I doubt they are either patriots or Christians.  That being said, they are being called that.  However there is an important thing to remember.  Uh, the part I said about "support".  There are nutters of every stripe out there.  Their effectiveness is magnified (or diminished) by the support of the heirarchy and community.  These nutters got neither.

So while you tongue-in-cheek sarcasm is duly noted, you are proving my point, not refuting it.

Since, Cikomyr, I doubt I'm not going to get a response to the questions that I posed.  I beat that you think that somehow Liberals, atheist and agnostics can never do any wrong.  Let's just forget about what happened in the 20s with the whole eugenics, euthanasia (and Dr. Jack), and forget ancient Greek/Roman.  It seems that you want a society where can do wahtever you want basically eat your cake and ice cream. Society where anything goes or where you should be allowed to do what ever you want as long it doesn't affect someone don't last that long.

I agree with Dr. Guy what you said about the difference between Islam and Christians (you did an excellent job).  One can read the Qu'ran and come to have many different interpretations.  While one can read the Hadiths, which you'll see the 'prophets' true actions and come out with very few intrepetations.  Cikomyr, Have you read the Qu'ran or more importantly have you read any of the Hadiths? 

It seems that you only answer questions to when the going is good.  When the going is no longer good yeah.

Most Christians condemned the murderer. Some seem to enjoy the fact that the victim, a man who they also saw as a murderer is dead. None except for a few criminals adored the murderer.

Do you think Christians will celebrate Roeder like Muslims celebrate the guy who killed a Jewish family in Haifa and was sent back to Lebanon last year?

It's not a double standard.

Although I disagree with the conclusion that Islam is a violent* religion, you don't apply a double standard to arrive at it.

Murders done in the name of Christianity are uniformly condemned by all bigger and most smaller churches. You can walk into a random church anywhere in the world and chances are that they will agree with you that those murders are sins and unjustified (and that murder cannot be justified).

Try the same trick with murders commited by Muslims and random mosques. I dare you.

Many people measure a religion by the effect it has on its nominal followers. And by that logic Islam is more violent than Christianity.

*That's "violent" as in "aggressive". When it comes to self-defence the Quran is more violent than the New Testament.

Again, no argument.  But you miss the critical piece.  I have no doubt that the terrorists are not practicing their religion, but the problem is they have the support of figures of authority.  If the Imams were to universally condemn them, I doubt they would have 2 shillings to rub together for their cause, and volunteers would be as rare as hens teeth.  But they do have the support of many of the religious heirarchy and that is what perpetuates their lie.

To break my own rule, if the Catholic Church had not supporter the Crusades, there would not have been more than one (if even one), and the whole mess would have died aborning. That is my point.  We can kill the nits till the cows come home, but if the breeding ground remains intact, there will always be more.

It is easy to label them as extremist nuts even when it is your relligion involved.  I excuse none of the excesses of my religion, as the only commonallity with my religion is they "professed" the same creed.  Clearly they did not understand or live it.  But the problem with the Muslim terorists is the broad support they have within their own religion.  Yusuf Islam might not be considered an extremist, but he sure as hell supports them.  Andhe is just one of the prominent idiots that perpetuate the terrorism.

That is open to debate.  According to sources close to them, the leader was more a Jim JOnes than a strong Christian.

Yes, and i am sure the muslim terrorists pray 5 times a day. But then most religions do warn about those who go through the motions of faith, without any of the belief behind them.  The rich man and the camel is but one.  They put on the show for others, but that is all.  And so it is again here.

So is the KKK, and they sound more like them than they do Christians.  But again, I will not argue what they called themselves.  One merely has to look at their deeds to see they are not.  And more importantly one only has to look at the authoratative support they received to see how truly dangerous they were.  They could have blown up a bus, but their insanity was not stretching beyond the messianic preechings of their cult leader.

Again, no arguement.  If you like, we can call them terrorists who profess to be Muslims.  I do not believe I ever stated that Islam was the villian, only that the villians were getting support from the heirarchy within Islam.

Yes.  And ostracizing and isolating it is the first and biggest step to erradicating it.  I think this episode demonstrates that is the norm with the professed Christian terrorists.  But no one can honestly claim it is the norm with muslim terrorists.

But who are those "Figure of Authority"? who appoint these?

The big, big difference between Christianity and Islam is the lack of independant power structure. Christianity usually have the Catholic Church, or other organisations that decide who gets appointed priest, who can preach at churches, and the like. Islam, not so much. Usually, the government will decide who can and who can't be Imams, mullahs, and the like.

Well, technically, an Imam is somebody who has the care of a Mosque. So anyone who get landed with that responsibility becomes an Imam, regardless of the study he might have taken (sometimes elected by a community, appointed by the government, or simply because they had the financial means to do so). A Mullah are the equivalent of our "religious scholar" = priests.

So you have radical Imams who act like the demagogues pundits here in America. They know what make their flock angrier, and the angrier they are, the more they listen to him, the less they listen to other Imams. So it's no wonder that there happens to have some radical Imams who support violence. But they answer to no one, except their flock. A priest who would advocate killing the jews would, (I hope) have to answer to the Vatican.

Also, the other problem with condemning Islam as a violent religion based on the attack made by the Arabs against Israeli is that this conflict is a political conflict beforehand. Religion got mixed in it by necessity and opportunism, but ultimately, it's not about religion.

The initial beef, I'd say, of the countries around Israel against it wasn't that it was a "Jewish state". It's that it was a powerful country right on their doorstep where before it was only tribesmen. I don't think any country likes to see a dangerous neighbour materialise overnight, with the West's support.

Now, I might suppose that since these countries have had to live with Israel as their neighbour for the past 60 years, they are probably more likely to accept them. On the other hand, Jordan and Egypt have no interest in seeing the Palestinians becoming a free state, so they do their best to make sure the problem is never solved. Also, I guess they like to see their nuclear-armed neighbours being busy with a guerilla war, antagonising the whole region because of it.

....

Darn, I actually thought all of that as I wrote it. So... the Palestinian struggle serves Syria, Jordan and Egypt's geopolitical goals? Brillant!

Appoints?  WHo appoints a Baptist minister?  The congregation.  Who appoints a Lutheran Pastor?  The congregation.  Wirh some exceptions (Anglican, Catholicism), most are hired by the body of the church.  Much as I suspect happens in the Muslim world.

Government?  In Theocracies perhaps.  But I dare say in most nations, they stay out of it.

Even Jeremiah Wright was not condoning terrorism.  So that analogy falls apart.  I am sure you can find a wayward minister somewhere if you try hard enough.  But how hard do you really have to try to find a violent preaching imam?

And again, I never condemned the religion.  I noted that there is a lot of violence being preached from the pulpit and the only way to stop the violence is to change those preaching.  For anyone to deny that there are many violent muslims who find solace and inspiration from religious leaders is to deny reality.  That does not say that ALL are.  And the second part is that no one denies there are christian wackos as well.  But the major difference is they can find no refuge in their relligion from people of authority.  Muslims can.

TODAY it is a (relatively) powerful country.  it was not in 48, 56 or 67.  Yet the hatred goes back that far (that was when it was declared a country, so before you would have to look for ethnic violence).  That argument would hold water if the animosity was recent, instead of chronic.

How we got from terrorism to Israel is strange, but the above I agree with mostly.  Jordan and Egypt really do not care about israel any longer (they are at peace so can concentrate elsewhere) and yes, they love the guerilla war as it does keep Israel concerned within its own borders.  If Israel had plans for Egypt or Jordan, that would give them pause.  I do not think they do, but I can understand where those countries may - or at the least figure better safe than sorry.

I was going to ask you who Dan was until I put on my glasses.  But yes, from a geo-political standpoint, i can very well see where it does.  saber Rattling does not really bother many as all countries do it and very seldom is a shot fired.  So they can bluster about Israel, while going back to the safety of their house and drink their tea knowing that is one area they do not have to worry about too much.

In that respect, yea, palestinians are merely puppets to occupy not very friendly neighbors while you concentrate on other problems.

"Relatively" in the sense it is small.  Not in what it is doing per capita (which makes it a very powerful counrtry in that sense).

Israel cannot be in 10 places at once, but where it does go, it does make an impact.  That is the "relative" part.

Hizbullah call themselves a "resistance group" but they are hardly an insurgency, at least not against Israel. Israel doesn't control any part of Lebanon. Hizbullah are just attackers.

I haven't heard anything about a Golan Heights insurgency.

ok, time to take this thread back:

1. Absolutely no more discussion of politics and/or gun control, I will delete such any new comments to that effect (maybe I should go back and delete the old ones too). I admit I also participated (at first) in those arguments and it totally derailed the thread. So lets stay on topic.

2. Lets get back on topic and find a better name for a gun.

From last post on this actual issue (post #7)

I agree, but his point is that by calling them something else, they would be more palatable to more people.  However I have to ask - to which people?  The MSM would not be fooled, and they are the ones fooling those who are opposed to guns now.

Gays prefer to be called "Gay" and not "fags" (or even "homosexual").

Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are the choice names of each respective group (each of which has quite a different name for each other).

I do not wish to "trick" anyone or even attempt to change their outlook. I wish to choose a positive name for the greatest tool of good in human history and the sole source of human rights in the modern world (it used to be melee weapons, which, being less effective, resulted in diminished human rights).

Anyways, no more discussion on why, you don't want to participate in the naming, fine, don't.