[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

can't... take... anymore...

Inhale. Exhale.

what does that have to do with anything?

I pretty much agree. In this day and age, one does not have to be in Israel to live and learn about Islam.

I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and probably know more Muslims than any 2 people on this board, but apparently whatever I have to say on the topic isn't worth hearing...

Now I disagree.

yeah, and it also explains a lot about the occupation of a nation,

There never was an Arab nation named Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish one.

the oppression,

That's what happens when you declare a never-ending war and continue attacking for decades. Boo damn hoo.

ill-use, and consequent resistance of those people, right or wrong, and has more to do with politics than religion.

It has to do with both. Which does it have to do with more? Toss a coin in the air. I write this to you from wakf proclaimed territory.

On the other hand, here's a case for stating it mostly has to do with Islam: Tell The Children the Truth. Site is run by or affiliated with Muslims, BTW.

good question. how many are, and how many aren't? but i guess it's easier to tar all 1.2 billion with the same brush, as long as it justifies treating them in a way that the west would never condone treating it's own.

I'll post this again:

Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

From Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences



It's a "war on terror," and those "terrorists" are a "handful of extremists." No, they're slightly more than a "handful of extremists." Now they're ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur'an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da'wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe -- even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.

Who's crazy? Who's schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam -- the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.

Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he's just "one more nut case, like Moussaoui"?

From Who's crazy?

these threads always degenerate into the same slanging match. no one's going to change their opinion, so why are we even bringing this **** up?

Actually, western opinion of Islam is changing. And it will change more the more people study Islam, its legal writings and its history.

Will enough infidels do so and make a change in the world? We can only hope.