Thread: Hearing on Radical Muslims

In the sciences, especially in engineering, they say it is a greater error to assume no danger, thus not investigate or put in place safe guards, and the danger turns out real, than to assume a danger, pay costs associated with safe guards, and no danger turns out to exist.

One can think of it as a bridge that may or may not collapse.

No outcry came from singling out the Catholic Church, Catholic clergy, and demanding investigations, panels, and safe guards be put in place to protect children.

Why the outcry over similar inquiring into the potential threat radical Islam may present within U.S. boarders?

Somehow... I doubt Democrats and liberals would be outraged and protest if the object of investigation were the threat posed to national liberty by Southern Christians.

So, is this hearing good or bad?




1. http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/03/10/rep-peter-kings-hearing-on-american-muslims-how-radical-how/?icid=maing|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk2|49409

2. Islamic radicalization hearings may motivate GOP base - Yahoo! News

King alluded to this "us versus them" battle in his opening remarks at Thursday's hearing:

I'm well aware that the announcement of these hearings has generated considerable controversy and opposition... Let me make it clear today that I remain convinced that these hearings must go forward, and they will. To back down would be a craven surrender to political correctness and an abdication of what I believe to be the main responsibility of this committee--to protect America from a terrorist attack.

King has argued that radical American Muslims are responsible for most of the terrorist attempts and attacks in the United States. since Sept. 11--and that U.S. Muslim leaders aren't doing enough to weed out radicalization within the Islamic community.

Strong words coming from a guy with significant ties to IRA (the Irish, not tax group).

Well, I'm not completely opposed to this inquiry, but one has to be reasonable with what it desires to achieve (and how one goes about this).
To continue to demonize an otherwise secular, law abiding crowd, leading to animosity and hatred, and may lead a few to become violent. Reminds me of that old "Gargoyles" cartoon where the main characters (which are gargoyles and pariahs) are being harassed by a crowd. One of the women calls them monsters and one of the mains goes "Monster? Well, I guess I better start acting like one!"

And one can't possibly expect a minority to take on an organized crime within itself. Hell, I wouldn't tell Italians "you aren't doing enough to fight the Mob". It's simply out of their control.

General science concepts usually aren't applicable in field situations. Applying multiple repetitions to a scenario to see if the same outcome will be achieved is not a smart thing if you wanna see if, let's say, putting a fork into an outlet and seeing if you get shocked each time. Social sciences aren't as... let's say simplified... as the natural sciences for a reason.

I think Islam has a serious PR problem. It's my impression the Islam is more decentralized as opposed to having larger denominations or groups of mosques analogous to the major Christian denominations -- so it might be more difficult for them to make some effort to put out a consistent message -- but if they're so peace loving, why the amazingly tepid response to Islamic terrorism?

If they have a positive story to tell, and if they truly want to condemn and disassociate themselves from the radical element, they need to make some effort to organize and get that message out. Maybe they've tried -- I don't know. I sure haven't seen it.

A few years ago, one of our priests invited the imam from a large, local mosque to come and speak to our congregation. He went on and on about what they do in the community and about how peace loving they are -- but he never went so far as to say what everyone came to hear. At the end, he took questions -- he was supposed to anyway -- but when pressed about terrorism, it was just more generic stuff about loving peace, etc. When it got uncomfortable, our priest announced that time was up. The whole thing was rather disturbing and we all left just shaking their heads.

It just seems to me that if the moderate majority is really opposed to terrorism, and if they want to do something about how they're perceived, then they're not doing themselves any favors. Where is the outrage? It really makes you wonder.

[QUOTE=guy_faukes;1416728]Strong words coming from a guy with significant ties to IRA (the Irish, not tax group).[quote]

What does connection to the IRA have to do with preservation of Americans? That seems an emotional appeal (persuasive argument) to some non-Darwinian morality, as opposed to objective, strategic, reasoning (logical argument).

Well, I'm not completely opposed to this inquiry, but one has to be reasonable with what it desires to achieve (and how one goes about this).

Agreed.

To continue to demonize an otherwise secular, law abiding crowd, leading to animosity and hatred, and may lead a few to become violent.

I think it is better - regarding social stigma - to be a Muslim in the West than a Catholic Priest today. Only 1% of Catholic Priests were actual, clinically defined, pedophiles. That means 99% weren't. Nonetheless, the 1% are spoken of as constituting the 99%. Now, according to PC, you couldn't "correctly" define Black-American women as mostly single mothers, even though 70% (> 50% constitutes a numerical majority) of Black-American women that give birth to children are single women.

Have Catholic Priests become violent? How odd one fear Muslims that have no inclination toward violence to become violent, when they are less stigmatized than Catholic Priests?

And one can't possibly expect a minority to take on an organized crime within itself. Hell, I wouldn't tell Italians "you aren't doing enough to fight the Mob". It's simply out of their control.

Since you mentioned Italians, they are routinely defined in the United States by pizza, spaghetti, and the mafia. However, the "mafia" is glorified in the U.S. and not negatively stigmatized. Kind of like the "Fighting Irish" of Notre Dame University as opposed to using American Indians as mascots (like animals).

Nonetheless, "Muslim" is not an ethnicity. Muslims are white Chechens and Albanians and Catholics are brown Colombians and Filipinos. That's my narrative. And we can use that narrative, especially given most Arabs in the U.S. are Catholic and not Muslim (the opposite being true of Somalians in the U.S.). But then that's not the narrative of "identity politics" those on the political left want to use.

The better analogy would be the Catholic Church and pedophilia. Do we expect lay Catholics and Catholic clergy to confront the problem of "pedophilia" (although the media lumps Priests with 17 year old boys into that) in the Catholic Church?

Catholic Church is similar to the Muslim ummah. Excepted the ummah is expected in Islam to take on more authority and heresy hunting than lay Catholics. So, the ummah can search out homosexuals and adulterous women or those that defame Mohammad and stone them to death, but they can't take to task Muslims blatantly spreading the message of lesser jihad (assuming that's a heresy and as equal a threat as Muslim homosexuality)?

Lay Catholics make up the Catholic Church or that is to say the Catholic "ummah," and they having less authority in the Catholic "ummah" than Muslims in the Islamic ummah, have nonetheless been the loudest, most aggressive, Catholics demanding pedophile Priests be rooted out the Catholic "ummah."

General science concepts usually aren't applicable in field situations. Applying multiple repetitions to a scenario to see if the same outcome will be achieved is not a smart thing if you wanna see if, let's say, putting a fork into an outlet and seeing if you get shocked each time. Social sciences aren't as... let's say simplified... as the natural sciences for a reason.

Actually, it was one of my Arab professors, and engineer by trade, and a person not only from the Middle East but has worked in many Middle Eastern nations, that suggested to not put in place safe guards at airlines would be a greater error than to put in place too many safe guards. The form results in deaths or can, the latter results in financial, time, and inefficiency costs.

I never asked my professor but I suspected he was reared Muslim. Interesting, because I would speak well of Islam (the few times it was mentioned) but he would counter with critical remarks - indirectly - about Islam. Though he never specifically mentioned "Islam" or "Muslims." He reminded me of people reared Catholic who hate on the Catholic Church (e.g., "I'm a recovering Catholic").

State governments, courts, and secular committees have expended enormous resources into making "inquiries" into the Catholic Church and it's handling of pedophile priests. Though there appears to be Imams right in the United States teaching messages of lesser jihad or conquering the U.S. one day with Islamic Law, no such equivalent level of inquiry has gone into the U.S. Muslim ummah? Pedophile Catholic Priests did not cause slow downs in airport travel or the creation of Home Land Security. Imagine if the did. It would be like living in Elizabethan England. Not a singular Catholic parish in the U.S. would go without armed raids by U.S. Law enforcements.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

So, the ummah can search out homosexuals and adulterous women or those that defame Mohammad and stone them to death, but they can't take to task Muslims blatantly spreading the message of lesser jihad (assuming that's a heresy and as equal a threat as Muslim homosexuality)?

Along with Joe's comments - I don’t know if it’s a lack of support from within the Muslim communities, or just a lack of media coverage I have seen some strong initiatives within Muslim communities to support counterterrorism (a good deal of information is passed to US intel by Muslims), and quite a few leaders can be quoted for denouncing terrorism. Media coverage tends to suck in general.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

What does connection to the IRA have to do with preservation of Americans? That seems an emotional appeal (persuasive argument) to some non-Darwinian morality, as opposed to objective, strategic, reasoning (logical argument).

The IRA is considered to be a terrorist organization by the US. It’s ironic that a proponent trying to root out home grown terrorism isn’t above being in bed with a few terrorists himself… several times… and convicted by a judge for doing so…

But I do wonder how Darwinian mortality relates to my statement, hehe.

Btw, what is your definition of Darwinian mortality, I’ve seen you use Darwinism in a lot of threads.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

I think it is better - regarding social stigma - to be a Muslim in the West than a Catholic Priest today.

Eh, I`d say it`s about a tie.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Only 1% of Catholic Priests were actual, clinically defined, pedophiles. That means 99% weren't. Nonetheless, the 1% are spoken of as constituting the 99%. Now, according to PC, you couldn't "correctly" define Black-American women as mostly single mothers, even though 70% (> 50% constitutes a numerical majority) of Black-American women that give birth to children are single women.

Over PCing something is bull. I like having open, honest discussions that are respectful, but I will explain why demonizing Muslims further might be more problematic for counter-terrorism down below.

I bet most Catholic priests, well, Catholics in general, are law abiding, tax payers, and priests should not be labeled under the same stamp.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Have Catholic Priests become violent? How odd one fear Muslims that have no inclination toward violence to become violent, when they are less stigmatized than Catholic Priests?

I doubt is there some organized, radicalized Catholic group that’s around that tries to recruit and arm pedophile priests however, violent radicalized movements within certain communities, including Islamic ones, are always looking for recruits; the more you demonize and sew misunderstanding about a group that’s already the social scapegoat, the more potential, willing, hopeless individuals will step forward to the postings. So, I guess I have more of a problem with King’s rhetoric.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Nonetheless, "Muslim" is not an ethnicity. Muslims are white Chechens and Albanians and Catholics are brown Colombians and Filipinos. That's my narrative. And we can use that narrative, especially given most Arabs in the U.S. are Catholic and not Muslim (the opposite being true of Somalians in the U.S.).

T’is true. Muslims are a religious group, Arabs are an ethnic minority. But still, I wouldn’t expect any group to be able to effectively combat organized deviance within itself by itself.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Actually, it was one of my Arab professors, and engineer by trade, and a person not only from the Middle East but has worked in many Middle Eastern nations, that suggested to not put in place safe guards at airlines would be a greater error than to put in place too many safe guards. The form results in deaths or can, the latter results in financial, time, and inefficiency costs.

Over-safeguarding and unnecessary safeguarding is also counterproductive and inefficient. A certain degree of risk has to be taken with any venture, unfortunately.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

State governments, courts, and secular committees have expended enormous resources into making "inquiries" into the Catholic Church and it's handling of pedophile priests. Though there appears to be Imams right in the United States teaching messages of lesser jihad or conquering the U.S. one day with Islamic Law, no such equivalent level of inquiry has gone into the U.S. Muslim ummah?

Not too sure bout that. I’m betting a lot of money has gone into investigating Muslim communities by US intelligence. Just from how you worded what I bolded, you seem to have a certain level of paranoia to Muslim communities.

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

The IRA is considered to be a terrorist organization by the US. It’s ironic that a proponent trying to root out home grown terrorism isn’t above being in bed with a few terrorists himself… several times… and convicted by a judge for doing so…

But I do wonder how Darwinian mortality relates to my statement, hehe.

Btw, what is your definition of Darwinian mortality, I’ve seen you use Darwinism in a lot of threads.

What I said was "non-Darwinian morality."

We have cultural and ideological wars going on in the West. The Muslim world tends to be more sober of mind and consistent and coherent in their own intellectual and moral traditions. That's irrespective if one likes or dislikes Islamic intellectual and moral tradition.

From a Darwinian stand point an American supporting the IRA is neither here nor there regarding his crusade to protect Americans from potential attacks by radical Muslims. That anyone that would profess a Darwinian faith would contradict themselves with appeal to non-existent "morality" evidences a philosophical and cultural schizophrenia.

The only proper position for the Darwinist in the U.S. is to eliminate one's enemy and win. Even if that means having sympathizers with the IRA in your war wagon.

The IRA is no threat to the United States. I believe they've also become a fraternal organization now, no longer using weapons of war to kill and win.

The IRA was also fighting for the patrimony of Irish land - Northern Ireland - controlled by the UK. Northern Ireland's Protestants largely came from Scottish and English backgrounds. Most Black-Americans don't view the old Black Panther Party or AIM as terrorist organizations but U.S. law enforcement might have regarded both as that.

The IRA was never running around the world trying to turn nations - like the U.S. - into a Catholic theocracy.

I have IRA sympathies. To a smaller extent I sympathize with some of the Palestinian woes and willingness to bear arms. But I'm not comfortable with some of what I hear about the Palestinians (some of whom are Catholic and Orthodox Christians) in relation to the Jews as a people. This lends me to have Israeli sympathies too.

Alright, so... you're basing a code of morality off Darwin evolutionary theory? Pray tell, what does that include?
What references I've seen have more to do with explaining the development and existence of ethics using Darwinian evolutionary theory rather than constructing a moral theory out of it. What attempts to use Science to construct moral theory are interesting, but that's more a philosophical field.

Strategically, you would not create an environment that allows your enemies to recruit even more members, especially when fighting an enemy that uses guerilla warfare and numbers mean more.

Either way, King's position is pretty ironic and mildly hypocritical. In your views, if extremism is justified in certain situations, I gotta say, that's an interesting moral code you have.

Bit of a side note, you should remember that certain members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda used to be American allies back in the day. The field changes and so do the players.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

The only proper position for the Darwinist in the U.S. is to eliminate one's enemy and win.

That's basically a Manichean Divide and I'm not sure what exactly a proper Darwinist should be.

Originally Posted by guy_faukes

Alright, so... you're basing a code of morality off Darwin evolutionary theory? Pray tell, what does that include?

No, I'm just saying there should be no moral appeal to peoples emotions.

What references I've seen have more to do with explaining the development and existence of ethics using Darwinian evolutionary theory rather than constructing a moral theory out of it. What attempts to use Science to construct moral theory are interesting, but that's more a philosophical field.

I agree with you it's more philosophical. But ideology is behind everything today. Darwinist don't believe in God nor religious people objecting to decapitation and abduction of children, for mere fact their prejudice inclines them to contradict religious morality at every turn. Yet, they are often politically leftist which comes with a whole bag of things we all are suppose to cry over, or object to in the strongest manner, such as white people conquering most the world's land mass and seemingly proving the fittest "race" among humans. So, Darwinist had to construct something to explain away why they would have morals. The evolution of empathy is their reason basically. But empathy is like God in my mind. If you can rid yourself of one with "scientific knowledge" then you should be able to rid yourself of the other. Why live by empathy or altruism or God when all of those things merely enslave you?

Strategically, you would not create an environment that allows your enemies to recruit even more members, especially when fighting an enemy that uses guerilla warfare and numbers mean more.

Why would inquiring into the extent radical Islam has infiltrated U.S. Islam create more radical Muslims? Surely, those Muslims are as interested in getting rid of as many radicals as they can?

Either way, King's position is pretty ironic and mildly hypocritical. In your views, if extremism is justified in certain situations, I gotta say, that's an interesting moral code you have.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Bit of a side note, you should remember that certain members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda used to be American allies back in the day. The field changes and so do the players.

Yeah, the U.S. is always supporting something for good or ill.

I'm not patriotic and I also have no problem with the former Mujahdeen that came from across the world (including the U.S.) to fight the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan.

I admire many "Islamic terrorists" in fact. They are committed and don't do what they do for money. Regular soldiers require pay. And they also believe deeply in Islam. What I mean by believing deeply in Islam is that they have their heart and soul into it. I'm not saying they follow Islam in the best of way per se.

Contrast them with your typical, contemporary Catholic as lukewarm and unbelieving as you can get. Bill Clinton took the Catholic Eucharist in a Catholic Mass in South Africa. Many non-Catholics have. This is supposed to be the literal body, blood, soul, divinity of the Christ (God) Catholics claim fidelity to and willingness to follow to the Cross. Muslims - not just the radicals - get up in arms over merely depicting Mohammad in a drawing. Can you imagine how they would respond if they believed about the Eucharist what Catholics claim to believe about it (being body and blood of God) and someone disrespected it?

So, I have admiration, in certain sense, for all those young Muslims that threaten bullets, swords, and fire of damnation upon any civilization that dare burn a single copy of the Koran. For as Jesus said, he would vomit the luke warm of his follower out of his mouth. At least the Muslims believe - even if a minority of them come in radical form.

(I have trouble believing the Catholic Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus, so, don't take my comments to mean I believe and practicing Catholics don't)

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

No, I'm just saying there should be no moral appeal to peoples emotions.

Can't agree with you more.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

I agree with you it's more philosophical. But ideology is behind everything today.

Whether we like it not, we are all mostly driven by our emotions, justified or not. But, every now and then comes a sterling voice of reason, which gives me hope.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Darwinist don't believe in God nor religious people objecting to decapitation and abduction of children, for mere fact their prejudice inclines them to contradict religious morality at every turn. Yet, they are often politically leftist which comes with a whole bag of things we all are suppose to cry over, or object to in the strongest manner, such as white people conquering most the world's land mass and seemingly proving the fittest "race" among humans.

I don't really like uproar on any issue from either side. Cry and b!@#$ing usually just distracts people from the issue rather than dealing with what's actually happening.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

So, Darwinist had to construct something to explain away why they would have morals. The evolution of empathy is their reason basically. But empathy is like God in my mind. If you can rid yourself of one with "scientific knowledge" then you should be able to rid yourself of the other. Why live by empathy or altruism or God when all of those things merely enslave you?

Yeah, I get where your coming from.

Well, my view has been that our basic animal, predatory instincts tend to conflict with the underpinnings of social structure. Thus, we need strong social instincts to help us bind together and ensure we cohere together as a group (rather than die individually); they act as lubricant between individuals, I suppose.

Let's say that someone could choose by your question, and they chose not to. They'd essentially be a sociopath. Essentially, a human predator in one form or another. The idea of being a high-functioning sociopath is tempting, but being unable to truly love or trust another human being... being unable to deeply care about another... it's a rough trade off. Bah, getting sentimental...

Anyways, I might recognize that these instincts are the byproduct of evolution, but it doesn't mean I can just turn them off by factual reasoning. There are benefits to these emotions that I can't just trade in.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

Why would inquiring into the extent radical Islam has infiltrated U.S. Islam create more radical Muslims? Surely, those Muslims are as interested in getting rid of as many radicals as they can?

I was objecting more about him, specifically his "us vs them" approach. It definitely doesn't help the PR of the inquiry, and doesn't help Muslim sentiments.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Guess that unfortunately goes both ways, hehe.

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

I'm not patriotic and I also have no problem with the former Mujahdeen that came from across the world (including the U.S.) to fight the Soviet invaders of Afghanistan.

I admire many "Islamic terrorists" in fact. They are committed and don't do what they do for money. Regular soldiers require pay. And they also believe deeply in Islam. What I mean by believing deeply in Islam is that they have their heart and soul into it. I'm not saying they follow Islam in the best of way per se.

I dunno. I have more respect for the IRA. Compared to modern terrorism, they had some... "class"... I guess. At least they were specific and tried to avoid civilian casualties.
Everytime I see some video by a suicide bomber, I just see another hopeless sod who's trying to attribute some fleeting meaning to his life. Think it was Stekel who said that the mark of an immature man is that he wishes to die for a cause while the mark of a mature man is that he wishes to live for one.

Look, what guy is saying is right. The only thing that will be acommplished by this is give yet another reason for moderate muslims to join the Taliban. Do you know what this ten year war has accomplished? If the taliban had 100,000 fighters before, by the time the army will retreat they will have 400,000.

You need to remember that there are people everywhere that are extream, only about 1% (not a small amount) of the muslims currently help/belong to the taliban. Do you have any idea what were to happen if that number increased (no you cannot kill all of the muslims), we need to be careful where we tread. There was a time when there were christans inqusitors assume these days like that for muslims now.

concerning the media coverage.... its non existant. There are protests here everyday condeming the Taliban but I am yet to see any western channel broadcast it. now an inquiry concerning catholic preists? not a problem, and you seriouly think that no one investigates the muslims in America. can you hear yourself saying this, "before this inquirey muslims were not being investigated properly" yeah right. Also I think that to take care of radical muslims two countries were invaded, much more than an inquirey.

Why people fear muslims becoming angry? well, because they are willing to die for a cause THEY believe to be right. Well, you see we (moderates) have no problem by letting you believe whatever you want, all we ask is that you dont disrespect our religon. Its just that we dont take it very lightly.

Originally Posted by JosephB

I think Islam has a serious PR problem. It's my impression the Islam is more decentralized as opposed to having larger denominations or groups of mosques analogous to the major Christian denominations -- so it might be more difficult for them to make some effort to put out a consistent message -- but if they're so peace loving, why the amazingly tepid response to Islamic terrorism?

If they have a positive story to tell, and if they truly want to condemn and disassociate themselves from the radical element, they need to make some effort to organize and get that message out. Maybe they've tried -- I don't know. I sure haven't seen it.

A few years ago, one of our priests invited the imam from a large, local mosque to come and speak to our congregation. He went on and on about what they do in the community and about how peace loving they are -- but he never went so far as to say what everyone came to hear. At the end, he took questions -- he was supposed to anyway -- but when pressed about terrorism, it was just more generic stuff about loving peace, etc. When it got uncomfortable, our priest announced that time was up. The whole thing was rather disturbing and we all left just shaking their heads.

It just seems to me that if the moderate majority is really opposed to terrorism, and if they want to do something about how they're perceived, then they're not doing themselves any favors. Where is the outrage? It really makes you wonder.

When I lived in Scotland, a scot once said to me 'Don't be offended, I like you personally, but I don't like the english. We hate the english, it's how we're brought up.'


I know a muslim guy very well and it's the same with him and the west. When questioned about terrorism he's more inclined to spout anti western stuff than anti terrorism, it was how he was brought up - there's just prejudice in his bones. I've a hindu friend who's the same, very anti-west. They will say that they are anti 9/11 etc., but it seems just like word-service when they do it (is that a brit expression?) because they'll say a lot more about why it's the USA's fault than criticise the deed.

word-service

Lip service
99.9% of the trouble in this world is all the fault of us Brits. We have been the not so hidden hand behind lots of bad stuff since we figured out how to make a boat and get off this island. Fortunately you over there have been kind enough to offer your own selves as targets to take the heat off us.
We support all those nasty little dictators, who like to hang out with our royal family, and send their kids to Oxford or Cambridge for an education. All you did was supply satellite TV. so they could watch all those idealized versions of The American way of life, and compare it with the crappy lives they have.
Watch two hours of MTV and you can see why any religious group full of extremists might associate the USA with devil worship.
Also it comes in useful having an opponent when you are bucking for power. Hitler showed us the way. ( Only The English did it first , but that was before film so it doesn't count).

The British were no worse than the Spanish, French, or Dutch. The Germans and Belgians were worse in Africa. Especially the Belgians. How some of them monsters could profess Catholicism I'll never know, and apparently disregard the day they'll have to meet the face of the Virgin Mary and Jesus.

I'm not sure what's going on in the Ivory Coast, and I don't know the history there or what the current President - strongman or not - is facing, but I've considered writing some Cardinals or Rome and urging his excommunication or at least threaten him with excommunication.

The Muslims in the East were no angelic creatures either. Not just the Ottomans in Europe but you had Muslim forces already marching into the kingdoms of India during the 1600's or so when Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering one another in Europe.

Originally Posted by Custard

Look, what guy is saying is right. The only thing that will be acommplished by this is give yet another reason for moderate muslims to join the Taliban. Do you know what this ten year war has accomplished? If the taliban had 100,000 fighters before, by the time the army will retreat they will have 400,000.

You need to remember that there are people everywhere that are extream, only about 1% (not a small amount) of the muslims currently help/belong to the taliban. Do you have any idea what were to happen if that number increased (no you cannot kill all of the muslims), we need to be careful where we tread. There was a time when there were christans inqusitors assume these days like that for muslims now.

concerning the media coverage.... its non existant. There are protests here everyday condeming the Taliban but I am yet to see any western channel broadcast it. now an inquiry concerning catholic preists? not a problem, and you seriouly think that no one investigates the muslims in America. can you hear yourself saying this, "before this inquirey muslims were not being investigated properly" yeah right. Also I think that to take care of radical muslims two countries were invaded, much more than an inquirey.

Why people fear muslims becoming angry? well, because they are willing to die for a cause THEY believe to be right. Well, you see we (moderates) have no problem by letting you believe whatever you want, all we ask is that you dont disrespect our religon. Its just that we dont take it very lightly.

The reasons for living are good enough reasons for dying for most people. It is not only Muslims alone who are ready to die for what they believe . The rest of the world are not wimps who will cower and hide under the bed the very first time someone questions the foundation of their belief. One of the reason we are plagued with perpetual wars is because we are too easily persuaded by perceived insults to be silly to die or kill some one for them. Because we are not omniscient there is always the finite possibility we may be wrong.

The British were no worse than the Spanish, French, or Dutch. The Germans and Belgians were worse in Africa

Who partitioned India and invented Pakistan ? ( Two antagonistic country's with nuclear weapon's )

Who divided Palestine and created Israel ?

Who defended their own country during the second world war by using Polish nationals in their armed forces , and then gave Poland to some one called Stalin ?

Maybe we are not quite in the top ten of the ' nasty league, ' but we can be seen behind the major political fault lines through out history. What is very strange is we seen to have a pride in our days as an Empire, and a lot of idiots who think it's possible to go back to them.