I'm reading a fun little book at the moment: "I'm Fine With God...It's Christians I Can't Stand". Written from a Christian perspective about over-the-top "Christians" who wreck the religion and give mainstream Christians/-ianity a bad rap and image. You know, the ones who shove what they believe to be God's will down everyone's throat, piss off non-believers and do nothing but bolster the atheist ranks. The Westboro people come up as a good example.

Revox, you kind of touched on what I was aiming to get at.. Just because someone says they're something, does it make them so? and then, can we blame others who also call themselves the same thing?

That Phelps whackjob is a great illustration. He calls is place Westboro Baptist Church if I'm not mistaken. But nothing he preaches can be supported by the Bible in it's entirety. Keep in mind, I can take a few lines out of any book and make it support any agenda I wish just like Phelps did. So that also makes me wonder if an extremist Islamist's point of view can be supported by their holy book in it's entirety? I've read many books, but not more than a few chapters of the Koran so I cannot answer. So that's why I hesitate to lump any group all togther as one.

Phelps is not something I like to see associated with Christianity. What I wonder is, do other Muslims speak out against the extremist factions as some Christians do against Phelps?

Bryce
And exactly who or what is an Islamic extremist? How is this defined? I could add to that,, Who is going to define it?

Vash
Sounds like a book I need to read.

_________________
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left.
While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,
they both march in the same direction."

I believe I've answered the question of what an Islamic extremist is in my posting a few frames up the line. If I understand correctly, you are now asking how we can identify persons that may be part of an Islamic extremist group and/or differentiate between them and mainstream Muslims.

Lets take Nadal Hassan (Fort Hood) as an example. The signs to identify him as an Islamic radical were there in plain sight. For some reason these signs were ignored. Was it political correctness, a fear to offend or just plain failure to understand the danger a person of this ideology presents?

Mr. Hassan attended the mosque presided over by Imam Anwar al-Awlaki. (If you don't know of him, google it) If this wasn't bad enough, this was also the same mosque that two of the 9/11 hijackers attended.

Mr. Hassan warned a group of soldiers that to "avoid adverse events" the army should allow soldiers of the Muslim faith to become conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims.

Instead of giving a presentation on a medical topic at a Walter Reed symposium, he delivered a diatribe about Islam, suicide bombers, pouring hot oil down the throats of non-believers and threats to the army because of Muslim soldiers serving in Iraq. His presentation even made other people of the Muslim faith in the audience uncomfortable.

Senior army officials also knew Mr. Hassan was trying to communicate with Al Qaeda months prior to the massacre.

Now, am I wrong to think that a person with a modicum of intelligence might just suspect Mr. Hassan of being an Islamic extremest? Am I wrong to ask that a person exhibiting this type of behavior be investigated and possibly put on a watch list? He wasn't.

Personally, I believe that because of political correctness and a failure to accept and acknowledge the fact that this perverted view of Islam is indeed what we are at war with, 13 people that should still be alive, aren't.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

Bryce,

I guess I do not trust those who would be the ones to decide who's an extremist and who isn't. Afterall, they're the same ones who have missed it so far.. for whatever reasons.

Revox,

Uh,, yeah.. that's what scares me. Thanks for adding that they were 'perverting' Christianity.

But by the same token, I would not trust whoever it is that would decide who's a Christian and who isn't..
Obviously, I don't trust anyone any more.

_________________
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left.
While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,
they both march in the same direction."

OK, do all the homework you want and I will wager that you wont find an incident where perverted Christianity was responsible for a planned attack that killed 2,973 people within the border of the United States.



Which is the point I have been trying to drive home, albeit unsuccessfully. Because of the policies and attitudes of the current administration NO ONE is even trying to decide. Why would they when Islamic extremists aren't acknowledged as a threat?

Look, the TSA, known in some circles as "Thousands Standing Around", stopped how many 80 year old grandmothers and confiscated their tubes of Dentu-Cream and Geritol prior to boarding a flight, while Faisal Shahzad was able to waltz right onto a plane with nary a glance. Don't you see something wrong with that scenario?

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

The foibles of the previous administration is something for historians to debate. I am interested in the here and now.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

Your premise is bullshit.

When exactly does Obama take ownership? 2020?

Operating under your rules, we should be able to blame current terrorism on the Clinton administration for dismantling the CIA too. Wait, the Eisenhower Administration didn't have the proper policies in place to subvert Islamic Jihadists either. Damn, that's some "piss poor" leadership right there.

Each new administration assumes the control of the mechanisms put in place by the previous one. The current policies and attitudes of those mechanisms are set forth by the people in charge TODAY not two years ago.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

....or for US Immigration to take it upon themselves to set up "interior checkpoints" and give themselves permission to detain ANYONE at will and interrogate/detain/search without a warrant. US Supreme Court already said this was fine.

"1. The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. Pp. 556-564."

http://www.roadblock.org/federal/caseUSmartinez.htm

Remember: anywhere within 100 miles of the border, which pretty much puts almost half of Michigan itself in that space.

_________________
Security - Freedom = NEITHER!!!!

Wanna play hardball???? I can throw VERY nasty curves, enough to make you curse Oct. 19, 1974 (the day I was born!) :)

First of all, NEITHER President is running the show. Bush was a figurehead for the party to get things done. So is Obama. It's the party putting the party FIRST before the people or anything else to cling onto money and power.

The thing to do is to simply stop voting for Democrats and Republicans. They are NOT the solution. They're the problem. It's no accident that now 31 percent of people polled say that we need a legit third party on the ballot. And they better have one on the '12 ballot here in Indiana, or else I'll just pencil it in and vote for my dog!

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/05/1 ... /?mod=e2tw

_________________
Security - Freedom = NEITHER!!!!

Wanna play hardball???? I can throw VERY nasty curves, enough to make you curse Oct. 19, 1974 (the day I was born!) :)

If your dog can understand the simple concept of whom we are at war with, I might just vote for him too!

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

Better yet, why not try to figure out EXACTLY WHY there are a lot of people in this world that wanna see the United States blown off the face of the earth. But how DARE I bring up such an idiotic, assanine thing like THAT!!! We're the Americans. We're Number ONE!!!! We're the best Christian nation on the planet and everything we do and touch is good. And ANYONE that opposes us is sub-human that MUST be eradicated from this world.

_________________
Security - Freedom = NEITHER!!!!

Wanna play hardball???? I can throw VERY nasty curves, enough to make you curse Oct. 19, 1974 (the day I was born!) :)

But Barney, we already know why (at least some of us that have studied Islam), but no one seems to want to admit it. They, the Islamic extremists, are on a mission to bring all people and all nations, under the precept of Islamic rule. Unless you are willing to live under Islamic Law, you are an infidel and must either change (and soon) or die. It's that simple.

Personally, I have no desire to live under the conditions of Islamic rule. I like to have a beer now and again. I like looking at women in bikini's at the beach (or wherever they choose to wear one). I'm sure also, that my wife would prefer not to don a burka prior to leaving our home. She most likely would choose not to get stoned for sexual indiscretion after a man had raped her either.

The sooner we as a nation come to understand who our enemy is, what motivates them, as well as precisely their ultimate goal, the sooner we can decide on a proper course of action.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

I'm a registered Independant.. I've voted Rep, Dem, Libitarian and independant.. Party means nothing to me.

It ain't Bush, or Obama or even Clinton.. or it's all of them. Our whole system is jacked and needs an overhaul. I trust none of them nor anyone who wants to be one of them.

I think jail sentences should be mandatory for all representitives after their ONE term is done. They get time off for voting how their constituents wish them to. If they vote 100% with the constituents, they get no jail time..

Sorry, I was dreaming.

_________________
"Socialism needs two legs on which to stand; a right and a left.
While appearing to be in complete opposition to one another,
they both march in the same direction."

Because I advocate taking the necessary steps to secure the safety of the citizenry within our border, I'm a warmonger? I think you need to revisit the definition of warmonger.

Not once in this entire thread have I promoted the idea of action of any type on foreign soil. My focus is solely on prevention, here in the homeland.

Being as you brought it up, although I initially supported the invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMD's, once it became apparent there were none, I regretted the decision.

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~

"We" are not deciding the acceptability of a religious group. The identification of the radical fringe within that group is what must be defined. We also must call on the members of that religious group to help in the indentification thereof.

Ah, now we come full circle as mentioned in the post that started this thread. Mea culpa, it's our fault, we promise to be better, mea culpa. You may just have a job waiting for you in the Obama administration. I'm surprised he hasn't picked you for director of Homeland Security.

Although I have read a book by Mr. Boortz, I've not had the opportunity to listen to either of their radio shows. Looks like I may have to make a concerted effort to do so.


Hmmm, I seem to detect a recurring theme. It's our fault. We must change.

Wow, I just had a epiphany. Hope and Change. Now I understand his campaign slogan was really his national security policy. Promise them we will CHANGE and HOPE they don't blow the hell out of us!

_________________
~POSTURING LIBERALS ARE ONE THEORY SHORT OF A THOUGHT~