Actually my impression of the situation in Iran is the exact opposite... He looks like a reasonable leader who is being pushed by the anti western sentiment of the Iranian people? And they way he released the British prisoners shows his wisdom in finding a way to do the right thing despite his peoples wishes.

I'm pretty sure you have that backwards as Adeenajad,(spelling?) bielieves that the Caliphate is about to appear and he must prepare the way.The moderates in Iran are not happy with his views.

There are moderates in Iran?? and still alive??? I'm shocked!

Wrong, wrong, and more wrong.

He is doing nothing of the sort, he temporarily took control of struggling companies, nothing more.

Sure hes a little power hungry, but in the end his power is basically empty. Half the Russian army still answer to localized commanders and if the Federation fell apart again as it did in 1989, Putin would be powerless to stop it. Seccession is a legal act in the new Russian Federation.

Its just the latest on play of Russians vs. Americans. Trust me, it happens every time Democrats take power and the Liberal media has room to shake its bloated ass once more.



Techinically we have even more, but we would never think of using any of them ourselves, we sell them to the terrorist in the hopes that one day the favor will be returned. In my opinion its a much tighter ship then it used to be, now with the whole black market in weaponery and scientific knowhow I think the Russian economy will be nice and prosperous once again.



North Korea is barely a threat, they have nuclear technology, but not rocketry, so in reality they would only be able to use a suitcase WMD's and they dont have the minituralization for that. So in the end North Korea is just a thorn in the worlds side, not a mortal wound.

North korea dousn't have rocketry?? Ahem, do you watch the news at all?

Well one thing we can all be thankful for is that North Korea is not an Islamic state.... phew!!!!

showing slight muscle to Asian countries is about it. Their current rockets could hit Japan but it will be awhile to hit the States. But I doubt they would ever use NUKES. Its just a deterrant.

Not really a deterrant since they already got China. But saying to the western world, i will give up nuclear bombs up in exchange for $10 billion dollars of aid works though, they have done it before


The way people go on and on about our troops are preventing the 'arabs' blowing us up in America ect, is quite funny i think...
Here are statistics... in the United States the number for 2004 was 10,654 gun related deaths.. so really your more likely to get shot by crazed cripset/bloodset members for wearing blue or red then you are for the taliban to come for you if you live in America.

When everyone associates terrorisum with Islam it angers me, as America has been involved in state sponsored terrorisum, just think about Cuba
Now some quotes

One has to ask whether there was transparency in the invasion of Iraq. The world knows President Bush lied openly about Iraq having chemical weapons, They keep on bombing cities, killing children, they have become a terrorist state.--Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, 2005.[74] ”
“ Actually, who is the terrorist, who is against human rights? The answer is the United States because they attacked Iraq. Moreover, it is the terrorist king, waging war. --Indonesian Vice President Hamzah Haz, 2003[75] ”
“ Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it. --Noam Chomsky ”

Well I have little to add to this. But American readers welll?

Well you can compare one country to another country or one religion to another religion, but you cannot compare one country to one religion!

As for terrorism being associated with Islam... well it is because no other belief has the motivation to hate and destroy those that do not believe as they do on such a large scale as Islam does. You would have to go back in time to the days of the Spanish inquisition to find people with such a high degree of intollerance of other beliefs and ways of life.

Christianity did, for quite a while.

I have said this countless times, it matters what the cultural and industrial tendencies of a certain region is. If it is underveloped and unstable then yes religion will take a more ugly view.

Saying Islam spawns violance for the sake of violance is completely ingnorant.

Just think about it, if it wasnt for Islam we wouldnt have half the math we do now, if it wasnt for Islam there would be no crop irrigation networks, without Islam economics would be a few hundered years behind.



Yes, their last missle fell into the Ocean because of engine malfunction. What is there to say?

Is it?

Well we could always do a test... send a Christian to go and preach Christianity on the steps of Mecca and send a Muslim to go and preach Islam on the steps of the Vatican, Who do you think will come back alive?



Sounds like your happy to trust faulty engineering to save the world from nukes every time Korea fires a missile??

It only takes 1 functional missile to change the world.

Wrong. I can't believe so many people have overlooked this, but hopefully it will put to rest the true source of Islamic extremism. It's not Islam persay, but the socio-political situation endemic in many Middle Eastern countries. Lets look at the 5 countries with the most Muslims:

Indonesia: A secular, multiparty democracy that does not recognize any religion as the state religion, despite being overwhelmingly Muslim. It is worthy to note that it was a dictatorship under Suharto, however NOT one based on religion/Sharia law. Is actually comparatively socially liberal, considering the aforementioned and that Playboy has a franchise in the nation

India: I'm assuming that since they consist of 20% of the population there, the vast majority would be participating in the multiparty democracy there, rather than say - partake in random acts of violence or defect to Pakistan or Bangladesh?

Bangladesh: Another electoral democracy, over 90% of whom are Muslims

Pakistan: I probably would not classify it as a democracy as Musharraf seems unwilling to relinquish power over the military. However, freedom of speech and other civil liberties have not been curtailed to the extent that they have been in Russia (see below).

Turkey: Turkey is 99.8% Muslim. If you've been following the news, there have been massive protests in SUPPORT of Turkey's current secular democratic system over the announcement that Erdogan is considering a run for president. Considering that his party models itself on the conservative "Christian Democratic" parties of Europe, Turkey seems to have a greater separation of church and state than perhaps even than many predominantly Christian democracies. Traditional headscarves are banned if you plan to work for the government; a move that even I find to be excessive. But perhaps most surprising of all: Abortion is legal in Turkey up until the 10th week under all circumstances, after which it is legal when considering the health of a mother.

This doesn't really paint a picture of Islam being some sort of "extremist" religion, considering that 4/5 of these countries are established democracies with friendly ties to the US, and NONE OF THEM follow Sharia Law. I also failed to note that while abortion is normally illegal in Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Pakistan, it is legal in case of the mother's health (a policy position probably supported by a large number of social conservatives in this country). In comparison, Christianity also gets a 4/5 unless you consider being shot in an elevator with a 9mm for dissing Vladimir Putin to be "democratic".

Now, back to the Middle East. While most Muslims in the world actually do live in relatively liberal democracies, the ONLY democracy in the Middle East is Israel, which is obviously predominantly Jewish. All the predominantly Muslim countries have a tendency to be dictatorships that quash internal dissent and pursue or have pursued policies that leave the majority (or large minority) of their citizens dirt poor and bitter towards the government. Not only is this a natural powderkeg for extremism, but you also have to ask yourself, in this case, what would be the best means of organizing an opposition to the government?

Put it under religion, of course, just as in the Crusades! And therein lies the problem: not Islam, but a complete failure of Middle Eastern governments to provide for their people and create an atmosphere that eliminates the incentives for extremism. That's not to say that Islam is a religion of peace, but it's not a religions of war more than any other religion (imo it's all about how the reader interprets the scriptures!). I'm sure that if the Middle East were mostly Christian but as equally as screwed up as it is today, we'd be hearing about Christian suicide bombers, or any other religion for that matter. If you don't believe me just read Deuteronomy.

There are many factors that contribute to extremism, however there are no set of circumstances exclusive to Islam which do not also effect other religions. Islam in particular seems to be far more profficient at spawning extremism, and what underlines this behaviour is an intense intollerance of other ways of living and beliefs.

More on debunking the myth that Islam is inherently more violent and regressive than other religions.

You might be asking... well why does Hamas/Al Qaeda, etc target civilians with suicide bombings, under the justification of religion! That alone shows that there's something wrong with Islam!

Wrong again. You could say that the Japanese performed suicide bombings against American military personnel during WWII for religious reasons (the Kamikaze; dying for the immortal Emperor). The Tamil Tigers today in Sri Lanka perform suicide bombings against civilians for political reasons. So is it too much of a stretch to believe that someone wouldn't have put one and one together to further their own agenda? Given the violent passages in the Old Testament (SEE: Deuteronomy 18-20), do you think that if most of the Middle East were Christian or Jewish or any other religion but the governments were still as corrupt and the people still as repressed, you wouldn't be hearing about suicide bombers and extremists of other religions?

This is not saying that Islam doesnt have its own Deuteronomy passages. But people rarely believe in the inerrant truth of any Holy Book unless they're an extremist or fundamentalist, and in that case you could infer that they are intolerant. Take Jimmy Carter and our current president - two very different philosophies, both supposedly inspired from the Holy Bible. Or the Vatican, which officially endorsed the Theory of Evolution in the 1980s. Religion is more what you want it to be, rather than how it wants you to be.

We've seen extremism elsewhere in the face of extreme poverty and oppression. Just take the Communist Revolutions in Russia and China. Again, the root of the problem is of failed states in the Middle East, NOT religion.

So to elaborate on what I said earlier, it's important to analyze the reasons behind the radicalization of people under the governments of the Middle East.

1. Effective ways of organizing in a repressive regime: In a predominantly Muslim nation, the best way of organizing resistance to one of the many totalitarian states in the Middle East would obviously be through the mosque. Political dissidents would be hard to target since they would be working through the framework of the religious community that basically consists of the entire country. Any serious attempt to crack down on these radical mosques, as seen in the recent hostage situation in Pakistan, would be met by extreme resistance since it could be perceived as also an assault on the 99% of the population who are mosque-goers.

2. Recruitment through "Philanthropy": That's right. Radical fundamentalist parties like Hamas and Hezbollah "take care" of their members in exchange for their endorsement of radical Islam. These members are often people of the lower classes who are in abject poverty, desperate for aid, and ignored (or even repressed) by their governments. In response, take Hezbollah in Lebanon - which provides free medical care, education, and (re)construction materials (via the Jihad Construction Company) to poor Shias otherwise unable to afford such care. However, this is not out of altruism but rather a means to an end; the schools, while at the same time providing education, also indoctrinate the next generation towards radical ideology.

3. Recruitment through "Philanthropy" Part II: Hamas in the Palestinian Territories is not nearly as wealthy as Hezbollah and cannot render as effective social services. However, they have been known to recruit the sons of desperately poor families to perform suicide bombings against Israel. In return, Hamas will pay the families of the martyred individual a considerable sum of money; in essence, many of the PLO suicide bombers are inspired more from familial concern than radicalism.

4. The reward of eternal life... with additional benefits: Talking with many Christian Evangelicals, eternal life (going to heaven) is the ultimate reward - everything else is inconsequential. I imagine it would be the same in Islam. Also, in a Sharia Law society where any semblance of sexuality is repressed, the reward of 72 virgins is hard to pass up (although this is a fabrication by these radical groups, and not actually in the Koran afaik)

So really, fundementalist religion is the most effective reason for radicalists to make themselves known in such an environment. It is a means to an end, not the root cause.

Inquisition and the Crusades especially the Childrens Crusade. Sure they didn't have bombs but I think extremism is still a fitting definition for those historical occurances. Their are plenty of extremist Christians alive and well today in the states too. People who bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors. People who start Christian extremists cults and lock them in while they set fire to the place. Or people who drink the magic kool-aid. Poligamy cults. People who think if you need a heart transplant you should just die because it is God's will. All of these things are extremist to me however and do not reflect on the Christian faith as I see it. But of course thats the catch. Its all in how YOU see it that makes the difference, the difference between you reading a passage that tells you there is a boundary in the Middle East that only Jews have a sacred promise from God to settle in and everyone else should be killed or forced out and an Israeli reading the same passage and taking it, perhaps, a bit more seriously. The same applies to the Islamic idea of a holy land only for muslims. It is ALMOST funny that three of the major world religions all come from a common geographical area and have a common belief that that area is promised to a certain group. Something I learned in Sunday school about Abraham having many sons comes to mind...

Anyway I am just blurring lines. Especially the already blurred line between terrorism and religious extremism. Extreme religious beliefs do not neccessarily make you more likely to be a terrorist they just give you another reason. Terrorism is basically a political act.
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

In fact I would go so far as to say most religious beliefs are extreme at least considering these definitions of extreme.

going to the utmost or very great lengths in action, habit, opinion, etc.
extremely dangerous or difficult
one of two things as remote or different from each other as possible

We (western society) consider some religions as not extreme simply because of their predominance in our culture but consider that in other parts of the world we are the extreme and they are the norm. Certain factions hate the western civilizations for reasons that have nothing to do with religion, the religious factors just make it easier to justify their actions. The same is true for the abortion clinic bombers and the Davidian folks we had down in Waco. They have reasons that have nothing to do with religion and use religion as the justification for their actions. Just my 5k bc.

George Bush? Is weak imho. A halfhearted attack on iraq creating more misery than joy. Should think that the white house would be able to plan better.

I also think people who are not prepared to use any means to remove a dictator like Saddam are dangerous. Why should we not care about people in other countries, just because its another country, goes beyond my understanding. Especially since US is about just that, freedom for all.

Israel is a problem. It is not that they want any war or ignition of the middle-east, they actually just want to live alone in what they believe is their land. Thats the problem, other people think its their land as well. The day people drop the "im a patriot" thinking and start to live in peace, we will be one step closer to paradise.

Iran is dangerous, because they know they are provoking the rest of the world, and they dont care. It is their land... It can only end 2 ways. Either we invade Iran or Iran invade us, we are after all infidels, right?

China is strange. They are communists still, but they are starting to open up and it seems at least from the outside, that they intend to create a place that will work for them. It would be so much easier if we could just hate them...

China is interesting. They are communist but at the same time they are opening up to ideas of free market capitalism. Those two things don't really mix in the long term and I expect them to open up to democracy of some sort in the next 50 years. Hopefully it will be a peaceful transition... I really think Iran expects itself to be the capital of the new Islamic state that arises out of the western failure in Iraq and Afganistan. I don't see it happening but I can see how they might.

Myth? hmmm forgive my ignorance but at the moment i am unfamiliar with how many religions other than Islam have 'honour killings'. I am also not up to date with how many other religions have recently blown up ancient monuments of other religions or ban women from school? How many other religions have been going around using the word Jihad and happen to be the faith of terrorists in planes crashing into buildings?

Yea, tell me again how Islam is not a violant backward religion?? compared to what? Sorry, you will need a time machine to find a mainstream religion as bad as Islam today.

Unfortunately the US is not exactly altruistic when it comes to foreign policy. If we invaded Iraq just for "freedom", then why not North Korea or Saudi Arabia, both of which are even more tyrannical? And now with all the cronyism and corruption going on with the so-called "reconstruction", its clear that we aren't there because we "care".

Imo, Israel bears some (but not most) of the responsibility for whats going on in the Middle East. The use of cluster bombs and other methods of collective punishment only serves to inflame that whole vicious cycle. But all of this could have been avoided when Ehud Barak offered Yasser Arafat that incredibly generous peace treaty.

As for Iran, what you're saying is just what the administration said about Iraq before the runup to war. And we simply do not have the soft power or hard power necessary to take on Iran considering the current fiasco in Iraq unless there is institution of a draft.

"Communism with Chinese Characteristics" is a farce. The leaders of China are full-blown capitalists, perhaps even more that we are since they don't take moral considerations into account when making trade deals with other countries (see: Sudan, Zimbabwe). And those same leaders are immensely smart compared to the dumbasses we have here in the States; they are investing in resources in Africa when the EU and US ignore that region while internal living conditions and infrastructure is improving exponentially. I also think that they're smart enough to realize that the "peaceful rise" is a good thing and are therefore not prone as the US to military action.

I don't take particular pride in saying this, but I think that this is the generation that will be known for the increasing irrelevancy of the US (unless there is a DRAMATIC shift in foreign policy) and the rise of China as the #1 superpower.

You're still making generalizations and obviously haven't read what I wrote in the last few posts (see #s 1,2,3, and 4 on my last post on the root causes): the symptom arises from a extreme minority of radicals holding a large amount of power due political and social repression to the nth degree. There's obviously a large discrepancy between those people and the secular pro-choice Muslims in Turkey, as there is between, say Jimmy Carter and Pope Innocent III.

I'll admit that on average, Muslims tend to hold more radical or fundementalist views (again, religion is HOW you interpret it, something I already mentioned), but that is again due to socio-political issues in their home countries rather than actually religion. Hamas and Hezbollah are political organizations primary and use religion as a means to an end to further their own political goals.

So how exactly is anything in the Koran worse than in Deuteronomy? If not, I dont see how your argument holds any water.

Israelis are great - the only country in the world who aren't scared of unilateral action.

As for dangerous people, I'd go for our own Government here in Brittanialand.

Followed by myself in a bad mood   

Hugo Chavez is a great leader, a man of the people and for the people. He uses the same strong armed tactics that the Capitalist pigs which run our country use, but since 'he' does it this makes him a 'bad' man. What's wrong with forcibly taking back some of the wealth that was generated by the people and giving it back to them? In my eyes, nothing at all. Anyone who legitimately wants to help the poor people has my vote, regardless of how they go about it, via pen or sword.

Um... no. I consider myself fairly liberal (probably the most so in terms of foreign policy) and sympathized with Chavez after the coup in which the US was allegedly involved; Any country should have the right to elect leaders who decide to nationalize key strategic sectors of the economy unmolested if it so chooses, and the US was very suspicious in immediately recognizing the new coup leaders (usually the tradition is to condemn such a move, even when dealing with non-democratic countries). But it looks like that Chavez will be one of the worst presidents in Venezuelan history.

Since then he's using fear (of some imminent US attack) to boost his support, just like Bush's "they'll follow us home" rhetoric regarding Iraq, to justify a massive boost in military spending and all of the below. He's stated that he intends to rule for 25 years despite the constitution and has just been given the power to rule by decree. Also the shutting down of RCTV (and the subsequent threats against another private TV network) could mean the end of freedom of the press.

you're very well-spoken (well-written as it were).

it hasn't been overlooked; some of us have been trying to get this point across for about a month now. a few of us have been haunting a network of posts by MarcusCardiff with a political bent, so some of the defenses of Islam aren't in this thread.

Too be honest, my argument has no purpose at all! except to participate in this thread on the most dangerous people alive.

You can defend Islam and make good arguments, and on the whole you would be right, but please, don't let yourself be fooled into thinking there not dangerous, you just have to take a look at what is currently happening in the world.... things that are actually happening, as opposed to what is written in the bible, koran or whatever.



Even i defended Islam in some posts! but it depends on the thread, the topic and what people are saying.