RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Islamic ignorance

Animalman, I think I've already answered virtually all your points in my previous posts.


It's still a stretch to compare Hitler to Islamic fundamentalism, beyond their murderous tendency to kill dissenters to their cause. But Hitler's alleged fervent Christianity is baseless and scriptureless (as I already said).

Regarding how reporters see pro-9-11 and pro-Saddam screen savers and other terror supporting propaganda, when reporters visit the homes and interview muslims, they eagerly show reporters these artifacts. And describe their friends as having them too.

I completely disagree with your assertion that the a vast percentage of the Muslim world does not eagerly embrace terrorism and Jihad, and support it with grassroots fundraising and active support. Saudi Arabia's imams had a broadcast telethon to support Palestinian terrorism, for God's sake.

It seems to me that your arguments try to intellectualize the issue with academic writings, and deny the obvious active widespread popular Muslim support of terrorism:

• The comments of teenage Muslims interviewed on 60 Minutes I mentioned, for example.
  
• And also Arab youth --college educated youth !!-- throughout the Middle East, who not only empathize with Palestinian terrorists, but express a desire to travel to Palestinian territories and participate in Jihad terror and suicide bombings themselves.
  
• The wave of terror against European Jews (and similar inciidents in Canada) which coincide with massive Islamic immigration.
• Teaching of radical islamic ideas in U.S. mosques (again, the 60 Minutes story on American teen muslims, and the article I posted at the bottom of page 2 of this topic, from the Anti Defamation League).

While I don't think that all Muslims are dangerous, I find the teaching of fundamentalist Islam a breeding ground for terrorism.

Your article asserting that Wahabism is not connected to al Qaida, is likewise a skillful circumventing of the truth.
Al Qaida has long been recognized as a terrorist sect that has sprung from Wahabist missionary teachings in Afghanistan.
And likewise, everywhere in the world Wahabist misionaries travel, from the Phillipines to Chechnya to Afghanistan to Algeria to Sudan and elsewhere, violent islamic terrorism follows in its wake.
Again, I refer to to the story on Saudi Arabia in TIME, "Do We Still Need the Saudis", in the August 5, 2002 issue, exploring Saudi Islamic clerics's active cultivation and financial support of terrorism, and Wahabism in particular.

Islamic radicalism and participation in terrorism was encouraged by the Saudi government for decades, but that radicalism has now bitten them on the ass, and now threatens the Saudi government itself.
And it also begs the question that TIME asks: Are the Saudis our friends or our enemy? It questions whether it would be more useful for us to break ties with the Saudi government.

You constantly mouth anti-American rhetoric, that "a vast part of the rest of the world opposes our foreign policy" in the Middle East.
You say that as if you're stating that as what they believe, but you ambiguously imply that you believe that yourself. And I've seen comments by you on other topics that are very pessimistic about American motives and basic nature.

Which again ignores many facts. That our foreign intervention is not out of the blue, but a U.S. reaction to Arab aggression:

• We're in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and elsewhere in the Middle East at the invitation of those governments, because of Saddam's aggression in 1990-1991.
• We have troops training Georgians in former-soviet Georgia, because of Chechnyan islamic terrorism that has spilled over into that country.
• We have a presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan as a direct result of 9-11 al Qaida/Muslim terrorism.
• We bombed Libya because of its involvement in any number of hijackings and airline bombings.
• We have a presence in Liberia (somewhat reluctanty) as a result of Islamic violence, and de-stabilization of Liberia by neighboring Islamic states.
• We have a deep involvement in Indonesia, because of the 1990's internal meltdown of their economy, due to internal corruption.
• We have troops in the Phillipines because of Islamic violence and al Qaida activity. (Do most people even know that Islamic terrorists blew up a trade center building in Manila before 9-11 ? )

In every major crisis and natural disaster, the U.S. leaps to help Muslims. From the recent earthquakes in Turkey and Iran, to bailing out the Indonesian economy (a cost deep into the billions) to Ethiopian famine relief, to several cynically regarded military actions by the United States in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo and elsewhere.

Most of the nations who receive the greatest foreign aid from the United States are Muslim nations as well, including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Pakistan, and now Afghanistan and Iraq.

But it seems whatever aid the United States provides, no matter how little the U.S. has to gain by its intervention, those hell-bent on hating the United States wil spin U.S. action into a negative light, and assume the most cynical motivations.

Perhaps you will pause from your knee-jerk anti-Bush/anti-Americanism to take note of these facts.

I'm sorry if that seems like a harsh statement, but I really don't understand the embracement of anti-American rhetoric by liberals, their eagerness to believe the worst about the United States, while accepting whole and undigested the hypocritical rhetoric of America's enemies.
The previously discussed words of Ann Coulter, from her book Traitor come to mind, of how liberals are traitors because they constantly/reflexively take the position of whatever is worst for the United States. And thus actively support the enemy's cause.

And your anti-American rhetoric also ignores that the "imperialist"/"unilateral" United States leaps on virtually every occasion to help the Arab world.

Even under Clinton's reign, where Clinton had relatively limited military action in the Middle East, and demonstrated great sensitivity toward Arab concerns, terrorism stillwent on unabated. During the Clinton years, the U.S. complied with the U.N., and the U.S. intervened on behalf of Bosnian Muslims and Kosovar Muslims. And still Muslims worldwide found a way to rationalize their hatred of the U.S. As did other enemies of the United States in Europe and elsewhere.
It is not because of American action that Arabs hate the United States. That is merely a rationalization for violence. It is because of hate propaganda in the Arab world, no matter what the United States does.

And fanning the flames of aggression toward the West at every opportunity are Islamic clerics.

And it's not just Muslim hostility toward the West either.

Islamic groups have waged similar terrorism against taoist/buddhist China, and hindu India. Within weeks of 9-11-2001, a Muslim attack killed a large number of members of the Indian parliament.
If not for the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania on 9-11, that would have occurred to the U.S. Congress and Senate as well.

Islamic violence is rampant. And it is utter blindness not to credit this violence as originating from Islamic religion and teaching.
Chapter and verse.