Does the World Have the Guts to Admit the Truth About Islam??

[Gunny]

I hear something, but I don't see anything to refute what is fact .......

 

[ThomasPaine]

This is so old. Muslims can coexist in a democracy with people of different religions. They do so in America. Nice job of selecting quotes to support your bias. I can do the same.

and the terrorists actions of the last 15 years and says Islam is not THE PROBLEM. Is the sand getting in your eyes when you bury your head there?

 

[007]

This is so old. Muslims can coexist in a democracy with people of different religions. They do so in America. Nice job of selecting quotes to support your bias. I can do the same.

*YOU* are OLD mattsie... sitting there on that fence with that fence pole up your pacifist ass.

You dribble out the same old tired liberal shit every time... :blah2: :finger:

 

[Powerman]

wow...except this is NOTHING to do with the crusades...so a modicum of research on the Crusades before relating them to a Religion of Terror.

I think what he means is that all religions of any decent size have had a negative affect on the world at some point. Christianity at one time was a barbaric religion of sorts. Luckily it is no longer this way. Islam on the other hand has plenty of barbaric followers and they are still in the stupid retrograde barbaric phase of their existence.

 

[Powerman]

BULLSHIT! It's CORE teaching is "KILL THE INFIDEL".

So here's a little something people should do with the koran...

This isn't different from any other religion. The old testament is all about genocide against people who don't see eye to eye with them. Luckily no one reads the bible and takes any of that stupid retrograde shit seriously.

 

[Bonnie]

I think what he means is that all religions of any decent size have had a negative affect on the world at some point. Christianity at one time was a barbaric religion of sorts. Luckily it is no longer this way. Islam on the other hand has plenty of barbaric followers and they are still in the stupid retrograde barbaric phase of their existence.

Which begs the answer to the original question of this thread? Or are we going to be more concerned with PC as opposed to oh maybe saving many lives???

As for example

Television in Time of War
By Daniel Pipes (08/02/05)

Twice in the past two weeks, I found myself disinvited from television shows when I objected to appearing with representatives of radical Islam or the far-left. In both cases, once each with CNN and MSNBC, I agreed to precede or follow these persons, but I refused to debate them, resulting in my exclusion.

I have two reasons for not going on American television with people who hate the United States. (Non-American television, and Al-Jazeera in particular, is a different story.)

The lesser reason is personal; appearing with Islamist motormouths and leftist attack-dogs is unpleasant. It often means refuting ad hominem calumnies and having to attack in turn. Besides the indignity involved, such vituperation can have unpleasant consequences. For example, my 2002 television debate with a far-leftist ended up distorted, at my expense, by an admirer of his in the pages of Newsweek magazine; fortunately, a full transcript of the show is available.

The more important reason for selective debate concerns extremism. For example, I have argued that television programmers should “close their doors” to one person because his fringe views preclude a constructive discussion (he lauded Chinese mass-murderer Mao Tse-tung for achievements which “can hardly be overstated”). After advocating this course of action, how can I then be party to this person’s appearing on television?

Television offers a unique medium for getting one’s ideas out to large numbers of people, especially when presented in a lively debate format, so I regret not appearing on screen. I find myself in a dilemma, wishing to accept television invitations but sometimes unable to.

This dilemma results from the flawed reasoning of television executives in democracies. My conversations with insiders reveal that they include extremists for three main reasons. First, because good viewer ratings are generated by impassioned, articulate, and known panelists with sharply clashing viewpoints. With this, I have no problem.

Second, today’s media strives toward impartiality. For instance, a memo distributed to Canadian Broadcast Corporation staff cautions against using the words “terrorist” and “terrorism,” because these “can leave journalists taking sides in a conflict.” The conceit that media have no stake in the outcome of war is terribly wrong; just imagine how television talk shows would be after these same terrorists took over. (They did not flourish under the Taliban, to put it mildly.)

Third – and quite contradictorily – when pressed about the appropriateness of broadcasting the enemy’s view, producers assert they are doing a public service by exposing these. Is freedom of speech, they ask, not premised on the open marketplace of ideas? And does that not imply having faith that an informed citizenry will discern the sensible from the wrong-headed?

Yes, but also no. Freedom of speech means speaking one’s mind, without fear of going to jail; it does not imply the privilege to address a television audience.

Further, while unfettered free political speech is critical to debate taxation rates, school curricula, abortion, or for whom to vote, it makes no sense to promulgate the enemy viewpoint when a country is at war. Even though the great majority of viewers, listeners, and readers will be repulsed by the views of extremists, no less surely will a small minority find these attractive and compelling. We saw, for example, how the prominent exposition of Osama bin Laden’s ideas in 2001 inspired suicide bombers, including several of the London terrorists. If Bin Laden and his ilk can convince just one-tenth of 1 percent of Israeli Arabs, one thousand new suicide bombers have been formed.

Is this wise public policy?

The distinguished historian Conor Cruise O’Brien thinks not. When he served as the Irish minister of posts and telecommunications in 1976, he imposed a ban on interviews with Sinn Fein-IRA terrorists, arguing that it was necessary to prevent them from spreading their message. For the same reason, the Russian foreign ministry expressed its “strong indignation” after America’s ABC television last week interviewed Chechen terrorist leader Shamil Basayev.

The ideal solution lies not in creating censors’ bureaus to pass judgment on television content but for media executives to accept their responsibilities in time of war. On their own initiative, they should exclude the enemy’s apologists and advocates. Lively debate does not require such people; patriots with sharply differing views.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/8543

 

[Powerman]

Which begs the answer to the original question of this thread? Or are we going to be more concerned with PC as opposed to oh maybe saving many lives???

This is just my take on it. I'm too lazy at the moment to read that article but I'll get around to it. But I don't think there is any reason to be PC about it. Political Correctness is the biggest douchebag idea I've ever heard of in regards to any subject. On the subject of terrorism I have no problem with profiling. And as far as the Jihadist mindset they can kiss my ass. If I had any say so in the war or terrorism it would be fought with complete disdain and lack of respect for any religion. We aren't a religion sponsored state and we shouldn't give a shit about what any religion thinks of us. What we should do is drop a nuclear warhead on Mecca itself. Maybe they will see that if Allah will not protect his own holy land then he won't protect them either.

I know I'm gonna offend people but honestly all religions, and yes that includes christianity are mythical stories filled with superstition. They serve some moral purpose and for that they should be commended. But when religion is being obstructive it doesn't deserve to be treated any more fairly than any other organization would be so as not to offend people.

 

[deaddude]

Which begs the answer to the original question of this thread? Or are we going to be more concerned with PC as opposed to oh maybe saving many lives???
http://www.americandaily.com/article/8543

Well Bonnie, the answer of course would be that we are more interested in saving lives, however it is not PC concerns which have the Liberals up in arms.

Well if the invading terrorists are there to blow up American soldiers, they are doing a piss poor job of it, they are killing Iraqis-a lot of them children.

The wealthy are the ones coming to US, Europe to kill us-see 9/11, UK, Madrid.

Now if we manage to catch the insurgents, the vast majority of the people we would be saving would be muslim. Now should we then proceed to shoot the muslims we just saved (as kathianne points out many of them children) as a safety precaution?

 

[kurtsprincess]

Radical explusions

another story

Perhaps they are getting wiser in Europe.

 

[Bonnie]

Radical explusions

another story

Perhaps they are getting wiser in Europe.

Maybe....Let's hope they do this consistently.