Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
nkml said:Firstly please respect me as a Muslim and don't start insulting my Prophet.
Secondly, NBC received a 2.5 million dollar fine, did the Danish newspaper pay anything? No, did the Danish government do anything? No, no fines nothing, instead they insult our intelligence by saying that this is a freedom of speech, which is clearly not the case when the same Danish newspaper (JP) refused to publish cartoons of Jesus.
WOW,,this is absolutely fucking amazing. You dare say this, then go on to talk about forgiveness?Mariner said:Read historian Karen Armstrong's book "Holy Wars" and you'll see what I mean. Just because Christians are currently feeling more peacable doesn't mean much--after all, they started the conflict with the Crusades, and Muslims have every right to look back over that history and say "Christians are violent and bad.".
Mariner said:having a little trouble with people making fun of Islam for violence when even the most cursory glance at Christian history shows it to be equally violent. The Inquisition, anyone? Several hundred years of ultra-politically-correct Dark Ages, where saying the wrong thing would get you burned at the stake as a heretic? Religious wars between Christian factions in Europe that often persisted for decades at a time? The IRA terrorist campaign against the British, which killed more people than 9/11?
Read historian Karen Armstrong's book "Holy Wars" and you'll see what I mean. Just because Christians are currently feeling more peacable doesn't mean much--after all, they started the conflict with the Crusades, and Muslims have every right to look back over that history and say "Christians are violent and bad."
It's bothering me that "us versus them" is precisely what bin Laden set out to exacerbate via his attacks on 9/11. He was absoutely explicit about this. Therefore people labelling Islam or Muslims in general as "bad" are playing directly into his hands, doing exactly what he hoped for. The answer has to be the right balance of strength, tolerance, forgiveness, and fairness, not an ever-escalating "us versus them" polarity. I'm not sure why so many people here at USMB don't see that.
It's a few radical Muslims making them all look bad, a tiny minority. It makes no sense to paint all the hundreds of millions of them with a broad brush of badness.
Mariner.
Mariner said:example of Christians committing terrorism: the Irish Republican Army, whose death toll over 30 years was higher than Al Qaeda's in 2001. That's not a 1000 years ago. Neither were the intense conflicts between various Christian sects that absorbed Europe's attention over the past 400 years. It's not that long ago that stocks, guillotines, and public torture sessions were considered moral entertainment for Christian audiences.
From many a Muslim's point of view, our invasion of Iraq constitutes a second example. Our unwillingness to count their innocent dead suggests we don't care about the "collateral damage" we cause, and our willingness to abridge human rights conventions suggests we are selfish and hypocritical about our values. Much that we've done there has specifically seemed designed to inflame Muslim sentiment against us--just what bin Laden wanted, and exactly the wrong way to dissuade Muslims from becoming fanatical terrorists.
Russia's treatment of the Chechens might be considered a third example (I don't condone Chechen terrorism, but stories of unnecessary Russion brutality abound).
People seem to be missing the broader point I'm making--just because Christianity isn't currently committing atrocities based on religion doesn't matter. In the big picture, each side has been perfectly willing to commit atrocities in the name of religion. I'm pleased that Christians are currently in a tolerant mode, and hope it lasts a long time--as it did for the 1st thousand years of Christianity.
The purpose of the Crusades was to fight over land that was holy to both Islam and Christianity, and held by the Muslims at that time. It was not to repel a violent Islamic invasion of Europe (though the propoganda at the time said so). The spread of the Islamic empire was partly violent, but also largely accomplished politically--since Muslims tolerated other religions, there were advantages to coming under their wing.
Try a thought experiment. Imagine that the Islamic empire had won, and that Christianity was the religion of a group of impoverished nations around the world who missed their glorious past, when the Roman Empire was Christian, and envied and hated Malaysia, the only superpower in the world. It's not hard for me to imagine that 19 extremist Christians, angered over Malaysia's military presence near a Christian holy site in the Middle East, would fly planes into the tallest skyscrapers in Malaysia. It's easy to imagine. Human nature is human nature, and doesn't differ SO much from one religion or culture to another.
Yes, all those protesting Muslims are a TINY minority of all Muslims, most of whom are law-abiding and decent people.
LuvRPGuy (since you're a guy, it turns out), I'm not sure why you couldn't see the point that the U.S. is a violent society, obsessed with violence at every level. Yes, intellectually our country was founded on high-sounding principles, but on the ground, much of the grunt work that made America rich was performed by slaves--20% of NY city's population at one point--and much of the land America now owns was obtained from its prior inhabitants via treachery, theft, and war. Our country was founded on those things too, and I'm hardly the first person to suggest that a legacy of all that violence persists in our endless fascination with violence.
I'm glad you yourself have met and spent time with Muslims abroad. I'm curious how many other people here have.
You can look back over the thread and see several examples of gross generalizations of Muslim "badness." Sure, no one is saying "all Muslims want to kill all Americans" but the level of black and white thinking on USMB is getting pretty close to that.
I agree completely that Hinduism and Buddhism are not perfect religions--what human institution is? But there's never been a Hindu Holy war or large scale conquest of any kind, and Indians are specifically against evangelism, missionary activity, or colonial conquest.
Mariner.
Mariner said:example of Christians committing terrorism: the Irish Republican Army, whose death toll over 30 years was higher than Al Qaeda's in 2001. That's not a 1000 years ago. Neither were the intense conflicts between various Christian sects that absorbed Europe's attention over the past 400 years. It's not that long ago that stocks, guillotines, and public torture sessions were considered moral entertainment for Christian audiences.
From many a Muslim's point of view, our invasion of Iraq constitutes a second example. Our unwillingness to count their innocent dead suggests we don't care about the "collateral damage" we cause, and our willingness to abridge human rights conventions suggests we are selfish and hypocritical about our values. Much that we've done there has specifically seemed designed to inflame Muslim sentiment against us--just what bin Laden wanted, and exactly the wrong way to dissuade Muslims from becoming fanatical terrorists.
Russia's treatment of the Chechens might be considered a third example (I don't condone Chechen terrorism, but stories of unnecessary Russion brutality abound).
People seem to be missing the broader point I'm making--just because Christianity isn't currently committing atrocities based on religion doesn't matter. In the big picture, each side has been perfectly willing to commit atrocities in the name of religion. I'm pleased that Christians are currently in a tolerant mode, and hope it lasts a long time--as it did for the 1st thousand years of Christianity.
The purpose of the Crusades was to fight over land that was holy to both Islam and Christianity, and held by the Muslims at that time. It was not to repel a violent Islamic invasion of Europe (though the propoganda at the time said so). The spread of the Islamic empire was partly violent, but also largely accomplished politically--since Muslims tolerated other religions, there were advantages to coming under their wing.
Try a thought experiment. Imagine that the Islamic empire had won, and that Christianity was the religion of a group of impoverished nations around the world who missed their glorious past, when the Roman Empire was Christian, and envied and hated Malaysia, the only superpower in the world. It's not hard for me to imagine that 19 extremist Christians, angered over Malaysia's military presence near a Christian holy site in the Middle East, would fly planes into the tallest skyscrapers in Malaysia. It's easy to imagine. Human nature is human nature, and doesn't differ SO much from one religion or culture to another.
Yes, all those protesting Muslims are a TINY minority of all Muslims, most of whom are law-abiding and decent people.
LuvRPGuy (since you're a guy, it turns out), I'm not sure why you couldn't see the point that the U.S. is a violent society, obsessed with violence at every level. Yes, intellectually our country was founded on high-sounding principles, but on the ground, much of the grunt work that made America rich was performed by slaves--20% of NY city's population at one point--and much of the land America now owns was obtained from its prior inhabitants via treachery, theft, and war. Our country was founded on those things too, and I'm hardly the first person to suggest that a legacy of all that violence persists in our endless fascination with violence.
I'm glad you yourself have met and spent time with Muslims abroad. I'm curious how many other people here have.
You can look back over the thread and see several examples of gross generalizations of Muslim "badness." Sure, no one is saying "all Muslims want to kill all Americans" but the level of black and white thinking on USMB is getting pretty close to that.
I agree completely that Hinduism and Buddhism are not perfect religions--what human institution is? But there's never been a Hindu Holy war or large scale conquest of any kind, and Indians are specifically against evangelism, missionary activity, or colonial conquest.
Mariner.
Mariner said:example of Christians committing terrorism: the Irish Republican Army, whose death toll over 30 years was higher than Al Qaeda's in 2001. That's not a 1000 years ago. Neither were the intense conflicts between various Christian sects that absorbed Europe's attention over the past 400 years. It's not that long ago that stocks, guillotines, and public torture sessions were considered moral entertainment for Christian audiences.
From many a Muslim's point of view, our invasion of Iraq constitutes a second example. Our unwillingness to count their innocent dead suggests we don't care about the "collateral damage" we cause, and our willingness to abridge human rights conventions suggests we are selfish and hypocritical about our values. Much that we've done there has specifically seemed designed to inflame Muslim sentiment against us--just what bin Laden wanted, and exactly the wrong way to dissuade Muslims from becoming fanatical terrorists.
Russia's treatment of the Chechens might be considered a third example (I don't condone Chechen terrorism, but stories of unnecessary Russion brutality abound).
People seem to be missing the broader point I'm making--just because Christianity isn't currently committing atrocities based on religion doesn't matter. In the big picture, each side has been perfectly willing to commit atrocities in the name of religion. I'm pleased that Christians are currently in a tolerant mode, and hope it lasts a long time--as it did for the 1st thousand years of Christianity.
The purpose of the Crusades was to fight over land that was holy to both Islam and Christianity, and held by the Muslims at that time. It was not to repel a violent Islamic invasion of Europe (though the propoganda at the time said so). The spread of the Islamic empire was partly violent, but also largely accomplished politically--since Muslims tolerated other religions, there were advantages to coming under their wing.
Try a thought experiment. Imagine that the Islamic empire had won, and that Christianity was the religion of a group of impoverished nations around the world who missed their glorious past, when the Roman Empire was Christian, and envied and hated Malaysia, the only superpower in the world. It's not hard for me to imagine that 19 extremist Christians, angered over Malaysia's military presence near a Christian holy site in the Middle East, would fly planes into the tallest skyscrapers in Malaysia. It's easy to imagine. Human nature is human nature, and doesn't differ SO much from one religion or culture to another.
Yes, all those protesting Muslims are a TINY minority of all Muslims, most of whom are law-abiding and decent people.
LuvRPGuy (since you're a guy, it turns out), I'm not sure why you couldn't see the point that the U.S. is a violent society, obsessed with violence at every level. Yes, intellectually our country was founded on high-sounding principles, but on the ground, much of the grunt work that made America rich was performed by slaves--20% of NY city's population at one point--and much of the land America now owns was obtained from its prior inhabitants via treachery, theft, and war. Our country was founded on those things too, and I'm hardly the first person to suggest that a legacy of all that violence persists in our endless fascination with violence.
I'm glad you yourself have met and spent time with Muslims abroad. I'm curious how many other people here have.
You can look back over the thread and see several examples of gross generalizations of Muslim "badness." Sure, no one is saying "all Muslims want to kill all Americans" but the level of black and white thinking on USMB is getting pretty close to that.
I agree completely that Hinduism and Buddhism are not perfect religions--what human institution is? But there's never been a Hindu Holy war or large scale conquest of any kind, and Indians are specifically against evangelism, missionary activity, or colonial conquest.
Mariner.
Mariner said:converting or killing non-believers simply wasn't the Muslim modus operandi for most of the history of Islam. Their empire at the time of the Crusades included an incredible multiculturalism, including permitting other religions to practice freely, hindered only by some additional taxation, and an intellectual court where knowledge was more important than religion. Intolerance is being exercised by some Muslims now--but Christians have also been miserably intolerant towards "heathens" for centuries. The pot keeps calling the kettle black. Why do we have this HUGE need to make "us" good and "them" bad? (I guess I know why--it's because, evolutionarily we are much like our cousins the chimpanzees, whose tribes are brutal to one another, raping, murdering, and pillaging... )
Mariner.
Owned. (Wow, first time I've ever used this.)manu1959 said:the peaceful invasion of italy and spain by the muslims was...................
prior to the crusades what religions did the muslims allow to practice freely?
could you provided a link to christian suicide bombers sect?
Mariner said:converting or killing non-believers simply wasn't the Muslim modus operandi for most of the history of Islam. Their empire at the time of the Crusades included an incredible multiculturalism, including permitting other religions to practice freely, hindered only by some additional taxation, and an intellectual court where knowledge was more important than religion. Intolerance is being exercised by some Muslims now--but Christians have also been miserably intolerant towards "heathens" for centuries. The pot keeps calling the kettle black. Why do we have this HUGE need to make "us" good and "them" bad? (I guess I know why--it's because, evolutionarily we are much like our cousins the chimpanzees, whose tribes are brutal to one another, raping, murdering, and pillaging... )
Mariner.
Mariner said:example of Christians committing terrorism: the Irish Republican Army, whose death toll over 30 years was higher than Al Qaeda's in 2001. That's not a 1000 years ago. Neither were the intense conflicts between various Christian sects that absorbed Europe's attention over the past 400 years. It's not that long ago that stocks, guillotines, and public torture sessions were considered moral entertainment for Christian audiences.
From many a Muslim's point of view, our invasion of Iraq constitutes a second example. Our unwillingness to count their innocent dead suggests we don't care about the "collateral damage" we cause, and our willingness to abridge human rights conventions suggests we are selfish and hypocritical about our values. Much that we've done there has specifically seemed designed to inflame Muslim sentiment against us--just what bin Laden wanted, and exactly the wrong way to dissuade Muslims from becoming fanatical terrorists.
Russia's treatment of the Chechens might be considered a third example (I don't condone Chechen terrorism, but stories of unnecessary Russion brutality abound).
People seem to be missing the broader point I'm making--just because Christianity isn't currently committing atrocities based on religion doesn't matter. In the big picture, each side has been perfectly willing to commit atrocities in the name of religion. I'm pleased that Christians are currently in a tolerant mode, and hope it lasts a long time--as it did for the 1st thousand years of Christianity.
The purpose of the Crusades was to fight over land that was holy to both Islam and Christianity, and held by the Muslims at that time. It was not to repel a violent Islamic invasion of Europe (though the propoganda at the time said so). The spread of the Islamic empire was partly violent, but also largely accomplished politically--since Muslims tolerated other religions, there were advantages to coming under their wing.
Try a thought experiment. Imagine that the Islamic empire had won, and that Christianity was the religion of a group of impoverished nations around the world who missed their glorious past, when the Roman Empire was Christian, and envied and hated Malaysia, the only superpower in the world. It's not hard for me to imagine that 19 extremist Christians, angered over Malaysia's military presence near a Christian holy site in the Middle East, would fly planes into the tallest skyscrapers in Malaysia. It's easy to imagine. Human nature is human nature, and doesn't differ SO much from one religion or culture to another.
Yes, all those protesting Muslims are a TINY minority of all Muslims, most of whom are law-abiding and decent people.
LuvRPGuy (since you're a guy, it turns out), I'm not sure why you couldn't see the point that the U.S. is a violent society, obsessed with violence at every level. Yes, intellectually our country was founded on high-sounding principles, but on the ground, much of the grunt work that made America rich was performed by slaves--20% of NY city's population at one point--and much of the land America now owns was obtained from its prior inhabitants via treachery, theft, and war. Our country was founded on those things too, and I'm hardly the first person to suggest that a legacy of all that violence persists in our endless fascination with violence.
I'm glad you yourself have met and spent time with Muslims abroad. I'm curious how many other people here have.
You can look back over the thread and see several examples of gross generalizations of Muslim "badness." Sure, no one is saying "all Muslims want to kill all Americans" but the level of black and white thinking on USMB is getting pretty close to that.
I agree completely that Hinduism and Buddhism are not perfect religions--what human institution is? But there's never been a Hindu Holy war or large scale conquest of any kind, and Indians are specifically against evangelism, missionary activity, or colonial conquest.
Mariner.
To back Luvrp, not my wont:LuvRPgrl said:You didnt even respond to my counter points. You made statements that are blantantly false and drew conclusions from them. You claimed its safer to walk the streets of delhi than american cities, but it turns out thats not true.
America is no more violent than other countries. I have traveled to alot of countries.
LuvRPgrl,,,RP = republic of the philippines. I luv(an) RP grl. so, its not luvRPguy.
You look at the worst of America, then look at the best of others and claim america is no better. Pathetic at best. Virtually everything you said was false.
Muslims, for the most part either support, participate in, or by default support, (by not openly opposing) terrorism. Where good men do nothing, evil shall flourish. So, when the so called "good" muslims dont cry out, they are allowing the evil to flourish and hence, they are part of it.
A Tale of Two Cartoons
By Jay D. Homnick
Published 2/7/2006 12:06:19 AM
Let me get this straight. Most Muslims are darling and gentle. Just a few baddies cast an ugly shadow over the mass of sweeties. Then an awful cartoon in Denmark gave the impression that they're all meanies. This grotesque image distorted the truth horribly. It showed the prophet Muhammad wearing a bomb, implying that the religion itself promulgates violence. No wonder all the shy, retiring, unsung heroes of Islam were annoyed. So therefore they started rioting in the streets and burning Danish consulates. Is there anything wrong with this picture?
Well, yes, I suppose there is. The pious don't riot. Meditative types don't premeditate destruction. Then it must be the bad guys who are causing the upheaval. But if so, isn't the cartoon accurate? Aren't they a bunch of violent buffoons? Isn't the proof in the putting to flame of peace-loving embassies?
The media, ever the apologists for all non-American mayhem artists, are peddling an alibi: it seems that it is "against Islam" for any representation of Muhammad to be published. To which bit of wisdom I respond that -- forgive the cynicism -- they should tell it to the Marines. Do you mean to say that if the same newspapers published a portrait of Muhammad surrounded by a halo and feeding the starving masses, we would get the same uprising? Puhleez.
It occurs to me that Fate has delivered a trenchant message at a time when it was needed rather urgently. To flesh this out, we need to pause a moment to examine the "other" cartoon. On Thursday, February 3, on the very day that the Islamic hysteria began to roil, there was an American protest about a newspaper cartoon. In fact, when Senator McCain was asked by Bill Bennett that morning "Have you heard the uproar about the cartoon?" there was a moment of mix-up when the two men were discussing two different events.
Our homegrown story involved a cartoon published in the Washington Post. It depicted a soldier who had lost limbs in battle and featured a likeness of Donald Rumsfeld calling him "battle-hardened." The heads of the various military services were so offended that they sent a collective letter as the Joint Chiefs of Staff, something that rarely occurs (as they note in the note). When I saw this startling juxtaposition of two stories involving unseemly caricatures, I immediately thought: "There must be a message here." For three days on and off I pondered. Suddenly a light bulb went on over my head: how obvious! This was a stark tableau contrasting the two cultures.
Each society had faced a derisory portrayal of a treasured component of its ethos. The military and the Secretary of Defense occupy a lower rung in our hierarchy than religious beliefs, true, but they are the thin green line that separates us from anarchy. To ridicule them is to derogate something of true value. Yet even the unusually unanimous condemnation that branded this as beyond the pale of journalistic discourse... took the form of a strongly worded letter to the editor! The pen may be mightier than the sword, certainly when it's wielded by G. Gordon Liddy, but no one poked anyone's eye out. If anything, the protest modeled the sort of civility that it was demanding.
All of this follows the premise that the cartoons were not appropriate and argues that the response by rampaging Muslims is entirely abhorrent. The truth is that a further argument can be made to defend both pieces of editorial art. There is a reason why this form of artistic expression is known as caricature. Its medium is exaggeration. It works by taking ideas to their extremes. It is effective if it succeeds in tapping into a bit of truth that manages to hide beneath the placid surface of the routine picture. Takes an awful lot of distortion before anyone has right to take offense.
One of the sad byproducts of totalitarian governments is the silencing of true reportage. Newspapers and television networks had people in the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein's Iraq who were constrained by governmental censorship from delivering the truth to their readers and viewers. Much the same occurs even today in China and Cuba. What ends up happening is that they become de facto propagandists for those rulers by conveying the good news and scuttling the bad.
Now the same thing is happening via the Muslim riot. Western media will be intimidated into silence by the fear of mischief. Which is to say that Islamist thugs will achieve in communications what they achieve in politics, winning by terrorism what they cannot win by war. Those Danish publishers are on the front lines of the War on Terror just like our soldiers; they deserve our support. As for the Muslims' claim that they're really mostly nice guys, it's like that old lawyer joke: it's a shame that 90 percent of lawyers are giving the other 10 percent a bad name.
Jay D. Homnick is a columnist for JewishWorldReview.com and a contributor to the Reform Club.
Mariner said:converting or killing non-believers simply wasn't the Muslim modus operandi for most of the history of Islam. Their empire at the time of the Crusades included an incredible multiculturalism, including permitting other religions to practice freely, hindered only by some additional taxation, and an intellectual court where knowledge was more important than religion. Intolerance is being exercised by some Muslims now--but Christians have also been miserably intolerant towards "heathens" for centuries. The pot keeps calling the kettle black. Why do we have this HUGE need to make "us" good and "them" bad? (I guess I know why--it's because, evolutionarily we are much like our cousins the chimpanzees, whose tribes are brutal to one another, raping, murdering, and pillaging... )
Kathianne,
I don't see where you have to tie knots to follow my argument. I'm agreeing with you that Islam is currently exhibiting more disgusting forms of violence. I'm disagreeing, based on the known history of violence by nearly every sort of human, that this is due to something unalterably bad in the "nature" of Muslims, which so many people here seem to be implying. I think their choice of terror is more a result of the situation they find themselve in--David versus Goliath. David had better be sneaky and ready to use a dirty trick if he's to have any chance of succeeding.
Mariner.
nkml said:Picture this: A cartoon of Jesus, with his pants down, smiling, raping a little boy. The caption above it reads Got Catholicism? Or how about a picture of a Rabbi with blood dripping from his mouth after bludgeoning a small Palestinian boy with a knife shaped like the Star of Davidthe caption reads The Devils Chosen Ones.
Mariner said:Look, a religion is a long-lived thing. Therefore it's perfectly ok to use history to compare religions.
I agree with everyone that a few Muslims are behaving despicably right now. I don't condone any form of violence except the most extreme self-defence. I believe every person contains God--even the most wicked murderer--and I want to look for that good in that person.
What I'm arguing against is painting the whole religion as "bad." Even Bush himself isn't doing that, and yet his most devoted followers here on USMB are. I don't get it, except that it seems to be satisfying to hate. It may be satisfying, but in my religon it's bad karma. And I seem to recall a profoundly moving passage by this Jesus fellow where he said "Love your enemies."
Which religions were tolerated in the Islamic empire pre-Crusades? Christianity, among others.
(By the way, the Muslims were not tolerant of Hinduism, and destroyed all the Hindu temples in Northern India, which offended their prohibition of worshipping images of God. Just to make the point that I'm no Muslim apologist--I'm just asking people to be fair and not condemn a major world religion--the fastest-growing one--based on the behavior of a few of its most extreme zealots.)
Mariner
LuvRPgrl said:The responsability of media is to make sure what they present if FACTUAL, not to abstain from insulting, if what insults is factual and true, and isnt put in for the SOLE purpose of causing rioting.
What about the outcry about the Koran flushing episode? IT TURNED OUT TO NOT EVEN BE TRUE. THAT my friend is non responsable journalism. You claim Denmark already has freedom of speech? Well, according the the muslims, it seems they dont.
You claim the cartoon gave the hate-lovers more fuel? Ok, then that means the ones causing violence right now were already haters, just got some fuel. Well, its good to know that their "hate" is being exposed, so I would say the cartoons are doing a GREAT WORLDWIDE SERVICE EXPOSING THEM. You even claimed they are haters.
The basic difference is this, as the original poster claimed, if NBC showed something offensive to the American public at large, the advertisers (who represent the people) would pull out. A wholly LEGAL and NON VIOLENT response. The muslims on the other hand, want to use VIOLENCE AND FORCE, to IMPOSE their will on another country.
Mariner said:in the middle east was not "dancing in the streets" when the twin towers fell. Don't you see the "our team" psychology going on here? Even some who would disapprove of terrorism would still get a smile from seeing the big guy shown to be vulnerable, just as many an Irish Catholic in America got a smile when the IRA made its point via violence.
But every Muslim I knew condemned the attacks immediately, and felt shamed by them, and the vast majority of Muslims worldwide expressed sympathy for the U.S. Remember, our approval rating in their eyes rose to 90% after 9/11, and stayed there through Afghanistan. It only fell after we invaded Iraq, which we did without the cooperation of most surrounding Muslim countries or others around the world.
Your image that they were ALL dancing in the streets is precisely the type of extreme characterization that I'm talking about. Its parallel in the Muslim world would be that ALL Americans want to torture and humiliate Muslims, since some Americans have done so (Abu Ghraib, Afghani prisons, rendition program, Guantanamo, etc.) All that type of extreme thinking buys is endless cycles of hatred and violence. Why do you play into it? Christianity preaches loving one's enemy.
Mariner.
