The tempest between Europe and the Middle East

[shootinstudent]

Did it take the "spontaneous outpouring of indignation" nearly four months to gather enough Danish flags to burn? There are also numerous reports of Islamic clerics traveling and fomenting trouble. Is this a religion of peace? I think not

This is a contradictory point. If the outrage is really a natural consequence of the religion, the protests and riots should've happened immediately. That they didn't shows that planning and organization were behind them. Why do they need to travel and foment trouble if all Muslims are naturally inclined to this anyway?

The Muslim religion is quite plain that infidels are to be destroyed. They can convert to the muslim faith, or they can die.

This is on its face absurd. There were (and still are) millions of Jews, Christians, and Hindus living in the area from North Africa all the way to India for the past 1000 years. If the rule was convert or die, how did all these people manage to survive 1000 years of Muslim rule in large numbers? If you want source material on the religion itself, that's better in PM...let me know and I'll happily provide the details.

The biggest problem we have is that we're just a little too interested in "why". Accordingly, we will have lots of people who tell us that "we just don't understand". They offer convoluted reasoning that allows for the "miniscule fraction" of muslims who maim and kill, but ascribes no fault towards the majority of muslims who offer tacit support through their silence.

There is no such thing as "tacit support" that yields personal liability. This is a fundamentally erroneous notion. Even though the IRA got virtually 100 percent of its money from the US, did you go out into the streets and demand that the US stop the IRA? Where were those full page ads in the NY Times by American interest groups condemning the IRA and demanding that they be excluded from the political process?

What's allowing the terrorists to kill and grow in strength is an inability to see what gives them strength and cover. Find out why they are able to operate, and you know what to do in response. Close your eyes and say "ALL MUSLIMS ARE DOING THIS!", and you've got no recourse besides genocide, which isn't an option.

The money to fund some of this terrorism came from here, from those supposedly peaceable muslims. How many Al-Queda front organizations were discovered in the United States immediately after 9/11? They were funneling money to the various Arab Fanatic movements. I'm certain that the Aryan Nation wasn't a big supporter

Take a look at the dollars. Those "Al Qaeda" front organizations were recruiting membership and making plans using money from their backers abroad, for the most part. The racist groups in America actually have expressed support for wiping out Israel, so they are allies with Al Qaeda in that sense.

Now, in light of a chance to actually have a representative type of government, they manipulated, as did Arafat, the Palestinian people into legitimizing a terrorist organization as a government. That's REALLY going to make people dig deep to help them.

Last I checked, Sinn Fein was still part of the political process in Northern Ireland. Does that mean that all the Irish Catholics there "deserve" to be punished for the IRA's long history of violence?

"Collective guilt" rears its ugly head again...when is this madness going to be over?

 

[MeekAndMild]

There were (and still are) millions of Jews, Christians, and Hindus living in the area from North Africa all the way to India for the past 1000 years. If the rule was convert or die, how did all these people manage to survive 1000 years of Muslim rule in large numbers?

I think the operative here is that these are people who chose to submit. The islamofascist party line is to kill everyone who resists.

 

[jcoiii]

I'm not at war with "muslims." I could not care less what one individual, or a group, believes. It affects me not a bit. Unless they state that their goal is my annihilation. THEN, I have a big problem with it. It is a war.

Forget freedom of religion, speech, and all that stuff for a minute. It's about someone saying "I'm going to kill you." Do you believe them?

It's one thing to carry signs and protest something offensive. The moment it turns to attacks, the attacker, no matter what their views, should be dealt with. Say whatever you want. Start burning buildings and beheading people, it's time to pay the price. My war is with the guy saying that all non muslims should be beheaded. My response to him is "I'm here waiting on you."

 

[gc70]

by shootinstudent:
The terrorists want the rest of the Muslim world to be lumped in with them, and to have no option but to align with extremists in order to avoid persecution. Why would you want to do something that the terrorists think is a good idea?

Why would millions of "moderate" Muslims want to be lumped in with extremists and terrorists? All they need to do is stand up and denouce the extremists and terrorists, point them out, drive them out, and be done with them. But the masses of "moderate" Muslims are strangely silent.

 

[CobrayCommando]

Muslums in America seem withdrawn from American culture???

I live in Los Angeles... EVERYONE here is withdrawn from American culture.

 

[Gewehr98]

A smidgen intolerant, I'd say.

 

[cma g21]

We are not at war with all of Islam.

But,... (below is somethimg I posted on another site that I think may apply)

Picture a large crowd outside your home. From within that crowd, a small group is taking shots at your house.

There is no way to tell which of the crowd are firing.

Imagine also that you have the means available to destroy the entire crowd.

Now the vast majority of the crowd are not firing at your house, and are not aiding the shooters. The vast majority of the crowd may have nothing against you, may like you, may even (quietly) condemn the shooters. What none will do is to stop the shooters, or give you any real help in stopping them. Some small part of the crowd even cheers the shooters on. Some even provide the shooters with ammo.

What do you do?
Plead with the crowd for help in stopping the shooters?
What if they tell you that they’d like to help, but are too afraid of the shooters?
What if one of the shots wounds or kills a member of your family?
Does there come a point where you start firing back?
If you do fire back and the whole crowd turns violently against you, do you wipe out the entire crowd to save your family?

I guess what I’m trying to say is, while we are not at war with all of Islam now, how long can things continue this way before we are?

 

[Love&Hate12]

Normal Muslims are rarely violent, however the Koran does state to defend Allah and his prophet Muhammad and to defend Allah's law.

I am sorry to say that Allah's law is a bit primitive and the world is ever changing so to them an advancing world is insult to Allah and some of them are willing to get violent over it, especially ones with Islamic governments.

I absolutley hate how they view and treat women..... Islam also happens to be extremely sexist.

I have read the Koran in and out, I can cite lines where someone can easily go to the extreme in interpretation, this is where Islam is dangerous to mankind, being misused. The worst part is any normal Muslim can get a religious "awakening" and turn into one of those abominations and he or she can do so just be by thinking hard on Koran scriptures.

Thats what we got over there.

 

[Mikeyboy]

Iran's Cartoon Contest.

Iran is so mad at Denmark and their cartoon of Mohammed that they are starting a contest for the best cartoon showing the Holocaust....that is so terrible 6 million Danes died and all there wooden shoes burned by the...wait that wasn't the Danes...way to go Iran...idiots.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsa...S-RELIGION-CARTOONS-IRAN-HOLOCAUST.xml&rpc=22

 

[Poodleshooter]

If you do not understand why, you can't combat the problem. You can easily make it worse, however, by reacting in ways that exacerbate the underlying problems which you failed to understand by taking an "I don't care why" approach.

Sorry, but I ran out of sensitivity. I know why they object to our culture. Unfortunately, the things they take issue with (my right to practice my faith without paying non-believer taxes, my right to sell my goods and services,my right to draw cartoons that offend them, etc) are not negotiable. Maybe if I was Neville Chamberlain I could appease them,but sadly I'm not open to that kind of Munich "negotiation" with the Muslim world.

Yes, the regime is aggressive and crazy. But genocide is not part of the party platform. I'm sorry, but this accusation gets hurled all the time and it is demonstrably false. Religious freedom for Jews is written into Iran's constitution, and to the extent they face oppression in Iran, it is the same oppression faced by all Iranians.

I'm sorry,but that's just ridiculous. They have STATED THIS in speeches! At best they are contradictory! Religious freedom has always been a part of Islamic regimes. However it has always included taxes for non-believers. Sorry, non-negotiable!

Well, that contention would be wrong. For one, most of the money comes from the middle east nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran. That means oil. The Saudis have no other real business; the Iranians have no other real business that generates export levels of cash due to sanctions.

And this disproves what I said how? So the money comes from oil...it is still coming from a financial base composed of more Muslims than we see rioting in the streets over cartoons.

If the "rank and file" of the Islamic world supported military jihad and believed that their faith required support for these movements, there wouldn't be any debate because the entire middle east would long ago have become a united string of religious governments.

Thank God that the Sunni and Shi'ite differences do divide them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have stopped at the gates of Vienna centuries before. They can all support the same goals,yet still fight amongst one another over who will control the spoils. Read the history of Outremer during the crusades. That external agreement/internal struggle is what kept the west in palestine for centuries in the face of overwhelming odds.

This is exactly what the radicals would like you to believe. Who is going to be the other side of this "slug fest"? That's right, "all Muslims" including the moderates who you believe are responsible for terror funding. That kind of violence will give the radicals the unity they desire (and that they currently do not have). The incompetence of the radical Islamist's movements is matched only by the incompetence out here in the west in understanding how they operate.

And that's why their political organization and strength is growing instead of deteriorating, despite two major wars and a policy of attacking terrorists on sight. The scale of riots over these cartoons are further evidence of that, and until western powers can go after the root causes of radical strength, this is only going to get worse.

Again, why do I care about unity if they are still militarily inferior? I can easily blame the radicals for uniting Islam. I'm not to blame for wanting to defend my own beliefs.

There is no such thing as "tacit support" that yields personal liability. This is a fundamentally erroneous notion.

Just had to go after this as well. I've disagreed with many on this board on this issue. I certainly do believe that to some degree, tacit support yields personal liability. Take this principle away,and I have no reason or incentive to ever stop my neighbor from any harmful action. It becomes a matter simply between him and his victim,while I stand by. That kind of thinking breaks down the glue that holds society together,leaving us in anarchy. It removes the extrinsic incentive for civilized behavior. Unlike many here,I don't have a whole lot of faith in people's intrinsic motivations for good....

 

[shootinstudent]

Sorry, but I ran out of sensitivity. I know why they object to our culture. Unfortunately, the things they take issue with (my right to practice my faith without paying non-believer taxes, my right to sell my goods and services,my right to draw cartoons that offend them, etc) are not negotiable.

A few posts ago, you said you were not interested in why the radicals are gaining strength and attacking. Now, you are demonstrating that you do not know why, either. The terrorists do not care about your rights or living habits, as is proven by the fact that they readily support the ruling non-Muslim government in Syria, and that they don't seem to have a problem with Lebanon or Dubai...check out some Hayfa Wehbe music videos if you think "your rights" are the problem.

They are fighting, just like the fascists, for control...and they use any propaganda or means at their disposal.

They have STATED THIS in speeches! At best they are contradictory! Religious freedom has always been a part of Islamic regimes. However it has always included taxes for non-believers. Sorry, non-negotiable!

No, it's not. Look up the law...it's in Iran's constitution, Article 13, plain as day, and no, there have been no "Let's kill all Jews" statements from that regime. It would be easy for them to start with the Jews in Iran if they wanted to, but they haven't done that. Crazy does not automatically equal anti-Semitic.

And this disproves what I said how? So the money comes from oil...it is still coming from a financial base composed of more Muslims than we see rioting in the streets over cartoons.

What exactly does that prove? There are more terrorists than there are suicide pilots on the plane. That doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the supposed guilt of the entire religion.

Thank God that the Sunni and Shi'ite differences do divide them. Otherwise, they wouldn't have stopped at the gates of Vienna centuries before. They can all support the same goals,yet still fight amongst one another over who will control the spoils. Read the history of Outremer during the crusades. That external agreement/internal struggle is what kept the west in palestine for centuries in the face of overwhelming odds.

Uh, the west was in Palestine for less than 1 century. By the time of Vienna, the "division" was irrelevant. You should take note of how often westerners actually sided with the turks in those wars...the Crimean war, for example. The "Islam versus the rest of us" vision of history is so totally inaccurate that the only possible way to arrive at it is through willful blindness.

Again, why do I care about unity if they are still militarily inferior? I can easily blame the radicals for uniting Islam. I'm not to blame for wanting to defend my own beliefs.

See above. No one cares what you believe. As for unity, that's what creates military strength, which is why the radicals are trying to artificially impose unity behind their cause. You just said you were glad for the divisions that make the Muslim world weak...now you don't care if those divisions are erased because of western attacks on all Muslims?

Just had to go after this as well. I've disagreed with many on this board on this issue. I certainly do believe that to some degree, tacit support yields personal liability. Take this principle away,and I have no reason or incentive to ever stop my neighbor from any harmful action.

Alright, if that's so, I guess you feel personally responsible for all the gun crime in America. After all, you're a gun owner, just like the criminals.

I'm also waiting for you to chip in your compensation to the families of IRA victims, since you are an American, and we all know that "Americans" supported the IRA. Well, not all Americans...but the rest of us didn't protest in the streets over it, and we even elected congressmen who went to have beers with IRA terrorists.

Poodle, is that fact good enough to make you personally liable for all the deaths the IRA has caused?

If not, then why is terrorism by muslims enough to make all muslims liable?

 

[carbiner]

+1 to poodleshooter!

Islam has proven without doubt that they support radical, facist, intolerant, violent leaders, and terror groups. Every continent they inhabit are subjected their violent ways and blood shed.

I think it is dangerous to adapt a liberal attitude towrds these folks.

911 was real, lets not go back to sleep again America.

 

[JR47]

The last time I looked, the past 1000 years has not been a time for Islam. The prophet died in 632 A.D., but his religion took several hundred years to expand, then contract. Hindus, Bhuddists, Christians, etc., all suffered under the curse of this cult. The fact that they survived has less to do with muslim strength than muslim weakness.

Tacit approval does equal guilt, and how much you disagree is immaterial. Support through inaction is still support, as is monetary support.

The Al-Queda organizations here in the United States were FUND-RAISING groups. The money-trail led directly to them. While they weren't adverse to using some of it to fund local terrorist acts, they majority went to fund overseas projects.

While I've spent a bit of time trying to see just what you're point is, it's been lost amongst your rhetoric.

By the way, the Catholic Church has been positively screaming about Sinn Fein, and the IRA, if compared to the "outpouring" of muslim objections to the fundamentalist actions.

You are correct in that not all muslims feel the same way about other peoples. Some are live and let live types. They are, however, a shrinking group. My figure of ten million terrorists masquerading under the Cult of Mohammad is probably low.

I have been reading the Koran, and I must say that the book advocates a religious supremacy over secular government. Gosh, with all of the corrupt politicians, the last thing we need is a group of religious malcontents, self-appointed for life, to run things. It's working so well in Iran.

You are correct, though. It did take four months of concentrated effort to "inform" the masses of the "horror" of cartoons, created by their own religious leadership, and whip up the destruction we're witnessing. That says a lot about the caliber of the faithful.

You never did respond as to why it wouldn't be equally valid for Americans to loot, kill, and destroy muslims and their property when our symbols are burned and otherwise defiled. I suppose that you could see the equality if our people danced in the streets after the Tsunami of 2004, or the mudslides in Pakistan, or the aforementioned drive-by of muslim children.

Westerners view life much differenetly than most muslims. Until we understand the ruthless nature of many muslim peoples, we will always have those who can "explain" how we should do this. How our picture of them is skewed. How we should blah....blah....blah.

The Western World is at a severe disadvantage dealing with fundamentalists of most any stripe. We believe in the equality of people. Fundamentalists always see it as you're not the same as me, so you must prove yourself, or you'll never be as great as I.

In short, we need to view the overall religion as a security risk, and deal with it accordingly. It's not the job of individual non-muslims to seek out islam and it's people, it's the job of islam and it's people to assure non-muslims of their peaceful intentions. Blowing up women and children on a routine basis won't do that. Pass the word on, please.

 

[gc70]

Are these representative of the "few" extremists or the masses of Muslims?

Rocky Mountain News

• Some 200 members of Iran's parliament issued a warning statement reminding anyone who published the cartoons of the death threats made against author Salman Rushdie for his novel The Satanic Verses.

BBC

• Nigerian MPs cheered in the northern majority Muslim state of Kano as Danish and Norwegian flags were burned in a ceremony in the parliament premises.

Assyrian International News Agency

• In Gaza, thousand of protesters burned Danish flags while chanting "Death to Denmark," and gunmen stormed the European Union office.
• Pakistan's Jamaat-e-Islami party placed a bounty of 50,000 Danish kroner on the cartoonists.

FoxNews

• About 250 protesters armed with assault rifles and grenades attacked the NATO base in the northwestern town of Maymana (Afghanistan)
• More than 3,000 protesters threw stones at government buildings and an Italian peacekeeping base in the western city of Herat (Afghanistan)
• About 5,000 people clashed with police in Pulikhumri (Afghanistan)
• The protest by 5,000 people in the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar

CNN

• At least 10,000 people marched in the Bangladeshi capital
• tens of thousands turned out in Niger's capital Niamey
• In Srinagar in Indian-controlled Kashmir, police fired tear gas Tuesday to disperse hundreds
• In the southern Philippines, hundreds of Muslims burned a Danish flag
• Rock-throwing demonstrators have attacked Denmark's diplomatic missions in the sprawling country (Indonesia) on a near daily basis.
• Other protests Monday took place in Amman, Tel Aviv, Gaza, Indian-controlled Kashmir, the Indian capital of New Delhi and Kut, a city in southern Iraq where about 5,000 people congregated, burned flags and burned an effigy of the Danish prime minister.

 

[shootinstudent]

Tacit approval does equal guilt, and how much you disagree is immaterial. Support through inaction is still support, as is monetary support.

Alright, try this: what is an appropriate punishment for inaction? In that regard, how much are you responsible for all of those American dollars that went to the IRA? The USA was the sole source of money for Irish terrorism for most of its history...so I'd like to know, as an American who didn't stop the flow of money and whom I can safely bet did not participate at all in the limited measures to stop it, what punishment do you deserve for IRA terrorism?

By the way, the Catholic Church has been positively screaming about Sinn Fein, and the IRA, if compared to the "outpouring" of muslim objections to the fundamentalist actions.

Huh? I'm a lifelong Catholic...I've never heard one sermon blasting them. Does the teaching contradict violence? Sure. If you ask, you'll get condemnation. But fighting the IRA was by no means a party platform of the Church, and never has been. On top of that, the Church was without a doubt heavily involved in providing safehouses and support in Ireland. I don't see the point.

I have been reading the Koran, and I must say that the book advocates a religious supremacy over secular government. Gosh, with all of the corrupt politicians, the last thing we need is a group of religious malcontents, self-appointed for life, to run things. It's working so well in Iran.

Perhaps by PM you could point out the verses to me where there is any form of government mentioned at all. The word "shari'ah" appears in the Koran only once, and it has to do with morality...so I'm curious to see where this "religious supremacy" over secular government comparison is.

It did take four months of concentrated effort to "inform" the masses of the "horror" of cartoons, created by their own religious leadership, and whip up the destruction we're witnessing. That says a lot about the caliber of the faithful.

Just like how some people are trying to convince the West with "information" that all 1 billion Muslims are evil...right? Looks from some of the responses I see that the Mullahs' counterparts in the west are succeeding, and so I have precious little to say about the caliber of other peoples.

You never did respond as to why it wouldn't be equally valid for Americans to loot, kill, and destroy muslims and their property when our symbols are burned and otherwise defiled.

Let me repeat this again: The whole point of my posts here has been to argue against and reject the idea of Collective guilt. It is inherently immoral and evil, and when you blame all Muslims for what radicals do, you are committing precisely the same form of erroneous thinking that the radicals employ: "One American action in this country was bad, therefore, all Americans are evil." If you don't like being branded a torturer and evil person over Abu Ghraib and gun crime, how about you start by not blaming a billion people over terrorism.

In short, we need to view the overall religion as a security risk, and deal with it accordingly. It's not the job of individual non-muslims to seek out islam and it's people, it's the job of islam and it's people to assure non-muslims of their peaceful intentions. Blowing up women and children on a routine basis won't do that.

Exactly. Now, what is the point of holding all Muslims responsible for terrorism, if not to justify attacks on women and children and anyone else who is Muslim on a routine basis? If you don't think any measures should be taken against Muslim civilians, what's the point of "exposing their brutality" or whatever you think you are doing?

gc70:

Violence in a country that is muslim does not equal religious violence. If you think that is the case, then take a look at South America, Eastern Europe, and Russia.

Why is it that when the folks have more similar languages, it's easier to understand the complexity behind the conflicts, but if you toss in some really strange sounding names, it's suddenly all about religion?

 

[carbiner]

The bottom line is that Islam has and continues to create their own bad Image across the world. Nobody is doing this to them. I don't buy "It's just a few" Not all child rapist's kill their victims, so the hell what! It looks more and more like the majority of Muslims have a problem with Jews, American's, and people in general who don't believe in the killer religion of Islam.

 

[Lord_Nikon]

Yay! Now we're essentially advocating taking away peoples' right to freedom of religion! You know what the funny thing about rights is? When one get's taken away, more seem to go in rapid succession.

Intolerance is wrong. It doesn't matter if it's radical Muslims being intolerant or peaceable Americans.

 

[gc70]

by shootinstudent:
Violence in a country that is muslim does not equal religious violence. If you think that is the case, then take a look at South America, Eastern Europe, and Russia.

Violence over cartoons of Mohammed meets the definition of religious violence.

 

[JR47]

shootinstudent, your logic, and rationalizations, are very flexible. Yes, the problem is complex.

Maybe your church failed to have sermons on the day you attended, but mine does. They routinely warn that supporting any terrorist organization is a sin. I have never knowengly donated a penny to the IRA, nor has anyone I've associated with. Your blanket statement gives lie to your own arguemants.

The idea that tacit approval equals guilt is not a legal crime is specious. You talk about the morality of the muslim, and the moral mistakes of the West, and that is exactly what we are discussing in this point. It is a moral guilt to abstain from pointing out that these fundamentalists are wrong.

When I said that the cult of mohammad should be regarded as a security risk, and dealt with accordingly, I meant it in the same manner as aliens from a warring opponent. Travel should be restricted in the case of visits, and there should be raised surveillance of known advocates of violence, and their circle of friends. I do not necessarily wish all of the muslims to be deported, or any of that, so don't bother. However, Immans or Mullahs from outside of the U.S. should be restricted from entry, and American Immans or Mullahs should be heavily surveiled if they advocate violence.

As far as the "Mullah's of the West" go. I don't see anyone in power advocating unrestrained violence against muslims. I DO, however, see the "Mullah's of the east" doing so on a regular basis. It would be as though the Bishop's and Cardinals of the Catholic Church were to suddenly espouse the destruction of Iran. Do you really think that you could convince people that the Catholic Church wasn't adopting that as an official position? The muslim faith is today in that position. The leadership routinely calls for the death of "infidels" for the dumbest reasons, yet you expect people to somehow make the distinction that, while the leaders espouse violence, the religion really isn't involved. Right. Good luck with that one.

The perpetrators of the long-lived violence against anyone, or anything, not muslim are certainly not 100% of the muslim peoples. Yet, they continue daily, while claiming religious immunity from retribution. The religious leadership actively supports them. Nowhere else in the world is a religion used to currently advocate war. The Western world stopped that centuries ago. Nowadays, it's usually a political ideology. Those who live under it's control are branded with it's excesses. Not all Germans were Nazis, nor Italians Fascists, but the parties involved the entire population in their war. By not fleeing, or disputing their claims, the populations shared in their defeat. It strikes me that the muslims should draw some parallels here, and learn from those lessons of the past. Before they repeat them. If you claim that you are fighting for a religion, and are supported by many of it's senior leaders, and not disavowed by it's rank-and-file, then you ARE fighting for that religion. Remember, if you dress like a duck, hang out with ducks, and get shot for a duck during hunting season, you ARE a duck.

 

[shootinstudent]

I have never knowengly donated a penny to the IRA, nor has anyone I've associated with. Your blanket statement gives lie to your own arguemants.

Okay, here is the point again: You don't feel responsible for IRA violence because you haven't given a penny. But other Americans gave them every penny they have. So explain to me why you think it's appropriate to blame all Muslims for "tacit support" of terrorism, even if the vast majority have never given any money to terrorists or lifted a finger to help them. Your own excuse, "I haven't given a penny to the IRA", would seem to negate the idea that there can be guilt-by-tacit-support. After all, if it's tacit...that just means you didn't do anything to stop the IRA's funding in America. Right?

You talk about the morality of the muslim, and the moral mistakes of the West, and that is exactly what we are discussing in this point. It is a moral guilt to abstain from pointing out that these fundamentalists are wrong.

Again, reread my posts. 1. I didn't say a word about moral mistakes of Muslims or the west. My point is about collective guilt. 2. I've been criticizing fundamentalists too. But what does that have to do with blaming all Muslims for the actions of fundamentalists?

When I said that the cult of mohammad should be regarded as a security risk, and dealt with accordingly, I meant it in the same manner as aliens from a warring opponent.

This is collective guilt at work. See Marko Kloos's post above...should gun owners be treated as a security risk, since after all, 100 percent of gun crimes are committed by gun owners?

As a side note, I haven't seen anyone demand that Irish Americans or Irish immigrants be similarly limited or monitored if they are Catholic (and thus, more likely to be involved in fighting our allies in Britain) as opposed to if they are protestant. I think if you tried, the religious bigotry would stir outrage, yet you are asking for exactly the same thing to be done to muslims.

The muslim faith is today in that position. The leadership routinely calls for the death of "infidels" for the dumbest reasons, yet you expect people to somehow make the distinction that, while the leaders espouse violence, the religion really isn't involved. Right. Good luck with that one.

Just who are the "Muslim leaders" you're talking about? If you mean religious authorities, that is patently false. If you mean terrorists like Osama bin laden...see above. It is silly to let extremists speak for a whole religion. Just as silly, for example, as letting Jim Jones speak for all of Christianity, or calling the head of a racist-church "A leader of the christian faith."

Look around, and you will find that even the Muslim Brotherhood (ie, the party behind Hamas!) publicly condemns terrorism. There are no major muslim organizations on record at all that openly support it.

Another note: it's quite funny to see the word "infidel" used so often, because it is latin and is not used in the Muslim religious context at all. At best, it's an approximation of one of the terms they use for non-Muslims.

If you claim that you are fighting for a religion, and are supported by many of it's senior leaders, and not disavowed by it's rank-and-file, then you ARE fighting for that religion. Remember, if you dress like a duck, hang out with ducks, and get shot for a duck during hunting season, you ARE a duck

Okay, first of all, terrorism is not supported by any "senior leaders" of Islam. Try to name these "senior leaders" and you'll see what I mean. Second, the rank and file are a billion people....compare that to the size of known terrorist groups and you'll get an idea of the proportion.

Your duck theory would clearly, if we held consistent, make you guilty of funding the IRA. After all, you write like an American, I assume you dress like an American, and you support America. Since other Americans (just like you) sent money to the IRA, and you didn't or couldn't stop them, you're a terror-duck too....or not?

I do believe the point is bare here: "Muslims all look like each other and look different from us, therefore, they all are responsible for what any single muslim does."

Never mind that both premises are not true, the conclusion is just plain irrational, and it's what allows the brady bunch to say "hey, that gun owner went nuts...let's ban ALL guns because that's what gun owners do!"