Muslims--Can they ever be trusted? (Vanity)

Self | 2/26/2006 | Self

[farmer18th]

From the very outset of the post 9/11 era our leaders have taken every effort to distinguish between the predominantly Muslim groups that have executed acts of terror and the faith itself, even to the point of extricating the word "crusade" from discourse and using the bully pulpit to pronounce "Islam" a "religion of peace."

For some time, a close friend of mine has been involved, almost full time, in studying the historical record of Islam, with particular concentration on Wahhabism. His conclusions are that wherever Islam exists, its adherents work, openly or clandestinely, for total control and that Islam can never "agree to disagree," that the Islamo-fascism we see so evidently around the world is the norm, not the exception. Wherever Muslims exist as a minority, they bide their time and wait for their numbers to grow. They are willing to use deception, and even the appearance of moderation, to achieve their ends. As we all have seen those "ends" are anathema to everything we hold dear as westerners: freedom of the press, freedom of conscience, the freedom to enjoy representative government. No majority Islamic state exists where religious freedom is granted the minority. Even with Iraq's new constitution, Islam is firmly established as the state religion, and a principle to which all others must be submitted, leaving the promised freedom of religion to Christians and others subject to eventual re-interpretation. Predominantly Islamic countries produce theocracies, monarchies, or strong man dictatorships. Are there exceptions?

I suppose the questions I have for Freepers, specifically, are these: Is my friend right? Can Muslims, anywhere, be trusted? President Bush has authored the "Islam is the religion of Peace" language. I don't think I've seen one Freeper post in remote agreement with that pronouncement. Are we in the business of making hopeful pronouncements and then trusting moderate Muslim majorities will emerge around the world in response? Is there any further utility in calling this a war on terror, or is there utility in calling it what many people believe it is--a war on Islam, the same war the west has been fighting for 1400 years.

[sit-rep]

no

[A knight without armor]

No, they cannot. I get mad at President Bush's "Islam is the religion of Peace" language. Frankly, of all the ups and downs of politics hearing him use that sentiment scorches my shorts the most.

[farmer18th]

7 to 1 against trusting Muslims.

[Citizen4Right]

Does "nuke the bas*&^s" indicate to you that they cannot be trusted? It should.

[farmer18th]

8 to 1. (I'm just confused at how most conservatives keep letting Bush get away with this weird distinction between moderates and radicals.)