Muslim Apologist Syndrome

[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.

[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: ~ 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.

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 The world trembles under the threat of Christain fundamentalists. Well Europe does at least 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

[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.

Yes it's all true.
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.

[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.

[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 .