Why don't YOU read it?

Damned good question!
Here's another one... Define Muslim.

Both of these "western" religions have been around long enough to have evolved into numerous conflicting factions. Both have served as official religions of numerous kingdoms and republics and prevailing guidance systems for numerous cultures. So it follows that each of these religions have a broad range of adaptations. This is why I strongly disagree with any argument that persecutes *all* followers of either religion as being violent.

Now, what I find most amusing about this idea that Islam is inherently violent is that ALL the "proof" including quotes and passages from the Koran that *I* have seen are suspiciously published by people who are not Muslim and in fact promote the idea that Islam is a violent religion. The problem with these non-Muslim "researchers" is that they don't seem to understand what I was told when I was struggling with my own understanding of the Koran, that many of the passages simply don't translate into the modern American mindset. To some degree the same thing can be said for the Bible, a document that was written thousands of years ago, long before the English language was developed into it's current form and long before western culture developed into it's current modes of thinking. So you can't take these quotes at face value.

Additionally, because of the strong influence these religions have on people, especially among the illiterate and poor, they have always been a fulcrum point for political leveraging of popular support. I suspect for instance that many of the leaders of terrorist organizations such as al Queda are politically motivated and *use* religion to solicit support among those who are easily mislead, such as those who have been conditioned all their lives to have "faith" in things they don't understand.

So why does it seem that most violent acts today, that we qualify as terrorism, are committed by Muslims? Well, from what I can tell, the parts of the world that are predominately Muslim are mostly undeveloped or developing, so it makes sense that religion would still be the most influential factor in any political rally and that methods would remain somewhat crude and obvious. On the other hand, much of the Christian world is populated by citizens of developed nations where money has overtaken religion as a primary influence and as a way to achieve more sophisticated methods. So it may not be fair to compare the two religions side by side when it comes to political motivation and it's negative consequences because only one of them still serves as THE primary rally point for political support. Indeed, the the negative impact of terrorism, as reinforced by the exploitation of people's trust in Islam, is really no more significant than the negative impact of sophisticated liberal economic policy on the globe as reinforced by the exploitation of people's trust in wealth.

Both sides kill.

Yes, I read the link in you OP. My response was based on what I read in that article.

There may have been a "few" atheists among them, but it's not like the KKK insisted that their members fill out census forms. Do you think atheists would incorporate Christian symbols on their white robes, or make references to "good Christians" in their public speeches or use burning crosses in their ceremonies? Also, the KKK flourished in the Bible Belt at a time when atheism was hardly known. As for the IRA, the very basis for much of their identity is being Roman Catholic and at war with Protestants. Kind of hard to imagine an atheist having much to do with it.

You asked me if I could even identify any Christian terrorists, implying that terrorism is something Christians don't do. Well, I answered your question.

And no, that doesn't mean I think Muslim terrorists aren't so bad. How you get that from my reference to Christian terrorists is beyond me.

Yeah, you're right. I'll see what I can do.

It's bound to happen, but unfortunately, false prophets, such as the astroturf movements engineered by corporate interests (ie... the Koch Brothers) are luring Americans into false impressions that prevent them from preparing for it.

http://www.prwatch.org/files/Dissent%20or%20Terror%20FINAL_0.pdf

Some of you may not get past the heading of this report without tossing it out because it conflicts with your social conditioning but for any free-thinkers that remain unaffiliated, the significance of the matter will be easy to see. This report presents evidence that the anti-terrorist facilities established during the years following 09/11/2001, in conjunction with corporate interests, have been used to monitor and control American dissenters, most notably the Occupy Wall Street movements.

Some of you may already know how I feel about the USA PATRIOT Act and the short-sighted attitude among many Americans that it's not a problem as long as you aren't a terrorist. My argument is that despite the drastic denial of constitutional rights for terrorists, there is no solid definition anywhere in that law that qualifies what a terrorist is. This report illustrates how this ambiguity creates a serious problem for any Americans with an inclination to stand up for themselves, especially if they also have the ability to recognize the true threats to our freedom.

LOL... yes, Rain Man. Dustin Hoffman was great in that movie.

You're asking someone who spent some time in Northern Ireland. Car bombs in public places were the big thing when I was there and every terrorist in the IRA planting those bombs were Christian. In our own country we had terrorists in white robes that went around terrorizing and often killing black people and their families. They even used the symbol of the Christian faith as a fear factor by setting them on fire. On September 11, 1857, a group of Mormons slaughtered 14 American families from Arkansas traveling west through Utah on their way to California. Even in recent years, there have been incidents where Christian conservatives have used bombs to destroy property associated with abortion clinics - like every terrorist, they think they have a just cause, but it's still terrorism.

I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

Safe levels? Seriously? Are you really that scared?

Even when Clinton was in office our defense budget was larger than all the other defense budgets in the world put together, including Russia and China. The only reason why some folks think that isn't enough to be "safe" is because you fall for that ridiculous fear mongering that Republicans use to enable their government subsidizing of defense industry profits.

How do you get tax payers to fund your profits? Well, you can scare the crap out of them, that usually works. You tell them that if they don't spend more and more tax money on "defense" products, bad people will come and hurt them. Why do you think we have a nuclear arsenal capable of wiping humanity off the face of the earth several times over... That's not a level of safety my friend, that's a level of profit.

Yeah, I actually went back and edited that last part... In the interest of staying accurate... It's easy to call them stupid but I actually know some really smart Republicans... it's just that they don't extend their intelligence to politics. Kind of like the Rain Main who can recite the entire phone book but thinks a candy bar will cost $500.

To a large degree, Bill Clinton had the budget balanced for him by a huge infusion of tax revenue mostly from California that was driven by an economic boom created by the tech industry there. I doubt he would be able to repeat that fiscal feat in today's environment.

Not knocking Bill necessarily - at least he knew what to do with that money... as opposed to someone like Bush who stepped in and wasted all of it in his first term... and STILL had to borrow more to support his expanding government.

Rick Perry lacks the skills that people like Karl Rove have when it comes to being underhanded. I'm surprised that he lasted as long as he has. But then again, being a Republican guarantees the support of a LOT of politically ignorant people.

You lie. The FBI can still investigate the people and activity inside mosques but since 2011, any deception used in such investigations have to be approved - same rule applies to any deceptive investigations in a church or a temple or anywhere else.


:roll:


Aww... what the matter? Ya gonna cry now because the people you hate can't be targeted by big brother?


You can't even keep your BS straight... first you say we all KNOW who these people are and then you say no one knows, because it's all a secret. LOL.

BTW, The rules for making the decisions are clearly stated in the "Undercover and Sensitive Operations Unit - Attorney General's Guidelines on FBI Undercover Operations"

http://www.justice.gov/ag/readingroom/undercover.htm#operations

There's the link - get someone literate to read it to you.

The ACLU sued the FBI in an isolated case because the FBI under the Bush Administration was targeting mosques in violation of the 1st and 4th Amendments. No policies or laws suggesting that mosques should be treated differently than anyone else has been established or even considered. The ACLU would have done the same thing for a Christian community if the government was doing the same thing to them, but they weren't, they were only targeting the mosques.

If you are THAT frightened of terrorists then maybe you think we should change our values and start pledging "Liberty and Justice for Some." But I stand for Liberty and Justice for ALL and that takes courage... something you don't seem to have much of. It means having the courage to let Muslims have as much liberty and privacy as we do. Will that make it easier for the extremists among them to organize terrorist activities? Yes, of course it will. That's why it takes courage.