Startling news!

[scribblet]

Peter, we should round up all of them (every muslim on earth) and kill them. Done.

/sarcasm

Scottsa and his ilk believe nothing can be done short of killing them all. Fundies of all stripes think the same way.

Maybe you could be a little more specific instead of generalizing and stereotyping, or is it just the usual double standards - this and other statements you've made leave you with little or no credibility.

Maybe you could point out where anyone, fundie or otherwise thinks all Muslim's should be killed !

[Peter F]

Radical Islamists hate the fact that we have a choice regarding religion, so Peter please enlighten us with what you would do to eradicate Radical Islam. Please keep your fingers out of my purse when giving your opinion, the left always like to make the tax payer pay for their version of UTOPIA.

Let them hate us. See? It's easy. Didn't cost you a dime either.

[Liam]

You just had to squeeze in that poverty mantra, huh? It has absolutely nothing to do with "poverty" in their homelands. Most of these morons are born in Britain or in the country they are raising hell in. It has very little to do with support for Israel, except whenever the so-called "moderates" want to blackmail a western government on its foreign policy. "Oppression by western supported dictators?" That doesn't even make sense.

Its actually not a "bunch of reasons." It's actually very simple...all we have to do is listen to what they say instead of what we, looking through a rationalist lens think their reasons ought to be. They want the ascendency of Islam and of the the Ummah. Everything else is secondary. They want to bring the west to its knees because the west works better than Islam, and does so in direct opposition to the precepts of Islam. If Islam is right, then it follows that western ethos must be wrong, and the fact that it works better must be the work of the devil. We're dealing with 6th century savages here, following the most reductionist and intrusive excuse of a religion ever invented. It's just not complicated.

I listed poverty among some of the stated reasons because it has been among some of the stated reasons why some people are drawn to Islamist groups. As is western support and protection of dictatorial regimes, like the House of Saud and Mubarak in Egypt. Israel is a common complaint "on the Arab street", the recruiting grounds for tomorrow's jihadists. I do not mention these because I am some loony liberal or seek to blame the west or justify their thoughts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am simply identifying the things that make it easier for those who favor the New Caliphate to attract the recruits who do their bidding -- particularly among middle class families whose kids should want to be part of the west. Your position on this and mine are not completely apart (that they are the greatest threat and must be defeated), but the key difference is that I want to see into their minds and find explanations that can help us peel off the next generation of Muslims before they become jihadist recruits. You appear to think you have every answer: that they are savages.

If you only ever characterize your enemies as insane or as savages, you will never be able to get into their minds and you will never know how to defeat it. What's the point of trying to understand a savage? A savage lacks logic and when you cannot reason, blowing them up is the only remaining solution. I think the solution is easier -- find out what makes someone join a group like this and find a way to win the heart and mind of potential recruits before it's too late.

By the way, how's that "strawman" list of Pelosi and Dean quotes coming? Oh, and as of 7:00 pm (last time I listened to the news) you're wrong: British police have been leaking that every detainee in their custody is a foreign national, NOT a British citizen among them.

[Peter F]

Now, you're long on condemnations but short on solutions. What should be done?

I've answered that in a number of threads.

So you have. The number being two:

From "An opinion. Not mine originally, but mine now."

Therefore we must strike at this identification, by banning Muslim organization, symbolism and garments that are used to signal that people are Muslim

ScottSA's position (not his originally)

From Britain Dodges Terrorist attacks...

post #34

The solution to Islam is to stomp it out. Outlaw it and all visible symbols of it.

Britain dodges etc

'banning Muslim organization'... 'Stomp it out' is vague in meaning. I can stomp out ants. I can stomp out fires. But I am sure 'stomp out' in regards to islam is a metaphor - so 'stomp out' actually means something else.

Far be it from me to shove words in ScottSA's mouth. Am I correct to say that when you say 'stomp out' you mean to

ban muslim organization and outlaw the religion of Islam and all visible symbols of it? Is that an all inclusive interpretation of 'stomp out'?

[ScottSA]

I listed poverty among some of the stated reasons because it has been among some of the stated reasons why some people are drawn to Islamist groups. As is western support and protection of dictatorial regimes, like the House of Saud and Mubarak in Egypt. Israel is a common complaint "on the Arab street", the recruiting grounds for tomorrow's jihadists. I do not mention these because I am some loony liberal or seek to blame the west or justify their thoughts. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am simply identifying the things that make it easier for those who favor the New Caliphate to attract the recruits who do their bidding -- particularly among middle class families whose kids should want to be part of the west. Your position on this and mine are not completely apart (that they are the greatest threat and must be defeated), but the key difference is that I want to see into their minds and find explanations that can help us peel off the next generation of Muslims before they become jihadist recruits. You appear to think you have every answer: that they are savages.

If you only ever characterize your enemies as insane or as savages, you will never be able to get into their minds and you will never know how to defeat it. What's the point of trying to understand a savage? A savage lacks logic and when you cannot reason, blowing them up is the only remaining solution. I think the solution is easier -- find out what makes someone join a group like this and find a way to win the heart and mind of potential recruits before it's too late.

A couple things out of the way first...I believe I said "most of these morons are born in Britain or whatever state they are raising hell in" or something to that effect. I wasn't actually being specific to this event, although I can see how you might think that. I characterize Islamic savages as savages because they are just that. Allow me to expand on that thought:

I have studied WW II at some length way back when and as an ongoing project, and from a fair bit of parsing through the events, memos and documents that survive, it's easy enough to identify what exactly Nazi began as and why it became what it became. It's common currency to either write off Hitler as mad or as evil incarnate, but he was really neither; he was a revolutionary. He found his ability as an orator, tagged it on to a sort of aboveground/underground racialist philosophy of volk, rather than nationalism, per se, and then flogged it through the 20s, into eclipse in the late 20s, and then blew through the doors of the Reichstag in the 30s. Those who have tried to identify Nazism have always been frustrated, because in the end, it appears that in Hitler's mind Nazism was simply a ongoing revolution of the people, more akin to a sort of Maoist continuing revolution than anything Stalin ever came up with. All his actual policies, of liebenstrau, anti-Jewish laws, everything, were directed at continuing revolution and the ascendency of the Aryan volk.

This ideology, if it can be called that, directed his every action. Borrowing from marxism, he treated the niceties of alliance politics as mere bourgeois trifles, which is why what he said to foreign leaders never much mattered. He said what people wanted to hear as a matter of course, merely as an aid to a furtherance of his aim. It wasn't that he had no morals, it was simply that he operated on a different moral scale; similar to a communist revolutionary's; with utter contempt for bourgeois morality and utter contempt for the "weakness" of others.

But what was striking is that he had fully exposed his plans two full decades beforehand. Anyone who had read Mein Kampf knew pretty much exactly what he claimed he was going to do, with the Jews, with leibenstrau, with the German volk. Hell, they even knew which direction he was going to go for living space.

Hitler and Nazism were really quite simple. So simple in fact that no one quite "got it," because it didn't fit with their way of thinking. Buckets of apologist ink have blaming Versailles for the rise of Hitler, and while his minor and temporary rise in the early 20s might have been explained away through this mechanism, it was moot by 1933. People have blamed the world depression, but that too was largely irrelevant to Hitler's rise. Nazism was simply action mated with racial pride, interpreted as a sort of nationalism that has managed to get a bum rap since. Hitler was a revolutionary who did nothing more than what he said he would do, and managed to succeed not because of any particular cleverness, but because he knew the opposition was weak, and most importantly because the opposition persisted in disbelieving him.

In many ways we have the same situation with Islam. There's nothing particularly clever about it; we all know precisely what it wants, because it's not only told to our faces on a weekly basis by the videotaped confessions of bombers, would be bombers, and bin laden himself, but it's written right in the Koran. So-called "moderate" Muslims play the same good cop game of part blackmail and part soothing soto voce, blaming "Israel" when it makes sense, declaiming "radicals" when it helps their cause, claiming Islam is a "religion of peace" as a matter of course, taking care to forget that peace means "submission" within the context of Islam. We know they are full of shit, because we see it not only in the blackmail, but we can read right in the Koran that it is quite acceptable to lie to the non-believer if it will further Islam. They tell us what we need to hear, and we file it away as a promise, while they might as well be passing wind in their own minds. Meanwhile Islam moves steadily forward on every front, in our institutions, and in our midst. There won't be any panzer divisions racing across frontiers, because unless we wake up fairly suddenly, there won't be any need of them.

Yet, like the western politicians in the thirties, we're running around constructing the most elaborate conceptual choreographies in an effort to make it make sense in a context of western rationalism. We needn't bother. It's not poverty or Israel or dictators. It's really quite simple.

[margrace]

Islamists hate us for our freedom is most certainly not a liberal strawman. Just look to the rightwingers' "Dear Leader" -- I'm sure I could google up dozens of times Bush and Cheney have claimed they hate us for our freedom. Can you find as many quotes from Nancy Pelosi or Howard Dean (or any of the liberals of your choice) saying it's all about poverty?

Truth is, it's a combination of things including politics, a sense of helplessness and national failure, a religion that does not allow dissent or free thought, dislike of western liberal democracies, support for Israel, poverty in their homelands, oppression by western-supported dictators, etc. It's a bunch of reasons.

You just had to squeeze in that poverty mantra, huh? It has absolutely nothing to do with "poverty" in their homelands. Most of these morons are born in Britain or in the country they are raising hell in. It has very little to do with support for Israel, except whenever the so-called "moderates" want to blackmail a western government on its foreign policy. "Oppression by western supported dictators?" That doesn't even make sense.

Its actually not a "bunch of reasons." It's actually very simple...all we have to do is listen to what they say instead of what we, looking through a rationalist lens think their reasons ought to be. They want the ascendency of Islam and of the the Ummah. Everything else is secondary. They want to bring the west to its knees because the west works better than Islam, and does so in direct opposition to the precepts of Islam. If Islam is right, then it follows that western ethos must be wrong, and the fact that it works better must be the work of the devil. We're dealing with 6th century savages here, following the most reductionist and intrusive excuse of a religion ever invented. It's just not complicated.

Sounds like you need to go back and read some history and find out who the savages were several centuries ago Perhaps a talk with Saladine or a good read of his history would help.

Are you saying Saladin was not svage in his behavior toward those whom he conquered. That is an interesting proposition. I think you might be hard pressed to support that. or have you been watching that Ridley Scott movie too much. Heck - even that silly-ass film acknowledges that had Jerusalem not held out and pushed for terms - a slaughter would have been had. But Saladin did wear makeup - and that, I guess - made him civilized.

[margrace]

Its actually not a "bunch of reasons." It's actually very simple...all we have to do is listen to what they say instead of what we, looking through a rationalist lens think their reasons ought to be. They want the ascendency of Islam and of the the Ummah. Everything else is secondary. They want to bring the west to its knees because the west works better than Islam, and does so in direct opposition to the precepts of Islam. If Islam is right, then it follows that western ethos must be wrong, and the fact that it works better must be the work of the devil. We're dealing with 6th century savages here, following the most reductionist and intrusive excuse of a religion ever invented. It's just not complicated.

Sounds like you need to go back and read some history and find out who the savages were several centuries ago Perhaps a talk with Saladine or a good read of his history would help.

Are you saying Saladin was not svage in his behavior toward those whom he conquered. That is an interesting proposition. I think you might be hard pressed to support that. or have you been watching that Ridley Scott movie too much. Heck - even that silly-ass film acknowledges that had Jerusalem not held out and pushed for terms - a slaughter would have been had. But Saladin did wear makeup - and that, I guess - made him civilized.

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

[ScottSA]

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

Wrong century, wrong continent, wrong enemy, and it's quite likely it was never said. But nice try.

The phrase was "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset," (kill them all. God will know his own) and it was supposedly, but not very likely, said by the Abbot of Citeaux during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in Southern France.

Oh, and today is 2007, btw.

[kimmy]

Well, it's not all about you. And saying Islamists hate us for our freedom is most certainly not a liberal strawman. Just look to the rightwingers' "Dear Leader" -- I'm sure I could google up dozens of times Bush and Cheney have claimed they hate us for our freedom.

It's a shallow catch phrase. But is it really that far off the truth?

Truth is, it's a combination of things including politics,

Well hey, who doesn't get worked up over politics?

a sense of helplessness and national failure,

It's the Religion of Failure.

a religion that does not allow dissent or free thought,

They do not hate us for our freedom, it's just that freedom is not halal.

dislike of western liberal democracies,

They do not hate us for our freedom, they just hate our willingness to exercise our freedom.

support for Israel,

They hate Israel's freedom.

poverty in their homelands,

Because it's the Religion of Failure.

oppression by western-supported dictators,

But you said a moment ago that their religion doesn't permit dissent or free thought. Shouldn't they *like* oppression?

etc. It's a bunch of reasons.

etc. It's a bunch of baloney.

They don't hate us for our freedom. They hate us because we're not them.

Our freedom just happens to be one of the things that differentiates us from them.

-k

[scribblet]

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

You must be stuck in a time warp, but now that you mention the Crusades, give your head a shake and read about them. The Crusades were in answer to aggressive Islamist conquest and expansonism, not pretty on both sides, and that includes Saladin who was no less brutal then the radicals today.

Their are similarities of course, the main one being that Islam is again expanding and exporting its hate and way of life.

[margrace]

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

Wrong century, wrong continent, wrong enemy, and it's quite likely it was never said. But nice try.

The phrase was "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset," (kill them all. God will know his own) and it was supposedly, but not very likely, said by the Abbot of Citeaux during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in Southern France.

Oh, and today is 2007, btw.

[margrace]

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

Wrong century, wrong continent, wrong enemy, and it's quite likely it was never said. But nice try.

The phrase was "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset," (kill them all. God will know his own) and it was supposedly, but not very likely, said by the Abbot of Citeaux during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in Southern France.

Oh, and today is 2007, btw.

Yes and the old saying is the he who does not know and understand history will have to relive it. I did not bring up the subject of the 6th century terrorists. So like an American do you know the world history, it was always my favourite subject in school. I have heard that story but I also followed the history of the Crusades.

[Sulaco]

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

Wrong century, wrong continent, wrong enemy, and it's quite likely it was never said. But nice try.

The phrase was "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset," (kill them all. God will know his own) and it was supposedly, but not very likely, said by the Abbot of Citeaux during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in Southern France.

Oh, and today is 2007, btw.

Yes and the old saying is the he who does not know and understand history will have to relive it. I did not bring up the subject of the 6th century terrorists. So like an American do you know the world history, it was always my favourite subject in school. I have heard that story but I also followed the history of the Crusades.

Grade school? Junior High? When exactly was it your favorite subject.

It may be true that he who does not know and understand history will have to relive it. It is also true that he who does know history will get to relive it - but he'll be bored.

[ScottSA]

Oh yes and how about those wonderful Christian Crusaders who murdered all those Christians because they couldn't tell the people apart

Wrong century, wrong continent, wrong enemy, and it's quite likely it was never said. But nice try.

The phrase was "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset," (kill them all. God will know his own) and it was supposedly, but not very likely, said by the Abbot of Citeaux during the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathar heresy in Southern France.

Oh, and today is 2007, btw.

Yes and the old saying is the he who does not know and understand history will have to relive it. I did not bring up the subject of the 6th century terrorists. So like an American do you know the world history, it was always my favourite subject in school. I have heard that story but I also followed the history of the Crusades.

"Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It" was George Santayana, not an "old saying," I am not American, the "Crusades," as a topic, don't as a rule include the Albigensian Crusade, being as it was a different thing entirely, and I hated history in grade school, but loved it ever since. Are we heading somewhere with this discussion?

[Liam]

A couple things out of the way first...I believe I said "most of these morons are born in Britain or whatever state they are raising hell in" or something to that effect. I wasn't actually being specific to this event, although I can see how you might think that. I characterize Islamic savages as savages because they are just that. Allow me to expand on that thought:

I have studied WW II at some length way back when and as an ongoing project, and from a fair bit of parsing through the events, memos and documents that survive, it's easy enough to identify what exactly Nazi began as and why it became what it became. It's common currency to either write off Hitler as mad or as evil incarnate, but he was really neither; he was a revolutionary. He found his ability as an orator, tagged it on to a sort of aboveground/underground racialist philosophy of volk, rather than nationalism, per se, and then flogged it through the 20s, into eclipse in the late 20s, and then blew through the doors of the Reichstag in the 30s. Those who have tried to identify Nazism have always been frustrated, because in the end, it appears that in Hitler's mind Nazism was simply a ongoing revolution of the people, more akin to a sort of Maoist continuing revolution than anything Stalin ever came up with. All his actual policies, of liebenstrau, anti-Jewish laws, everything, were directed at continuing revolution and the ascendency of the Aryan volk.

This ideology, if it can be called that, directed his every action. Borrowing from marxism, he treated the niceties of alliance politics as mere bourgeois trifles, which is why what he said to foreign leaders never much mattered. He said what people wanted to hear as a matter of course, merely as an aid to a furtherance of his aim. It wasn't that he had no morals, it was simply that he operated on a different moral scale; similar to a communist revolutionary's; with utter contempt for bourgeois morality and utter contempt for the "weakness" of others.

But what was striking is that he had fully exposed his plans two full decades beforehand. Anyone who had read Mein Kampf knew pretty much exactly what he claimed he was going to do, with the Jews, with leibenstrau, with the German volk. Hell, they even knew which direction he was going to go for living space.

Hitler and Nazism were really quite simple. So simple in fact that no one quite "got it," because it didn't fit with their way of thinking. Buckets of apologist ink have blaming Versailles for the rise of Hitler, and while his minor and temporary rise in the early 20s might have been explained away through this mechanism, it was moot by 1933. People have blamed the world depression, but that too was largely irrelevant to Hitler's rise. Nazism was simply action mated with racial pride, interpreted as a sort of nationalism that has managed to get a bum rap since. Hitler was a revolutionary who did nothing more than what he said he would do, and managed to succeed not because of any particular cleverness, but because he knew the opposition was weak, and most importantly because the opposition persisted in disbelieving him.

In many ways we have the same situation with Islam. There's nothing particularly clever about it; we all know precisely what it wants, because it's not only told to our faces on a weekly basis by the videotaped confessions of bombers, would be bombers, and bin laden himself, but it's written right in the Koran. So-called "moderate" Muslims play the same good cop game of part blackmail and part soothing soto voce, blaming "Israel" when it makes sense, declaiming "radicals" when it helps their cause, claiming Islam is a "religion of peace" as a matter of course, taking care to forget that peace means "submission" within the context of Islam. We know they are full of shit, because we see it not only in the blackmail, but we can read right in the Koran that it is quite acceptable to lie to the non-believer if it will further Islam. They tell us what we need to hear, and we file it away as a promise, while they might as well be passing wind in their own minds. Meanwhile Islam moves steadily forward on every front, in our institutions, and in our midst. There won't be any panzer divisions racing across frontiers, because unless we wake up fairly suddenly, there won't be any need of them.

Yet, like the western politicians in the thirties, we're running around constructing the most elaborate conceptual choreographies in an effort to make it make sense in a context of western rationalism. We needn't bother. It's not poverty or Israel or dictators. It's really quite simple.

Thanks for the post -- it was a good read and much more nuanced than "they're savages". As I said before, I don't think our positions are all that far apart. We share a common objective: how to defeat the enemy before us. There's much in your post I can agree with.

[jbg]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...d=1770&ito=1490

Believe it or not, the British bombers were Islamic! I'm sure it must have come as a shock to those who were convinced it must have been the Templars or the Scottish Council for the Legalization of Sheep Shagging or some such, but it's true!

What's even more surprising is that it's not "ignorant misguided impoverished youth." It's bonafide brilliant folks, well educated, and well to do! Well, this just doesn't fit with any of our leftist stereotypes...we can't blame poverty, or ignorance, or racism...why, all that's left to blame is Islam. But it's a religion of peace, right?

To paraphrase an old Star Trek episode, a lot of Islamic apologists must be saying: "Does not compute. Does not compute. *sputter* *fizzle* Does not com...*clack*"

I maintain that it's a Jewish group known as London Federation of Temple Youth, popularly known as "lifty", doing a post Bar Mitzvah project (link).

[jbg]

It doesn't fit the right-wing stereotype that they hate us for our freedom, either. If anything, the perpetrators of these acts (and 9/11) have more access to freedom, wealth and education than the proverbial man on the Arab street. "Hating us for our freedom" is just as ignorant and as foolish a position as blaming it all on poverty. But don't let balance get in the way of a well-formed prejudice.

I disagree.

They feel that societies should not have great degrees of freedom. More importantly, they think that the role of the "people of the book" other than Muslims is as "dhimmis". They want the people in the rest of the world, who they deign to allow to survive, to recognize their "superior" status. They feel threatened by the fact that societal progress, based upon freedom, is leaving them in the Stone Age dust.

Yes, they do hate us for our freedom, and for our success. The two go hand in hand.

[jbg]

Ok,ok. I promise not to convert...no matter what happens.

Now, you're long on condemnations but short on solutions. What should be done?

I've answered that in a number of threads.

And your answer?

[WestViking]

What is unique about turning despotism into a religion? Dictators do not suffer criticism gladly. When you hold power by force of arms, your first priority is to ensure the loyalty of the palace guard. If you don’t, you will soon be a dead dictator. The next priority is to ensure the serfdom of the population and things like the freedom of religion and expression are dangerous. People without fundamental freedoms and rights have a difficult time mounting a rebellion.

Someone please explain to me the difference between the six most savage dictators in history and the Islamic Mullahs who control most Muslim nations.

[jbg]

Someone please explain to me the difference between the six most savage dictators in history and the Islamic Mullahs who control most Muslim nations.

During the height of the "Iron Curtain" era many compared Communism to a religion. And the French, during the French Revolution, "dethroned" G-d and substituted "Reason".

WestViking, you're more right than you realize.

[Liam]

..."Oppression by western supported dictators?" That doesn't even make sense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19606530/

<<He denounced Egypt, Jordan and Saudi at length. He warned Iraq’s Sunni minority against seeing them as allies, saying they pretend to support the Sunni cause while allying themselves with the United States.

If Saudi Arabia controls Iraq or Sunni regions of Iraq, “the Iraqis would then suffer the same repression and humiliation which the people suffer under Saudi rule under the pretext of combating terrorism — i.e., combatting jihad and preserving American security,” al-Zawahri said.

The al-Qaida deputy also laid out an al-Qaida strategy, saying in the near-term militant should target U.S. and Israeli interests “everywhere” in retaliation for “attacks on the Islamic nation” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.

The long-term strategy calls for “diligent work to change these corrupt and corrupting (Arab) regimes.” >>

Just doing as you say: listening to their self-articulated reasons for jihad. Want to tell me how off the mark I was?

[ScottSA]

..."Oppression by western supported dictators?" That doesn't even make sense...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19606530/

<<He denounced Egypt, Jordan and Saudi at length. He warned Iraq’s Sunni minority against seeing them as allies, saying they pretend to support the Sunni cause while allying themselves with the United States.

If Saudi Arabia controls Iraq or Sunni regions of Iraq, “the Iraqis would then suffer the same repression and humiliation which the people suffer under Saudi rule under the pretext of combating terrorism — i.e., combatting jihad and preserving American security,” al-Zawahri said.

The al-Qaida deputy also laid out an al-Qaida strategy, saying in the near-term militant should target U.S. and Israeli interests “everywhere” in retaliation for “attacks on the Islamic nation” in Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia.

The long-term strategy calls for “diligent work to change these corrupt and corrupting (Arab) regimes.” >>

Just doing as you say: listening to their self-articulated reasons for jihad. Want to tell me how off the mark I was?

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that what you meant by "oppression" was governments that oppressed al Queda. Yes, there are rather a lot of them. I take it you feel that we should un-ally ourselves with those countries and instead embrace Islamic theocracies that spring up waving scimitars and howling for our blood? After all, if al queda doesn't like them...

Do you really mean to argue this line of reasoning?

[Liam]

Oh sorry, I didn't realize that what you meant by "oppression" was governments that oppressed al Queda. Yes, there are rather a lot of them. I take it you feel that we should un-ally ourselves with those countries and instead embrace Islamic theocracies that spring up waving scimitars and howling for our blood? After all, if al queda doesn't like them...

Do you really mean to argue this line of reasoning?

I honestly expected better of you. How foolish of me. Show me where in any of my responses I claimed that any of the reasons alQaeda or its supporters cite as inspiration to join jihad are justified?

The truth is alQaeda uses resentment of domestic political oppression within the Arab world as a recruiting tool. They use US support of government in countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia to gain recruits. Identifying that as a recruiting tool is not an assessment of its legitimacy on my part. Beyond that, I certainly never suggested changing US policy to appease alQaeda -- it can't be done (and even if it were possible, not only would appeasement of alQaeda be immoral, but history has shown that appeasement never works as a long-term strategy).

For someone who claims to know alQaeda's motivations based solely on their written word, you seem to have difficulty looking to the written word of people within this debate.

[Rue]

Stop pandering to them, since September 11 the left and the left/left have tripped over themselves globally granting special powers to Islam's followers. New rules in schools, special prison cells. Christ the list globally is endless, the left call it "Reasonable Accommadation" also knowns as kissing their asses. Islam is a minority in our government and should be treated as such, to date the ass kissing has only helped to aid the abusers in believing they are the victims. I don't think so, but hay the left like to pander to Muslims because they like the immigrant vote. As per usual the left have no answers to the problems they create so they look to the cons for leadership.

I think what you said is harsh but can not be dismissed. While I do not condone smeering and hating Muslims because of terrorists who claim to be Muslim, I think there is no doubt there have been a lot of phony politicians pandering for votes.

A prime example is Carolyn Parrish in Mississauga. You may remember this fat cow as the former LIberal MP who stomped on a doll of George Bush. She deliberately pandered to her heavily Palestinian-Muslim constituency and still does as she is now an Alderman and continues her antics trying to pander their vote so she can become Mayor.

I criticize politicians who pander but I do not think any of us have the right to start lashing out at Muslims. That is precisely what terrorists want-for you to react and retaliate against innocent Muslims.

No I will not pretend Muslim clerics are NOT involved in the terrorism, but I will also state this still does not mean we can spit on the entire faith and people. There are bad Muslims and there are good Muslims. The fact that there are bad ones does not mean we should hate them all. That is b.s.

As for the cowardly Muslim cleric who called for terror in Pakistan and then tried to sneak away dressed as a woman, I say-what did you expect and no do not blame all Muslims for this coward or for that matter Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, etc. Resist the urge. We need moderate Muslims to understand we do not hate them so they can trust us and help us defeat these idiots.

Please don't expect moderate Muslims to have confidence in the rest of the world to know the difference between them and terrorists and want to help us, if we spend our time slurring ALL Muslims negatively. The terrorists want you to hate all Muslims precisely so you will not form an alliance with moderate Muslims and defeat them-and that is how they will be defeated-with an alliance of us and Muslims not us against all Muslims.

[Argus]

Peter, we should round up all of them (every muslim on earth) and kill them. Done.

/sarcasm

Scottsa and his ilk believe nothing can be done short of killing them all. Fundies of all stripes think the same way.

Errrr...mind pointing me to a post where I said that? If you do, I'll point you to the post where you said you like to mate with turnips and goats.

Thats the point Scottsa, you're long on condeming islam, but short on what should be done.

Give us leftie immigrant-tolerating wooses some options please.

Stop bringing Muslims into our countries. Stop even recognizing their passports. Don't allow aircraft or ships from Muslim countries to enter the West nor any of their citizens. Don't allow any travel between the West and Muslim nations. Until they get their act together and get control of their extreme elements.