1 Yeah, it's not like those Arabs have enough money without the tax break.

2

Most Muslims aren't Arab.

Indonesia, home to the world's largest Muslim population, isn't an Arab country. Nor is Iran, nor Afghanistan, nor Nigeria.

 

3 Mac, from where do you think that Islamic money for terrorism and propaganda comes?  Nigeria, where the main product is email scams against Americans?  No, it comes form the oil producing states, with Iran being close enough to them for any common sense person to see rather than pick at.  

4

You seem confused, Woody.

The item refers to CAIR, not to terrorists.

But you do make an excellent point, if unwittingly.

The Islamic world is geographically and ethnically diverse and only a tiny portion of it is involved in any way in terrorism.

 

5 I don't know a lot about the 501(c)4 but do know about the 501(c)3 they fell back on. I had the unpleasant task of obtaining one of these from scratch.  That is the one that doesn't allow any involvement in politics or you lose it. Wonder how long it will be before CAIR is a tax paying organization as it should be. Of course they support the left wing, aka democrats, so the rules may be different.

6

Mac: The Islamic world is geographically and ethnically diverse and only a tiny portion of it is involved in any way in terrorism.

Hey, Mac, tell me about the vast majority of the Islamic world that condemns beheadings, hanging of homosexuals, murdering of daughters and women who don't conform, suicide bombings, and mass murder of non-Muslims.  Funny, I don't see them and I don't see CAIR on that list of opponents, either.

7

Woody, Thanks for being honest in admitting that your views on Islam are based on ignorance.

You claim that "you don't see" the majority of Muslims who oppose the acts of the radical fundamentalists in their midst.

So it's clear your view is based on what you DON'T KNOW.

Nice one, Woody.

I suggest you try limiting your views to what you do know.

 

 

 

8 mclovin, you are, quite simply, about as smart as a big mac, so I guess you have a well chosen name.

If you can show us those huge swaths of mythical moderate muslims that are protesting against their more *extreme* (winkwink) brethren we gladly have a look and change opinions.

........

Waiting......

.............

Still waiting........

So where are all these mythical moderates?  Oh wait..I know...they've gone to the highlands of Scotland for the annual Haggis Hunt, right?  Or maybe they're hunting snipes in the tropical swamps of northern montana?

Face it mcmoron, your moderate muslims are as rare as jamaican bobsledders.......and just as effective....

9 Oh looky here. McLovin's really lovin GM's site these days.

The worlds major terror attacks have been committed by Muslims. Even though not all Muslims are terrorists.

Remember that. It only takes, say, 9 or 10 to kill 3000 people in a two hour span.

CAIR choses to defend those who have been charged with terrorist activity or fund raising for said groups. CAIR has a shady background at best- go do some research LovinSpoonful, without sippin your Kool Aid. You might learn something.

10 LOL Kender!!

11

I do love this blog, because it offers a fabulous exposition of the third-grade flaws in wingnut thinking.

For example, now we have Kender admitting that his view is based on what he ISN'T aware of rather than what he IS aware of.

So his claim that moderate Muslims are rare isn't based on any evidence about their existence, but on his personal lament that no one has chosen to show him that moderate Muslims are protesting the activities of radicals.

I suggest as a very reasonable starting point: ``The Crisis of Islam'' by Bernard Lewis.

Lewis is a very conservative scholar of Middle Eastern studies who has advised the Reagan, Clinton and Bush administrations. I don't agree with his political views at all, but I take his reporting on the Middle East as factual, because the substance of it is obvious.

He gives great incite into the struggles between moderates and radicals within Islam. You guys should give it a read...

12 mclovin, of course there is a crisis in islam. It's holy book says take over the world by force if need be, subjugate women and kill infidels.  That isn't the point.  And someone has written a book about this crisis.  And that isn't the point.  The point is can you show me (or anyone else) these mythical moderates standing around with signs that say stuff like;

"Killing infidels is against the Koran" or "Jihadists are hijacking our religion and are apostates in the eyes of Allah"?

Can you do that mcmoron? I don't think you can.....You step up in here talkin smack, lil boy, and then come back up in this here beatch and ignore the point while saying we're juvenile?

Looky here poppin fresh, if you can't address the issue keep your lil behind in big momma's basement and holler for some more mt. dew and cheetoes and leave the grown up talk to us actual grownups, got it stewie?

13

McL... "He gives great incite into ..."

Oh Gawd, spare me McL...  That is spelled INSIGHT.... and now you'll tell me it was a typo.  3rd grade indeed!

14

Kender, I'm flattered that you would want to rely exclusively on me to guide you to knowledge that is so readily available to anyone with Google and three minutes' free time.

I actually posted an extensive listing of Muslim leaders from the clergy, academia, politics and the media condemning terrorism and stating that it clearly violates the teachings found in the Koran.

That post is in moderation and it will be up to GM whether to allow it into the discussion. In case he decides not to or for some technological reason can't, here's the link to a 68 page report by CAIR detailing condemnations by moderate Muslim leaders worldwide of terrorism and of specific attacks.

http://www.cair.com/AmericanMuslims/AntiTerrorism.aspx

That Kender is so confident in asserting that moderate Muslim's don't exist, when the evidence that they are a majority is overwhelming, says a lot about the low quality of information available within the conservative mainstream media.

 

15 mcmoron, there is a large difference between stating one is against muslim extremist and actually standing up toe to toe against them in the street.  If these moderates were so prevalent and so against these muslim jihadists you'd think you'd see them protesting in the street against these yoyo's.

If you wander to just about any protest here in the states you will invariably find two sets of protesters, one for and one against.  When you have muslims in the streets of the U.S. protesting whatever you will see AMERICANS, usually white, protesting them, but you won't see a bunch of "moderate muslims" standing against them.....outside of this country you don't even hear of anyone standing against them in their countries.

These moderates DO NOT EXIST, because by the Koran if they are moderate they are apostates.

One cannot be a "moderate" muslim.  One either adheres to the Koran or one is not a true muslim.  Why can't you understand this?

Do I need to write in in crayon?

16 BTW mcmoron, have you heard of "taqqiyah?" That means in islam it is ok to lie to further islam.  You expect me to take anything CAIR has to say at face value?  This is the group that is an unindicted (look it up) co-conspirator in a terrorism financing case.  This is the group that had a founding member state that islam was not in America to be equal, but to be above all others. (I am paraphrasing) and that the koran should be the only rule of law in the land.

What flavor of kool aid are you drinking today?  Is it Stupid Blue or Moronic Orange or maybe Idiotic Red?

17

Ahh, Islam, the religion of peace. And, look how many people of that faith stand up for what's right and oppose what is taught to their kids.  What, where?

"A teacher yesterday claimed he was sacked from an Islamic school after complaining about books in which Christians were called 'pigs'.  Colin Cook, 58, alleged five-year-olds were taught from the texts that Jews were "monkeys"  ...Mr Cook told the jobs tribunal yesterday that pupils at the school in Acton, West London, praised 9/11."

18

So in order to meet Kender's definition of "moderate" Muslims have to be out in the street protesting against the protests of radicals.

Using Kender's logic, in order to believe that moderate Christians exist, we need to see them out there protesting against the murder of abortion doctors. And if they aren't out there, the must not exist.

Here's the deal Kender, moderate Muslims owe no one any apologies for what extremists do in Islams name.

Just as you, as a rightist, don't need to apologize for what Timothy McVeigh did.

Moderate Muslims, like everyone else, can only be judged by their own behavior, not the behavior of extremists.

GM's Web site does a public service by exposing the thinking of people like Kender to the disinfectant of logic.

19

Just how many Christians are out there murdering abortion doctors Mac?  When was the last one?  How many have there been?  Are you aware of them personally, or do you just buy into these claims as daily occurrences?

And, if you went to church, you would hear ministers preaching the Ten Commandments and condemning murder--which includes abortion, by the way.  You've picked on the wrong cause, because the record of murdered abortionists is slim and the condemnation far exceeded the crime.  

 But, it's a regular occurrence for Muslims to murder the innocent and for the clergy to be silent.  The extremists, as you call them, have been calling the shots for their religion.  There are no moderates if the moderates stand by silently while they let others do their biding.  It's tacit approval. 

Contrast what the New Testament preaches vs. the Koran, if you want to know the real goals of the faiths.  One wants serve and to win converts while the other wants to literally destroy those of other faiths.    

Also, McVeigh was "not one of ours."  He didn't serve Christianity or conservative causes.  He was a nut.  So, quit trying to push him on us. 

Did you condemn the Uni-bomber?

Mac, your arguments are really weak and not based on total honesty or logic.

20

If Woody and Kender were even paying attention, they'd know that moderate Muslims are not only the biggest, most important enemies of radical Islam, they are also by far its biggest victims.

If there there were no moderate Muslims, the bin Ladenists would not have focused their attacks first and foremost on fellow Muslims.

The reality is that the radicals within Islam are a tiny minority, which is why terrorism is the only viable strategy for them. They cannot win either by conventional military means or, certainly, via democracy, so they have no choice but to pursue terrorism or disappear from public view.

If all Muslims supported terrorism, the bin Ladenist would focus most of their efforts on attacking the rest of the world. But we know that's not the case, though it does appear people like Woody and Kender are in deep denial on this.

In Egypt, the largest Arab country and the intellectual birthplace of Islamic extremism, the Brotherhood of Islam is banned. In Algeria, the government brutally suppresses Islamic radicals after the military took over the government following the victory of Islamic fundamentalists in a democratic election.

In Syria, the government slaughtered many thousands of Islamic radicals who had attempted an uprising and brutally supresses the mullahs to this day.

In Saudi Arabia, the government brutally suppresses al Qaeda, for the simple reason that al Qaeda has made the destruction of the Saudi monarchy its number one priority. As a matter of political survival, the monarchy does carry out a kind of diplomacy with the radicals, much in the way the U.S. and every country seeks to undermine its opponents through those same means. And of course there are Islamic radicals within the Saudi monarchy, just as many countries inevitably include a faction of radicals within its power structure.

The evidence is overwhelming that the primary battle within Islam is between moderates and radicals.

Bin Laden insists his nihilistic interpretation of Islam is the correct one, while the vast majority of Muslim clerics, scholars, politicians and men and women in the streets disagree.

It pretty much says it all that right wingnuts insist that bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is the correct one. Some, like Kender and Woody, make the even more preposterous assertion that moderate Muslims do not exist.

Given that the existence of moderate Muslims, both as bulwarks against radical Islam and as its primary victims, we have no choice but to examine the motives of people like Kendar and Woody.

When we do,  we can see that they are in desperate need of a powerful evil enemy, because they know that without that, their political position cannot be sustained. It was the same during the Cold War. Right wingnuts droned on and on and on about how powerful and ruthless and threatening communism was--right up until the Soviet Union disintegrated without a shot being fired by its Cold War enemies. Turns out, Soviet communism collapsed under its own contradictions. It was rejected by its own people.

Radical Islam, by contrast, is by good measure even less appealing than communism ever was. We can't really say radical Islam is doomed to failure because it has already failed so dramatically.

The only reason we care at all about radical Islam is that the technology to wage massive terrorism is now widespread enough to make anyone who cares to use it a threat. In other words, even a tiny, divided, poorly funded, widely reviled, suicidal band of fake religious gangsters can threaten a superpower.

The only way to contain and defeat radical Islam is to support and expand moderate Islam. Those who insist on the outrageous illusion that moderate Islam doesn't exist and, even, that the radical interpretation of the Koran is the correct one are bin Laden's most effective allies in his nonetheless hopeless war on sanity.

 

 

21

Mac: "...we have no choice but to examine the motives of people like Kendar and Woody."

Good luck.  You'll have to make up stories like The NY Times to claim anything sinister.  The difference between you and people like Kender and myself is that we're willing to admit the real problem, political correctness be damned, while you dance around and try to find phony answers so as to not offend those who would like to kill us.

Also, President Reagan forced the end of Soviet Communism.  I didn't expect you to give him credit.

22

History shows that the Soviet Union's people rejected communism on their own. The rise of Gorbachev, glasnost and perestroika were internal political phenomena--they had almost nothing to do with Reagan's spending billions on space weapons, or trading arms for hostages in Iran, or funding the Islamic extremists in Afghanistan or invading Grenada.

Rather, U.S. Cold War military aggression prolonged the Soviet Empire's collapse by giving its repressive style of government a legitimacy it would otherwise lack. The Soviets were able to fool a lot of third-world people only because those people had suffered under U.S. military aggression and were willing to ally with the Soviets as their only way to fight back.

It's no accident that the first countries to throw off communism were those in which the U.S. had not intervened militarily and had, for the most part, left alone: Poland, Czechoslovakia and the rest of Eastern Europe.

For the same reasons, it is no accident that all four of the remaining Soviet-style communist countries: Vietnam, Laos, North Korea, and Cuba were subjected to various degrees of Iraq-style ''bomb them into democracy'' military adventures by the U.S.

The historical pattern is clear: where the U.S. used military force to confront communism, communism took its deepest roots and indeed remains. Where the U.S. let communism take its natural course, the people rejected it on their own and, having the benefit of civil and public infrastructure not destroyed in war, have been able to build strong democracies.

One simple point of human psychology that American militarists always miss is that all people have pride and quite naturally have pride in their country, even when they may despise and fear their government.

And when someone, anyone, comes around and starts destroying the village to save the village, the villagers are quite naturally going to turn against them.

That's the way it always has been and always will be.

Every poll has shown the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. out. Why is no mystery at all: they want to control their own country. However much they might have despised Saddam, when someone comes into their village or town or city and starts killing their uncles and brothers and mothers, it is quite natural for them to fight back, even if the killing is being done as part of bigger vision for peace, no matter how idealistic that bigger vision may be.

 

 

23 Since no one is commenting on the initial post, I'm closing comments down on this thread.