No. Terrorists attacked us.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

Everybody's been attacking everybody since the history of forever. You can't say Muslims started or instigated any conflict, any more than anybody else did. All you can look at is, who is maintaining the conflict now? Who is profiting from it? Who is supporting it? Who stands to gain from it? Who believes in a cause (capitalism for example) so fervently that they will kill or die for it?

You're trying to simply things so you can feel better about them. If you can find a way to blame your own actions on the people you're attacking, you won't have that nagging moral doubt that makes you human. I understand.

But Muslims did not attack us. What really happened? Think about it.

Here ya go:

http://waronjihad.org/muslim050505.html

The Muslim attack on America did not begin on 9/11, nor is it a recent phenomenon. It has existed since the beginning of the USA. In fact Muslim animosity was born the day Islam was born in 622 C.E., nearly 1400 years back, and will last till Islam lasts.

__________________
Cheney is the second executive officer to shoot someone in the face and chest. Clinton was the first.

I was talking about a terrorist organization known as the Tamil Tigers. Like I said, you need to get out more.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

I just spent the better part of the last two hours editing this thread. I must say it was almost a waste of my time, other than getting the satisfaction of deleting several frivolous posts by lots of members. While both Coyote and BillyBob seem to feel this is the perfect place to illustrate the immaturity and sheer futility of name calling, there were even posts I deleted by other mods. (Hey, we're all human here)

Here's what I noticed:

This thread is about an alleged Muslim Outrage. The OP linked an article that puts it all into context. The premise is Muslims are thought of by many as a violent religion. It also raised the premise that the freedom of speech is what seems to be at risk here.

If you'd like to counter that argument go for it. However, you won't get far by engaging in the following:
1. Talking about how any other religion is violent too
2. Changing the discussion to comparative religion
3. Comparing the Koran to the Bible verse by verse
4. Talking about the drug/alcohol use of a President
5. Talking about the drug use of a Presidential candidate
6. Personally attacking another user

Do try and stay on topic will ya'?

The OP has made several attempts to keep his thread on target. I'm not here to say that any of those other topics discussed were frivolous, just that they're frivolous to this thread. Feel free to start another thread in the correct forum. I'd suggest:
Political Opinions & Beliefs
Religion
Middle East
Elections and Campaigns

Knock yourself out. Debate is highly encouraged. But please honor the intent of the original thread whenever you post.

It's a concept based on mutual respect. You'd be surprised at how productive things get when we all adopt it.

Thank you and have a nice day.

Party on!

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

First off, it's kind of dishonest to pull a quote that isn't even from this thread. I'm honestly not sure it's even mine.

Second, the quote doesn't accuse anyone of being an apologist, rather it accuses someone of claiming not to be an apologist.

Hey, Bobcat. Glad you're back! I was just about to post these links you might find interesting (if you actually click on them....):

CAIR anti-terrorism campaigns (I know you probably consider CAIR a terrorist organization or front group, but still):
http://cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

Muslims condemning terrorism after 9/11 and 7/7:
http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/Se...statements.pdf
http://www.cair.com/Portals/0/pdf/Co...n_Bombings.pdf

Muslim response to Pope Benedict's speech that referenced Islam, building the case that Islam calls for peaceful coexistence with other religions, and Judaism and Christianity in particular:
http://acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1

The Amman Message, which essentially delegitimizes extremist fatwas and interpretations of Islam:
http://ammanmessage.com/

Guides to properly interpreting the Quran:
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/..._Islam/DIEZone

Islam in 176 hours (the mainstream, moderate school of Quranic interpretation):
http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/..._Islam/DIEZone

Islam Online, where you'll find many moderate Muslims:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/index.shtml

__________________
Scarred survivor of the April 2008 Mod War.

It is in this thread, and it is yours: http://www.politicalforums.com/showp...&postcount=114

Now you are playing semantics: it is effectively the same.

__________________

I'm a leftwing fascist, disease spreading, devil worshipper!

[quote=Bobcat1;437187]
Funny, but when I posted on the little arrow in Coyote's quote, that you directly quoted, it led me to her response...And in her response, the portion that she quoted from your posts, also had an arrow, which when I clicked it, took me directly to YOUR response, which was post #114 in THIS thread...

So for you to try and say that she's the one being dishonest, when anyone can click the link in YOUR quote that she quoted in her response can see it's YOUR words, from one of YOUR posts in THIS thread...

So honestly...It is your words, honestly from this thread. To try and pretend otherwise on your part doesn't make her look dishonest at all...But looks to be a dodge on your part.

And as Coyote said in her response to your current words here...You're playing semantics with the words, yet it still reads the same...You're calling someone an apologist, and telling them that they're denying being the apologist you believe them to be.

__________________
I would rather dwell in the dim fog of superstition than in air rarified to nothing but the air pump of unbelief; in which the panting breast expires, vainly and convulsively gasping for breath. -Richter

How can you establish whether Islam is a violent religion unless you compare it to other religions? It's called establishing a control. Otherwise you can't determine that it is really Islam causing violence instead of it just being human nature to cause violence and then claim it's in the name of religion.


At one point in history just about every war in Western Civilization was carried out in the name of Christianity. Does this mean Christianity is a violent religion? I believe the answer is no, and we know this because Western Civ is relatively peaceful right now. Islam happens to be concentrated in a poor and unstable region right now, kind of like how the entire Christian world was 500 years ago. So by comparing Christianity as it was 500 years ago to Islam today, you could come to the conclusion that in both cases religion was not at the root of all the violence. Perhaps a combination of poverty and instability can cause violence to be carried out in the name of any religion.