A threat to vaporize 100 Muslim cities

The same fate awaits our descendents unless we act.

Hence a major reason we are in Iraq. I know a lot of people here don't want to hear this, but this war is about the "hearts and minds" of 1+billion people. If the Iraqis at the end of the day have a free society this may (wiil?) put a lot of pressure on the mullahs in Tehran and (hopefully) cause their downfall. Same goes for the rest of the middle east/north africa.

All this talk of bombing Mecca..etc while it may make people feel good is fantasy stuff, and not helpful in the war.

All this talk of bombing Mecca..etc while it may make people feel good is fantasy stuff, and not helpful in the war.

No, the idea thatIslam can be reformed or tamed IS the fantasy -- a fantasy that Christian, Zoroastrian and Hindu Empires, Kingdoms and governments have erroneously believed in for centuries. It can't be. And if you believe that, you believe a fallacy. Throughout Izlam's history, it's "reformations" have always been regressions to a 7th century ideal. And why? Because in the 7th century Izlam was on the march, conquering lands, with Mecca and MEdina as capitals/holy cities. As long as they believe that, as long as they believe that Izlam is invincible, they cannot be stopped or placated or trusted. It's JUST like Germany after WWI -- Germany was defeated economically but they still had troops in France, Belgium, Luxembourg etc. No fighting occurred on German lands, no German towns were devastated and the soldiers thought they could still win. But the Generals knew otherwise and sued for peace. Net result, the Germans thought they were actually going to win but had been cheated out of it by politicians (as Hitler states in the Mein Kampf). Many on the victorius side wanted to continue INTO Germany and show them the devastation their war machines had wrought on other countries. If that had happened, the myth of German invincibility that was created by Bismarck and the Prussian neo-Spartan state (as one person said: "Prussia is more like an army with a state rather than a state with an army") would have been destroyed. Naziism would never then have gained ground -- look at Germans now, very pacifist, because they KNOW the hell that can be brought on themselves if they hurt other people.

Muslimes don't know that -- they are brainwashed into believing that they will always conquer and convert. We must shatter that and the only way to do that is to destroy, to nuke Mecca and Medina. Once that is done, the war philosophy of Izlam is dead, gone forever.

This is a logical argument, NOT an emotional one.

valin is clearly a CAIR type islamic sympathizer. If FR had an ignore user feature, he'd be one of the few I'd use it on.

I am not now or have I really ever been a fan of CAIR. I find them to be reprehensible and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Wahhabist sect of Islam, and a shill for terrorists.

Point out ONE place where I have said ONE thing that says I support CAIR.
If I'm a "CAIR type islamic sympathizer" then so is the President.

Islam Compatible With Democracy, Not Monolithic,
Muslim Panelists Say
http://www.ccd21.org/news/islam_compatible.htm

(At National Press Club discussion, they cite post-September 11 problems)
By Ralph Dannheisser

Washington File Special Correspondent

Washington -- Muslims are united in their faith, but their individual views are by no means monolithic as they struggle to define their identity in the 21st century, concluded a panel of U.S. and foreign Muslims in a discussion at the National Press Club September 5.

Also they agreed that the fallout of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon has compounded the problems faced by their coreligionists.

Jointly sponsored by the press club's forums committee and KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, the panel discussed "The Debate Within Islam After 9/11," and broadly took the view that democracy, rather than being an alien Western concept, is fully compatible with Islamic law.

That point was underlined by Azizah al-Hibri, a law professor at the University of Richmond and an author, who moderated the discussion. Al-Hibri said that, indeed, the Qur'an sets forth many democratic principles.

"Let's not be so quick to say democracy is American and we want no part of it. That would be selling Islam itself short," she said.

Husain Haqqani, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, cited polls suggesting that the September 11 attacks and subsequent events have had a devastating impact on relations between publics in the United States and in the Muslim world. A recent poll taken by the respected Pew Research Center showed that no country with a Muslim majority had more than 10 percent espousing a favorable view of the United States, while polls taken in the United States show a strongly negative view of Muslims, he said.

Haqqani, a journalist who served as Pakistan's ambassador to Sri Lanka, rejected what he saw as a widely held view in the United States of Muslims as a monolithic group.

To be sure, he said, there is a "common thread" among Muslims, for whom their religious identity is very strong. But, noting that there are more than a billion Muslims worldwide, with 59 Muslim-majority countries spread over a vast region, he declared, "You simply cannot find a set of one billion people who are absolutely identical, conforming to one set of views. There are various denominations and sects and interpretations among the Muslims" just as there are in other religious groups.

At one extreme, he said, there are Muslims who would drop their heritage and embrace modernity, and at the other is a group that believes its problems "have begun since the West came into our midst. ... We are not going to embrace modernity, instead we are going to Islamize the modern world."

But among the latter group "are people who want to do it without violence, without using any extreme means. ... They may be a minority within those movements, but those elements are there," Haqqani said.

Haqqani urged the United States and other Western powers to revise their definition of what constitutes extremists and moderates in the Muslim world. Rather than considering moderates as only those who "toe the line," he said, "the definition of a moderate Muslim should be Muslims who want to engage as equals with the modern world, with the western world and who understand that the means of violence are not right, that the means of force and coercion are not right. They are the ones who need to be embraced and strengthened."

Al-Hibri alluded to the same mutual distrust between Americans and overseas Muslims.

There is "a perception gap" between the two sides, she said. "It is only through dialogue that we can effectively bridge that gap and correct perceptions on both sides."

Louay Safi, a founding member and director of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy in Washington and president of the Association of Muslim Social Scientists, cited a long-running debate within his religion between "traditionalists" and "reformists" over "how to adapt Islam to modern society and how to adapt modern society to Islam."

Related to this, a growing number of Muslims who moved to the West have been seeking "how to reconcile the Muslim identity to the American identity, to the European identity," he said.

Safi said that Muslims moving to the United States, including many who came as students, "saw they can live their Islamic values in this country, and they can participate fully in the American society." The sort of democracy they experienced, "where you can have a voice in public policy, [and] where you can hold public officials accountable," often differed from the "fake democracy" back home, where ruling elites retained power through rigged elections, he said.

But the U.S. emphasis on security since 9/11 has made the role of American Muslims in the debate over Islam's direction more difficult. Safi said the focus on a military solution to confront terrorism without addressing its root causes was a mistake, since it limited the ability of American Muslims to "create dialog between the Muslim world and the west."

"The Muslim American has become the target in many ways," Safi said. "By becoming suspect, our ability to play the [bridge-building] role has been reduced" which he said is unfortunate because "they are the best ambassador[s] of this country to the Muslim world."

Safi said the growth of terrorism is "really a direct result of authoritarian regimes that stifle debate in their countries, that have been using iron fist policies to silence opposition." Such policies had the effect of "silencing moderate voices, and the only voices that we can ear today on this side of the ocean are the voices of those who can make noise through violent actions," Safi said.

But, he argued, the larger Muslim community is definitely more interested in having a good relationship with the developed world as a means to better their conditions. "I think we have to take this opportunity to shift our support from supporting dictators and authoritarian regimes to supporting democratic movements including those who see Islam as the foundation for reform," he said.

Safi said it would be hard to imagine a shift toward democracy in the Muslim world without Islam playing the leading role. "Turkey can probably give us some clues as how a positive Islamic reform can bring about true democracy without resorting to violence," he said.

Al-Hibri agreed with Safi on the negative fallout of 9/11. A frequent speaker abroad on democracy issues, she said "there is a really negative effect from all the security versus liberty issues that have arisen. One of them is that I don't feel as free as I was before 9/11 to go and argue and make the kind of impact I could have made."

The final panelist, Imam Mahdi Bray, an American civil rights activist and executive director of the Muslim American Society Freedom Foundation, stressed the need to repel "stereotypes, bigotry and 9/11 backlash."

The problem, Bray said, is "how ... [we can] respond to our desire to defend our nation against enemies, both domestic and foreign, while being portrayed as the enemy, both domestic and foreign. This is quite a quandary for many Muslims."

Typical. The panelists were far more concerned about how 9/11 impacted the islamic community than how it impacted American victims, relatives, the ecomony, etc. And all that moaning about the racism against muslims after 9/11. The truth is, the backlash was minimal. If a group of Americans hijacked planes and crashed them into buildings in, say, Saudi Arabia, and there were pockets of American communities living there, what do you think would have happened to those Americans?

You make a convincing case, no holds barred.

You betcha. But, "God is not mocked.." they don't fool me either.

The panelists were far more concerned about how 9/11 impacted the islamic community than how it impacted American victims,

How did you get that out of this article?

Words.... there is no true democracy in anyMuslim land -- not even Turkey or Indonesia. Yet there are democracies in Christian, Hindu, Buddhist lands