In the recent movie attacking Mohammad that sparked the attack of the US embassy in Libya, they made the accusation that Mohammed is the adjunct for much of the terrorism we see today. So they torched the place.
Yes, "X" most definitely equals Mohammad. 19000+ terrorist attacks by Muslims, since 9/11/01 even, listed at www.thereligionofpeace.com That Mohammad movie could have historical significance since it's going to force people to CHOOSE between Mohammad and civility. I choose "non-X". Should we now refer to Mohammad as simply "X"!?
Well, that is all very interesting. Which Mohammed are you talking about? I personally know two of them that live here in the US... I also understand that there are many many more Mohammeds or Mohammads in the world. By the way,, you use the term "they" in two different sentences ... is the 'they' in each sentence the same 'they' as in the other sentence?
Most Mohammads are certainly good, law-abiding people. Just like some "Franks" are bad, many "Mohammads" are good. That's one reason why I don't like referring to Obama as "Heussein Obama", as all it's attempting to do is basically imply that he's "different" than the reader because he has a "foreign" sounding sur-name. That's not technically the way to go. It's IDEOLOGY that we should be focusing on, not ethnicity/race. An Arab (or whatever) Muslim (or whatever) that's honest, charitable, truth-seeking, and treats the world how he'd want to be treated, is better for the world than, say, a modern Secular Humanist who is none of those things.
