War against terror

[Acecombat 0]

Walker, I think you misunderstood me - It's not just ANY mosque. We're talking about Finsbury Mosque here; The place where people train how to operate Kalashnikovs and ultimately get forwarded to Iraq. Just going ahead and demolishing mosques would be stupid. We're talking abo----... I'm going in a ring here, but do you see where I'm going with this?

This mosque is in London? The london police doesnt arrest them for operating illegal firearms in a mosque/residential area? Are you sure about this? Any pics evidence to this or just hearsay?

Sounds very far fetched if this mosque is in london , if not and somewhere in the ME then quite possible .

[Pathy 0]

Its a very notorious mosque ace, but do you think if there were public pictures of people with AKs in there it would still be open  

They KNOW what goes on in there, i dont know about actual weapon training, but its certainly a recruitment center, but they cant close it down without the muslim community going apeshite.

Just because it isnt near you doesnt mean its far fetched. Incase you havent noticed, we had 4 BRITISH BORN suicide bombers strike, and another 4 attempt to. They dont have to be from the middle east to be extremists.

[Badgerboy 0]

Its seems that innocent man who was shot, had his Visa expire. This may explain why he ran from the police, fearing he may be deported.

To be honest, it was a pretty foolish action for him to undertake. He must have been aware of the tension in the area, and to run from armed police is obviously going to draw attention to you.

Its very unfortunate that this man was shot, but I believe that the officer who pulled the trigger did nothing wrong. Perhaps some blame lies with the intelligence he received, but as far he was concerned he was covertly following a suspected terrorist who when confronted ran into a tube station and onto the train.

Its tragic that this has happened, but what happens if in a similar situation, the hesitation of a armed officer causes the deaths of 50+ people he was trying to protect?

Seems everyone loses, despite the situation.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]Eighty-four thousand troops had proved insufficient to maintain law and order in the face of a campaign of terrorism waged by highly oraganised Jewish forces equipped with all the weapons of the modern infantryman.  Since the war 338 British subjects had been killed in Palestine, while the military forces there had cost the British taxpayer one hundred million sterling.  The declared intentions of Jewish extremists showed that the loss of further British lives was inevitable.

In these circumstances His Majesty's Government decided to bring to an end their mandate and to prepare for the earliest possible withdrawl from Palestine of all British forces.

-- British Foreign Office statement in the NY Times, 14 May 1948

Has Al Qaida killed 338 Brits yet?  I wonder if it will take less than 60 years to forget about Al Qaida.  

Not comparable, for sevral reasons. First of all I'm assuming that very few if any of those 338 British subjects were in killed in the UK. How many of them were military personel? Not so few, I'd bet.

And finally 338 deaths in 1948 does not equal 338 deaths in 2005. The general tolerance for casualties is far lower today. In addition, modern communications make sure that everybody is made aware of terrorist killings. Not so in 1948.

So it's hardly surprising that the AQ killings have a far larger impact.

What's the point you are trying to make anyway? That there is an anti-Muslim or pro-Jewish conspiracy?

[Bordoy 0]

Some one i know, walked inside that mosque and took a piss, lol. He's not even muslim or anything, he's right-wiing and anti-Islam.

He even managed to get some photos aswell, lol.

[Nemesis6 0]

Sorry Walker, but I don't really think I'm a pawn of theirs. If I was, I would:

1: Believe the jews to be, and I quote "the brothers of monkeys and pigs".

2: Believe that the above has no right to be where they are(Israel).

3: Be viciously anti-semitic.

4: Do anything in my power to discredit either the jews or Israel itself.

5: Believe that the PLO Arabs have any right to the land for which they kill innocent people over.

6: Refer to Israel as "the zionist entity".

7: Be like Ken Livingstone.

So you see... I don't think of myself as a pawn. I think of myself as, well... A realist. A mosque is a mosque like a church is a church, but the difference is that a mosque WILL eventually be used for propaganda and brainwash. There are probably a few places where this doesn't happen, but... Anyway, I doubt that the terrorists' goal was to make some guy believe that demolishing Finsbury Mosque is the right thing.

[walker 0]

Sorry Walker, but I don't really think I'm a pawn of theirs. If I was, I would:

1: Believe the jews to be, and I quote "the brothers of monkeys and pigs".

2: Believe that the above has no right to be where they are(Israel).

3: Be viciously anti-semitic.

4: Do anything in my power to discredit either the jews or Israel itself.

5: Believe that the PLO Arabs have any right to the land for which they kill innocent people over.

6: Refer to Israel as "the zionist entity".

7: Be like Ken Livingstone.

So you see... I don't think of myself as a pawn. I think of myself as, well... A realist. A mosque is a mosque like a church is a church, but the difference is that a mosque WILL eventually be used for propaganda and brainwash. There are probably a few places where this doesn't happen, but... Anyway, I doubt that the terrorists' goal was to make some guy believe that demolishing Finsbury Mosque is the right thing.

Hi Nemesis6

Acting as the pawn of some one does not necasarily mean you believe what they say or what they believe.

It means you are their wind up little dolly.

It means they know which buttons to press on you to get you to do what they want you to do.

1. Well we share about 99.9 percent of our DNA with monkeys so that sounds about right as to the Pig more like your first cousin and the man who you are quoting's oh and mine.

2. Nobody has any right to any land the native americans learned that when the brits, french, spaniards and portugese came along, the brits learned it when the romans, anglo saxons, vikings and normans came along. The people who call them selves Jews leaned that when the Romans, Christians and muslim Arabs each came through.

3. Viciously anti semitic I think you probably meant to say anti jewish since semite means any one from the cultures known to the hebrews including you brothers the muslim arabs.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semite

viciouly anti jewish, viciously anti muslim, viciously anti christian, viciously anti athiest, viciously anti hindu, viciously anti the force luke, excuse me feel the need to yawn

4. You are doing briliant job of discrediting jews. Are you in fact a Hammas plant; intended to present all jews as zenophobic racist shit heads? Because you are doing a brilliant job of it. If it were not for the fact I know so many Israelis and Jews you might on one of my off days half starved and under torture convince me all jews were the racist zenophobic characature you seem to want to present.

5. People kill innocent people over land all the time. They also kill them over Oil, and according to homer but not Simpson women, water, religion,the colour of their skin, their politics, to set them selves and others free, to make others and themselves slaves

So Jewish Arabs from a notional place called Israel and Muslim Arabs from a notional place called Palestine kill each other. According to you that is what these peoples are suposed to do. Is that not what you saying? Anyway not interested BIG Yawn bored now.

7. You should realy be like Ken he is a nice Guy plus you would like Newts which is a plus in any ones books. I think you should continue learning how to be like him then more people will start to like you.

The last paragraph is the most interesting because the zenophobia realy stands out. I think it should stand on its own; it needs no embelishment from me.

Kind regard Walker

[Bordoy 0]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4716909.stm

Quote[/b] ]Van Gogh killer jailed for life

A Dutch court has sentenced a 27-year-old radical Islamist to life in prison for the November murder of controversial film-maker Theo Van Gogh.

Mohammed Bouyeri, who has joint Dutch-Moroccan nationality, had made a courtroom confession and had vowed to do the same again if given the chance.

The murder in Amsterdam stunned the Netherlands. The court ruled that it was a terrorist act.

Prosecutors said the murder sparked ethnic unrest and harmed Dutch society.

During the trial, Mr Bouyeri gave the court little insight into why he killed Theo Van Gogh.

The Dutch are still struggling to understand how Mr Bouyeri, who was born and raised in Amsterdam, turned to radical Islam.

After this trial, the authorities will decide if he can be prosecuted separately for membership of a terrorist organisation.

Twelve other terrorism suspects are awaiting trial here and prosecutors believe Mr Bouyeri is a key figure in that group, but so far they have not come up with enough evidence to charge him.

Does life, mean life in Nethelands or 30years like in the Uk?

At least he's been put away though, court ruled it as a terrorist act.

[EiZei 0]

According to wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]

In the Netherlands, life imprisonment means in principle that the prisoner is to spend the rest of his life in prison. After 20 years he can appeal for mercy, but granting such an appeal happens only very rarely.

[Ares1978 0]

According to wikipedia:

Quote[/b] ]

In the Netherlands, life imprisonment means in principle that the prisoner is to spend the rest of his life in prison. After 20 years he can appeal for mercy, but granting such an appeal happens only very rarely.

Compare that to our (average) 12-year "life" imprisonment..

[Supah 0]

Yeah the only way for him to get out of jail would be for the king or queen to grant him amnesty which he has a fat chance in hell of getting. The DA wanted to revoke his right to vote too, which was turned down. The judge said that if he was so against the western democracies he wouldnt vote anyway. The biggest concern now is that he now might become a recruiter in jails as those are mainly filled with middle eastern, african and people from our ex colonies in the caribean. I think the best solution would be to lock him up in solitairy confinement and to prevent visits from his family to stop him becoming a living martyr or a recruiter.

[Nemesis6 0]

I'm curious as to why you think I'm xenophobic. I don't have anything against Arabs, and I have never stated that I have, but I stand firm that these things happen in mosques. By the way, if you wanna think pawns, think ISM. I don't know what led you to the conclusion that I have something against Arabs because they're Arabs and/or Muslims. I just don't like the way a large part of their culture has evolved; that of their mosques. You can't deny that these things happen. By the way, look up "anti-semitic" on dictionary.com. I get your drift, but read it. In closing, please don't paint me as a racist just because you don't agree with what I'm saying.

By the way, Ken Livingstone is a terrible person!

[Panda-PL- 0]

@Nemesis:

Your oppinions are mostely based on a stereotype, sorry.

Plus You try to think of Arabies in a wrong way. They are in fact strong and proud people and if You decide to take actions against an entire mosque, then You might expect everyone attending the mosque becoming Your enemy, and thus providing a great recruitment plant to the terrorers. Yes in fact by closing the mosque You'd help the terrorers in their case, providing them with a great succes in their anti-west propaganda.

The real problem in UK is the COMPLEATE lack of interest of agencies in muslim groups. I bet it was quite shocking for the goverment to see that 17% of british muslims actually said that the attacs were justified. The police did not put much effort in studying the pottential danger - I have an impression that in fact radical muslims were ignored. The UK's police's capacities to infiltrate theese suspicious groups are little due to many factors - including lack of understanding of their religion.

The british (also french btw.) muslims and non-muslims are socially isolated and don't see themselves as the same nationality - British one. The blame for that is - in my oppinion - on both sides, because there is general lack of interest and will of understanding between the two. Terrorists are dooing pretty well in causing this gap to widen even further - by creating atmosphere of fear. It's not hard for me to imagine how an avarage muslim feels right now walking the streets of london.

Muslims are not wanted by both gverments and societies, this - together with their own fears - leads to isolation and stops them from assimilation. The social problem is - as I see it - being simply ignored - and people who are formally the citizens of UK(France) in fact don't fell wanted (and really aren't wellcomed, are they?) by its society.

[Nemesis6 0]

Ah. I've heard about this. It happens in Denmark, too. I saw something about this TV. Actually, what I saw stated the exact same things you did. Unfortunatly, we have ghettos over here where there are lots of Muslims. It's quite understandable why they would feel isolated. So it happens in more places than one could imagine, I guess... I see your point there. But still, we're talking about Finsbury Mosque! Its record still speaks for itself. You're right that they could use it for propaganda. And I guess destroying it would disadvantage many people and might be going overboard. Another option would be regularly keeping in touch with the leaders of it and staying informed of events there. I know, I know! It would be a violation of privacy... it's very complicated, really. You can't deny its history, and history has a nasty habbit of repeating itself.

[Colossus 2]

I better put it here:

IRA is laying down there weapons, one more step towards peace (Sky News)

Quote[/b] ]The IRA paramilitary movement will put down its arms

from 4pm today.

A statement from the republicans said it would halt armed

struggles and work towards peaceful solutions.

The long-awaited pledge instructed all IRA members to "assist

the development of purely political and democratic

programmes through exclusively peaceful means".

The leadership said it will invite one witness each from the

Protestant and Catholic churches to witness the disarmament.

As well as an end to violence, IRA volunteers were told not

to "engage in any other activities whatsoever".

This was seen as a command not to spread into other criminal

acts; the IRA was blamed for the Northern Bank robbery in

Belfast last December in which more than Å26m was stolen.

There was no apology from the IRA for around 30 years of

violence, indeed the statement said: "We reiterate our view

that the armed struggle was entirely legitimate."

Nor was did it contain any promise to disband.

There were strong words for the British and Irish governments

and unionists.

The statement said: "There is widespread concern about the

failure of the two governments and the unionists to fully

engage in the peace process. This has created real

difficulties."

It brings about a day many people thought would never

arrive. The Northern Ireland Troubles have killed around 3,500

people, with more than half of those put down to the IRA.

A spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he

welcomed the "very positive" pledges.

But Shadow Northern Ireland secretary David Lidington

said: "The words are cause for some cautious optimism and

hope, but we need to see a dismantling of the paramilitary

structure."

I do not hope some of the IRA members are gone make there own army after this.

[EiZei 0]

So, is the thread going to get renamed to struggle against global extremism now?

[Colossus 2]

IRA says armed campaign is over  (BBC News)

Quote[/b] ]The IRA has formally ordered an end to its armed

campaign and says it will pursue exclusively peaceful means.

In a long-awaited statement, the republican organisation said

it would follow a democratic path ending more than 30 years

of violence.

The IRA made its decision after an internal debate prompted

by Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams' call to pursue its goals

exclusively through politics.

Prime Minister Tony Blair said it was a "step of unparalleled

magnitude".

"It is what we have striven for and worked for throughout the

eight years since the Good Friday Agreement," he said.

"It creates the circumstances in which the institutions can be

revived."

During the NI Troubles, the IRA was blamed for about 1,800

murders.

A statement issued on Thursday said that this would take

effect from 1600 BST.

"All IRA units have been ordered to dump arms. All Volunteers

have been instructed to assist the development of purely

political and democratic programmes through exclusively

peaceful means. Volunteers must not engage in any other

activities whatsoever.

"The IRA leadership has also authorised our representative to

engage with the IICD to complete the process to verifiably

put its arms beyond use in a way which will further enhance

public confidence and to conclude this as quickly as possible."

The statement said independent witnesses from Catholic and

Protestant churches had been invited to see the

decommissioning process.

DUP leader Ian Paisley greeted the statement with

scepticism, saying that the IRA had "reverted to type" after

previous "historic" statements.

"We will judge the IRA's bona fides over the next months and

years based on its behaviour and activity," he said.

He said they had also "failed to provide the transparency

necessary to truly build confidence that the guns have gone

in their entirety".

Ulster Unionist Party Sir Reg Empey, told the BBC's World at

One it would take time to convince the people of Northern

Ireland that this was more than just rhetoric.

He said: "People are so sceptical, having had... been burnt so

many times before.

SDLP leader Mark Durkan welcomed the statement, saying it

was "clear, clean and complete", but "long overdue".

He called on Sinn Fein to commit to the new policing

structures in Northern Ireland, as his party had done.

Denis Bradley, vice chairman of the Policing Board, said the

statement was "saying the war was over" and people needed

to acknowledge the clarity of it.

"This is enormous within the history of this island," Mr Bradley

said.

"Will Sinn Fein now take their responsibility and their place in

policing and justice?" he asked.

When he made his appeal in April, Mr Adams said it was "a

genuine attempt to drive the peace process forward".

Republicans had been under intense pressure to end IRA

activity after the Å26.5m Northern Bank raid in December and

the murder of Belfast man Robert McCartney in January.

Political talks last year failed to restore devolution, which

stalled amid claims of IRA intelligence gathering at Parliament

Buildings, Stormont, in 2002.

The Provisional IRA's campaign of violence was aimed at

forcing an end to the British presence in Northern Ireland,

leading to a united Ireland.

IRA's statement

Quote[/b] ]Key points of statement

-All IRA units ordered to dump arms

-Members ordered to pursue objectives through "exclusively peaceful means"

-Arms to be put beyond use as quickly as possible

-Two church witnesses to verify this

-Statement followed "honest and forthright" consultation process

-Strong support among IRA members for Sinn Fein's peace strategy

-There is now an alternative way to achieve goal of united Ireland

-"Volunteers must not engage in any other activities whatsoever"

EDIT: I guess Bono is happy now

EDIT #2: I wonder where they will dump there weapons, they can't just throw them away I mean.

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

I have a puzzle for you.

1)

America+Zambia announce arrest of Haroon Rashid Aswat, alleged to have been in telephone contact with the London bombers

Source

Interesting?

Wait for number 2!

2)

The same guy, captured in Pakistan, a week ago

Source!

WTF happened How did he leave Pakistani custody!? Then get to Zambia!?

[Colossus 2]

Someone is lying

I'm guessing that CNN is the one to thrust. Or it might just happen that one have mixed up the name with someone else.

[Bordoy 0]

So, is the thread going to get renamed to struggle against global extremism now?

BTW, when is VOTPWOT Day (Victory over the phrase war on terror)?

But i guess it's better that it's change to 'Struggle'. As a war can be un-winnable but a struggle is something we can live with. Like, people struggle with weight, they put it on like women, but they live with it.

[Bernadotte 0]

Quote[/b] ]Eighty-four thousand troops had proved insufficient to maintain law and order in the face of a campaign of terrorism waged by highly oraganised Jewish forces equipped with all the weapons of the modern infantryman.  Since the war 338 British subjects had been killed in Palestine, while the military forces there had cost the British taxpayer one hundred million sterling.  The declared intentions of Jewish extremists showed that the loss of further British lives was inevitable.

In these circumstances His Majesty's Government decided to bring to an end their mandate and to prepare for the earliest possible withdrawl from Palestine of all British forces.

-- British Foreign Office statement in the NY Times, 14 May 1948

Has Al Qaida killed 338 Brits yet?  I wonder if it will take less than 60 years to forget about Al Qaida.  

Not comparable, for sevral reasons.

Yes, I know.  I was being kinda facetious.  However, if I were to make a comparison I would offer the US conflict with Iraq's Sunni insurgents as a possible modern equivalent of the British conflict with Jewish extremists in Palestine.  And maybe if Jewish extremists had crashed a plane into the Tower of London back then the British would not have caved in to terrorism as easily as they ultimately ended up doing.

What's the point you are trying to make anyway? That there is an anti-Muslim or pro-Jewish conspiracy?  

 I'm so glad you asked this because it indicates that you indeed missed the following when I posted it earlier:

Why don't we have Christian suicide bombers? Because mainstream Christianity today uses its faith in a far more pragmatic and liberal way. Islam is problematic because today its mainstream is dogmatic and fundamentalist.

Mainstream Christian Evangelism in the US is every bit as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the mainstream of Islam that you describe.  And it wields a great deal more power.

...if we're repeating the mantra that there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam, that we won't solve anything.

Are you professing a clear enough understanding of mainstream Islam to say it is the primary culprit?  And is anyone here professing a clear enough understanding to say "there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam"?  Furthermore, would you have blamed the actions of the Jewish terrorist organisation, LEHI, on mainstream Judaism or was there "nothing wrong" with mainstream Judaism?

With the exception of a small layer of fundamentalists, modern Christians are far more secular than they are religious.

Small layer?  I guess you don't have access to American satellite TV.  You probably don't recall the position held by fundamentalist evangelical minister Rev. Billy Graham in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Whitehouse.  In fact, it was Graham who got George W to give up the bottle for Christ's sake.

But again, my primary concern is when fundamentalist Christians use their clout to push forward a bible prophesy driven agenda in complete disregard of international justice and human rights.

Denoir your mantra is no different than that of Dr Daniel pipes - "Militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution" - and who could disagree?  Just don't forget to look past the obvious harm caused when religious militancy picks up a gun.  Religious fundamentalists of all flavours have done far greater harm when in control of government policy than an explosive vest.

So, given that a conspiracy really needs to center around some ill-intent, how can any pro-Israel religious campaign possibly be considered an evil conspiracy if its fundamental purpose is to hasten the return of Jesus Christ?  ...Um ...Regardless of how many innocent people are made to suffer in the process.

[denoir 0]

I didn't miss it - I ignored it, primarily because I wanted to avoid another discussion over religion (I think I've stated my position and arguments clearly).

Another reason for ignoring it was its moral-relativistic content that has little to do with reality.

The religious right in the US (who I don't have much love for), nasty as they may be have a very limited influence. Yes, I know it's all the rage to call all Americans religious nuts, but if you look at the real situation you'll see that not only is that stereotyping, but that is very bad stereotyping. The Christian lobby in the US can't even get through very basic demands such as a ban on abortion, the teaching of creationism rather than evolution etc - and they have far less pull in the foreign policy.

Had America been controlled by a fundamentalist Christian lobby, Iraq wouldn't have been the country that was invaded and Bush wouldn't be supporting a separate Palestinian state and the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. Do you really think that the most America could do to support Israel is to veto a bunch of UN resolutions?

America is a very pragmatic country, driven by market economy, not by religion. You have a separation of church and state that is respected fairly well. The laws are secular, not religious, other religions are tolerated etc

Your average Islamic country on the other hand is a semi-theocracy, with religion being a very relevant driving force. The laws are religious and the practice of religion takes a far more central role of the life of the average citizen compared to any country in the west, including the US.

American religious fundamentalist are not militant in practice and the radicals are seldom homicidal. In most of the Islamic countries, the rule is fundamentalist and militant - extremely intolerant. The radicals are not seldom homicidal.¨

In short, you may have whatever conspiracy theories you want, but in the end you don't have Christian fanatics blowing up innocent people in the subway.

The reason for this is that currently the distribution of the followers of the two religions looks quite differently with the average Christian being far more secular than the average Muslim. In that way the extremes get shifted as well. So an über-radical Christian may be just as radical as a slightly radical Muslim. The type of  mainstream religious rule we see in the Islamic countries is a wet dream for a Christian fundamentalist.

Perhaps it will be clearer if I illustrate what I mean with a figure.

You have your normal distribution - with the average being higher on the "religious zeal" axis, the number of homicidal fanatics will also increase - people who are willing to kill in the name of religion.

[Bernadotte 0]

I didn't miss it - I ignored it, primarily because I wanted to avoid another discussion over religion...

Right.  And yet 15 hrs later, on page 131 you continued with:

Religion developed because of the lack of understanding of the world. As we understand more of how the universe works, gods become less relevant. You do understand that the god that you believe in is... blah... blah... blah...

Another reason for ignoring it was its moral-relativistic content that has little to do with reality.

As I'm sure you know, it's not easy to respond to such a claim if you don't offer a specific example or at least quote.  Some would call this a cheap shot.

The religious right in the US (who I don't have much love for), nasty as they may be have a very limited influence. Yes, I know it's all the rage to call all Americans religious nuts, but if you look at the real situation you'll see that not only is that stereotyping, but that is very bad stereotyping.

Hang on there!!  Who's stereotyping here?  You're the one who just said they are all nasty, not me.  I only said they have a lot of power, which is not a stereotype at all if they represent the largest religious group in the US and they turn out on election day in greater numbers than any other religious group.

The Christian lobby in the US can't even get through very basic demands such as a ban on abortion, the teaching of creationism rather than evolution etc - and they have far less pull in the foreign policy.

Just because they do not represent the majority required to change the US Constitution does not mean they don't influence foreign policy.  Didn't you read the article by Daniel Pipes?

Had America been controlled by a fundamentalist Christian lobby, Iraq wouldn't have been the country that was invaded...

What does this mean?   Are you claiming that America's Evangelical Christians opposed the invasion?  Besides, it ain't a black and white issue.  Just because they have a great deal of influence doesn't mean America is completely controlled by them.

America is a very pragmatic country, driven by...

Your average Islamic country on the other hand is a...

Do you honestly think I'd be concerned about the influence of American Evangelical Christians if the US was only as powerful as your average Islamic country?

In short, you may have whatever conspiracy theories you want...

You're the one playing the conspiracy theorist card, not I.

...but in the end you don't have Christian fanatics blowing up innocent people in the subway.

For someone who refuses to discuss moral relativism you seem to be quite comfortable concluding that the killing of hundreds or a few thousands is worse than the suffering of millions.  I'm not drawing any such conclusions because I don't think it's an either or situation.  I believe it is mostly the sufferering of many that leads to radicalism in some, resulting in the killing of the few.  Somehow you believe that the killing can be stopped by fighting the radicalism, while leaving the suffering in place.  I don't agree.

...the average Christian being far more secular than the average Muslim.

Who's talking about average Christians?  I'm talking about American Evangelical Christians who are no more secular than the average Muslim.

And why do you keep ignoring this question:

Furthermore, would you have blamed the actions of the Jewish terrorist organisation, LEHI, on mainstream Judaism or was there "nothing wrong" with mainstream Judaism?

Jewish extremists considered the British presence in Palestine illegal.  Muslim extremists consider the American presence in the Middle East illegal.  Rabbis espouse a right to a geographical region based on religion just as much or even more than Imams do.  And just as you may point to Imams promoting violence over political solutions I can point to Rabbis doing the same thing.

So, where does the comparison break down to the extent that it bears being ignored?  

[Bernadotte 0]

Oh yes, and regarding your graph:

- Where do you place the curve for American Evangelical Christians, which is what we are really discussing?

- What info do you have to support placing the world's average Muslim somewhere between devout and radical?

- Where do you place curves for Judaism, Buddhism and Hindu followers?

And perhaps the areas beneath your curves should be proportional to respective numbers of followers:

Christianity:  2.1 billion

Islam: 1.8 billion

Hinduism: 900 million

Buddhism: 376 million

Evangelical Christianity: 335 million

Judaism: 14 million

[Panda-PL- 0]

Denoir basically brands everything he can as religious, and not only Him...

Anyways I'll give an example - the Van Gogh's murderer wasn's an islamist (a person seeing muslim culture as supperior and wanting to spread it to all world, by force) and his driving motive wasn't Islam as a religion.

First of all if he was an islamist he would agree with 100% of shariat courts' verdicts (as they are made under Allah's law and influence and are allways right). Furthermore he wouldn't oppose Van Gogh's films - as they are being made by non-muslims for non-muslims, and the oppinion non-muslims have about muslims and their culture - in oppinion of an islamist - DOESN'T MATTER (their end is near anyways, right?).

In fact the murderer was of an european country, he did care what would europeans think of his religion and he did in fact see the verdicts as barbarian and was ashamed that anyone would know about them.

An islamist would thank The Author - because in his oppinion the verdicts are good and so if they are announced it is good (why should they be kept in secret?).

The murderer killed The Author because of his cultural complexes, which are a result of contrast between the european culture and the culture that he would like to be his. Or rather his stereotype of muslim culture - as I doubt that he actually had any contact wit its non-european-influenced, tradditional form. Hope You understand.

The muslims living in europe are as far away from their tradition as the black inhabitants of LA.

And are getting just as nervious as them when You start to speak about what is happening and how does democracy look like in their "homelands".

Also - from my observations - there are NO radical muslims in small towns and villages. In fact we have some muslims in Poland - but #1 they are here from generations and are tradittionally connected to Poland #2 they live in small towns and are in good contact with local communities (they are in fact well assimilated) and 3# they are from fammilies with long tradditions and they are of the old, mainstreem Islam.

They are just as harmless as Jews.

The most dangerous fanatics are young people tired with european nihilism and looking for the meaning of their lifes who fall pray to radical islamists in their search for their own spirituality.

One more thing I recently realised - europeans are not tolerant - we're simply too lazy to learn anything about other religions and use phrase "I'm a tollerant person" which - in our oppinion - releases us from knowing anything about them.

We're not tollerant - europe is ingnorant.

The only time You hear about Islam is when some nuthead, just-converted teenagers blow something up (with themselves). Or if at 1:00 at night they play a 20-year-old program on french Planette (someone watches it beside me ?). Really im my country there was no single program about Islam untill the recent bombings. What image of Muslims does it create?

BTW. Avarage european's tolerance is just like tolerance of an avarage european country - He does not - in my oppinion - tolerate muslims, He pretends not to notice them as long as He can and tries to know as little as he can about them - and calls it tolerance.