JerrySeinfeld

I heard about that. Not surprised. Just watch the clock - it's only a matter of time before this thread is peppered with alologists rushing to assure us that there are plenty of moderate muslims and that christians are just as bad if not worse. WIll probably cite ancient history (literally) to bakc their point...

The man charged with nine counts of attempted murder for driving a Jeep through a crowd at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill last Friday told the police that he deliberately rented a four-wheel-drive vehicle so he could 'run over things and keep going.' " The driver in question was Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar. Whoa, don't jump to conclusions. The Times certainly didn't. As the report continued: "According to statements taken by the police, Mr. Taheri-azar, 22, an Iranian-born graduate of the university, felt that the United States government had been 'killing his people across the sea' and that his actions reflected 'an eye for an eye.'" "His people"? And who exactly would that be? Taheri-azar is admirably upfront about his actions. As he told police, he wanted to "avenge the deaths or murders of Muslims around the world." And yet the M-word appears nowhere in the Times report. Whether intentionally or not, they seem to be channeling the great Sufi theologian and jurist al-Ghazali, who died a millennium ago but whose first rule on the conduct of dhimmis -- non-Muslims in Muslim society -- seem to have been taken on board by the Western media: The dhimmi is obliged not to mention Allah or His Apostle. . . . Are they teaching that at Columbia Journalism School yet? A fellow called Mohammed mows down a bunch of students? Just one of those things -- like a gran'ma in my neck of the woods a couple of years back who hit the wrong pedal in the parking lot and ploughed through a McDonald's, leaving the place a hideous tangle of crumbled drywall, splattered patties and incendiary hot apple-pie filling. Yet, according to his own statements, Taheri-azar committed an act of ideological domestic terrorism, which he'd planned for two months. He told police he was more disappointed more students in his path weren't struck and that he'd rented the biggest vehicle the agency had in order to do as much damage to as many people as possible. The Persian car pet may have been flooring it, but the media are idling in neutral, if not actively reversing away from the story as fast as they can. Taheri-azar informed the judge he was "thankful for the opportunity to spread the will of Allah," and it was apparently the will of Allah that he get behind the wheel of Allah.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...08.DTL#sections Jeezus H, our PM has been doing the same thing lately!! Did KKKarl Rove move to Canada to escape prosecution and find a job with Stephen Harper's government? What is the point of this thread? That politicians play with words and perceptions to make their point look stronger? MY GOD! HEAVEN FORBID! CALL IN THE ROYAL COMMISSION!!!!

No - it suggests I callhim by his real name - the name he adopted when he converted to Islam, publically supported the 9-11 attacks and threatened a bomb on the anniversary of those attacks. Yet the media skates past these facts - same as Marc Lepine the Montreal killer muslim woman hater. Just a small detail. But you're probably right - better not "jump to conclusions" on this one Give the poor guy the benefit of the doubt. Lefties crack me up.

Of course young people are gullible and indecisive. You certainly are. On one hand you say women are taking over society and on the other hand you say women are indecisive. Which is it? You seem like the indecisive one pierce. As you are just a youngin' you can be forgiven for your ignorance. Instead of jumping in here with your "they are so indecisive and gullible" crap, why not go grow up for a while, come back after you've fallen in love, got a broken heart, found a better relationship, left that one for greener pastures, fallen in love again, out of love again and gained some life experience. You gotta be careful about that whole experience thing tho, drea. Experience can taint judgement just as easily as lack of it can. If you define your morals by certain experiences you've had in your individual life, then they will be exlusive to the specific types of experiences YOU have had. Not always a good idea.

You seem to think that if you repeat something enough then it must be true. The Koran does not promise 72 virgins to people who kill. You have spliced together several completely unrelated concepts from the Koran. In one part, the Quran does describe heaven as a place where someone will receive various rewards including female companionship which sounds weird to those of us used to puritan christian teachings. In other places it talks about how people who die for their faith will go to heaven. In other places it condemns both murder and suicide. No where does it explicitly say that people who deliberately murder others or commit suicide will go to heaven. That said, there are Muslims that have distorted the teachings of Islam and created the belief that suicide bombers will have a place in heaven. However, those distortions are not very different from what Christians have used in the past to justify everything from slavery (e.g. the curse of ham) to genocide (kill them all god will sort them out). Islamic terrorism is a political and economic problem and not a religious one - if the political and economic motivations are addressed you will see the religious rhetoric will go away. Get over it/ Christian don't kill infidels in the name of god and to go to heaven. Muslims do. Whether it is specifically stated in the Koran MAY be debated, but the fact that nutjob young muslims around the world murder people expecting a reward in heaven is a fact. Think of the young muslim man in Paris who lived along side some jews in his apartment complex. One morning he attacked a fellow tenant - a jew - stabbed him 36 times and ripped his face off with a fork. Dripping with blood going back up the stairwell he annouced "I can go to heaven now, I have killed my jew." Keep defending it if you wish - I hope you can sleep at night.

I think this is about as fair as you can get, with a clear attempt not to bias the question in one direction or the other.

They just permanently cripple them by shooting off their kneecaps (a common practice in northern Ireland) or just shoot them with a rifle. Is rather hypocritical to think that all Muslims should be blamed for the actions of zealots yet you insist that every 'Christian' radical that uses violance is not really a Christian. Give me an example of a Danish newspaper printing a cartoon about the Irish conflict resulting in worldwide protests by Irish people, burning of Danish embassies by "Irish Catholic" nations, boycott of danish goods, the danish newspaper editor livingunder 24 hour armed gaurd...then maybe you've got something.

They just permanently cripple them by shooting off their kneecaps (a common practice in northern Ireland) or just shoot them with a rifle. Is rather hypocritical to think that all Muslims should be blamed for the actions of zealots yet you insist that every 'Christian' radical that uses violance is not really a Christian. Again, a localized conflict about borders. Not even close. Try again.

oh and that other small difference - christians don't saw off people's heads to make a point.

EXCELLENT POST.

Even Milosovic is a weak comparison. I didn't see serbs going all over the world killing people. It was restricted to one (former) country. Muslim young men self detonate or kill in France, Denmark, England, USA. This suggests it isn't merely a localized issue, but rather a worldwide doctrine. Big difference.

You're comparing a political massacre like RWANDA to suicide bombing muslims? Sure, ya got me. In parts of the world there are conflicts between various groups, some of which involve christians versus christians, political groups conflicting (rwanda hutus and tutsis) and at times there may be Christians killing people. And then we've got muslims versus everyone else. It's not the same thing and everyone, even lefties, know it. The lefties just hate the idea of admitting it because that would mean they're siding with GW Bush.

The KKK say they have God on their side, the Christian God. The Catholics and Protestants were killing each other in the name of their religion for many years in Ireland. The Serbians didn't like the Muslims in their nation so they booted them out and those that stayed were systematically raped and killed. I'm not going to defend Muslims, but like I quoted. Removed the plank from your eye before you go bashing everyone else. Body counts please?

Is that all you've got, I'd assume you'd have a massive amount of numbers ready considering how fervently you seem to believe in this. Can you name in the last twenty years where Muslim fundamentalists have killed more than the Christian extremists in Rwanda, Yugoslavia, and Uganda? I can think of some major events... 9/11 being the biggest at about 3,000 right? If you are to include Sudan at the higher number, than Rwanda can definitely be brought in on the same abiguity. Yugoslavia's ethnic cleansing (killing and rendering homeless of Muslim's by Serbian Christians) was massive. This thread is about the christian right dude.

We do see mass genocides though by Christian fundamentalists in Africa and Eastern Europe. It isn't the same I agree. More people die in my example. I agree the link exists... I don't have any respect for any murderer regardless of his religion though. They are all the same to me. You are trying to tell me the christians are killing in the name of their religion? or is there some other motivation?

Actually, the US is suffering from that today as well. Yes, another good straight across comparison. The USA and the former soviet union. Very similar. you are hilarious.

How is that a red herring? Could you explain to me how the comparison between the Christian zealot Milosevic and the Sunni Muslim zealot bin Laden? In fact, Milosevic had the direction over far more deaths than bin Laden has. Interesting eh? Or in Ireland when those peaceful Christians slaughtered each other for many years. There is so many examples when religion has been used as justification for violence, from all sides. There is a comparison to be made, like I just did. I would actual maybe even venture the opinion that Christian zealots have killed on par with the Muslim zealots in the last twenty years. Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Sudan, Uganda... Yea...OK.

quote]Try telling that to anyone who works at an abortion clinic. OK so we're back tomy original question: body count over the past 20 years? My estimate is something like: Christians: 20-30 dead Muslims: 5000+ yeeaaah. Good comparison guys.

Ok, that being considered, your saying that we should identify all Muslim murderers as much. So when we have murders that are Christian or something else, should we say, "the Christian murderer" or the "Buddist Murderer" or the "Jewish murderer"? I don't see what relevance it has beyond these people being crazy. It has relevence for a number of reasons. First of all, it has relevence because the Sniper, MUHAMMED publicly supported the 9-11 attacks and bomb-threatened a government office on the anniversary date of the attacks. Second, it has relevance because on a weekly basis we DON'T see young Christian, Jewish and Buddhist men self-detonating in the name of their god. Your "head in the sand" approach might be good politics,but its exactly what the article talks about: we all know their is a direct link between Islamic Fundamentalism and Violence, yet people like you deliberately pretend it doesn't exist. When a skinhead committs a crime,they do call them "white supremacist skinheads"don't they?

ahhh, yes; the "i'd-like-to-teach-the-world-to-sing-in-perfect-harmony" foreign policy model. keep singing while the islam nutjobs self detonate all over the place. the "harmony" approach seems to be working swimmingly for the French....and the Dutch

You will of course note that I listed both Saddam and Noriega as US puppets who had outlived their usefulness. Both stayed in power as long as they did due to overt and covert US support, both Democrat and Republican. Both did their masters bidding and when they stopped doing so, they were quickly removed.....well, not so quickly in Saddams case. However, the point remains that the US has a long and bloody history of overtly or covertly overthrowing nations governments and installing hard line dictators. No matter how you like to gloss over it, it still stinks to high heaven. First the USA & the USSR BOTH participated in "satellite wars" using puppet nations during the cold war. Don't even bring cold war examples into this becauseits irrelevant in todays world and was a different world during those years. Yes, the USA fought COMMUNISM with "puppets" as you call them. And fought IRAN with saddam hussein. Cops change "loyalties" and cut deals if certain criminals can help them fry bigger fish. The world changes,so do your enemies. Your examples are not surprises. whats your point?

If the US is the worlds policeman, then they are a bizzarre combination of the Keystone Kops and the worst stereotypical corrupt Irish American Cop during the days of Al Capone in Chicago. They are very selective about where they police and who they help. More often then not, they help and prop up some of the worlds worst dictators and strongmen. The only time the US acts is if its economic or geo-political interests are threatened, otherwise the US could give a flying fig about the world. Ask the Tibetians of '49, or the survivors of the Prague Spring of 68, or the Hungarian Uprising of 56. Talk to the people of Vietnam about the benelence of America's policing, or those in Laos or Cambodia. Ask the Panamaian's, the Hondurains, the Agentinians or countless millions around the world about how great it is to have the Americans policing their nations, installing dicators, secret police, death squads and all the other inhuman instruments a strong armed proxy needs to keep its people down in order to serve their Imperial American masters. Don't get me wrong, America and the American people have done a lot of good in the world, sadly tho the evil its elites and leaders have done far out weigh that good. Oh, as for Reagan beating the Russians and defeating Communism? I suggest you look the role Mikhail Gorbachev and his reforms of perestroika and glasnost played. Had someone like Gorbachev not assumed the leadership role of the former Soviet Union when he did and instead we got another hardliner like Leonid Brezhnev, then the odds are Reagan would of ended his second term still fighting the cold war and the US would be even deeper in debt. Indeed, we probably still be fighting the cold war today. Bush is an unmitigated disaster who's only brilliance is the ability to continuously b.s. the faithful. Watching the Bushies is akin to watching Lemmings run off a cliff and into the ocean to their doom. The one thing that does set Reagan apart from Bush, Reagan was not stupid enough to get into a useless war.....hell even Shrubs old man knew where to draw the line in regards to the middle east and Iraq......guess the Shrub got his brains from his mothers side of the family. We are talking about the US as a policeman since the end of the cold war then you provide examples that occured DURING the cold war? improper logic my friend. try again. as for Gorby - you seriously had me laughing here. Think about it a little deeper. Gorby was a RESULT of Reagan policy!!! The US bankrupted the USSR during the arms race and when the iron curtain was pulled back it revealed a shrivelling and dying "empire". That country is still suffering the disatrous impacts of the overspending that was necessitated by the unwinable spending war they got into with the USA. My goodness, friend. Think things through a bit eh?

As hard as we try it's hard for humans to break the hard wired behaviors: women seek long term mates to provide for them and the childeren they so desperately want to have. Men look around for as many mates as possible. Perhaps we haven't changed that much from the caveman days which so definitely shaped our current selves.

Our work lives are male dominated somewhat, but our day to day home lives are female dominated.