By my logic? You are reading into things a bit too much.

I know lots of Muslims who are great folks. They are not psychotic fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are the problem, not regular Islamic folks. There are Muslims who support terrorism and those who don't.

As for those who do, I hope the government finds them and kills or imprisons them. As for 'tolerating' them, no, they have declared war on the west, and for that, they should die.

There are, however, a lot of fundamentalists out there who think terrorism is A-OK. Eff them. I wouldn't mind seeing them hanged in the public square for their beliefs.

He explicitly stated that being Muslim does not mean that you support terrorism. To say that a majority of terrorists, especially international, are not Muslim would be a lie though. Nobody is trying to say that all Muslims are terrorists but everyone involved in the 9/11 attacks, the Embassy bombings, and the USS Cole were. There are crazy middle aged white guys who like to send people mailbombs and blow up federal buildings in Oklahoma but once again, we're talking about a majority of terrorists.

The PC police will lynch you for that.
Oops.

Same could be said for any religion or ideology really...

Does that mean by your logic that those here in the West that have declared war on Islam, Arabs, whatever also should die?

Heh... I feel the same way about a lot of Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals too - I worry about any crazed group that views the end of the world as a good thing, or wants a return to the horrors of the Puritan theocracy <shudder> (those guys made the Taliban look like laid back party animals by comparison).

Except there is no other religion or ideology (except perhaps Communism) that exists in such great numbers and poses a substantial threat. Last I checked, there is only one minority group that kills people for drawing politically incorrect cartoons. An argument might be made that Scientology is really, really bad, but then again, they don't operate in such numbers.

There isn't another group of religious zealots that wants to do things like return Spain to a hyper-Islamic Caliphate.

Unless you're going to argue that George Bush blew up the WTC, I just don't see how you could possibly believe that these folks aren't a threat.

I don't think you're reading what I'm writing. I have no problem with Islam. I have a problem with people who want to kill me because of my way of life. Generally, yes, I prefer they die instead of me.

Nowhere today do Christian fundamentalists or any other sort of fundamentalists exist in such numbers and employ such tactics as extremist Muslims you'll find in Europe, the Middle East, and to a lesser extent in the U.S. When the radical Christianists blow up a major building or commit a really bad act in the name of Jesus, I might change my opinion.

Some might argue Capitalism as well...

Yet - although watching the news I do wonder about some of the more ardent "Christian" groups in the US and Africa

The prefer non-direct vectors of attack, lawsuits and the establishment of funds/museums/schools to promote their views... and they did inflect "Battlefield Earth" on us ;)

Of course only Islamic groups want that - the irony of course being that the Spanish Caliphate was remarkably liberal and enlightened, the loss of Iberia sparked the fundamentalist bent we see still fueling segments of Islam.

Of course I could easily point to many "Christian" congregations/denominations that would like to see America (and others) turned into a "Christian Nation" which is just as terrifying as a fundamentalist Islamic Caliphate to me.

Christian fundamentalist exist in huge numbers, hell they account for 1/3 of American "Christians" and many do and have happily killed and terrorized "non-Christians" in the name of God - Christian Identity, the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Patriots, the 'Concerned Christians', etc. from the US - the Iron Guard in Romania, the "Christian" paramilitaries in the Former Yugoslavia, the Indonesian "Christian" death squads and terror-cells, etc.

Hell there are breeding grounds for Christian extremism turning out more adherents every year like BJU, or groups like Answers in Genesis promoting their own twisted propaganda, or folks like Warren Jeffs or Fred Phelps out there who if given any measure of political power or a less stable society would happily act on their sick version of "faith".

I don't kid myself into believe that there aren't just as equally sick and twist ideologies lurking in the great Christian community that mirror those of the extremists of any ideology - particularly looking at the history of my faith, I know that violence can easily be justified in the name of Jesus by those looking for an excuse to express their hate, intolerance, or anger. So I just happen to look objectively at other faiths and ideologies and understand that they to will have elements within them just as repugnant and hateful as those still infecting Christianity.

Not religious, but there has been governments, in the name of fighting terrorism, squashing rights. Killing indiscriminately, arresting people left and right for their religious believe and holding people for being in the wrong place and the wrong time, while exporting them to nations where they can be tortured. Find that as wrong, even more wrong then what Al-Qaeda have done. Whereas Al-Qaeda can and will be destroyed, these governments and their allies will only create another Al-Qaeda in the future.

Man, that Westboro Baptist Church, always killing folks and such...They're disgusting, but they don't walk into crowded places and detonate bombs.

The idea that we should avoid labeling the terrorism we face "islamic extremism" is ridiculous. That is precisely where the threat comes from. Acknowledging a threat isn't prejudiced.

Exalt

Some people are acting like Christians never blow things up in the name of their religion.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm

You find it more wrong that Al-Quada? or just as wrong and worse because you imagine it to be less easy to destroy?

If, as I suspect you do, you mean the US, I think you're claims are somewhat exaggerated and misrepresented. (I'm afraid that being at war does sometimes result in less discriminate killing than would be ideal, but while the actions of the US have been deeply flawed in individual cases, a perfect fight against terrorism is going to be tough to pull off.) I'd like the US to be more cautious and I'd like the US always to be making the case for a better way of life and doing things by not stooping to the methods used by our opponents. I'm pretty disgusted by some of our actions, and yet, I don't think that we'd be better off not doing anything at all. We've just got to be really careful about what we do.

I have conflicted attitudes about how much "tolerance" we should show to any religious believers. I don't think state funds should generally be spent on promoting the interest on one faith, and yet, I think our tradition of religious tolerance is a good one. I think we should try to honor matters of conscious as much as we can.

I think that a pharmacy chain that is willing to advertise that they will not carry certain forms of birth control or a taxi cab company that is willing to advertise that they won't accept passengers who are carrying alcohol are fine in the general marketplace. But I don't think that they should be able to seek state contracts that involve service to all customers (like an airport taxi line). I'm still working out what I think about catholic charity hospitals receiving state funds for some services like ER services but refusing to provide birth control or abortion services. (remember some of the charges against Joe Lieberman being "rape gurney Joe?")

I think we may lately be getting kind of confused about having "rights" to things simply because they aren't illegal. Should you have a legal expectation that you can get birth control at any pharmacy or can people who don't believe in certain forms of birth control have a legal expectation of working at and supporting business who share their values?

All that said, I think that it's going to be imperative that we resist any efforts to have separate legal systems or to allow certain churches to limit the civil rights of non-members generally out of a goofy effort to be "sensitive" to beliefs.

Not really speculation though is it? - Christianity HAS done terrible and horrifying things, Capitalism HAS done terrible and horrifying things - it's all a matter of keeping perspective and looking objectively at a larger picture that takes in the whole of an ideology or belief system. So while Christianity, Islam, Communism, Capitalism, etc. have all done horrible and terrible things (and continue to do so) they have also contributed positively to the greater whole of humanity either directly or indirectly, so it's silly or indicative of a personal bias to single one out as overtly evil because of the actions of a minority.

Umm... sure but only if you do it in the middle of the highway.

I think for myself, and consider more than one perspective?

Sorry but opinion doesn't equal fact.

Not directly no, but the tone and ignorance displayed by some all but spell it out...

Well at least you qualified it with the important term radical, others haven't bothered to use that which to is again indicative of at the very least an anti-Muslim attitude or bias - you on the other hand have at least realized that there are differences in the ideologies of Muslims, with some being radical or extremists.

Again opinion doesn't equal fact, or the truth - and as you pointed out it's the radicals not the whole, something that many posters here seem to forget... I guess many of them equate Muslim and radical as the same thing unfortunately.

Calling me a liberal is a personal insult actually - I'm a old school Red Tory, which I know must be confusing since it's a conservative tradition pro-intellectual and pro-pluralism so I don't tend to spout the "required" conservative dogma of the new conservatives and republicans (small 'r' for a reason).

Nobody is acting like that.

I just cannot comprehend why people go to such lengths to avoid saying who is responsible for the the threats we face. Unbelievable.

Fair enough, but I won't associate a whole religion with terrorism because of it. Every Catholic does not support child molestors, AND it's not what the religion stands for. Same with Islam, not only does every Muslim not support terrorism, but it's NOT what Islam stands for and that's the problem I have when people try to pinpoint terror.

You're right, but Islamic fundamentalism is the the biggest source of terrorism with regard to the United States. The huge majority of people acknowledge that most Muslims are the same as the rest of us, but certain entities still refuse to acknowledge the threat.