Children of Beslan

[Rebar]

With all due respect for Mr. Palazzi and yourself, what you both say Islam is, is not the traditional version of Islam.

Traditional Islam is the Islam that swept out of the Arabia, conquered then converted by the sword the Christian lands of the Middle East, North Africa, and Persia. It was traditional Islam that conquered Spain, and took the walled city of Constantinople after a three year siege to destroy the Christian Byzantine empire. To claim these feats were performed by the "religion of peace" is, frankly, an insult to the intelligence of anyone aware of these events. Traditional Islam is a violent, intolerant, facist religion/government/social system, bent on world domination. And at one time, it was exceedingly good at it, to the point where only a few Christian soldiers stopped Western civilization from being extinguished forever.

While I do believe many muslems don't follow traditional Islam, choosing instead an informal "reformed" version, to say that the traditional muslems are a "tiny minority" is absurd. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, now supposedly has 3 million members. Saudi Arabia, the spiritual heartland and center for all Islam, is offically whahabbi. Iran, with a population of 68 million, follows traditional Islam. Other areas inside of nominally "secular" Islamic countries, like waziristan in Pakistan, also follow the traditional Islam, also non-Islamic countries like Chechnia in Russia.

The real danger is how quickly "reformed" Islamic followers can turn on a dime to traditional Islam and the path of jihad and mayrterdom, as evidenced by the London bombers.

As for quoting the koran, since there is no real final authority to state what the "correct" interpretation of a particular passage is, then Westerners have to assume the worst possible one will be the guiding principle of the traditional muslems. So far that has proven true.

 

[Pointer]

Mike P. in entry #3

The world is getting smaller and smaller every day...

Even the stupid liberals know a "one world community" is inevitable.

I, for one, cannot stand by and watch my neighbors suffer while all is well in my paradise.

I'm glad we are at least trying to Free the Iraqis and we are at least trying to be friendly with the Muslims.

We cannot afford to close our eyes to the Reality of our inter- dependence on all the peoples of the world.

It would be like ignoring the terrible pain caused by Hurricane "Katrina".

 

[CobrayCommando]

My opinion:
The Islamic religion was invented by Mohammed, who created it to mobilize a Bedouin tribesmen, among others, into conquering land. This plan worked very, very well. It was a religion of violence, death and war to begin with, it always has been and still is. At least Christianity started out peaceful.

 

[Eghad]

I think that if you studied Islam you will find that they have as many different beliefs as Chrisitanity does. Islam is not a unified religion.

Terrorism is born when frustration and anger lead a person to beleive that the only alternative to force a decison in thier favor is to resort to violence to get the majority to reverse political direction and break the will of the majority.

The terrorist groups are usaully a fringe minority. Happens that a lot of these muslim groups formed networks while we were asleep at the wheel. They are highly dedicated and persistent. They have the advantages of technology now to spread these networks and reach the public. The organizers and officers are pretty smart cookies.

As long as there are anger and frustration and we fail to help alleviate that. You will have terrorists.

 

[shootinstudent]

While I do believe many muslems don't follow traditional Islam, choosing instead an informal "reformed" version, to say that the traditional muslems are a "tiny minority" is absurd. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, now supposedly has 3 million members. Saudi Arabia, the spiritual heartland and center for all Islam, is offically whahabbi. Iran, with a population of 68 million, follows traditional Islam.

Rebar,

That was the entire point of the article. Wahhabism is not, and never has been traditional. It rejects all of the oldest and most respected works in Islamic theology in place of its own simplistic and brutal demands. If you read the four major works of religious law in sunni theology (ie, traditional islam), it is diametrically opposed to what the terrorists are teaching.

I'm not sure what it will take to convince you. I cited historical evidence, posted an article by a recognized Muslim Sheikh, and quoted the Koranic teachings on the subject to show that Wahhabism is untraditional. In response, you claim "well, in fact, those other groups are not traditional..." without providing any factual support for the claim. The only people you will find, in the entire world, who claim that wahhabists are traditional are wahhabists.....or westerners who want to blame all of Islam for terrorism.

And at one time, it was exceedingly good at it, to the point where only a few Christian soldiers stopped Western civilization from being extinguished forever

We already went over this. Yes, it is true that Christians stopped an Imperial conquest of Europe. It is also true that Muslims saved Islam from being wiped out by Christian invaders under Saladin.
The strongest possible claim you can make about the history here is that Muslims participated in Imperial expansion in exactly the same way as Christians, and were no better or worse about it. Unlike Christians, however, they allowed Christians and Jews to live in their societies. All three religions lived very well in Muslim spain, with Jews occupying some of the most important positions in the Emirate of Al Andalus.

In contrast, there were not ANY high ranking officials of other religions in the Christian empires, and where Jews weren't slaves of the king, they were slaughtered. Muslims were slaughtered period. So for the time, Islam was pretty tolerant, all things considered. To claim that this makes it "violent, oppressive, and totalitarian" is absurd, because by that definition every European state and former colony would be just that, including the United States. How many of the indigenous folk in Europe were allowed to keep their religions under Christian rule? How about in Spain when the Christians took over...how many people got the choice to convert or not to Christianity? The historical point is clear: the Islamic states were the same as Christian and others in terms of wanting to expand their territory, but more peaceful in terms of accepting Christians and Jews into their societies.

Here's the thing I don't get about your post regarding today: if you read Sheikh Palazzi's article, and saw how ALL of the major religious schools in Islam condemn the Muslim Brotherhood and Wahhabism....why did you conclude that Wahhabism, founded some 1200 years after the start of Islam, is "traditional Islam"? You repeat again the claim that the Muslim Brotherhood and Iran are traditional countries. Where is this tradition? If they are traditional...how come their major works and religious leaders did not appear in any strength until very recently? It seems odd to call something "traditional" when it never existed for most of the lifespan of a particular culture. (Another note: Iranians and all Shia are considered heretical by the majority of Muslims. Their theologies are not and never have been accepted by most Muslims, not in the past, and not now.) As for numbers....3 million is what percentage of 1.2 billion?

Eghad has it right. Rebar, I suggest that you reread the article I linked. It provides explicit historical and mainstream religious teaching to refute the idea that the Muslim Brotherhood has anything but a newly invented theology in Islam. The terrorists of today are breaking and rejecting traditional Islamic teaching, not following it.

 

[Mike P.]

Pointer, we don't the resources ($, equipment, men and women) to play world cop and provide welfare at a point of a gun and remove all the bad people dictators. I felt the same under Bill Clinton. I feel the same under George Bush. Besides, it isn't like our Iraqi adventure is going too well anyway. It's not something that I'd want us as a country to try emulate in other parts of the world. Especially DEEP inside the former Soviet Union.

 

[Rebar]

Wahhabism is not, and never has been traditional.

But it best describes what Mohammad actually did, as opposed to what he said. Mohammad lead armies of conquest where entire nations were destroyed, and millions given one choice - convert or die. The same choice OBL has given the West. Coincidence? Hardly.

It's easy to go and cherry-pick historical references to make Islam seem nice and enlightened. I especially got a good chuckle at your jewish references, since the average person on the "Arab street" is so anti-semitic as to make a Nazi blush. You also misrepresent Saladin's accomplishment, he "saved" the holy land, but there was no time where Christian armies tried to take back the lands converted by the sword. In fact Britan and France held many moslem lands after the end of the Ottoman empire, yet made no effort to reconvert them back.

I also note your continued insistance that it's a tiny minority who are the terrorists. However, from your article:

We would like to advise our government, our congressmen, that there is something big going on and people do not understand it. You have many mosques around the United States. . . . So the most dangerous things are going on in these mosques that have self-appointed leaders throughout the United States. The extremist ideology makes them very active.

Sheikh Kabbani is trying to show Westerners the reality behind the deceptive façade. The great majority of all mosques in democratic countries— not only in North America, but in most of western Europe as well—are controlled by extremists.23

A tiny minority, yet they control the vast majority of mosques in Western nations? That makes no sense. And if it was a tiny minority, then the bulk of moslems could easily crush this movement, turn in the troublemakers, and the issue would be over in a matter of days. That they have not, again, points to the opposite conclusion.

You can't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining, not today, of all days.

We need to look the issue in the face. Many in the Islamic world hate the West, plain and simple. They hate it's apparent lack of morality, it's materialism, it's economic success, it's attractivness to moslem youth, it's corrosive effect on Islamic values, it's support of Israel, and blame it for all the woes of the Islamic world.

The GDP of all the Arab nations combined is less then that of Spain, opportunity for a good job is poor. The entire Arab world doesn't produce even one exportable manufactured good. Before they could pretend their culture was superior, but today with satellite TV and the internet, they can clearly see that it's not true. They see immoral and unmodest American and European women driving cars and having jobs that the vast majority of Arab men could only dream of having, while they keep their women locked away. They see American and Israeli military prowess dwarfing the entire muslem world. They think that the West is rich because they "stole" their wealth, instead of their backwards economic and social traditions. They just can't square that they are good moslems, yet they see their societies failing while the infidels have such success.

Their solution is, rather than self-examination and reforming from within, to drag the rest of the world into the 14th century darkness they live in. That's the root cause of terrorism. Sure, they try to blame "American Imperialism" and "Zionism", but even if America withdrew completely from moslem lands tomorrow, even if the West allowed Israel to be destroyed, it still wouldn't stop terrorism. In fact it would only encourage it, giving terrorists victories is like Chamberlan handing Czechoslovakia to Hitler, it only whets their appetite for more, for final victory.

It's time, and past time, for moslems to stop blaming the West for their problems, to stop denying their history, and to fix their problems instead of scapgoating "the great satan" America. And it's past time that they stop these jihadists from murdering innocent women and children, like they did in Beslan, and like their doing today in Iraq.

Or don't complain when we do.

 

[shootinstudent]

But it best describes what Mohammad actually did, as opposed to what he said. Mohammad lead armies of conquest where entire nations were destroyed, and millions given one choice - convert or die. The same choice OBL has given the West

That is also addressed in the article. Muhammad never commanded killing a bunch of women and children just to scare the other side. This is not cherry picking; if you look at the historical records of what Muhammad actually did, it is on par with the most even-handed and respected European leaders of the day. This is why Muslim conquest was welcomed by most Christians in Egypt and Syria....they knew that the Islamic leaders would be more respectful towards their peculiar (and unorthodox in the eys of the Byzantines, therefore worthy of the death penalty) religious beliefs. There's a reason why the Christian empires in the middle east fell so fast. It wasn't because Muhammad (who died before conquering the former Byzantine expanse--he only reached the Arab tribes who were trying to kill him and his religious movement) was teaching brutality.

You also misrepresent Saladin's accomplishment, he "saved" the holy land, but there was no time where Christian armies tried to take back the lands converted by the sword.

500 years afterwards is a fair description of "reconquest"? No European nation that existed at the time of the Crusades had ever held land in the middle east, save the Byzantines. They Byzantines ended up making bargains with the Caliphs for peace, whereas the Europeans didn't. And another thing to remember...before the land became Christian, it was conquered and later converted by the sword. In addition, the Christians who would not blindly accept the decrees of the Patriarchs (monophysites) were being wiped out of existence by the Byzantines. The traditional middle eastern Christians sects were actually saved by the Islamic conquests. And yes, Saladin saved them again....the Crusader's mayhem in Jerusalem is a good indication of what they planned to do with all the religious minorities that remained.

A tiny minority, yet they control the vast majority of mosques in Western nations? That makes no sense.

How does this make no sense? Do you think the majority of Russians were secret police who supported Stalin during the reign of terror? What's so tough to understand about a vocal minority? During the Clinton years, there was a TON of anti-gun propaganda put out...does that mean that most Americans were anti-gun? Really, this critique of yours doesn't hold water. It makes perfect sense how a well-organized and radical minority could do a lot of damage within a community, despite having little popular support.

And if it was a tiny minority, then the bulk of moslems could easily crush this movement, turn in the troublemakers, and the issue would be over in a matter of days. That they have not, again, points to the opposite conclusion.

I need to remind you that Arabs, which are the only Muslim population you seem to be referring to, are less than 15 percent of the world Muslim population. Let's look at it this way: How long did Eric Rudolph evade federal authorities? How long were Nazi war criminals able to hide after WWII? Do these things indicate that the American people actually support blowing up a bunch of women at a clinic, or that the world supported former Nazis?

It's time, and past time, for moslems to stop blaming the West for their problems, to stop denying their history, and to fix their problems instead of scapgoating "the great satan" America.

So you agree with Sheikh Palazzi. I'm glad to see it. The whole point, though, is that these Mosques in America (who are, I agree, for the most part run by radicals) are

1: Not following traditional Islamic doctrine. They are making it up as they go along to suit an Arabian-Nationalist political agenda. If you want further proof of this: Syria isn't run by Muslims. Do you see any terrorists screaming for the collapse of the Assad regime?

and

2: That these Mosques do not represent how most Muslims view their religion. Hence, they need money from the Saudis and Muslim Brotherhood to operate, since "community support" in the western nations they're trying to dominate doesn't exist.

 

[CobrayCommando]

So because his peers were murderous, tyrannical, torturing conquerors, and so was Mohammed, Mohammed is an allright guy, and his religion is peaceful....

Okkkkk.....

Islam was started to conquer, and it did so very well. It has always been a violent religion and still is, although paradoxically is less violent than at its inception.

The only way to win is to convert and become good Muslims, or to kill the violent ones after weeding them out.

 

[shootinstudent]

Cobray,

Read above. That covers every single one of your points except:

So because his peers were murderous, tyrannical, torturing conquerors, and so was Mohammed, Mohammed is an allright guy, and his religion is peaceful....

No. The point was that he was an Imperialist, just like every reasonably advanced government of the time on earth, and hence it does not make sense to condemn Islam on these grounds. Consistent reasoning would then also require us to label Christianity an imperialist-murdering religion, which I don't think anyone is seriously prepared to do.

Also...Mohammed only conquered, mainly, the places whose populations were trying to kill him and all of his religious followers. Not too hard to see the human side of that one, is it?

Then there's also the fact that people lived pretty darn well wherever the Muslims conquered. They definitely had much more religious freedom (and for a long time, much better economic opportunity) than under Christian rule at the time.

 

[Rebar]

Nice try to propaganidize the "Disney" version of Mohammad, really.

Islam was, and is, a religion organized to conquer and dominate. Jesus never commanded an army, invaded a nation, married a nine year old girl, or forced a single person to convert. Jesus said, love your neighbor like yourself, Mohammad said, submit or die.

Both religions have been misused for purposes that would have been against the wishes of their founders. But it's a whole lot easier to use Islam for murderous intent. OBL fully believes he's doing Allah's work. The 9/11 hijackers fully believed they would be rewarded by 72 virgin boy and girl sex slaves in heaven. No Christian believes blowing themselves up in a schoolbus filled with children offers anything but a one way ticket to hell.

The Taliban, Al Quaeda, the muslem brotherhood, palastinian suicide bombers, the Iranian mullahs, the Iraqi insurgents, the Chechens, and many many others, all are completely convinced that through murder of the infidel, even if they are women or children, even at the expense of their own lives, is a sure ticket to paradise. Especially if they kill Jews.

You might say that "traditional" Islam offers no such reward, or at least not for murder, but obviously they have total faith that it will. Who's right? It doesn't matter. What does matter, is that these muslems are trying to destroy Western culture and civilization.

As for religious freedom, those days are long gone, and Christians are persecuted and even murdered in Islamic lands now, Jews are just murdered. In today's Western nations we tolerate, perhaps over-tolerate, not just muslems but any damn wierd thing.

And your protestations that it's just a tiny minority just doesn't ring true. Anyone watching the dancing in arab streets after 9/11 can see that plain as day. While the majority might not have the guts to do what the terrorists do, they either support it, or at least have some admiration for them. OBL is a hero in the muslem world, and don't even try to deny it, it's an indisputable fact. Clearly, any as you define "traditional" or "moderate" muslem can turn overnight into a suicide bomber, as evidenced in London. Just as clearly, the Chechens who butchered the children of Beslan felt perfectly justified in Islamic law.

I'd be more inclined to listen to your point of view, if there were people like you trying to convert these terrorists back over to the side of sanity. But that's not happening. All I hear are people such as yourself defending Islam, but doing nothing to stop the murderers, who are killing in the name of Islam.

Are you afraid they might kill you too? Do you have the faith of your convictions? Will you travel to Waziristan to ask OBL to turn himself in, and tell these "radical" muhllahs to stop preeching jihad against the West? Will you say, well, just give up, and everything will be ok? Or will you continue to say it's not Islam's fault every time an atrocity is committed by these people?

 

[shootinstudent]

No Christian believes blowing themselves up in a schoolbus filled with children offers anything but a one way ticket to hell.

Are you saying that Jim Jones and Eric Rudolph did not sincerely believe they were followers of Jesus? Because they did just that...killed innocent women and children.

And your protestations that it's just a tiny minority just doesn't ring true. Anyone watching the dancing in arab streets after 9/11 can see that plain as day.

Key word here: Arabs. Arabs represent less than 15 percent of the world Muslim population, and they live in countries that are run by extremists who propagandize against the west constantly. So I'll repeat my question: Why do you let a percentage of a percentage of the 1.2 billion muslims speak for ALL muslims?

I'd be more inclined to listen to your point of view, if there were people like you trying to convert these terrorists back over to the side of sanity. But that's not happening. All I hear are people such as yourself defending Islam, but doing nothing to stop the murderers, who are killing in the name of Islam.

There are many of them out there, it's just that you don't know where to look. See Sheikh Palazzi's page for a list of condemnations: www.amislam.com. The reason you do not hear anyone condmening terrorism is that you aren't reading anything coming from the Islamic world. That's understandable, since there isn't much of it in english or in the US, but it is out there. Even Ali Al Sistani, the conservative Shiite cleric from Iraq, is condemning violence and oppression. See www.sistani.org.

Clearly, any as you define "traditional" or "moderate" muslem can turn overnight into a suicide bomber, as evidenced in London. Just as clearly, the Chechens who butchered the children of Beslan felt perfectly justified in Islamic law.

See above on Eric Rudolph. More to the point: Who says the London bombers were ever students of traditional Sunni teaching? How do you know they weren't just secular kids with no religious education before being sucked in by Al-Qaeda?

Chechens...we went over that. It helps to justify insanity in one's mind when one is living in a country that has been raped repeatedly by invading Russian armies. It is wrong and evil, but to blame Islam for the hatred that Chechens feel for Russians is just plain silly given the history between those two peoples. I think maybe having a few million of their countrymen killed and then being kept in a state of virtual slavery for most of the 20th century might have more to do with what's going on that Islam. But just so you know...there are links to Palazzi's page on Central Asian (including Chechen) Imams who are denouncing all terrorism.

Are you afraid they might kill you too? Do you have the faith of your convictions? Will you travel to Waziristan to ask OBL to turn himself in, and tell these "radical" muhllahs to stop preeching jihad against the West? Will you say, well, just give up, and everything will be ok? Or will you continue to say it's not Islam's fault every time an atrocity is committed by these people?

I'm speaking out against them with every post. Not only do I affirm that terrorists are criminals and murderers, but I go one further: they are not even following Islam. Do you think the terrorists like to see people calling them unislamic followers of a false religious doctrine? And do you think it is a form of apologetics to say that they are enemies of the countries and cultures from which they come?

What I am saying is that these "Radical mullahs" are liars when they claim to speak for a billion people, and I'm advocating that we in the west recognize and help the majority of Muslims to stop the radicals from further perverting and destroying the long tradition of Islamic culture and religion.

 

[CobrayCommando]

Rebar, +1, every idea can be perverted but when it starts itself out as such and calls itself a religion, thats when we need to start worrying.

 

[rangermonroe]

I just have to get in here....

In a drunken stupor, God has told me to do a lot of things.....but He never has promised me a single virgin !

He also has never compelled me to decapitate a human being.

In front of a camera....

I am a Ranger, US variety, a hunter and a dad.

Still, I could not do what these "peacable religon" folks do as a matter of course.

I won't do this to an animal.

Defend these abominations elswhere....

 

[shootinstudent]

Rangermonroe,

See above. My point is that these people are not even following the religion they claim to defend. They are liars and criminals who go around killing women and children in the name of religion.

I hope that will suffice to show what I am and am not defending.

 

[Rebar]

Are you saying that Jim Jones and Eric Rudolph did not sincerely believe they were followers of Jesus? Because they did just that...killed innocent women and children.

Jim Jones put himself up as a prophet, and the people followed him, not Jesus. Rudolph was a lone nutcase. None of those threatened to overthrow a civilization, or built terror training camps, or sent mullahs preaching hate and murder around the world. Bit of a difference, there.

Key word here: Arabs.

Nonsense. It's well known that Al Quaeda has terror cells throughout the muslem world, including Asia, and trained all nationalities in their terror training camps. In fact, my wife is a Filipina from Leyte, and they're terrorified of the murderous muslems from Mindanao, who set bombs at markets and regularly kidnap and behead Westerners and even just regular Philippinos. While I was there in October of 2000, her entire extended family and close neighbors keep a close eye on me, so I wouldn't get grabbed and murdered. Indonesia also has muslems who kidnap and murder Westerners and Christians of any nationality.

There are many of them out there, it's just that you don't know where to look.

Maybe because they've had zero impact. Plus, there's the matter that the koran specifically states that lieing to infidels is part of their religous duty, and muslem leaders have been caught saying one thing to the West, and something entirely different to their followers.

It helps to justify insanity in one's mind when one is living in a country that has been raped repeatedly by invading Russian armies.

My grandmother was Lithuanian, a country raped by the Russians, and the NKVD executed her entire family, she only escaped by hiding in a haystack. Yet Lithuanians are not murdering Russian children, niether are Latvians, Estonians, Bielorussians, Ukranians, etc. It's only in the muslem portions of the former Soviet Union do these barbaric acts happen, why is that?

Do you think the terrorists like to see people calling them unislamic followers of a false religious doctrine?

Funny thing, that's what they say about you, I'm sure. That's why they feel comfortable in slaughtering Iraqi civilians and police. The fact is, they are quite willing to die for their beliefs, so far I've seen no indication that the moderate muslems are willing to fight and die to reclaim their religion, besides the brave Iraqi police and soldiers.

Until I see the so-called moderate muslems turning in terrorists, traveling to Saudi Arabia and preaching peace instead of hate and replace whahabbism there and in all Western mosques with your so-called "traditional" Islam, it's all just hot air and deflection. You admit that most mosques in the West have been taken over by the radicals, when will you and yours take them back?

 

[shootinstudent]

Well, now we've gone from hard fact to anecdotes. How many philipinos have left the philipines to attack America? Answer: None. That's because as your wife well knows, the Southern Phillipines revolt, like the Southern Thai/Northern Malaysian revolt, has less to do with Islam than it does with indigenous people of a different language group not wanting to be ruled by Manila, Bangkok, or Kuala Lumpur. Al Qaeda pays them to use space that they control, and that's about as deep as the relationship goes. I just did the entire golden triangle by bus this july....and had not a single problem. So if you want to put up some numbers that will take us beyond anecdote, please do.

Maybe because they've had zero impact. Plus, there's the matter that the koran specifically states that lieing to infidels is part of their religous duty, and muslem leaders have been caught saying one thing to the West, and something entirely different to their followers.

They have had an impact, it's just that you're not looking for it. Same story.

And I'll have to ask again: Where in the Koran or Hadith is lying to "infidels" a part of the Muslim religious duty???? Please quote the Koran on this aspect, as in my readings of it, I have seen no such thing.

It's only in the muslem portions of the former Soviet Union do these barbaric acts happen, why is that?

False. You yourself just admitted that the Russians have been doing it to everyone in the region for a long time. Last I checked, the Soviets were not Muslims...hmm, could it be that there are factors other than religion that determine a particular culture's patterns of violence?

Funny thing, that's what they say about you, I'm sure. That's why they feel comfortable in slaughtering Iraqi civilians and police. The fact is, they are quite willing to die for their beliefs, so far I've seen no indication that the moderate muslems are willing to fight and die to reclaim their religion, besides the brave Iraqi police and soldiers.

Well, they do say that I am an unbeliever, because I am not Muslim. But the terrorists also say that about every Muslim who disagrees with them. If you want an example of moderate muslims willing to fight and die to reclaim their religion....look at all those brave men lining up to join the Iraqi police and military, and the men who stand steadfastly behind Sistani's and the Kurds policies of moderation. People are dying every single day to fight terrorism in Iraq, and the vast majority of them are...you guessed it: Muslim. You recognize this...but then there's also Hariri and his followers in Lebanon, Musharraf (who tries, at least) in Pakistan, and who knows how many have been executed for protesting and spying against the Mullahs in Iran.

Until I see the so-called moderate muslems turning in terrorists, traveling to Saudi Arabia and preaching peace instead of hate and replace whahabbism there and in all Western mosques with your so-called "traditional" Islam, it's all just hot air and deflection. You admit that most mosques in the West have been taken over by the radicals, when will you and yours take them back?

See above. That's what I'm trying to do by exposing the terror groups as a minority. You are in fact helping the radicals to solidify their control by allowing them to speak for an enormous number of people. I've posted repeated examples of Muslims denouncing terrorists and exposing the CAIR and other western mosques for the extremists that they are.

Let me ask you this: how have you helped to stop extremism? By saying that they are in fact representative of a majority? Then your solution is what? Kill all muslims? If that's where your reasoning heads....believe me, you are most certainly the best thing the terrorists could ever hope for out of the west.

 

[BerettaCougar]

Rebar.

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me

.

Luke 19:27

 

[blackmind]

The terrorist groups are usaully a fringe minority.

This point is really incredibly academic, since, tiny fringe minority or not, they have the world ON EDGE -- literally the entire world! -- because of the psychotic things they are willing to do for their religion.

I don't care whether the religion arose out of peace and love.

I don't care what it "traditionally" has been.

I don't care what happened in the past, really.

I care that NOW, in our PRESENT WORLD, the ONLY group that anyone has true reason to fear will strike unprovoked with nuclear or biological capability when and if they can acquire it, is ISLAM. "Tiny fringe minority" of Islam or not, it's people who are calling themselves Islamic. No one else.

-blackmind

 

[shootinstudent]

I care that NOW, in our PRESENT WORLD, the ONLY group that anyone has true reason to fear will strike unprovoked with nuclear or biological capability when and if they can acquire it, is ISLAM. "Tiny fringe minority" of Islam or not, it's people who are calling themselves Islamic. No one else

Interesting. You read a whole discussion on how the islamo-fascists aren't even really muslim, then return to "I don't care, I blame all 1.2 billion people anyway."

As for the above quote...you're kidding, right? Last I checked, here were some of the people we'd have to fear with Nuclear or biological weapons capability:

-North Korea
-Hugo Chavez
-FARC
-Sendero Luminoso
-Any of the numerous doomsday religious cults, like the one that recently gassed a subway in Japan
-International Russian criminal networks

Etc. etc. Islamo-Fascists we focus on more now because of our involvement in the region and because they have managed to strike the Continental US in grievous ways, but to pretend that they are the only evil people on earth who hate America is wrongheaded.

There are lots of evil people, and I despise all of them, regardless of pretend-religion, real-religion, or any other ideas they have.