The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Muslims are demonstrating throughout Europe because some newspapers published cartoons caricaturing Mohammed. One of them showed Mohammed with a turban in the shape of a time bomb. The editors of the magazine that published the cartoons were fired.

Satisfied? No. Now Muslims in Syria have set fire to the Danish embassy. Great. What a beautiful and enlightened culture of peace!

I don't think... no I'm pretty sure this doesn't represent all Muslims.  Extremists of any sort are dangerous.  I'm sure some of these idiots weren't anything more than troublemakers looking for an excuse to riot ... just like Chicago.

I think each organization should push to go against the extremists/terrorists for their cause. For example I wish more top Christian reps would speak out against abortion bombists and hate crimes and Muslims would denounce terrorism in the name of Allah. It might not stop it but at least everyone else wouldn't realize the whole "organization" is whacky and they could work together to stop terrorism in any form.

Muslim outrage huh.  OK ... let's do a little historical review.  Just some lowlights:

Muslims fly commercial airliners into buildings in New York City.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslim officials block the exit where school girls are trying to escape a burning building because their faces were exposed.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims cut off the heads of three teenaged girls on their way to school in Indonesia.  A Christian school.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder teachers trying to teach Muslim children in Iraq.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder over 80 tourists with car bombs outside cafes and hotels in Egypt.  No Muslim outrage.
A Muslim attacks a missionary children's school in India.  Kills six.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims slaughter hundreds of children and teachers in Beslan, Russia.  Muslims shoot children in the back.  No Muslim outrage.
Let's go way back.  Muslims kidnap and kill athletes at the Munich Summer Olympics.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims fire rocket-propelled grenades into schools full of children in Israel.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder more than 50 commuters in attacks on London subways and busses.  Over 700 are injured.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims massacre dozens of innocents at a Passover Seder.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims murder innocent vacationers in Bali.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslim newspapers publish anti-Semitic cartoons.  No Muslim outrage
Muslims are involved, on one side or the other, in almost every one of the 125+ shooting wars around the world.  No Muslim outrage.
Muslims beat the charred bodies of Western civilians with their shoes, then hang them from a bridge.  No Muslim outrage.
Newspapers in Denmark and Norway publish cartoons depicting Mohammed.  Muslims are outraged.
Dead children.  Dead tourists.  Dead teachers.  Dead doctors and nurses.  Death, destruction and mayhem around the world at the hands of Muslims .. no Muslim outrage ... but publish a cartoon depicting Mohammed with a bomb in his turban and all hell breaks loose.

Come on, is this really about cartoons?  They're rampaging and burning flags.  They're looking for Europeans to kidnap.  They're  threatening innkeepers and generally raising holy Muslim hell not because of any outrage over a cartoon.  They're outraged because it is part of the Islamic jihadist culture to be outraged.  You don't really need a reason.  You just need an excuse.  Wandering around, destroying property, murdering children, firing guns into the air and feigning outrage over the slightest perceived insult is to a jihadist what tailgating is to a Steeler's fan.

I know and understand that these bloodthirsty murderers do not represent the majority of the world's Muslims.  When, though, do they become outraged?  When do they take to the streets to express their outrage at the radicals who are making their religion the object of worldwide hatred and ridicule?  Islamic writer Salman Rushdie wrote of these silent Muslims  in a New York Times article three years ago.  "As their ancient, deeply civilized culture of love, art and philosophical reflection is hijacked by paranoiacs, racists, liars, male supremacists, tyrants, fanatics and violence junkies, why are they not screaming?" 

Way to put it in perspective Frimp.  You understand.

Please show me the "Christian rep" who encouraged, supported, funded, masterminded the abortion clinic bombings.  Please show me the "Christian rep" who praised God in the wake of such a bombing.

As soon as Muslims track down and prosecute terrorists on their own like Christians do bombers THEN this may be a valid comparison.

Yes, we all have our fanatics.  There are many differences though.  We do not cower in fear from our fanatics.  We do not fund our fanatics.  We do not follow our fanatics blindly.  Insert weak Bush joke here. 

How about the Christian leader who prayed for the assination of a world leader and the death of a Supreme Court justice so a mor conservative one could be put in to end abortions. Plus you need to study the bloody history of Christianity to see just how terrible it was/can be.
Also if you look at the demonstrations you will see the armed supporters of radical groups. This isn't a masive uprising of 1.2 billion muslims, this is a few thousand radicals trying to make a political point through fear and intimidation.

One guy, who is regarded as a nutjob by about 99% of the nation, compared to hundreds of fanatical mullahs. 

I refuse to feel any guilt over things that happened well before I was born.  That's like me calling you a racist because your great-great-great-great-great grandpa might have owned slaves.

How many Christian services end with the masses running into the streets chanting "Death to Islam"?


Nice statement of the obvious but please answer this:  If the allegedly peaceful Muslims outnumber the radicals a million to one, why don't they take back their peaceful religion in the name of Allah? 

Pat Robertson dug his own hole, and 90% of Americans denounced what he said. You are right. The are the actions of a few thousand radical (terrorists.) But, they are NOT being denounced by the rest of these "peace lovers"

(http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/1698/ib26hu.jpg)

Islam is PEACE!!!!!!!

Show me where a majority of mosques end each of the 5 prayer sessions with that statement, and not just a small majority of radicals, much like the small majority of radicals who give Christians a bad name.
Right back at you on the taking back their religion from radicals, but on the Christian side.
You are truly biased against Islam and muslims, yet appearantly blnded to the negative ways Christian leaders in this country try and shape policy and law through religion.

BS. I have seen muslim clerics denounce attacks many times, but who gets the bigger press coverage, radicals, or denouncers? If it bleeds it leads. Also I saw politicians denounce Robertson, but I didn't see his Christian cronies rip him apart on air. Hell Ann Coulter who stated all muslims should be killed still has makes regular appearances on t.v. and in papers, and she is a die hard Christian mouthpiece. We can't just judge them, without looking at the comments people with media access to millions in this country are saying too.

Christian radicals do not have terrorist cells.

When these organizations begin homocide bombings THEN I'll see your point.

Salvation Army
Church World Service
Lutheran World Relief 
Bread for the World 
World Vision International@ 
World Relief

5 years ago, I had nothing against Islam. But, I watched the things unfold, and I saw these fanatics justifying terrorism due to religion. I also noticed that all these "peace lovers" were not doing anything about it. We were not the ones who made this about religion.

I cant believe how many Americans want us to forget about 9/11 and try to appease these thugs.

I wonder how they will like live under President Usef Ali bin Gaba.

I don't deny that Christianity was bad for a pretty long period in the Middle Ages. Maybe they were even worse than Muslims are now, I don't know. But what concerns me is what's happening now. Basically there is a small group of fairly Westernized Muslims in the U.S. and Britain. But everywhere else (even elsewhere in Europe!) Islam seems to be basically a message of violence and hatred.

Again, no question Pat Robertson likes to occasionally shoot his mouth off. But there is an enormous difference between that, a more or less monthly deal where Robertson says something stupid that nobody thinks represents the views of Christians in the U.S. or anywhere and then has to apologize for it, and consistently and systematically teaching hatred, as Muslims do. Pat Robertson does not tell people to blow up buses to get into heaven. Radical Muslim groups do.

I guess it's fine to point out the many sensible Muslims and mosques who are perfectly peaceful and patriotic. But it's also irrelevant, since there DOES exist a radical ideology out there that we are struggling against. This is an ideological battle and we may as well admit it. Whether radical, blow-yourself-up Islam is the "true" Islam or not is a question for theologians and I'm not that interested in it. But what I do know is there are a hell of a lot of Muslims who are in fact willing to blow themselves up in order to kill other people, and that is a major concern.

Look at the crazy shit at http://www.memri.org. It is simply unbelievable the kind of filth that spews in these countries.

One of the main differences between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has no centralized authorities. In Christianity, this is not the case. The Eastern Orthodox have a Patriarch, Catholics have the Pope, Anglicans have the Archbishop of Canterbury, and on down the list.

Muslims do not have any sort of structure like this. At one point they had, when the caliphates were still in operation, but no longer. Thus, it's kinda impossible for anyone to "take back" Islam. It isn't like they can elect in a new guy who'll be a little more sane.

Here's an interesting illustration of my point. In Spain, a Muslim group issued a fatwa (death warrant) on the head of Bin Laden after Jihadist attacks there. It doesn't come to anything though, as its not like that Spanish muslim group has any authority over anyone except its own members. And that, right there, is the key problem. Islam can't 'clean its own house' because it's own house is so amorphous it's impossible to really do anything across a broad spectrum of Muslims.

MEMRI = Middle East Media Research Institute.  These are middle eastern people reporting on the events of the middle east.  This is NOT the watered down politically correct version that you get on network or cable news, or the Daily Show for those of you who don't realize that, in the words of Jon Stewart, "People, people.... WE MAKE IT UP!"

I just hope we find Osama soon.  I'd love to see that towelheaded cocksucker get what's coming to him.  Then we'll see what Al Qaeda is really made of.  I think without their leader, that organization will collapse like a house of cards. 

The difference between Christianity and Islam is only that Christianity is no longer in direct control of the governments.  Christian theocracies were at least as bad as the Muslim theocracies are today.

As far as the whole "Christians are much more civilized... they would never commit such terrorist acts based on religious differences" act... ever hear of the Irish Republican Army?  Oh, but they've stopped bombing for almost a decade, so I guess they no longer count.

The fanaticism of a religious group almost directly correlates to the power that group overtly wields in the government.  If you think Christianity is a religion of peace, try reading the Old Testament (or, more importantly, try following the laws set forth in the Old Testament and see how long you can stay out of prison).

As to the original post:

Run a cartoon of Jesus machinegunning some Arab child down, and I think the outcry would be quite similar.  Religious fanatics are, well, fanatical.  That's what they do.

Compared to the world wide storm of muslim fanaticism the IRA was merely spitting in the wind.

Cartoons and articles disparaging Jews and Christians appear quite often in the Muslim world.  No Jihads, homicide bombers or violent protests yet.   

They also appear in US papers, TV shows, movies, newscasts, etc. None of us are killing people over it.

So you're dismissing the bombings done by the IRA because they weren't worldwide?   Let's recap, then:

Does Christianity have a history of violent, immoral reaction equal to that of Islam?  Check.
Does Christianity still have terrorist cells in modern-day times executing "homocide bombings"?  Check.

Do you know what year it is by the Muslim calendar?  1427.  Compared to Christianity circa 1427 AD, Islam is rather peaceful and tolerant, I'd say.  If you had made any such statement against Christ Jesus at that time, you would have been swiftly executed by the state.

Of course, this is like comparing cat sh*t to dog sh*t.  Both reek.  I'm not going to sit here and praise the tolerance and peacefulness of Islam, because (like any religion in power) it simply is not.  But I'm also not going to sit here and listen to people say "Oh, my religion is so much more civilized and respectable."  News flash: it isn't.  If the church were still running things, we'd still be burning witches at the stake.

One more note:

Do you honestly believe that Muslim charities do not exist?  It would take me all of 90 seconds on Google to churn out a list of respectable Muslim charities that don't have anything to do with suicide bombings, but I just wanted to clarify your position first.

^^^ Run to win mentioned this in another thread about not feeling guilty because his great great great great grandfather may have owned slaves. I also will not feel guilty because hundreds of years ago, Christians were fanatical. This is NOW. Those of us who are alive NOW have no control over what happened THEN.

You have no interest in clarifying anything.  All you want to do is misquote and rant.  Knock yourself out.

90 seconds to google muslim charities?  Dial up or just a slow typist?   ;D

That's perfectly fine.  I'll go one further:

How about you feel guilty for things that you have done?  Isn't that reasonable and logical?

So if you're a peaceful, upstanding citizen of America, Britain, Russia, Egypt, or Turkey who just happens to be Muslim, then you wouldn't feel "guilty" for something that you had nothing to do with.

Or does it not work that way?  Are they supposed to feel guilty?

Minor clarification - I was talking about someone else feeling guilty.  Most of my ancestors came here as dirt poor immigrants late in the slavery era - some as indentured servants.  Not that I would feel guilty, but my ancestors were closer to slaves than slave owners.  I live near the West Coast because when their period of servitude was over they wanted to get as far away from the  East Coast as they could.

No, but maybe they should publicly decry these bastards who are making them look bad.

(http://venomweb.150m.com/forum/black.jpg)

Thats fine. I wasnt calling you out. I was agreeing with you. My ancestors DID own slaves, and I'm not ashamed at all. I wasnt there.

Wow, the internet equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?" 

Third grade was quite a while for me but if I remember right this is the appropriate respone.
(http://www.woodwardpayne.com/IMG024A.jpg)

Here's a sophomoric response if that's more appropriate:
(http://venomweb.150m.com/forum/assclown.jpg)

I know.  No problem.  Just because I live near "San Francisco North" doesn't mean I can afford to be hit with the reparation claims.   ;)

Not exactly.  If anyone is going to accuse someone of "misquoting and ranting," it probably shouldn't be you.  It seems that on any political topic, your only interest is in making personal attacks and claiming that everyone else is a delusional liberal hippie, without actually addressing the points made (see: how you conveniently dismissed the IRA and completely ignored the followup).

So I'm somewhat less concerned when you accuse me of ranting, or of having some sort of agenda.

run_to_win, take your time and google up some more pictures to add.

Are you sure you're not on dial-up?

To use an analogy, you compare pee-wee football to the NFL and I'm evasive because I don't take you seriously?

Sorry, I didn't realize that we're supposed to take you seriously when you apologize for current fanatical muslim attrocities because Christians were similar centuries ago.  I bet you justify Bush's spying on civilians because Clinton did it too, right?  ::)

Please stop parroting my posts - it's flattering but also embarrassing.  >:(  :P

Imitation is the highest form of flattery.  You honor me.

I didn't google up the sophomoric picture.  I was exploring the site from which you got the "pot calling the kettle black" picture from.  I was hoping that it would have a better "sticks and stones" picture.  Being that you're from San Francisco I thought about using the "Fagotville" picture but it really wasn't relevant and the misspellings in the text were unprofessional. 

Is that your site?  I think I saw some pictures of you. 

When did I apologize for current Muslim fanatics?  That's right, I didn't.

The point I was making was that you were trying to pretend that intolerant, murderous regimes and terrorist fanatics are completely foreign to Christianity (to wit: "Christian radicals do not have terrorist cells"), in spite of the facts that a) when Christianity controlled governments to the extent that Islam does now, they were at least as bad, and b) the IRA is a fully-qualified radical Christian terrorist organization that just happens to be in a current state of cease-fire (since 1997).

So if you want to bash terrorist organizations, don't try to play the "my religion is one of peace and understanding" card, because it isn't.  If you want to add up the totals, your religion leaves theirs in the dust when it comes to atrocities.

Every abortion clinic bombed is done so in the name of Jesus Christ. There are many groups, cells etc operating throughout the US ... especially the Northwest and South ... who think it is biblicly correct to kill "fags" and "abortionists". And they do this in the name of Jesus Christ ... MY LORD AND SAVIOR!  This doesn't mean it is actually what Jesus wants wants but the same nutbags that claims it fit into the same catagory as Hamas and Al Qada.

People have been using religion to support their causes since day one. Unfortunately Christianity has been used in some of the worst atrocities of all time. It doesn't mean that Chrisianity actually promotes whatever violence the people are partaking in. I'm most certain my bible does not back up the crusades nor Hitler's version of an ideal race based on the Lord's will.

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.


If you are claiming yourself a Christian but denounce any wrongdoing... even still today in the name of Christianity... then you are no better than the people who are doing such atrocities.  If you are just wanting to argue semantics, then you are young and ignorant and that can in no way be overcome by reason and intelligent conversation.

Religion =  :)

Religious fanatics (regardless which religion) =  >:D   :-[  ::)

Now, and I am sure Sunstroke would agree, why can't we all just take a bong hit or two (or three) and all get along? People that justify hurting or slaying others in the name of their God, that believe in the "my religion is better than your religion" rhetoric, or otherwise are just religiously intolerant should go rot in hell.

Now that is irony.

YOU'RE offended by someone putting words in your mouth?  Now that's funny!  

This hatred/guilt you have is going to eat you up.  You really should seek help.

You never did answer if that's your website or not.  

Who stopped Hitler and saved the Jews?  CHRISTIANS/CATHOLICS/FROG LOVERS!

Who pursues and prosecutes abortion clinic bombers and "fag" killers?  CHRISTIANS!

This is the difference that I'm trying to point out.  The haters are refusing to acknowledge it.

Who jails terrorists in their own countries?  The Muslims!

So it's all OK, then!

Are you seriously claiming that if a group of, say, Hindus goes out and slaughters Buddhists (for example), and then another group of Hindus stops them, the net overall result is, "Great job, Hindus!"?

I mean, sure, Christian nations persecute and falsely burned witches at the stake for centuries, but it was other Christians who put a stop to it.  So really, we should be praising Christianity for putting an end to witch burning!  Right?

How much longer are there going to be people who will make excuses for this so-called religion of peace (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding) by saying "they all do it"? 

I guess it'll take a mushroom cloud over NYC to convince some...

BS. I have seen muslim clerics denounce attacks many times, but who gets the bigger press coverage, radicals, or denouncers?


I have had debates about this very thing many times, and have tried to find examples of clerics expressing outrage.  Can you provide links or some other direction to find these examples of outrage ?

Who's making excuses?  I completely agree that Islam is a religion founded on violence and intolerance.  Just like Christianity (<--- this is the part you have a problem with).

You want to denounce Islam as a religion that supports atrocities?  No objection here.  But don't turn around and, in the same breath, talk about how your religion is so shiny and wholesome.

I can say the exact same thing about Christian fundamentalists and abortion clinic bombers.

Where's Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell's unequivocal denouncement of those people?  Hmmm.

Oh Spider - some how we just don't speak the same language.  No matter what I say you just want to twist it around and argue some more.  I don't know if it's a language-barrier or if you're just doing it intentionally for cheap thrills.  Either way, I give up.

They may not be true Christians, but if you don't believe there are terrorists acting in the name of Christianity you are dead wrong. If you truly believe that you would be completely denouncing abortion clinic bombings, sniper shootings of doctors, death threats to Terry Schiavo's husband. All of these do exist in the name of "Christianity".

This is a blind statement. How do you know they are Christians? We have a nation of many religions. How do you know involved parties are not Jewish, Agnostic, Athiest, or even Muslim? That's right. I suggested that a Muslim could indeed see the wrong in bombing an abortion clinic. The problems in this world are based on ideas that I see in your writings...my religion is better than yours.

Okay, Phish - let's see if I have better luck communicating with you.  I'm going to be painfully clear lest my words get twisted...
I've still yet to say this.  The differences lie in the scope and organization of, support for, and reactions to.


All decent people, Christian or not, denounce all of this.  There's a huge step between philosophical disagreements and murder.


Sure, but the differences many.  They're entirely domestic.  We're not exporting fanatics to carry out this treachery overseas.   They're all ferociously prosecuted.... by Christians.  Even actively supporting such causes is a prosecutable crime.  Our government is not supporting any of them. 

The majority of people who are against abortion still gasp in horror when a doctor is murdered in cold blood. 

If doctors were murdered much, much, much more often and a significant segment of our population danced in the street and praised God at every occurance while the vast majority of the rest of us just went upon our business and turned a blind eye to the reoccuring attrocities - THEN I'd see more similarities.

===============================

To all the ranting a-holes... I disagreed with everything Phish said, responded to every point he made, and all with the same polite tone that he used.  See how it works? 

I looked for the TOS and read the FAQs,  Nowhere does it say that only Ubers and reach-around buddies can be a-holes.  If I have to back down until I'm a member of the "in crowd" then I'll gladly move along. 

Bully moderators are why I left Finheaven and Phinzmania.  (By the way - Phinzmania is a good site full of good people - just a few mods who think they're Gods).

Depending on the study/poll you go by, the USA is 70%-85% Christian.  That's all I meant.


Today it is.  It may not be tomorrow, and it probably wasn't in the Middle Ages - but today significantly more violence comes from the extremes of one religion, not all religions.

Let me use the drunken frat-boy analogy.  You go to a frat party and everyone is drinking heavily. Of the 100 frat brothers, most remain decent fellows while under the influence, while just a few get mean and obnoxious.  If one of the mean drunks picks a fight with you - many members will actively try to stop the altercation (something that until recently we didn't see in Islam).  However, if push comes to shove, the other frat brothers have the back of the a-hole even though he's in wrong.  When a fight breaks out it is very unlikely that any frat brother will engage another frat brother.  Even though one of their own started the fight, they're all either going to join the fight in support of the wrong side, or stay out entirely.   It's not a perfect analogy but hopefully it gets the idea across.  My apologies to any current/former drunken frat boys out there.

There has been more and more muslim cooperation as of late.  Some attribute that to message sent to "fight terrorism or we'll install a government who will" message sent to Afghanistan and Iraq.

(http://nwfootball.net/politics/images/letspretend.gif)

I wish you would put all your posts together because you jump around like crazy. Right here in this post you say Christian radicals do not have terrosit cells. Then later in this same thread (just a couple posts before this one) you claim you never said it.

I use to have a real problem with being confrontational on here. Good to see we can disagree without name calling.

I just respond to whatever someone else says.

If a single unfunded abortion clinic bomber can be considered a terrorist cell then I stand corrected.

I suppose the Aryan Nations could be considered a terrorist group.  They did set off small bombs around Couer d'Alene Idaho a decade or more ago as a diversionary tactic to cover for a bank robbery - so I'm not sure if that counts as terrorism or crime.

You guys can voice your opinions all you want, but until someone politely demonstrates otherwise I'm going to continue to believe that comparing American/Christian Terrorist cells to Middle Eastern/Islamic terrorist cells is like comparing a 3rd grade game of football at recess to the NFL.

I'm not even sure the IRA is a valid comparison because they focused on British soldiers not civilians.  Plus, they're essentially defunct as a terrorism organization so even if the comparison was valid, it hasn't been for quite a few years.

Again, one death apparently equals thousands.

(http://boortz.com/images/muslim_cartoon_protests.jpg)

To anyone who doesn't think that Christianity doesn't have terrorist cells, check out the Army of God: (not safe for work)
http://armyofgod.com/

I especially find their birth control page amusing: http://armyofgod.com/Birthcontrol.html

Are you joking?

Do you want me to open with the Spanish Inquisition, or the Holocaust?

So how many bombs have they set off in the past month? Year?  Decade?  What's the death toll?   

Are their bombs random - anyone, anywhere, anytime. 

Their literal interpretations of scripture are inciteful and that corresponds well to Islamic fanatics - but the similarities seem to end there.  They're more "Al Jeezera" than "Al Quidah". 

Spanish Inquisition - 15th century

Holocaust - please raise your hand if you don't think Hitler was among the most evil humans of the 20th century.

So our choices are going back 500+ years or considering Hitler a legitimate religious figure?

You know... he had dark hair.  Islamic fanatics have dark hair.  I wonder if THAT's the connection?  Hmmmmm.

run_to_win, why do you keep promising not to respond to me any more and then reneging?  Quit getting my hopes up.

Anyway, yes, the Spanish Inquisition occured in the 15th century AD.  And coincidentally, right now it just happens to be the 15th century by the Muslim calendar.  I believe I already mentioned that.

And as far as Hitler being a "legitimate" religious figure... yeah, I'd say he's about as "legitimate" as Bin Laden, whom I'm sure you have no problem pointing out as a Muslim figurehead.  In fact, if you want to go by straight endorsement numbers by religious organizations, I'd guess that Hitler probably puts Bin Laden under the table.  German Christians weren't exactly rioting over the prospect of a Germany under Christian law.  How many nations has Bin Laden been the officially recognized head-of-state of?

You did, and much to my surprise, it was even weaker the second time. 

I have absolutely no doubts that you're sure. 

Bin Laden is a terrorist figurehead.  Yes, he's a muslim figurehead.  I don't think he's an Islamic figurehead though.  Not realizing the distinction between the Muslim culture and the Islamic religion renders the rest of your post moot.

Al Qaida transcends borders which makes the head of state argument moot as well.

If Al Qaida terrorists did not actively target random women and children then you'd have a valid point. 

Likewise, if Hitler simply tried to take over the world and did not attempt genocide, he'd probably be remembered as a fair to poor military mind who almost took over Europe - not one of the most evil men of the 2nd eon.

Your reply indicates that you don't know what the word "muslim" means.

By definition, "muslim" means of or relating to Islam.  So your statement that Bin Laden is a Muslim figurehead but not an Islamic figurehead is nonsensical.  The two words are precisely interchangeable.

The point I was making was that at no time has, does, or will Al-Qaeda's membership exceed that of WW2-era Germany (the German military alone dwarfs them).  So arguments from sheer numbers of "evildoers" wouldn't paint a pretty picture.

By the same token, I could say that the Nazis were targeting "random" women and children when they bombed cities.

"Random" is a relative term.  Terrorists don't randomly select their targets.

But he did.  Which is the entire reason he's in this discussion.

He systematically exterminated people of different religions (and races) and used Christianity as the moral backbone for his actions.  That pretty much qualifies him as a religiously-motivated murderer; just as much as any of the Muslim (oh, excuse me, "Islamic") terrorists of today.

So we're supposed to accept modern day Muslim attrocities because their calendar says it's the 15th or 16th century...

While at the same time we're supposed to consider all participants of WWII terrorists even though the practice of bombing civilian targets during war was considered acceptable?

Isn't that duplicitous?

I stand corrected.  With the exception of car-bombers at check points, most terrorists go out of their way to target defenseless civilians.  It's not random, it's cowardly.

Why are you such a terrorist-apologist?  Do you mean sound that way?

Just getting back on track, the demonstrations have spread to many, many countries. Muslims in Afghanistan fired on a NATO base. An Iranian newspaper said it would hold a contest for Holocaust cartoons in response. Protesters threw stones and firebombs at the Norwegian embassy in Tehran. All over some cartoons. Unbelievable.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060207/ap_on_re_mi_ea/prophet_drawings_101;_ylt=AtzYnj8L7U.xIS6pQUN.k5PbEfQA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl