Debate on Mohammed: Zayed vs. Spencer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy.

Bob,

I looked it up and surprise surprise! You took things out of context, made selective omissions and slanted it.

Why does that not flabbergast me?

I can even do what you did. From the very same article you quoted, too.

btw - I'll give the link since I don't mind people checking it for themselves. I notice that you were not so accommodating to the reader. I wonder why.

Are Some Religions More Conflict-Prone Than Others? by Jonathan Fox

Lookee here what I found in the conclusion, right before your quote:

If one examines only the absolute level of all domestic conflict, Christian groups appear to be consistently the most violent. Islamic groups were becoming more violent during the 1990s, but Muslim groups were less violent than Christian groups.

"Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy."

I admit my quote leaves out context. But you did a doozy of a blank-out job in order to spin prejudice and hatred. The rise in violence in the "Muslim groups" studied parallels the rise of Islamist organizations in the 1965-2001 period--not all of history as you insinuate.

"Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy bigotry."

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

So, basically everything Ayn Rand says about moral codes being the driver of human enterprise is wrong.

Are our problems due to the Bible?

Of course not. All this is human nature.

[bmacwilliam]

Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy.

Bob,

I looked it up and surprise surprise! You took things out of context, made selective omissions and slanted it.

Why does that not flabbergast me?

I can even do what you did. From the very same article you quoted, too.

btw - I'll give the link since I don't mind people checking it for themselves. In notice that you were not so accommodating to the reader. I wonder why.

Are Some Religions More Conflict-Prone Than Others? by Jonathan Fox

Lookee here what I found in the conclusion, right before your quote:

If one examines only the absolute level of all domestic conflict, Christian groups appear to be consistently the most violent. Islamic groups were becoming more violent during the 1990s, but Muslim groups were less violent than Christian groups.

"Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy."

I admit my quote leaves out context. But you did a doozy of a blank-out job in order to spin prejudice and hatred. The rise in violence in the "Muslim groups" studied parallels the rise of Islamist organizations in the 1965-2001 period--not all of history as you insinuate.

"Hey, but don't let reality spoil your fantasy bigotry."

Michael

You might have a shred of credibility if my post didn't include:

" Christian groups engage in the most conflict, but the level of conflict by Islamic groups began to approach that of Christian groups during the 1990s. When controlling for population size, Hypothesis 1 is clearly supported by the evidence."

It does, so you don't.

My 'omission' wasn't omitted at all. I took nothing out of context. The conclusion is clear, Christians are involved in more conflict in raw numbers (absolute level), Muslims are more prone to conflict proportionally - "clearly" - their word.

What's not surprising is that you assume, and do not read.

You asked for evidence and you got it. I did not hide the citation.

In notice that you were not so accommodating to the reader. I wonder why.

Nonsense, you are wrong, yet again.

"Jewish Political Studies Review 16:1-2 (Spring 2004) " was provided.

Ridiculous. If you had a shred of decency you'd apologize.

Bob

Edited January 31, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Richard,

Try using your own eyes before using Ayn Rand's ideas. You will get far more value from both that way.

Do you consider human-to-human violence as part of human nature or do you think it is some kind of sporadic fluke (or an evasion or whatever)?

If you think it is the second, then why has it existed in all of human history in all civilizations? And even today?

There are studies that show arrows in skeletons of some of the oldest human remains known. (Richard Dawkins has a video somewhere that shows this.)

Moral codes (which deal with volition) allow leaders to get away with a lot if they know how to spin them. Rand was very good is showing how this was done with altruism and collectivism.

But a moral code is not a human being. It is not an on-off button that controls human behavior. I constantly see Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people treat it as one (when talking about others, of course, never about themselves). Human beings are human beings. They have a specific nature. Choosing a moral code is only one part of that.

What's more, you don't even choose a moral code once and then it's over. You have to choose day after day when stuff happens. Choosing--and applying--and refining--a moral code is an unending job. It is, to quote Rand, "a code of values to guide man's choices." It is not a code of automatic behavior.

As to human-to-human violence, a human being has to choose not to be violent. Without that conscious choice, his prewiring leads him to be violent more often than not. At that level, I don't think a moral code is even on the table.

Look at history.

One of the reasons I dislike bullying so much is that the bully turns off his brain for dealing with others and allows his prewiring to take over.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

Well, between you and Spencer, Spencer wins hands down. You haven't as yet addressed a single point he makes to show where he he's wrong. Faithfreedom.org, say's pretty much the same things as Spencer, and they are all ex-muslims. Ali Sina, I think, was offering a large sum of money if you prove him wrong. You could go there and collect, because your knowledge would surely defeat him. In doing so you'd also land a large blow for peace.

All you have to do is look it up and stop using sources like Spencer for your information on the "true intentions" of Muslims because of their religion and start looking at other explanations. After you have a bunch, analyze them and see which make sense to you and convince you credibility-wise.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You might have a shred of credibility if my post didn't include:

" Christian groups engage in the most conflict, but the level of conflict by Islamic groups began to approach that of Christian groups during the 1990s. When controlling for population size, Hypothesis 1 is clearly supported by the evidence."

I made a mistake from reading too fast.

Sorry. My bad.

The conclusion is clear, Christians are involved in more conflict in raw numbers (absolute level), Muslims are more prone to conflict proportionally - "clearly" - their word.

This is so misleading it is painful--and what's worse, you are repeating it.

As a scientist (is that correct?--at least "as a science-dude"), you know better than that.

Let me include the proper qualifications: "For the 1965-2001 study period and for the groups studied, the conclusion is clear, Christians are involved in more conflict in raw numbers (absolute level), Muslims are more prone to conflict proportionally."

Adding that the Nazi influence resulting in the rise of Islamism are strong inputs in the data spikes for context would be a nice touch of objectivity, but I don't expect that from you.

When you look at it all, that's quite a qualified term, "Muslim groups," for this study. Yet you keep trying to make it sound like all Muslims at all times.

I thought you were science-oriented.

Oh.

I forgot.

Scientists do this crap, too. Global warming debate tactics anyone?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, between you and Spencer, Spencer wins hands down.

Richard,

According to what standard? Yours?

Heh.

This is where our approaches differ. I'm not in any contest.

Facts don't need contests to be understood. They need research.

I think for myself. I show the paths for others to do the same.

I'll let you do the contest stuff.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Sorry. My bad.

Thank you.

You asked for data supporting the notion that Muslims are more prone to violence:

I totally disagree with this--especially since it is not based on anything but speculation based on Spencer-like speculation. I'm tempted to ask if you have any statistics or social data to back this up, but I already know that it is very unlikely."

At this point, it is totally irrelevant whether this violence is caused by the Nazis, or the tooth fairy, or unicorns. You asked for data backing up Infidel's claim that:

"... I think it can make them prone to violence. Much more so than Christians or Jews."

And you got it.

Bob

[Richard Wiig]

Well, between you and Spencer, Spencer wins hands down.

Richard,

According to what standard? Yours?

According to the standard of objectively presenting the facts about Islam. Mr Spencer backs up everything he says with Islamic sources, which I have not seen you do once. All I've seen you do so is attack the character of those who've reached different conclusions from you.

Heh.

This is where our approaches differ. I'm not in any contest.

Facts don't need contests to be understood.

Just a choice of words, it doesn't mean I think it's a contest. The purpose is to ascertain the truth.

They need research.

Sure, and Mr Spencers research is extensive and impeccable.

I think for myself. I show the paths for others to do the same.

I'll let you do the contest stuff.

Michael

Seems to me that you let your bias get in the way of your thinking.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seems to me that you let your bias get in the way of your thinking.

Richard,

You're right.

I avoid debating with bigots like Spencer.

I am biased against that.

Dealing with this crap on my own forum is irritating enough.

And to identify the hidden message you keep trying to sneak in--I have quoted many of the passages from the Qur'an that Spencer does. So I don't need to "refute" that those passages exist. That the passages exist is not the question (like you keep insinuating).

The problem is another. I strenuously disagree that mainstream Islam takes inspiration from those passages. The bigoted little message Islam-haters always try to put in everything they write is that the violent passages are the only important parts of the Qur'an for the mainstream Islamic culture..

That's crap. Just look at the people who practice Islam and anyone can see that this is not true.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

I strenuously disagree that mainstream Islam takes inspiration from those passages. The bigoted little message Islam-haters always try to put in everything they write is that the violent passages are the only important parts of the Qur'an for the mainstream Islamic culture..

That's crap. Just look at the people who practice Islam and anyone can see that this is not true.

Michael

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad.

However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems.

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad.

However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems.

Bob,

Dayaamnm!

What happened?

You sound half-reasonable.

Michael

[Richard Wiig]

The problem is another. I strenuously disagree that mainstream Islam takes inspiration from those passages.

The FACTS disagree with you. When Mr Spencer, and others, say that mainstream Islam endorse Islamic supremacism, what they're refering to is the texts and tenets of mainstream Islam, not how closely the followers are or are not aligned with those texts and tenets.

The bigoted little message Islam-haters always try to put in everything they write is that the violent passages are the only important parts of the Qur'an for the mainstream Islamic culture..

They do no such thing, and you leave the realms of objective analysis and replace it with your bias when you declare so. They say that in regards to combatting the movement that produces 9/11 and Beslan, and Mombai massacres, etc, that it is those parts of the Qur'an and Sunnah that drives them, and that to combat the problem it is THOSE PARTS of the qur'an and Sunnah that must be addressed.

That's crap.

That isn't crap at all. It's the very things that must be addressed in order to reform Islam. Ignore those things, or dismiss any focus on those things as "nothing but bigotry" and Islam will never be reformed. To reform it requires a focus on the things that need reforming. You are acting contrary to what's needed for freedom.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Infidel

[Richard Wiig]

I strenuously disagree that mainstream Islam takes inspiration from those passages. The bigoted little message Islam-haters always try to put in everything they write is that the violent passages are the only important parts of the Qur'an for the mainstream Islamic culture..

That's crap. Just look at the people who practice Islam and anyone can see that this is not true.

Michael

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad.

However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems.

Bob

If numbers is what is mean't by mainstream, then it's a different issue to what's in the qur'an and sunnah. I don't know if anyone actually really has the numbers. You can only look at the trend and its opposition. The trend is towards Islamisation as opposed to moving away from it. That's all we need to know, and the numbers are really irrelevant in terms of combatting the trend.

[bmacwilliam]

I strenuously disagree that mainstream Islam takes inspiration from those passages. The bigoted little message Islam-haters always try to put in everything they write is that the violent passages are the only important parts of the Qur'an for the mainstream Islamic culture..

That's crap. Just look at the people who practice Islam and anyone can see that this is not true.

Michael

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad.

However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems.

Bob

If numbers is what is mean't by mainstream, then it's a different issue to what's in the qur'an and sunnah. I don't know if anyone actually really has the numbers. You can only look at the trend and its opposition. The trend is towards Islamisation as opposed to moving away from it. That's all we need to know, and the numbers are really irrelevant in terms of combatting the trend.

Not exactly sure what you mean. There are several points in play here.

My point in the above post is that it's quite clear, in Egypt's case at least, that it is not a fringe minority that holds beliefs that are unacceptable, but rather a sizeable majority. That ain't good.

Also, the polls found that "only" about 7% of Muslims feel that the 911 bombings were completely justified. I guess we're supposed to take comfort in this? Who knows what portion feel partially justified.

Anyway, that puts the number of drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks at about 70 million (twice the population of my entire country). Boggles the mind.

Bob

[Selene]

Gentlemen:

Serious question. If the texts of the Qur'an have existed for "x" amount of years, which I will stipulate that they have, has "suicidal" actions been used by Muslims prior to the 1890's?

This is a serious question. I know that in the Huk rebellion, there were the equivalent of mass attacks that were direct frontal assaults on US trench works. This led to the development of the .45 automatic which had the stopping power and the rapid firing capability to stem these charges by Muslim warriors.

I believe the British ran into this in the Sudan also, but I will have to check that to be sure.

However, these were frontal assaults and not individual "suicidal" acts.

Therefore, are there instances throughout Muslim history of this type of action, or is it a more recent phenomena?

Adam

[Richard Wiig]

I strenuously disagree that mainstream Islam takes inspiration from those passages. The bigoted little message Islam-haters always try to put in everything they write is that the violent passages are the only important parts of the Qur'an for the mainstream Islamic culture..

That's crap. Just look at the people who practice Islam and anyone can see that this is not true.

Michael

This is where the big mistake lies. According to Gallop, 70% of Egytian men think Sharia law should be the only source of law. This compares to 9% of Americans (Bible). 70% is "mainstream" and mainstream is very bad.

However, other muslim countries don't seem to be as bad as Eqypt, so there's hope, just not much for Eqypt it seems.

Bob

If numbers is what is mean't by mainstream, then it's a different issue to what's in the qur'an and sunnah. I don't know if anyone actually really has the numbers. You can only look at the trend and its opposition. The trend is towards Islamisation as opposed to moving away from it. That's all we need to know, and the numbers are really irrelevant in terms of combatting the trend.

Not exactly sure what you mean. There are several points in play here.

I was refering to Michael's use of the term 'mainstream' as opposed to Mr Spencer's use of it. I wasn't disagreeing with your poll numbers.

My point in the above post is that it's quite clear, in Egypt's case at least, that it is not a fringe minority that holds beliefs that are unacceptable, but rather a sizeable majority. That ain't good.

Yes, it's not good at all. What's happening now is a Middle East that's becoming more anti-West, not less. That's not good for anyone, first and foremost, Israel.

Also, the polls found that "only" about 7% of Muslims feel that the 911 bombings were completely justified. I guess we're supposed to take comfort in this? Who knows what portion feel partially justified.

Essentally it's not the most important issue. How many support what they're fighting for - Shariah - is really the issue. Those working to bring it about by non-violent means are equally a threat.

Anyway, that puts the number of drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks at about 70 million (twice the population of my entire country). Boggles the mind.

Bob

Yeah, but you're probably just a bigot, Bob ;-)

[Richard Wiig]

Gentlemen:

Serious question. If the texts of the Qur'an have existed for "x" amount of years, which I will stipulate that they have, has "suicidal" actions been used by Muslims prior to the 1890's?

This is a serious question. I know that in the Huk rebellion, there were the equivalent of mass attacks that were direct frontal assaults on US trench works. This led to the development of the .45 automatic which had the stopping power and the rapid firing capability to stem these charges by Muslim warriors.

I believe the British ran into this in the Sudan also, but I will have to check that to be sure.

However, these were frontal assaults and not individual "suicidal" acts.

Therefore, are there instances throughout Muslim history of this type of action, or is it a more recent phenomena?

Adam

To be honest, Adam, I do not know. I know that dying for Allah - martyrdom - is not new, and that pious followers have sought martyrdom throughout the history of Islam. The earliest suicide action I know of is recorded in an exchange between Muhammad and an Islamic warrior after which the warrior threw himself into battle knowing that he'd die in the cause of Allah. The so-called suicide bomber though is a modern day thing.

[bmacwilliam]

Gentlemen:

Serious question. If the texts of the Qur'an have existed for "x" amount of years, which I will stipulate that they have, has "suicidal" actions been used by Muslims prior to the 1890's?

This is a serious question. I know that in the Huk rebellion, there were the equivalent of mass attacks that were direct frontal assaults on US trench works. This led to the development of the .45 automatic which had the stopping power and the rapid firing capability to stem these charges by Muslim warriors.

I believe the British ran into this in the Sudan also, but I will have to check that to be sure.

However, these were frontal assaults and not individual "suicidal" acts.

Therefore, are there instances throughout Muslim history of this type of action, or is it a more recent phenomena?

Adam

To be honest, Adam, I do not know. I know that dying for Allah - martyrdom - is not new, and that pious followers have sought martyrdom throughout the history of Islam. The earliest suicide action I know of is recorded in an exchange between Muhammad and an Islamic warrior after which the warrior threw himself into battle knowing that he'd die in the cause of Allah. The so-called suicide bomber though is a modern day thing.

I think we also have to remember that suicide is not the primary goal of a suicide bomber - murder is. Suicide is a side-effect of the tactic. Suicide bombing is less effective when you don't have good explosives. The tactic really only makes sense with modern explosives (or hijacked aircraft).

Bob

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You sound half-reasonable.

This quote is what I just wrote to Bob.

Anyway, that puts the number of drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks at about 70 million (twice the population of my entire country). Boggles the mind.

It was good for the three-and-a-half hours it lasted.

Gotta withdraw it, though.

(Man, I hate bigotry.)

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

You sound half-reasonable.

This quote is what I just wrote to Bob.

Anyway, that puts the number of drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks at about 70 million (twice the population of my entire country). Boggles the mind.

It was good for the three-and-a-half hours it lasted.

Gotta withdraw it, though.

(Man, I hate bigotry.)

Michael

Tell me what's bigoted about that. Seriously, enlighten me and everyone else who wants to know.

How would you describe people who overtly agree that 911 was completely justified. That's who these people are.

Seriously now, enlighten me.

Bob

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Come on, man.

70 million "drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks"?

With no evidence other than a poll stating that they prefer sharia?

Have you ever thought of what life looks like to them? The alternatives from their eyes are (1) bloody dictatorship or (2) sharia. That's it.

You may not believe this, but Muslims believe in things like honesty, integrity, charity, taking care of the young and so forth. They get these lessons down at the mosque. Your poor Egyptian has no notion of what a Western society means other than what he gets on local media. And that, to him, is not an alternative that is within his realm of possibilities.

So between a dictatorship that has probably wasted a family member or friend (or more), and government coming from the mosque where he learns to be good, which would you choose if you were him?

You don't have to answer. I already know it's going to be something smartass. You wouldn't think about things like that, would you? Those data control inputs don't fit your hatred.

So let's get back to your millions of "drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks."

Wanna talk about millions of blacks or gays of Jews like that?

Don't tell me you understand their context, so you would never do that. I believe you care only about your context, anyway, not their context. In other words I bet you won't say bigoted things about blacks or gays of Jews because in our society as it has evolved, you can't. But if you could, I be you would.

You may feign to not understand this explanation of bigotry, but I have no doubt the reader understands.

And that's all I care about for now.

I suggest you keep a lid on the excesses. My standard for this crap is balance. When it gets too far off balance, I will put it back.

Michael

[bmacwilliam]

Let me tell you about my 911 experience. It pales in comparison to those closer to the disaster, but it is a moment that I will never forget nonetheless.

I was working, in Canada, for a large American technology company. We had customers in the WTC and we were glued to the TV when the news broke that the tower was struck. One guy on the other side of the room (Muslim) actually jumped out of his seat, pumped his arms in the air and cheered when the first tower fell. Yep, a guy drawing a paycheque from an American company, cheered when the tower fell. I didn't see it happen, but my friend was closer and witnessed it and it was also caught on security video. He was immediately fired of course.

This of course says nothing about Muslims, just that this guy was a total scumbag. But was most meaningful to me was how well this total psychopath was concealed and how easy it for this ilk to attack any target.

What's worse is that there are 70 million of these people - at least the one's who actually admit it, so there are AT LEAST 70 million others like him (and worse). 70 Million! Tell me how it's bigoted to disparage and fear these people, the ones who would kill you, or if they don't have the courage to do so, would be happy as a clam if you were killed?

How is anything short of war against these scumbags an option?

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

Bob,

Come on, man.

70 million "drooling psychopathic bloodthirsty jihad freaks"?

With no evidence other than a poll stating that they prefer sharia?

No, NO, NO, NO!!!

Read Dammit!!!!!!

These are the ones who admit that they believe that the 911 bombings were completely justified!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"According to the Gallup Poll, 7% of respondents think that the 9/11 attacks were "completely" justified and view the United States unfavorably.'

Look Here

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bob_Mac

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I confused your Gallup thing of 70% Egyptians with this new discussion of 70 million.

That's my mistake, but there is something you should think about.

I don't read Richard's posts in much detail because he plays a one-note Samba (Islam is the source of all evil because of some passages in the Qur'an).

Also, as a posting habit, both of you quote entire posts--many of them long and with entire quotes embedded within quotes. Folks have already read all that. And what's worse, you often follow them with a short comment. Sometimes just a one-liner.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG QUOTE(S).

Bash.

That's what they look like. That makes the reader skim even more. I know I do. After all, how many times do you have to read the same stuff over an over?

Also, many of your comments are negative comments about the poster or bashing something, not about the ideas.

So I don't feel I am unreasonable in skimming. And when you skim, you miss stuff.

Now, within that context, I come across a snarky part form you that sounds like more bashing qua bashing, do you think I--or any reader--is going to go back through all that other crap to look to see if it is different than what you normally do?

No way.

That's your writing style and that's the effect it has. I'm usually a careful reader, so if I made this error just now, imagine those readers who are not so careful.

If you want to vent and rant because it makes you feel good, I suppose that's OK as a style.

But if you want to be read and understood, I suggest thinking about this.

What's worse is that there are 70 million of these people - at least the one's who actually admit it, so there are AT LEAST 70 million others like him (and worse). 70 Million! Tell me how it's bigoted to disparage and fear these people, the ones who would kill you, or if they don't have the courage to do so, would be happy as a clam if you were killed?

I sympathize with this, but I have a couple of comments.

The 7% radical figure is actually lower than I imagined (I used to go on Daniel Pipes's estimations, which put fundamentalists at about 10%.)

I can't say that 7% is an improvement, though. While I am aware of organized efforts to spread moderate Muslim networks (for example, I have a work by the Rand Corporation--no connection to Ayn Rand, but instead the influential political think-tank--dealing with this), I am also aware of Islamist efforts to indoctrinate.

Whatever the figure is, this situation is a mess. And I fully agree with your concern that 70 million people is an ultra-dangerous figure.

As to your idea of "disparaging," I don't agree. The macho thump-on-your-chest stuff just doesn't work with fanatics. It's like trying to taunt a rattlesnake--and in this case, without knowing where it is. Fear it and fight it and eradicate it, OK. I'm on board with that. But sticking your tongue out at it in public? That's not very productive, except for putting a target on your own back for easy identification by vicious people who ambush as a habit.

There's a much smarter way of doing things.

How is anything short of war against these scumbags an option?

By pissing off the other 93% of Muslims who are not fundamentalists?

How's that going to work?

Why not try to get the other 93% to turn on the 7%?

That will do some real damage--and you don't even have to get the whole 93%. Just the public voices of that 93%. The rest will follow.

That's what I understand to be intellectual warfare.

Michael