Fitna: Controversial Film On Islam

[Kiwon]

See for yourself what the fuss is about. It was released on Thursday and pulled on Friday due to death threats against England's ISP employees.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Facts are stubborn things.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TxP-SOA0_0

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkVmBx4dyG0

[Harlan Huckleby]

Islam is in a struggle with itself.

The documentary emphasizes the crazies in the muslim world, and I don't mean to suggest they are just a tiny group.

Why do you suppose we haven't had a major terrorist attack in this country in the last 6 years? Do you believe that our anti-terrorist efforts are so scary-good that we have defeated them? If Madtown can get 400 of his relatives into the country, it can't be THAT hard for terrorists to sneak in.

I think the answer is that the extreme elements in the Islamic world are still relatively weak. We need to have policies that encourage moderates in Islam's internal civil war.

[texaspackerbacker]

Wouldn't you say we are doing just that in Iraq--and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Egypt and Jordan and Iran and just about everywhere else?

The cut and run advocates seem to think Muslims just aren't suited for things like freedom and representative democracy. It may be true that the teachings of Islam tend to poison minds against normalcy. I tend to think, though, that Muslims are first and foremost people, and as such, respond positively to pretty much the same things all people respond positively to--including freedom and having a stake in their own political and economic destiny.

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's not credible to argue that our presence in Iraq has accomplished anything positive in the war on terrorism. Radicals have been strengthened in the Islamic world, relations badly damaged among our traditional allies. It was a misstep.

I bought into the notion of bringing democracy to Iraq. I think Iraq is generally on a positive path. We have to continue to help Iraq on this long, painful journey. I don't believe them Democrats will behave sharply different from the Republicans.

Ironically, if Bush had somehow been more quickly successful in Iraq, he would have overreached in Iran and made an even bigger disaster.

[Iron Mike]

I bought into the notion of bringing democracy to Iraq.

Not me. I think we should have paved the place when we were on our way to Baghdad in the first Gulf War, built some refineries and pumped all of the oil we could've out of both Iraq and Kuwait.

I care more about some cheap gas than I do about the rights of some nomadic herdsman in the desert. And at least I'm honest to myself about it. Whatever happened to "to the Victor go the spoils?"

I'll be willing to bet I'm not the only person here that would rather see gas for less than $2.00/gal than have Achmed have a chance to vote for someone who will screw him over, anyway. :roll:

[neil38133]

To bolster Iron Mikes point, all of that oil would still be 1000 feet under the sand if it wasn't for American and British technology and smarts. And the nomads would still be nomads. So an argument could be made that we do have some moral rights here - they own the sand over the oil, but we're the ones who made it worth more than just sand.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.

We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, I mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religous beliefs are being protected.

[GrnBay007]

We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religous believes are being protected.

Yeah, it's a crock when the boy scouts aren't allowed to have a meeting at the public school after hours if they intend to say the boy scout oath...

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country...

[Iron Mike]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.


IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.

The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?

My sympathies lie with the Israelites.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.


IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.

The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?

My sympathies lie with the Israelites.

Western Civilization is under attack by their Jihad, and to think it is just about religion is also laughable, lets not forget about the profitable opium fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

[Iron Mike]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.


IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.

The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?

My sympathies lie with the Israelites.

Western Civilization is under attack by their Jihad, and to think it is just about religion is also laughable, lets not forget about the profitable opium fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ah, but to the Muslim it's ALL about religion. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism, also known as petro-Islam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

Read what the radical Islamists think about other religions, and then read what moderate Islamists write. Wait a minute, the moderate Islamists don't write anything, they live in fear of the radical Islamists.

Is there such a thing as a moderate Islamist? Because I sure haven't heard from any. All I read about is how much they want to get rid of the Jews.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'll be willing to bet I'm not the only person here that would rather see gas for less than $2.00/gal than have Achmed have a chance to vote for someone who will screw him over, anyway. :roll:

If we tried to colonize Iraq and take their oil, we'd be facing global terrorism 1000 times worse than what we see today.Great Britian tried to occupy Iraq back in the twenties, didn't go so well.

The idea of promoting democracy is that democracies are far less likely to start wars. Wars are no damn good for business.

War ! good god, y'all
What is it good for?
Asolutely nothin
Say it, say it now War!

[Deputy Nutz]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.


IMO, the whole Middle Eastern problem boils down to Muslim vs. Jew, as it has for thousands of years. We're deluding ourselves to think that we're any more than bit players on this stage.

The only question that can be posed is do we back Isaac or Ishmael?

My sympathies lie with the Israelites.

Western Civilization is under attack by their Jihad, and to think it is just about religion is also laughable, lets not forget about the profitable opium fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ah, but to the Muslim it's ALL about religion. Don't forget that Saudi Arabia is the home of Wahhabism, also known as petro-Islam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/saudi/analyses/wahhabism.html

Read what the radical Islamists think about other religions, and then read what moderate Islamists write. Wait a minute, the moderate Islamists don't write anything, they live in fear of the radical Islamists.

Is there such a thing as a moderate Islamist? Because I sure haven't heard from any. All I read about is how much they want to get rid of the Jews.

You're absolutely right, the average Muslim only understands religion, but the Bin Ladens of the world do these acts of terrorism not only based on religion, but also to protest and protect their other interests outside of religion.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/10/04/MN67246.DTL

[Iron Mike]

You're absolutely right.

You've just moved yourself up to my all-time most-favorite PackerRats poster!!!!! :worship:

[Joemailman]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.

We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, I mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religous beliefs are being protected.

Yep, there are about 5 million Muslims living in this country. And yet the greatest domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country was by a white Christian male who had served in our military. So maybe judging people by stereotypes isn't such a great idea.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.

We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, I mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religious beliefs are being protected.

Yep, there are about 5 million Muslims living in this country. And yet the greatest domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country was by a white Christian male who had served in our military. So maybe judging people by stereotypes isn't such a great idea.

Whats your point? there are 180 million Caucasians in this country, I assume just by the percentages a white person would commit the largest "Domestic" assault on this country. five million, I will take 180 million over 5 million any day.

Anyways I was a bit fired up about what I saw and what I read, when in reality I should probably rethink some of the things I said. I rarely post off the cuff like that.

[Jimx29]

Islam has surpassed Roman Catholicism as the world's largest religion, the Vatican newspaper said Sunday. (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/V/VATICAN_MUSLIMS?SITE=MIDTF&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT)


*edit added*

Also, check out the 1 hour 17 minute video "Obsession" posted here in 10 parts:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE5A96CBDC2582F7

[Harlan Huckleby]

See for yourself what the fuss is about. It was released on Thursday and pulled on Friday due to death threats against England's ISP employees.

It seems pretty straightforward to me. Facts are stubborn things.

Part 1 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TxP-SOA0_0

Part 2 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkVmBx4dyG0

The Evolution of Religious Bigotry
Courage without consequence.
By Jonah Goldberg

I just watched Fitna, a 17-minute film by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Released on the Internet last week, Fitna juxtaposes verses from the Koran with images from the world of jihad. Heads cut off, bodies blown apart, gays executed, toddlers taught to denounce Jews as “apes and pigs,” protesters holding up signs reading “God Bless Hitler” and “Freedom go to Hell” — these are among the powerful images from Fitna, Arabic for “strife” or “ordeal.”

Predictably, various Muslim governments have condemned the film. Half the Jordanian parliament voted to sever ties with the Netherlands. Egypt’s grand imam threatened “severe” consequences if the Dutch didn’t ban the film.

Meanwhile, European and U.N. leaders are going through the usual theatrical hand-wringing, heaping anger on Wilders for sowing “hatred.”

Me? I keep thinking about Jesus fish.

During a 1991 visit to Istanbul, a buddy and I found ourselves in a small restaurant, drinking, dancing, and singing with a bunch of middle-class Turkish businessmen, mostly shop owners. It was a hilariously joyful evening, even though they spoke little English and we spoke considerably less Turkish.

At the end of the night, after imbibing unquantifiable quantities of raki, an ouzo-like Turkish liqueur, one of the men gave me a worn-out business card. On the back, he’d scribbled an image. It was little more than a curlicue, but he seemed intent on showing it to me (and nobody else). It was, I realized, a Jesus fish.

It was an eye-opening moment for me, though obviously trivial compared with the experiences of others. Here in this cosmopolitan and self-styled European city, this fellow felt the need to surreptitiously clue me in that he was a Christian just like me (or so he thought).

Traditionally, the fish pictogram conjures the miracle of the loaves and fishes as well as the Greek word IXΘΥΣ, which means fish and also is an acronym for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” Christians persecuted by the Romans used to draw the Jesus fish in the dirt as a way to tip off fellow Christians that they weren’t alone.

In America, these fish appear mostly on cars. Recently, however, it seems Jesus fish have become outnumbered by Darwin fish. No doubt you’ve seen these, too. The fish is “updated” with little feet on the bottom, and “IXΘΥΣ” or “Jesus” is replaced with either “Darwin” or “Evolve.”

I find Darwin fish offensive. First, there’s the smugness. The undeniable message: Those Jesus fish people are less evolved, less sophisticated than we Darwin fishers.

The hypocrisy is even more glaring. Darwin fish are often stuck next to bumper stickers promoting tolerance or admonishing that “hate is not a family value.” But the whole point of the Darwin fish is intolerance; similar mockery of a cherished symbol would rightly be condemned as bigoted if aimed at blacks or women or, yes, Muslims.

As Christopher Caldwell once observed in the Weekly Standard, Darwin fish flout the agreed-on etiquette of identity politics. “Namely: It’s acceptable to assert identity and abhorrent to attack it. A plaque with ‘Shalom’ written inside a Star of David would hardly attract notice; a plaque with ‘Usury’ written inside the same symbol would be an outrage.”

But it’s the false bravado of the Darwin fish that grates the most. Like so much other Christian-baiting in American popular culture, sporting your Darwin fish is a way to speak truth to power on the cheap, to show courage without consequence.

Whatever the faults of Fitna, it ain’t no Darwin fish.

Wilders’ film could easily get him killed. It picks up the work of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, who was murdered in 2004 by a jihadi for criticizing Islam.

Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

It’s fine for Muslim moderates to say they aren’t part of the cancer; and that some have, in response to the film, is a positive sign. But more often, diagnosing or even observing this cancer — in film, book or cartoon — is dubbed “intolerant,” while calls for violence, censorship, and even murder are treated as understandable, if regrettable, expressions of anger.

It’s not that secular progressives support Muslim religious fanatics, it’s that they reserve their passion and scorn for religious Christians who are neither fanatical nor violent.

The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith. I think this is a false juxtaposition, but I would have a lot more respect for the folks who believe it if they aimed their brave contempt for religion at those who might behead them for it.

— Jonah Goldberg is the author of Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/am/v2n2/darwin-fish.jpg

http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/125/b2363_125.gif

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41BYXHTJXZL._AA280_.jpg

[Harlan Huckleby]

Fitna is provocative, but it has good reason to provoke. A cancer of violence, bigotry, and cruelty is metastasizing within the Islamic world.

The film provokes by stigmatizing Islam as being inherently evil.

One could also takes quotes from the bible, and juxtapose christians intimidating people at abortion clinics, or bombing federal buildings in Oklahoma.

I find it ironic that Goldberg turns a blind-eye to a film that paints muslims with a broad brush within a column that complains about the stereotyping of christians. Bizarre.


The Darwin fish ostensibly symbolizes the superiority of progressive-minded science over backward-looking faith.

Perhaps. But aren't Jesus fish a display of moral superiority and rightousness?

The blindness of people is unbelievable. Its the Hatfields and McCoys all over the place.

[Kiwon]

One could also takes quotes from the bible, and juxtapose christians intimidating people at abortion clinics, or bombing federal buildings in Oklahoma.

HH, go ahead and make the movie. Sounds like you're off to a good start.

Which sayings by Jesus are you going to use? Now don't let the fact that Jesus never picked up a sword or advocated violence like Muhammad did stop you. Jesus never actually killed people (He kept them from being killed and raised the dead), but maybe you could say that He metaphorically killed them (you know, death to self and being spiritually born again).

Okay, you've got two images so far - people publicly demonstrating to stop the death of children and a domestic terrorist act by a white supremacist as a protest against the government.

Hmmmm.....it's a little murky here, these images just don't have the same power as kidnapping and beheading people (the beheading part is done in the abortion clinic) and people choosing to jump from a 100-story building to avoid burning to death.

I don't mean to criticize but you've got to use better examples if you want your moral equivilance argument to succeed. It doesn't have to be perfect, I mean, liberals or "progressives" don't care that much about facts, but, you know, the average person has some common sense. He's not as easily swayed by specious analogies that feed one's biases.

But, whatever you do, don't stop. Just keep thinking out loud. You'll come up with those examples that prove your premise. I know it’s not easy. The facts just aren't there, but keep at it.

[swede]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/04/01/conversion_a_one-way_street

Although the differences between wahabbi Muslims and Christians are fuzzy or unimportant and trite to some posters, one difference of some significance is that converts from Christianity to the Muslim faith do not require bodyguards.

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/04/01/conversion_a_one-way_street

OH MY GOD. What a right wing nut. "And why is CAIR encouraging other Muslims to run for office in state, local and federal races? Does CAIR have an agenda that could lead to triumphs of a different sort? "

The Muslims are going to destroy us from within!!!


Although the differences between wahabbi Muslims and Christians are fuzzy or unimportant and trite to some posters,

:?: You're comparing Christianity in general with the most fundamentalist Muslim movement in the world. (One that is relatively small, compared to all the muslims in the world.) Excuse me, you aren't making the comparison, "some posters" are.


one difference of some significance is that converts from Christianity to the Muslim faith do not require bodyguards.

I don't beleive this characterization, at least as applied to most muslims in our country.

Christianity has an unbelievably bloody record. Just look at European history and weep.

I can read a newspaper. It does seem like the Muslim world is going through a giant convulsion. They have many more extremists.

Violence is not inherent to Islam, in fact I beleive this is a 20th century outburst.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Which sayings by Jesus are you going to use?

I don't know about Jesus, but do I get to use the old testament?


I don't mean to criticize but you've got to use better examples if you want your moral equivilance argument to succeed.

I agree that there are many more extreme muslims running around the planet at this particular juncture in history. Two or three hundred years ago, picture was quite the opposite. The violence our generation sees has NOTHING to do with religious teaching or philosophy. Its a political/cultural conflict within the Muslim world.

The scriptures of Christianity, Judaism, Islam are GREATLY overlapped. If somebody wants scriptural justification for violence, people in all three religions can and have found it.

[Kiwon]

I don't know about Jesus

That's pretty obvious.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I know enough about his teachings to say you give him a bad name with your hate mongering. With friends like you, Jesus don't need no enemies.

[mmmdk]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.

We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, I mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religous beliefs are being protected.

Yep, there are about 5 million Muslims living in this country. And yet the greatest domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country was by a white Christian male who had served in our military. So maybe judging people by stereotypes isn't such a great idea.

I'm with Joe yet radical religious people are a menace to the world.

[Deputy Nutz]

I am buying less and less of the mild manner peaceful and loving Muslims.

We are coddling muslims in this country alone. Allowing them the right to prayer in schools and public sanctuaries, I mean while other religious activity is being stamped out, but yet the right of muslims to carry on their religious beliefs are being protected.

Yep, there are about 5 million Muslims living in this country. And yet the greatest domestic terrorist attack in the history of this country was by a white Christian male who had served in our military. So maybe judging people by stereotypes isn't such a great idea.

I'm with Joe yet radical religious people are a menace to the world.

I guess I will be more tolerating when I hear more muslims denouncing the actions of the muslim extremists, instead they attack this film, and although it is screwed to view muslims in a very dim light in my opinion they don't do enough to condemn the abuse of civilization by these muslim extremist. If it wasn't for muslims decapitating people held hostage, and their acts of terrorism this film would have probably never been made.

[texaspackerbacker]

I see nothing racist or wrong in any way to have or display bias against Muslims. We are in the early stages of a clash of civilizations with them that if lost, would result in a new dark age of tyranny and depravity for the world--including America if they got their way.

While obviously, all Muslims are not bad, there should be a presumption that they are that must be overcome.

A poll was taken in Palestine the other day asking whether people approved of murder of Israeli civilians. An incredible 84% said yes. That's the kind of people we are dealing with. I wonder what the percentage would be if a similar poll was taken of Muslims in America. Not as high, undoubtedly, but near or over 50% wouldn't surprise me.

One only needs to remember the large scale favorable demonstrations in Muslim cities after 9/11 to realize the despicable mindset we are up against. This is clearly a good versus evil world, and they are the primary evil that we, as good, are facing.

[Freak Out]

A poll was taken in Palestine the other day asking whether people approved of murder of Israeli civilians. An incredible 84% said yes. That's the kind of people we are dealing with.

What was it Jesus said (I think about a Romans pack?)?
Walk a mile in another's shoes?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's obvious that many Muslims are violent, far too many Muslims look the other way, and violent Muslims use scripture to justify their actions.

My point is that it is not evidence of their religion being inherently violent or inferior. You have to look historically to see that this is a problem of our era.

Very foolish to demonize Muslims for being Muslims. Just plays into hands of extremists.

[texaspackerbacker]

While their religion may not be "inherently evil", the deformed and barbaric philosophy and agenda of the followers of that religion--I would argue the large majority of the adherents of that religion--have indeed, evolved into something very evil.

Over at the JSOnline forums, we had a Muslim poster some of you may remember--TH87 (I wonder which if any forum he ended up at). The guy was articulate and decent, and even though I disagreed with him on most things, I had great respect for him. His position was that the Koran and basically the entire Muslim religion had been co-opted and taken over by the radical clerics who promote the unspeakable barbarism and evil which nowadays characterizes Islam. When I asked him how he explained the apparent approval of so many Muslims--probably a huge majority--for the horrors perpetrated by a comparative few, he stated that intimidation had a lot to do with it--the decent Muslims being afraid to speak out against what he saw as relatively few committing and promoting acts of terror, etc. I don't really buy that idea, but I do hold it out as having some degree of credibility--mainly because the person stating it had credibility.

Whether they have majority support, or merely a majority intimidated into a pretense of support, the Islamic fundamentalists CLEARLY have an agenda of inflicting the horrors of Sharia Law on as big a segment of the world's population as possible. And if that agenda succeeds, all that is good and decent and now considered civilized goes down the toilet. Tyranny, poverty, depravity in many different forms would become the way of life--as they already have--in any country or area dominated by Islam.

THAT is why I contend that we are in a clash of civilizations with Islam that if we do not win, could damage and devolve common decency and enjoyment of life in the world to a thing of the past.

[Harlan Huckleby]

We can't win a clash of civilizations with Islam. Are we gonna occupy Indonesia and Pakistan? Ultimately, Islam has to cure itself. They are going through their own internal conflict that we can't solve. We can only poke at it from the margins.

I urge you to refuse to have a clash of civilizations. And that means keeping a cool head and not demonizing all Muslims.

Religion really has very little to do with the problem.

[Scott Campbell]

We can't win a clash of civilizations with Islam. Are we gonna occupy Indonesia and Pakistan? Ultimately, Islam has to cure itself. They are going through their own internal conflict that we can't solve. We can only poke at it from the margins.

I urge you to refuse to have a clash of civilizations. And that means keeping a cool head and not demonizing all Muslims.

Religion really has very little to do with the problem.


Well, you sound a little like the French prior to Hitler's Blitzkrieg. Sometimes waiting is not much of a strategy.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I'm not advocating inaction. Caution, realism. Like in Pakistan, we have to let them deal with the problem, as frustrating and slow as that may be.

And especially we have to be careful about the rhetoric. The extremists goal is to get us to define the conflict as a battle of civilizations or religous war. I'm beginning to suspect Kiwon & Tex are terrorist agents, a sleeper cell.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm not advoocating a comprehensive preemptive war against Islam when I talk about "clash of civilizations". Certainly, we shouldn't provoke the LEAST VIRULENT Muslim country with the biggest population of Muslims in the world, Indonesia. Also, we should do all we can to cultivate the Islamic countries who are fairly loyal to us.

When I talk about "clash of civilizations", however, I mean more on a micro- level. We are a Christian country--a country of Judeo-Christian values and heritage. Instead of de-emphasizing that and getting all pc--politically correct, we need to highlight what WE ARE in comparison to what THEY ARE--what WE stand for--freedom, compassion, humanity, prosperity, and enjoyment of life, compared to what THEY stand for--tyranny, hate, lack of compassion and humanity, poverty, and austerity.

Too many people in this country, and probably a bigger percentage than that in Christian Europe think of Islam and Muslims as morally equivalent and merely some kind of a good neighbor in the world--instead of a vile force that has a goal of inflicting its horrendous Sharia Law on everybody.

And as for the idea that we can't win a "clash of civilizations" in a military sense: Picture a massive Muslim uprising--all 600-700 million or so of them--a jihad to inflict Islam on as much of the world as possible. Then picture a Christian force--aside from America--which could nuke 'em and win the war by ourselves if need be, aside from the Eurowimps who probably would roll over and cave to the Muslims, aside from China and Japan, which probably wouldn't have a dog in this fight, and what do you have? Well, you have about a half billion machismo Christian warriors from Latin America, backed by nearly a billion hard charging Hindus from India who would like nothing better than stomping Muslims. And top it off with over 200 million Russians paranoid about all those Muslims on their southern border. I kinda like those odds. Of course it wouldn't happen unless most of those Muslims were ready to meet their 72 virgins, because that would inevitably be the result.

[Tarlam!]

I have a Muslim buddy who reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition days when we discussed the radical fundamentalists in his religion.

He draws a comparison based on the age of either religion at the time of both fundamentalist periods.

Islam is what, 600 years younger than Christianity?

We're gonna have to wait awhile for them to catch up, I guess.

[Harlan Huckleby]

ya, Spanish Inquisition came about the same time Catholics and Protestants were taking turns torturing each other in England.

I think the Muslim world in the Mideast (where the problem lies) is reacting to rapid changes in rest of world that threaten their way of life. Especially things like role of women, materialism.

Somebody mentioned the Wahabis (sp), the extreme fundamentalist sect coming out of Saudi ARabia and spreading to Pakistan. I think that sect started around 1890. Maybe in reaction to Industrial Revolution? It spread widely around 1960s. Point is the craziness is relatively new, 20th century, not from traditional religous teachings.

[Kiwon]

We can't win a clash of civilizations with Islam. Are we gonna occupy Indonesia and Pakistan? Ultimately, Islam has to cure itself. They are going through their own internal conflict that we can't solve. We can only poke at it from the margins.

That's right. Things won't really cool down until moderate Muslims confront and control their own radicals.


I urge you to refuse to have a clash of civilizations. And that means keeping a cool head and not demonizing all Muslims.

Another valid point. Maybe HH took his meds today. He's actually making sense.


Religion really has very little to do with the problem.

:shock: That's one of the stupidest statements ever uttered.

Yhello....40 virgins...instant trip to Paradise....."Allah akbar" as people are beheaded....

Oh yeah, that has more to do with potato chips than religion.

HH, have you ever thought about visiting a nearby nursing home and sharing your unique perspective with the residents there? There are a lot of lonely people who would appreciate just having someone to talk with. You don't have to make sense, just smile and be friendly. You're a good man for the job.

[Harlan Huckleby]

When the catholics and protestants fought for hundreds of years in England or Ireland, was it about religion? No. People were divided along religous lines, but it was about power. If the groups were divided by whether they liked chocolate or vanilla ice cream, or had brown or blue eyes, things would have played-out just the same.

The conflict with Japan in WW2 was not over the japanese people's devotion to their emperor. It played a role, but was not the cause.

The conflict with Islam is not about Islam or Christianity. We're not trying to convert them to our religion or vice versa. There sometimes is tension involving missionaries, but that is rare. Islam is being used as a tool by those who have other interests in fomenting a war. I think the fundamentalists want to seize power in countries with Islamic populations, and shield outside cultural influences.

[texaspackerbacker]

Is it only 40 virgins? I thought 72. Maybe the Islamic world is running out.

Yeah, I've heard those comebacks from moral equivalence types too--the Spanish Inquisition, the era after the Protestant Reformation, etc., but that's a pretty lame response in the here and now.

The whole world has progressed a lot in the realm of compassion and civilization since then--the whole world, that is, except for Islam. I would like to say "radical Islam" or 'Islamic fundamentalists" or something to marginalize the bad guys, but the fact is, a pretty huge majority of Muslims support those pushing barbarism and genocide. And that is something that is fairly difficult for apologists of Muslims to justify or run and hide from.

Good points about early power struggles in Christian nations as well as the Japs in WWII, Harlan. And you are right about 75% in your last paragraph too. We aren't trying to convert them (perhaps we should be). And yes, the most virulent Muslims ARE trying to consolidate power and keep forces of modernity and civilization out of Muslim countries. However, they clearly also are trying to spread the horrors of Sharia Law to a lot of non-Muslim areas too--with an ultimate goal of an Islamic world.

[Harlan Huckleby]

but the fact is, a pretty huge majority of Muslims support those pushing barbarism and genocide.

Is that a fact? Amazing.

al-Quida has lost support in Iraq. And the people of Pakistan are starting to turn on extremists for their recent excesses.

I believe a lot of Muslims have resentment against the West and U.S. in particular. Most muslim people expressed dismay at 911, some cheered. But when they get a whiff of Sharia Law , the vast majority want nothing to do with fundamentalism.

Ummm, the most pro-U.S. muslim country in the world is Iran. For at least two reasons:
1) We aren't there.
2) The oppressive Mullahs are.


However, they clearly also are trying to spread the horrors of Sharia Law to a lot of non-Muslim areas too--with an ultimate goal of an Islamic world.

This is not clear. I doubt it. Of course both Islam and Christianity are both into recruiting the Others.

[texaspackerbacker]

I have to admit, Harlan, I don't have any impressive recent statistics to support my contention that most Muslims support the bad guys (other than that recent 84% figure among Palestinians regarding murder of Israeli civilians). I do think that picture of Muslims all over the world, including here in America is a lot more believable than the thing you said about how more Muslims like America in Iran than anyplace else. Where did you get that idea, anyway?

And as for Muslims trying to inflict Sharia Law on non-Muslim areas, you might want to ask the French, the British, the Danes, the Spanish, the Filipinos, the formerly 50% Christian Lebanese, the Christians of Darfur, black Christians in many countries of western Africa, even a couple of suburbs of Detroit.

[Kiwon]

Is it only 40 virgins? I thought 72. Maybe the Islamic world is running out.

There's a Recession on. Times are tough all over.

Maybe it's only 40 if the suicide bomber (martyr) dies but the infidel is only wounded. He's get half credit for trying.

You get the full monty if you kill the infidel and send him to Hell.

Nice little enticement to the disenfranchised that are taught to hate from their earliest days.

Of course, this has very little to do with religion. Paper clips are where the real danger lies.

[Kiwon]

And as for Muslims trying to inflict Sharia Law on non-Muslim areas, you might want to ask the French, the British, the Danes, the Spanish, the Filipinos, the formerly 50% Christian Lebanese, the Christians of Darfur, black Christians in many countries of western Africa, even a couple of suburbs of Detroit.

Hey, let's ask her for an opinion. Oops, too late.

http://terpsboy.com/blogpics/halftime.jpg

Ditto for the Catholic priests in Iraq.

But that doesn't matter to HH because in 1218 a knight from Wales went postal (before there was a postal service) on some visiting Muslim traders. It's justifiable payback now. You know, a cosmic ying-yang.

[texaspackerbacker]

Paper clips? What are you trying to say?

It's religion in the sense that they are using the Koran and the Muslim religion as justification for genocide against Israel and a fate about as extreme for us Christians. It would also be religion if I or some Christian clerics claimed the Bible required us to kill Muslims or if some post-Biblical Christian edict by clerics required that. No argument there, right? And yes, I suppose if you dig deep enough, you could find a few examples of that on our side too.

The difference, however, is with Muslims, a large enough minority believe that sort of thing to put words into action fairly extensively ...... and an even bigger percentage--IMO, a large majority of Muslims--believe that sort of thing to the extent that they approve of the acts of terrorism and barbarism.

[Kiwon]

Paper clips? What are you trying to say?



Religion really has very little to do with the problem.

Can't know the line-up without a program, TBP. Just follow the thread.

[texaspackerbacker]

Give this poor lazy person a break and enlighten me about the paper clips.

I went back to the beginning of P. 1 of the thread and didn't find any reference to them.

I did find a couple of really good posts, though. I really like Iron Mike's about paving it over all the way to Baghdad and using their oil for our cheap gas.

There's too many liberals in political power and the media to have any hope for that sort of thing, though.

[Kiwon]

Relax, TBP.

It's the weekend.

Watch some basketball. Tennessee-LSU is on now. Peace be upon you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

But that doesn't matter to HH because in 1218 a knight from Wales went postal (before there was a postal service) on some visiting Muslim traders. It's justifiable payback now. You know, a cosmic ying-yang.

you are either really stupid, or deliberately misinterpreting what I've said in order to create a straw man.

I guess B, but who knows, most of your posts are cartoonish.

can't have an intellegent conversation about a complex topic if the gradation of your thinking only goes down to being for or against Jesus, for or against terrorists.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I do think that picture of Muslims all over the world, including here in America is a lot more believable than the thing you said about how more Muslims like America in Iran than anyplace else. Where did you get that idea, anyway?

I have read a lot about Iran. There are a large number of Iranians who were educated in the U.S., many Iranians travelled to the U.S. prior to Khomeini. The "Death to America" Iranians hated the U.S. for the CIA's role in overturning their democracy back in the 1950's, and the Shah grew very unpopular. But they have developed a love-hate relationship with American culture.

America has the highest favorability ratings in Iran, among all the countries of the mideast and near east. Some speculate it's because we have been completely out of their country for 30 years, they can't blame us for their problems, and the Mullahs have been real shitheads. They are highly educated, bristle at the stifling control of the clerics. America is still, ironically, a shining star among many Iranian people.

Iran does NOT have a completely authoritarian government. Power is dispersed across a theocracy/oligarchy, and they go through phases of liberalization. Ahmdehnajad (sp) doesn't have much power. The fact that power is dispersed makes them slightly less dangerous.

Iran is a PERFECT candidate to transition to Democracy. This is not North Korea or Saudi Arabia.

It's clear that IRan is going to hugely influence Iraq, which became more obvious with the government's recent victory in Basra, as you call it. (Not sure how many more victories al-Malaki can withstand!) I don't see it as a fatal problem, altho I have no crystral ball. I think/hope we will be working in a postive way with Iran someday.

[texaspackerbacker]

To some extent, I agree with you, Harlan. I've been saying for a long time the best way to deal with Iran--which is Bush's way--is to try to influence and enable the opposition there which tends to favor western culture over Muslim extremism, while leaving on the table the prospect of bombing the crap out of them if they get closer to having nukes. However, I really don't see those potential "good guys" as having much real chance to take over. Furthermore, I do see Ahmedinijad as having a lot of power mainly because he is likeminded with Khamenei and the other religious leaders.

We really need the old carrot and stick approach here, the carrot being held out for the young intellectuals you described. What I'm pretty sure is going to happen is that they are going to be prevented from grabbing the carrot, so sooner or later, we will be smacking Iran with that proverbial stick.

Unlike a lot of what we have discussed in this thread, the Iran aspect is not completely religious, as the potential is there for the relatively sane and civilized Muslims to take over. I just don't think it will happen, though. And it is not acceptable to have nukes in the hands of the current Iranian regime.

Now that I think about it, though, they probably will be feeling Israel's stick before we get around to it--which make no mistake about it, would be a good thing.

[Kiwon]

But that doesn't matter to HH because in 1218 a knight from Wales went postal (before there was a postal service) on some visiting Muslim traders. It's justifiable payback now. You know, a cosmic ying-yang.

you are either really stupid, or deliberately misinterpreting what I've said in order to create a straw man.

I guess B, but who knows, most of your posts are cartoonish.

can't have an intellegent conversation about a complex topic if the gradation of your thinking only goes down to being for or against Jesus, for or against terrorists.

Intelligent conversation? Several of your posts are you talking to yourself.

Time and time again, whatever issue, you promote this moral equivalence argument that descends into the absurd. Absolute right and wrong doesn’t exist in your world and you get frustrated when others don’t struggle with the same tortured logic and morals that you embraced.

You’re like the guy in group therapy that gets angry when everyone else isn’t as messed up as he is. Somehow it just isn’t fair to you and you are going to make sure that everyone knows about it.

Here’s a rule of thumb: If you don’t know what you’re talking about then don’t act like you do.

You know that a Fitna-type movie demonstrating that Christianity is a threat to the world CANNOT be made…. but you insist that it can. Not for any logical reasons, but simply because right and wrong don’t exist for you. Everyone or everything has to be equally bad or equally good. That’s the only way it’s fair, right?

It’s nonsense and you know it.

This isn’t an “intelligent conversation.” It’s you looking for validation that your warped morals are justified. Well, you’re 0 for 1,000 here.

You are not stupid, I know that, but the philosophy that you’ve chosen to embrace certainly is.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You know that a Fitna-type movie demonstrating that Christianity is a threat to the world CANNOT be made…. but you insist that it can. Not for any logical reasons, but simply because right and wrong don’t exist for you.

You seem intent on arguing against a straw man. I never said that Christians in today's world are acting as violently as Muslims, quite the opposite.

I made the point that a documentary could be made of violent Christian activity. You have jumped on this (obviously true) statement and made a straw man equating the behavior of today's Christians and Muslims.

Not sure there is much point in repeating my main point, since you have no interest in hearing it, but one more time: Violence is NOT inherent in Islamic theology, as promoted by that ignorant, hateful documentary. It's true that Islamic scripture is used to justify violence, but the scripture is just being used as a tool, as can be done with the ancient scripture of other religions.

Historically, Christianity has been far more violent, warlike, and aggressive than Islam. That's a fact, Jack. I point this out not to make some "moral equivalency argument" about the behavior of Muslims today versus Christians of the past, that's an argument YOU brought in. I point it out to support MY thesis, that violent eras occur among many religious groups, and are not necessarily a product of theology. The violence is not about religion, religion is used as a motivating and justifying tool to achieve goals, usually power and control.

[hoosier]

Historically, Christianity has been far more violent, warlike, and aggressive than Islam. That's a fact, Jack. I point this out not to make some "moral equivalency argument" about the behavior of Muslims today versus Christians of the past, that's an argument YOU brought in. I point it out to support MY thesis, that violent eras occur among many religious groups, and are not necessarily a product of theology. The violence is not about religion, religion is used as a motivating and justifying tool to achieve goals, usually power and control.

You mean just because someone claims they're acting for religious reasons doesn't mean religion alone explains their actions? :o No, say it ain't so!

[texaspackerbacker]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

THAT is the bottom line here.

[Iron Mike]

http://anandamide.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/b72719john-lennon-yoko-ono-posters.jpg



Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

[MJZiggy]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

THAT is the bottom line here.

Well, except China...

[Freak Out]

http://anandamide.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/b72719john-lennon-yoko-ono-posters.jpg



Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

2nd.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosovic. These are not Muslims. The chinese brutalizing Tibet are not Muslims. These are relatively recent events.

What in the name of Jehosaphat are you talking about?

For the sake of discussion, lets accept your ridiculous proposition that past barbarism is reflective of nothing, just the way of the world. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisiton, but perhaps they should have.

Finish your thought, and please be specific. We agree that part of the muslim world in our era is violent, why do you suppose that is so?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

http://anandamide.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/b72719john-lennon-yoko-ono-posters.jpg



Ev'rybody's talking about
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism
Isn't it the most
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Ev'rybody's talking about
Ministers, Sinisters, Banisters and canisters,
Bishops and Fishops and Rabbis and Pop eyes,
And bye bye, bye byes.
All we are saying is give peace a chance
All we are saying is give peace a chance

Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism - he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles - I just believe in me". A good point there. Of course, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus - I'd still have to bum rides off of people.

[texaspackerbacker]

Religious barbarism and violence in days gone by--when that was simply the way of the world--are NOT comparable with barbarism and violence in the context of the current world, in which basically EVERY SOCIETY OTHER THAN MUSLIMS HAVE MADE GREAT STRIDES TOWARD COMPASSION AND CIVILIZED BEHAVIOR.

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Milosovic. These are not Muslims. The chinese brutalizing Tibet are not Muslims. These are relatively recent events.

What in the name of Jehosaphat are you talking about?

For the sake of discussion, lets accept your ridiculous proposition that past barbarism is reflective of nothing, just the way of the world. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisiton, but perhaps they should have.

Finish your thought, and please be specific. We agree that part of the muslim world in our era is violent, why do you suppose that is so?

First of all, historically speaking, I stand by what I said. All those examples except China recently and possibly Milosevic, are a long time ago--a different mindset altogether of people. What China did or is doing in Tibet is literally nothing compared to bad acts and bad intentions of Muslims worldwide in the past decade. And Milosevic may have been as barbaric in a very limited area and group of people, but there was nothing religious and probably little or no popular support for his acts.

Realistically, any argument to try and paint any other religious, ethnic, or national group as morally equivalent in their abject evil to the Muslims falls way short.

The line about "the Spanish Inquisition .... perhaps they should have", that didn't come from me. In fact, I don't recall anybody writing it. I did, however , make the comment that Christians for the most part aren't trying TO CONVERT Muslims--perhaps we should be. That--converting them--is a far cry from an inquisition of them.

And what was that thought you wanted continued? Why do I suppose Muslims are so violent and barbaric in the current era? I hope you aren't looking for some namby pamby maybe-we-are-doing-something-wrong type answer. If you want that, talk to Obama, not me.

My theory would be a population predisposed to buying into the radically barbaric, tyrannical, and genocidal interpretations of the Koran that many of the clerics are pushing. What would be YOUR answer or theory about that, Harlan--or anybody else thinking it isn't merely a matter of evil on their part?

[Harlan Huckleby]

First of all, historically speaking, I stand by what I said. All those examples except China recently and possibly Milosevic, are a long time ago--a different mindset altogether of people

So you're saying all that is relevant here is history from the last 30 years. And you define the evil-doers to be "Muslims." So somehow the 500 million muslims in the world have all been infected by this evil in the last 30 years.


Realistically, any argument to try and paint any other religious, ethnic, or national group as morally equivalent in their abject evil to the Muslims falls way short.

If you want to paint all Muslims with this broad brush, you are in a world of hurt. And you are creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.


My theory would be a population predisposed to buying into the radically barbaric, tyrannical, and genocidal interpretations of the Koran that many of the clerics are pushing. What would be YOUR answer or theory about that, Harlan--or anybody else thinking it isn't merely a matter of evil on their part?

I can't explain why the fundamentalist movement has spread so far. I just don't know. It started in the 1890's with the Wahabbis in Saudi Arabia, but i don't think they were violent. The Muslim Brotherhood started back in the 1950's, gradually became more and more violent.

The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism.

I guess the movement is spreading because of oppressive governments in the Muslim world, and resentment at outside cultural threats. the Muslim Brotherhood grew in Egypt because they hated the government, which was cracking down religion & torturing people. Now what the fundamentals seem to want most is all Western influence out of Islamic countries.

[texaspackerbacker]

The reason I am saying recent decades are the only really relevant time is because, as I have said, the whole rest of the world has progressed beyond that kind of barbarism and hate, while Islam seems clearly to be moving in the opposite direction. You wouldn't disagree with that, would you?

And "all" Muslims, no. However, "most" seems like a very valid description if you are talking about support for the bad acts committed worldwide and support for pushing the evils of Sharia Law. Just look at the riots in France last year; Just look at the reaction to a movie in Denmark (was that the one the title of this thread is about? I don't remember); Just look at the poll of Palestinians about murder of innocent Israelis; Just look at how virtually any Muslim you ever hear strains to find some way to diminish the badness of and to fail to condemn the barbarism. The ONLY way you could possibly claim that the huge majority of Muslims are NOT likeminded with the evildoers is if you assume that huge majority is intimidated into giving a false impression of their views. And I don't really buy that theory.

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

You say maybe the spread of the movement of barbarism and evil is the result of "oppressive governments". I think you have that backwards. The oppressive governments are the result of promoting Sharia Law and overall attitudes of hate and violence. Oppressive government is exactly what the fundamentalist Muslims crave.

You say all they want is getting "western influences" out of Islamic countries. I'd have to agree with you on that. But what exactly ARE those "western influences"? Just little insignificant things like FREEDOM, COMPASSION, HUMANITY, ENJOYMENT OF LIFE, EDUCATION, PROSPERITY, etc. Could you possibly agree that 500 million Muslims (I think it's more like 600 million) or whatever percentage of them aren't part of the problem, should be deprived of those "western influences"?

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

[Iron Mike]

OK.....back on topic:

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E9ADC8C1-A7D1-4318-B36C-AA6AC5784BA8

[Harlan Huckleby]

http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E9ADC8C1-A7D1-4318-B36C-AA6AC5784BA8

As a free speech issue, sure, people should be allowed to view any political film.

I really doubt that the proponents of that FITNA documentary are primarily interested in expanding free speech. Altho I can't say exactly what their motives are.

The film sends message that Muslims are inherently evil, because their religion is inherently wrong and evil.

I would like to hear from Kiwon or Tex or Iron Mike or anybody else that thinks this documentary makes a postive contribution to the world. Explain where you think insulting the Muslim world and inflaming passions will lead.

[Harlan Huckleby]

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

OK, Tex, I won't attempt to disabuse you of your stark theories. I'll just say that the way you are thinking is exactly what the Muslim terrorists were hoping westerners would think when they began their violent activity about 20 years ago.

[mmmdk]

I have a Muslim buddy who reminded me of the Spanish Inquisition days when we discussed the radical fundamentalists in his religion.

He draws a comparison based on the age of either religion at the time of both fundamentalist periods.

Islam is what, 600 years younger than Christianity?

We're gonna have to wait awhile for them to catch up, I guess.

I think the invention GOOGLE will cut it to 300 years, maybe 275... :)

[falco]

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

OK, Tex, I won't attempt to disabuse you of your stark theories. I'll just say that the way you are thinking is exactly what the Muslim terrorists were hoping westerners would think when they began their violent activity about 20 years ago.

i almost wonder if TPB hasn't been lurking here the last two years and it finally took this thread to get him to post...

[texaspackerbacker]

You say, "The great majority of Muslims are still not interested in fundamentalism". No. I really don't think that is supported by the evidence.

It's a good versus evil world. We're good and they're not. It's as simple as that.

OK, Tex, I won't attempt to disabuse you of your stark theories. I'll just say that the way you are thinking is exactly what the Muslim terrorists were hoping westerners would think when they began their violent activity about 20 years ago.

Harlan, how is it a "stark theory" that the fruits of Islam are evil? You didn't really answer any of the questions in my last post. I really think I am merely stating the obvious--simple normal common sense--in response to the totally wrongheaded concept that the behavior and attitudes of the huge majority of Muslims are somehow equivalent to that of Americans/that of Christians.

How could you examine history over recent decades and NOT come to the obvious conclusion that America and western/Judeo-Christian nations represent good and Islam represents evil in a good versus evil world?

How is that not just a slam dunk to you?

And since some of you want to get back to talking about this movie, why the big deal about insulting Muslims--as if telling the truth somehow does that? Probably half of all the movies that come along these days are insulting to Christians in one way or another. Why no similar outrage about that? Is the same free speech argument that's used to defend the most vile hate imaginable toward America, Christianity, etc.--basically anything good--somehow invalid when it comes to insulting TRUE EVIL--Islam?

Mohammed sucked donkey dicks! And I've got a shotgun for any Muslim that wants to come and tell me how insulted he is (just a harmless example of free speech in action).

Apologies to any normal Americans that may be shocked by the previous paragraph, but my point is, similar attitudes are shown toward Christians all the time and nobody thinks anything of it.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Harlan, how is it a "stark theory" that the fruits of Islam are evil?

if violence is endemic to Islam, why did it take so long for Islam to bear this evil fruit?
the violence has only broken-out in last 20 years.

hint: the violence comes from Islamic population, but really has nothing to do with Islam.



You didn't really answer any of the questions in my last post.
I will look again, but your conclusions are based on a series of facts that are mostly false. And in some cases, there is just enough truth to base your opinion on that it would be difficult to dissuade you.

[Harlan Huckleby]

The reason I am saying recent decades are the only really relevant time is because, as I have said, the whole rest of the world has progressed beyond that kind of barbarism and hate, while Islam seems clearly to be moving in the opposite direction. You wouldn't disagree with that, would you?

I don't directly disagree with this.
I would put it this way: the Islamic World has a fierce sickness attacking it from within.


However, "most" seems like a very valid description if you are talking about support for the bad acts committed worldwide and support for pushing the evils of Sharia Law?
Absolutely not true. How well did the Sunnis of Anbar Province cotton to Sharia Law? Fundamentalist Muslims are clearly a small minority.


Just look at the riots in France last year
And what were these riots about? Completely unrelated to Jihad. Job discrimination was one issue. Plus an odious national law prohibitting head scarves.


Just look at the reaction to a movie in Denmark
they don't share our view of free speech. Again, this has ZERO to do with terrorism or extremism.


Just look at the poll of Palestinians about murder of innocent Israelis
This is mostly a local conflict unrelated to the Islamic movement. Unfortunatley, Israili policy played right into the hands of Hamas, facilitated their growth. But Hamas is NOT engaged in international terrorism.


The oppressive governments are the result of promoting Sharia Law and overall attitudes of hate and violence.
The whole Islamic violence movement came out of Egypt, which certainly does not have Sharia Law. The Islamic Brotherhood arose out of a brutal secular crackdown. I believe Saudi Arabia is the only country out of 20 or so Islamic majority nations that has anything like Sharia Law. Sorry, but you really don't know what you are talking about.


The ONLY way you could possibly claim that the huge majority of Muslims are NOT likeminded with the evildoers
If even 10% of Muslims embraced terrorism, we would be seeing a 1000 times the attacks in Europe & U.S. that we currently do.

You are not seeing the forest for the trees.

[texaspackerbacker]

It's a little more than 20 years. The Muslims who took Americans hostage in Iran in the 70s come to mind. Maybe you will say THAT event wasn't "religious" just like you claimed about some others. The fact is, though, is was fundamentalists--followers of Ayatollah Khomeini--who were pushing SHARIA LAW--austerity and tyranny, rather than western-style enjoyment of life.

Why did we not see much of that sort of thing sooner? Maybe because of colonialism--that horrible anathema to liberals where mostly compassionate and enlightened westerners kept the violent and barbarous element in check? You might respond that colonialism ended several decades earlier in the middle east. Yes, but ....... after colonialism, the British and other colonial powers mostly installed monarchs who had been educated and conditioned to western views and values. Jordan, one of the most peaceful and decent Muslim countries remains as an example of this, along with Kuwait and Morocco, and even Saudi Arabia (where you can cite the fact that many of the 9/11 and other terrorists came from, but which has relative peace and harmony within its borders).

As one by one, these monarchs faded away, the bad element took over--usually WITH POPULAR MUSLIM SUPPORT. Sometimes it had a religious tinge to it; Sometimes it did not, but it was basically Muslims being Muslims--brutal and barbarous, as they had been prevented from being before.

In a lot of cases, you are right, it had nothing to do with religion--although in a lot of cases it did too. However, it was Muslim people--which is and has been my point.

And though I'm not a student of the Koran, it certainly seems like they have a lot easier time using the Koran to justify their attitudes and bad acts than to condemn or prevent them.

The events in France indeed WERE as much about religion as jobs or whatever. They wanted, incredibly, to establish Sharia Law and Sharia Courts in France, countermanding the secular laws and courts already in place.

In Denmark, it was all about outrage over a movie and some cartoons ridiculing Mohammed--and Muslim desire that Denmark should change its whole system of free speech in reaction. I'd call that "religious", wouldn't you?

And how does the fact that Hamas generally confines its terrorism and barbarous acts to Palestinian areas, in your mind, mitigate the fact that 84% of the Palestinians in a poll approved of murder of innocents as a tactic?

When you talk about "even 10% of Muslims embracing terrorism", it's unclear whether you are talking about actually doing the deeds, or merely cheering on the evildoers. For sure, the actual terrorists are less than 10%. The supporters? I'd say many times that much. Would you actually disagree with that?

[Harlan Huckleby]

It's a little more than 20 years. The Muslims who took Americans hostage in Iran in the 70s come to mind.

OK. The Palestineans have been violent since the 1940's, but obviously that has to do with their ongoing war with Israel. And the Iranian Revolution really isn't connected to the Al-Qaeda, Sunni fundamentalist movement we are facing now. Remember, Al-Qaeda types consider the Shiah in Iran to be infidels too. Palestine and Iran really are mostly apart from the main problem we're facing.

The Sunni Fundamentalist extremism got started in Egypt back in 70's, went international in 80's and 90's. Well, it was a tiny movement going all the way back to the 50's.


but it was basically Muslims being Muslims--brutal and barbarous, as they had been prevented from being before.

so you think colonialism kept a lid on Muslim's naturally violent tendencies.
I'd suggest that you believe these outlandish theories simply because they fit your ideology and world view.


When you talk about "even 10% of Muslims embracing terrorism", it's unclear whether you are talking about actually doing the deeds, or merely cheering on the evildoers. For sure, the actual terrorists are less than 10%. The supporters? I'd say many times that much. Would you actually disagree with that?

I think 95% of the people in the Muslim world view the fundamentalist terrorists with great suspician and fear. They REALLY don't want to see themselves under fundamentalist rule. I do agree with you that a much larger percentage of Muslims take some satisfaction when they see Westerners blown-up by terrorists, maybe 30%, just guessing. And perhaps 90% are very angry at the publishing of the pictures or videos that make fun of their religion, and they may even demonstrate over it.

[texaspackerbacker]

You keep trying to divert from the main point--not whether it is pure religious motivation, but the fact that it is Muslims perpetrating the bad acts and advocating even worse. Whether it's mostly religious or not, it's happening, they're doing it, and it is getting worse at the same time the mindset of the world in general is moving the other direction.

The Egyptian thing you keep coming back to was under Nassar--a mainly secular tyrant who sought to spread "Arab nationalism"--and tyranny--throughout the Muslim world. And he was very successful because the people EMBRACED THE IDEA OF TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION--maybe not always in the name of Sharia Law in the early days, but IT WAS THE SAME PEOPLE USING THE SAME TACTICS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME SINISTER GOALS.

Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree about what percentage of the Muslim population is cheering on the bad guys--you're getting closer to reality with the 30% figure. I think you'd have a very hard time finding 30% who do not think and feel that way.