Hey dude,

Check out http://askmuslims.com site.

It's very interesting and It will answer most of the question you may have about Islam. Cool check it out.

Havn't had time too look all the way through it but it's a great idea, thanks for posting the link. ;)

Wow.
The FAQ section needs another faq added...#26: Why Muslims hack off the heads of those that don't follow the teachings of the Quran.

What a bunch of fecal matter.


25. How should Muslims treat Jews and Christians?

The Quran calls them "People of the Book", i.e., those who received Divine scriptures before Muhammad (P). Muslims are told to treat them with respect and justice and do not fight with them unless they initiate hostilities or ridicule their faith. The Muslims ultimate hope is that they all will join them in worshipping one God and submit to His will. "Say (O Muhammad): O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) come to an agreement between us and you, that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall take no partners with Him, and none of us shall take others for Lords beside Allah. And if they turn away, then say: Bear witness that we are those who have surrendered (unto Him)." (Quran 3:64) What about Hindus, Bahai, Buddhists and members of other religions? They should also be treated with love, respect, and understanding to make them recipients of Invitations to Islam.

Have you killed anyone that's offended you today, flysky?

Faq #27: Why are Islamic beliefs instilled in a tangible object [The Qu'ran] rather than ones being?

Anyone have another FAQ they'd like to add before I dumpster this spam?

What about Hindus, Bahai, Buddhists and members of other religions? They should also be treated with love, respect, and understanding to make them recipients of Invitations to Islam.

This very sentence is exactly why there's such a domain. The credibility of Islam is for **** and for very good reason. It’s sad really… People think that some Americans are anti-Islam. They don’t come close to Buddhists and so forth. You see, at least most of the American population (damn near all of it) can still give the true peaceful Muslims the benefit of the doubt as it is a free country. Your Muslim ass would be thrown in prison in Southeast Asia for posting this crap. So why aren't the Islamic terrorists attacking Vietnam if we're much more tolerant of their beliefs? Things that make you go hmmm... In fact, I move to make that very question FAQ #28

:rolleyes: You know it's bs propaganda after you read this...
http://askmuslims.com/women.html

The following list contains some example of rights that Muslim women have:
1. The RIGHT and duty to acquire education.
5. The RIGHT to express her opinion.
6. The RIGHT to argue and/or advocate her cause or opinion to be heard.
7. The RIGHT to vote since 1,421 years.
9. The RIGHT to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
10.The RIGHT to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply don't like him. In Islaam divorce is suppose to be last resort.
11.The RIGHT to keep all her own money. [She is not responsible for maintenance of family].
12.The RIGHT to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
14.The RIGHT to choose husband of her choice.
15.The RIGHT to refuse a proposed and/or arranged marriage.
EXEMPTIONS GIVEN TO WOMEN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCE.
Women are exempt from:
a.. Fasting when they are pregnant or nursing or menstruating,
b.. Praying when menstruating or bleeding after childbirth,
c.. The obligation to attend congregational prayers in the mosque on Fridays.
Muslim women have [and are as well] headed Islamic provinces [and states as well], like Arwa bint Ahmad, who served as governor of Yemen under the Fatimid Khalifahs in the late fifth and early sixth century.
Name any other religion, political theory, or philosophy which offers such a comprehensiveness to women by giving her total control of her life and affairs ??? NONE
Think on this!

Among others, they forgot the rights of women accused of adultry to be stoned while burried up to thier neck in sand.

19. Does Islam promote violence and terrorism?

No. Islam is religion of peace and submission and stresses on the sanctity of human life. A verse in the Quran says, [Chapter 5, verse 32], that "anyone who saves one life, it is as if he has saved the whole of mankind and anyone who has killed another person (except in lieu of murder or mischief on earth) it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind." Islam condemns all the violence which happened in the Crusades, in Spain, in WW II, or by acts of people like the Rev. Jim Jones, David Koresh, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, or the atrocities committed in Bosniaby the Christian Serbs. Anyone who is doing violence is not practicing his religion at that time. However, sometimes violence is a human response of oppressed people as it happens in Palestine. Although this is wrong, they think of this as a way to get attention. There is a lot of terrorism and violence in areas where there is no Muslim presence. For example, in Ireland, South Africa, Latin America, and Sri Lanka. Sometimes the violence is due to a struggle between those who have with those who do not have, or between those who are oppressed with those who are oppressors. We need to find out why people become terrorists. Unfortunately, the Palestinians who are doing violence are called terrorists, but not the armed Israeli settlers when they do the same sometimes even against their own people. As it turned out to be in the Oklahoma City bombing, sometime Muslims are prematurely blamed even if the terrorism is committed by non-Muslims. Sometimes those who want Peace and those who oppose Peace can be of the same religion.

20. What is Islamic Fundamentalism?

There is no concept of "Fundamentalism" in Islam. The western media has coined this term to brand those Muslims who wish to return to the basic fundamental principles of Islam and mould their lives accordingly. Islam is a religion of moderation and a practicing God fearing Muslim can neither be a fanatic nor an extremist.

:eek:

Reading your reactions to this website makes me think you (Oaf and Vibe) really are anti-Islamic. At least Salty points out that this FAQ may very well be true for the majority of Islamic people.

I'll reiterate a sentimate that I often bring up. Some Christians are very bad, but you guys don't hate all of them for it. Some Islamics are very bad, but you do seem hate all of them for it (regardless of the lipservice you give to tollerance, it's failry clear that you think Islam is a flawed religion). That's hypocritical. Either admit that all religions are flawed and evil, or accept them all as equall opinions and seperate the 'extreamist Muslim terrorists' from the Islamic religion. I grew up with a guy who was Islamic (his dad was too), and they were as far from terrorists as you could get. I'm sure you all know what a small percentage of the world's Muslim population is terrorist, so why do you attack a FAQ/website like this when if very well could be representative of most of the world's Muslims??


I do have a problem with the fact that Islam strives to have politics, religion, and society all be the same and tied together. But that's what all religions want even if they don't say it outright. Otherwise why would abortion by and for others be such a big deal to Christians.

Mainly I'm saying this; before you jump to the conclusion that this website is purely propaganda, look at the percentage of Muslims who actually are peacful versus those that wish harm for the US. Then maybe you'll see that this page is an attempt to bridge a social gap that you are perpetuating.

I clearly see and welcome the idea behind such a domain. I just think it would be much more effective to post questions on what we're clearly seeing these Islamic terrorists do. Answer such questions Oaf and myself have presented as a counter argument to what Islam should be.

The information this domain presents is relatively groundless for this reason. Prove them wrong instead of feeding us sugarcoated crap.

I clearly see and welcome the idea behind such a domain. I just think it would be much more effective to post questions on what we're clearly seeing these Islamic terrorists do. Answer such questions Oaf and myself have presented as a counter argument to what Islam should be.


But if the majority of Muslims believe that what the terrorists are doing is wrong and against the heart of the Islamic faith, why would they address these questions. Have you ever seen a Christian FAQ with the question: Why do Christian Priests like commiting sodomy on underaged boys? Of course not. How about: Why do Christians want to control Ireland and kick out the Catholics? It wouldn't be on a FAQ. So why would your similarly condemning questions be asked on the Muslim FAQ?

Reading your reactions to this website makes me think you (Oaf and Vibe) really are anti-Islamic. At least Salty points out that this FAQ may very well be true for the majority of Islamic people.

Well if that's the case then they have every right to be reserved about the religion. The owners of askmuslims.com know this too or else there wouldn't be any reason for such a domain. The major difference is that Oaf and Vib have come in contact with Muslims on a regular basis and still give them the respect they'd want in return on American soil.

I'll reiterate a sentimate that I often bring up. Some Christians are very bad, but you guys don't hate all of them for it. Some Islamics are very bad, but you do hate all of them for it (regardless of the lipservice you give to tollerance, it's failry clear that you think Islam is a flawed religion). That's hypocritical.

Thinking Islam is a flawed religion isn't hypocritical when there's a site dedicated to clearing its name. It wasn't put-out by Bubba and Clint either... it was made by concerned Muslims whom are knowingly loosing face. Doesn't this speak volumes to you?

Sure there are some religious whackos in every religion. But to compare that to Islam in the modern world is laughable. Even the infamous attacks on Oklahoma City were influenced by McVeigh's hatred to the Gov't. There was even faith ties between McVeigh and Islamic Terrorist Ramzi Youssef. You mistake ignorance for the need of security and protection. I'm not an ignorant man in the slightest and I’ve said what i'm about to say before: If I had the choice of inviting an unknown (to me) Muslim or Christian man into my house with my loving wife and children, I’d be much more reserved and suspect about allowing the Muslim to enter my house. This isn't my fault and I don't have to feel sorry in the slightest because of it!

Reading your reactions to this website makes me think you (Oaf and Vibe) really are anti-Islamic.

I'm not anti islamic, I just think it's funny to see how hypocritical some of these people are, they all say islam is the religeon of peace but why so do many of them make excuses for sawing off heads of anyone who doesn't agree with them in the name of thier god?

[QUOTE=MVWRX]I'll reiterate a sentimate that I often bring up. Some Christians are very bad.
Duh
Some Islamics are very bad, but you do seem hate all of them for it (regardless of the lipservice you give to tollerance, it's failry clear that you think Islam is a flawed religion).
Where do you come up with this crap, NOBODY ever said muslims are bad, we said extremists are, the sight specifically says...20. What is Islamic Fundamentalism?

There is no concept of "Fundamentalism" in Islam. The western media has coined this term to brand those Muslims who wish to return to the basic fundamental principles of Islam and mould their lives accordingly. Islam is a religion of moderation and a practicing God fearing Muslim can neither be a fanatic nor an extremist.

He's either denying that fundamentalism exists in thier religeon or saying that they're not really muslims. He is an ass, he's arguing semantics probably because there is no literal translation, guess what, there's still a concept of it no matter what you believe in. So according to him (and you :rolleyes:) if I don't like fundamentalists (extremist is a better word), I hate all muslims because there is no such thing as a fundamentalist.

That's hypocritical. Either admit that all religions are flawed and evil, or accept them all as equall opinions and seperate the 'extreamist Muslim terrorists' from the Islamic religion.
They all do have flaws! I tried to seperate them but you don't want to hear it (is it because you just want someone to argue with?) and the writer denys that there is a difference.

Have you ever seen a Christian FAQ with the question: Why do Christian Priests like commiting sodomy on underaged boys? Of course not. How about: Why do Christians want to control Ireland and kick out the Catholics? It wouldn't be on a FAQ. So why would your similarly condemning questions be asked on the Muslim FAQ?
I believe since christians don't have priests you're talking about catholics. Child molesting priests are pieces of **** too, but they don't make the excuse that they're a** r**ing little boys in the name of thier god.

I believe since christians don't have priests you're talking about catholics. Child molesting priests are pieces of **** too, but they don't make the excuse that they're a** r**ing little boys in the name of thier god.

But they do use their religious power to do it in the first place and they use the church to hide from punishment.


And you say that you have tried to seperate the fundamentalists from the peaceful Muslims. So why is it hard for you to understand that the people who wrote this site are peaceful and don't associate with the extreamists? Who cares if they think extreamists aren't Islamic, that's the same thing Christians say about strange parts of Christianity (that it's not REALLY Christian). The point is, the website isn't a lie and it doesn't 'hold back' questions in it's FAQ. I reiterate, would there be a question about the no-holds-barred war between Irish Catholics and English Protestants in a FAQ about the Christian or Catholic faiths? Hell no, so why would they include your questions about beheading in a Muslim FAQ. It is lame to say that the evil Christians don't use their religion as justification for their acts but that these fundamentalists do...you know that all religions have people who use their religion to do bad things.

Please remember that I am only responding to the assertion that the webpage posted up top is 'bs propaganda.' It's not. It's Islam from the viewpoint of good, peaceful Muslims. Don't attack it just because you want to demonize the faith. Actually, if you were to learn from that website it would make it easier to discern between the Muslims we should be affraid of and the ones who are kjust going about their lives like the rest of us.

If I had the choice of inviting an unknown (to me) Muslim or Christian man into my house with my loving wife and children, I’d be much more reserved and suspect about allowing the Muslim to enter my house. This isn't my fault and I don't have to feel sorry in the slightest because of it!

I would say that situation is contrived. I know you wouldn't invite anyone unknown to you into your home, regardless of religion, because they are unknown to you. The proper question is this: if you DID know two people, both of whom you respected and thought were good people and one was a Christian while the other was Muslim, and you had the choice to invite ONE of them into your house for an evening, would their religion matter? For me it wouldn't...I don't believe it would for you either...but there are other people here who I beleive wouldn't even make friends with a Muslim because of their prejudeces.

Reading your reactions to this website makes me think you (Oaf and Vibe) really are anti-Islamic. At least Salty points out that this FAQ may very well be true for the majority of Islamic people.

I'll reiterate a sentimate that I often bring up. Some Christians are very bad, but you guys don't hate all of them for it. Some Islamics are very bad, but you do seem hate all of them for it (regardless of the lipservice you give to tollerance, it's failry clear that you think Islam is a flawed religion). That's hypocritical. Either admit that all religions are flawed and evil, or accept them all as equall opinions and seperate the 'extreamist Muslim terrorists' from the Islamic religion. I grew up with a guy who was Islamic (his dad was too), and they were as far from terrorists as you could get. I'm sure you all know what a small percentage of the world's Muslim population is terrorist, so why do you attack a FAQ/website like this when if very well could be representative of most of the world's Muslims??


I do have a problem with the fact that Islam strives to have politics, religion, and society all be the same and tied together. But that's what all religions want even if they don't say it outright. Otherwise why would abortion by and for others be such a big deal to Christians.

Mainly I'm saying this; before you jump to the conclusion that this website is purely propaganda, look at the percentage of Muslims who actually are peacful versus those that wish harm for the US. Then maybe you'll see that this page is an attempt to bridge a social gap that you are perpetuating.

- saved me some effort... thanks ;)

MVWRX:

You're correct in a sense.
Muslims/Arabs & Jews are actually Semites.
So that makes me an Anti-Semite. ;)
I'm Anti-Islam, Anti-Muslim, Anti-Arab, Anti-Anyone-that's-Anti-American.
Obviously, this doesn't mean that I dislike all members of the above mentioned groups.

Our beloved Imprezer, IIRC, is Muslim/practices Islam.
Do I hate him?
No, because he doesn't have an uncontrolable urge to seperate me head from my body or kill my children if given the chance.
The vast majority of those that are Islamic are OK people.
I don't like a lot of practices (Dress codes, lack of rights & respect for women, etc) that happen to be associated with Islam.

But, lets look at the web page in question.

Lots of Pro-Islamic info; Religion of Peace, Muslims love everyone, etc.
Not one mentioning that the since the Muslim terrorists are violating the Pillars of Islam, they will be barred from Paradise.

Just like those kid touching Catholic Priests aren't Catholics, and will hopefully burn in Hell along with those Muslims that are terrorists.

But they do use their religious power to do it in the first place and they use the church to hide from punishment.

Yeah, that's an invalid statement, you could make the same arguement for a teacher, a parent or even a nextdoor neighbor. Anyone who is accomplice to anything like this should be prosecuted ass well. But wait, we've strayed off topic, why? Because you're trying to justify and make an excuse for Religious FANATICS by saying that "other people do bad things too!".
Don't attack it just because you want to demonize the faith. Actually, if you were to learn from that website it would make it easier to discern between the Muslims we should be affraid of and the ones who are just going about their lives like the rest of us.
:rolleyes: I didn't attack it because I wanted to "demonize the faith", I just pointed out that the beliefs listed contradict what really goes on in most islamic countries. Got it, probably not, I'll get home and read another post about how I'm an anti islamic bigot who wants to turn the middle east to glass. I DON'T HATE MUSLIMS, I HATE FANATIC EXTREMISTS. But this guy says they don't exist, so where do you go from there. :) :tia:

But, lets look at the web page in question.

Lots of Pro-Islamic info; Religion of Peace, Muslims love everyone, etc.
Not one mentioning that the since the Muslim terrorists are violating the Pillars of Islam, they will be barred from Paradise.

True, but it is rare for Catholics to advertise that some of their priests are going to Hell also...


Just like those kid touching Catholic Priests aren't Catholics, and will hopefully burn in Hell along with those Muslims that are terrorists.

They don't defend those Muslims either though. And, as was brought up a few posts up, they actually DO say that they're not really Muslims if they don't follow the pillars...

It should be said, also, that some of the Catholic priests who were guilty were merely transfered to different churches...if that's not worse than this websites failure to address your concerns about extreamist Muslims...

MVWRX:But, lets look at the web page in question.

Lots of Pro-Islamic info; Religion of Peace, Muslims love everyone, etc.
Not one mentioning that the since the Muslim terrorists are violating the Pillars of Islam, they will be barred from Paradise.
Bingo, but they don't address these questions. They dance around them, If they strait up said "these people and thier actions violate everything our religeon encompasses, therefore they cannot be considered islamic" we wouldn't be having this conversation, but they don't. Also where do you think they come up with thier extremist beliefs? Do they pull them out of thier ass? No they don't, they're taught to them in SOME religous schools by SOME religeous clerics.

TThey don't defend those Muslims either though. And, as was brought up a few posts up, they actually DO say that they're not really Muslims if they don't follow the pillars...
Wrong, SOME of them do, they learn thier beliefs from extremist clerics.

I can't decifer your last two posts Vibe...I think maybe there's a quoting error or something.

12.The RIGHT to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.

Is this before or after the clitorectomy?

Salty or whoever... look at the poster's post count. That deserves an automatic spam nomination.

I can't decifer your last two posts Vibe...I think maybe there's a quoting error or something.
Fixed, sorry :D

Why no Fatwa issued against OBL after 9/11?

That's the first good question/comment I've heard today. It's a great question, and I believe there are many Muslims who would like that question answered.

It's just speculation, but maybe it's because the type of Muslims who are offended by the acts of ObL are also the type that think Fatwas in general are too extreme...just speculation though...

12.The RIGHT to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.

Is this before or after the clitorectomy?

Salty or whoever... look at the poster's post count. That deserves an automatic spam nomination.
That was one of my points, SOME(for you MVWRX so you don't automaticly think I'm talking about ALL things and ALL people anymore) of these rules blatently contradict what goes on in SOME islamic governments.

I would say that situation is contrived. I know you wouldn't invite anyone unknown to you into your home, regardless of religion, because they are unknown to you. The proper question is this: if you DID know two people, both of whom you respected and thought were good people and one was a Christian while the other was Muslim, and you had the choice to invite ONE of them into your house for an evening, would their religion matter? For me it wouldn't...I don't believe it would for you either...but there are other people here who I beleive wouldn't even make friends with a Muslim because of their prejudeces.

You can't say mine in contrived when it clearly shows how numerous people feel. It's just a hypothetical example that still holds valid regardless if you think it’s a worthwhile statement. Duh… If I knew someone was a good person then of course I wouldn't be reserved. You cannot look past religion in this comparison because the fact of the matter is you do not know what lies beneath the surface. My best friend’s (subaruguru) fiancee is Muslim and I think she’s awesome. Then again I know she’s a good person from the start so it doesn’t apply in this case.

Also, if a prejudice means protecting ones family based on not introducing a Muslim into the picture then who's fault is this? The owners of askamuslim.com know this answer, do you? Not introducing what one fears [an unknown Muslim as far as they're concerned] makes their security absolute in this respect. You see, you're confusing fear as prejudice.

I love that whole prejudice argument when it comes to this debate. It's not like Christian girl scouts are as notorious as Islamic extremists. If we’re so prejudice then why in the hell aren’t those girl scouts on the FBI watch list? News flash! It’s because they aren’t killing people like these Muslim extremists are.

I supose I did confuse fear with prejudice...although you could say that fear is the root of all prejudices.

My point about your hypothetical situation is this: you're making the assumption that you're gonna let someone you don't know in your home. With that assumption, you'd rather have someone that is Christian than Muslim be that unknown person. The assumption is a little absurd to begin with seeing as the point of the hypothetical situation is to proove what is more fearsome...because letting anyone that is unknown in is fearsome. BUT, you're right, a lot of people would agree with that statement...because they have false securities in Christianity and false fears of the average Muslim. Like I said...fear is the root of prejudice...

BTW, just because many people feel how you do doesn't mean that it's a good way to feel or that it isn't contrived. I know you know that, though, from other conversations.

I love that whole prejudice argument when it comes to this debate. It's not like Christian girl scouts are as notorious as Islamic extremists. If we’re so prejudice then why in the hell aren’t those girl scouts on the FBI watch list? News flash! It’s because they aren’t killing people like these Muslim extremists are.


Yes, but the Red Crescent is probably feared by some Americans and the Red Cross is considered a great thing by most; even though both have proven to do a lot more good than bad. Comparing little girls of either faith to adolescent-to-middle-aged men of either faith will always have the little girls look more innocent...no kidding, right? Lets compare apples to apples. You and the FBI would be more affraid of a Muslim that works at 7-11 than a white male that works at a gas station...even though we've seen examples of both who have ended up being terrorists/murderers/rapists/all around bad guys.

never mind

Lets compare apples to apples.

*sigh* Your point is irrelevant regarding this topic because the website in question isn't askagasattendant.com or askastoreclerk.com. Nice correlation to the store clerk BTW... you sure you aren't the racist one? ;)

My point is that there's a reason why we're going after these terrorists that match a given mold 99% of the time and not girl scouts or middle aged men for that matter. The fact that most of them happen to be Muslim is NO coincidence either. Therefore, it's not prejudice in the traditional sense. People have the right to be protective and concerned for their own well being without being a bigot. In fact, I’d think this type of behavior is normal given the times and uncertainty.

But I’ll play your game. Compare how many Muslim terrorists there are compared to non-Muslim terrorists and get back to me. And remember, you're comparing apples to apples so petty ELF members don't count even though the FBI added them to be more PC regarding terrorism. I want people that will get 10 consecutive life sentences or a dead or alive bounty on their head. I don’t want those that are destined for a 3-5yr slap on the wrist and early probation for good behavior just so they can continue their insignificant life in Seattle. Answer this please.

That's the first good question/comment I've heard today. It's a great question, and I believe there are many Muslims who would like that question answered.

It's just speculation, but maybe it's because the type of Muslims who are offended by the acts of ObL are also the type that think Fatwas in general are too extreme...just speculation though...


See this is the thing, Media covers only the things which it wants and rest is never told. Every Major scholar in Islam has given fatwa that any Muslim who Kills a innocent person will go to Hell and that does include OBL because he is a Muslims, what else do you want. And Media doesn't cover this for that you can't blame Muslims and thats what Media like and that why We have our quote "Ask Muslims not the Media" Guys insteading of insulting Islam why don't you e-mail from site and get answer instead of just spreading wrong message. We don't have our media yet but we started a site which will probably answer your questions and clear some of the misconceptions. Lastly Yes Women have all the rights which is on our site its people who don't follow them so you can't blame Islam for it. Remember this "Don't judge the book but its cover" Hope to get e-mails from all of you. PEACE

I supose I did confuse fear with prejudice...although you could say that fear is the root of all prejudices.

My point about your hypothetical situation is this: you're making the assumption that you're gonna let someone you don't know in your home. With that assumption, you'd rather have someone that is Christian than Muslim be that unknown person. The assumption is a little absurd to begin with seeing as the point of the hypothetical situation is to proove what is more fearsome...because letting anyone that is unknown in is fearsome. BUT, you're right, a lot of people would agree with that statement...because they have false securities in Christianity and false fears of the average Muslim. Like I said...fear is the root of prejudice...

BTW, just because many people feel how you do doesn't mean that it's a good way to feel or that it isn't contrived. I know you know that, though, from other conversations.

I have to say I agree with virtually everything you have said in this thread. If only it didn't require extreme patience on your part to explain yourself in response to rediculously biased posts... then I'd help you out. You seem to be fairing brilliantly on your own.


Anyway - here's my .02 -

...ethnocentrism strikes again...

C'mon people - remove yourself from your own life experiences and resulting biases for a sec., and consider what this site is attempting to acheive OBJECTIVELY. It is an attempt to bridge the gap and increase understanding and knowledge - exactly the opposite goal of some unnamed (FOXNEWS) media outlets.

But think what you may - if you feel this is simply a site to convert people, recruit terrorists, misinform, whatever ludacrous premonition you are refusing to set aside, then please don't pollute this thread with degenerative, unconstructive BS.

Lastly I got to say to everyone who complained that Islam is not a peaceful religion. If you know the largest population of Muslims is not in Middle East but its in Central Asia and how did Islam spread there. can u Guess....

Let me inform you that it was not spread by war or killing but it was spread by its peaceful message and not a single drop of blood was dropped. That should show the picture. Thank you and once again i invite you to askmuslims.com and encourage you all to e-mail any questions you have. Thank you

Im jumping into this discussion mid-stream, but there is one thing I wanted to interject:

The Muslim world needs to do more to curb their radical elements. Until they do, there will be whole lot of pissed off people who hate Muslims. Im not commenting on the fairness of this reaction, but it is the truth.

http://www.beyondbooks.com/wcu91/3f.asp

In 711 C.E., the powerful Muslim governor of Iraq wished to gain greater control over shipping lanes in the Indian Ocean. He mounted an invasion of South Asia, and the Sind province in modern Pakistan became the first Muslim province in India. For 200 years, it was the only Muslim province in the region.

But in the late 10th century, a Muslim Turkish leader, MAHMOUD OF GHANZI, led a series of 17 invasions into India. In these fierce and bloody conflicts, the raiders destroyed Hindu temples, captured Hindus as slaves, and pillaged the wealth of the Indian cities.

Let's talk more about the spread of Islam into Asia

okay... continued -

"But there have been moments of peaceful coexistence, even under the Moghul Empire that was founded by Muslim invaders. And despite all the conflict, cultural exchange has been enriching for the Muslim and Hindu people. In the past they have enhanced one another's understandings of science, art, and music, and even today they can share the treasures of their cherished land."

And your point is...............? ?Muslims are ruthless killers, all along? Ever heard of the Crusades? Are you surprised that the conversion of faith during the spread of Islam wasn't taken with open arms by hindus, etc.? Or are you simply trying to disprove one thing said by flysky in a weak effort to uphold your views and sh*t on his? I think it's the latter, but that's just a hunch.

I'm not trying to paint a pretty picture of the whole thing, I'm simply trying to look at the entire issue from an objective viewpoint.

And I should mention I wholeheartedly agree with dub2w's last statement. You can feel that way and still realize that the majority of muslims are peaceful.

My point is the B.S line about:

"Let me inform you that it was not spread by war or killing but it was spread by its peaceful message and not a single drop of blood was dropped"



...so I was right. :D

If you're confused, I wasn't trying to start an argument about what religion caused the most bloodspill during it's spreading - I was pointing out your biased take on the issue.

The majority of the Crusades were defensive wars for your information.

1st Crusade 1095
2nd Crusade 1144
3rd Crusade 1187
4th Crusade 1201
5th Crusade 1217
6th Crusade 1270
7th Crusade 1480
8th Crusade 1529
9th Crusade 1571

These dates are appoximations, the 7th, 8th and 9th were not crusades that travelled to the Middle East, but were defensive battles in Italy, Vienna, and a naval battle at Lepanto (Catholics only due to Protestant Reformation) respectively.

The Muslim world must have accidently spread to North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain, in about 400 years without using the sword? so that by the 11th cenntury the forces of Islam had "moved in" to two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities?

When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.

The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.


Is this a quote, or did you type it in a minute? There seems to be a bit of arguable 'opinionated' points in there....

What's biased? I merely pointed out the fact that his statment about a peaceful transistion to Islam in Asia is untrue.

If that was all you did, I wouldn't have responded at all. If you don't understand, I can't help you any further.

I took it from my posts on another Subaru forum where I have had this discussion prior.

Well then, if I knew that, I wouldn't have wasted my time reading it. ;)

I'm not trying to **** on anyones views, but let's at least remain historically accurate, considering the site that this person is promoting is supposed to be informative.

I'm with ya... as long as you're making an effort to objectify yourself.

anybody else with some drivel to add to this streak of nonsense?

Im jumping into this discussion mid-stream, but there is one thing I wanted to interject:

The Muslim world needs to do more to curb their radical elements. Until they do, there will be whole lot of pissed off people who hate Muslims. Im not commenting on the fairness of this reaction, but it is the truth.


Thank you!!!

Thanks for posting some history... people forget that the the crusades were a response to the Muslim conquests.


The majority of the Crusades were defensive wars for your information.

1st Crusade 1095
2nd Crusade 1144
3rd Crusade 1187
4th Crusade 1201
5th Crusade 1217
6th Crusade 1270
7th Crusade 1480
8th Crusade 1529
9th Crusade 1571

These dates are appoximations, the 7th, 8th and 9th were not crusades that travelled to the Middle East, but were defensive battles in Italy, Vienna, and a naval battle at Lepanto (Catholics only due to Protestant Reformation) respectively.

The Muslim world must have accidently spread to North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain, in about 400 years without using the sword? so that by the 11th cenntury the forces of Islam had "moved in" to two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities?

When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.
With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.

The Muslim threat was neutralized economically. As Europe grew in wealth and power, the once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worth a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when he finally expired, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.

Thanks for posting some history... people forget that the the crusades were a response to the Muslim conquests.

That's incorrect.
Muslims were actually defending themselves by conducting a pre-emptive strike against Christian terrorists & radicalized insurgents.

Im jumping into this discussion mid-stream, but there is one thing I wanted to interject:

The Muslim world needs to do more to curb their radical elements. Until they do, there will be whole lot of pissed off people who hate Muslims. Im not commenting on the fairness of this reaction, but it is the truth.
Thanks dub, you hit the nail on the head. You did see clerics denouncing terrorist attacks after 9/11, but in the same breath you also saw SOME of them blaming western society, U.S. foriegn policy etc... There is no excuse for killing poeple , especially innocent civilians. All I've been trying to say throught this whole thread is that you don't see a whole lot of people strongly condemning these actions because thier religeon is being hijacked by violent radical extremists. But somehow I was labeled as an anti islam bigot by two people in particular.

This thread went to **** as soon as history was brought up, nobody was alive then so get over it, christians killed muslims, muslims killed christians, hindus killed muslims balh blah blah
who ****ing cares about **** that happened 500+ years ago. To rational thinking people what happened in the past is irrelevant, do you hate germans because there were many that supported hitler? Were talking about what is going on presantly, not making excuses for what is going on today by bringing up **** that happened 20, 50, 100 or a thousand years ago.

Tell it to Osama he brings up the crusdaes all the time:

I'd love to ;) Mind you he isn't the only one who brings up the past. I just don't see how you can denounce an action and in the same sentance say "but by the way it's your fault, you brought this on yourself" a statement I've seen many U.S. and european clerics and even westerners make. It's the same thing as somebody like Tom Tancredo wanting to glass from sand as an excuse fer retaliation.

Thanks dub, you hit the nail on the head. You did see clerics denouncing terrorist attacks after 9/11, but in the same breath you also saw SOME of them blaming western society, U.S. foriegn policy etc... There is no excuse for killing poeple , especially innocent civilians. All I've been trying to say throught this whole thread is that you don't see a whole lot of people strongly condemning these actions because thier religeon is being hijacked by violent radical extremists. But somehow I was labeled as an anti islam bigot by two people in particular.


Get some balls and name names. If you were referring to me as one of the two (I can't see who else you would be referring to), please quote me labeling you as an anti-islam bigot. My tiff was solely with svx's remarks and attitude - if you think it was also directed at you, well, maybe it should have been.


...back on track...
How do you propose the peaceful muslims squelch the extremism while there are so many things (the FOXNEWS attitude in particular) perpetuating it? If you think that extremists are 'hijacking' the religion, that would only be from your view. Your limited experience with Islam has been mostly negative, I take it. You give the extremists too much credit by saying that they have taken the religion from the peaceful majority, and are only perpetuating this 'hijacking' by disregarding the peaceful majority and their views (although, they are easy to discard, given the media's attention on muslim extremists) If you had more personal experience with muslims, not just what you see on TV, you may have a different take on the whole shpiel.

I only called people biggoted who claimed they would give the website a fair read, but instead jumped on it as being "bs propaganda" almost immediatly after. After I pointed that out, you all started in with the symantic whinning; "But they don't explain why they suck...they don't ask why their fellow Muslims are a$$holes...they don't condemn themselves..." Those are charged, misleading questions to ask of a website who's purpose is to objectively communicate aspects of a religion that none of us understand very well.

Tell it to Osama he brings up the crusades all the time:

September 23, 2001 - "We hope that these brothers (Muslim casualties in Pakistan) are among the first martyrs in Islam's battle in this era against the new Christian-Jewish crusade led by the big crusader Bush under the flag of the Cross; this battle is considered one of Islam's battles...

We ask Allah to make him (Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar) victorious over the forces of infidels and tyranny, and to crush the new Christian-Jewish crusade on the land of Pakistan and Afghanistan...

May 1998 - Bin Laden issued a statement entitled "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Fighting the Jews and Crusaders," in which he stated that "it is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."

February 1998 - Under the banner of the "International Islamic Front for Jihad on the Jews and Crusaders," bin Laden endorsed a fatwa, religious decree, to call for the liberation of Muslim holy places in Saudi Arabia and Israel, as well as the death of Americans and their allies. The decree says, "These crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger and Muslims."

August 1996 - Bin Laden says to the London-based al-Quds al-Arabi newspaper that the Saudis have a "legitimate right" to attack the5,000 American military personnel stationed in Saudi Arabia. "The presence of the American crusader armed forces in the countries of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger and the biggest harm that threatens the world’s largest oil reserves… The infidels must be thrown out of the Arabian Peninsula."

August 1996 - Bin Laden issued a Declaration of jihad, holy war, entitled: "Message from Osama bin Laden to his Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula."


Just a thought... but don't you think there are plenty of neo-con christians who would lke to expel all muslims from the US?
Just because their views aren't recorded and plastered all over the mid-east (like UBL's are here), it doesn't make us that much different ideologically.

Get some balls and name names. If you were referring to me as one of the two (I can't see who else you would be referring to), please quote me labeling you as an anti-islam bigot. My tiff was solely with svx's remarks and attitude - if you think it was also directed at you, well, maybe it should have been.

:tia:
Reading your reactions to this website makes me think you (Oaf and Vibe) really are anti-Islamic. At least Salty points out that this FAQ may very well be true for the majority of Islamic people.


- saved me some effort... thanks ;)

You use the same defense that battered women do:
With each new beating, the scarred and bruised victims of spousal abuse tend to excuse and rationalize the actions of their tormentors. A stubborn unwillingness to accept the proposition that their partners are violent louts plunges these woeful women into a morass of self-deception that spawns only further violence.

Whatever :rolleyes:

I'm not the one who is self-decieved. So are you conceding that there is no possible way to end this conflict besides brute force (equated to killing the abusive spose in your analagy)? I guess we've chosen that route.

But we must remember, spontaneous, aggressive actions (like killing your spouse) have consequences, both good and bad, predictable and unpredictable.

What does go on on ALMOST every islamic gov't on the face of the earth? I sure as hell don't know. Please inform us. You seem to have direct experience, a wealth of knowledge, or a combination... please share.

The reason this was called propaganda is because the "faq's" contradict what goes on in ALMOST evry islamic government on the face of the earth, why is that mr. flysky?

I have family in Riyadh. ;)

womens rights?
http://www.hazara.net/forum/gallery/graphic_images/rawa/stoning.jpg
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Media/Homepage/killing4.jpg

I really doubt there is some secret clubhouse of "Christian Neocons" figuring out how to expel Muslims from the U.S.


Eggs Akley... Our radicals aren't organized and don't have their propagandist messages spread throughout the world... therefore they don't exist?
Try speaking to the main point for once, rather than hingeing on some insignificant detail.

Try speaking to the main point for once, rather than hingeing on some insignificant detail.


Yes, please do.



When have I ever called you a neo-con, a religious zealot, or any of that. I've called you one thing once, a biggot against Islam. And the more you espouse your beliefs regarding that religion, the more I appear to have been correct.

what goes on in ALMOST every islamic government on the face of the earth,

What does go on on ALMOST every islamic gov't on the face of the earth? I sure as hell don't know. Please inform us. You seem to have direct experience, a wealth of knowledge, or a combination... please share.

What does go on on ALMOST every islamic gov't on the face of the earth? I sure as hell don't know. Please inform us. You seem to have direct experience, a wealth of knowledge, or a combination... please share.


Seriously. Who here has lived in an Islamic country? Ok...who has been to one (in a non-military role...). Alright, so who's been making assumptions about life in an Islamic country?

When have I ever called you (svx, I'm guessing) a neo-con, a religious zealot, or any of that. I've called you one thing once, a biggot against Islam. And the more you espouse your beliefs regarding that religion, the more I appear to have been correct.

For the record, I also think he has dug himself into a hole. And it's beginning to back-fill.

Alright, so who's been making assumptions about life in an Islamic country?

:raises hand:






....I assume it isn't the way it's portrayed on TV... and I'm hoping that's a safe assumption. :D

What does go on on ALMOST every islamic gov't on the face of the earth? I sure as hell don't know. Please inform us. You seem to have direct experience, a wealth of knowledge, or a combination... please share.
The reason "ALMOST, MOST and SOME" are in caps from now on is so that I make it as clear as I freaking can that I'm not making a generalization, therefore I don't have to keep being called a bigot.

Also, I'm not a christian, but there is no war going on today in the name of christianity. You can't say the same for islam. Islam, you need to deal with this **** internally or you will be blamed for ir over and over again.

You make it too easy...

So you think the 'jihad' being carried out by muslim fanatics is endorsed by Islam as a whole? What if a foreign muslim said our occupation in Iraq was in the name of Christianity? Gee, then that would end up in both sides feeling righteous for their cause - and the war would never end.

Proof they exist please?

Still hanging on that? Let go. I've got one next door, if you were really questioning their existence.

I've only experienced Islamic nations as member of the military, so my opinion is not valid

Didn't mean to say it's an 'invalid' opinion at all, but I assume that being in a country on military duty gives you a drastically different view of the place than living there for a time and experiencing the society. That's all.

I've only experienced Islamic nations as member of the military, so my opinion is not valid

Nope it isn't. Not when your argument is based on assumptions regarding ALMOST every muslim country in the world.


BTW, are we a christian country? Oh yeah, I forgot countries weren't divided solely by religion.

Just a thought... but don't you think there are plenty of neo-con christians who would lke to expel all muslims from the US?
Just because their views aren't recorded and plastered all over the mid-east (like UBL's are here), it doesn't make us that much different ideologically.

Yes, there are Christians that want followers of Islam expelled.
The difference is that I can't think of one terroristic event perpetrated by said Christian Extremists against the peaceful followers of Islam.

If Spain would have expelled every Islamic person, and prevented any from returning, the train would not have been bombed.
Had the US done the same, the Twin Towers would still be standing.

What if a foreign muslim said our occupation in Iraq was in the name of Christianity? Gee, then that would end up in both sides feeling righteous for their cause - and the war would never end.
Yeah, too bad america is a secular nation with a seperation of church and state.
You're trying to argue a known and admitted fact against a conspericy theory?

Iran
Official religeon 99% muslim
literacy rate 68%

Iraq
Official religeon 97%
Literacy rate 56.8%

USA
Religeons: Prodistant 55% Catholic 27% Jewish 3% Other 5% None 10%
Literacy rate 99%

See a corrolation?

What if a foreign muslim said our occupation in Iraq was in the name of Christianity? Gee, then that would end up in both sides feeling righteous for their cause - and the war would never end.

Not true.

War is won when one of the combatants has had enough or loses the will/ability to continue waging war.
No amount of praying will give a soldier another round for his weapon when the munition factories are destroyed.

Yes, there are Christians that want followers of Islam expelled.
The difference is that I can't think of one terroristic event perpetrated by said Christian Extremists against the peaceful followers of Islam.

And thank you! Why is it that people forget this most important factor when waging this argument?

Everyone realizes that this thread could have come to a complete stop with dub2w's statement, right?

No amount of praying will give a soldier another round for his weapon when the munition factories are destroyed.

It guarantees good shot placement when shooting at infidels wearing body armor... or so I’ve heard. ;)

Not true.

War is won when one of the combatants has had enough or loses the will/ability to continue waging war.
No amount of praying will give a soldier another round for his weapon when the munition factories are destroyed.

Since our war isn't against any particular country, there is no single munitions factory or lynch pin to cripple their ability to fight. And don't even question their will- They have been brainwashed to the point where they will detonate themselves kamikaze-style, disregarding who they take with them. So, as long as we have the ability and will, so will they. I hate to say it, but this vaguely defined 'war on terror' seems to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 'win.' Hence our lack of progress over there.

And don't even question their will- They have been brainwashed to the point where they will detonate themselves kamikaze-style, disregarding who they take with them. So, as long as we have the ability and will, so will they. I hate to say it, but this vaguely defined 'war on terror' seems to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to 'win.' Hence our lack of progress over there.
Darwinisim at its finest. How would you coin the term since it's so vague? And what do you do since the war is "unwinable", submit? Solutions would be nice, and you wouldn't be criticized if you actually posted some. That is why your boy Kerry lost, he didn't have a plan, he only criticized and never really offered anything. It's alot easier to talk smack then it is to solve a problem, wich has become the neo-lib staple.

From their point of view, wouldn't muslim terrorists not be considered 'islamic warriors' by peaceful followers? blah blah fox news blah blah...
I guess they would if the religeon advocated blowing up and sawing heads off of innocent people(christians, jews and MUSLIMS). But I thought the point of this thread is that most don't?

Darwinisim at its finest. How would you coin the term since it's so vague? And what do you do since the war is "unwinable", submit? Solutions would be nice, and you wouldn't be criticized if you actually posted some. That is why your boy Kerry lost, he didn't have a plan, he only criticized and never really offered anything. It's alot easier to talk smack then it is to solve a problem, wich has become the neo-lib staple.

I dont understand...

Are you alluding to darwin because of the suicide bomber reference? That would be okay if they only killed themselves, and not 10-20 schoolchildren in addition.

I can coin the term 'vague war' if I want. What does the specificity of a term have to do with the ability to plaster it everywhere and fill your speeches with it?

And about the 'unwinable' war - Do you think it can be 'won' outright? If not, should we continue with full force, dumping resources into a quagmire? Or should we scale back, reconsider our methods, and possibly try something different.

I'm not smart enough to come up with a better plan, but any invalid could see that the current one isn't really working. Have we gained ground in the two years of this campaign against terror? That's a tough question - even tougher if the answer is no, considering all of the lives, effort, and resources we have put forth.


So, to summarize, I'm not talking smack - we're all part of the same country and have very similar ideals. So, you seem to agree that the current plan isn't working as well as it was planned to. Should we continue losing lives and resources at this rate while gaining no ground against terror until a new plan is proposed by some clear-thinking moderate? Wait, perhaps the WH should concede that this isn't working and come up with a better plan on their own.

I dont understand...

Are you alluding to darwin because of the suicide bomber reference? That would be okay if they only killed themselves, and not 10-20 schoolchildren in addition.
Wow, we agree
I can coin the term 'vague war' if I want. What does the specificity of a term have to do with the ability to plaster it everywhere and fill your speeches with it? Wha I asked was how would you describe it? War on Islam. :rolleyes:

And about the 'unwinable' war - Do you think it can be 'won' outright? If not, should we continue with full force, dumping resources into a quagmire? Or should we scale back, reconsider our methods, and possibly try something different. You're answering a question with a question, What would you do differently?

I'm not smart enough to come up with a better plan, but any invalid could see that the current one isn't really working. Have we gained ground in the two years of this campaign against terror? That's a tough question - even tougher if the answer is no, considering all of the lives, effort, and resources we have put forth.See, you don't know, that's the problem. You can criticize all day long, but when someone asks you for a solution, or what you would do differently you can't offer one.

Suggestions on redirection:
-Stop pretending that Iraq is the 'hot bed' of terrorism. It isn't, Saudi Arabia is. Even most of the 'insurgents' in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and other neighboring countries.
-Admit that we need help from the whole of the international community, not just 'The Alliance of the Willing," to curb terrorism and start serious discussions with other nations on a plan. Along with this, be willing to make concesions and compromises with allies in order to acheive a bigger goal.
-With a strong network of allies (fr/ above), impose harsh economic punishments on any country unwilling to cooperate with the plan of the network of allies.



And one out-there-for-fun: -With the strong network of allies, start an international screening program that comprehensively screens every piece of luggage, freight, etc... Run by a board of delegates from each country, hand picked employees, tons of training, etc...


I'm not saying it would work perfectly instantly, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now (not catching ObL, not stopping international terrorism, not working with other countries except England...)

Everyone realizes that this thread could have come to a complete stop with dub2w's statement, right?


but then we'd have to get back to work

:D

I'm sure Iraqis can think of a few... I know myself that our military isn't a bunch of religious warriors, but we have to do everything to prevent iraqi civilians from thinking so and keep them from breeding new terrorists.

From their point of view, wouldn't muslim terrorists not be considered 'islamic warriors' by peaceful followers? I'd bet they do what they can to distance themselves, even if they don't show it on foxnews.

Again, not true.

The majority of "Islamic Warriors" come from other countries, such as Yemen, Chechnya, and many of the Stans, and are using the the US war in Iraq as justification.
The average citizen in Bahgdad wants these foriegn fighters out of Iraq as much as we do.

Why?
Because Iraqis realize that as soon as these foriegn terrorists are killed/routed/destroyed, the sooner the Americans will leave.

but then we'd have to get back to work

:D

What is this "work" you speak of?

Suggestions on redirection:
I'm not saying it would work perfectly instantly, but it would be a hell of a lot better than what we're doing now (not catching ObL, not stopping international terrorism, not working with other countries except England...)

Thank you, that's all I really wanted.

In the meantime...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/21/iraq.main/index.html

Wow, we agree

So, that isn't darwinism... that's mass murder.



Wha I asked was how would you describe it? War on Islam. :rolleyes:

Who said 'war on islam'? Please use sentences - I don't know about you, but that's how I communicate.

You're answering a question with a question, What would you do differently? Okay, I won't form it as a question: My first step would be to put an end to any fruitless resource drain.

See, you don't know, that's the problem. You can criticize all day long, but when someone asks you for a solution, or what you would do differently you can't offer one.
So, unless we have a better solution, we can't point out that our current methods aren't working? Sounds like the 'side' advocating we remain in occupation is a little stubborn. How about they admit this isn't working and modify the plans? We can't count on Rummy's dated warplan, so you're turning to liberals for an answer? :rotfl: I never thought the day would come.

Answer my questions now.

What is this "work" you speak of?


...so we're all getting paid for this? I thought I was the only one :D


BTW, I apologize for any 'personal attacks' I may have made today - I know they take away from perceived objectivity and the integrity of my views. It was good discussion, I'll jump back in tomorrow morning (when I'm getting paid again;) )

Thank you, that's all I really wanted.




last one for the day: So NOW can you concede that we should reconsider our methods?

So, unless we have a better solution, we can't point out that our current methods aren't working?
You are free to point them out, but nobody is going to take you seriousley unless you can offer an alternative.

Sounds like the 'side' advocating we remain in occupation is a little stubborn. How about they admit this isn't working and modify the plans? We can't count on Rummy's dated warplan, so you're turning to liberals for an answer? :rotfl: I never thought the day would come.
So were losing because we kill more of them than they do of us? The fact that these pieces of **** who are flooding across the porus borders killing innocent people has nothing to do with DOD plans, it's the point that there are many militant islamic "freedom fighters" (whom iraqis don't want either) blowing up innocent people in the name of god who happen to be funded and endorsed by SOME islamic governments. I think we should pull out too, as soon as the iraqi military can fend for its self.

If you stopped a mugger from stealing a purse and happened to defeat the attacker, would you leave the victim, turn around and walk away when you knocked him down? Or would you stay with her to see if he was incapacitated enough not to turn around the second you left and jack her again?

If Spain would have expelled every Islamic person, and prevented any from returning, the train would not have been bombed.
Had the US done the same, the Twin Towers would still be standing.


BS. If a country kicked every Muslim out, it would just be motivation for the terrorists to up the bar and get some real WMDs and use them. Not to mention this idea you suggest is fundamentally opposed to freedom of religion.

Yeah, I'd think expelling all of a certain classification would piss more off than not.

Good reading here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
http://www.sacklunch.net/biography/M/Mohammed.html
http://www.muslimhope.com/WhyDidMohammedGetSoManyWives.htm
http://islam.about.com/cs/law/a/c_punishment.htm


On a lighter note...
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/2550mesolaws.html
If a wife be unfaithful to her husband and then says, "You are not my husband," let her be thrown into the river
:rotfl: It's possible literal translation may have been lost over a few thousand years, but it's still pretty entertaining.

This may be a little too much reading :yawn:
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Yeah flysky!!! How often do spam posts get over 800 views? Good job man!

I am sorry to read so many hate message regarding Islam, only if you could once open Quran and read it with open mind believe me you will respect this religion but I know you won't do it because you are afraid you will proof yourself wrong and agree with me. What I can do is pray for all of us and PEACE. I do invite you to visit the site and if you have any question and you are brave enough e-mail and challenge but when you challenge be respectful. Thank you

2400 attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm

Wow, that's some pretty specific well documented propaganda. ;)

Doesn't make the list incorrect though
Nope, but no matter how accurate it may be, it's from an objective viewpoint so there will always be people to dispute it. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it's like the kkk publishing black crime statistics.

2400 attacks in the name of Islam since 9/11
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/default.htm


WOW Man believe me or not I can submit thousands of sites like those for ever religion. Believe me every religion has extremism but you can't blame the religion for it. Its all the Media, as i said if watch Western Media you will think all East is messed up and if you watch Eastern Media you will think all Westerns are mess up. So don't by media go by the Book.

Nope, but no matter how accurate it may be, it's from an objective viewpoint so there will always be people to dispute it. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it's like the kkk publishing black crime statistics.


Good point Vibeeleven and don't forget Nazi, skin head etc can you take those people and blame religion NO. I hope you get the point.

Nope, but no matter how accurate it may be, it's from an objective viewpoint so there will always be people to dispute it. I'm not saying it's incorrect, but it's like the kkk publishing black crime statistics.


...you mean SUBjective?

WOW Man believe me or not I can submit thousands of sites like those for ever religion. Believe me every religion has extremism but you can't blame the religion for it. Its all the Media, as i said if watch Western Media you will think all East is messed up and if you watch Eastern Media you will think all Westerns are mess up. So don't by media go by the Book.

Agreed. All except for the last half of the last sentence.

...you mean SUBjective?
Ya, sorry :(

Doesn't make the list incorrect though

You are doing the terrorists a favor by not pointing out they don't represent an established, widely held religion. Whose interests does the message of that site serve anyway? It seems to me it could either be the terrorists, or those who want to label the entire religion as terrorists. Any peaceful muslim would disagree that these killings were in the name of his or her religion.

Listen, flysky... you come here and spam a site like it's the supreme answer, ask "what are we [peaceful Muslims] supposed to do", and then assume we're attacking Islam in its entirety. You couldn't more wrong.

The fact of the matter is if you rewind the clock to pre-9/11 you've eliminated those 2400 attacks in the name of Islam. This is huge and has nothing to do with the media. I'm sorry that you have a percentage of lunatics smearing the "peaceful religion' you practice but what in the hell do you expect? Do you expect us to feel sorry for you and accept the religion with open arms? This isn't how the human mind reacts to what it sees happening in the name of Allah.

You want to know what I haven't seen being done yet? I have not seen any Muslims stand hand in hand against these acts. This website is a good start but fatwa is for pussies. Fatwa is pretty-much an indication that these Islamic leaders want what is currently happening at a subatomic level. You may not think this as a Muslim but the rest of the world sees it as meaningless verbage. You want to know what will make me convinced? I want to see every god damn swinging Muslim dick standing hand in hand in the middle of the ****ing desert denouncing these scum till the bitter end. They cast the first stone, NOT us. YOU fix this god damn problem if your religion means that much to you.

I don't feel sorry for you or any peaceful Muslims anymore. Does this mean i'm ignorant? No. I know that the majority of Muslims are peaceful and respect those that are. Hell, I'm good friends with a few. I'm just fed-up with the attacks, the obscured excuses, and the anti-Americanism.

Goodluck with your website. It's the only reason why i'm not dumpstering this thread.

I'm unlocking this thread for one reason only. It's because i'm completely convinced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050723/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_resort_attack;_ylt=Ar23j2VqcjbsdCkjXoelKZus0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)

I'm unlocking this thread for one reason only. It's because i'm completely convinced (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050723/ap_on_re_mi_ea/egypt_resort_attack;_ylt=Ar23j2VqcjbsdCkjXoelKZus0 NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--)


FYI, posting those threads (and this post) took a grand total of about one minute. To expain further, this forum isn't important enough to me that I feel I need to vote to unlock a thread (or lock it, for that matter). I find it interesting that you did not ever explain why you locked the thread -- you assumed I was trying to ***** about the first amendment and ensued with the irrelevant personal attacks (including changing the title of the thread and locking it) [a classic b*tch move, IMHO]. Not to mention dumpstering the poll you created yourself (for what reason? who knows -- maybe because the outcome wasn't what you thought it would be?)

...okay... this post took me about a minute, but there wasn't much to those threads if you didn't already notice.

Enjoy the weather everyone.

I find it interesting that you did not ever explain why you locked the thread

I explained why I locked this thread initially. This entire conversation could have ended with dub2w's post. I said this somewhere back in page2. Then it turned into a meaningless debate when flysky's initial intention was to clearly spam a half-assed site. Regardless of whether or not I approve of his site, I gave him the benefit of the doubt as a step in the right direction while putting an end to the meaningless debate. That said, I did not send it to the dumpster but locked it instead. Why is it so hard for you to grasp this concept?

BTW, this is your third post among two other meaningless threads (both having a condescending title that didn't help you come off as civil, BTW). Would you like me to fax you a picture of me at my computer posting in this forum so you can beat off to it? Get over it already! Go enjoy the weather and run amok with this meaningful life you constantly brag about everytime you get upset here. :rolleyes:

^^^:rolleyes:


I was reading something that I thought applied to our mess of a discussion: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22roy.html?ei=5090&en=0f61cf2f77f36a3c&ex=1279684800&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

It's an interesting viewpoint, at the least - any thoughts?

great link. i encourage all to read it

"Because they felt excluded from Western society" Nice. Good link. I've thought about what that article presents from the very beginning. If you think way back Osama was pissed with the Saudi Royals, etc.

It is an interesting argument that every attack can be linked to infidels on Holy land. 1983 Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut, 1993 WTC bombing, etc. But you also have to look at the human nature side of Osama. He's a human first, right?

I think our presence is a slight part of the problem from the start but not nearly enough to justify attacks. He was betrayed by his family and the Saudi Royals who then sided with the USA. Talk about a slap in the face. You're out to lunch if you think this didn't have a major psychological effect on Osama based on jealousy, envy, and pure anger toward the USA. Then leave it to his influential mind to spread this mentality to the Islamic puppets.

Think of it this way. If it wasn't for the fact he was betrayed do you think he would go out of his way to attack American Soil that's further away from his Buddhist and Hindu counterparts? We're talking about religious practitioners who make-up entire countries across Asia that despise Islam and those that practice it. The USA is across two major oceans and welcomes Muslims (at least more so then) for crying out loud. He thinks we hate Muslims? Not even close in comparison.

You also have to think about what could have went through Osama's mind to initiate the 9/11 attacks. I like to look at Osama's logic as if it were a business move to not have us invade the so-called Holy lands even more. That said, it was the most idiotic business move in the history of man. Think about it… did anyone honestly think that such an attack would have left us [the USA] stagnant? Even Carter would have invaded Afghanistan at the very least. It's all pure bull**** and pent-up anger in Osama's mind.

But what if this simple idea is wrong.? What if we pulled out every single infidel across the Middle East? Is this a risk you’re willing to take? What I’m trying to say is where would we stand if we pull-out every swinging dick and got attacked again? I’d like your opinion on that.

The Western-based Islamic terrorists are not the militant vanguard of the Muslim community; they are a lost generation, unmoored from traditional societies and cultures, frustrated by a Western society that does not meet their expectations. And their vision of a global ummah is both a mirror of and a form of revenge against the globalization that has made them what they are.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I agree with the fact they're lost front-runners. But why is it easier to blame Western society then the actual people? It's called being an Outkast all your life and not having the ability to overcome your weak mind. It's the same thing that triggers high school students to wear white make-up and black trenchcoats in Columbine, Colorado.

It is also interesting to note that none of the Islamic terrorists captured so far had been active in any legitimate antiwar movements or even in organized political support for the people they claim to be fighting for. They don't distribute leaflets or collect money for hospitals and schools. They do not have a rational strategy to push for the interests of the Iraqi or Palestinian people.
Ding ding ding, we have a winner. From what some of my friends in Iraq tell me I think many Afgan and Iraqi civilians realize this.

Yeah I read that. It's pretty obvious too. There's very little chance any Iraqi would go out of his/her own way to blow-up dozens of fellow Iraqis (Sunnis, Shiites, women, children, etc). Even given the fact Sunnis dislike Shiites and Kurds.

It would be like winning a major football game (what the US has accomplished in Iraq despite the bombings) and having a crazed fan (a Sunni) blow-up his own home stadium because it was filled with Shiites. What people often forget is that Sunnis and Shiites coexisted before our occupation without blowing each other up by the dozens everyday. Therefore, it has to be these Islamic extremists and fundamentalists and not the Iraqi citizens. If you took this simple factor out the equation then Iraq would be on its way as a thriving Democracy.

Not only does this smear Muslims good name but it makes the entire religion look extremely selfish.

...being an Outkast...

capitalized AND a k...Andre 3000 and BigBoi fan?

I'm not sure I agree with this. I agree with the fact they're lost front-runners. But why is it easier to blame Western society then the actual people? It's called being an Outkast all your life and not having the ability to overcome your weak mind. It's the same thing that triggers high school students to wear white make-up and black trenchcoats in Columbine, Colorado.

I don't believe that article was incinuating that we should absolve the extremists of blame - rather, I think it was trying to say that their actions aren't an accurate reflection of their 'religion' and the majority of those sharing that religion should not be punished just because of that commonality. Where does western society come in? It is to blame for not easily seeing this discrepancy and consequently grouping extremists with all muslims.

I don't believe that article was incinuating that we should absolve the extremists of blame - rather, I think it was trying to say that their actions aren't an accurate reflection of their 'religion' and the majority of those sharing that religion should not be punished just because of that commonality. Where does western society come in? It is to blame for not easily seeing this discrepancy and consequently grouping extremists with all muslims.

...sounds sooo familiar...

capitalized AND a k...Andre 3000 and BigBoi fan?


I was gonna point that out, but then I'd be seen as condescending and un-civil. :rolleyes:

Stank you very much. ;)

hahaha

I don't believe that article was incinuating that we should absolve the extremists of blame - rather, I think it was trying to say that their actions aren't an accurate reflection of their 'religion' and the majority of those sharing that religion should not be punished just because of that commonality. Where does western society come in? It is to blame for not easily seeing this discrepancy and consequently grouping extremists with all muslims.

I see exactly what you're saying and think it's unfair for the most part. The problem lies in the fact there's numerous forms of Islam without an means for Ignorant Americans to tell them apart. Shame on us? Hardly. We shouldn't have to posses the ability to tell a dangerous Muslim apart from a peaceful one. Sucks. It's an unfair and unforgiving world...

Hear me out... there's too many different forms of Islam to categorize one as "true Islam." It's only considered "true Islam" because it's hard to accept despicable acts as part of religion. This especially holds true for people like yourself along with various Progressive Islamists that practice it peacefully and liberally. Thing is, there's hundreds of thousands of Islamic fundamentalist practitioners and clerics that will gladly follow down the same path as the terrorists. A lot of them do so based on their religious beliefs. Who’s to say they aren’t Muslims, too? Because they aren't peaceful? Well how convenient. :rolleyes:

And the only person to denounce their heinous acts are Islamic scholars and clerics of different sects. If a fatwa is issued by a Sunni cleric it's contradictory to Shiites and most other groups. Basically, it means nothing.... You get all kinds of widely divergent groups with numerous sects and movements among each: Sunni, Qutbee, Shi'a, Kharijites, Wahhabism, Zikri, etc. Each one has their own ideas of what the religion is, and none is required by any "Mosque council" or anything similar to listen to anyone else.

This is exactly why the Pope is such an important figure and why it's necessary for him to have a strong political influence. Most Christian sects respect his views as a powerful and peaceful man. The main thing is that they're united in their peaceful intents more so than all Muslims have ever been.

Simply put, this thread should be titled www.AskpeacefulMuslims.com to be more accurate.

The greatest part about Western Society is that we do not deny rights to any peaceful Muslims regardless of commonality. Ain’t that something? Instead we give all Muslims the benefit of the doubt as being peaceful. If some Americans tread lightly with them then so be it! It's not their fault. Besides, how are we supposed to know what sect they are without blatantly asking and somehow trampling over their sentitive feelings or rights? Futhermore, what are the odds of them being open about their hostility towards Americans if asked? ZERO chance. So it's easier to group them into one category just to be safe. Can't say I blame them.

Who’s to say they aren’t Muslims, too?

The greatest part about Western Society is that we do not deny rights to any peaceful Muslims regardless of commonality. Ain’t that something? Instead we give all Muslims the benefit of the doubt as being peaceful. ...So it's easier to group them into one category just to be safe.


Am I wrong or are you kind of perpetuating the problem that you're complaining about with that first line? I can't pinpoint anything really, but the reasoning for your argument seems somewhat convoluted.

I still think it's this kind of attitude (the first line I quoted of yours) that perpetuates and widens the rift between the west and the mid-east. If we can agree that peaceful muslims want to stop extremism just as westerners do, then we need to focus solely on the extremists, not entire countries. By targeting countries and being somewhat indiscriminant, we give many would-be peaceful muslims a reason not to like us.

I know we mean well, but we have to be sure our goals aren't at all mis-interpreted or over-shadowed by mass civilian deaths. And I agree with what you said about us being welcoming to peaceful muslims - I'm sure you'd agree we're probably too welcoming ;) But once again, we must not let our compassion be over-shadowed by negative publicity. We as a country have little control over the world-wide media, so we have to do what we can to not give them the slightest thing to work with.

You are probably thinking I cut-and-pasted this from some uber-Lib 'how to talk to a conservative' article, but these are truly my own thoughts on the matter. :D

We can agree that peaceful Muslims want to stop extremism just as Westerners do. But how do you get over the initial hump of differentiating the good from the bad. You see, this is why Americans are reserved in their stance toward Islam. All we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt as another free willed American.

By targeting countries and being somewhat indiscriminant, we give many would-be peaceful muslims a reason not to like us.

But how are we being indiscriminate? We're not lumping them all together in the same sects. And if we were truly indiscriminate by your definition then every single Muslim on Western soil would be in a concentration camp. Not to mention every single Sunni would be under lock and key in Iraq, too. Not just the ones that shoot at us. There's no denying that those suicide bombers are the worst kind of Muslims and that most, if not all, of the Insurgents are Sunni or Qutbee. Same thing holds true regarding those specific sects with al Qadea in Afghanistan.

If anything, the Muslim extremists (and would be extremists) are the ones being the most indiscriminate.

It pretty much boils down to Westerner = Crusader = bad = kill. And they'll gladly overlook you, your individuality, and your opinions while cutting off your head with a dull blade.

We can agree that peaceful Muslims want to stop extremism just as Westerners do. But how do you get over the initial hump of differentiating the good from the bad. You see, this is why Americans are reserved in their stance toward Islam. All we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt as another free willed American.


Easy - those who blow themselves up and take several other lives while screaming their god or prophet or whoever's name are NOT a reflection of the religion widely held in many middle eastern countries. Further, to say they were would be doing them a favor. If peaceful muslims are trying to distance themselves from extremists (we're giving them the benefit of the doubt, right?), it would be the opposite of constructive for a westerner to group them all together.


But how are we being indiscriminate? ...
Notice I said 'somewhat indiscriminate.' And I was referring to our occupations overseas with that. Anyway, the american public would have not put up with the lack of discrimination (to some degree, at least) in the Iraq mission had they known that they had been misled regarding any terror connection to Saddam's regime. This all goes back to lumping them all together and breifly ignoring that there are many people there who aren't combatants.


If anything, the Muslim extremists (and would be extremists) are the ones being the most indiscriminate.
Now, wait a second.... what kind of standards are we striving for, nonetheless attempting to establish?

It pretty much boils down to Westerner = Crusader = bad = kill. And they'll gladly overlook you and your opinions while cutting off your head with a dull blade.

So, what would be best to solve or merely aid this problem? Should we adopt the "Middle easterner = Suicide bomber = Fear" mentality and fortify our entire country?

No no no. I'm not saying that and you know it. You said so yourself and agreed with the fact we're welcoming to peaceful Muslims. This won't change because of the more educated society we live in. There are other books available to us in the United States besides the Qu'ran.

Indiscriminating seems more like an argument I’d try to defend so I agree with you wholeheartedly and understand exactly what you're saying. I can see how it combines all of Islam into that questionable category. A category I certainly wouldn't want any part of as a peaceful Muslim.

The problem is that once we become more discriminating we become bigots and more hated than we are now. Face it, it wouldn’t take but half a second for the profiling sirens to go off. As a result of this, we end up working against the very grain of the Democratic, impartial and free society we’re trying to instill.

The problem is that once we become more discriminating we become bigots and more hated than we are now. Face it, it wouldn’t take but half a second for the profiling sirens to go off. As a result of this, we end up working against the very grain of the Democratic, impartial and free society we’re trying to instill.


Hold the boat... we're talking about discriminating WITHIN a specific ethnic group, not between multiple groups. I don't think they (middle easterners) would have a problem with that, besides those whipping up some fervous plot to destroy america. Peaceful muslims would encourage this type of discrimination, once again assuming they don't want to have anything to do with extremist/terrorist activity.

OH SNAPS!!1! ...do I smell civil discussion and thought-out arguments? WE WILL NOT HAVE THIS!!!! ..... **** JooOO!




j/k :D

This is exactly why the Pope is such an important figure and why it's necessary for him to have a strong political influence. Most Christian sects respect his views as a powerful and peaceful man. The main thing is that they're united in their peaceful intents more so than all Muslims have ever been.


This is worthy of a new thread, but this is far from the truth. While many Catholics / Catholic sects might respect the Pope's views, the Pope does not speak for the majority of people who believe in Christ.

nuff said... please continue this most enlightening discussion :D

fo rizzle

So, what would be best to solve or merely aid this problem? Should we adopt the "Middle easterner = Suicide bomber = Fear" mentality and fortify our entire country?

I think, again, that we should expect a greater standard of accountability from the Muslim majority. Let's face it... if the Baptist church started lynching minorities, plenty o' Christians would be up in arms in their defense of those who have been maligned

Note: others would undoubtedly stand up as well, but for the sake of the argument I wanted to use the same cultural / religious group to reinforce the point

We can agree that peaceful Muslims want to stop extremism just as Westerners do. But how do you get over the initial hump of differentiating the good from the bad. You see, this is why Americans are reserved in their stance toward Islam. All we can do is give them the benefit of the doubt as another free willed American.

It pretty much boils down to Westerner = Crusader = bad = kill. And they'll gladly overlook you, your individuality, and your opinions while cutting off your head with a dull blade.

No, I can't agree with you on this.
Why?
Because CAIR (http://www.kfbk.com/moremark.html) funds terrorism.

No, I can't agree with you on this.
Why?
Because CAIR (http://www.kfbk.com/moremark.html) funds terrorism.

Okay, I realize there are several corrupt 'peaceful' lobbying groups, but does that mean the millions of good-willing people in muslim countries also support terrorism? It's hard to weed them out, but we can't let their actions reflect on the religion as a whole, unless we want to perpetuate this apparent 'war of religions.'

It's hard to weed them out, but we can't let their actions reflect on the religion as a whole, unless we want to perpetuate this apparent 'war of religions.'

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to weed most of them out. By "most of them" I mean the worst ones, not the ones funding them or the ones with vague ties to an militant organization. This is why most Americans are reserved towards Muslims. By the time this [your quote below] happens we obviously know they have connections with terrorism: Easy - those who blow themselves up and take several other lives while screaming their god or prophet or whoever's name are NOT a reflection of the religion widely held in many middle eastern countries. The problem is that it's too late by then:
"Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them,". . . It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminent, evident. By then, either there is too little time left for it to save itself, or the price of survival has become crushingly high."

No. It is IMPOSSIBLE to weed most of them out. By "most of them" I mean the worst ones, not the ones funding them or the ones with vague ties to an militant organization. This is why most Americans are reserved towards Muslims. By the time this [your quote below] happens we obviously know they have connections with terrorism: The problem is that it's too late by then:

Sure, too late to prevent that person from committing heinous acts, but not too late to refuse to acknowledge that the acts were in the name of a widely-held, established religion, which many peaceful muslims would like to identify with and not be tied to terrorism. Even our attitude regarding the charred remains of some extremist are important to give thought to. By agreeing with him that he was acting in the name of islam, you're doing him a favor and perpetuating the ideological gap between the west and the muslim world.


So, what do you want us to do? From that last quote you posted (which I do agree with for the most part), it seems that you're advocating we question and be careful dealing with every possible muslim that we come across. And as for a country that has islam as their national religion, there's absolutely no trusting them.... right? I gotta say, this is a major problem that is extremely difficult to deal with. ...There may be a reason why it the most prominent and destructive conflict our nation currently is experiencing.

Sure, too late to prevent that person from committing heinous acts, but not too late to refuse to acknowledge that the acts were in the name of a widely-held, established religion, which many peaceful muslims would like to identify with and not be tied to terrorism.

You think I don't understand this when I clearly do. But how in the hell can this be done? Sure, the radical anti-American views are not widely-held. But those that have these anti-Western type of views are not a force to be overlooked. They may be miniscule in comparison to what's acceptable with the majority (I know this). But the fact of the matter is they're still Muslims that have significant strength in numbers.

Think of it this way...there's estimated to be a little more than 1,000,000,000 Muslims on the planet. If we we're to assume only .1% (there's a decimal before that one) of this population was capable of turning against the USA or already hated the USA to the point of terrorism, then that's still a staggering 1,000,000 Muslims. Not exactly Billy Bob’s militia down the road, is it? This is all speculation but anyone willing to bet that number is higher than .1%? Again, how can we possibly tell?

So how do you separate the Progressives and traditionally peaceful Muslims from those radicals and fundamentalists that are very well capable of havoc? It can't possibly be done so most Americans have no choice but to tread lightly and be more indiscriminate than we'd like to be. What if we went and asked every single Muslim if they were a terrorist? There's no way they'd tell you the truth because it could blow their cover and possible operation. This is assuming they gave you an answer after physically or verbally attacking you because of an offensive question. So where's the trust? It's very limited. It disappeared somewhere around the first thousand attacks in the name of Allah (give or take a 100 attacks).

Do you get the dilemma yet? Are you still surprised why Americans think this way? Can you blame them?


Sorry I missed this:
So, what do you want us to do? From that last quote you posted (which I do agree with for the most part), it seems that you're advocating we question and be careful dealing with every possible muslim that we come across. And as for a country that has islam as their national religion, there's absolutely no trusting them.... right? I gotta say, this is a major problem that is extremely difficult to deal with. ...There may be a reason why it the most prominent and destructive conflict our nation currently is experiencing.

Bingo! This is what i'm trying to say.

There is no quick solution to this problem. As the attacks in the name of Allah decrease the trust will increase. It's that simple.

As the attacks in the name of Allah decrease the trust will increase.


...and as the trust decreases, anti-american sentiment increases, and, in turn, extremism rises and becomes more prevalent.

So, by the time everything is played out, we will have absolutely no trust, and every muslim would be an extremist wishing death on americans. I don't think that's what we're shooting for.

Like you said, it will take time. But in the meantime, we must do what we can to see both sides and not shut-out all muslims from our culture. I guess it's okay that we don't trust them. We just have to do what we can to hide this fact and pretend to be the 'open-armed' America that has compassion for all.


...and if you say 'how can we possibly tell'? regarding the percentage of muslims with the possibility of turning against the US, then why couldn't it be much less than .1%? Also, what we do, how we deal with issues, and our general attitude toward 'would-be anti-american extremists' has a much greater effect on what that percentage may be in a few years than one may initially think.

We just have to do what we can to hide this fact and pretend to be the 'open-armed' America that has compassion for all.

Yes, I agree. And given the circumstances I think we're doing a relatively good job at this.


btw, I edited your post because I mistyped it. It doesn't make sense the way you have it and is not my intended view. please edit it.

Yes, I agree. And given the circumstances I think we're doing a relatively good job at this.


Relative to what? I think we could do [could have done] much better, IMHO.

btw, I edited your post because I mistyped it. It doesn't make sense the way you have it and is not my intended view. please edit it.


??? where? edit what?

Relative to what? I think we could do [could have done] much better, IMHO.

What do you mean relative to what? Muslims have it easy here. I have one neighbor in my court that was an Israeli tank commander and another that's Muslim. Their kids play together with my nephew in the middle of the court! They are both friends with me and with eachother. Your view of anti-Islamic sentiment on American soil is seriously flawed.

??? where? edit what?

No worries. I did it for you.

No worries. I did it for you.


what did you do? I looked for changes and couldn't find anything... was it just a typo?


anyway, I came across another article pertaining to our discussion -- I know this means nothing, but what else do you want them to do?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200507/s1425214.htm

Yeah it was just a typo.

There's nothing they can do. Again, as the attacks in the name of Allah decrease the trust will increase. You play the waiting game and cross your fingers.

Reading article...

What do you mean relative to what? Muslims have it easy here. I have one neighbor in my court that was an Israeli tank commander and another that's Muslim. Their kids play together with my nephew in the middle of the court! They are both friends with me and with eachother. Your view of anti-Islamic sentiment on American soil is seriously flawed.

Now what, we trust them? :rolleyes: You can't argue both sides, now. This is the exact lack of apprehension I was referring to which needs to be more common. And by 'relative to what'?, I meant what are you comparing this 'good job' we're doing to.

You say that our trust should be decreasing, but you also speak of personal experience of a wealth of trust in your own neighborhood. So, if terror attacks 'in the name of islam' increase greatly, would you consider not allowing your nephew to play with their children?