Russian: Yet another victim of terrorism

[August1991]

I think TalkNumb was referring to Daladier.

[takeanumber]

@August

Yup.

@Black Dog

I'd hazard to say that your blind support for the terrorist cause is the real issue here.

First off, your position that Russia started the Chechen war first, I find, is quite erroneous. I recall a CBC documentary about Chechnya in 1993. It was very obvious that the seperatists were Islamist. I'm not sure about who started what first, but I'm pretty sure Russia was responding to the Chechen seperatists when they saw them armed with RPG's and deliberately challenging the authority of the state.

Now, I know how much you dislike Russia in general (by the sounds of it), but even Russia has the right to territorial integrity.

If Russia was Canada, they'd have a referendum and a single gunshot would not have fired. Somehow, I don't think the Islamists would have supported a referendum though, a) because they wouldn't like the result, and because they believe that sovereignty rests with God, not the people.

The connection between Islamism and Chechnya is quite obvious. You can deny it if you want, just as French Socialists denied the link between anti-semitism and Nazi-ism at first, and then tried to rationalize it...much the same our modern day socialists try to do.

(After all Black Dog, I'm sure you could come up with an excuse for the extermination of Israel.)

In any case, I can tell that you know nothing of Islam, the Koran, or even the contents therein.

You can't understand Islamism because you refuse to learn about it.

I know you don't want to admit that we gotta stamp out radical Islamism and truly liberate the moderate muslims, but of course, you're not used to taking responsiblity for anything, so why should that change now? That's just a characteristic of people on the far Left. I wish that perhaps a few more of you would get knocked loose and wake up to real threat, but, I've long since revised my expectations downward.

As to the charge that I swallowed propaganda, none of my sources are from the Right Wing. Bergman is a small l liberal, from which most of my arguements derive.

PWNED!

[Black Dog]

I'd hazard to say that your blind support for the terrorist cause is the real issue here.

Not a very effective debating tactic, is it? You've lost this one before you even started.

First off, your position that Russia started the Chechen war first, I find, is quite erroneous. I recall a CBC documentary about Chechnya in 1993. It was very obvious that the seperatists were Islamist. I'm not sure about who started what first, but I'm pretty sure Russia was responding to the Chechen seperatists when they saw them armed with RPG's and deliberately challenging the authority of the state.

Again: Chechnya's struggle for autonomy dates back almost two hundred years. To categorize it as a product of a very modern school of Islamic thought is to be ignorant of all that has come before.

Now, I know how much you dislike Russia in general (by the sounds of it), but even Russia has the right to territorial integrity.

Yet Russia has allowed other former Soviet republics to become autonomous without much of a fight. Why make such a brutal example of Chenchnya? (By the way, I already know the answer. Do you?)

If Russia was Canada, they'd have a referendum and a single gunshot would not have fired. Somehow, I don't think the Islamists would have supported a referendum though, a) because they wouldn't like the result, and  because they believe that sovereignty rests with God, not the people.

Your ignorance of the region is becoming more and more pronounced. Seperatist political parties are barred from participating in the process, so it's impossible for the issue to even be addressed through a popular vote.

The connection between Islamism and Chechnya is quite obvious. You can deny it if you want, just as French Socialists denied the link between anti-semitism and Nazi-ism at first, and then tried to rationalize it...much the same our modern day socialists try to do.

Stop with the French Socialist/nazi rigamaroll. It's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand and only highlights your compete unwillingness to learn anything that's not served to you in a easily digested soundbite.

(After all Black Dog, I'm sure you could come up with an excuse for the extermination of Israel.)

In any case, I can tell that you know nothing of Islam, the Koran, or even the contents therein.

You can't understand Islamism because you refuse to learn about it.

Ad hominems galore. Another point against you.

You're very bad at this.

I know you don't want to admit that we gotta stamp out radical Islamism and truly liberate the moderate muslims, but of course, you're not used to taking responsiblity for anything, so why should that change now? That's just a characteristic of people on the far Left. I wish that perhaps a few more of you would get knocked loose and wake up to real threat, but, I've long since revised my expectations downward.

So, since you don't actually have a position, let alone an infomed one, you choose to take shots at a left that exists only in your mind. I aslo notice you abandoned the ploy whereby you claim to have stood up for Chechnya years ago while the left was silent. Caught in a lie, I see.

As to the charge that I swallowed propaganda, none of my sources are from the Right Wing. Bergman is a small l liberal, from which most of my arguements derive.

Propaganda is propaganda and knows know specific idealogical standpoint.

Arguments? What arguments are those? "Islamism is bad"? Wow: deep and groundbreaking, to be sure.

PWNED!

???

I assume you mean OWNED! As in "Holy cow, Black Dog OWNED takeanumber in that Chchnya thread."

I eagerly await your next collection of slogans.

[August1991]

The connection between Islamism and Chechnya is quite obvious. You can deny it if you want, just as French Socialists denied the link between anti-semitism and Nazi-ism at first, and then tried to rationalize it...much the same our modern day socialists try to do.

Stop with the French Socialist/nazi rigamaroll. It's completely irrelevant to the situation at hand and only highlights your compete unwillingness to learn anything that's not served to you in a easily digested soundbite.

BD, the recent bombing in Jakarta, the bombing in Bali, the first WTC bombing in 1992, the USS Cole, the US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the bombings in Saudia Arabia against westerners, the theatre hostages in Moscow.... these are all "random", unconnected events? Or do you rationalize these events as efforts of unconnected underdogs to stand up to the powerful, dominant USA?

Has it ever occurred to you BD, that these people might not like Western Civilization and want the victory of an obscurantist Islam?

Russia has allowed other former Soviet republics to become autonomous without much of a fight. Why make such a brutal example of Chenchnya? (By the way, I already know the answer. Do you?)

Uh, because the Chechens did not respect the autonomy given them? (Sorry, sorry, of course. Putin needed to get re-elected...)

BD, if you adopt the Chechens as "underdog minority of the month", you will soon find your logic severely twisted.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

the recent bombing in Jakarta, the bombing in Bali, the first WTC bombing in 1992, the USS Cole, the US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the bombings in Saudia Arabia against westerners, the theatre hostages in Moscow.... these are all "random", unconnected events?

You are right, these are all intimately connected to Osama, (not sure about the theatre, they may have just taken their 'cue' from Osama) but not neccesarily for the reasons thought by those who parrot 'Fox News". In Bali, the bombers specifically targetted Australians. Indeed, all of the targets were specifically chosen, and not a 'random lashing out against freedom and democracy'. I can only urge all to read 'Imperial Hubris' for a better understanding of what we face.

[takeanumber]

@BlackDog

That's right, when you can't argue back with facts, make fun and be sarcastic.

I can tell you're out.

@theloniusfleabag

August is right, Osama Bin Ladin is just a character who ascribes to the set of beliefs that comprise 'islamism'.

The Taliban intalled an Islamist regime.

If you want a picture of what life would be like if the Islamists win, think Afghanistan under the Taliban.

That's who you're defending, Blackdog, when you make excuses for Islamists.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

If you want a picture of what life would be like if the Islamists win, think Afghanistan under the Taliban.

That is why I don't plan on moving to Afghanistan.

I am not sure who told you the 'boogerman' was coming, but crawl out from under your bed, change your shorts and read "Imperial Hubris".

[takeanumber]

That is why I don't plan on moving to Afghanistan.

I am not sure who told you the 'boogerman' was coming, but crawl out from under your bed, change your shorts and read "Imperial Hubris".

If you don't want to live in Afghanistan, best get onside against Islamism.

Because they're bringing it home to Canada.

And they won't stop until they win.

Neither can we.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

Because they're bringing it home to Canada.

Nonsense. I am as fearful of that as Israel doing the same thing. (mind you, both are possible)

[Black Dog]

Has it ever occurred to you BD, that these people might not like Western Civilization and want the victory of an obscurantist Islam?

There's a good reason why devotees of "Islamism" resort to acts of terror: they are not a dominant ideology even in their own sphere and thus don't have the ability to meet the west on even terms. Remember one of OBL's goals is to overthrow what he see's as corrupt western backed regimes. So far, he's succedded exactly zero times. And this is the new Red Menace that's set to sweep the west aside? My God, all our wimmin foklk will be wearing hijab by next Tuesday if we don't act now!!

As horrific and shocking as the acts of 9-11, Bali et al are, they don't constitute a threat to our way of life, culture religion or what have you. they strike the way they do because they are powerless. This same powerlessness is what feed their fanaticism. But, to paraphrase David Byrne, there's no harm in asking "How did they get there?"

Uh, because the Chechens did not respect the autonomy given them? (Sorry, sorry, of course. Putin needed to get re-elected...)

You mean the autonomy they unilateraly declared and won concessions for after repelling Moscow's first attempt to crush the Chechyan state? Could it also be that Chechnya's not-inconsiderable oil reserved plays a role in Putin's determination to keep "Russia's territorial integrity"?

That's right, when you can't argue back with facts, make fun and be sarcastic.

I can tell you're out.

So you concede that you've no facts to add, no insights to make your rather garbled logic a little clearer? Nothing beyond "them bad, us good"? Worst. Debater. Ever.

Moving on, then.

That's who you're defending, Blackdog, when you make excuses for Islamists.

Oh yes, I forgot: examining the socio-political and economic factors contributing to the rise of radicalism is strictly taboo. No narrative shall be accepted that does not follow the accepted line: "They hate our freedoms/wealth/kittens/SUVs."

It is as I already pointed out in my first post to this topic:

As with 9-11 and any other act of terrorism, any attempt to explain the motivations of the peerpatrators of this atrocity is immediately dismissed as "justification". It's as though, subconciously, civilized nations recognize that these events simply do not occur in a vacum.

I find it interesting that any historical background or context is absent from this discussion so far. Instead, we have jibber-jabber about "exterminating terrorists" etc etc. The same thinking that, when applied in the past, has led to more terrorism, more innocent deaths.

No evidence of backing "the terrorist's" goals, or making excuses for their actions. Simply a call for a rational, clear-eyed assessment of the threat, its causes and a suggesstion that current methods don't seem to be working. Al of which sails right over the collected heads of the "y'all either wit us or yer agin us" crowd.

You are a joke.

[Guest eureka]

I think there might also be an element of Russian pride involved in that they have lost so much of their once mighty empire that they will not let this region go too. One of many reasons.

[Guest eureka]

Something that is overlooked in talking of an Islamic world threat is that Islam has no political structure. In its religious sense, authority rests with the mullahs. There is no secular stae of Islam that is firmly politically rooted.

As it is at present, Islam can not be more than a scattered threat of fundamentalist terrorism. Iran, maybe. but Iran itself is not unified as a state threat.

[August1991]

I can only urge all to read 'Imperial Hubris' for a better understanding of what we face.

I will. For the others, here are comments.

I suspect "Anonymous" is a junior level apologist. But sometimes the politicians are right. But I don't want to prejudge and on your advice Thelonious Monk, Anonymous will get a few bucks from me, and some of my attention.

There's a good reason why devotees of "Islamism" resort to acts of terror: they are not a dominant ideology even in their own sphere and thus don't have the ability to meet the west on even terms. Remember one of OBL's goals is to overthrow what he see's as corrupt western backed regimes. So far, he's succedded exactly zero times. And this is the new Red Menace that's set to sweep the west aside? My God, all our wimmin foklk will be wearing hijab by next Tuesday if we don't act now!!

Do I sense some hedging here? The Reds never took out big buildings in lower Manhattan. If the Islamists do, is that a sign of their weakness? Huh?

Simply a call for a rational, clear-eyed assessment of the threat, its causes and a suggesstion that current methods don't seem to be working.

Here, BD, you have my full attention. What do we in the West do? These people hang 16 year old women from cranes because they insolently remove a scarf.

Your "anti neo-con" diatribes won't work. My admonition to defend free speech won't work. What to do?

I think there might also be an element of Russian pride involved in that they have lost so much of their once mighty empire that they will not let this region go too. One of many reasons.

It's not pride so much as a practical matter. Yeltsin gave extremely good terms to many of the 89 Russian republics while maintaining Russian citizenship in all. (Russia is an example of assymetrical federalism; it doesn't really work.) Chechnya? Too many Chechens refused Yeltsin's offer (what Quebecers would be happy to have). Worse, some Chechens then turned their territory into a centre of contraband. Imagine Indian reserves near Montreal writ large. Criminals, thugs.

With Saudi money, the whole question has become a nightmare. IMV, the worst aspect is the Muslim treatment of women. In general, muslim men strongly prefer virgin women. To such men, a raped woman is a shame. A raped widow is of no value at all.

I think we are dealing with people from the 13th century who have access to 20th century technology.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

I suspect "Anonymous" is a junior level apologist.

I believe he is a senior level Middle East specialist. There was a write-up in the Calgary Sun on Sunday about this book, and I believe it answers the question "Why?' better than could be expected.

[August1991]

Something that is overlooked in talking of an Islamic world threat is that Islam has no political structure. In its religious sense, authority rests with the mullahs. There is no secular stae of Islam that is firmly politically rooted.

Have you ever heard of the Caliphate?

[takeanumber]

You are a joke.

Go get a spoon.

-------------------------------------------------

The Caliphate is actually what Bin Ladin was referring to in that famous tape of him celebrating 9-11.

It's a falacy to say that Islam does not contain a political structure.

Islam IS a political structure. It was the very first religion that had contained within it, exactly how a country should be run.

That's part of Islam's success in the first years.

I strongly sense that many people havn't even had a cursory glance at the Koran.

I suppose I can understand why some people on the Left (Black Dog in particular) tries to make blanket assumptions about things they clearly don't know anything about.

If you don't understand Islamism, it is impossible for you to understand the Totalitarian overtone.

If you don't understand totalitarianism, then you can't fully realize the consequences of sympathizing and rationallizing with them will have.

Look, I'm not some ranting neo-con here. I'm a small l liberal. Our ancestors both on the right (isolationists) and left (apologists) really screwed up during the second and cold wars. Why the hell arn't we learning here people? Are the habits of the past really that hard to break?

The threat is Islamism. For christ's sake, they gunned children in the back, and you're sitting there in the comfort of your home, sipping your Starbucks latte, and typing "well let's put this into the much larger context of the oppression in trans-caucasia, disposing of the mesosystemic aspects of the horror, and determining some sort of path to excuse the actions of those involved by blaming it all on Putin, and of course the universal enemy, American foreign policy."

Just because the real facts don't gel with your ignorance, Black Dog, doesn't make them any less factual.

Islamism is a threat, and it wasn't the fault of those kids, or the Russian or American governments, that they got gunned down.

[Black Dog]

Do I sense some hedging here? The Reds never took out big buildings in lower Manhattan. If the Islamists do, is that a sign of their weakness? Huh?

The Red's could have turned Manhattan into a glass parking lot. The Islamists are forced to scurry about in caves, while those affiliated with the broad ideology (let's not be foolish enough to think Al Q'aeda is a large and nebulous organization, while the ideaology itseldf is by no means monolithic) strike wherever they can with whatever means they can aquire. A few spectacular successes doesn't mean they are a real threat to our way of life. As I said, they've yet to even bring down a government in their own sphere of influence.

I do, however, acknowledge "they" (a term I'll employ for purposes of this discussion only) are gaining strength. That's partially due to the continuation opf the condistions and circumstances that gave rise to teh ideaology in the first place, as well as the heavy-handedness of the western crusade against terrorism, which is making the jihadist vision of a clash of cultures and a western war on islam very real to many devotees.

Here, BD, you have my full attention. What do we in the West do? These people hang 16 year old women from cranes because they insolently remove a scarf.

What does this have to do with the price of teas in China. I'm getting really sick of being accussed of harbouring som efondeness for despotic regimes and backwards religious ideologies, when the exact opposite is true.

It's not pride so much as a practical matter. Yeltsin gave extremely good terms to many of the 89 Russian republics while maintaining Russian citizenship in all. (Russia is an example of assymetrical federalism; it doesn't really work.) Chechnya? Too many Chechens refused Yeltsin's offer (what Quebecers would be happy to have). Worse, some Chechens then turned their territory into a centre of contraband. Imagine Indian reserves near Montreal writ large. Criminals, thugs.

Oh, no doubt. But, given the historical animosity between Russia and Chechnya, was Putin's ill-fate dinvasion, and subsequent istallation of a pro-Moscow government the solution? Hindsight is 20-20 and all that, but there's no doubt that Putin was motivated by many factors, several of which we've touched on here. (And given the state of the Russian economy, free press and political system, criminals and thugs" are hardly a Chechyan creation alone).

strongly sense that many people havn't even had a cursory glance at the Koran.

I suppose I can understand why some people on the Left (Black Dog in particular) tries to make blanket assumptions about things they clearly don't know anything about.

If you don't understand Islamism, it is impossible for you to understand the Totalitarian overtone.

Again, no one's quibbling with the idealogical underpinings of thE particular strain of Islamist thought in question. It's regressive and totalitarian: that train has already left the station. The discussion is not of the ideology itself, but how it became a force in the Islamic world in the first place.

The threat is Islamism. For christ's sake, they gunned children in the back, and you're sitting there in the comfort of your home, sipping your Starbucks latte, and typing "well let's put this into the much larger context of the oppression in trans-caucasia, disposing of the mesosystemic aspects of the horror, and determining some sort of path to excuse the actions of those involved by blaming it all on Putin, and of course the universal enemy, American foreign policy."

Do you have a point? I certainly don't see you purchasing your ticket to Afghanistan or Iraq to wage war on the jihadis. So why don't you "think of the children!!!" and go pitch in? I'll even spot you $5 for an AK.

Islamism is a threat, and it wasn't the fault of those kids, or the Russian or American governments, that they got gunned down.

If you want to talk personal responisbility, the folks who attacked the school bear the ultimate responsibility for their actions, just as the Palestinian suicide bomber, Iraqi militiaman, American gunship pilot, Russian paratrooper, or IDF sniper bear the ulimate responsibility when their actions cause uneccesary suffering and death (though the action's of the latter three are far more likely to be rationalized away by sniveling "small l liberals" and their conservative bretheren).

But when we're not talking about who pulled the trigger. We're talking about the events that led to the trigger being pulled, the motivations of the trigger-pullers and the political/social circumstances that contirbuted to the whole process. Cause and effect. No one ever woke up and randomly decides "Gee, I think I hate America/Russsia/freedom today. I think I'll just pop down and shoot some kids." That would be the crux of the narrative you are pushing: Islamists are evil and want to destroy us because they are Islamists and, therefore, evil.

Look, I'm not some ranting neo-con here. I'm a small l liberal.

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers

Tears ran down my spine

I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy

As though I'd lost a father of mine

But Malcolm X got what was coming

He got what he asked for this time

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies

And I put down the old D.A.R.

I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy

I hope every colored boy becomes a star

But don't talk about revolution

That's going a little bit too far

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen

My faith in the system restored

I'm glad the commies were thrown out

of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board

I love Puerto Ricans and Negros

as long as they don't move next door

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi

Should all hang their heads in shame

I can't understand how their minds work

What's the matter don't they watch Les Crain?

But if you ask me to bus my children

I hope the cops take down your name

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I read New republic and Nation

I've learned to take every view

You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden

I feel like I'm almost a Jew

But when it comes to times like Korea

There's no one more red, white and blue

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party

They want the U.N. to be strong

I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts

He sure gets me singing those songs

I'll send all the money you ask for

But don't ask me to come on along

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive

I wore every conceivable pin

Even went to the socialist meetings

Learned all the old union hymns

But I've grown older and wiser

And that's why I'm turning you in

So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

[takeanumber]

I'm not in the armed forces for a very good reason.

The fact remains that I advocated the defeat of the Taliban long before 9-11.

I was pretty much a lone voice. The Right nor the Left wanted any part of it.

-------------------------------------------------

The terrorists who caused 9-11 were all rich and well-to-do.

The idea that somehow American foreign policy causes people to be poor in the middle east, and then in turns causes desperate people to turn to desperate measures, is clearly incorrect.

What's giving rise to it?

It's too late to attack the cause.

It's akin to asking what caused the rise of Hitler after he rose to power.

The train, as you say, has already left the station.

[Black Dog]

The terrorists who caused 9-11 were all rich and well-to-do.

Gee, didn't see that coming. Why, it's like you're reading from a set of "War on terror" talking points.

The 9-11 hijackers (assuming they were who we're told they were) are but 13 examples. There's countless more examples of the poverty-stricken and oppressed turning to radicalism and terror. look at Palestine. Look at Iraq. And now, look at Chechnya.

The idea that somehow American foreign policy causes people to be poor in the middle east, and then in turns causes desperate people to turn to desperate measures, is clearly incorrect.

Funny, the only people who've mentioned American foreign policy on this thread have been the terror war's advocates. Fortunately, I'm not so simple-minded. U.S. (and western as a whole) foreign policy does indeed play a role: the west's favoritism of Israel over Arab nations, the invasion of Iraq, the support for repressive regimes and so forth.

But it's one cause among many.

It's too late to attack the cause.

I'm hope to god you're not a doctor. "You had a minor heart attack. But it's too late to attack the cause. Sure you could look at your poor diet and lack of exercise, but it's futile. You're just going to have to die."

It's akin to asking what caused the rise of Hitler after he rose to power.

Putting aside your persistant habit of drawing specious comparisons, I'd wager there were many lessons to be learned from Hitler's rise to power. "Those who ignore the lessons of history blah blah blah."

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear takeanumber,

I'm not in the armed forces for a very good reason

Gay? 12? Mentally unstable? (Just Kidding, none of my business really)

The fact remains that I advocated the defeat of the Taliban long before 9-11.

I suppose you'll tell us you invented the question mark, too.

What's giving rise to it?

It's too late to attack the cause.

It's never too late to attack US foriegn policy.

[idealisttotheend]

A lot of people on this thread have responded with us and them arguments. A lot of people who are smart enough to know better have taken the part of ideologues ("TalkNumb" and "Augustus" to name two) making dire warning against Islamism etc. A lot of people on this thread have implored "us" to defend "our" values against "them."

Here are "our" new values:

CBC link

Yelstin says the decision by Vladimir Putin, made in the wake of the Beslan school hostage crisis, could roll back democratic freedoms in Russia.

....

Putin has announced plans to cancel the right of voters to elect regional governors across Russia.

The Canadian equivilant would be to have the PM appoint the premiers instead of having provincial elections.

This is only a beginning, Putin is not a democrat to begin with, nor Russia a shining example of democracy.

These are "our" values shall we defend them?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear idealisttotheend,

Indeed. Besides, 'terrorism' is not an entity, and therefore cannot be defeated by arms.

[takeanumber]

Terrorism is a symptom of Islamism.

Discredit and destroy Islamism, destroy Islamist terrorism.

If you're so interested in fighting for the underdog, why arn't you defending the human rights of secular Iranians? What about their human rights?

What about the human rights of women in Saudi Arabia.

I'll tell you why.

You guys have allied yourself so strongly against liberal values that even when you find yourself standing shoulder to shoulder with Al Queda, you can't justify stepping away from them.

I'm on record as advocating the invasion of Afghanistan. I'll preserve my anonymous status though and not point you to the public record.

By the way, the same people you're defending, they wanted to make hindus wear special sashes.

You seem to be able to argue in favour of the butchering of children, let's see you argue in favour of that.

[Black Dog]

Terrorism is a symptom of Islamism.

Discredit and destroy Islamism, destroy Islamist terrorism

So what is Islamism a symptom of?

And how would one destroy Islamism, extactly? An ideaology has no home base, knows no borders and no physical form. You might as well try to destroy ennui.

Furthermore: how does one decide who are adherents to "Islamism"? Even Wahabbist Islam is not monolithic, so who shall be the ultimate arbiter of who is a "good" Muslim and who is a "bad" Muslim?

If you're so interested in fighting for the underdog, why arn't you defending the human rights of secular Iranians? What about their human rights?

What about the human rights of women in Saudi Arabia.

I've not seen a single poster defend any of the backward, superstious, repressive regimes you name, nor apologise for the doctrines of radical Islam. I think it's time you came up with an argument actually rooted in reality, instead of these shoddy ad hominems. They only serve to highlight the weakness of your position and your own dubious moral relativism.

You guys have allied yourself so strongly against liberal values that even when you find yourself standing shoulder to shoulder with Al Queda, you can't justify stepping away from them.

More ad hominem b.s.

If anyone has betrayed Enlightenment values, it's you through your semi-tacit approval of atrocities and crimes committed in the name of thos evalues.

There can be no moral flexibility in condemning crimes against humanity. Let's not kid ourselves: the slaughter of Chechnya's people, the endorsement of repressive regimes like Saudi Arabia by the west, the continued oppression of Paletine are as much crimes against humanity as the slaughter in Beslan.

The difference is you condemn the latter and excuse the former.

I can't make much sense of such a position and the intellectual dishonesty that is required to peddle it. As we've seen (and there's no better example than your quote

By the way, the same people you're defending, they wanted to make hindus wear special sashes.

You seem to be able to argue in favour of the butchering of children, let's see you argue in favour of that.

) there's no level you won't stoop to in an attempt to score cheap rhetorical points and deliberately misrepresent and demonize anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint.

In fact, I'll go further and state your position is intellectually bankrupt and fundamentally fallacious. A mile wide and an inch deep. Full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. If it were otherwise, you'd be capable of articulating a position beyond "Destroy Islamism" and would have no need to slur opponents with false accusations.

[The Terrible Sweal]

....so who shall be the ultimate arbiter of who is a "good" Muslim and who is a "bad" Muslim?

La Ilaha ha Ila Allah