- American Muslims as terrorist sympathizers: Given the support of Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries for terrorists, it is likely that the support is higher within the group of Americans who comprise Muslims. Now what the ratio is, 1-2, 1-5, or 1-1000000, who knows?
- Prophet Mohammed as a cult leader: Duh! Of course he was. What else could you call him? And a pedophile to boot.
- Islamic charities: I’d have to disagree with this in principle. In practice maybe. Inadvertently, many people may give to a specific charity not realizing that is is a front. I remember seeing many collection boxes while in Dubai and a few requests for money while in Yemen to help out the Palestinians. To build houses, or to buy weapons? I don’t know.
Reading fail. “Likely to be terrorist sympathizers” =/= “more likely than the general public to be terrorist sympathizers”.
You may find this shocking, but Dubai and Yemen are not in America.
Anyway, hundreds of Irish-American charities were funding the IRA and its splinter groups, “in practice”. Was the FBI teaching agents that Catholic charity was solely a terror-funding mechanism?
[QUOTE=Bryan Ekers]
Can somebody libel me? I need a new car.
[/QUOTE]
Bryan Ekers wears velcro shoes because he can’t tie shoelaces.
Bryan Ekers enjoys bestiality, drives a Ford Pinto over grandmothers on the sidewalk, AND!!! he enjoys bagels *without *cream cheese.
*Without *I tell you!
eta: see, he really does need a new car. That Pinto has too many dents in the bumper. What with the grandmothers fighting back with their canes and walkers.
Thanks, I’ll sue you in England.
Yer ugly and yer momma dresses you funny!
Actually, Muslims around the world tend to support terrorist activities more than the ‘general public’. Because you want to tack ‘American’ in front of Muslim, doesn’t mean that on average they would most likely follow the trend for ‘Muslim’.
And then you go on to write your next paragraph. Speaking of fail.
I don’t know, should they have been teaching that Irish Catholics were more likely to give money to the IRA through charities.
Right before the 9/11 anniversary, there was a series of articles in the Denver Post about Colorado Muslims.
This was one of them. It it really so that the local and state law enforcement agencies are better at their jobs than the FBI? 
The last I heard about the FBI and Muslims here in my area was when someone was planning a terrorist attack.
Trouble is, they are so stealthy. My own Congressman, Kieth Ellison, is so *normal *looking, it’s hard to detect the Islamic rays. Perhaps some identifier, so we could more readily see who is who? A marker, a patch, badge. Maybe a crescent? Or a star, perhaps? Yellow is nice. Traditional.
Probably the ones who require their wives and daughters to dress in ninja outfits would be a good identifier? Emphasis on ‘require’.
I didn’t realize you were upset at Shakespeare for promoting child molesting and pedophilia.
I heard Christ was a real barnburner , when it comes to lighting a fire to the “non Halal crowd”. Wonder what he assumes of Rick Perry supporters?
Hahaha, you got me. I guess I’ll have to approve of Muhammed being a pedophile to avoid grouping Shakespeare (assuming he was promoting pedophilia rather than just telling a story) with him.:rolleyes:
But, I guess I didn’t realize Shakespeare was a religious leader that a billion people attempt to emulate such that I should be concerned about what he said or did.
…because there’s nothing strange about Sarai marrying her uncle Abram…or any other stories in religions that are centuries old.
Normally I’d agree with your sentiment but **brock **delivered a savage fact beating which is a picture perfect example of why I continue to show up here.
There aren’t enough of those on this planet.
Are you referring to Romeo and Juliet? They were both teenagers, which is only paedophilia in the most fucked-up of definitions. The other children that got killed or molested in Shakespeare’s plays were in Titus Andronicus, where it was very bad guys doing it, with no advocacy of their actions.
Surely you can come up with a better defence of Mohammed than that? The one I’ve heard is that he didn’t consummate the marriage until she was a lot older.
What others did, and may have gotten away with, is no defense at all. I always wonder why people keep bringing it up. That being said, I’ve probably resorted to that argument myself a time or two in the past before I realized that evil is evil no matter who does it.
Heh. Riiiiggght. He was married to a 9 year old. He’s a pedophile. Sucks to be a Muslim and have to defend it, but they’re stuck with the cards they’re dealt. No wonder they have no sense of humor when it comes to their religion.
But then Christians have to sidestep the homosexuality of Jesus. A thirty year old Jew not married in biblical times and travelling around with a bunch of men? Not that there is anything wrong with that (other than for Christians), but it’s pretty damn suspicious. So, everyone has their cross to bear. Ha.
Edit: Eh, sorry for being particularly argumentative, but I’ve a cold and hopped up on Panadol.
Which argument? Who’s got away with what? (I also have a cold and a stuffed-up head, so might be missing something).
Well, it wouldn’t be that unusual in ye olde days for a child to be ‘married’ but for that to actually be about land and money, not sex for several years. But yeah, it is a very difficult one - but there HAVE to be better arguments than ‘a British playwright once wrote about teenagers having sex with each other.’
Yes, it’s much nicer to be a Christian who knows how holy and precious marriage should be, and can point to the wisest man in the Bible, King Solomon, who demonstrated the sanctity of marriage by having 700 wives and 300 concubines.
It’s so nice to meet a real Quranic scholar, who can educate me on Islam, because I was raised a Christian, and most of what I know about religion is from that perspective.
So please tell me, do Muslims really have as much to be embarrassed about with respect to women and marriage as Christians and Jews do? Just off the top of my head, the heroes of the Bible commit incest (Lot with his daughters, shortly after he offered their maidenheads to the town bullies so they would leave him and his guests alone); aggravated adultery (Abraham whoring out his wife to various foreign leaders, again in order to obtain good treatment for himself — I guess sacrificing women for your own comfort ran in that family); David murdering the loyal husband of the woman he was fucking; and all the various laws regarding women and sex that most Christians think of as Islamic, but are actually from the Bible — stoning a woman for not being a virgin on her wedding night, or even for being raped (if it occurred in a city, rather than a field).
Is Muhammad’s marriage all you have to stack up against stuff like that?
Oh wait, the Quran allegedly says to kill infidels. But does it say it as forcefully and as often as the Bible, which contains divine orders to mercilessly slaughter every man, woman, child, and baby who has the temerity to be living in the cities the Israelites want, and to enslave the occupants of the surrounding regions?
Right, like Christians have been a load of laughs for anybody who didn’t toe the orthodox line, for most of history.
The important difference between Christianity and Islam is not intolerance, it is the separation of Church and State. For a thousand years or so, when the Catholic Church had secular power, any heresy was liable to get you tortured and/or killed, and this became a science with the establishment of the various Inquisitions in the high Middle Ages. Even well after the Reformation, in Europe and even in colonial America, some of the Protestant governments were almost as bad. The Bible has not changed since then, nor have the desires of religious fanatics; it is only the lack of political power that keeps them from being as bad or worse than any Ayatollah when it comes to punishing people for what they think or say.
And god help us, the US seems determined to elect leaders whose religious fanaticism is much more evident than their wisdom or intelligence.
The point is that even if Muslims are more likely to support terrorist activities, it doesn’t mean they are simply likely (no qualifier) to do so.
Put another way, priests are more likely than the general public to be paedophiles. That doesn’t mean priests are likely to be paedophiles. Get it?
We’ve been through this once before, pressed Uzi on the sources of his certainty. “Weak” is probably the most generous description. The open minded amongst you can google this question pretty easily. As you might well expect, there is considerable ambiguity, mostly because the textual basis is thin. Reminds me of Mark Twain’s comment about nineteenth century paleontology: a wholesale return in conjecture from a tiny investment of fact.