hezbollah,hamas,al-queda,taliban,muslim brotherhood,iranian leadership,destroy them.

[QUOTE=spence; One thing I've noticed repeatedly is that you seem to place the responsibility for understanding completely on the other party, treating all Muslims as a gigantic monolithic block. You blame moderates for not speaking out more against violence, but have you ever raised an ear to see if any are talking? You blame all innocent Muslims for not doing more, instead of taking ownership for the fear that you alone have control of. It's like a fear of all guns rather than those people who would use them for violence. In this respect you're acting pretty Left wing.

People tend to be more uncomfortable with things they're not used to. In an effort for outreach many Imam's have Open Mosque Days. You should seek one out and go talk to people.

-spence[/QUOTE]

I have talked to two young Saudi Muslims who are here to study in our universities. They are very charming. One has the sentiments of a poet, the other is more into women and fast cars. What unites them is their love of their culture and religion. Neither approves of nor understands terrorists. Yet, both completely accept Shariah as being the only legitimate form of law. Though they enjoy the freedom of America, they totally accept the suppression of non-Muslims in Saudi Arabia. They don't see it as suppression. It is simply the will of God.

While I was listening to the Dennis Prager show, an American born Muslim from N.Y. called in to complain about Islamophobia and couldn't understand why we are afraid of loyal American Muslims. As the discussion progressed, Prager asked him if the U.S. population was predominantly Muslim, would he want us to be under Shariah law. After a brief pause, he said yes. I have heard sentiments from Muslim callers to talk shows that we would be better off if we had Shariah law.

Oklahoma has a proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot to prohibit Islamic law from being used in rulings of Oklahoma courts. Muneer Awad, executive director of the Oklahoma branch of the Council on American Islamic Relations opposes the ammendment.

I googled "do Muslims want Shariah law in the U.S?" and found, among many entries, a worldwide forum called Islamic Board which discusses all manner of Islamic related topics. Most of the members are Muslim, though there are non-Muslims--the latter often initiate controversial discussions. There were seven pages of discussion related to my search topic. It was a good 3 hour session of reading those and then browsing other topics. There was great unity of opinion on all topics, especially in response to non-Muslim members. There was a poll of members on whether they would choose democracy or Shariah law. At that point it was 42 for Shariah and 4 for democracy. There was a comment that "democracy is a man-made system, meaning rule by the people for the people. Thus it is contrary to Islam, because rule is for Alaah, the most high, the almighty, and it is not permissible to give legislative rights to any human being." There was a quotation from the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwahs that "the one who understands the true nature of the democratic system and ruling therein, then he nominates himself or someone else for election is approving this system, and is working with it, is in grave danger, because the democratic system is contrary to Islam . . ." The ruling goes on to have an exception--that if you involve with a system of democratic election in order to "be able to change the system to one that operates according to the Sharee'ah of Islam, and they are using this as a means to overcome the system of government" it would be acceptable to participate. Further "the Muslims in a country that is not governed according to Islamic Sharee'ah should do their utmost and strive as much as they can to bring about rule according to Islamic Sharee'ah . . . As for supporting one who calls for no implementation of Islamic Sharee'ah, that is not permissible, rather it may lead to kufr." Probably why the C.A.I.R. opposes the Oklahoma ammendment.

Another interesting thread on this forum is titled "what is a moderate Muslim?" Within the 4 page discussion, it is asked if it follows that persons who strictly follow the Qu'ran and the Sunnah are what, on the forum are called "good Muslims" are, actually, what non-Muslims refer to as Extremist or Radical Muslims. And if those who don't strictly follow the Qu'ran and the Sunnah and are called "bad Muslims" on the forum are what, in fact, non-Muslims refer to as moderate Muslims. One of the forum Muslims immediately responds that, yes, that would indeed follow, and that 99 percent of the muslims on the forum, and perhaps the world, would on that basis be viewed as extremist/fundamentalist/fanatical/overzealous Muslims.

There is on this forum a general consensus that Islam is both religion AND law. To quote one member, "Islam is a constitution, a covenant a way of life." There is also the opinion that "moderate Muslims" and "extremist Muslims" are phrases that have been invented by non-Muslims, and that there are only Muslims.

Spence -

"religion could be considered a root cause"

I just don't see why you need to qualify the connection between Islam and terrorism with "could be". When the terrorists tell you that they are motivated by Islam, that makes them Islamic terrorists. You'd have to have one heck of a political axe to grind to doubt that., in spite of admissions by the other party.

Bin Laden doesn't like our presence in Saudi Arabia. But he doesn't say "all good Saudi citizens are required to join the war", he says "all Muslims are required to join the war." Thus, religion is the base.

"the threat of terrorism today is primary Islamist in nature"

Agreed.

"if the best strategy is by winning "hearts and minds" or "peace through strength" is a different argument. "

There is no appeasing these people, unless you allow yourself to be completely subject to their brutal religious laws. Nothing short of 100% compliance with their demands will ever satishy their lust for blood. They kill people for having beards that are out of compliance, for God's sake.

If you say that killing Bin Laden doesn't make the problem go away, I agree. But the sad fact is, there is no possibility of appeasing these people, because there is no rationality behind their beliefs.

I spent 2+ years in Iraq, I know these people. They will accept nothing less than a complete obedience to Sharia law. If you complied with 99% of Sharia law, they'd cut your head off for being 1% off.

There is no way to win their hearts and minds. There are 3, only 3, choices here.

(1) we can allow the entire world to be enslaved by the barbarities of Sharia law. If we do that, the terrorism will stop.

(2) we can resist becoming slaves to Sharia law, and try to reason with these people, tell them we're sorry for all the mean things America has done. In that case, we are admitting that we're willing to live with the occasional terrorist attack, because that won't placate them one bit.

(3) we can kill them all.

I don't like saying that, especially since me and most of my friends are the ones called to do the heavy lifting (I'm a retired USMC Captain). But them there's the facts. Those facts may not serve the lefty agenda, but they are facts nonetheless.

Nazi Public Radio



Given the ethnicity of the radio stations CEO and other officers I can't think of a more unconscionable act than fire Juan. More power they have the more they exert. If no one ever challenges them and their funding source, they and their idealogy will run amok. In the last 100 years how many times did control of the media cause chaos in the world. NPR, NBC, ABC, and CBS, rarely ever report news in an unbiased manner.

Juan Williams crossed the line, and he should be fired for such a careless remark.

Obama said recently that Republicans "have to sit in the back of the bus" and that republicans are the "enemy" of Hispanics. Can we fire him...please?

Juan Williams admitted feelings that are shared by more than 90% of living human beings. Earnedstripes, you're telling me that when you're on a plane, you make no distinction whether the person sitting next to you is an elderly nun, or a young Muslim man screaming "Allah is great"? You really aren't more concerned about one than the other?

Bull@!%t.

he said...

"latinos need to punish their enemies" ....

very Presidential :uhuh:

Any of this sound familiar?

A few items from VDH (don't always agree with him but do often enough :rotf2: ) http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...r-davis-hanson

:rotf2:

What more can be said? He nailed it. :hihi:

Ah yes, fulfilling another campaign promise to bring
Americans together. pfft.

Sure there is a difference..., but not one so substantial that it is going to trigger any consternation. That's just how I see it. There are a lot of folks in Kuala Lampur chanting Allah is great... and for that matter, Philadelphia. But if I was sweating, it was because it was so hot... or because of the peppers I added to Philly's rendition of a steak and cheese. You can have your fear, and if it serves your ends well, your sohistry too. I prefer to avoid stereotypes, and given Juan Williams written elaborations on the struggles of black attorneys, I would have thought he would have done the same.

Good to see this thread finally developed some good content. Been busy with work and home but I'll try to get back here this weekend.

-spence

Let's face it, they all think it. Somewhere deep down all moonbats have the same rational fears and reservations about Islam as most conservatives do. Bill maher commented on his show on Friday and was immediately under fire.

I am actually stunned he didn't cave. Kuddos Bill.

YouTube - Bill Maher Stands By Mohammed Remarks