[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That's quite true. It amazes me how many times I've been told I was a bigot or narrow minded as I related things that I've seen in the sandbox. The people who've had no qualms about calling me names have never been there.

I've lived all my life in the "sand box" and I'd call you a racist, bigot and a phobe. So there

1. Islam is not a racial group.
2. I really don't fear muslims. I fear the people who would surrender to them without a fight.

Such people have long existed in the world and Cicero spoke of them centuries ago:

$1:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague.

[desertdude]

So what are you trying to say here...Hmmmmmmm.

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

So what are you trying to say here...Hmmmmmmm.

Is that I don't have a fear of Islam or muslims. What concerns me more are the people who are more than willing to surrender Western society to whatever comes along. In a way, it's those people who are more to blame for 9/11 than even Al Qaeda. The guys from Al Qaeda attacked when they felt the USA was weak. Look at the Madrid bombings as an example, they attacked a weakened Spain and the Spanish gave in.

25 years ago the Western liberal surrender monkeys were blaming the USA and etc. for the Cold War all while ignoring Soviet imperialism and Soviet desires for world domination. Back then they wanted to surrender to the communists. Now they want to surrender to islam, China, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, and whatever other anti-Western movement they find to be fashionable and trendy.

Rationally speaking, if these people want to give away their birthrights it is not the fault of those who accept the gift, freely given.

In some respects I can't say I would not mind if radical islamists took over Europe and North America for a while because at the end of that time they'd have done more to save Western culture than the West is willing to do on its own.

[mentalfloss]

Rationally, this sort of conflict shouldn't even be happening right now if we are supposed to use the constitution as a logical starting point right?

Should this not even be an issue? Muslims can be muslims and christians can be christians and both can exist together in harmony. Right?

I mean, muslims on a mass scale are not condemning christians, so why the repeal? It's not as if we are changing the way we've lived for the past couple hundred years or anything.. nothing has changed and nothing will change. So why are christians being so defensive over something so harmless?

[BartSimpson]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Rationally, this sort of conflict shouldn't even be happening right now if we are supposed to use the constitution as a logical starting point right?

Should this not even be an issue? Muslims can be muslims and christians can be christians and both can exist together in harmony. Right?

I mean, muslims on a mass scale are not condemning christians, so why the repeal? It's not as if we are changing the way we've lived for the past couple hundred years or anything.. nothing has changed and nothing will change. So why are christians being so defensive over something so harmless?

Your idealism is laudable.

However, you're missing the point that the battles islam fights are not only on the front of the Christian West. Islam is currently engaged in conflicts against the Hindus in India, the animists and Christians in Africa, the Hindus in Bali, the Christians in East Timor, the Han Chinese in Western China, the traditional Thai culture in Thailand, traditional Philippino culture in the Philippines, and etc. In every case it is an expansionist muslim aggression being met with defensive force. In the case of the Sudan, the defensive force is pathetic, at best.

Were islam really the 'religion of peace' they keep saying they are then they would not represent the vast majority of active wars in the world right now. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... index.html

[desertdude]

I believe its a mindset, which the terrorist wanted to create and actually succeded in doing so and in a way have already won that battle. To create fear, panic and terror hence the name terrorists.

Just go back to the times before 9/11. There was none of this BS.

I'd say the terrorist won that battle and it was these so called "vigilant people protecting America agaisnt * instert your choice word here Islamisation,Jihadis, sharia law etc etc" that let them win it.

[desertdude]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Rationally, this sort of conflict shouldn't even be happening right now if we are supposed to use the constitution as a logical starting point right?

Should this not even be an issue? Muslims can be muslims and christians can be christians and both can exist together in harmony. Right?

I mean, muslims on a mass scale are not condemning christians, so why the repeal? It's not as if we are changing the way we've lived for the past couple hundred years or anything.. nothing has changed and nothing will change. So why are christians being so defensive over something so harmless?

Your idealism is laudable.

However, you're missing the point that the battles islam fights are not only on the front of the Christian West. Islam is currently engaged in conflicts against the Hindus in India, the animists and Christians in Africa, the Hindus in Bali, the Christians in East Timor, the Han Chinese in Western China, the traditional Thai culture in Thailand, traditional Philippino culture in the Philippines, and etc. In every case it is an expansionist muslim aggression being met with defensive force. In the case of the Sudan, the defensive force is pathetic, at best.

Were islam really the 'religion of peace' they keep saying they are then they would not represent the vast majority of active wars in the world right now. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... index.html

LOOOOOL ! I was wondering when this I've got nothing against Islam thing would last !

Didn't take long now did it

[mentalfloss]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

Rationally, this sort of conflict shouldn't even be happening right now if we are supposed to use the constitution as a logical starting point right?

Should this not even be an issue? Muslims can be muslims and christians can be christians and both can exist together in harmony. Right?

I mean, muslims on a mass scale are not condemning christians, so why the repeal? It's not as if we are changing the way we've lived for the past couple hundred years or anything.. nothing has changed and nothing will change. So why are christians being so defensive over something so harmless?

Your idealism is laudable.

However, you're missing the point that the battles islam fights are not only on the front of the Christian West. Islam is currently engaged in conflicts against the Hindus in India, the animists and Christians in Africa, the Hindus in Bali, the Christians in East Timor, the Han Chinese in Western China, the traditional Thai culture in Thailand, traditional Philippino culture in the Philippines, and etc. In every case it is an expansionist muslim aggression being met with defensive force. In the case of the Sudan, the defensive force is pathetic, at best.

Were islam really the 'religion of peace' they keep saying they are then they would not represent the vast majority of active wars in the world right now. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... index.html

Yea but your link doesn't really prove anything threatening there.

It's not like Jedis vs. Imperial Forces here, lol. If anything, most muslims themselves are benign while nations like France are stripping them of normal rights.

I would wager about 99.9% of all muslims in the countries you stated are pretty safe. If any are violent, it's probably such a small amount of people, that they don't really have any significant impact anyway. It's just that singular events make it appear worse than it is. And it is hardly a hostile takeover, lol

[EyeBrock]

desertdude desertdude:

I believe its a mindset, which the terrorist wanted to create and actually succeded in doing so and in a way have already won that battle. To create fear, panic and terror hence the name terrorists.

Just go back to the times before 9/11. There was none of this BS.

I'd say the terrorist won that battle and it was these so called "vigilant people protecting America agaisnt * instert your choice word here Islamisation,Jihadis, sharia law etc etc" that let them win it.

There was plenty going on before 911 DD.

Jihadis were bang at it in Africa in the 1990's.

Remember the attack on the US Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam in 1998? There was also the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen.
Don't forget the attack on the WTC in 1993 which was seen as a dry run by many for 911.

Having been employed in professions where keeping an eye out for threats since I was 16, my first thought on seeing the 2nd airliner on that day was 'Al Qaeda'.

Anybody in the defence or anti-terrorism communities was probably thinking the same.

911 was not an isolated attack. It was the deadliest up to that date.

[desertdude]

I was refering to the mass out break of anti islam/muslim sentiment.

[EyeBrock]

desertdude desertdude:

I was refering to the mass out break of anti islam/muslim sentiment.

Prior to 911 most people in the West probably knew little about Islam, militant or benign.

911 ended that. I would think that the negative views many have about Islam will not change until terrorism in Islam's name ceases. Sad but true.

[mentalfloss]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

desertdude desertdude:

I was refering to the mass out break of anti islam/muslim sentiment.

Prior to 911 most people in the West probably knew little about Islam, militant or benign.

911 ended that. I would think that the negative views many have about Islam will not change until terrorism in Islam's name ceases. Sad but true.

Well, seems like a bit of a double-sided coin there. On one side we could say it was an 'enlightenment' to a relevant terror - of course that was the party line just after it happened to justify some war. But more appropriately, it was a bit of false advertising because that one isolated event gave us a problem that never really was one to begin with. Terrorists aren't really a threat to Western society any more than the 99% of peaceful muslims are, no?

[EyeBrock]

mentalfloss mentalfloss:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

desertdude desertdude:

I was refering to the mass out break of anti islam/muslim sentiment.

Prior to 911 most people in the West probably knew little about Islam, militant or benign.

911 ended that. I would think that the negative views many have about Islam will not change until terrorism in Islam's name ceases. Sad but true.

Well, seems like a bit of a double-sided coin there. On one side we could say it was an 'enlightenment' to a relevant terror - of course that was the party line just after it happened to justify some war. But more appropriately, it was a bit of false advertising because that one isolated event gave us a problem that never really was one to begin with.

It's similar to most Brit's not knowing or caring about the Irish 'Troubles' until they started blowing up people in English pubs and stores.

Scroll back a bit and you will see 911 wasn't an 'islolated event'.

[desertdude]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

desertdude desertdude:

I was refering to the mass out break of anti islam/muslim sentiment.

Prior to 911 most people in the West probably knew little about Islam, militant or benign.

911 ended that. I would think that the negative views many have about Islam will not change until terrorism in Islam's name ceases. Sad but true.

Playing devils advocate I can say the same, The west's specially the USA's blatant support for Israeli aggression towards the palestenians will also never change the the negative view they have of the west until it stops.

[BartSimpson]

desertdude desertdude:

I was refering to the mass out break of anti islam/muslim sentiment.

Pretty much every European nation that shows up on this map has an anti-muslim sentiment that predates anything of recent years. If anything, Western Europe and the USA are playing catch-up with Eastern and Southern Europe on not being so fond of you peaceable folks.

What business did islam have in Europe? Hmmm?