Replies

You seriously underestimate who you're dealing with in me, obsequious twit. My opinions are very much my own, as are most (not all) of the narrative passages ones I have written.

I could go back through my recent posts and separate out what writings are mine (primarily the analysis, evaluation, and synthesis portions) and what are not (usually selected passages of narratives of historical fact, i.e. "in 622 A.D. muhammad did thus and such" or citations or summaries of passages from the Qur'an, or other script regarded as holy script by a majority of mainstream muslims.)

In such citings, there is no gain in playing a game of rewriting, only a need to play editor, and cut/paste relevant portions rather than entire paragraphs for brevity's sake. Where whole litanies of Qur'anic verse were enumerated as the result of a specific search, I cut/pasted most, or all, obviously. I never asserted authorship of such parts

I could have located and presented whole and uncut, a summary of Islam's "five pillars", as well as scholarly summaries of Islam's verifiably articulated views on a number of salient subjects.

But the objective is not to present an exhaustive opus complete with footnotes and other annotation on each posted reply (I get paid for that sort of writing), rather it is to respond reasonably on point in a timely fashion without all that aggravating baiting, button-pushing, name calling, argument ad hominem, and 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' which goes on in so many other replies that one may see.

What most folk find tiresome is the repetition of the same one or two-note narrow belief, with nary an introduction of fresh evidence to bolster that viewpoint's raison d'etre... a little something to stimulate the thought processes, something which does not so consistently pander to the lowest common denominator.

People will happily read two pages of well-written, reasonably supported material which takes a creative approach to challenging their thought processes and introduces historical evidence (if topically applicable) they may not have been aware of before - in preference to two paragraphs of tepid same-old same-old "It's only the extremists not the mainstreamers, cause that's what some of them say, some of the time...in the public eye...", or "The Constitution is in danger! The Constitution is in danger."

It makes them feel a writer has undertaken to educate them with warm regard for their ability to think, rather than the cold condescension of telling them they are wrong-headed if they think a certain way.

The longer you (and others) stubbornly resist acknowledging that mainstream Islam's bloody, and brutal history is anything less than fully relevant and provides no useful object lessons for us today, the greater the risk that people will see weakness in your arguments and wonder how you can be an apologist for, or supporter of muhammadanism.

Thirteen hundred eighty-odd years of history chronicling that religion's uniquely intolerant behavior and recurrent efforts to achieve it's oft-stated goal of forcibly dominating the world and the daily lives of all in it by elimination of every other competing religion or belief system, is a pretty compelling and instructive insight into the longstanding mindset and character of the religion and its adherents.

Mainstream Islam has never issued a single meaningful apology to any country or culture which suffered under its yoke, or as a result of its efforts to infiltrate overthrow, take by force, or exterminate their way of life.

They have struck treaties they immediately ignored or later violated egregiously; they have audaciously demanded such apologies from Christians for Crusades undertaken to forcibly eject them from lands they raped, pillaged, plundered and outright stole "fair and square"...casting themselves as victims. It is a violation of their rights, always, because after all, they are alla-uzza's people, everything belongs to him, and he intends that it be theirs, so it belonged to them in the first place, right?

If you are right, then maybe a few of the 6.5 million plus muslims in the US will be offended by our monitoring them, questioning them, investigating them...and once things have settled out, they can seek redress under our laws and our Constitution, because it will still exist. I am more than willing to admit the possibility that it may happen, since despite our highest aspirations there is no perfect world. But I can live with it. Millions of Americans can.

There are high chances in this country of them finding a sympathetic jury and gaining significant financial awards in court, and there is ample evidence in our recent past to suggest that kind of outcome.

If you are wrong and we lose our country by foolish virtue of having done nothing to mitigate the risks, then Islam will rule through Sharia law, the US Constitution will be null and void, and demands for redress will be met with mocking laughter by people the likes of which would make Saddam Hussein soil himself.

Islam will not tolerate our system of laws if it gains preeminence in America. Many prominent muslim leaders have said so out loud, and often, and surely they laugh amongst themselves when we choose to believe "moderates" will hold the day (How damn gullible do the muzzies believe we are?), and allow continued peaceful existence and continued standing of our system of laws.

A "moderate" muslim is an apostate muslim is a dead muslim if they are among other obedient and observant muslims. They have shown they are quite willing to kill their own.

A.A.C.