http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12745436/
Now how many cartoonists were actually killed?
Thanks for making my point. Not only did you supply just one example against a specific person, okay, three, your example shows that the threat had no teeth. Why? Because nobody was killed for speaking out against Bush. Now if you want to claim that Muslim threats against journalists and infidels were similarly not backed by actual murder, we have much deeper disagreement.
No, we already had a deep disagreement when you joined in with the gang that’s saying that all Muslims are scary because some of them are violent extremists.
Well, that skirts the issue nicely. (Sigh.) And since it’s my position, perhaps you would allow me to state it. If so, something more like this: there are a lot of Muslims that want to kill us a larger group that want to live in barbarism, mutilatiing and abusing women and killing those who don’t adhere to their near-stone age religion, so it behooves us to be vigilant.
And just FYI, when someoone says that there may be a deeper disagreement, that does not mean that the disagreement wasn’t deep to begin with.*
*No charge. 
Sometimes I forget dead Iraqis, like live ones, don’t count as people in conservative USA.
I assume you’re familiar with the events at Srebrenica in 1995 ? ‘Ethnic cleansing’ ? War crimes trial in The Hague ?
As regards Bosnia, are you sure this is the right way to describe thousands of ordinary civilians being rounded up, gunned down and buried in mass graves ? Simply on the basis of being Muslims ?
Interestingly enough, this is an argument that was frequently put forward by Serbs during the war in Bosnia.
I hope you understand that your arguments are much closer to those of Radovan Karadic than Winston Churchill. If this not your intent, I respectfully suggest that you might want to look into the accusations against Radovan Karadic, Ratko Mladic et al. and see if these are really the positions you want to support.
How many peoplee were killed?
No, because it’s not a blanket condemnation of all Catholics. It’s a sincere and informed concern with a serious problem in the Catholic church.
How many mosques do you attend? Do you speak and read Arabic fluently? Can you do a scholarly exegesis of the Koran in the original Arabic? Are you intimately familiar with each and every Muslim society?
Why are you so quick to assume that anyone who disagrees with you must be ignorant? Can you meet the same standards of evidence and argument that you demand of others?
No amount of information will ever satisfy you. You will always demand more, or insist that the information which has been provided to you is somehow faulty. You–and Tomndebb, and Miller, and a lot of others on this thread–are quite literally on the same moral and intellectual level as a Holocaust denier who refuses to be satisfied with any fact, no matter how well established it is.
How in the world can anyone possibly reason with someone who so little respect for facts as you jihad deniers?
How many people got killed because of My Sweet Lord or Piss Christ?
Maybe Christians should start killing. Maybe then they’d get some respect from the likes of you. Seems to work for the Muslims.
You say viciously bigoted things like this, and you still expect to be taken seriously?
Start? You seem to have forgotten about a few incidents in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.
He appeared to be making a comment about magellan’s evident attitude, not his own.
Given the paucity of information that you have actually provided, I am not sure why you would voice an opinion. However, this is a pretty dirtect insult–as well as a direct lie–so I would suggest you back off from this position.
If you find me defending al Qaida or denying any specific atrocity, you may consider reposting this charge. However, logically, your blanket condemnation of Islam has a lot more in common with the accusations against “World Jewry” than it does claims that the Shoah was never committed, so I would strongly urge you to refrain from this sort of illogical slur in the future.
Or maybe it means “Original Poster”? In which case it would refer to all the posts by me, Valteron in his thread.
In either case, I wish you would show me where I have called for oppression. All of the bullshit about mobs with torches and pitchforks, or concentration camps for Muslims, are nothing but straw men erected by my opponents. I would like you to show me where I, Vakteron, called for oppression.
Unless you want to call it oppression to tell a Mulim cab driver at an AMERICAN airport that he cannot leave a woman carrying a bottle of wine from a duty-free shivering without a cab to get her home at 1:00 a.m. because he does not permit alcohol in his “Islamic” taxi.
Wasn’t it the community who decided to permit these cab drivers? I don’t seem to recall a Constitutional decision on the right not to drive people who don’t conform to your morals.
Granted, if there were a choice between giving cab concessions to those who will provide a full range of services than those who will not, I’d think it would be good for the community to favor those who will, all other things being equal. But if clamping down on things like this results in a shortage of cab drivers, I say bring on the teetotalers.
Phil, I think you need to learn the difference between a comparison and an analogy.
If I say “Stalin murdered more people than Hitler” I am making a comparison.
If I say, “Don’t expect too much of that kid, water can’t rise higher than its own level.” I am not comparing the kid to water, I am making an analogy.
The point I keep making with Nazi Germany is an analogy. Read the *several * posts in which I make the analogy and you will understand.
People point out to me that not all Muslims are theocratic extremeists whose values are hostile to democracy and peace.
I agree with the viewpoint. Indeed, I would astounded and consider anyone a fool who would tell me that a group of over one billion people living in dozens of countries are every man, woman and child of them evil people. It would be illogical and impossible. It is indeed normal and reasonable to assume that hundreds of millions of Muslims are mighty nice folks, probably kind and generous and loving.
But here I am making an ANALOGY with the situation in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, before the fanatic and lunatic philosphy of Naziism unleased probably the greatest human tragedy in history.
In 1938, Hitler had annexed Austria, the Sudetenland and Memmeland without war, bringing millions of ethnic Germans into the Reich, had apparently brought prosperity and beaten the Depression, and could do no wrong in the eyes of most Germans. Many Historians agree that by 1938, he probably enjoyed ungrudging support from a majority of Germans, even if that support had been helped along by five years of terror and high-quality propaganda in a one-party state.
So out of some 80 million Germans, maybe 70 milion supported him at this point.
The ANALOGY I am making is this. It is unreasonable to think that out of 70 million Germans, there could not have been tens of millions of nice, kind, loving and generous people. They did not think they were supporting a philosphy of agression, war, terror and genocide. BUT THEY WERE!
And just like today, there were guilty apologists in other countries who said they disapproved of Naziism but that “we made them that way by imposing the terrible Versailles treaty.” Now, this was to a large extent TRUE! But this did not chgange what Germany and Naziism were and what they had become, and the threat they posed in 1939.
Do you understand the analogy I am making? A group can contain millions of really nice people and still be a horrible, agressive and threatning force. It can be true that oppression by others made the movement the way it is, but that does not change the fact that it is now a threat to us.
As a wise man (yourself) said in this thread, the discussion will go a lot better if you do not twist my words. If you will look at my post #287, you will see that I did not offer those studies to support a claims either that Islam has always been on a non-stop military rampage, nor to deny that at ceratin periods of time, Muslims were mighty quiet while Europeans fought like animals. Indeed, the rest of my post clearly admits the bloody agression of people like the Crusaders taking Jerusalem.
The studies I quoted are in support of the following passage from Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations: Please note his use of the present tense:
"Wherever one looks (note the present tense, Tom) along the perimiter of Islam, Muslims have problems living peaceably with their neighbours. The question naturally rises as to whether this pattern of **late twentieth-century conflict ** between Muslim and non-Muslim groups is equally true of relations between groups from other civilzations. In fact, it is not. Muslims make up about one-fifth of the world’s population but in the 1990s they have been far more involved in intergroup violence that the peoploe of any other civilization.(emphasis mine) The evidence is overwhelming.
That very quote, and the the words “in the 1990s” were right there in posting no. 287, Tom. You just had to read them. If Muslims were less able to be agressive when most of their countries were under colonial control in the loast century or so, that is another matter. Huntington (and I) are talking about present realities and present threats.
You chose to create a straw man to destroy by ignoring that quote about the 1990s and faulting the studies as if the authors had carefully waited and cherry-picked their information. If you want to show a trend in the 1990s, you use studies of phenomena in the 1990s. This seems pretty logical to me.
Valteron : feels that Islam is a world threat to peace, he is not alone in that.
Admittedly there will be very many Muslims who are quite willing to “fit” in so to speak, equally there will be whole lot more who have no intention of doing so.
Valteron comes across as an extremely erudite and well educated person, he has his beliefs and ideals and puts them across in a most articulate manner.
He believes that western society must be on constant guard against the perfidy of Islam, I agree with him.
As has been pointed out many times, the Islamic religion is a bloodthirsty one which calls for the death and destruction of all who do believe in their particular brand of religion.
Does the Christian faith call for such extreme measures?
Of course it doesn’t
Are you speakiing of the deaths that have resulted over the last few years in Afghanistan and Iraq due to our direct efforts there? If so, you do not have a point. If you are referring to some other deaths the resulted from what people said against Bush, offer them up.
OK; as you see it, what does being ‘on guard’ mean, exactly? Are we not ‘on gaurd’ at the moment? What, for example, is lacking in UK law (since you are apparently from there) to adequately deal with what you feel is such a pressiing threat?
All I’ve heard, in six pages of this stuff, is ‘the Muslims are coming! Hide the women and children!’ Could I trouble you for some concrete recommendations?
I entered the thread to give my point of view and if you don’t know what "on guard"means then look it up.
I have given my opinion and that is that.
Have a nice day