New Name for the War on Terror

[KenpoEMT]

I saw a report about a wife who became a suicide bomber. They interviewed the husband and children. Her family had no idea that she was going to blow herself up in an attempt to murder innocent people. To say that her husband was shocked is an understatement.
On a video that the wife taped immediately before her 'mission', she described how she had always desired to make her living body into "pieces of shrapnel" to "kill the infadels".

What exactly did anyone do to this woman to make her desire to murder others?

Quite frankly, I think that this is nothing more than the effect of the environment in which she was raised. If America had never existed she would still have blown herself up in service to ala.

At least, over the centuries, the Christians outgrew their murderous tendencies. It seems the Muslims have not progressed beyond the Dark Ages.

 

[Tgace]

And for those who like to blame the Terrorism trouble on out "support of Israel", what other option do you propose there? To not support Israel? Is that how we want to treat our Allies?

http://www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/beres/sept02-03.htm

To fully understand current conflicts in the Middle East, history must be recalled. Acknowledged by the United Nations and the civilized community of nations, Israel became a recognized and sovereign state on May 14, 1948. Immediately, the five armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan (which was renamed Jordan one year later, in 1949), Lebanon and Iraq invaded the fledgling country. Their combined intention, celebrated enthusiastically all over the Arab world, was expressed plainly and publicly by Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab League: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

Egypt's Gamal Abd el-Nasser ordered the U.N. Emergency Force (UNEF), stationed in the Sinai since 1956, to withdraw. After the withdrawal of UNEF, the Voice of the Arabs proclaimed, on May 18, 1967: "As of today there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the U.N. about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is total war, which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

Two days later, a jubilant echo came from Hafez Assad, then the Syrian Defense Minister: "Our forces are now entirely ready... to initiate the act of liberation itself, and to explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland.... The time has come to enter into a battle of annihilation."

President Abd ur-Rahman Aref of Iraq joined the chorus of genocidal threats: "The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear - to wipe Israel off the map."

Today, in early autumn 2003, this goal remains fixed and unchanged. Significantly, the goal remains nothing less than another Jewish genocide. Arab terrorism, as a complementary strategy of attrition, is consciously directed at the very same goal.

With particular reference to the Palestinians, the Charter of Hamas - the Islamic Resistance Movement - exclaims proudly: "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad... In order to face the usurpation of Palestine by the Jews, we have no escape from raising the banner of Jihad.... We must imprint on the minds of generations of Muslims that the Palestinian problem is a religious one, to be dealt with on this premise.... 'I swear by He who holds in His Hands the Soul of Muhammad: I indeed wish to go to war for the sake of Allah! I promise to assault and kill, assault and kill, assault and kill.'"

 

[Andrew Green]

Christianity and Islam have different circumstances surrounding them.

At one point the Christian church basically ruled the western world. Chrisitans also had the idea that giving ones life to kill infidels was a good thing.

All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested. O what a disgrace if such a despised and base race, which worships demons, should conquer a people which has the faith of omnipotent God and is made glorious with the name of Christ!

~ Pope Urban II (Fulcher of Chartres account)

Christianity has also found itself in much more isolated territories, with few others at there borders. The middle east has always had many countries, and almost always had a war of some kind going on there. Whether it was being fought by Christian, Muslims, Soviets, Americans or anyone else, the area has never had a chance to stabalize.

They also have all of the oil, and that is a lot of money. And where there is a lot of money there will be a lot of fighting over it. All the more developed countries try to manipulate things to get the better deal for themselves. Backing the armies they want to win. So the fighting within the area is being pushed on by outside forces. When the English and the French where at war no one was giving them weapons and money that exceeded there own capabilities. No one stepped in and gave them more money to keep fighting when they ran out.

Christianity has also had a lot longer to grow, It's 800(?) years older or so, and the horrible acts done in its name have only ended how long ago? Residential schools in North America where in the 20th Century, there has been some fighting in the recent past too.

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
~ Hitler

Charles Manson springs too mind.

Too blame Islam for the terrorists is like blaiming all of Christianity for the Nazi's, the inquisition, the Crusades and all sorts of other nasty stuff.

 

[Tgace]

But to deny the relationship between radical Islam and terrorism is like putting blinders on.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/002425.php

The root cause of terrorism is an ideology called “political Islam.” Political Islam is a desire by extremist Muslims to create a fundamentalist Muslim empire made up of every Muslim nation. This desire to create a Muslim empire is based on the delusion that modernity is a threat to Islam and the idea that the Muslim community has strayed from God and if they were to return to a strict interpretation of Islam based on Sharia (Islamic Law) that the problems in the Muslim world would be solved. It is this exact mentality spurned of paranoia, ignorance, fear, and a rejection of secularism that inspired the beheading of Kim Sun-il, Paul M. Johnson Jr., and Nicholas Berg.

Political Islam has been growing at turbo speed since the 1980s.
Similar to the spread of communism, the call for Islamic states has gained substantial following among the poor, unemployed, enfranchised and those who are disillusioned in believing that the creation of Islamic states and the implementation of Sharia will solve all their problems. In fact, every modern example of an Islamic state, whether in Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan, or Nigeria has resulted in war, terrorism, inequality for women and non-Muslims, poverty and a slippery slope into the dark ages.

Terrorism is a natural result of political Islam because those who seek Islamic states believe that they are trying to implement the wishes of God and that no matter how barbaric their tactics are, God will be pleased with them because their goal is “noble.”

I cant figure out how Muslim nations following Sharia is somehow OK while if any western nation would somehow decide to form a "Christian government".....well need I paint a picture?

 

[Tgace]

Crusade Myths:

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/tmadden_crusademyths_feb05.asp

Since the 1970s the Crusades have attracted many hundreds of scholars who have meticulously poked, prodded, and examined them. As a result, much more is known about Christianity’s holy wars than ever before. Yet the fruits of decades of scholarship have been slow to enter the popular mind. In part this is the fault of professional historians, who tend to publish studies that, by necessity, are technical and therefore not easily accessible outside of the academy. But it is also due to a clear reluctance among modern elites to let go of Runciman’s vision of the Crusades. And so modern popular books on the Crusades–desiring, after all, to be popular–tend to parrot Runciman. The same is true for other media, like the multi-part television documentary, The Crusades (1995), produced by BBC/A&E and starring Terry Jones of Monty Python fame. To give the latter an air of authority the producers spliced in a number of distinguished Crusade historians who gave their views on events. The problem was that the historians would not go along with Runciman’s ideas. No matter. The producers simply edited the taped interviews cleverly enough that the historians seemed to be agreeing with Runciman. As Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith quite vehemently told me, "They made me appear to say things that I do not believe!"

So, what is the real story of the Crusades? As you might imagine, it is a long story. But there are good histories, written in the last twenty years, that lay much of it out. For the moment, given the barrage of coverage that the Crusades are getting nowadays, it might be best to consider just what the Crusades were not. Here, then, are some of the most common myths and why they are wrong.

Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.

This is as wrong as wrong can be. From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor, and most of Spain. In other words, by the end of the eleventh century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities: These were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core. And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest. The First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II in 1095 in response to an urgent plea for help from the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople. Urban called the knights of Christendom to come to the aid of their eastern brethren. It was to be an errand of mercy, liberating the Christians of the East from their Muslim conquerors. In other words, the Crusades were from the beginning a defensive war. The entire history of the eastern Crusades is one of response to Muslim aggression.

Myth 2: The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land. Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.

Historians used to believe that a rise in Europe’s population led to a crisis of too many noble "second sons," those who were trained in chivalric warfare but who had no feudal lands to inherit. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a safety valve, sending these belligerent men far from Europe where they could carve out lands for themselves at someone else’s expense. Modern scholarship, assisted by the advent of computer databases, has exploded this myth. We now know that it was the "first sons" of Europe that answered the pope’s call in 1095, as well as in subsequent Crusades. Crusading was an enormously expensive operation. Lords were forced to sell off or mortgage their lands to gather the necessary funds. They were also not interested in an overseas kingdom. Much like a soldier today, the medieval Crusader was proud to do his duty but longed to return home. After the spectacular successes of the First Crusade, with Jerusalem and much of Palestine in Crusader hands, virtually all of the Crusaders went home. Only a tiny handful remained behind to consolidate and govern the newly won territories. Booty was also scarce. In fact, although Crusaders no doubt dreamed of vast wealth in opulent Eastern cities, virtually none of them ever even recouped their expenses. But money and land were not the reasons that they went on Crusade in the first place. They went to atone for their sins and to win salvation by doing good works in a faraway land.

Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood.

This is a favorite used to demonstrate the evil nature of the Crusades. Most recently, Bill Clinton in a speech at Georgetown cited this as one reason the United States is a victim of Muslim terrorism. (Although Mr. Clinton brought the blood up to knee level for effect.) It is certainly true that many people in Jerusalem were killed after the Crusaders captured the city. But this must be understood in historical context. The accepted moral standard in all pre-modern European and Asian civilizations was that a city that resisted capture and was taken by force belonged to the victorious forces. That included not just the buildings and goods, but the people as well. That is why every city or fortress had to weigh carefully whether it could hold out against besiegers. If not, it was wise to negotiate terms of surrender. In the case of Jerusalem, the defenders had resisted right up to the end. They calculated that the formidable walls of the city would keep the Crusaders at bay until a relief force in Egypt could arrive. They were wrong. When the city fell, therefore, it was put to the sack. Many were killed, yet many others were ransomed or allowed to go free. By modern standards this may seem brutal. Yet a medieval knight would point out that many more innocent men, women, and children are killed in modern bombing warfare than could possibly be put to the sword in one or two days. It is worth noting that in those Muslim cities that surrendered to the Crusaders the people were left unmolested, retained their property, and allowed to worship freely. As for those streets of blood, no historian accepts them as anything other than a literary convention. Jerusalem is a big town. The amount of blood necessary to fill the streets to a continuous and running three-inch depth would require many more people than lived in the region, let alone the city.

Myth 4: The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery.

It is important to remember that in the Middle Ages the West was not a powerful, dominant culture venturing into a primitive or backward region. It was the Muslim East that was powerful, wealthy, and opulent. Europe was the third world. The Crusader States, founded in the wake of the First Crusade, were not new plantations of Catholics in a Muslim world akin to the British colonization of America. Catholic presence in the Crusader States was always tiny, easily less than ten percent of the population. These were the rulers and magistrates, as well as Italian merchants and members of the military orders. The overwhelming majority of the population in the Crusader States was Muslim. They were not colonies, therefore, in the sense of plantations or even factories, as in the case of India. They were outposts. The ultimate purpose of the Crusader States was to defend the Holy Places in Palestine, especially Jerusalem, and to provide a safe environment for Christian pilgrims to visit those places. There was no mother country with which the Crusader States had an economic relationship, nor did Europeans economically benefit from them. Quite the contrary, the expense of Crusades to maintain the Latin East was a serious drain on European resources. As an outpost, the Crusader States kept a military focus. While the Muslims warred against each other the Crusader States were safe, but once united the Muslims were able to dismantle the strongholds, capture the cities, and in 1291 expel the Christians completely.

Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.

No pope ever called a Crusade against Jews. During the First Crusade a large band of riffraff, not associated with the main army, descended on the towns of the Rhineland and decided to rob and kill the Jews they found there. In part this was pure greed. In part it also stemmed from the incorrect belief that the Jews, as the crucifiers of Christ, were legitimate targets of the war. Pope Urban II and subsequent popes strongly condemned these attacks on Jews. Local bishops and other clergy and laity attempted to defend the Jews, although with limited success. Similarly, during the opening phase of the Second Crusade a group of renegades killed many Jews in Germany before St. Bernard was able to catch up to them and put a stop to it. These misfires of the movement were an unfortunate byproduct of Crusade enthusiasm. But they were not the purpose of the Crusades. To use a modern analogy, during the Second World War some American soldiers committed crimes while overseas. They were arrested and punished for those crimes. But the purpose of the Second World War was not to commit crimes.

Myth 6: The Crusades were so corrupt and vile that they even had a Children’s Crusade.

The so-called "Children’s Crusade" of 1212 was neither a Crusade nor an army of children. It was a particularly large eruption of popular religious enthusiasm in Germany that led some young people, mostly adolescents, to proclaim themselves Crusaders and begin marching to the sea. Along the way they gathered plenty of popular support and not a few brigands, robbers, and beggars as well. The movement splintered in Italy and finally ended when the Mediterranean failed to dry up for them to cross. Pope Innocent III did not call this "Crusade." Indeed, he repeatedly urged non-combatants to stay at home, helping the war effort through fasting, prayer, and alms. In this case, he praised the zeal of the young who had marched so far, and then told them to go home.

Myth 7: Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades.

This is an odd myth, given that the pope was so roundly criticized for failing to apologize directly for the Crusades when he asked forgiveness from all those that Christians had unjustly harmed. It is true that John Paul recently apologized to the Greeks for the Fourth Crusade’s sack of Constantinople in 1204. But the pope at the time, Innocent III, expressed similar regret. That, too, was a tragic misfire that Innocent had done everything he could to avoid.

Myth 8: Muslims, who remember the Crusades vividly, have good reason to hate the West.

Actually, the Muslim world remembers the Crusades about as well as the West–in other words, incorrectly. That should not be surprising. Muslims get their information about the Crusades from the same rotten histories that the West relies on. The Muslim world used to celebrate the Crusades as a great victory for them. They did, after all, win. But western authors, fretting about the legacy of modern imperialism, have recast the Crusades as wars of aggression and the Muslims as placid sufferers. In so doing they have rescinded centuries of Muslim triumphs, offering in their stead only the consolation of victimhood.

Thomas F. Madden is Associate Professor and Chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University. He is author of A Concise History of the Crusades and co-author of The Fourth Crusade.

 

[michaeledward]

I saw a report about a wife who became a suicide bomber. They interviewed the husband and children. Her family had no idea that she was going to blow herself up in an attempt to murder innocent people. To say that her husband was shocked is an understatement.
On a video that the wife taped immediately before her 'mission', she described how she had always desired to make her living body into "pieces of shrapnel" to "kill the infadels".

What exactly did anyone do to this woman to make her desire to murder others?

Quite frankly, I think that this is nothing more than the effect of the environment in which she was raised. If America had never existed she would still have blown herself up in service to ala.

At least, over the centuries, the Christians outgrew their murderous tendencies. It seems the Muslims have not progressed beyond the Dark Ages.

The correct reference is 'Allah'.

Also, during the time period often referred to as the 'Dark Ages', some report that Islam was in its Golden Age; a very modern civilization spreading from Spain, across North Africa, to the Middle East and as far as the South Pacific. Commerce, Literature, Education, Medicine all flourished under Islam during the 'Dark Ages'.

Seek first to understand, then to be understood.

 

[Tgace]

That spread via religious conquest. And apparently some want to do so again.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That spread via religious conquest. And apparently some want to do so again.

Define Irony: Leftists spend most of their time fighting the Christian "phantom menace" that they claim wants to turn America away from a secular society and in to a religious one where women can't get a free abortion.

Then, they turn around and defend a group of loons who want to return the middle east to the 12th Century and install a new Caliphate, spread to it's neighbors, and put a burkha on every woman, all on the grounds of RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE?!

Now, how can you hold both philosophical positions, except for the most base political opportunistic reasons. Oh, it's enough to make my head spin.

 

[Andrew Green]

It's really very simple.

They are here, they want there country to be a certain way, but accept that other countries might not want to live the same way. Those countries should be free to live the way they want to, same as we should be over here.

Over here we are a democracy, seperation of church and state, multicultural, many religions, huge area with many subcultures, technology driven, huge entertainment inustry. Our needs are going to be different then a smaller less technical country where law and morality are based on religion.

Neither is better or worse, just better or worse for the people there.

Same as martial arts. Different arts do things different, different sorts of people are draw to them. Doing Judo in a TKD class is gonna be wrong, doing it in a Judo class is right.

We do TKD, they do Judo. Neither is better or worse, but we like our TKDand don't want it to turn into Judo.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's really very simple.

When ever a claim is made about something that is "very clear", it should be apparent that the claim is anything but that.

They are here, they want there country to be a certain way, but accept that other countries might not want to live the same way. Those countries should be free to live the way they want to, same as we should be over here.

Over here we are a democracy, seperation of church and state, multicultural, many religions, huge area with many subcultures, technology driven, huge entertainment inustry. Our needs are going to be different then a smaller less technical country where law and morality are based on religion.

Neither is better or worse, just better or worse for the people there.

Same as martial arts. Different arts do things different, different sorts of people are draw to them. Doing Judo in a TKD class is gonna be wrong, doing it in a Judo class is right.

We do TKD, they do Judo. Neither is better or worse, but we like our TKDand don't want it to turn into Judo.

So what if Texas wants to execute prisoners but New York doesn't? Or what if Kentucky wants to make homosexuality illegal but California wants to allow gay marriage? I mean, Texas isn't the same as New York, so what applies in New York won't apply in Texas, by your argument. Texas should be free to make whatever laws they want in Texas, as long as New York is free to make it's laws, is that what you're saying?

Seems you're applying your political views in a pretty arbitrary manner.

On the one hand, when it's politically expedient, you argue that people who live in a certain area should have the right to do whatever they want, no matter how distasteful, to include dictators...on the other, you claim that discrimination is absolutely wrong when you happen to disagree with that particular discrimination, so it must be completely outlawed...even if the place you are attacking it has nothing to do with you, such as another state.

And your argument is that it's happening in your country? Not really, state law varies from federal law, and if you live in a state that isn't doing this, it really doesn't have anything to do with you, right?

Unless of course there is a such thing as right and wrong, and discrimination is universally wrong. In that case, it's as wrong in Texas as it is in New York as it is in Iraq as it is in Kosovo.

Of course then you'll make the argument that Iraq is a different culture, while other states are part of the same culture.

Not so fast.

You really can't claim that Texas is the same culture as Maine, they are two entirely different cultures. So, to apply your argument, applying Maine standards to Texas, for example, is intolerance. People in Texas should have the right to discriminate against people of other religions, races, and cultures if that is their culture right? I mean, who are you to intervene (all this according to your argument).

I happen to see it this way...there is a universally acceptable standard of human behavior, and dictators don't fall in to that acceptable category anymore than discriminating against someone because of their race, ethnicity or any other uncontrollable reason.

 

[Tgace]

How long should we tolerate despots and barbarism for the sake of "peace in our time"? How far is too far?

 

[sgtmac_46]

How long should we tolerate despots and barbarism for the sake of "peace in our time"? How far is too far?

I think the answer is "Until it's their idea."

 

[Tgace]

So let me get this straight...conflicts within my memory.

Grenada (?) was that good or bad?

Panama: Similar to the Iraq issue. We "put him in there" so I guess we became no longer eligible to take him out once he became a problem. But as it was quick, nobody cares much anymore.

Bosnia: Didnt get there soon enough.

Somalia: Didnt get there soon enough. Didnt supply enough manpower/material when we did. Couldnt get out of there fast enough after the "Blackhawk Down" incident.

Rawanda: Didnt do anything. But is implied we should have.

Desert Storm 1: War for oil, but was "good" because we won quickly and got out.

Iraq War: Wrong

May have missed a few..but I just cant figure out what qualifies for a righteous removal of a barbaric dictatorship or solution of a humanitarian crisis, and which is not. As long as its quick its OK, if it requires a long commitment its not?

Unless its like Sgtmac said.."when its their idea".

 

[sgtmac_46]

It's really very simple.

They are here, they want there country to be a certain way, but accept that other countries might not want to live the same way. Those countries should be free to live the way they want to, same as we should be over here.

Over here we are a democracy, seperation of church and state, multicultural, many religions, huge area with many subcultures, technology driven, huge entertainment inustry. Our needs are going to be different then a smaller less technical country where law and morality are based on religion.

Neither is better or worse, just better or worse for the people there.

Same as martial arts. Different arts do things different, different sorts of people are draw to them. Doing Judo in a TKD class is gonna be wrong, doing it in a Judo class is right.

We do TKD, they do Judo. Neither is better or worse, but we like our TKDand don't want it to turn into Judo.

"It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect. "

James Madison, to an unidentified correspondent, 1833​

"The fundamental source of all your errors, sophisms and false reasonings is a total ignorance of the natural rights of mankind. Were you once to become acquainted with these, you could never entertain a thought, that all men are not, by nature, entitled to a parity of privileges. You would be convinced, that natural liberty is a gift of the beneficent Creator to the whole human race, and that civil liberty is founded in that; and cannot be wrested from any people, without the most manifest violation of justice. "

Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, February 23, 1775​

 

[sgtmac_46]

I came across this quote from a meeting between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams and a muslim diplomat pertaining to the Barbary Pirates.


“We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretensions to make war upon a Nation who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our Friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation. The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every muslim who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise.”
Thomas Jefferson

 

[sgtmac_46]

Lest anyone think the above is a misinterpretation of Islam, I leave it to the judgement of the reader. Attached are two websites, neither website is biased against Isalm, in fact BOTH are pro-islamic english websites. The reader should simply research the issue themselves. Keep two terms in mind:

Dar-al Islam (Abode of Islam) Dar al-Harb (Abode of War)

In the teachings and minds of radical Islamics, there are only two abodes on earth, the abode of Islam and the abode of war. If you truly believe in fundamentalist Islamic teachings as the literal word, not as a tradition, then you believe that there are only two abodes. The Abode of War is everything controlled by unbelievers. There is no place for peace with any nation that does not accept Islamic rule. Muslims are fair in the sense that they don't really care what you as an individual believe, christianity, judaism, buddhism, are all tolerated (to some extent) as long as they reside in the Abode of Islam and abide by Islamic law (under Muslim rule).

Now, those who would presume to claim that "fundamentalist Islam is not the problem because most Islamic fundamentalists aren't terrorist" should keep in mind that it is fundamentally core to believing in the literal interpretation of the Qu'ran to believe in this dichotomy.


"(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous. " (Qu'ran 9:4)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. " (Qu'ran 9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." (Qu'ran 9:29)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html
http://www.islam101.com/selections/glossaryCD.html

Feel free to read for yourselves. I don't quote those verses to condemn all Muslims. A significant majority of Muslims believe that the Qu'ran, while a holy book, should not be taken literally (as do many christians believe the bible should not be taken literally), they take what is written with an understanding of the historical context and try to draw guidance from what sections apply to their life.

To a minority of muslims, however, the literal interpretation of these texts would lead them to believe that they should be in a constant state of war with unbelievers. As I illustrated in a previous post, this type of fundamentalist interpretation has been haunting western civilization for centuries. Long before 9/11, Modern Israel, or even the 20th Century, Islamic fundamentalists have been using this type of literal interpretation to justify all sorts of acts of war and terrorism.

Now, before someone says, "Well, yeah, but the bible can be interpretated the same way." Yeah, that may be so, but who cares. The fact is that most christians don't interpret the bible literally. Those that do, at least don't have the command that they should be in a constant state of war with all non-believes. What's more, western society is an increasing secular society. You'd be hard pressed to find many truly fundamentalist christians in the US, much less Canada and Europe.

What's more, even among true Fundamentalist Christians there's a bit of a contrast between "Love your neighbor as you love yourself" and "fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)" Taking one literally just leads to annoying people showing up at your door with tracts and an invitation to church, the other leads to a belief that strapping on high-explosives and detonating a bus is a good idea.

It isn't the religion of Islam I take exception with. Reasonable believers of Islam who understand that many of the passages of the Qu'ran applied in another era, but no longer, are always welcome. But saying that fundamentalist muslims who literally interpret this type of stuff aren't dangerous is pretty much wishful thinking.

I'll be expecting another anonymous post asking me if I "do much discriminating".

Discrimination isn't the issue, it's religious beliefs of all types that encourage the believers to commit violent acts. This includes certain sects of christianity and judaism.

The above will no doubt be a lightening rod, as it seems to be a taboo topic. I really don't understand what has happened to leftists. They attack christians who believe homosexuality is wrong as superstitious, homophobic, bible thumpers, and have no problem attacking their religious beliefs. They then turn around and label taboo mentioning that a few tenants of fundamentalist Islam is the belief that all non-believers need to be attacked until they submit to Islamic rule.

Seems to me that if one is superstitious BS, the other one is too. I have to wonder if the defense of Islam by the left is nothing more than the fact that Fundamentalist Christians are voting Republican, so they are the enemy, but Muslims are a potential political ally, so they get a free pass. If it's based on silly superstition, it's based on silly superstition. And if it's causing people to strap on bombs and blow up other people (Be they abortion clinics are train stations) it's maybe time to point out the absurdity. Politics sure does make strange bed-fellows.