Comparing Zionism to Islamism in the Guardian

[ShimonG]

these are all lies! where is the proof that Mohammed did that? where? we don't need to condemn such kind of disgusting accusations because they didn't happen! these lies are all created on purpose. and you keep bashing him with these lies and expect us to do the same??? haha, aren't you silly or what.

So much for the efforts of some forumites to crown aysun the "moderate" moslem, eh?

Actually, what's sad is that aysun may truly be a moderate (unlike lying andaks), but even he cannot help get defensive when confronted with the acts of mohammad. And therein lies the problem, for a moslem to accept the truth.

nope this is not my claim. Mohammed never ordered that muslim should kill Jews. this is the Islamist terrorists' order.

Now, aysun has said numerous times that he is an authority on islam. So, here we have a moslem whose knowledge of islam exceeds that of us infidels confirming what i have stated all along.

That there were islamic terrorists that existed during the times of mohammad himself. Aysun clearly states that it was not mohammad who ordered the slaughter of jews that he has been accused of but by islamist terrorists.

Ergo, islamic terrorism has existed from the time of mohamamd himself. That much aysun agrees.

Where this moderate moslem differs from the rest of us (or at least me), is that i believe mohammad to have been the world's first moslem terrorist. aysun blames some vague islamists. andak blames jews.

[Aysun]

Where this moderate moslem differs from the rest of us (or at least me), is that i believe mohammad to have been the world's first moslem terrorist. aysun blames some vague islamists. andak blames jews.

excuse me! you want me to believe that the prophet Mohammed is a terrorist?? haha how can you expect from a muslim to believe that? this is such a silly argument of yours.

the problem of you and people like you is that you still can't differentiate the Islamist from a muslim. in my view Islamists are not real muslims. their interpretation of Islam is totally false. and most of the Islamists (for example the ones in Turkey) mixed beliefs with money and politics. most of them became Islamists in order to be accepted into a group which will provide them some advantages such as money, job, etc. if Mohammed was alive today, I am pretty sure he would have caught a cancer and died after he saw what those Islamists and terrorists changed the Islam into.

[andak01]

Aysun- Mohammed never ordered that muslim should kill Jews.

ShimonG- Now, aysun has said numerous times that he is an authority on islam. So, here we have a moslem whose knowledge of islam exceeds that of us infidels confirming what i have stated all along.

That's not what you "stated all along". What you stated was that the Quran says to kill all the Jews. When I called you on this lie, you've been silent on the issue for several weeks. So, now you've added another lie, that you've stated something all along very different from what you actually stated.

ShimonG - Stop spouting lies. Muhammad said kill all the Jews. The Quran says that also.

http://israelforum.com/board/showpos...6&postcount=13

Where this moderate moslem differs from the rest of us (or at least me), is that i believe mohammad to have been the world's first moslem terrorist. aysun blames some vague islamists. andak blames jews.

That makes three lies, since I started counting. Where do I blame Jews for Muslim terrorism? In fact I don't because I don't believe it. But why should that stop your lies?

I'm just waiting for the people who are calling me a liar all these months to come to your defense in the face of these evident contradictions.

[ShimonG]

That's not what you "stated all along". What you stated was that the Quran says to kill all the Jews. When I called you on this lie, you've been silent on the issue for several weeks. So, now you've added another lie, that you've stated something all along very different from what you actually stated.


http://israelforum.com/board/showpos...6&postcount=13



That makes three lies, since I started counting. Where do I blame Jews for Muslim terrorism? In fact I don't because I don't believe it. But why should that stop your lies?

I'm just waiting for the people who are calling me a liar all these months to come to your defense in the face of these evident contradictions.

Actually, the evidence you asked for has been shown time and again. By me, scatter and others.

I even provided verses from hadiths that you claimed were authoritative that showed mohammad allowing his followers to rape captive jewish women and stating that allah gave them the right to do so.

What do you do when confronted with this evidence. You LIE.

WHEN CONFRONTED TIME AND AGAIN WITH THE HATRED AND BILE IN THE QORAN AND THE HADITHS, YOU LIE.

This forum has proven the following:

That mohammad ordered the murder of his critics
That allah granted him sexual favors for the women he wanted, no matter how young they were or even if they were married to his own son.
That mohammad ordered the rape of captive jewish women
that mohammad ordered the plundering of caravans for loot
that mohammad ordered the execution, after "accept islam or death" choices to captives
that mohammad spared the womenfolk from murder only to have them turned into whores
that the qoran calls jews as apes and swine
that jews will be slaughtered en masse on the day of judgement when the "tree behind which the jew stands will rat on him and point the moslem to the jew so that he may be slaugthered


That mohammad, islam and allah have said and done all these things have been proven from islamic texts. Your LYING not witshtanding. Go back thought the threads.

i am not going to waste time posting htem here again ad nauseam everytime a putative moderate comes along.

[andak01]

Actually, the evidence you asked for has been shown time and again. By me, scatter and others.

Evidence that Muhammad or the Quran said KILL ALL THE JEWS???! Stick to the subject. You said something that is just plain wrong. Now, put up the evidence or stop saying it.

i am not going to waste time posting htem here again ad nauseam everytime a putative moderate comes along.

Why should you bother. It's obvious that you can just tell a rank lie and nobody is bothered in the least. You don't have to post any proof of it, simply change the subject. I'm not going to let you go this time.

You said the Quran and Muhammad (SAW) said KILL ALL THE JEWS. Where is it?

You can pretend I'm not deserving of a response all you want. Fact is, you don't have one and even the high-fivers in this forum can't furnish you with it.

And BTW, if you can't tell the difference between a wife and a whore, I hope you're not married.

That mohammad ordered the murder of his critics

You approve of assassination as a policy of state, just not for dangerous critics of Islam instead of dangerous critics of Israel.

That mohammad ordered the rape of captive jewish women

He permitted them to be taken as wives. We've established that you can't distinguish between rape and marriage. Does it occur to you that marriage to the victor of a war is preferable to prostitution or starvation? That would typically have been the fate of a captive in the hands of any other tribe in Arabia at that time or for that matter
much of the world in the 7th century. How do you imagine the Crusaders handled Muslim and Jewish captives?

that mohammad ordered the plundering of caravans for loot

As was typical among warring tribes of his time and remained a method of warfare as recently as the American Civil War. Empoverish the enemy and keep yourself supplied. What do you think the Union blockades were about? I forgot, thinking isn't your bag.

that mohammad ordered the execution, after "accept islam or death" choices to captives

Actually he freed captives on many occasions. Any captive capable of teaching a Muslim to read was freed. And captives were manumitted (had their freedom paid for) under numerous instances.

that mohammad spared the womenfolk from murder only to have them turned into whores

This is an invention of yours. Prostitution is forbidden by Islam. He encouraged his men to marry them and to provide for them and to raise their children. And BTW, they were not required to change religion. Muslim men have always been allowed to marry Jewish or Christian women.

that the qoran calls jews as apes and swine

The Quran calls a certain historic group of Jews who neglected the shabbot apes. They received the wrath of G_d because they neglected him.

that jews will be slaughtered en masse on the day of judgement when the "tree behind which the jew stands will rat on him and point the moslem to the jew so that he may be slaugthered

This isn't specific to the day of Judgement, in fact it couldn't be on the day of judgement, it's a prophecy for some unknown date in the future and some unknown quantity of Jews and Muslims. It's even possible that it already happened. And we know that Jews have already been slaughtered in mass (six million I believe it was).

[MGB8]

This is actually kind of interesting, because people are arguing past each other, as opposed to with each other. ShimonG is saying that the Quran contains certain lines that seem to mean certain things - ie. kill all the Jews. He overstates his argument, somewhat, but that is what it is.

Andak, in response, is providing a contextualized reading of these passages - saying - no, they don't say kill all the Jews, they say something about a very specific subset of Jews at a specific time for a specific reason by a specific actor.

However, earlier in this thread, Andak overstated HIS case, by stating essentially that a ShimonG is wrong in saying that a good number of Muslims interpret those passages interpret those passages as encouragement/order "to kill all the Jews."

In essence, you have three questions: what do the texts actually say? how are those words interpreted? And how many people follow this interpretation or that one?

ShimonG, I want you to look specifically at Aysun's responses to your posts. You have called his prophet a murderer, a child-rapist, and a terrorist. He has NOT, however, responded in the forum equivalent to "burning a church" or a riot or anything like that.

Instead, he has merely said: no, I don't believe that's what that says (as in means). The people who believe that those words mean those things are not real muslims, they are muslims in name who are using religion for personal, political or economic advantage.

Now, it may be that literally millions of people who think of themselves as Muslims disagree with Aysun and think that he is the one who is misunderstanding Islam -that *he's* not the real Muslim. But, I want you to allow for the possibility that there are Millions of Muslims like Aysun who are personally offended by Islamist interpretations of the Quran.

If so, doesn't that force you to re-evaluate the opinion that Islam *must* be interpreted in an imperialistic, intolerant and even anti-semitic manner?

I'm not talking about how the words are often interpreted, or pre-disposed to being interpreted... I am talking merely about the possibility that Islam can be interpreted in away that *is* compatible with (freedom of and if desired from religion) pluralism - Modern Liberal Democracy?

If that possibility does exist, and does happen, isn't it a better strategy for the West to try to work with those Muslims to discredit and eliminate Islamism as false, trapped in the past and dangerous/evil, as opposed to having a big war where, even if the non-Muslim world "wins"- millions upon millions die and pretty much everyone loses?

[MGB8]

Andak,

You did an ok job of giving interpretations, but your biases come out over and over again and discredit you.

The big thing is with "targetted assassinations." Israel does NOT kill "critics." It targets Murderers. That is a flat out false analogy. A lie. And when you make analogies like that, just as when you deny that the Quran contains problematic verses, deny that Islamists have imperialistic goals, or minimize the issue of Islamists and the power and numbers of their ideology... it looks more like "takkiya" and less like a genuine aversion to Islamist teaching.


ShimonG,

When I say "work with Morderate Muslims," I am NOT talking about Appeasement. Quite the contrary. I think that the West and Non-Muslim world needs to convince the majority of the Muslim world that there will be major negative consequences FOR THEM - Islamist or not, if the Islamist problem is not addressed. The Moderate Muslim world must move from overall silence on Islamist actions, to immediate and forceful ACTION against them.

That means that there would need to be actions taken against Islamist preachers and television and groups. Instead of half of Lebanon being pro-Hez (and the majority of the other half Christian, anyways), the vast majority would need to turn away. Instead of trying to bring Hamas or Al-Sadr "into the fold," they would need to be shunned and dropped.

Right now, too much of the Islamic world is defending the Islamists actions out of a misplaced sense of loyalty. ie. The Islamists use the same book, they say the same words, so they must be "ours" and their actions, good or bad, must be defended. So that's what happens. Meanwhile anti-semitic, anti-Christian TV and media and schools are propogated and followed. Mass protests are held re cartoons. No one spits or walks over or beats with shoes or burns flags of Hez or Hamas or pictures of Bin Laden etc.

Instead, converts to Christianity are murdered, while Sudan is defended in its genocidal actions. Right now, the Muslim world is, whether anyone wants to admit it, more than not aiding the Islamists, not fighting them.

If that does not change, then there will, one day within our lifetimes, be a big war between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, and Islam will be destroyed, or at least Mecca and Medina will be.

[andak01]

Andak,

You did an ok job of giving interpretations, but your biases come out over and over again and discredit you.

Of course I have biases. You don't? Having ShimonG announce he's going to piss on my scripture troubles me in a way you could never know. Not in an angry way, but just sad, wondering how many others there are like that.

The big thing is with "targetted assassinations." Israel does NOT kill "critics." It targets Murderers. That is a flat out false analogy.

You cannot prove that it's a false analogy unless you can quote me what Abu Afak said. We don't have anything recorded of what he said or did other than his age. You can disagree. You can believe that he was spouting quotes about Thomas Jefferson. But the fact is, neither of us knows. My bias is that he was considered a genuine danger to the ummah. Your bias is that everybody who criticized the Prophet was a freedom fighter. But there really isn't any evidence in either direction if we are honest.

Fourteen hundred years from now, when everybody has forgotten who Sheikh Yassin was and what he did and said, you defend what people may then call the murder of a man in a wheelchair. What I'm saying is, it's possible for an old man to create a lot of trouble, existential trouble.

And when you make analogies like that, just as when you deny that the Quran contains problematic verses,

There is a problematic interpretation. In fact I'd say there is a problematic jihadi interpretation and a second, different problematic Western interpretation.

deny that Islamists have imperialistic goals,

I don't deny that Islamists want to reestablish a caliphate, OK. That's imperialist. Imperialists don't all de facto have a goal to rule the world. For that matter, there are a number of flavors of Islamist. They have different goals.

or minimize the issue of Islamists and the power and numbers of their ideology... it looks more like "takkiya" and less like a genuine aversion to Islamist teaching.

I never even heard of taqqiya until I came to this forum. If you want to call me a liar, be my guest. It seems to be the vogue these days. You don't require an Arabic word for something we have a perfectly good concept of in English. And I have to ask, is taqqiya more dishonest than just plain lying?

In the spirit of which these last couple of posts are written, I can see that you seem to be working towards a compromise. There's nothing I can do about you and ShimonG and others calling me a liar, etc. That comes with the territory here.

What I think you are seeing as taqqiya is the friction of our mutually exclusive worldviews. Your worldview is that Islam and Muslims are inferior, dishonest, ignorant, intolerant, and a number of other negatives. You take in all knowledge about Islam through that filter and you always will. I have my own filter wherein I am generally positive about Islam. I'm not going to go around with my tail between my legs and hang my head in shame for associating with what I believe is one of the world's great religions.

Back to our mutually exclusive worldview. It's like if I was talking to a Japanese survivor of Hiroshima about the heros of WWII. Would he ever be able to understand how much I admire that generation that wiped out his family? We get to this impass. Bad things were done by Muslims to Jews in the past and bad things are being done by Muslims to Jews in the present. But we've got to step away from the abyss of believing that only bad can ever come of communicating and building bridges.

However, there will be in this process, certain taboo subjects for both sides. There are aspects, which if we dwell on them will always drive us apart. It's not that they are truely forbidden topics, but when 90% of the conversation becomes about them, then there can be little hope of constructive communication.

[andak01]

When I say "work with Morderate Muslims," I am NOT talking about Appeasement. Quite the contrary. I think that the West and Non-Muslim world needs to convince the majority of the Muslim world that there will be major negative consequences FOR THEM - Islamist or not, if the Islamist problem is not addressed.

I think the ones that are still alive are painfully aware of that. We've got that stick thing down pat.

The Moderate Muslim world must move from overall silence on Islamist actions, to immediate and forceful ACTION against them.

You mean like street fighting? Sectarian violence?

If that does not change, then there will, one day within our lifetimes, be a big war between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds, and Islam will be destroyed, or at least Mecca and Medina will be.

Destroying Mecca and Medina is no more the end of Islam than destroying the Temple was the end of Judaism. That is a totally misplaced belief. What it would be is the beginning of total jihad. Think Massada with 1.3 billion people involved and it wouldn't be over until the very last one is dead. Although it's not particularly fair, I'm pretty sure a large portion of that population would take it out directly on Jews regardless of who actually dropped the bomb or why.

[MGB8]

I disagree about that Andak. The Temple was never stated to never be able to fall under Jewish theology. That is not the same regarding the destruction of the Kabaa in Islamic theology, although Mecca indeed has been sacked several times.

As for threats about Muslims killings Jews, they've been trying to kill Israel for decades, and taken shots here and there, also. If your vision of total Jihad were true, every Muslim would indeed die. It would be a short Jihad. This would be true in the US, in Europe, and under conventional and nuclear firepower in Africa and Asia.

But what I like is that you hate Bush so much, and yet are so much like him: "Bring it on." If the Muslim world doesn't destroy their Islamist problem, you may well get your wish.

The Muslim world may have to choose between fighting within itself - yes, Andak, sectarian violence like the Storming of the Red Mosque (although shutting down Islamist media, mosques and schools would be an easier, less violent start. Before then, maybe stop funding them!) or war with the non-Muslim world. Y'all can work that out.

That's the difference between you and Aysun that I see. From what I've seen poster here, Aysun would choose to arrest and deal harshly with Islamists, were he in power. You, on the other hand, are quite quick to defend them by saying that there is no way to confront them in the short term. You better hope they aren't too successful in terror against the West.

Israel's responses to Hamas and Hezbollah will be nothing compared to what West will do. If Russia in Chechnya, China's history of military force, Europe in WW2 and the US actions haven't convinced you of that... well, really, think what you want.

The fact that you seem to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan... oy. And, as you know, Iraq was a far more complicated geo-political issue than what you are portraying - although I think that it has helped open the Muslim world's eyes to the horrors of Islamist terrorism.

I think the ones that are still alive are painfully aware of that. We've got that stick thing down pat.



You mean like street fighting? Sectarian violence?



Destroying Mecca and Medina is no more the end of Islam than destroying the Temple was the end of Judaism. That is a totally misplaced belief. What it would be is the beginning of total jihad. Think Massada with 1.3 billion people involved and it wouldn't be over until the very last one is dead. Although it's not particularly fair, I'm pretty sure a large portion of that population would take it out directly on Jews regardless of who actually dropped the bomb or why.

[MGB8]

Additionally, Andak, how about some burning of some Islamist flags, some stomping on and burning of pictures of Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri and Al Bakri and Nasrallah and Mashaal etc. etc. How about NOT playing these views on Al Jazeerah (which is, sadly, the "moderate" channel of the Arab world - and it too is virulently anti-American and pro-Islamist). Hmmm....

[Aysun]

That's the difference between you and Aysun that I see. From what I've seen poster here, Aysun would choose to arrest and deal harshly with Islamists, were he in power. You, on the other hand, are quite quick to defend them by saying that there is no way to confront them in the short term. You better hope they aren't too successful in terror against the West.
.

MGB8, your interpretations about my posts are very accurate and objective. I really appreciate them.

you should know that I am not alone im my beliefs. there are millions like me in Turkey who interpret Islam like that. but I have to admit that even in Turkey, Islamism is a much bigger problem now than it used be 20 years ago. and I am pretty sure that it is also the case in the other countries. their numbers are getting bigger and bigger everyday.

So instead of focusing on offending all muslims by trashing their book and prophet we should all focus on what makes those Islamists' numbers getting bigger everyday. the enemy is here not the muslims. but the enemy is here the extremists who call themselves Jihadis, Islamists, etc. killing them will not totally eliminate them either. they will again emerge from their ashes. because wars feed their causes. but instead, we should all focus on the peaceful solutions, solutions that will isolate them from the entire world and will make their causes look silly and unbelievable to the other muslims. and I don't think this is really that hard to achieve if we all really want a peaceful world. it all depends on to the good will and understanding.

[andak01]

I disagree about that Andak. The Temple was never stated to never be able to fall under Jewish theology. That is not the same regarding the destruction of the Kabaa in Islamic theology, although Mecca indeed has been sacked several times.

Not only Mecca was sacked, but the Kaaba was torn down. It's not finally the existence of the Kaaba, but what it represents. The real indestructable building of Islam is the Quran.

As for threats about Muslims killings Jews, they've been trying to kill Israel for decades, and taken shots here and there, also. If your vision of total Jihad were true, every Muslim would indeed die. It would be a short Jihad. This would be true in the US, in Europe, and under conventional and nuclear firepower in Africa and Asia.

Muslims would go underground, just as Jews and Muslims did during the Reconquista. There are many millions of Muslims that could reconstruct the Quran if every single volume was burned tomorrow. They would be willing to wait centuries or even millinia to return. Did the Holocaust or the Crusades kill all the Jews? I'd suggest you also include many Christians and even Jews in your genocide estimates. Do you think that Christian family members in the Middle East are just going to turn on their family members and slaughter them because some leader says so. You think brothers wouldn't fight for brothers? They have friends too. You really haven't thought this out except for the killing part. Genocide is a pretty easy decision for you. It has its consequences.

But what I like is that you hate Bush so much, and yet are so much like him: "Bring it on." If the Muslim world doesn't destroy their Islamist problem, you may well get your wish.

I'm not the one making threats, you are. "Control the Islamist threat or we'll nuke Mecca". "If that bothers you, we'll kill all of you if necessary." You don't think that attitude would cause more trouble than it fixes? You're insane.

The Muslim world may have to choose between fighting within itself - yes, Andak, sectarian violence like the Storming of the Red Mosque (although shutting down Islamist media, mosques and schools would be an easier, less violent start. Before then, maybe stop funding them!) or war with the non-Muslim world. Y'all can work that out.

Oh yeah, we're all one f_king cabal. I can't believe you're a moderator.

That's the difference between you and Aysun that I see. From what I've seen poster here, Aysun would choose to arrest and deal harshly with Islamists, were he in power.

So would I if there is cause to arrest them. Having bad opinions is not a cause for arrest. Planning terrorism is cause to be put in the darkest, blackest hole.

You, on the other hand, are quite quick to defend them by saying that there is no way to confront them in the short term. You better hope they aren't too successful in terror against the West.

I'm not defending them. You confuse my defense of the American system as a defense of Islamism. America is not a fascist tyranny, yet. We don't preemptively arrest and torture people for thinking bad thoughts or saying bad things. People in this system are innocent until proven guilty. An America where people are profiled because of the name of their religion is not Constitutionally viable. Yes, we've slipped in the past during time of war, but every time, the true heros of democracy have returned us to normalcy.

Israel's responses to Hamas and Hezbollah will be nothing compared to what West will do.

You've made that crystal clear. Genocide against one fifth of the world based on the name of their religion is acceptable to you. You don't think you or the people performing such genocide would be morally compromised in the least. That's psychosis.

The fact that you seem to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan... oy.

I haven't said boo against the Afghan invasion in years. Very early on I came to support it and I have ever since. I saw that it, unlike the war in Iraq was effective in fighting the thing we claim to be fighting. I'm still waiting to celebrate the day we capture that giant on a dialysis machine that keeps eluding us.

And, as you know, Iraq was a far more complicated geo-political issue than what you are portraying - although I think that it has helped open the Muslim world's eyes to the horrors of Islamist terrorism.

I knew it was a morass before the invasion and said as much. Seems it's unpatriotic not to want to spend a trillion and a half dollars and thousands of American live (Iraqi lives don't seem to count) on very dubious returns. Patriotism involves bankrupting the country over macho adventurism and disfunctional missile shields. Patriotism involves letting go of the education system, the health system, the economy and the environment in the service of the oil industry and the military. Nobody ever got called unpatriotic for raising their kids not to be able to pick Spain from a map of the world.

[andak01]

you should know that I am not alone im my beliefs. there are millions like me in Turkey who interpret Islam like that. but I have to admit that even in Turkey, Islamism is a much bigger problem now than it used be 20 years ago.

That's possible. Then again, we may be only seeing the explosive effects of proliferation that occurred 20 years ago and continued to gain until 9/11. It's hard to gauge if we are at the beginning or middle or end.

and I am pretty sure that it is also the case in the other countries. their numbers are getting bigger and bigger everyday.

Even if the numbers get bigger, if they don't receive government funding or get less and they have fewer opportunities to attend Al Qaida like training camps, those larger numbers won't be nearly as dangerous as 19 trained men were.

because wars feed their causes.

That's the key point here. Jihadis have a world view that depends on them being invaded for them to recruit new candidates.

but instead, we should all focus on the peaceful solutions, solutions that will isolate them from the entire world and will make their causes look silly and unbelievable to the other muslims. and I don't think this is really that hard to achieve if we all really want a peaceful world. it all depends on to the good will and understanding.

Look around on this forum. If this sort of people would run the world, we are all doomed to Armegeddon.

[scattergood]

OK, so the 1919 was a massacre in Fez of Jews where more Jews were killed than there were blacks lynched in the US in 1919 (76)? Can you honestly say that over 3400 Jews were murdered in Morocco in the same period that as many Blacks were lynched (1882-1968)? Well you can't. But I'm sure you're about to dishonestly say as much. In fact, over the same period, far less than 2000 Jews were killed in all of Morocco. That's according to the Jewish virtual library and sites that list every single incident in order to show how vicious the Moroccans were. Of course, 3400 is only the number of blacks that were known to have been lynched. Others were murdered by other methods or lynched without being recorded. So yes, 3400 + lynched and unknown murdered versus less than 2000 killed (extremely liberal estimate) in total in about a century. That's much greater scale, probably at least double.


http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...chingyear.html

Or would you compare it (1919 riot) where less than 50 Jews were killed during the artillery shelling of the mellah by the French and in the ensuing riots, to Wounded Knee where 155 Indians were slaughtered? That same year, half again as many blacks were lynched and untold murdered.

Would you compare the exodus of the Jews in Morocco to the Trail of Tears? Because if you do, I can find you Jews living openly in Morocco whereas the remaining Cherokee in North Carolina either live on reservations or as white men.

I've never said the West is evil, because that would as much as saying I am evil since I am a Westerner myself. I recognize both the good and the bad of American accomplishment just as I see a future where the Middle East can deal with their demons as we have. I just wonder if the British or some other military had had the power to make a preemptive humanitarian strike on America during that time if the world would have been a better place. They could have taken Coolidge out of office with regiem change the same year that 40,000 Klansmen marched down the streets of Washington.

This is such a rambling mess of illogic and fraud I don't even know where to begin.

You change subjects, cherry pick, and refuse to address specific points.

Comparing one event vs. another is just illogical and stupid, but it serves your purpose because you can say 'see, this event is worse than that event', and imply that one group is worse than another, BASED ON ONE OR TWO EVENTS.

Let's look at CULTURES that last over hundreds to thousands of years:

1) Which CULTURE engaged in slavery longer, Christian / Western or Muslim?
2) Which CULTURE affected more slaves, Christian / Western or Muslim?
3) Which CULTURE ended the slavery through force where necessary, Christian / Western or Muslim?

These are debatable and interesting topics to discuss. But instead you wish to say "Morrocan's did X, so Islam isn't bad". That is just plain dumb. But thanks for showing your total inability to think.

As for not thinking the West is 'evil', htne please explain exactly what you meant by, and I quote you verbatim: "smilar incidents of much greater scale in my own history" If such incidents are MUCH GREATER in your culture than another, aren't you making a relativistic comparison? If not, then what do you mean? Silence on this point from you will rightly be considered acceptance of my interpretation.

I didn't deny that a throat was slit. Neither did I or do I act as a cheerleader for such a despicable act. As for torture, I'm against it in all cases. Can you say as much, or are you pro water boarding?

I would be happy to look up the location of a remedial reading class for you in your area if you want, you clear need it. I never said you DENIED that a the soldiers throat was slit, you just make stuff up so you can say I was wrong about something. It is just proof positive that you can't formulate a basic response.

What I said was that you deny such people who do slit people's throats are working out Allah's will, while they claim they are. You label folks like me as Islamophobes for actually listening to the people who commit such acts and what their motivations are, all the while you rationalize and excuse their actions and make them normative.