Ilana Mercer has an excellent column in WND, with thanks to The One Who Must Not Be Named.
Those who talk up the root causes of Muslim disaffection are cultural relativists with a difference. For example, they'll be the first to point to how ignorant we are of the centrality of honor in Arab culture. And they'd be right. "It is better to die with honor than live with humiliation," goes an Arab saying. To Muslims, there's no pride in being democratized by the West–only humiliation and shame. Conveniently, however, these Rousseauists ignore the less flattering aspects of a culture and a religion that has yet to undergo an Enlightenment.Individualism is, at best, negligible. The ummah – the community of believers or the "Nation of Islam" – is pre-eminent. Infinitely less eminent is the infidel, whose inherent inferiority, codified in elaborate dhimmi jurisprudence, makes him fair game. Responsibility is always externalized. Muslim savagery toward innocents has been felt from Beslan to Bali, from Kashmir to Casablanca. Yet, they'll invariably shift the blame (successfully, I might add) to Israel, America, Russia and other "occupations."
Helping to make the "Islamikazes'" case are countless liberals and libertarians, as well as elements on the American right. They lay the blame for the killers' latest actions exclusively on American and British foreign policy: foreign forays begat the suicide bomber; case closed.
Our adventurous foreign policy might be a necessary condition for Muslim aggression but it is far from a sufficient one. Muslims today are at the center of practically every conflict in the world. They were slaughtering innocent, pacifist Jews in Israel well before the Jewish state was a figment in the fertile mind of Theodor Herzl (and well before the "occupation" of 1967: in 627, Muhammad decapitated 900 Medina Jews. The women were only raped). Governments, abetted by the Fourth Estate (and a fifth column), have framed strife in Sudan, East Timor, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan, Kashmir, the Philippines, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, the Balkans and Russia as sectarian or regional. The struggle in these spots, however, has more to do with the overriding refusal of the one faction to abide the others (unless they've been conquered or preferably killed)...
Please read it all.
Do read it all. Mercer sheds a lot of light in this brief article on the predisposition toward taqiya and kitman.
"They lay the blame for the killers' latest actions exclusively on American and British foreign policy: foreign forays begat the suicide bomber; case closed."
King: I read it all and found this erroneously polar nugget. Once again, this is a myopic and polar way to see pragmatism and really offers nothing but to feed ignorance. I do not think I ever read that the blame of suicide bombing lies exclusively in US and UK foregin policy. I certainly am liberal & multicultural but I'm also pragmatic and understand that foreign policy may be one issue but its not the issue. Conversely, I completely reject that Islam is the issue, too. Somewhere in the middle lies the answer and until the full compliment of issues are properly addressed we'll continue to see radical Islam.
A very good article, without any concessions that too many feel, in a phrase or a word, they must offer as a sop to Muslims or to those who do not, as yet, quite understand what Islam is all about.
KingOfTalkingCr@p(a hypocrite.) There is nothing erroneous or misleading about "the polar nugget". Today "Red" Ken, the mayor of London said precisely that. I'm glad you see that foreign policy is not the only issue but somehow have quickly dismissed Islam as being part of the problem. Perhaps you would care to share your pragmatic view on where the middle is. I'm sure you must be able to view it from from the moral high ground. How is the air up there by the way?
TooBad: "I'm glad you see that foreign policy is not the only issue but somehow have quickly dismissed Islam as being part of the problem."
King: Do you people actually read or simply conjure shit up? I never dismissed Islam as being part of the problem. I said is is not THE problem and placed it in the catagory with the other reasons.
TooBad: "Perhaps you would care to share your pragmatic view on where the middle is. I'm sure you must be able to view it from from the moral high ground. How is the air up there by the way?"
King: The air sure is great up here, thanks for asking.
I've shared my pragmatic views on numerous occasions. Given that you obviously do not read what I post and make up whatever it is you want to, I will advise you to go ahead and flip back through the threads to see what I've already written and argued on. I'd be happy to then engage with anything you find objectionable. How's that for moral high ground?
KingOfTalkingCr@p(a hypocrite); Fair enough, I was a bit quick off the mark there.
Being prgamatic myself, I can actually agree with a lot of what you said. However, the statement "I do not think I ever read that the blame of suicide bombing lies exclusively in US and UK foregin policy.". If you haven't seen this statement being trotted out I am quite amazed. As I said earlier, Red Ken has (more or less) stated this.
Lets hope the rarified air that you get doesn't jumble up your pragamtism.
TooBad: "Lets hope the rarified air that you get doesn't jumble up your pragamtism."
King: I can assure you that it will not. I've managed to remain steadfast in my positions despite the insults and other ad hominem bombast that has been tossed my way, so clean air is always welcome.
TooBad: "If you haven't seen this statement [foreign policy being solely responsible for radicalsim] being trotted out I am quite amazed."
King: I have not. If I do come acrosss it I'll be sure to take issue with it in kind. There really is no one reason for radical Islam. Yes, Islam is one reason and yes, Western foreign policy is another, too. I've said this all along.
King Toller-schwantz: Still using screws to attach the coffee-filter to the skull? Uhuuuu is the answer!
OT but all you knowledgable Koran-readers out there: Is there anything at all that is good in this filthy Arabian book?
As for all the blood and guts and slaughter and condemnation, I've had my fill of that already. But is there anything good or agreeable at all in the Koran?
KingOfTalkingCr@p(a hypocrite); Radical Islam would exist regardless of "Western" foreign policy. It exists in every Muslim majority country.
"is there anything good or agreeable at all in the Koran?"
--- from a posting above
Any text, if sufficiently old, has a certain appeal, no matter how confused or disturbing its contents (see Carlyle's remarks on the "incondite" Koran). It becomes a historical document, from a time and a place that seems to some Muslims simpler -- and also better. And whether you know Arabic or not, the magic of Qur'anic recitation, with its own conventions, its own principles, its own "styles" that may be associated with a particular city or school of such recitation -- in is something from which those starved for any kind of expression may endow with a meaning, and it may come to possess an appeal, that may puzzle the Infidels. It does not do, however, to accept the bland assertion, that we are often asked to accept, that the Qur'an is a literary "masterpiece" and so on. That seems very doubtful, for anyone who simply wishes to compare the contents of the Bible (Old and New Testaments), and the Hebraic parallelism that comes through in the English of those Oxford and Cambridge translators of 1611, the very best that England had to offer, at the very best moment (and before them, Tyndale's version or the others, so much of which were retained -- were also created at a particular moment in English literary and linguistic history. Imagine how much less memorable the Bible would have been if the translation had been done in 1740, Or imagine if all we had was the Revised Standard, to command belief even from the unbelieving.
And possibly some of the language would, even without the patina of time ("A la patine du temps" was the name of a store sign glimpsed in Paris), be memorable -- those sisters of Inna, I am told, can be quite seductive.
No doubt, the West has its share of liars and poseurs, the ablest of whom congregate in government. But while institutionalized inveracity is a facet of Western governments, it's not ubiquitous in civil society. Our capitalist culture, after all, turns on a man's word – commerce depends on the veracity of a contract and would grind to a halt if truth weren't a cultural cornerstone.
I'm struck by the level of lying, hypocrisy and dishonesty in the Islamic world.It's not that people don't lie in the West it's that people are reluctant to do so because of the social consequences of being caught in a lie.Westerners will parse words or tell half-truth but try to stop short of out and out lying. Because once a person is caught lying their crediblity is destroyed.Wait until it becomes common knowledge in the Western world, just how quickly and easily Muslims lie to the "infidel".Once that becomes known people will view Muslims the way they view Gypsies and Irish travelers, groups who are known for stealing.People in the know shun Gypsies and Irish travelers.
FYI- If someone has to tell you he's a pragmatist, it's because he really isn't one.
"Radical Islam would exist regardless of "Western" foreign policy. It exists in every Muslim majority country. "
Posted by TooBad at July 20, 2005 03:41 PM
...Muslim minority countries, too.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4696829.stm
...Southern Thailand seems to be trying to break away. They won't have to - all the Buddists are moving away from the violence. Just like all the other countries that became majority muslim, once the critical mass was reached. But this is the West's fault? There is always a "reason" given but the results stay the same.
Roxanne:
Marco Polo observed in his travels that the middle east was inhabited by "nothing but liars, murderers and thieves."
TooBad: "Radical Islam would exist regardless of "Western" foreign policy. It exists in every Muslim majority country."
King: True, but Western foreign policy is one of the lightening rods for these people because they are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and have nothing to do, really, with religion. So, besides blaming a unilateral finger at Islam itself, what other reasons can you see that can cause a person to become radical?
Terminator: "King Toller-schwantz: Still using screws to attach the coffee-filter to the skull? Uhuuuu is the answer!"
King replies: Zzzzzzzzzzz.
Hugh: "Any text, if sufficiently old, has a certain appeal, no matter how confused or disturbing its contents"
King: Indeed. I've pointed out the numerous violent and otherwise disturbing passages in the Bible, both OT and NT. It is all about context which means that the Bible can and has been interpreted radically to wreak havoc. This is a fact and is really an integral part to understanding radical Islam.
Roxane: "I'm struck by the level of lying, hypocrisy and dishonesty in the Islamic world."
King: Puhleeese. Iraq, for example, was invaded on what turned out to be bald-faced, fucking lies and politics. Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis lay dead due to this and you sit there and fret over the "level of lying" in the Islamic world? Your attitude is precisely one of the things that enrages the Islamic world and fuels their anger and contempt for the West. Why dont you worry about your own back yard before worrying about who is telling the truth in Qatar?
Popinjay
Why do I keep expecting to hear an explosion whenever you turn up? I can just feel the explosives and TNT seething out of your anus as you speak through it.
Did you get excited at the thought of all those obliterated bodies in London blown up by your brothers? I bet you did. I bet you were aroused by all that.
Allah-hooo-Akbar!
;-)
Popinjay
So, besides blaming a unilateral finger at Islam itself, what other reasons can you see that can cause a person to become radical?
I dont know? Whatever could it be? Why dont we ask all those Buddhists who are bing decapitated in Thailand? Those nasty Buddhists who have been opressing Muslims - no wait - thats the Jews - errr - no the Hindus - ah f**k it, we are Muslims, we have been killing and slaughtering kaffirs since our Prophet decapitated 900 Jews in Medina, bloodthirsty terrorist that he was - we can do what the f**k we like...
Allah-hooo-Akbar etc etc etc
;-)
Most of the Muslims killed in Iraq were killed by other Muslims primarily Saddam Hussein and Zarqawai.I'm not sure what lies you are talking about that were used to invade Iraq. But if you are talking about WMD, every intelligence service believed Saddam had WMD because he had used those weapons on the Kurds and the Iranians. Besides I'm not talking about politician who we know will lie. I'm addressing the point the author of the article made about the culture of lying, hypocrisy and dishonesty that exists in the Middle East.Once it becomes known how quickly Muslims lie, people will shun you, especially in the business world. Just like people know better then to do business with Gypsies.
KingOfTalkingCr@p(A hyocrite); There is no "but" about it. Islam is incapable of living in peace with anything. Muslims themselves maybe vary by degrees on how they live their lives but Islam does not waiver on the premise that it must be the dominant religion on Earth, there is no grey area. There is no separation between religion and politics in Islam. I agree that western foreign policy leaves a lot to be desired and will certainly act as a lightening rod for a section of the followers of Islam. But the radicals will always find an excuse for their jihad manifesto.
King Toller-Schwantz:
"innocent Iraqis lay dead due to this and you sit there and fret over the "level of lying" in the Islamic world? Your attitude is precisely one of the things that enrages the Islamic world and fuels their anger and contempt for the West. "
The innocent Iraqi's -most of them- were killed by their own, be it Sunni or Shiites or by wandering Jihad Arabs or other 'insurgents'. The Coalition-forces are not there to kill people, the Jihadi's do that instead.
You mention "Islamic World " twice. Why?
There is no "Islamic World" and there will never be.
There are many Islamic hell-holes in this world, and there are pleanty of infiltraitors in the west, such as yourself. But that doesn't make the world Islamic.
Western foreign policy is one of the lightening rods for these people because they are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and have nothing to do, really, with religion.
I was going to support you when you said "I do not think I ever read that the blame of suicide bombing lies exclusively in US and UK foregin policy. I certainly am liberal & multicultural but I'm also pragmatic and understand that foreign policy may be one issue but its not the issue. Conversely, I completely reject that Islam is the issue, too."
However now you are saying that the radicalism has nothing to do with religion and it's all about politics. It's undeniably elements of both. If Islam was irrelevant it wouldn't feature so prominently in terrorist propaganda. The same goes for politics.
BTW, with 50% of Pakistanis supporting Bin Laden, is it really fair to call them radical? In my mind "radical" sounds more like a point of view endorsed by 5%, not 50%.
Oh, common gentlemen, you don’t really believe you can win that discussion with KinK Trolerance.
Although you your English is perfect and your reasoning faculties are superb, they are no match to KinK Trolerance’s perfect Taqyian and his mastery of Kitman. He is a good Moslem!
But really, how in the world can you debate someone who defends a civilization whose ethos derives from a cult invented by a psychopathic murderer, thief, sadist and sexual deviant?
A civilization that reveres such absolutely depraved, wicked individual, indeed a monster, was doomed to become a social, cultural and economical pathology.
Islam has always been our (and everybody's else) deadly enemy and the fact that today we are saving that horribly disfigured organism from extinction supporting its head, so it doesn’t drown in its own goo doesn’t reduce its hatred toward us.
On the contrary, the humiliation and shame of being dependent on the mercy of those who Moslem had always perceived morally and spiritually inferior, the unclean and infidel, must be unbearable indeed. And that shame adds fuel to the ancient hatred and animates a good Moslem as Kink Trolerance.
Of course, he can not be blamed for having been born into Islam, but it doesn’t mean we need to pay attention to his crap. But we need to keep an eye on him…
Remember: the only good Moslem is a bad Moslem.
Just ignore the usual ramblings from our Shiite visitor - again he's trying to mire down discussion in red herrings. "Oooh, they didn't blame it ALL on US and UK foreign policy" Yeah, that would explain the protest signs.
"US and UK out of Iraq, and force islamic recognition of human rights!"
"Stop the occupation of Iraq! Homosexual and women's rights in islam now!"
"No blood for dishonour!"
Yes, been plenty of those, of course. Don't argue with me, old fella. I'm an imam; ergo, I know quite a bit more about islam than you.
Imam Geoff
King: but Western foreign policy is one of the lightening rods for these people because they are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED and have nothing to do, really, with religion.
Imam Geoff: Sorry, little felal, not so. Otherwise why cloak anti-Semitism and Christophobia in islamic garb? Head-garb is, of course, mandatory for all women in these patriarchal societies, but there's no reason the imams need to whine about the evil Americans and evil Jews from a political perspective. Can't you Wahhabis have a secular debate? Why not just say something like: "End capitalism now"? Answer: because ultimately all islamic violence is - wait for it - religiously motivated.
King: I've pointed out the numerous violent and otherwise disturbing passages in the Bible, both OT and NT...This is a fact and is really an integral part to understanding Islam.
Imam Geoff: No, you haven't, because they aren't there. Not in the NT, old fella. Show me the money.
Too easy.
Imam Geoff
PS: Great phrase, "Islamikazes". LOL
And allah knows not.
Imam Geoff
Imam Geoff
I've wondered - If Moses (I think the only man who ever actually spoke "face to face" with you know who) received the commandments cast into stone by (you know who's ) hand, not his own, how is it that muslims don't follow these commandments. The belief that "people of the book" have corrupted the words that were cast into stone - not just word of mouth or paper? All though it seems there is a slight difference in the writings in different faiths, they do seem to be basically the same for all "people of the book". If muslims consider themselves children of Abraham and all that why don't they have (you know who's) ten commandments? Do they?
Amaduillahrumbabumpa,
Thanks for the question Borg. By way of response, I would like to say:
Ye dare doubt the words of You-Know-Who? You will burn in the flames of a kitchen hotplate for 1000 years, and every time your skin is roasted from your body, You-Know-Who (not the Harry Potter villain; the other, fictional one) will replace it and you will be cut with a hundred paper cuts!
For You-Know-Who is Merciful, All-Forgiving.
My impression, as a famous and well-travelled imam, is that because Mohammed was the "perfect man", that all that he said or did was also "perfect". Thus, where the Ten Commandments conflicts with islamic law, the Commandments must be ignored. And why? Because Mohammed is the "perfect man".
If this seems like circular argumentation, it is. Yet this is the foundation of it all. Forget faith; this is fanaticism. And incredibly, it was Jesus who supposed said that he had not come to remove the old Law - meaning the Ten Commandments - and yet muslims still claim him to be a prophet. Now, you ask again: how can the two coexist?
...what am I, an imam?
I can't tell you why people are dumb any more than I can tell you where the last Prophet's cave is at. But I can give you the famous words of the Prophet:
Circle the arguments, the Christians are coming.
Imam Geoff
"Ask-the-Geoff"
Thanks Imam Geoff, I would direct my questions to Sheik Spencer, but I'm not sure he would answer.
The all knowing oracle - Hugh - perhaps knows and answers all...
And I've been saying it... Yep, muslims are like "Death Eaters" without wands.
If my knowledge of Moses is faulty blame Cecil B. DeMille.
Both of you are clearly ready for your close-ups.
Oh, wise one, great oracle, thanks for noticing and, as always, imparting your wisdom...(and occasional dictionary homework...)
May I request an occasional question and answer session, perhaps an open thread...I promise I'll come to class.
Pull up a chair.
Kingintolerance said: "You sit there and fret over the 'level of lying' in the Islamic world? Your attitude is precisely one of the things that enrages the Islamic world and fuels their anger and contempt for the West."
We have all come to understand that the slightest critical observations of the deplorable conditions extant in Muslim lands or the terroristic tenets of Islam itself is sufficient to cause Muslims to rape, murder, steal, and complain alot...
Thanks for finally admitting that Islam is so completely intolerant of self criticism, and so psychotically enraged if (God forefend) a Westerner criticizes Islam that Muslims habitually resort to terrorist slaughter at the drop of a hat, or the slightest criticism... Couldn't have said it better myself, Kingintolerant!
"We have all come to understand that the slightest critical observations of the deplorable conditions extant in Muslim lands or the terroristic tenets of Islam..."
--- from a posting above
One NPR show, On Point, run by John Ashbrook (a once and former journalist -- Ashbrook had plied his trade under the misunderstander of Islam, and dedicated dismememberer of Israel, the bow-tied impresser of working-stiffs on Morrissey Boulevard H. D. S. Greenway, then left to make a fortune in an Internet company that would sell some household goods, and when his greedy dream collapsed, came running back not to The Globe, but to Jane Christo, czar until recently of the Boston NPR station, and she hired him), last night had a program devoted to "Young Muslims in America" -- you know, how hard it is now to be Young and Muslim in America. The only problem with the program was that neither Ashbrook, who knows nothing about Islam and certainly does not intend to learn now, nor the youngest of his guests, a chirpy girl who has lived in America since the age of 2, appear to know a thing about Islam. The male guest, aged 28, had just made a movie about the Plight of Young Muslims in America or some such nonsense. Most sinister of all was Leila Ahmad, who has tenure at Harvard Divinity School (her specialty, natch, and what got her hired, no doubt, when they were frantically lookng to find someone to fill a post, someone who could teach about a kindler, gentler Islam, one that would have nothing to do with those touchy and untouchable subjects, Jihad-conquest and the imposition of dhimmi-status on non-Muslims, but on something that would allow for some "soft" criticism (and apologetics at the same time) of Islam -- that old favorite, "Islam and Women." The portable seculation of the Hijab, as Ms. Abu-Lughod likes to call it of course fits right in with a counter-attack on crude Western objectification of women, and so on and so predictably forth.
Ahmad's performance was scandalous. She knows perfectly well what Islam is all about. But she was far closer to Tariq Ramadhan, in her taqiyya/kitman presentation than to that other celebrated Egyptian, Magdi Allam. In other words, she has thrown off any pretense of being anything other than a deceptive apologist for Islam. Trouble is, Ashbrook has no idea what Islam is all about. The boy does -- he knows better. The girl was Bererly-Hills clueless.
It can be listened to on-line at WBUR's website, and it will be replayed this morning.
Really, the islamo-apologist who is the current Dean of Harvard Divinity School, William Graham, will do nothing -- he's on her wavelength (how a man turned down for tenure by his own department could end up as dean of the Divinity School is a fascinating question). Nor will that "Pluralism Project" lady, the one who must madden scholarly Hindus with the level of what they like to call in substandard academic English her "discourse," Diane Eck. Not everyone at the Divinity School is at this level. But many are. And Ahmad was in what she omitted, and what she denied, and in her entire Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque (which seek in the JW archives) performance, was shameless, and therefore, shameful.
"We have all come to understand that the slightest critical observations of the deplorable conditions extant in Muslim lands or the terroristic tenets of Islam..."
--- from a posting above
One NPR show, On Point, run by John Ashbrook (a once and former journalist -- Ashbrook had plied his trade under the misunderstander of Islam, and dedicated dismememberer of Israel, the bow-tied impresser of working-stiffs on Morrissey Boulevard H. D. S. Greenway, then left to make a fortune in an Internet company that would sell some household goods, and when his greedy dream collapsed, came running back not to The Globe, but to Jane Christo, czar until recently of the Boston NPR station, and she hired him), last night had a program devoted to "Young Muslims in America" -- you know, how hard it is now to be Young and Muslim in America. The only problem with the program was that neither Ashbrook, who knows nothing about Islam and certainly does not intend to learn now, nor the youngest of his guests, a chirpy girl who has lived in America since the age of 2, appear to know a thing about Islam. The male guest, aged 28, had just made a movie about the Plight of Young Muslims in America or some such nonsense. Most sinister of all was Leila Ahmad, who has tenure at Harvard Divinity School (her specialty, natch, and what got her hired, no doubt, when they were frantically lookng to find someone to fill a post, someone who could teach about a kindler, gentler Islam, one that would have nothing to do with those touchy and untouchable subjects, Jihad-conquest and the imposition of dhimmi-status on non-Muslims, but on something that would allow for some "soft" criticism (and apologetics at the same time) of Islam -- that old favorite, "Islam and Women." The portable seculation of the Hijab, as Ms. Abu-Lughod likes to call it of course fits right in with a counter-attack on crude Western objectification of women, and so on and so predictably forth.
Ahmad's performance was scandalous. She knows perfectly well what Islam is all about. Part of her shtick, by the way, is to tell audiences, in her soft voice, and regarding them with her deep-set, sincere-eyed expression, that once, back in Egypt, she even contemplated "becoming a Christian" but did not (this gives her instant credibility -- she was thoughtful enough to be tempted, critical enough of Islam to be tempted, but you see -- she held out, stuck with Islam, and is far better for it).
But she proved herself far closer to Tariq Ramadhan, in her taqiyya-laden presentation, than to that other celebrated Egyptian, Magdi Allam (whom google, and see if any of his articles or books are now in English from the original Italian). In other words, Leila Ahmad has thrown off any pretense of being anything other than a deceptive apologist for Islam. Trouble is, Ashbrook has no idea what Islam is all about. The boy does -- he knows better. The girl was Beverly-Hills clueless.
It can be listened to on-line at WBUR's website, and it will be replayed this morning.
Really, the islamo-apologist who is the current Dean of Harvard Divinity School, William Graham, will do nothing -- he's on her wavelength (how a man turned down for tenure by his own department could end up as dean of the Divinity School is a fascinating question). Nor will that "Pluralism Project" lady, the one who must madden scholarly Hindus with the level of what they like to call in substandard academic English her "discourse," Diane Eck. Not everyone at the Divinity School is at this level. But many are. And Ahmad was in what she omitted, and what she denied, and in her entire Taqiyya-and-Tu-Quoque (which seek in the JW archives) performance, similar to that of the 28-year old cineaste/propagandist, was shameless, and therefore, shameful.
Is there such a thing as shame in Islam?
Yes. The remedy is usually to transfer such frustrations onto local non-muslims.
Regrettably, that isn't a joke, as the constant talk about "retribution for islamic 'humiliation'" will attest.
Imam Geoff
Geoff: "I'm an imam; ergo, I know quite a bit more about islam than you."
King: Yep. You know a lot about Islam alright. Now, about that boner you seem to have...
KT, thanks for admitting my greater Quranic knowledge at last, but don't come on to other posters sexually here. Besides, I think you're a man - or at least technically a 'male' - and so that sort of thing is prohibited in your religion anyway.
Why do so many islamofascists seem to want to know about the penises of other posters? This has happened to me about four times now. Bizarre.
Imam Geoff
PS: Go check out the "Islamikazes" thread if you need a laugh. My lord, but I'm funny.
"Islamikazes", though - still makes me LOL.
Imam Geoff
Perhaps a useful metaphor is in order to clarify (to certain oblique persons) why many are prepared to make broad judgments about Islam at this point in time.
When it was discovered that dioxins (a family of hundreds of chemicals) were linked to widespread outbreaks of cancer, it was simple for society to come to the conclusion that dioxin should be banned outright. This reasonable conclusion didn't require that everyone who was contaminated with dioxins developed cancer, or that a 100% causal link had to be made between each separate type of dioxin and the incidence of cancer. Rather it was sufficient for socieity to recognize that there was an inherent risk of sufficient magnitude for ALL dioxins to be banned in order to avoid the possibility that SOME dioxins might cause malignancy.
Just so, it has become PLAIN and OBVIOUS that ISLAM is inextricably linked with terrorism and the mother's milk of terrorism; Koran inspired hatred. These malignant symptoms of this 'religion,' just as in the case of dioxins and cancer, make it eminently reasonable to argue that all forms of Islam pose grave threats in the West, and its banning and even elimination MUST be considered.
The fatuous and tiresome denials (even heard here!) that the problem isn't Islam are absolutely incredible after what we have observed for the 4 years prior since 9/11. When thorough and uncontested ISLAMIC justifications are given 100% of the time for these MUSLIM atrocities across the globe, no expedient to deal with this vilipend belief system should be ignored.
"Puhleeese" and "boner" -- Hmmm.... Sound like you might be put to death for your orientation, Kingintolerance -- Doesn't that bother you in the slightest?