they' were out to take over the world. I said the jihadists were. Or are YOU trying to make the point that Jihadists are mainstream Muslims?

Quit trying to score cheap points. You're purposely misquoting me.

[Roark]

We need to differentiate between the majority of normal mosques and religious branches of Islam and the radical ones.

Many politicians and press people dont want to even go there, it seems to be off limits as it might offend some people. ~:confused:

A lot of the more multicultural countries have behaved quite bizarrely in their softly softly approach to operational extremist schools of Islam. I can't comment on this authoritatively, though, except to say that I guess they have to be careful about alienating large sections of the community... I dunno...

Electronically bugging churches tends to provoke a strong reaction from civil rights groups...

[Papewaio]

Well every arab is a muslim, and so only they can use the word Jihad to say what they are doing.

About 9% of Arabs are Christian...


Reliable estimates of the number of Arab Christians, which in any case depends on the definition of "Arab" used, are rare. According to Fargues 1998, "Today Christians only make up 9.2 per cent of the population of the Near East. In Lebanon, where they have undoubtedly lost their position as the majority, they number little more than 40 per cent, 19 in Syria they are about 6.4 per cent, in the Palestinian-occupied or autonomous territories the figure is 3.8 per cent, and in Israel 2.1 per cent. In Egypt they constitute 5.9 per cent of the population, and in Iraq presumably 2.9 per cent." Most North and Latin American Arabs (about two-thirds) are Arab Christians, particularly from Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

But they constitute a very small proportion of persons who descibe themselves as christian , in the same way that Al-Qaida constitute a very small proportion of those persons who describe themselves as Muslim .

Come on . What do you think your proving here. Its more like a miniscule portion of christains are terrorists while a substanial number of Muslims are. Ill alos remind you that Christains far outnumber Muslims. So percentage wise there is no comparison at all. You remind me of Don Quixote more everyday ~D The world trembles under the threat of Christain fundamentalists. Well Europe does at least ~D Though its not violence but the religion itself that scares them. Again I dont like any fundementalists other than constitutional ones ~;)

[kiwitt]

From this article below. I wouldn't call the CFR a "leftist" organisation.


Do all Muslims see things al-Qaeda’s way?
No. Most Islamic scholars interpret jihad as a nonviolent quest for justice—a holy struggle rather than a holy war. ...


Causes of 9/11:
A Clash of Civilizations?

Were the September 11 attacks part of a clash between Islam and Western civilization?
Osama bin Laden and his terror network see it that way, but most Western foreign policy experts disagree. Al-Qaeda considers its terrorist campaign against the United States to be part of a war between the ummah—Arabic for the “Muslim community”—and the Christian and Jewish West. But al-Qaeda’s extremist, politicized form of Islam represents only one strain within a diverse religion—and a radical one that many Muslims reject as a grotesque distortion of their faith. Many Muslim-majority countries are members of the U.S.-led coalition fighting al-Qaeda. Moreover, al-Qaeda also targets Muslim governments, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, that it sees as godless. Many experts therefore say the September 11 attacks cannot be reduced to a “clash of civilizations.”

What is a “clash of civilizations”?
In an influential 1993 Foreign Affairs article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?” the Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington argued that in the wake of the Cold War, the main pattern of global conflict would probably be cultural, not economic or ideological. Civilizations, in Huntington’s thinking, are broad groupings organized around language, history, religion, and self-identification. “In the coming years, the local conflicts most likely to escalate into major wars will be those...along the fault lines between civilizations,” wrote Huntington, who listed eight “major civilizations”—Western, Confucian, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Slavic-Orthodox, Latin American, and African—that might clash with one another.

Does al-Qaeda think it’s engaged in a clash of civilizations?
Yes. Bin Laden openly seeks a clash between Islam and the West. “This battle is not between al-Qaeda and the U.S.,” the al-Qaeda leader said in October 2001. “This is a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders.” From bin Laden’s perspective, it is a clash that has been under way for centuries, with the Americans as the latest incarnation of the Christian Crusaders—arrogant Western interlopers out to oppress Muslims. In an October 2001 interview on al-Jazeera, the Arabic satellite news channel, bin Laden talked about the “clash of civilizations” thesis.

Muslims, bin Laden argues, must reverse a series of humiliations that they’ve endured since the Ottoman Empire, the last Muslim great power, was dismantled after World War I. Al-Qaeda’s 1998 declaration of a jihad, or holy war, against “Jews and Crusaders” urges Muslims to attack “the Americans and their allies, civilian and military,” supposedly as a response to U.S. policies that al-Qaeda feels oppress Muslims: the stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia; the backing of U.N. sanctions against Iraq; support for repressive Arab regimes; support for Israel; alleged complicity in Russian attacks on Muslims in Chechnya; and interventions in Bosnia, Somalia, and other Muslim regions that bin Laden sees as attempts to spread America’s empire. These Western policies, according to al-Qaeda, add up to a “clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims.”

Do all Muslims see things al-Qaeda’s way?
No. Most Islamic scholars interpret jihad as a nonviolent quest for justice—a holy struggle rather than a holy war. (Bin Laden is not a credentialed Muslim scholar, and most Muslims do not recognize him as a religious authority.) Moreover, mainstream Islamic teachings prohibit the killing of civilians. Islam has a tradition of religious tolerance and moderate leadership, exemplified by the Muslim caliphate’s ninth- and tenth-century rule of Spain and by the pluralism and diversity of the Ottoman Empire. Still, many scholars today worry about the growth of fundamentalism and anti-Americanism in Muslim countries.

Why is anti-Americanism prevalent in many Muslim countries?
For a complicated series of reasons. One key factor, experts say, is that many Muslims live under authoritarian governments lacking democratic institutions that would let citizens openly express grievances and solve problems themselves. Moreover, American support for such repressive regimes as Egypt and Saudi Arabia has sowed widespread bitterness. Many Islamic movements “are anti-Western because the governments they oppose are pro-Western,” writes Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland specialist in Muslim public opinion. Within the Arab world, U.S. support for Israel is also frequently cited as a source of anti-Americanism. On a deeper level, some experts argue, resentment of the United States is a reaction to America’s overwhelming wealth and power, particularly when compared to the economic stagnation and political insignificance of many Muslim states. This disparity leads Islamist movements, which are usually antimodern as well as anti-Western, to blame America for the loss of Islam’s past glory.

Is the West waging a war against Islam?
Western leaders insist they are not, and their choice of partners and policies backs this up. Although President Bush did once refer to the U.S. campaign against al-Qaeda as a “crusade”—a comment he hastily retracted—Bush and other Western leaders have repeatedly said that the U.S.-led coalition is waging war against al-Qaeda’s brand of global terrorism, not against Islam. “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends; it is not our many Arab friends,” Bush said shortly after September 11. “Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists, and every government that supports them.”

Moreover, several Western military interventions in the 1990s came to the defense of Muslims—from the 1991 Gulf War, which ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, to the ill-fated U.N. peacekeeping mission in Somalia, to NATO’s 1999 war to stop the “ethnic cleansing” of Muslims by Christian Serbs in Kosovo. Likewise, the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban has improved the lives of most Afghans.

Does the United States have Muslim partners in the war on terrorism?
Yes. After the September 11 attacks, such key Muslim states as Egypt, the most populous Arab state; Saudi Arabia, home to Islam’s two holiest shrines; Jordan; and Pakistan supported the U.S.-led coalition in its efforts to topple Afghanistan’s Taliban rulers and uproot al-Qaeda. In June 2002, Turkey—a NATO member and a reliable U.S. ally for decades—took command of the International Security Assistance Force, the multinational peacekeeping unit in Afghanistan. Other Muslim countries such as Morocco, Malaysia, and Indonesia, which is the most populous Muslim country, have cooperated with U.S. efforts to combat al-Qaeda elsewhere. The United States also provides military and economic aid to many Muslim countries; after Israel, Egypt is the second-largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid.

Is a clash between Islam and the West imminent?
Most scholars say such a clash of civilizations is unlikely—both because U.S. leaders aren’t eager to play into bin Laden’s hands and because neither Muslims nor the West are politically unified. The Islamic world is 85 percent non-Arab, and experts say its politics are dominated by self-interested states concerned more with conflicts among themselves than with the West. The long, brutal war between Iran and Iraq in the 1980s, in which Iraq used chemical weapons against Iranian troops and more than a million lives were lost, is hard to reconcile with a picture of Islam as a unified cultural force.

Nor is the West monolithic. Europeans are highly critical of U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding what they see as the Bush administration’s unilateralism, disengagement from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and unwarranted drive to invade Iraq.

On all sides, individual states continue to make pragmatic decisions. Moreover, the dividing lines between the West and Islam are increasingly blurred. Through immigration and conversion, Islam is now a growing part of Western societies. An estimated 12 million Muslims live in European Union countries, and between five and seven million Muslims live in the United States. Muslims died in the World Trade Center, and after the attacks the Bush administration and local authorities around the country worked to prevent an anti-Muslim backlash. By 2010, demographers say, Islam will become the second most popular religion in the United States after Christianity.

Copyright ©2004 Council on Foreign Relations.
All Rights Reserved.LINK (http://cfrterrorism.org/causes/clash_print.html)

[Byzantine Prince]

Just so you know: Shinto is not a form of Buddhism. It is a distinct. Most Japanese do not identify themselves as Shinto.

And you are a elderly lesbian waterpolo player. ~:cool:
Yes it's all true. ~D
Shinto is the traditional so to speak belief of the Japanese people. It constitutes of many gods and godesses, with relation to Buddhism. Very few people adhere to it for Buddhism has taken over for many centuries.



I wasn't talking about mainstream Islam. When I said 'they' want to subjugate the world to their particular brand of Islam, I was talking about OBL and the boys.
Then why? Jihadists have no real power other then recruiting radical muslims from poor areas to kill themselves for some imaginery cause they made up. Just like George made up his "crusade" against terrorism to take america to war. The blame goes both ways.

[Papewaio]

Actually, McVeigh wasn't acting as a fundamentalist Christian. He was acting in rebellion to the Clinton White House (in general) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (in the particular).

You can't call Branch Davidians Christians. Christians believe Christ was God incarnate come to die for man's sins. Branch Davidians believe whomever their current leader is (such as David Koresh) also fits that role (except for the he has to die part). Branch Davidians are heretical Christians, if they're Christian at all (and I'd say they're not, and the Nicean Creed is on my side). I can call myself an elderly lesbian waterpolo player, but that doesn't mean I am.


I wouldn't call Branch Davidians Christians just like I wouldn't call Islamic Terrorists mainstream muslims. I would call both groups religious fundamentalists trying to impose their belief system on the mainstream.

Religious fundamentalism is a root cause of a lot of problems. They have absolute answers and are absolutely sure in imposing them on absolutely everyone else.

[Don Corleone]

Then why? Jihadists have no real power other then recruiting radical muslims from poor areas to kill themselves for some imaginery cause they made up. Just like George made up his "crusade" against terrorism to take america to war. The blame goes both ways.

Just when I think I can reason with you, you prove that you close your ears to anything that doesn't fit your world view.

No real power, you say? Tell that to the folks in Manhatten, Madrid or London. Cripes you can be thick skulled, not to mention insensitive, sometimes.

And stop with the 'poor Arabic world' talk. All 19 of the hijackers on September 11th came from middle class or wealthy families. The 4 guys who blew up the London trains were actually from Leeds. The fact is, there's a small but intensely active thread in Islam that is working to conquer the world to force everyone to become a fundamentalist muslim. While the majority of muslims don't share this goal, they seem pretty loathe to speak out against it, and downright resistant to actually doing something to stop it.

[Don Corleone]

I wouldn't call Branch Davidians Christians just like I wouldn't call Islamic Terrorists mainstream muslims. I would call both groups religious fundamentalists trying to impose their belief system on the mainstream.

Religious fundamentalism is a root cause of a lot of problems. They have absolute answers and are absolutely sure in imposing them on absolutely everyone else.

Then can I call Hasidic Jews muslims too? Because Branch Davidians are not a fundamentalist subset of Christianity. They're not Christian at all. Christianity is about the divinity of Christ. They don't believe that. Christianity teaches that Christ is only divine being ever to live among men. Branch Davidians teach whoever they've got up at the pulpit at the moment is divine. People who worship snakes can call themselves Christians, and you can claim they represent our fundamentalist side, but you and they would be grossly wrong. Thus far, I haven't heard too many immams from the mainstream side issuing fatwahs against the hate preachers. I do see mainstream Christian churches defrocking and even excommunicating their wackos from time to time.

I would have expected a better argument than the old 'no difference between Christian & Islamic fundamentalists', and then going and getting a bunch of people that aren't even Christian to be our poster children.

[Papewaio]

World religions or lack thereof circa 2003:


Christians 32.84%
(of which :
Roman Catholics 17.34%,
Protestants 5.78%,
Orthodox 3.44%,
Anglicans 1.27%),
Muslims 19.9%,
Hindus 13.29%,
Buddhists 5.92%,
Sikhs 0.39%,
Jews 0.23%,
other religions 12.63%,
non-religious 12.44%,
atheists 2.36% (2003 est.)

[Papewaio]

Then can I call Hasidic Jews muslims too? Because Branch Davidians are not a fundamentalist subset of Christianity. They're not Christian at all. Christianity is about the divinity of Christ. They don't believe that. Christianity teaches that Christ is only divine being ever to live among men. Branch Davidians teach whoever they've got up at the pulpit at the moment is divine. People who worship snakes can call themselves Christians, and you can claim they represent our fundamentalist side, but you and they would be grossly wrong. Thus far, I haven't heard too many immams from the mainstream side issuing fatwahs against the hate preachers. I do see mainstream Christian churches defrocking and even excommunicating their wackos from time to time.

I would have expected a better argument than the old 'no difference between Christian & Islamic fundamentalists', and then going and getting a bunch of people that aren't even Christian to be our poster children.

I said:
Religious fundamentalism of all religions is a bad thing...

Now there is differing degrees on how bad they are. But when you compare fundamentalists vs the mainstream of the religion. The fundamentalists normally come across as more extreme, cult like and less peaceful then their mainstream brethren. Sometimes the fundamentalists are so far out that we term them extremists and at that point the mainstream worshippers deny any relationship to the sect.

In a few rare instances fundamentalists are more peaceful and happy to have other people lead their own lives...

[Papewaio]

Oh and I would call Branch Davidian Christian Fundamentalists in the same way Islamic Terrorists call themselves Muslim Fundamentalists.

After all Branch Davidian was orginally called Davidian Seventh-day Adventists and Branch as far as they are concerned is the new name of Christ.


In 1929, Victor Houteff, a Bulgarian immigrant, claimed that he had a new message for the SDA church. It was submitted in the form of a book entitled "The Shepherd's Rod." His claims were not accepted and he left to form the Davidian Seventh-day Adventists. The term "Davidian" refers to the restoration of the Davidic kingdom, while "Branch" refers to the new name of Christ. In 1955, after Houteff's death, a split of this movement formed the Branch Davidian Seventh-day Adventists, headed initially by Benjamin L. Roden. The group established a settlement outside of Waco, Texas, on the property previously occupied by the Davidian group. Leadership and occupancy of the property had been the subject of inner conflict among the Davidians before Vernon Howell (later renamed David Koresh) took charge of the property in 1988. George Roden, son of Benjamin, had claimed that he was the rightful prophet of the group, but was jailed for contempt of court and in his absence Howell took charge of the disputed land.

In 1981 Howell joined the group as a regular member which at the time was headed by Benjamin Roden's wife Lois Roden who claimed to have a message of her own, one element of which was that the Holy Spirit is feminine in gender. In 1983 she allowed Howell to begin to teach his own message which caused much controversy in the group. There was a general meeting at Mt. Carmel of all Branch Davidians in 1984 and the end result was that the group split into several factions one of which was loyal to Howell. At that time Howell named his faction, "Davidian Branch Davidian Seventh Day Adventist." It was also at this time that George Roden forced Howell to leave the property. Upon returning to the property under questionable circumstances in 1988, Howell dropped the new name of his association, and assumed the name of the association he and his followers left four years previously. In 1990 Howell changed his name to David Koresh, invoking the biblical Kings David and Cyrus. From its inception, the group was apocalyptic, in that they believed themselves to be living in a time when Christian prophesies of a final divine judgment were coming to pass. Davidians under Koresh believed prophesy to foretell a cyclic series of events, described as a spiral, with history returning to prophetically foretell events but each time, advance in terms of cosmological progress. Koresh supported his beliefs with detailed biblical interpretation, using the Book of Revelation as the lens through which the entire Bible was viewed.

[Don Corleone]

I said:

Now there is differing degrees on how bad they are. But when you compare fundamentalists vs the mainstream of the religion. The fundamentalists normally come across as more extreme, cult like and less peaceful then their mainstream brethren. Sometimes the fundamentalists are so far out that we term them extremists and at that point the mainstream worshippers deny any relationship to the sect.

In a few rare instances fundamentalists are more peaceful and happy to have other people lead their own lives...

And then you insist on using a group, the Branch Davidians, that are not Christian, to represent Christian fundamentalism. Why? Because you want to link Timothy McVeigh and Christian fundamentalism.

1) He wasn't a Branch Davidian either. He was rebelling against what he saw as an unjust action by the government against the Branch Davidians, but in his own views, was rather rather secular.
2) If you really want to blur the lines and claim Christian fundamentalism is as bad as Al Queda, at the very least, pick a group that's Christian. If you had picked Eric Rudolph instead, I might have had a little more respect for this argument, but now, it's clear to me, this is all about 'Osama Bin Laden is Islam's Jerry Falwell'.

Well, that seems to me like a really stupid statement to make. If you really want to equate Christian & Islamic fundamentalism, let's compare, shall we?

Last I checked, Christian fundamentalists were not exporting global terroism in an effort to make everybody not only Christian, but Primitive Freewill Baptist.

Until you hear about 20 members of the Wahaxie, Alabama Free & Independent Primitive Baptist congregation flying 4 planes into the skyscraper in Dubai, to strike a blow for Christianity, and then find out they got a bunch of their money from the Southern Baptist congregation that now won't help put a stop to them, your argument is a straw man.

[Pindar]

I said: Religious fundamentalism of all religions is a bad thing...


How are you defining fundamentalism?

[Roark]

How many times have we heard mainstream Islamic clerics saying that "this is not Islam" when discussing the actions of extremists?

I think hairs are being split here, guys...

The Branch Davidians originated as a sect which was a mutation of Christianity. Yeah, they ended up being pretty far gone, but they still identified themselves as being associated with Christ and the Christian God.

I'm sure the extremist Jihadists identify themselves as good Muslims too.

Bottom line: none of them are good for the world.

As for "who's worse", well... who cares? How does one calculate this, anyway? In lives lost? They're on a completely different scale in terms of size, impact, agenda, access to weaponry etc. The Branch Davidians are just plain wacky, and give the impression that they couldn't organise a keg party in a brewery...

[Don Corleone]

Okay, Roark, I'll grant you the parallels work in your discussion, somewhat. The big difference though is the Seventh Day Adventists publicly repudiated the Branch Davidians aeons ago. They've even taken them to court several times to force them to quit calling themselves part of the SDA congregation. Where is an equivalent fatwah being issued by all these mainstream immams?

Why is it when a telethon in Saudi Arabia with a Wahabist imam claiming Jews are descended from pigs, so when you kill them, be careful not to let their blood splash on you, there isn't an outrcy from mainstream muslims? Why don't they denounce the charity and break communion with the imam that's preaching that? Cause trust me, if a Catholic priest ever said something like that, he'd be excommunicated so fast, it'd make your head spin.

[Papewaio]

I wasn't the one who brought up Timothy McVeigh. Although thanks for the headsup I would say he is another fringe nutter who would have been very easy to influence into an extremist cause.

As for what I would define as a fundamentalist... it is a grey scale. But essentially someone prone to use rigid literal interpretations of a 'holy' work even to the extent of literally interpreting allegorical tales. Intolerence of other points of view, particularly science.

[Roark]

@ Don: Does the Islamic world have a comparable central leadrship like the Catholic church? Maybe they are just not as globally structured...

We get various outraged Muftis speaking in the media about these issues, but no central voice or "official word", so I get the impression that the Muslim faith doesn't have hierarchy that is as finely structured as the Catholic church....

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does the Islamic world have a comparable central leadrship like the Catholic church?

Does the Catholic church cover all christains. Christains are no more centralised in their leadership than Muslims . In fact theres probably more sects of Christianity than Islam.


We get various outraged Muftis speaking in the media about these issues, but no central voice or "official word", so I get the impression that the Muslim faith doesn't have hierarchy that is as finely structured as the Catholic church....

Believe me if any Christain group did this Christains would be screaming about it. We would hunt them down ourselves. Even if you look at the IRA its other christains who are opposed to them. I fear its much the same as catholics in Ireland who dont per say back the IRA but wouldnt mind their agenda being put in place.

[Papewaio]

Look at what the Saudis are doing with Osama Bin Laden... they have been against him a bit longer then before 2001... and they are supposedly the same Islamic sect.

A lot of these battles are internal that have spilled over to the sides 'allies'.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Look at what the Saudis are doing with Osama Bin Laden... they have been against him a bit longer then before 2001... and they are supposedly the same Islamic sect.

Are they really or is it all smoke and mirrors.

[Al Khalifah]

While I'm not entirely sure about what Panzerjager was saying in his original statement, I have to admit that I was pretty appalled by the way that immediately following the London attacks, many Islamic leaders in Britain tried to paint the Islamic faith as the real victim of the attacks.

There seemed to be a complete unwillingess to accept any blame for the events, but rather, a desire to place blame on the lack of integration in Britain. Also, rather than focus on the suffering of those who were injured, killed or lost loved ones in the attacks, there was a tendancy to focus on the expected backlash against the Muslim community in Britain.

It just didn't feel right and a desire to create a sense of victimisation amongst the Muslim community and validate motives for the attacks will hardly do much to discourage or prevent future fundamentalist terror attacks.

[Spetulhu]

We get various outraged Muftis speaking in the media about these issues, but no central voice or "official word", so I get the impression that the Muslim faith doesn't have hierarchy that is as finely structured as the Catholic church....

It has something to do with the Mongols we meet in Medieval Total War. They razed Bagdad and brought the Abbasid Caliphate to an end. Islam was left without any kind of central religious authority. :book:

[PanzerJaeger]

While I'm not entirely sure about what Panzerjager was saying in his original statement, I have to admit that I was pretty appalled by the way that immediately following the London attacks, many Islamic leaders in Britain tried to paint the Islamic faith as the real victim of the attacks.

Im saying that its not an insult to muslims everywhere to recognize and confront the role Islam, and how its presented by certain religious leaders and communities, plays in terrorism.

[Ja'chyra]

I believe that PJ has made a valid point that Islam has a serious problem that needs to be sorted out, whodda thought I'd ever agree with you, and it does seem that a lot of people are scared to say anything in case they are called racist.

But, didn't you just know it couldn't last, while your complaints are valid I would agrue that you are blinkered against Islam and the same type of argument could be made against you and others on this forum, this is not meant as a condemnation just an observation as I wouldn't say that I am the fairest most openminded person in the world. ~:cheers:

[Al Khalifah]

Im saying that its not an insult to muslims everywhere to recognize and confront the role Islam, and how its presented by certain religious leaders and communities, plays in terrorism.
In that case, better heat up the old racist brand, because I agree with you.

[UglyandHasty]

Are they really or is it all smoke and mirrors.

smoke and mirrors in my book, but hey, i'm not selling best sellers !

[Steppe Merc]

We need to differentiate between the majority of normal mosques and religious branches of Islam and the radical ones.
Oh. Well at first I was going to post saying I disagreed with you, then I realized that I don't, not when it comes down to it. I don't think Islam is at fault, but certaintly some of it's preachers are.

[Tribesman]

You remind me of Don Quixote more everyday
Really ? Thats strange since you seem to be tilting at windmills all the time .
After your declining birth rates are are part of the war on terror and radical Islam topic , whats your next one going to be ? Al-Qaida is behind the imposition of seatbelt laws .

Don ; If you had picked Eric Rudolph instead
But isn't he the one who , in his letters to his mother (which she made public) , moans about the Christians sending him money and gifts , and says he prefers reading Nietzche to the Bible .

[Proletariat]

Sorry Proletariat, but if it was a systemic problem, wouldn't it have been prevalent from Day 1 of the inception of Islam, and continuing throughout the entire history of the faith?


No. Being systemic has nothing to do with inception.


Panzer, I most certainly agree with you that the teachings of the hateful extremist schools of Islam need to be looked at closely.

Yeah, it's correcting the lack of scrutiny that will fix this.

:dizzy2:


There's plenty of Christian terrorists. I'm sure you know this. The fact that they don't come from Kansas is unfortunate because then you'd really be wrong.
Does this make me want to go out and start mouthing off about how Christianity kills people? No. Is it right for me to do so? No.
I have other reasons for bashing Christianity, I don't need to complain about let's say the IRA, the ETA, etc. And believe you me there's dozens of these organizations all over Europe, and the rest of the world. I could easily blame Christianity for their actions, but is that what Jesus was all about? I don't think so, unles Orthodox Christianity(the one I grew up with) is completely different from yours.

Sure. Christians commit genocide. My country had to act despite the UN to put them down, (right near you're homeland, I believe).

I'm not Christian. I don't care about Allah, Jesus, or Yaweh.

I understand Allah didn't say fly planes into the building. I'm not decrying their religion. Go worship tree spirits and leprechauns for all I care. I'm even dating a Doctor who is a Kurdish Muslim.

But I'm still not going to blind myself to the major differences in Islam these days and Christianity.

If you really believe Islam is in the same state as any other major religion, tell me wtf no one's worried about the Christian Hiroshima project?


Religious fundamentalism of all religions is a bad thing...

Agreed! Falwell is just as much of an ass as Bin Laden. But he hasn't claimed the lives of any of my friends, like the former has.

[Goofball]

Yeah, they're clearly in the same league. Let's pay homage to all those we've lost due to suicide bomb attacks from Kansas Christians.

Maybe those guys aren't, but here's some other ones who rival them for viciousness and hate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Identity

http://www.armyofgod.com/JamesKopp.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God%27s_Army_%28revolutionary_group%29

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm

As you can see, Islamic extremists haven't cornered the market on crazy. There are plenty of good, wholesome, God-fearing Christians performing violent acts for the glory of God.

So, is it really fair to blame Islam and Christianity in their entirety, or do you think it's perhaps more reasonable to blame the nuts in both religions who by all accounts are acting in contrary to the true teachings of their faiths?

Just a thought.

[Proletariat]

As you can see, Islamic extremists haven't cornered the market on crazy.


I didn't say they had. I said, in fact, you could find lunatics anywhere. (Atheism, Christians, Jews, whatever)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

As you can see, Islamic extremists haven't cornered the market on crazy. There are plenty of good, wholesome, God-fearing Christians performing violent acts for the glory of God.

Thats a pretty lame list. So you have a few nuts who dont represent any organized or recognised christain church vs millions of Muslim extremists. There is NO comparison. Also they dont represent anywhere near the danger of radical Islam.


So, is it really fair to blame Islam and Christianity in their entirety, or do you think it's perhaps more reasonable to blame the nuts in both religions who by all accounts are acting in contrary to the true teachings of their faiths?

Blame both but it seems that Islam is a far more fertile place as far as producing nuts goes.

[Marcellus]

So you have a few nuts who dont represent any organized or recognised christain church vs millions of Muslim extremists.

Which millions would these be?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I believe its accepted that only ten percent of Muslims could be called radicals. Do the math. What percentage of christains would fit this same criteria?

[Goofball]

Which millions would these be?

Yes, I'm curious as to the answer to that question as well.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Heres a few

http://img27.echo.cx/img27/163/stoning22pv.jpg

So tell me how many do you think there are?

[Goofball]

I believe its accepted that only ten percent of Muslims could be called radicals. Do the math. What percentage of christains would fit this same criteria?

"I believe its (sic) accepted..."?

Hmmm.

When statements are made in the passive voice it usually means one of three things:

1) I really don't know what I'm talking about but I am trying to sound like I do;

2) I am making a statement that I believe, but I have no way of backing it up;

3) I am a government employee and I don't want to tie my own name to the statement I am making.

[Tribesman]

So tell me how many do you think there are?

Ummmm...... 5 if you include the cameraman , whats the prize , what have I won ? ~:cheers:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Ummmm...... 5 if you include the cameraman , whats the prize , what have I won ?

You think the one in the hole is a radical? Sorry you lose ~D


1) I really don't know what I'm talking about but I am trying to sound like I do;

Ive heard this figure many times but certainly we dont know the actual numbers . Maybe you could enlighten us all. Lets say its 1 percent. How many does that give you?


I am making a statement that I believe, but I have no way of backing it up;

Thats more like it but i will try to .


I am a government employee and I don't want to tie my own name to the statement I am making.

No way I work for the government.

[Tribesman]

You think the one in the hole is a radical? Sorry you lose
I demand a recount :furious3:
Look above the Uzi , there is another head ~;)

[Don Corleone]

Maybe I don't want to know the answer to this question, but what exactly is going on in that picture? The hole is nowhere deep enough to bury the person alive. Are they going to bury her up to her elbows and leave her there? Is there any context for this photo? Where did you get it?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe I don't want to know the answer to this question, but what exactly is going on in that picture? The hole is nowhere deep enough to bury the person alive. Are they going to bury her up to her elbows and leave her there?

I was thinking the same thing or maybe they will make a mound out of her.


Is there any context for this photo? Where did you get it?

OK you got it.

How radical Muslims masquerading as "moderates" are infiltrating our government, military (!!) (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1403699/posts)


How radical Muslims masquerading as "moderates" are infiltrating our government, our military, our prisons, our schools -- and even the Department of Homeland Security

Infiltration
by Paul Sperry

The most dangerous Muslim radicals won't be sneaking through our borders from the Middle East -- they're already here. That's the alarming message of Washington-based investigative reporter Paul Sperry's new book, Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington. Using access to classified documents as well as exclusive interviews with FBI agents, Customs officers, and military intelligence officials, Sperry reveals how the top levels of our government, armed forces and intelligence agencies have been compromised by radical Muslims -- many of them trained, supported, and inserted into their positions by the so-called "moderate" Muslim establishment in America. Cleverly exploiting "diversity," "religious freedom," and tax-exemption laws, these subversives have gained firm footholds in key American institutions, including public schools and universities, the federal and state prison system, law enforcement, the military, nuclear weapons laboratories, the Department of Homeland Security -- even the White House.

[Goofball]

Maybe I don't want to know the answer to this question, but what exactly is going on in that picture? The hole is nowhere deep enough to bury the person alive. Are they going to bury her up to her elbows and leave her there? Is there any context for this photo? Where did you get it?

I'm not sure, but I think typically before somebody is stoned to death they are buried up to the waist so they can't dodge. Unfortunately, that's what looks like is taking place in the picture.

[PanzerJaeger]

I hesitate to say anything after Ive actually been agreed with somewhat, as it doesnt happen very often but...

During the Newsweek-Koran-Toilet episode, it was clear that the sentiment in some areas of the muslim world is against America and the west. Just because they dont have the means to take up arms in a terrorist attack, doesnt mean that millions in pakistan and that area dont hate the west.

That being said, i dont think a majority of muslims hate anything really, but the numbers that do are too large to draw relativity with the christian terrorists you cited Goofball.

[Don Corleone]

Oh man, you should have quit while you were ahead. I can actually understand muslims getting bent out of shape about the Koran being flushed down the toilet. The people you ought to have issue with is the jokers at Newsweek that invented the story.

[Tribesman]

I'm not sure, but I think typically before somebody is stoned to death they are buried up to the waist so they can't dodge.
Where's the fun in that ?
Come on make it more entertaining , perhaps just tie their shoelaces together .

[Proletariat]

Oh man, you should have quit while you were ahead. I can actually understand muslims getting bent out of shape about the Koran being flushed down the toilet.

No person with a truly spiritual mentality would consider a book worth more than human life. It's materialistic blind rage. I cannot understand anyone who would kill someone over a symbol. If they genuinely understood their own faith, they'd realize that Allah doesn't care about the material book itself. It's the message and what is in your heart from those pages that matters. Those things are what is important and they cannot be flushed.

Those people were 7th Century Cockroaches, and this religion has been hijacked by them.

[Proletariat]

Seeing that picture almost makes me hope there is a Heaven and Hell so those men will have their eyes boil out and their brains poached over and over in eternity. Probably being raped was her crime.

[Don Corleone]

No person with a truly spiritual mentality would consider a book worth more than human life. It's materialistic blind rage. I cannot understand anyone who would kill someone over a symbol. If they genuinely understood their own faith, they'd realize that Allah doesn't care about the material book itself. It's the message and what is in your heart from those pages that matters. Those things are what is important and they cannot be flushed.

Those people were 7th Century Cockroaches, and this religion has been hijacked by them.

I never said I agreed with the people that rioted and went on a killing spree. I said I could understand muslims being upset. If somebody used the American flag for a wipe after a bowel movement, and it came to light in a very public way, don't tell me we wouldn't all be howling quite loudly.

Of course I don't agree that rioting and killing people, and burning down a mosque was an appropriate response. But I do understand them being upset about it.

[Don Corleone]

Seeing that picture almost makes me hope there is a Heaven and Hell so those men will have their eyes boil out and their brains poached over and over in eternity. Probably being raped was her crime.

Hard to say what that was about, but it did send shivers down my spine.

[Proletariat]

Of course I don't agree that rioting and killing people, and burning down a mosque was an appropriate response. But I do understand them being upset about it.

That's why I think he was right to use it to back up his arguement (which I don't agree with per se, but can certainly sympathize with.)

Upset? Sure.
Murderous rampage? 7th Century Cockroach.

[Steppe Merc]

I think a big part of it was that it was presented as a torture device used by America. It's not like it was a random guy, it was (well supposedly) done by probably the most powerful country in the world.
I must admit I don't understand the response, myself, however.

[Proletariat]

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

Great site, gives you a little hope that some people still think individually and can shun strong group-think.

[Steppe Merc]

Um, that seems a bit harsh. It's one thing to believe that humanity doesn't need religons, but they were far to agressive, just as it would be too agressive if a bunch of people who left the Catholic Church made a site attacking Christianity.