Article

2006-02-08

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Seafarious 2006-02-08 11:15|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 That makes sense. Not a lot of sense, but sense.

In an Islamic kind of way.

I guess.

Posted by Fred 2006-02-08 11:28|| 2006-02-08 11:28|| Front Page Top

#2 Peaceful Islam sounds an awful like Jumbo Shrimp.

Posted by TomAnon 2006-02-08 11:33|| 2006-02-08 11:33|| Front Page Top

#3 That's why "There are violent protests about graphic depictions of violent Islamofascists, in a peaceful kinda way."

Posted by Captain America 2006-02-08 11:34|| 2006-02-08 11:34|| Front Page Top

#4 Yep, it's a real contender against this beauty, from a 2002 Bush speech on aid to Afghanistan:

""Islam is a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion."

Posted by Jules 2006-02-08 11:39|| 2006-02-08 11:39|| Front Page Top

#5 "...but we'll still stop short of an actual condemnation, never mind an apology, of said agression"

Posted by Dripping Sarcasm 2006-02-08 11:54|| 2006-02-08 11:54|| Front Page Top

#6 Jules: Remember your stats class and think bell curve -- the majority of Moslems are trying to live day by day, just like everyone else. By defining Islam in a prosocial direction, the majority will be able to outweigh the radical element. Get it?

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-08 12:02|| 2006-02-08 12:02|| Front Page Top

#7 Remember your stats class and think bell curve -- the majority of Moslems are trying to live day by day, just like everyone else. By defining Islam in a prosocial direction, the majority will be able to outweigh the radical element. Get it?

BS.

Go read Tim Blair's site -- "Fox Turns Chicken" thread -- for a shining example of a moderate Muslim. It's refreshingly honest, and clarifies what we've been witnessing in re the "moderate" response to Islamist terrorism.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-02-08 12:25|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-02-08 12:25|| Front Page Top

#8 No, ex-lib.

Where is the evidence of this 'pro-social direction'? A handful of Muslims' statements that mix "peaceful Islam" and "offensive cartoons" with pleas for non-violence? Phooey.

The Muslim majority's silence tells us what we need to know. They may be trying to live their lives day by day, but in their bulk non-reaction, they demonstrate sympathy for the causes of violent bullies who are defining the religion for them. When we see hundreds of thousands of Muslims protesting this 'false' version of Islam, then I will concede I was wrong. But we won't see that, because doing so would make them apostates in the eyes of their pious brethren. I don't put my faith in a delusional fairy tale that the majority will come around and defy their umma and risk death to protect freedom and democracy.

That this is a horrid discovery makes it no less true. We don't close our eyes to bad things we don't want to see. Our country's future is at stake.

Posted by Jules 2006-02-08 12:30|| 2006-02-08 12:30|| Front Page Top

#9 No, the statement is true. Note the sentence structure -- *a* peaceful Islam, not *the* peaceful Islam. Statistically speaking, at some point in space/time, there exists an Islam that is, indeed, peaceful. Unfortunately, none of the ones that I'm aware of to date fit that criterion; and, each non-peaceful flavour of Islam endured by the outside world does indeed damage the image of Islam as a religion of peace, 'stead of pieces.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-02-08 12:34|| 2006-02-08 12:34|| Front Page Top

#10 "Honesty": people dying in riots over extra cartoons that never appeared in the Jyllands Posten.

"Justice": women executed for being raped.

"Compassion": The sawed-off heads of Paul Johnson, Daniel Pearl and Muslim schoolgirls.

People can change their views, and should when evidence disproves old, outdated ideas. Speak the truth. Islam is not the religion of peace.

Posted by Jules 2006-02-08 12:37|| 2006-02-08 12:37|| Front Page Top

#11 TW: Sounds like...on a planet, far, far away in another gallaxy.

Posted by Captain America 2006-02-08 12:45|| 2006-02-08 12:45|| Front Page Top

#12 Gotta agree with all you say JulesII.

Posted by milford421 2006-02-08 12:53|| 2006-02-08 12:53|| Front Page Top

#13
The statement is factually correct. It does not say that Islam is peaceful. It connotes that there is an "image" that is being destroyed. The same image that is put forth by the undersigned fakers who are more concerned about image than reality.

Code for shut-up already or everyone will see the truth.

Posted by Master of Obvious 2006-02-08 13:07|| 2006-02-08 13:07|| Front Page Top

#14 Where is the evidence of this 'pro-social direction'? A handful of Muslims' statements that mix "peaceful Islam" and "offensive cartoons" with pleas for non-violence? Phooey.

The Muslim majority's silence tells us what we need to know. They may be trying to live their lives day by day, but in their bulk non-reaction, they demonstrate sympathy for the causes of violent bullies who are defining the religion for them. When we see hundreds of thousands of Muslims protesting this 'false' version of Islam, then I will concede I was wrong. But we won't see that, because doing so would make them apostates in the eyes of their pious brethren. I don't put my faith in a delusional fairy tale that the majority will come around and defy their umma and risk death to protect freedom and democracy.

That this is a horrid discovery makes it no less true. We don't close our eyes to bad things we don't want to see. Our country's future is at stake.

Word, Jules. Islam, as a whole, is rotten to the core with its overinflated sense of piousness. Toss in the death sentence for apostasy and you have a no-win situation. The average Muslim is obliged to figure a way out of that no-win situation. We are NOT responsible for the trap they are in. If they cannot escape the vicious circle they are confined in, they will perish with all of those we must exterminate to save our world.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-08 13:29|| 2006-02-08 13:29|| Front Page Top

#15 When we see hundreds of thousands of Muslims protesting this 'false' version of Islam, then I will concede I was wrong. But we won't see that, because doing so would make them apostates in the eyes of their pious brethren.

As it was explained, ol' Mo' said that if you declare another Muslim an apostate, then one of you most certainly is. That's interpreted to mean that if the other guy isn't, then you are, and you're thus condemned on judgement day.

So Muslims -- excepting the truly free ones who are rare as hen's teeth -- will simply not condemn another Muslim out of fear not for physical retaliation, but because their faith will not allow them to harshly judge another Muslim.

I have a feeling "particularly on the word of a kaffir" finds its way into that, but it wasn't stated explicitly.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-02-08 13:44|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-02-08 13:44|| Front Page Top

#16 bell curve

A bell curve has two tails.

At one end of the bell curve (leaving aside exmuslims) we have Muslims like the Imam in Italy who thinks the Koran grants Israel to the Jews. Omar at Iraq the Model. Fouad Ajami. Various folks who are now defending the right of newspaper to print these cartoons, offensiveness be damned. Moving up the curve you have folks who may not "get" western freedoms, but who have common enemies with us. The Kurds. A pretty good portion of the Afghans. Israeli Druze (if you count them as muslims) Then you get the folks who will at least speak out against violence (except when its aimed at israel) Moving toward the peak of the curve you have the silent majority. Moving down from the peak you get the huge numbers who hate the west, who sympathize with Bin Ladenism, who will join a mob when theyre inflamed, but who wont fight for the caliphate. Going further down the curve you get those who will support the caliphate with words, or money, but who wont take up a weapon themselves. At the far end of the curve are the jihadis themselves.

Bush, to his credit, recognized this curve, and has been struggling with how to deal with it.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-08 13:50|| 2006-02-08 13:50|| Front Page Top

#17 from the same article - not quoted

In Baghdad, Iraq's top Shiite political leader criticized attacks on foreign embassies by Muslims.

"We value and appreciate peaceful Islamic protests," said Abdul Aziz al-Hakim. "But we are against the idea of attacking embassies and other official sites."

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-08 13:52|| 2006-02-08 13:52|| Front Page Top

#18 amir taheri in todays WSJ

'"The Muslim Fury," one newspaper headline screamed. "The Rage of Islam Sweeps Europe," said another. "The clash of civilizations is coming," warned one commentator. All this refers to the row provoked by the publication of cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in a Danish newspaper four months ago. Since then a number of demonstrations have been held, mostly--though not exclusively--in the West, and Scandinavian embassies and consulates have been besieged.

But how representative of Islam are all those demonstrators? The "rage machine" was set in motion when the Muslim Brotherhood--a political, not a religious, organization--called on sympathizers in the Middle East and Europe to take the field. A fatwa was issued by Yussuf al-Qaradawi, a Brotherhood sheikh with his own program on al-Jazeera. Not to be left behind, the Brotherhood's rivals, Hizb al-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) and the Movement of the Exiles (Ghuraba), joined the fray. Believing that there might be something in it for themselves, the Syrian Baathist leaders abandoned their party's 60-year-old secular pretensions and organized attacks on the Danish and Norwegian embassies in Damascus and Beirut. . . .

The truth is that Islam has always had a sense of humor and has never called for chopping heads as the answer to satirists. Muhammad himself pardoned a famous Meccan poet who had lampooned him for more than a decade. Both Arabic and Persian literature, the two great literatures of Islam, are full of examples of "laughing at religion," at times to the point of irreverence. Again, offering an exhaustive list is not possible. But those familiar with Islam's literature know of Ubaid Zakani's "Mush va Gorbeh" (Mouse and Cat), a match for Rabelais when it comes to mocking religion. Sa'adi's eloquent soliloquy on behalf of Satan mocks the "dry pious ones." And Attar portrays a hypocritical sheikh who, having fallen into the Tigris, is choked by his enormous beard. Islamic satire reaches its heights in Rumi, where a shepherd conspires with God to pull a stunt on Moses; all three end up having a good laugh.

Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.'

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-08 14:17|| 2006-02-08 14:17|| Front Page Top

#19 Liberal Hawk: Good post on the Islamic bell curve. I think that's exactly right. The problem is that the right hand end of the curve is doing its damnedest, with Saudi/Wahhabi money, to draw the whole upper end of the curve to itself and cow (silence) the rest. Right now, we don't have many good tools to pull things back. Bush's speech may have been correct but it's unlikely to be effective. If these yahoos provoke a real clash of the civilizations they're going to lose but it could be very ugly. i don''t think it will be long now before UK, Dutch, Danish and French vigilante groups will spring up and start firebombing mosques, etc. Then the shit will really hit the fan.

Posted by PC 2006-02-08 14:22|| 2006-02-08 14:22|| Front Page Top

#20
"...protesting this 'false' version of Islam..."

Unfortunately, Radical Islam is the true nature of the beast. The so-called "moderates" have been practicing Islam Lite and now they must be brought into line with the real Islam, or be branded Apostate.

They'll certainly fall in behind their more devout brethern. Bet on it. Ultimately we will either reconcile ourselves to the fact that Islam must be destroyed, or we'll accept that we do not have the spine for it.

It really is, us or them.

I would like to state that I do not believe it would be necessary to kill every muslim, just enough to break their will and shatter their faith in Allan.

We could start by removing recognition of Islam as a legit religion, and classifying it as a cult.

Just something to think about.

FS3190

Posted by Flaitle Snomong3190 2006-02-08 14:28|| 2006-02-08 14:28|| Front Page Top

#21 "Islamic ethics is based on 'limits and proportions...' "

Right. Like chopping off a hand and a foot for theft. Like stoning to death a woman who has sex outside of marriage.

LH-Do you actually believe the drivel of what you posted? Muslims are tolerating this hijacking of their religion because they fear being identified as bad Muslims more than they fear being monstrous human beings.

Posted by Jules 2006-02-08 14:28|| 2006-02-08 14:28|| Front Page Top

#22 This guy Mohammed, the butt of cartoons was one smart cookie. In the eighth century, he figured how to control a chunk of the population, keep it from wandering from his teachings, pursue converts with passion, secure the propagation of his brainchild, and remove any and all reasoned opposition to his screed. I'm not sure he wanted it to get this far out of control, but it has. He must have been extremely envious of both Jesus and the Jews. The former for having followers centuries after his death, and the latter for not succumbing to his pressure. Both of these groups set an example that there was another way, therefore it became necessary to tarnish and remove them.

Posted by wxjames 2006-02-08 14:50|| 2006-02-08 14:50|| Front Page Top

#23 I think Islam has crossed the Rubicon when it comes to Western Preceptions of "religion of Peace".

I think some papers aren't showing the cartoons, not out of cowardice, but out of the last vestiges of defence for their multicultural viewpoint.

Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz 2006-02-08 14:54|| rjschwarz.com]">[rjschwarz.com] 2006-02-08 14:54|| Front Page Top

#24 It's a Allan thing, ~~you~~ we wouldn't understand, or would we? Herbert Spencer's view was that this law of organic progress is the law of all progress. Whether it be in the development of the Earth, in the development of Life upon its surface, the development of Society, of Government, of Manufactures, of Commerce, of Language, Literature, Science, Art, this same evolution of the simple into the complex, through a process of continuous differentiation, holds throughout. Bottom line, a hate based faith, warm climates and goat herding has inhibited their progress. They've simply not evolved.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-02-08 15:02|| 2006-02-08 15:02|| Front Page Top

#25 "He must have been extremely envious of both Jesus and the Jews."

Not to far from the truth there WXJ. I believe Mohammad in his formative years viewed himself a the next great jewish prophet and the Rabbis pretty muched laughed him out of the Temple. His response to dealing with the Sins of Man is mcuh closer to the Jewish faith. He does not recognize the inhernet weakness of the Human character that cannot possibly avoid Sin. I believe his Mother was Christian. To bad he did not incorporate a little more Christian theology to deal a little more humanely with Sin.

Posted by TomAnon 2006-02-08 15:09|| 2006-02-08 15:09|| Front Page Top

#26 "LH-Do you actually believe the drivel of what you posted? Muslims are tolerating this hijacking of their religion because they fear being identified as bad Muslims more than they fear being monstrous human beings."

AFAICT most muslims in the world are barely literate or illiterate peasants in places like Indonesia or Bangladesh who are too busy trying get a field ploughed to bother with any of this.

But as to the others, its not in the nature of most people to run out and protest the wrong actions of their coreligionists. Im a Jew who doesnt support the actions of the Kahanists (radical and violent extremists) but i dont spend much time protesting them. Silence does NOT imply consent in this kind of situation. Silence implies apathy, which, im sorry to say, is the normal human response to things that dont threaten oneself or ones near and dear.

Look at how small the crowds in question actually are. A few thousand in Bangladesh, a country of 90 million plus. In pakistan they had to have the rally in Peshawar, the center of Pashtun looniness. And of course the worst embassy trashing is in Iran, in Syria, or in Lebanon.

Condi today put the blame squarely on Syria and Iran. You may think what she says is drivel, but I do not.

And Amir Taheri has been one of the strongest voices in the WOT, and is published by several conservative newspapers.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-08 15:15|| 2006-02-08 15:15|| Front Page Top

#27 'Islamic ethics is based on 'limits and proportions...' "

Right. Like chopping off a hand and a foot for theft. Like stoning to death a woman who has sex outside of marriage'

which you might notice, is not the law in most muslim countries.

Posted by liberalhawk 2006-02-08 15:16|| 2006-02-08 15:16|| Front Page Top

#28 The myth of the moderate Muslim. I personally know some moderate Muslims, but I am confident that they would be called 'apostate' by the militants. I don't really think the the peaceful end of the bell curve matters very much.

I would rather not have a conflict of civilizations, but the militant Islamists want one. However, if the 'moderate Muslims' do not stop their co-religionists, then we shall have one. The soothing words from some Muslim appologists mean little. Protests against the destruction of Muslims in Jordan means what? When they protest the destruction of Jews, Christins, and Hindus, I will begin to pay attention. I will believe them when they begin to turn over their Islamists.

The longer that the militants perceive weakness in the West, the more agressive they will becomme, and the more destructive the conflict will be.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-02-08 15:17|| 2006-02-08 15:17|| Front Page Top

#29 I would rather not have a conflict of civilizations,

...is precisely what we have.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-02-08 15:26|| 2006-02-08 15:26|| Front Page Top

#30 "Where is the evidence of this 'pro-social "direction'?"

Well, actually, both the Indonesian Moslems and now the Danish Moslems are seeking--as organizations--to define Islam in a liberal, prosocial direction, that is in line with: " . . . a faith that brings comfort to people. It inspires them to lead lives based on honesty, and justice, and compassion."

So keep up on the news --kay?

The lack of social/political aplumb here regarding some posters here, boggles the mind. Influences toward a new sense of self-definition for Moslems is a key aspect in the WOT. When people can define themselves away from radicalism and destruction, it's generally a good thing, and capturing the Moslem mainstream's initiative is critical.

The criticism of Bush on this subject is a facade for promoting certain political agendas ahead of the forthcoming presidential elections.

Next point--do conservatives come out in droves every time the LLL has a demonstration? Does that mean we all ascent to the liberals' "plan" for America? Point being, the Moslem demonstrators actually represent a tiny fraction, number-wise of people, compared with the rest of them who don't show up. It's the fundamentalists that are a lost cause, and it's the fundamentalists who are controlling the media image--naturally--average folk don't make good news stories.

Note: I will reiterate that some posters here have a very specific agenda tied to a very specific special interest group, aimed at achieving certain political gains for their group. They insist on adopting a definition of Islam that is precisely inflexible, so that a perceived threat against their special interest group can somehow be elminated--if enough other people adopt their narrow view. Certain of these posters have advocated for the destruction of Mecca and Medina, for instance, as a way to punish and defeat radical elements within the Moslem world, as well as Islam in general--supposing that all Moslems worldwide will simply keel over and rethink their religion--that the destruction of their religious sites would somehow be "proof positive" that "Allah" doesn't exist and that they've been wrong all this time. A more likely scenario would be along the lines that Allah allowed the Moslem world to see just how bad the West is, in order to motiviate Moslems to band together to try and annihilate the West. A lack of critical thinking is the problem with the "all or nothing" mentality and other agendas people masquerading as purveyors of real political discussion.

By identifying Islamic terrorism with radical Islam, it leaves the door open to new definitions, which many Moslems are willing to walk through. It's a good strategy. The radical elements tried, somewhat successfully, to rally the Moslem world over the cartoon issue. It will backfire, but if nominal Moslems only hear condemnation from the West, they will be played into the hands of the radical elements. And I honestly believe that some posters here fume and spout about how bad all Moslems are in order to achieve a united Islam on the side of the terrorists, which is a really stupid idea. Ever hear of divide and conquer? If you want new ideas to overtake the present idiocy, you have to leave the light on, and at the same time, show no tolerance for terrorism and the kind of things that were orchestrated over the cartoons.

It's not about Bush. It's about the future of the planet.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-02-08 15:31|| 2006-02-08 15:31|| Front Page Top

#31 Yes, Besoeker, we do. Many still don't want to see it, but soon it will be plain to all.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-02-08 15:31|| 2006-02-08 15:31|| Front Page Top

#32 When I was in Africa we knew a few Muslims, mostly farmers. They considered themselves good Muslims, though Wahhabis would have thrown a fit at some of the things they did. The problem revolves around who gets to define who is a good Muslim. Right now the money tree says its the Wahhabis.

Islam has always had its jihadist factions, and they seem generally to have been able to make a good case that they are the true heirs of the tradition. Its our bad luck to be living in a time when they're on the rise again.

That old village was undoubtedly swamped by the tides of refugees years ago (there was a huge camp next door), but I wonder whether villages like it still exist, or whether the Salafists have won them over.

Posted by James">James 2006-02-08 15:47|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com] 2006-02-08 15:47|| Front Page Top

#33 Text of World Islamic Front's Statement Urging Jihad Against Jews and American Crusaders"

signed by Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin (the prominent Saudi oppositionist); Ayman al-Zawahiri, amir of the Jihad Group in Egypt; Abu- Yasir Rifa'i Ahmad Taha, a leader of the [Egyptian] Islamic Group; Shaykh Mir Hamzah, secretary of the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan; and Fazlul Rahman, amir of the Jihad Movement in Bangladesh"

Praise be to God, who revealed the Book, controls the clouds, defeats factionalism, and says in His Book"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)"; and peace be upon our Prophet, Muhammad Bin-'Abdallah, who said I have been sent with the sword between my hands to ensure that no one but God is worshipped, God who put my livelihood under the shadow of my spear and who inflicts humiliation and scorn on those who disobey my orders. The Arabian Peninsula has never -- since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas -- been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies spreading in it like locusts, eating its riches and wiping out its plantations. All this is happening at a time in which nations are attacking Muslims like people fighting over a plate of food. In the light of the grave situation and the lack of support, we and you are obliged to discuss current events, and we should all agree on how to settle the matter.

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam [not further identified] in his books, where he said "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

Posted by Explain This 2006-02-08 15:54|| 2006-02-08 15:54|| Front Page Top

#34 The Organization of the Islamic Conference is the provisional government of the Islamofascist hordes. We don't negotiate with hordes.

Posted by Ulimble Shoth9170 2006-02-08 16:24|| 2006-02-08 16:24|| Front Page Top

#35 Point being, the Moslem demonstrators actually represent a tiny fraction, number-wise of people, compared with the rest of them who don't show up. It's the fundamentalists that are a lost cause, and it's the fundamentalists who are controlling the media image--naturally--average folk don't make good news stories.

And it is these same fundamentalist Islamists who are sidelining insane amounts of wealth that we are obliged to divert towards fighting terrorism instead of curing disease, thwarting poverty, eradicating illiteracy and stopping the ritual abuse of women.

Islam is far and above the major source of terrorism and therefore it must be the one to combat it. Failure to do so means that Islam, as a whole, is responsible for draining the world's coffers to fight their own radical factions. Muslims can do something to fix the problem. They can turn in radical imams and mullahs who advocate violent jihad.

It is not so much that we are pushing the mythical moderate Muslims into the hands of their terrorist brethern, they are allowing themselves to be herded by their radical factions to that side. They obviously lack the will to rebel and vocally decry this perversion of their so-called religion, and thereby have allowed it to be transformed into a political death cult. The west is in no way responsible for this. Islam can clean its own house or be swept into history's dustbin. We have no obligation to save Islam from itself.

If Islam wants to survive, it will have to correct its current deviation from any policy of coexistence. Otherwise it will, by default, position itself as a sufficient threat to the remaining world's population to where it will justifiably be expunged from global culture.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-08 16:41|| 2006-02-08 16:41|| Front Page Top

#36 What if the so called "moderate muslims" actually believe and support the jihad as stated in post#33, but just dont come out and say it or participate physically in the fighting?

Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-08 16:49|| 2006-02-08 16:49|| Front Page Top

#37 What if the so called "moderate muslims" actually believe and support the jihad as stated in post#33, but just dont come out and say it or participate physically in the fighting?

Then they still richly deserve to have their sorry @sses bombed back to the stone age when the time comes. They may consider themselves fortunate if they manage to survive at all.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-08 16:55|| 2006-02-08 16:55|| Front Page Top

#38 Zenster - the simple phrase is: Islam is quickly earning a Darwin Award.

Posted by 3dc 2006-02-08 16:59|| 2006-02-08 16:59|| Front Page Top

#39 The really odd thing is that they are saying almost the exact same thing about the U.S. and its alliance in Iraq and the middle east.

They see the U.S. as evil and the U.S. sees them as evil. It all depends on your point of view.

Posted by Common Sense 2006-02-08 16:59|| 2006-02-08 16:59|| Front Page Top

#40 Islam is quickly earning a Darwin Award.

Works for me.

They see the U.S. as evil and the U.S. sees them as evil. It all depends on your point of view.

Your pathetic attempt at moral relativism sucketh mightily.

America is not busy flying fully loaded passenger airliners into occupied skyscrapers. We are not actively seeking to detonate nuclear bombs or release bio-chemical weapons in other countries.

Please do not try to equate the war on terror with terrorism itself. One begot the other and there is no circularity in the progression.

Posted by Zenster 2006-02-08 17:17|| 2006-02-08 17:17|| Front Page Top

#41 Oh boy the "moral equivalence" shit. Evil is evil. I am an agnostic. I got not dog in religious fights. Even atheists see these people as evil.

Evil is not equal to good. Islam is not equal to "good." Don't try that canard here. You will get bitch slapped.

Posted by Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-02-08 18:40|| 2006-02-08 18:40|| Front Page Top

#42 "I'm a Jew who doesnt support the actions of the Kahanists (radical and violent extremists) but i dont spend much time protesting them. Silence does NOT imply consent in this kind of situation."

Time spent is not finally the point; if Kahanists commit atrocities, would you speak against their actions?

And I disagree-in these days of PILES of Islamic crimes which Muslims know about, silence IS consent.

"It's not about Bush. It's about the future of the planet."

Well, we agree on one thing-this is not about Bush. Nor, I would add, is it about a political agenda. It is about the nature of Islam.

So, we'll disagree. Time will tell. Perhaps lots of time...maybe long past our last days. Our children and grandchildren will know the truth of it.

Posted by Jules 2006-02-08 18:58|| 2006-02-08 18:58|| Front Page Top

#43 Bravo, Jules! Well stated.

Suicide bombing Jerusalem buses is an act that defines itself. An act that can never be justified in any moral sense.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-02-08 19:19|| 2006-02-08 19:19|| Front Page Top

#44 #28: "I would rather not have a conflict of civilizations"

You don't.

As Tim Blair says, for that to happen there would have to be two civilizations in the conflict.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut">Barbara Skolaut 2006-02-08 23:51|| http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html]">[http://ariellestjohndesigns.com/page/15bk1/Home_Page.html] 2006-02-08 23:51|| Front Page Top

23:59 2b
23:51 Barbara Skolaut
23:35 .com
23:34 GK
23:34 .com
23:30 .com
23:28 .com
23:28 .com
23:27 .com
23:25 .com
23:15 Bomb-a-rama
23:12 bigjim-ky
23:10 bigjim-ky
23:06 bigjim-ky
23:05 Bomb-a-rama
23:02 Sock Puppet O´ Doom
22:55 JosephMendiola
22:50 Hupomoger Clans9827
22:50 Zenster
22:48 Cyber Sarge
22:48 Danking70
22:41 Frank G
22:38 Hupomoger Clans9827
22:36 Frank G