Islamic Terrorists.

[Silvertusk]

What an absolute ridiculous thing to say and it is a typical American response. Sorry - but comments like that make me sick. Lets not go there please.

Are you downright positive that the calamities in the USA, UK, and Spain were or weren't wake-up signs from God?
I brood if more people, particularly Britons, will be more supportive of President Bush's outspoken Christian values, war on terror, and Iraq War.

But it surprises me that Muslims in general - when they say that they deplore violence and believe in peace are in sense contradicting what they are suppose to beleive in.

The founder of Islam didn't exactly have a virtuous life, especially compared to Jesus. You'll be shocked once you read about it.
Muslims are allowing Islam to be dominated by their radical extremists, so it's their responsibility to fix that.

Christian2, I applaud you for studying the Qur'an for as long as you did. My question to you is, is the Islamic religion have ANY chance to being the true religion and not Christinaity? I also don't know about this, but are Muslims that same as Islamic's, or is Muslim a religion?

If you're a Christian, you shouldn't doubt your religion for the sake of Islam. Muslims are followers of Islam. Today's Islamic Middle Eastern countries were inhabited largely by Christians and Jews until Muhammad came up with Islam.

reconquering lost Muslim lands like Israel and Spain

Israel and Spain were never native Muslim lands, so that shows their ignorance.

Bush has done more to raise the level of terror in this world than any other world leader. War on terror is fine but you simply cannot just invade a foriegn country and expect that to solve all the problems of terrorism. Violence begats violence begats violence. Terrorists do not have a country - they are people with a mindset.

If Bush went into Iraq because he was sick of the atoricties that Saddam was causing his people - then I would applaud him. If Bush or Blair for that matter - went into other countries like Zimbabwe and Sudan - or Saudi Arabia to stop the Governments their from killing their people - then I would applaud them. With Iraq it was the oil. Are we going to go in and stop the Saudi's? No - because they are our friends even though they have one of the worst human rights records in modern history.

You see all this reeks of hipocracy. This is not a wake-up call from God to support leaders like Bush. If anything is is a call to find another solution. Answers like the ones Live 8 are coming up with - to help people and not destroy them - are better ways to peace. These are Christian Values and these are the ones that should be shouted for everyone to hear!!!!

[August]

Bush has done more to raise the level of terror in this world than any other world leader.

This is nonsense. I suppose 9/11 was also his fault? The first World Trade centre bombings? The attack on the Achille Lauro? Why don't you blame the terrorists for the terrorism?

War on terror is fine but you simply cannot just invade a foriegn country and expect that to solve all the problems of terrorism.

He never said it would. He has been saying it will be along and difficult effort to root out terrorism. Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, with access to weapons that can blow up half of New York or London.

Violence begats violence begats violence.

And your solution is what?

Terrorists do not have a country - they are people with a mindset.

But they still have to live and plan somewhere, and get funding from somewhere. If that support base is gone, they will find it much harder to spread terror.

With Iraq it was the oil.

Why don't you offer some proof for that? It's absolute nonsense.

Answers like the ones Live 8 are coming up with - to help people and not destroy them - are better ways to peace.

So give them some money and food and terrorism will stop?

[Judah]

I wish something could be done about Robert Mugabe... but what?
I have just finished reading Andrew Meldrum's book and the account of increasing corruption and violence is distressing and sickening.
We have some personal experience in that my husband was thrown into a Bulawayo jail on trumped up charges when there on business back in 1998, luckily before things got as bad as they are now.
Mugabe wants power, and more and more power. How does democracy get a look in? After he dies, another the same will fill his place. What stops it?

[Silvertusk]

Bush has done more to raise the level of terror in this world than any other world leader.

This is nonsense. I suppose 9/11 was also his fault? The first World Trade centre bombings? The attack on the Achille Lauro? Why don't you blame the terrorists for the terrorism?

War on terror is fine but you simply cannot just invade a foriegn country and expect that to solve all the problems of terrorism.

He never said it would. He has been saying it will be along and difficult effort to root out terrorism. Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, with access to weapons that can blow up half of New York or London.

Violence begats violence begats violence.

And your solution is what?

Terrorists do not have a country - they are people with a mindset.

But they still have to live and plan somewhere, and get funding from somewhere. If that support base is gone, they will find it much harder to spread terror.

With Iraq it was the oil.

Why don't you offer some proof for that? It's absolute nonsense.

Answers like the ones Live 8 are coming up with - to help people and not destroy them - are better ways to peace.

So give them some money and food and terrorism will stop?

I do blame Terrorists for terrorism but I think the Foreign policies of Bush do not help matters much. As for Saddam - who gave them those weapons. We did - At that point we hated the Iranians more and wanted to help Saddam win the Gulf War. We even helped him get into power for crikes sake. Now we are complaining that he has these weapons!!!!!??! (which it turned out that it didn't anymore of course) I mean how can you justify that reasoning? It is ludicrous in the extreme. It is a joke to think that he could ever had affected us in Britain or the States.

As for a solution - I do not have one and never claimed to have one - just that the current thinking doesn't seem to work. Invading countries just doesn't seem to work and reaks of hypocrisy.

Saudi Arabia is home to many Terrorists. Why aren't we invading them? Because they are our friends and we need their oil. Do you see my point - Why is it one rule for one country and another for another country. Yes - getting rid of Saddam was a good thing in the long run - but why the double standards?

Do you see my point?

[ochotseat]

Why don't you blame the terrorists for the terrorism?

Because a lot of people are jealous of America. The attack in London may only invoke Europeans to be more hard-line in their approach toward Americans rather than towards the terrorists. Coupled with rapid Islamic immigration and low European birthrates, this type of complacent attitude will only accelerate the Islamic takeover of Europe.

He never said it would. He has been saying it will be along and difficult effort to root out terrorism. Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, with access to weapons that can blow up half of New York or London.

Not to mention the Iraqi ban on UN inspectors for years, evidence that indicates Hussein's intent to embezzle UN money to bankroll the building of new weapons, Hussein's human rights track record...need I say more?

So give them some money and food and terrorism will stop?

Of course not. They'll then blame American support for Israel.

Saudi Arabia is home to many Terrorists. Why aren't we invading them? Because they are our friends and we need their oil. Do you see my point - Why is it one rule for one country and another for another country. Yes - getting rid of Saddam was a good thing in the long run - but why the double standards?

There aren't any double standards. Saudi Arabia cooperated in the war on terror; Iraq did not. Saudi Arabia hasn't tried to take over the entire Middle East either.

[Judah]

I am hoping that Christian2 will see my question here and be able to make a comment.

Our newspaper this morning has reported Tony Blair (talking about terrorism and "this evil ideology") as saying:

"It will not finally be resolved until it is dealt with in every community in which it is incubated because this is what happens with young people getting indoctrinated into what is an extreme and poisonous version and perversion of the religion of Islam."

The newspaper also reported that there would be "talks with other nations on how to mobilise the moderate and true voice of Islam."

Does this mean that the Principle of Abrogation, and Islam of the Medina period, is being denied as "the religion of Islam"?
Are the surahs of the Medina period "an extreme and poisonous version and perversion" and therefore not true Islam? Or is it something else that is this "perversion" instead?
So what is the "moderate and true voice of Islam"?

It sounds to me that part of the problem is the denial that "the true voice of Islam" is (at least in part) indeed violent and extremist, and that needs to be recognized and dealt with by Muslims themselves in much the same way that an alcoholic cannot start the road to recovery until he recognizes and admits the real facts of his alcoholism.
Instead, what I hear sounds like a cover-up.

[ochotseat]

It sounds to me that part of the problem is the denial that "the true voice of Islam" is (at least in part) indeed violent and extremist, and that needs to be recognized and dealt with by Muslims themselves in much the same way that an alcoholic cannot start the road to recovery until he recognizes and admits the real facts of his alcoholism.
Instead, what I hear sounds like a cover-up.

As I said before, the founder of Islam had a shady past. Can you imagine our Lord Jesus doing those things? Never.

[August]

Hi Silvertusk,

Thanks for the response. I am still concerned that you blame the wrong people here.

but I think the Foreign policies of Bush do not help matters much.

Which foreign policies are you referring to? Iraq broke the ceasefire accord from the first Gulf War many times, and also did not submit to many UN resolutions about allowing unlimited inspections. The UN Security Council agreed with this, and issued a resolution allowing for serious consequences if he did not comply. It had nothing to do with Bush's foreign policies.

As for Saddam - who gave them those weapons. We did - At that point we hated the Iranians more and wanted to help Saddam win the Gulf War. We even helped him get into power for crikes sake. Now we are complaining that he has these weapons!!!!!??!

I'm not sure I follow the argument. One has nothing to do with the other. The US never gave Saddam nuclear or biochem weapons, but in any case, it does not matter. Do you blame the pencil manufacturer if you make a spelling mistake? Saddam became a threat to the stability in the region when he invaded Kuwait, and the fact that he had weapons given to him by the west has nothing to do with the fact that he was wrong. The west also supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan against Russia, part of which eventually became the Taliban. Does it mean that we also should not have gone there?

It is a joke to think that he could ever had affected us in Britain or the States.

Maybe it's a joke to you, but I'm not sure you have all the facts. He did affect us in the US, when he decided to aid Al Quada, by providing training camps for them in his country, funded by his money. He was also harboring the terrorist that killed Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro, and sponsoring Hamas attack on Isreal, a US and UK ally.

As for a solution - I do not have one and never claimed to have one - just that the current thinking doesn't seem to work. Invading countries just doesn't seem to work and reaks of hypocrisy.

Would you have supported invading Afghanistan before 9/11? Did that work in cutting down the activities of terrorists? Also, since the invasion of Iraq, other countries have started to co-operate. Libya for example, by giving up their weapons programs, have indicated clearly that they don't wish to be painted with the same brush as Iraq. Jordan and Syria, and even the Palestine authority have taken a much more moderate approach lately.

Saudi Arabia is home to many Terrorists. Why aren't we invading them? Because they are our friends and we need their oil. Do you see my point - Why is it one rule for one country and another for another country.

I don't understand. On the one hand you critcize Bush for invading countries, but now you want him to invade all countries? A different poicy applies for each country and situation. Saudi Arabia has been an ally and friend in the war on terror. As for the oil, the US has enough oil in ANWAR and the Gulf of Mexico to last for a long time. We dont' need the Mideast's oil, and have you seen the oil price lately? This obsession with "it's all about the oil" is baseless.

Yes - getting rid of Saddam was a good thing in the long run - but why the double standards?

So it was good to get rid of him? You are confusing me Above you claim that invading countries does not seem to work, but it had a good result? Does that not mean it worked?

There is no double standard. Iraq was subject to a ceasefire agreement after the first Gulf war, hich Saddam did not adhere to. He also ignored 17 different UN resolutions on weapons inspections. He was scamming the money that was supposed to go to his people under the oil-for-food program. He was supporting and harboring terrosrists, and there was unanimous agreement in the UN Security Council that he was either holding, or establishing a capability to manufacture nuclear and biochem weapons. Saudi Arabia has none of that against them. Where they find terrorists, they prosecute and punish them. They share intelligence with the west, and they don't invade their neighbours. Where is the double standard?

Do you see my point?

I'm afraid not.

As I said before, the founder of Islam had a shady past.

Understatement of the year......

[ochotseat]

Understatement of the year......

Not if you're trying to be PC.

[Christian2]

Hello Judah,

"It will not finally be resolved until it is dealt with in every community in which it is incubated because this is what happens with young people getting indoctrinated into what is an extreme and poisonous version and perversion of the religion of Islam." The newspaper also reported that there would be "talks with other nations on how to mobilise the moderate and true voice of Islam."

The problem as I see it is that no one speaks for the religion of Islam. They don't have a "pope" and they desperately need one. In other words what is the "true voice of Islam" or who has the authority to speak for Islam as a whole? Muslim fundamentalists verbally fight with what we could call "moderate" Muslims and call them apostolates.

Take a look at this article:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/ne...?version=1

Relevant clip:

But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."[/quote]

This brings up the subject of taqiya" or "al-taqiya" or taqaiyya. It is also called kitman. Look it up on the net. It's all about lying and when it is permissible.

So what is the "moderate and true voice of Islam"?

Let me tell you a little story about my personal experience. One Muslim who I have had the most conversations with on a discussion board (couple of thousand exchanges believe it or not) was my hope among the voices of so many "radical" Muslims that their really was a moderate side of the religion of Islam. He's name became a household word in my home. He was my answer to the voice of the radicals. But one day a Zionist Jew showed up on the board and the two of them got into it. The Jew said that he hated Islam, not Muslims, but the religion. The religion he said was responsible for the suicide murders of his people. He told the story of a Muslim and a Jew who were friends in Palestine for a long, long time. One day the Muslim killed the Jew and went home bragging that he had killed his Jew.

The Jew said some things about Muhammad that would not be considered PC. He brought up the fact that Muhammad in his 50's consummated a marriage with a 9 year-old child. My Muslim friend exploded and said that Hitler should have finished the job with the Jews and then the world would have been peaceful and went on to say that Israel should be nuked.

Needless to say, my whole view of a Moderate Muslim was shattered. Granted the Zionist Jew was wrong in the way he spoke to the Muslim, but the Muslim was equally wrong in what he said to the Jew. The Muslim said that he believed in revenge and revenge he took. The insults that flew back and forth would never be allowed on this site. They both would have been censored and thrown off the board.

What made it worse for me and others who had the same respect for the Muslim was that he refused to apologize for what he said about Hitler and the Jews. We all say things in anger, but we apologize for our angry words. So, my reaction was "Who is a Moderate Muslim?" If this Muslim isn't then who is?

It sounds to me that part of the problem is the denial that "the true voice of Islam" is (at least in part) indeed violent and extremist, and that needs to be recognized and dealt with by Muslims themselves in much the same way that an alcoholic cannot start the road to recovery until he recognizes and admits the real facts of his alcoholism. Instead, what I hear sounds like a cover-up.

Right on! Who better to do it then Muslims themselves? Individual Muslims do make a voice here and there, but it needs to be done at the top with the religious leaders. They need to observe what is being taught by the imams in the mosques and in the Islamic schools all over the world and weed out the extremists—the ones who preach hatred and holy war.

I pulled this off an Islamic discussion board from an obvious extremist.

I would like to clear some misconceptions which many muslims commonly utter in regard to the actions of the Mujahideen brothers and sisters. When you say civilians, I suppose you mean those people from the land of the enemies who do not fight with guns against the muslims. Regardless whether they directly fight or not, if their governments are fighting Islam and muslims, then their people become a legitimate targets of muslims. This is a Islamic ruling. Please read the Tafsir of Verses 2:190-2:193 (Tafsir Ibn Kathir) at http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=2&tid=4985

The Command to fight Those Who fight Muslims and killing Them wherever They are found:

2:190. And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.) (2:191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid Al-Haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. ) (2:192. But if they cease, then Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) (2:193. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and the religion (all and every kind of worship) is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimin (the polytheists and wrongdoers).)

Abu Ja`far Ar-Razi said that Ar-Rabi` bin Anas said that Abu Al-`Aliyah commented on what Allah said:

(And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you,)

Abu Al-`Aliyah said, "This was the first Ayah about fighting that was revealed in Al-Madinah. Ever since it was revealed, Allah's Messenger used to fight only those who fought him and avoid non-combatants. Later, Surat Bara'ah (chapter 9 in the Qur'an) was revealed.'' `Abdur-Rahman bin Zayd bin Aslam said similarly, then he said that this was later abrogated by the Ayah:

(then kill them wherever you find them) (9:5).

However, this statement is not plausible, because Allah's statement:

(...those who fight you) applies only to fighting the enemies who are engaged in fighting Islam and its people. So the Ayah means, `Fight those who fight you', just as Allah said (in another Ayah):

(...and fight against the Mushrikin collectively as they fight against you collectively.) (9:36)

This is why Allah said later in the Ayah:

(And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.) meaning, `Your energy should be spent on fighting them, just as their energy is spent on fighting you, and on expelling them from the areas from which they have expelled you, as a law of equality in punishment.'

"Please know >...equality in punishment< this important issue. Their people can be killed as Sheik Osama Bin Laden explained in his following letter to the American people. I have quoted the relevant part of the letter:"

Full text: bin Laden's 'letter to America'

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... le6537.htm

(3) You may then dispute that all the above does not justify aggression against civilians, for crimes they did not commit and offenses in which they did not partake:

(a) This argument contradicts your continuous repetition that America is the land of freedom, and its leaders in this world. Therefore, the American people are the ones who choose their government by way of their own free will; a choice which stems from their agreement to its policies. Thus the American people have chosen, consented to, and affirmed their support for the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians, the occupation and usurpation of their land, and its continuous killing, torture, punishment and expulsion of the Palestinians. The American people have the ability and choice to refuse the policies of their Government and even to change it if they want.

(b) The American people are the ones who pay the taxes which fund the planes that bomb us in Afghanistan, the tanks that strike and destroy our homes in Palestine, the armies which occupy our lands in the Arabian Gulf, and the fleets which ensure the blockade of Iraq. These tax dollars are given to Israel for it to continue to attack us and penetrate our lands. So the American people are the ones who fund the attacks against us, and they are the ones who oversee the expenditure of these monies in the way they wish, through their elected candidates.

(c) Also the American army is part of the American people. It is this very same people who are shamelessly helping the Jews fight against us.

(d) The American people are the ones who employ both their men and their women in the American Forces which attack us.

(e) This is why the American people cannot be not innocent of all the crimes committed by the Americans and Jews against us.

(f) Allah, the Almighty, legislated the permission and the option to take revenge. Thus, if we are attacked, then we have the right to attack back. Whoever has destroyed our villages and towns, then we have the right to destroy their villages and towns. Whoever has stolen our wealth, then we have the right to destroy their economy. And whoever has killed our civilians, then we have the right to kill theirs.

There are verses in the Holy Quran which talks about revenge and retaliation. Here are some of them.

005 - Al-Maidah 45. And We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if anyone remits the retaliation by way of charity, it shall be for him an expiation. And whosoever does not judge by that which Allah has revealed, such are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers - of a lesser degree).

42:39. And those who, when an oppressive wrong is done to them, they take revenge.

42:40. The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof, but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from Allâh. Verily, He likes not the Zâlimûn (oppressors, polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.).

42:41. And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them.

42:42. The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and wrongly rebel in the earth, for such there will be a painful torment.

Someone said that President Bush made it worse by the war in Iraq. Perhaps, but I believe that the problem we have today would still be with us even if the war in Iraq hadn't happened. It has to do with the ultimate goal of the radicals like bin-Laden. Take a look at this article from an American Muslim website and you will see what I mean:

http://www.aicongress.org/teachersguide1.html

Clip:

How does Al-Qaeda fit?

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, many Muslims have lamented the loss of a unified Muslim polity and longed for the reestablishment of a world empire. Some have organized movements with the imposition of a Muslim world order as their end goal. In recent years, there have been numerous such movements, some but not all adopting a strategy of armed struggle. Note: the underlining I did is a whole other subject.)

Al-Qaeda is one such group. It is a coalition of armed movements espousing a refined form of Wahhabism, a stringent interpretation of Sunni Islamic law that informs the state ideology of Saudi Arabia and until recently Afghanistan. Usama bin Laden and his followers wish to make Islam the only religio-political force in the world.

In practice, this means reclaiming Muslim countries now ruled by secular governments they view as illegitimate, reconquering lost Muslim lands like Israel and Spain, unifying the entire Muslim world under a new caliphate, and ultimately, advancing into new territories and claiming them for Islam. America's position as the only superpower pits it inherently against their ambitions. Thus, weakening America is a fundamental part of their agenda.

This website is doing what it can to fight extremism in Islam.

The American Islamic Congress (AIC) is a social organization dedicated to building interfaith and interethnic understanding, and supporting freedom. Our organization grew out of the ashes of September 11, 2001. The vicious terrorist attacks in New York and Washington made many American Muslims realize that we had been silent for too long in the face of extremism.

[/quote]

There are some others like this organization, but like I said above, it is the religious leaders of Islam who can make a real and effective change and as far as I can see, they are doing a lousy job of it.

[Judah]

Thanks very much for your response, Christian2. There is a lot of food for thought there.
Your first link turned out to be broken, but your clip of the relevant part of it sufficed.

I Googled "kitman" and firstly came upon an Islamic site where someone in Britain was asking about the term. The answer gave examples that sounded quite reasonable... such as loyalty between husband and wife concerning private marital matters, with-holding of information that does not belong to oneself to be proper to divulge, etc.
The second site I came across put it more bluntly: "mental reservation and dissimulation or concealment of malevolent intentions" and "holy hypocrisy". Indeed, read this site folks for something of a shock regarding the deception of Islam.
My guess is that the first site was actually practising kitman in their answer!
I just hope the British questioner saw the actual demonstration as well.

I certainly hope that Tony Blair and other leaders have a better understanding of Islam than that which he publicly acknowledged in the words that he reportedly said.

[Judah]

I am posting this from another Christian site as it clearly demonstrates the idea of kitman which is very important to understand when thinking about the current invasion of Islam.

Dr Patrick Sookdeo, an authority on Islam and the persecuted church around the world...

"On Friday 20th May 2005 a crowd of some 300 Muslims burned a wooden cross outside the American embassy in London. This was part of a protest against the rumoured desecration of a Qur'an by American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay, during which British and American flags were also burned. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this event was that it was not deemed to be newsworthy, receiving little attention in the national press."

Then goes on to say later...

"Europe is gradually being transformed into a society in which Islam takes its place, not just as an equal alongside the many other faith communities, but often as the dominant player. This is not purely, or even primarily, a matter of numbers, but is more a matter of control of the structures of society. It is not happening by chance but is the result of a careful and deliberate strategy by certain Muslim leaders.
Though the effects are only now becoming noticeable, the planning was done decades ago. In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe. When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states. The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a "good Muslim" without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam.
(M.Ali Kettani "The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions" in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States (London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105)"

How do you think that Christians should respond to this growing threat?

[Deborah]

the terrorists are failing.
have you not noticed that this is bringing the rest of the world together.
The civilized world reconises how evil this is. Each time they attack they bring Nations together, instead of tearing them apart.
It happined with 9/11, Bali and now London. It will continue to happin every time such a evil deed is done.
The world is shocked and horrified with such clearly evil acts, and the world mucks in to lend a hand.

Terrorism is one big waste of time and life.

Jesus said he who dies for my sake earns eternal life, but he who saves his life is dammed.

[ochotseat]

The Jew said some things about Muhammad that would not be considered PC. He brought up the fact that Muhammad in his 50's consummated a marriage with a 9 year-old child. My Muslim friend exploded and said that Hitler should have finished the job with the Jews and then the world would have been peaceful and went on to say that Israel should be nuked.
Needless to say, my whole view of a Moderate Muslim was shattered.

Sounds like the Moslem couldn't deal with the facts. But just because he said those things in anger doesn't mean he's an actual anti-Semite. Who knows.

[ochotseat]

have you not noticed that this is bringing the rest of the world together.

I hope that does happen, but it seems like many of the liberals in those countries just want to point fingers at the United States or Israel for supposedly exacerbating the conditions for terrorism. In fact, there are many American liberals who also do the same thing.