Was the Pope..

[theavonlady 2]

I bet if western europe was islamic, and arab countries were christian, then we would say christianity is violent religion.  

You'll never know about the latter but you're already getting a taste of the former. So, I bet you're wrong.

[JdB 151]

Quote[/b] ]The only religious precpt I know of Jews killing for is self defense. Where do Jews or Christians preach beheadings? Anihilating enemies? Throwing them into the sea? Dispatching them to hell? Enslaving them? Subjugating them?

You forgot throwing them off of buildings like some imams suggested we should do with all homosexual people in the Netherlands

Quote[/b] ]If all you can contribute to a discussion is some translation of verses copy/pasted from the inet, you´d better say nothing at all and stroll away.

At least she knows something about Islam and it's brutalities, which is more then most people here can say (until [insert date of terrorist bombing/hostage taking/beheading in country X])

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]The only religious precpt I know of Jews killing for is self defense. Where do Jews or Christians preach beheadings? Anihilating enemies? Throwing them into the sea? Dispatching them to hell? Enslaving them? Subjugating them?

You forgot throwing them off of buildings like some imams suggested we should do with all homosexual people in the Netherlands

Oh, I do not argue with the Torah's commandments for capital punishment for this and numerous other cases. And I have almost no qualms in principle with these particular practices of Islam where Islam reigns supreme. Hello Holand!

Now, dear sir, can you tell me why there haven't been any such cases in over 2500 years and why even before that this would have been extremly rare?

Ignorance is bliss, isn't it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If all you can contribute to a discussion is some translation of verses copy/pasted from the inet, you´d better say nothing at all and stroll away.

At least she knows something about Islam and it's brutalities, which is more then most people here can say (until [insert date of terrorist bombing/hostage taking/beheading in country X])

Handy reference list. You're welcome!

EDIT: Something the rest of the world can learn from Austraila!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Who needs politicians? You can learn it from Islam, their scriptures and their practices. Well, some of us can. Obviously others don't have a clue or can't face facts.

Just in case you didn´t notice. I answered Ares question.

So before you get lost again, pls read carefully.

Quote[/b] ]What crusade? And what "traditional Christian values" did he have in mind?

Thx for asking Avon. Here you go:

Quote[/b] ] Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Unlike you I can even give a source:

Oh my god it´s nazi BBC again

another one:

Quote[/b] ]"God speaks through me,"

Lancaster New Era, on July 16, 2004

I guess that even beats hardcore islamists

Indepth look on the religious fanatic aka Bush Prophet in the White house:

Quote[/b] ] In his address on Thursday at the inauguration of his second term, George W. Bush will invoke God. We guarantee it—presidents always do so at inaugurations. That he believes in or refers to a supreme power is not what distinguishes Bush from other modern American presidents. What makes Bush notable is how much he talks about God and what he says when he does so.

Bush referenced a higher power 10 times in his first inaugural four years ago, including this claim: “I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image.†In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.

No other president since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933 has mentioned God so often in his inaugurations or State of the Unions. The closest to Bush’s average of six references per each of these addresses is Ronald Reagan, who averaged 4.75 in his comparable speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered as pious as they come among U.S. presidents, only had two God mentions in four addresses. Other also-rans in total God talk were Franklin Roosevelt at 1.69 and Lyndon Johnson at 1.50 references per inaugurals and State of the Unions.

God-talk in these addresses is important because in these ritualized occasions any religious language becomes fused with American identity. This is particularly so since the advent of radio and television, which have facilitated presidents’ ability to connect with the U.S. public writ large; indeed, inaugurals and State of the Unions commonly draw large media audiences.

Bush also talks about God differently than most other modern presidents. Presidents since Roosevelt have commonly spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing, favor, and guidance. This president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Among modern presidents, only Reagan has spoken in a similar manner—and he did so far less frequently than has Bush.

This striking change in White House rhetoric is apparent in how presidents have spoken about God and the values of freedom and liberty, two ideas central to American identity. Consider a few examples.

Roosevelt in 1941, in a famous address delineating four essential freedoms threatened by fascism, said: “This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.â€

Similarly, Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, during the height of the Cold War, said: “Happily, our people, though blessed with more material goods than any people in history, have always reserved their first allegiance to the kingdom of the spirit, which is the true source of that freedom we value above all material things....So long as action and aspiration humbly and earnestly seek favor in the sight of the Almighty, there is no end to America’s forward road; there is no obstacle on it she will not surmount in her march toward a lasting peace in a free and prosperous world.â€

Contrast these statements, in which presidents spoke as petitioners humbly asking for divine guidance, with Bush’s claim in 2003 that “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.†This is not a request for divine favor; it is a declaration of divine wishes.

Such rhetoric positions the president as a prophetic spokesman for God rather than as a petitioning supplicant. Such certitude is dangerous—even for those who share such views—because U.S. presidents have the unique ability to act upon their beliefs in ways that affect billions of people worldwide. Indeed, it has become clear that a good number of Americans—including many of religious faith—and billions of global citizens are leery of this president’s fusion of politics and religion. To cite just one example, more than 200 U.S. church and seminary leaders in October signed a petition that criticizes the administration’s convergence of God and nation as constructing a “theology of war.â€

All of this prompts the hope that, in these challenging times, a president who spoke after his re-election about his newly earned “political capital†not only speaks about God but also is one who listens.

He´s in denial of Darwinism uses "evil" as a religious anti-trademark to label all kind of stuff and his latest public missionary trips are quite well known...

Quote[/b] ]Sources, please. Ho hum.

Above.

Quote[/b] ]Don't attack us and you won't be attacked.

Haha, good one. As if the mass of civillian victims had attacked you. For sure that´s a just cause. Not. Must have been the reason why Lebanon is poisened with cluster ammo now. The people of Lebanon have not attacked you. Neither has the souvereign country of Lebanon attacked you. A terrorist organization operating from inside Lebanon has attacked you. That makes a little difference, but I know that that´s beyond your horizon.

Quote[/b] ]Cry for Nasrallah, Bals. Cry.

Why should I ? I do not side with terrorists, and I don´t think that 2 wrongs make 1 right.

Quote[/b] ]

Yes, we should all shut up, put blinkers on our eyes and it will all be over with in a day or 2. Sure.

No you should kill even more and act surprised if the spiral turns faster and faster. Not much time for thinking I know, but some self-reflection from time to time maybe would show you that you gained nothing but more terrorists with your latests stunts. Israel is endangering itself by it´s actions and is pushing religious motivated terrorism as Bush did. Read latest CIA analyzes on it.

Quote[/b] ]That's what they say. That's what they do. Guess who's the outdated one here, Bals?

Who says that ? Is that the official muslim guideline or are those who say that extremists ? It´s easy to put it all in one bowl, isn´t it Avon ?

IF all muslims were violent or would think that the ultimate pleasure is blowing themselves up, don´t you think that we would have a permanetly lit up sky ?

I know short slogans are easy to remember but sometimes they don´t really reflect reality. Even if you wished that all muslims were bloodthirsty bastards, they are not. The majority is not blood-thirsty. You should have bombed your own violent settlers to hell according to your logic.

Quote[/b] ]The only religious precpt I know of Jews killing for is self defense.

Haha, elastic mambo-jango again ?

Quote[/b] ]Where do Jews or Christians preach beheadings? Anihilating enemies? Throwing them into the sea? Dispatching them to hell? Enslaving them? Subjugating them?

Read some Bush speeches and you´re almost there...

Quote[/b] ]I quoted straight from Islamicity.com. It is a popular Islamic site and is the rule, not the exception.

So what ?

Look at this:

Prophet Zephania 3:8

Quote[/b] ]Therefore - wait for me the world of Hashem for the day

when i will arise to plunder (them). For my judgment will be to assemble nations, to gather kingdoms, to pour my fury upon them, all my burning wrath; for with the fire of my jealousy the entire earth will be consumed. For then I will change the nations (to speak) a pure language, so that they all will proclaim the name of Hashem; to worship him with a united resolve

I´d say that´s a call for a holy war fresh from the Tora.

You will find such IN ANY RELIGIOUS WRITINGS all over the planet. Even your Tora is not free of it, so what´s the deal ? Do you follow it literally ? Else you´re a bad jew ?

Quote[/b] ]But of course, you have the keys to knowledge.

At least i don´t sit around like these pointing fingers here and there and do not forget that we are somewhat limited to one planet right now. You cannot eliminate terrorism by terrorizing people :

Quote[/b] ]The world will never understand yours when they look back a few years from now.

Who cares ?

[theavonlady 2]

Just in case you didn´t notice. I answered Ares question.

Exceptionally ingenious  reply, Bals, but is that all you can say?

Quote[/b] ]What crusade? And what "traditional Christian values" did he have in mind?

Thx for asking Avon. Here you go:

Quote[/b] ] Nabil Shaath says

Now we know where you pick up your facts.

Quote[/b] ] "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"

Unlike you I can even give a source:

Oh my god it´s nazi BBC again

another one:

Quote[/b] ]"God speaks through me,"

Lancaster New Era, on July 16, 2004

I guess that even beats hardcore islamists  

Unlike you, I can give an additional relevant source, which you either chose to ignore or are ignorant of to begin with (your choice):

White House press briefing by Ari Fleischer, July 1, 2003:

Q: Part of the same quote, Prime Minister Abbas suggested the President said that God spoke to him about al Qaeda and spoke to him about Saddam. Is that a stretch? Is there anything to that? How would you characterize that part of the --

MR. FLEISCHER: It's beyond a stretch. It's an invention. It was not said.

Quote[/b] ]Indepth look on the religious fanatic aka Bush Prophet in the White house:

Quote[/b] ] In his address on Thursday at the inauguration of his second term, George W. Bush will invoke God. We guarantee it—presidents always do so at inaugurations. That he believes in or refers to a supreme power is not what distinguishes Bush from other modern American presidents. What makes Bush notable is how much he talks about God and what he says when he does so.

z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Quote[/b] ]Bush referenced a higher power 10 times in his first inaugural four years ago, including this claim: “I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image.†In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times.

Oh my G-d!

Quote[/b] ]No other president since Franklin Roosevelt took office in 1933 has mentioned God so often in his inaugurations or State of the Unions.

And everyone knows that FDR was a big Christian crusading president. Ah-ha.............................

Quote[/b] ]The closest to Bush’s average of six references per each of these addresses is Ronald Reagan, who averaged 4.75 in his comparable speeches. Jimmy Carter, considered as pious as they come among U.S. presidents, only had two God mentions in four addresses. Other also-rans in total God talk were Franklin Roosevelt at 1.69 and Lyndon Johnson at 1.50 references per inaugurals and State of the Unions.

God-talk in these addresses is important because in these ritualized occasions any religious language becomes fused with American identity. This is particularly so since the advent of radio and television, which have facilitated presidents’ ability to connect with the U.S. public writ large; indeed, inaugurals and State of the Unions commonly draw large media audiences.

So?

z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z

Quote[/b] ]Bush also talks about God differently than most other modern presidents. Presidents since Roosevelt have commonly spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing, favor, and guidance. This president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Among modern presidents, only Reagan has spoken in a similar manner—and he did so far less frequently than has Bush.

This striking change in White House rhetoric is apparent in how presidents have spoken about God and the values of freedom and liberty, two ideas central to American identity. Consider a few examples.

Roosevelt in 1941, in a famous address delineating four essential freedoms threatened by fascism, said: “This nation has placed its destiny in the hands and heads and hearts of its millions of free men and women; and its faith in freedom under the guidance of God.â€

Similarly, Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, during the height of the Cold War, said: “Happily, our people, though blessed with more material goods than any people in history, have always reserved their first allegiance to the kingdom of the spirit, which is the true source of that freedom we value above all material things....So long as action and aspiration humbly and earnestly seek favor in the sight of the Almighty, there is no end to America’s forward road; there is no obstacle on it she will not surmount in her march toward a lasting peace in a free and prosperous world.â€

Contrast these statements, in which presidents spoke as petitioners humbly asking for divine guidance, with Bush’s claim in 2003 that “Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity.†This is not a request for divine favor; it is a declaration of divine wishes.

So?

Great distraction Bals, except for one thing. This is boring as sin.

Quote[/b] ]Such rhetoric positions the president as a prophetic spokesman for God rather than as a petitioning supplicant.

This kind of rhetoric sounds like it was written by the aethiest equivalent of Jerry Falwell. Did you write this stuff, Balls?

Quote[/b] ]Such certitude is dangerous—even for those who share such views—because U.S. presidents have the unique ability to act upon their beliefs in ways that affect billions of people worldwide.

So the same could be said of all those Muslim world leaders who invoke the name of Allah every 2 minutes. OK.

Quote[/b] ]Indeed, it has become clear that a good number of Americans—including many of religious faith—and billions of global citizens are leery of this president’s fusion of politics and religion. To cite just one example, more than 200 U.S. church and seminary leaders in October signed a petition that criticizes the administration’s convergence of God and nation as constructing a “theology of war.â€

Well, good for these whopping 200 people.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]All of this prompts the hope that, in these challenging times, a president who spoke after his re-election about his newly earned “political capital†not only speaks about God but also is one who listens.

He´s in denial of Darwinism uses "evil" as a religious anti-trademark to label all kind of stuff and his latest public missionary trips are quite well known...

Finished now? Feel better?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Sources, please. Ho hum.

Above.

Double ho-hum.

No. Make that a tripple.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Don't attack us and you won't be attacked.

Haha, good one. As if the mass of civillian victims had attacked you.

A country attacked us. A war ensued. Too bad.

Quote[/b] ]For sure that´s a just cause. Not.

Too bad.

Quote[/b] ]Must have been the reason why Lebanon is poisened with cluster ammo now.

Too bad.

Quote[/b] ]The people of Lebanon have not attacked you. Neither has the souvereign country of Lebanon attacked you. A terrorist organization operating from inside Lebanon has attacked you. That makes a little difference, but I know that that´s beyond your horizon.

Lebanon is not innocent.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Cry for Nasrallah, Bals. Cry.

Why should I ? I do not side with terrorists,

You have no idea how much you do. You would let them get away with murder.

Quote[/b] ]and I don´t think that 2 wrongs make 1 right.

Quote[/b] ]

We have very different views of wrong and right.

Yes, we should all shut up, put blinkers on our eyes and it will all be over with in a day or 2. Sure.

No you should kill even more and act surprised if the spiral turns faster and faster.

Ah! The leftist fallback: It's the "cycle of violence"!

It is time to stop the cycle of violence. Sometimes, the only way to stop it is with more violence. Sometimes, the only way to stop it is with victory. We are rapidly nearing one of those times.

Quote[/b] ]Not much time for thinking I know, but some self-reflection from time to time maybe would show you that you gained nothing but more terrorists with your latests stunts.

Actually the stunt that gained us more terrorists was retreating from Lebanon 6 years ago and letting them build fortified bunks throughout southern Lebanon, build a military command center in southern Beirut that would do any nation proud, stockpile masses of weapons, not just 15,000 Katyushas, imported from Syria and Lebanon, attend terrorist training camps in Lebanon, Syria and Iran and have these same animals get elected to Lebanon's parliament.

Look who's not thinking much now, Bals. Tsk. Tsk.

Quote[/b] ]Israel is endangering itself by it´s actions and is pushing religious motivated terrorism as Bush did. Read latest CIA analyzes on it.

Israel has endangered itself by listening to such foolishness for some 30 years now.

And you want me to be impressed by CIA analysees in this day and age?!

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That's what they say. That's what they do. Guess who's the outdated one here, Bals?

Who says that ? Is that the official muslim guideline or are those who say that extremists ? It´s easy to put it all in one bowl, isn´t it Avon ?

You're a big boy, Bals. Google for it. If you come up short, I'll help you out. Please be specific with what you cannot find by yourself.

Quote[/b] ]IF all muslims were violent

I never said that.

Quote[/b] ]or would think that the ultimate pleasure is blowing themselves up,

Never said that, either.

Quote[/b] ]don´t you think that we would have a permanetly lit up sky ?

Just to scratch the surface:

The Prophet Muhammad as a Jihad Model

Al-Qaradhawi Speaks In Favor of Suicide Operations at an Islamic Conference in Sweden

By all means, here's your chance to prove to the entire world that this is not what the Quran and Muhamed had in mind.

Go ahead. The world is on your shoulders.

Quote[/b] ]I know short slogans are easy to remember

Like "crusader", "cycle of violence" and "2 wrongs"? Uhuh.

Quote[/b] ]but sometimes they don´t really reflect reality.

Uhuh.

Quote[/b] ]Even if you wished that all muslims were bloodthirsty bastards, they are not.

I cerianly don't wish it and they certainly aren't. Get a clue: my emphasis is on the word "Islam", not "Mulsim."

Quote[/b] ]The majority is not blood-thirsty.

I never said otherwise. BTW, what is the percentage of the minority that is?

Quote[/b] ]You should have bombed your own violent settlers to hell according to your logic.

Why? Because they defended themselves from terrorists attacking them in their homes and on the roads.

When it happens to you, let's see you talk so big.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The only religious precpt I know of Jews killing for is self defense.

Haha, elastic mambo-jango again ?

Is that your entire response. Let us see..........

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Where do Jews or Christians preach beheadings? Anihilating enemies? Throwing them into the sea? Dispatching them to hell? Enslaving them? Subjugating them?

Read some Bush speeches and you´re almost there...

Take 2 BDS pills and call me in the morning.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]I quoted straight from Islamicity.com. It is a popular Islamic site and is the rule, not the exception.

So what ?

So nothing. Keep your blinkers on.

Ah. Bible quize time! Woohoo!

Quote[/b] ]Look at this:

Prophet Zephania 3:8

Quote[/b] ]Therefore - wait for me the world of Hashem for the day

when i will arise to plunder (them). For my judgment will be to assemble nations, to gather kingdoms, to pour my fury upon them, all my burning wrath; for with the fire of my jealousy the entire earth will be consumed. For then I will change the nations (to speak) a pure language, so that they all will proclaim the name of Hashem; to worship him with a united resolve

I´d say that´s a call for a holy war fresh from the Tora.

I clearly read that this is what G-d himself plans to do. Now, if you don't believe in G-d or if you do but don't believe that G-d is going to do this, settle back, kick off your shoes and relax.

And most important, never have we Jews understood these verses to mean anything else and if someone claims otherwise, I just as easily pointed out that they (and you) cannot read the literal meaning of the text in plain English, let alone in the original Hebrew.

Try again.

Quote[/b] ]You will find such IN ANY RELIGIOUS WRITINGS all over the planet. Even your Tora is not free of it, so what´s the deal ? Do you follow it literally ? Else you´re a bad jew ?  

I follow it according to the way Jewish law has been handed down from the time of Moses at Sinai.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]But of course, you have the keys to knowledge.

At least i don´t sit around like these pointing fingers here and there and do not forget that we are somewhat limited to one planet right now. You cannot eliminate terrorism by terrorizing people :

Like I said, let's all close our eyes. In your case, you can shut your ears and mouth, too, apparently. It'll all be over in a day or 2.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The world will never understand yours when they look back a few years from now.

Who cares ?

Which reminds me: good luck Europe!

Chow time. Ciao!

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Unlike you, I can give an additional relevant source, which you either chose to ignore or are ignorant of to begin with (your choice):

Ari Fleischer as a relevant source ? I beg your pardon...

If you haven´t noticed the quotes are from different occasions, heard by different, not-related people and you come up with a denial answer of the former comical Ali of the White House who has been laughed out of the White House press briefing for his lies ?

Quote[/b] ]Great distraction Bals, except for one thing. This is boring as sin.

Distraction ? You don´t think it´s kind of worrying to have a president who talks of himself as a messenger of god and starts wars for whatever reasons ?

Sorry I bet you would be trying to push the button if a middle east country would behave like that. As you seem to like facts, how about this one:

How many wars have been started by islamic countries over the last 20 years and how many wars have been started by countries with another religions ? Compare by victims pls.

Quote[/b] ]Well, good for these whopping 200 people.

In case you missed it even the pope had no good words for god´s messenger Bush. Does that count now or do we have to collect world-catholics against Bush. In case you don´t remember there were millions of them on the road when you were screaming "Preemptive strike! Preemptive strike!" Do I have to dig up "facts" and "visions" on Iraq or can it be that you were dead wrong ?

Look who´s laughing now.

Quote[/b] ]So the same could be said of all those Muslim world leaders who invoke the name of Allah every 2 minutes. OK.

Blabla... If you knew something about islamic culture you´d know that allah is used in mayn phrases just for the phrase. It´s like "Mein Gott" in german. Noone really refers to god when saying so, it´s just a phrase. Maybe you should ask some of the cheap ceaning personel in your country. I guess they will gladly take their time to expain it to you...but you don´t want to hear it anyway as they are evil, right ?

Quote[/b] ]Ah! The leftist fallback: It's the "cycle of violence"!

To bad I´m not left. Are you ?

The funny thing is that you seem to be living in denial. Even your own people are recognizing that violence will cause even more violence. Or have you forgotten about those 27 pilots who refused to bomb the occupied territories, or have you forgotten about Lt Gen Moshe Yaalon who said that:

Quote[/b] ]...the tough policies against the Palestinians, the closures, sieges and assassinations are increasing Palestinian hatred toward Israel and fostering sympathy for the very militant groups Israel is trying to destroy.

Haven´t you seen enough examples that your favourite approach of "crush,kill,destroy" doesn´t work ? Or are you the one who´s longing for blood and retaliation, not one for one, but one for hundreds ?

Quote[/b] ]Lebanon is not innocent.

Israel is not innocent. Today, less than ever.

Quote[/b] ]Israel has endangered itself by listening to such foolishness for some 30 years now.

Israel would have already been flattened if there were no people who try to keep up peace or go for diplomatic solutions. If anything has been shown during the Lebanon war it is that the israeli military is by far not that mighty as everyone thought. In fact the Lebanon war showed where your military has it´s wea spots and it showed that you cannot "crush,kill,destroy" a terrorist organization. In case you haven´t noticed, judged by the goals you had for your Lebanon-adventure, you have lost it.

That´s reality my dear. If Lebanon was meant to be a sandbox test for Iran it totally failed.

Better send out some death squads and killers again. You got enough experience with them.

Quote[/b] ]If you come up short, I'll help you out.

Ok list pls, with sources, girlie.

Quote[/b] ]You have no idea how much you do. You would let them get away with murder.

Aha. So you support acts of terrorism ? You seem to have no problem that cluster bombs were dropped over civillian villages with no terrorist presence at all. So you endorce mass-murder and condone massive killings and destruction of civillian property and infrastructure. You must have wetted your pants when your airforce precisely bombed out the UN personel. Crush, kill, destroy.

Quote[/b] ]I never said that.

Yeah, yeah.

Quote[/b] ]The world is on your shoulders.

No. Like I already said, every religion has it´s ancient writings, even yours, but that doesn´t mean that every muslim is ready to blow or you are bringing fire over earth.

You claim to follow the rules Moses gave you. Do you really do that ? You may want to reread them incase you have forgotten some as your thesis and suggestions indicate.

Quote[/b] ]Get a clue: my emphasis is on the word "Islam", not "Mulsim."

So Islam is bad while Mulsim is what ?

Quote[/b] ]Take 2 BDS pills and call me in the morning.

I don´t want to steal your daily ration of Prozac, so no.

Quote[/b] ]And most important, never have we Jews understood these verses to mean anything else and if someone claims otherwise, I just as easily pointed out that they (and you) cannot read the literal meaning of the text in plain English, let alone in the original Hebrew.

Oh, I´m quite sure those guys think they have an idea, but ok they fail badly in front of Superavon

Jews against Zionism

I guess you need to tell them that they have no idea. They´re certainly very eager to hear what you have to say

Quote[/b] ]I follow it according to the way Jewish law has been handed down from the time of Moses at Sinai.

Wich one of the 3 versions ?

Quote[/b] ]Like I said, let's all close our eyes. In your case, you can shut your ears and mouth, too, apparently. It'll all be over in a day or 2.

So for you there are only 2 options, right ?

Close eyes or crush, kill, destroy.

This may be new to you but there are different methods of approach. Ok it may be complicated and does not have all that fancy bangs and booms and clusterbombs or fancy kid-sniping and not really much people get killed, so maybe it will not be your favour, but in my opinion it´s very arrogant to hear such from a person who is only able to live in Israel as a result of diplomacy.

Ever thought about that, or is that too 50´s ?

So maybe it´s better for you to hold still for a moment, take your pills and eventually it couldn´t be bad if you keep your mouth shut like you suggested to me.

It would be nice if you could even try to write in somewhat complete sentences next time.

Uhuu ?

[CsonkaPityu 0]

edit: i think this post went waay off-topic.

[billybob2002 0]

Why did you change the subject of this thread, Bals? The State of Israel and President Bush have nothing to do with the reactions of some Muslims around the world. Your first post in this thread reaks of Western guilt and that is pitful. I know you have issues with President Bush and Israel but they are not blame for the instances of violence and protests arising from the Pope's "speech."

I wonder if Manuel II Palaeologus is smiling somewhere ( ).

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

reaks of white guilt

Quote[/b] ]§2)No bigotry

Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome on these forums, such offences will very likely result in an immediate and permanent ban.

[Thunderbird 0]

What one sees as evil is in the other side, the good and unfortunately, there is, and there would be a "huge" misunderstanding between both "worlds", neither is able to understand the other, and I'm afraid the situation wouldn't get better as long as both sides wouldn't make the necessary efforts to dissipate the hatred.

Regards

Thunderbird84

[billybob2002 0]

BUZZARD @ Sep. 18 2006,21:05)]

reaks of white guilt

Quote[/b] ]§2)No bigotry

Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome on these forums, such offences will very likely result in an immediate and permanent ban.

White guilt isn't a racist term. Anyway, I just edited that post and replace the term with western guilt because it is more appropriate and the right term. What was I thinking......

[Garcia 0]

BUZZARD @ Sep. 18 2006,21:05)]

reaks of white guilt

Quote[/b] ]§2)No bigotry

Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome on these forums, such offences will very likely result in an immediate and permanent ban.

White guilt isn't a racist term. Anyway, I just edited that post and replace the term with western guilt because it is more appropriate and the right term. What was I thinking......

So tell me, do you mean people who feel guilt towards jews are as pathetic, as you describe it?

[nubbin77 0]

Its no wonder there is so much discussion and disagreement on this subject. The amount of misquotes and spun information in this topic alone is enough to make anyone's head spin. This topic by itself has 50 things that contradict the other. How could anyone possibly think they have a clear picture on the world we live in. I think most people just believe what they want to believe and find whatever they can to support what they want to believe.

If an alien came to our planet and read this topic, they would say, "the hell with this planet, there's no sorting out this mess", erase everyone and start over.

[billybob2002 0]

BUZZARD @ Sep. 18 2006,21:05)]

reaks of white guilt

Quote[/b] ]§2)No bigotry

Racists, sexists, homophobes or any other type of bigots are not welcome on these forums, such offences will very likely result in an immediate and permanent ban.

White guilt isn't a racist term. Anyway, I just edited that post and replace the term with western guilt because it is more appropriate and the right term. What was I thinking......

So tell me, do you mean people who feel guilt towards jews are as pathetic, as you describe it?

Don't try to use a straw man on me because it is not going to work. Balschoiw's post, in my opinion, reaks of Western guilt because he blames the West for the actions of some Islamic "pushers" when they take something out of context and using it for their agenda. The West somehow in the last couple of years gave them the gun, the ideal of taking something out context, and the Islamic "pushers" had to just pull the trigger  Or, simply, it is Bush's fault. I call bullshit on those assumptions.

[Garcia 0]

There's not really much difference (IMO) from that guilt, as you see it, to the guilt-feeling some people who support Israel have. Seeing that it seems there's people out there who is seems to be supporting Israel no matter what, because they feel guilt for something some germans did 60 years ago (yes yes, there's other reasons too, but WWII is the main reason, and nowdays almost the only reason people mention).

[Necromancer- 0]

Recent actions from the west do, in my opinion, show a lack of understanding/knowledge of Islam.

Or the average non-western Muslim is not as culturally evolved as we are.

Thing is, in Western culture (at least Europe) we are not afraid to hold a (curved) mirror in front of ourselves and others through relatively independent media. The average non-western Muslim does not have access to such media.

About our mirror: Of course the western society has bad things/aspects, but we just shrug it off and live our lives or choose between the 2 evils.

example of such things:

"We don't really care about god(s).. and if he/she/it punishes us in the afterlife because of that... pffff whatever."

"We make fun of you and we'll probably laugh/agree or don't care if you make fun of us."

[theavonlady 2]

Whatever, Bals.

I'll bid farewell to this thread with something that sums it up quite accurately.

Quote[/b] ]Head-in-the-Sand Liberals

<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.

By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.</span>

September 18, 2006

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Whatever, Bals.

I'll bid farewell to this thread with something that sums it up quite accurately.

Quote[/b] ]Head-in-the-Sand Liberals

<span style='font-size:7pt;line-height:100%'>Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.

By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.</span>

September 18, 2006

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

Quote[/b] ]By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week

When I read that, I saw no reason to keep reading.

Trueth is, we have our own religious extremists here in the western world, and their headquarters is placed in the US.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

deleted

[EiZei 0]

Quote[/b] ]By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week

When I read that, I saw no reason to keep reading.

Trueth is, we have our own religious extremists here in the western world, and their headquarters is placed in the US.

Uh.. wait a second here.

Is'nt Sam Harris an atheist who also has spent quite a bit of time criticizing the american christian right-wingers?

[theavonlady 2]

Quote[/b] ]By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week

When I read that, I saw no reason to keep reading.

Trueth is, we have our own religious extremists here in the western world, and their headquarters is placed in the US.

Uh.. wait a second here.

Is'nt Sam Harris an atheist who also has spent quite a bit of time criticizing the american christian right-wingers?

Yes.

Espectro acknowledged the misunderstanding in a PM to me.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

[kernriver 4]

I agree with thunderbird84 and nubbin77 posts. Only respect, understanding and dialogue will sort out this mess.

In the line with my words... it's not between muslims and christians, but between muslims and jews...read this:

http://www.culturenet.hr/v1/english/read.asp?id=757&cat=12

Summary:

Jewish event ‘Bejahad - Together 2006’ starts on Hvar

The seventh Jewish cultural event ‘Bejahad - Together 2006’ started on the Croatian island of Hvar...

The Bejahad director, Vladimir Salomon read out an appeal sent to European Muslims and Jews on "being together through culture".

The initiators of the declaration, Mr. Salomon and Reis-ul-Elema Mustafa Ceric, the head of the Islamic community in Bosnia-Herzegovina, call on Muslim and Jewish intellectuals and prominent members of those communities to promote mutual understanding and invest joint efforts so as to eliminate prejudges and lack of knowledge.

This all happened in Croatia, mostly christian country. It's little offtopic, but it shows the way different religions should make contact. It's eather this, or bloodshed. Which one do you prefer?

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

The pope should not be the only one to be criticised, in EU people dont burn down mosques...

o rly?? mosques are targeted everyday in many countries in the EU.

[denoir 0]

Quote[/b] ]By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week

When I read that, I saw no reason to keep reading.

You're jumping to conclusions too early mate. Sam Harris is a leading atheist writer. You can count on his "Letter to a Christian Nation" being very critical of Christians.

To quote from

wikipedia the section on what he thinks about the religion in America:

Quote[/b] ]

The current state of affairs in contemporary religious America is something which Harris feels should be a matter for profound national embarrassment. He notes that 44 percent of Americans, according to polls, believe that Jesus will probably return within the next fifty years. This is roughly the same number who think that creationism should be taught in schools, to the complete exclusion of Darwinian evolution; or that God has literally promised the land of Israel to the modern-day Jews.

These beliefs cannot exist in isolation; rather, he feels, they should be deeply troubling as they are, in his view, entirely maladaptive to planning a sustainable future for the planet. He points out that, by the light of biblical prophecy, general Armageddon is regarded as a necessary precursor to the Second Coming, or the Rapture as some call it. Harris considers it no exaggeration to say that a significant proportion of the American population would see a nuclear conflagration in the Middle East, say, as a happy portent of the imminent arrival of Jesus.

What troubles Harris the most, is that these are the same people who both elect and are elected as presidents and congressmen. Religion, he observes, permeates American politics to such an extent that it would be futile to consider running for office without professing some sort of faith. When George W. Bush invokes God in his conversation (as he frequently does with respect to both domestic and foreign affairs), Harris asks us to consider how we might feel if the President were to invoke Zeus or Apollo in the same manner.

Whatever their imagined source, the doctrines of modern religions are no more tenable than those which, for lack of adherents, were cast upon the scrap heap of mythology millennia ago.

I am very (pleasantly) surprised to see Avon quoting a Sam Harris article - never expected to see something like that

As for the "Head-in-the Sand Liberals" article, one has to realize that when he is talking of "liberals", he is using the US term for it. In Europe that would be the social democrats.

I would actually say that the American and European positions on Islam are very different.

A reality is that America as an immigrant nation has a longer history of integrating people from different cultures and faiths. In Europe, we've had lots of immigration, but it has always been from other European nations, and at least the last 300 years or so faith hasn't been a relevant issue as everyone was Christian and the minor differences between catholics, protestants etc were accepted.

America on the other hand was founded on the use of slave labour - the ultimate segregation. So a moral movement grew against that segregation, and it is the successor of that movement that we see today turning a blind eye to the problems that modern Islam creates. It's a noble principle, but taken too far. In addition, America itself is doing some dubious things on the international arena which has led to local opposition. And I can see valid objections there as western killings of Muslims has been orders of magnitudes larger than Muslim killing of westerners in recent year. Sure we consider a 'smart bomb' kills 20 civilians as 'collateral damage' more civilized than say a suicide bomber that kills 20 civilians by blowing himself up on a bus. There is a difference between primary targets in such cases but ultimately western bombs have killed far more innocent people than Islamic terrorists have. And it's not like those dropping those bombs aren't aware that there will be loads of dead civilians.

In Europe, the situation is different and mostly local, rather than international. We simply don't know how to deal with it. Our response to increased segregation has been.. well, none. In some countries anti-immigration parties have increased in popularity, although they are certainly not a solution because they are essentially just racists masked as legitimate political movements.

Furthermore Europe has some other problems that America lacks. First of all, we have a sharply declining local population with non-European groups on the other hand increasing rapidly. With working integration, this wouldn't be a problem, but as it is in the long term European liberal values get eroded by a growing population segment that works directly against it. The second problem is that unlike America, Europe has working social security. This too is a noble idea gone wrong as it allows groups to completely isolate themselves from society while getting financed by the government. In most European countries, you can choose not to work, not to learn the language and not to integrate into society while maintaining a pretty good quality of life. While this has always been abused to some extent by people who don't want to work, it hasn't been a problem as they were a small minority and were culturally tied to the society. Now on the other hand we have growing clusters of people from different cultures that choose not to integrate (and of course aren't helped by the fact that European societies are pretty closed and rather xenophobic compared to say America).

I do have some sympathy for the problem the politicians are facing here and I can't say that I have a solution to suggest. Even if you would conclude that your tolerance should not extend to intolerance and if you should insist on having immigrants adapt to European values, how would you go about doing it? You can't force the Europeans to open up either and some form of quoting system (i.e affirmative action) will just piss people off even more.

And as for religion, I don't even want to step in that one. America is largely christian, hence religion is not generally considered a bad thing. On the other hand it's a different religion, and we all know how that goes. Europe is secular and in general people aren't very fond of strong religions. On the other hand Europeans have in general no religious agenda of their own.