Anglican Bishop: “Taliban can be admired for their faith and loyalty”

All muslims should be exterminated. No argument, no speeches, just exterminate the vermin!!!

I believe arthur is Solkhar in disguise; he's trying to induce people into agreeing with his disgusting comments. He also uses Christian symbols similarly; as he is an anti-Christian. Hopefully, if this is true, administration can deal with "sir arthur."

The vast majority of Germans were our enemies during World War II, but our fathers and grandfathers did not "just exterminate (all) the vermin."

Fyi, It's not Solkhar. IP's don't match

So much for a background in supposive "intel".

Apart from completely embarassing himself, and showing his own true colours with his "hopefully", he has failed in so many aspects. Anti-Christian? I am obliged and faithfully believe in the Prophethood of Jesus (Issa in Arabic), my faith is as much a part of the Abrahamic Faith as Christianity is and some argue quite convincingly that Islam has more in common with Judaism than Christianity does. I have family that are Christian and people should not forget that I come from and have proudly represented a mostly Christian nation and region.

Possibly S_R's problem is that he is used to pontificating just a bit too much without someone raising questions and is not coping with the fact that this is no longer the case.

It is rather sad, because if you take away all the colourful point-scoring that in fact we both have been doing, and strip away all the other BS, we are in fact in agreement about the need to eliminate dangerous radicalism, quickly and definitevly. I have to acknowledge that S_R has stated that he has no objection nor condemnation on basic Islamic scriptures and belief and that it is only the ugly politcal side and for that I commend him more than some of the others more blatant bigoted and indefencible lines.

A last comment, I have a second user-name that I try not to use but accidently did so once on this blog. That is the name of "Whtie Rogue". It came up once because I did not "log out" effectively and thus it came up automatically when I hit the "post" button. I ackowledged that and have not since then. I care not for some form of pathetic use of a second account to somehow prove my points, I stick to what I said, each and every time and when I make an error in facts, I admit to it quickly and openly, like when Bronwyn pointed out that recently that scum Wilders had joined an open debate in the US at some university. I did not know it and remarked that I have learnt something. Even from someone as unlikely as her.

I wish I could agree with you that it's just a matter of "the need to eliminate dangerous radicalism, quickly and definitevly." From what I see of Islam, the political aspects are too deeply ingrained in it's scriptures and teachings. This is why radicals keep appearing. I don't see how you can reform Islam without removing those things, and I don't see anyway they could ever be removed without radical changes in the Quran which would fundamentally change Islam, I don't see any Muslim ever putting up with that.

As far as being Abrahamaic, Abraham's God was Jehovah, Allah claims he is not Jehovah, and is in fact superior to Jehovah, the meaning behind "Allahu Akbar", Allah is greater. Which is why there has never been any love lost between Jew and Muslim from the very beginning. I doubt the Jewish tribes Mohammed personally wiped out would disagree. Those are the basic differences that have been, and probably will never be, overcome.

SirWilhelm,

sorry, not having a go at you but your are wrong in most of what you said and I am now curious were you learnt what you have.

Before getting to those particular point, I would turn around your argument that the politics is wrapped stricly around religous scriptures. I would say the opposite, that religous texts are being perverted to suit political ideologies. In a number of threads I said that extremism will alter the faith to support the politics instead of what it should be - the politics altering to support the faith. My argument goes further to say that someone whom is capable of usurping their faith is thus really faithless. One of my arguments or should I say a part of my agenda is the argument that nothing needs to be changed in the Qur'an at all.

Now, Allah means God, that is all. It comes from the Aramaic word for divine. Allah u Akbar means God is Great, and there is no conflict with the term Jehovah which is the Hebrew word for God. Thus how can the same God be superior to Himself? I have a Graduate of Arabic Letters, fyi and live in the Arab-speaking world now for 9 years. That is why I ask were you got that misunderstanding from. I have heard the most strangest myths, about moon-gods, that it was the name of an Idol and more and it is simply all strange rumours, deliberately pushed or not.

As for Jewish tribes, some waged war against the Muslims and lost, some sided with the Pagans and thus also fell and certainly Mohammed said that those particular Jews were to be punished a bit more than others as they rejected God's Message twice and chose the side of unGodly paganism. But it is worth noting that not all Jews were massacred and many Jewish tribes signed and supported the Muslims right from the beginning. It should also be remembered, not that anti-Muslim groups never mention, that in the Qur'an it does clearly say that all good People of the Book (Jews and Christians) will stand alongside good Muslims at the Gates of Heaven on Judgement Day.

Modern anti-semiticism amongsts Muslims is mostly a cause of pan-Arab nationalism whilst historic abuse of Jews was a global cultural issue, ie Christians abused them just as much (if not worse) than the historic Muslim world.

I was ordered to fight all men until they say "There is no god but Allah." With these farewell words the Prophet Mohammed summed up the international vision of the faith he had brought to the world. Is that a religious statement, or a political statement? "Fighting" or war, is usually the last resort of diplomacy, when one political system tries to impose it's will on another. Jihad, holy war, is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Islamic mission. There is no seperating the two in Islam, which is why there is no extremism in Islam, jihad is a universal mission, which is why there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim, if he is truly a Muslim. And there is nothing forbidden to a Muslim when attacking the infidel, especially deception, in fact lying is encouraged and praised when used against the infidel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takbir

http://www.examiner.com/x-14795-Page-One-Examin...

http://salmanspiritual.com/akbar.html

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/moongod.htm

There's where we'll defintely have to agree to disagree. I do not believe Allah is God. Most likely, he is one of many "gods" from ancient times. There is no disputing Allah was the name of a moon "god" from the evidence I've seen. The fact you have a "Graduate in Arabic Letters" may explain why you believe what you do. I belong to no religion because I believe what you call myth is really history. That if Allah was a "god", he was one of many entities that passed for "gods" in ancient times. I suggest you read Zecharia Sitchin and the many authors that have followed up on his research.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/allah_be...

Now I suspect that the above shows where you are coming from, why you speak as though you are an enemy of Islam while defending it with many words.

Of course you have every right to believe what you like, but I and most people, scolars and the rest simply will not.

If your sources are going to be answering-islam, then I think you have failed from step one in knowing the subject or the realities. The easy way out of quoting events in the 7th century and assuming that they have relevance or were targetted for today simply puts you in the same book as the radicals and extremists. If I read answering-christianity, or crusader-watch, or the like, I also can come out with "ah but I know you" statements as well.

My degree in the Arabic language is not an excuse or a bias, it is an academic qualifification of an international standard. Thus to learn in correct, you must also learn a little Aramaic and any argument that Allah means something other than the singular "God" is simply based on propoganda, agenda or in the domain of conspiracy theories. All major faiths, including all major Christian and Jewish groupings all recognise the Arabic word Allah for what it is, as do all academic institutions and professional linguists - and I stand by that.

Enemy of Islam? I am a Muslim, I defend Islam and Islamic principles, I never defend the individual actions of Muslims and Muslim groups.

I must go as I have a medical check-up to go to, but your references of what is Jihad is also incorrect. Jihad means struggle in the defence of. Do not confuse what political miltants abuse or what agenda-based authors place. History is quite clear on events.

Oh yea, I forgot about murdering apostates from Islam, murdering homosexuals and murdering siblings or children who have "un-Islamic" tendencies - you know - "honor" murdering.

Yea, all my Jewish friends murder their sisters and their children when they have un-Jewish tendencies.

Further to what I said to the other part of your statement, not many Muslim countries actually have laws that say apostacy is a capital crime or even a crime. Using your Muslim background to promote apostacy is more than often a crime in many Muslim countries, under the banner of not breaking religous laws but under sedition. Murdering homosexuals is a crime in every Muslim country as far as I can see, not sure if you can call Somalia still a country though and cannot confirm what their laws if any are.

Murdering siblings under honor-killing is not Islamic, it is disgusting cultural and tribal habits. I am rather tired of those that try and say it is Muslim and I can have a very long and rather nasty debate on that subject. I simply say go to any major official site of anti-abusal or anti-honor-kiling and they all confirm that it is both cultural and global. Yes, Arab and Turkic cultures are notorious for it, but it is not in the Qur'an or even in questionable haddiths and as I have said time and time again, people involved in such crap will always try and claim it as not only culture but faith. The MSM likes to point out Muslims doing so, but forget the existance in slavic countries, Russia, Ukrain and Belarus, were it goes under domestic violence going wrong, or that the number one nation that kills its wives and daughters for not following the rules is India. Add to that female infantacide. I watched a very good program on Sky Channel about spouse abuse and that they claimed that statistically the highest percentage of wives being beaten regularly was Nepal. I get a bit extra pissed-off and angry over such claims because I have dedicated a good part of my life and even money to the cause of protecting children from abuse and am an active member of the Maroc chapter of "Touche pas mon enfant" (do not touch my child).

A last comment and in fact a good example of perspective. If Israel was run by ultra-orthodox Jews, I am certain that old laws of stoning, imprisonment of homosexuals, limited rights to women and worse would happen. I say that because if you understand that, then you will see the problem that a number of Muslim countries suffer. Another example, there is a Calvanist Party that has two seats in the Dutch Parliament (tweedekamer) that if in power would criminalize homosexuality and ban women from public office.

Islamic Sharia law functions in the background of all majority Muslim societies, and it invariably trumps any secular law; so your arguments are irrational. It is also irrational to point out the injustice that occurred in ancient Israel or during Medieval Christian times as a defense of today's coercive, totalitarian, mass-murdering Islam. The ancient and Medieval societies of which you speak have undergone reformation in the direction of reason, unalienable human rights and equality before law deriving from the consent of the governed; Islam has not - it is "reforming" toward evil.

Well that certainly puts a stiff cork up the backside of any drivel about a background in "intel". Shari'a trumping secular law in the "majority of Muslim societies" is perhaps your wet-dream "Storm_Rider" and if you would be so kind to back that up with fact please. So we can now go down that path..... calling you a liar!

The obvious incompatibility of secular and Shari'a Law is evident with the multitude of impossibilties that exist in Secular-legal Muslim countries. If the Storm_Riders lies are to be accepted, tourism would be dead, foreign residences would be halved if not more and some of the BS that agenda-farting that many anti-Muslim loons would blurt would in fact be real. I guess that is what the liar wants, it is his goal.

That saying appears to be correct about "armchair experts" whom have no knowledge at all of the reality on the ground.

Egypt is a so-called secular Islamic nation; but Islamic Sharia Law rules the roost there in the background and in the foreground as it also does in the so-called religious Islamic nations exclusively in the foreground. Sharia Laws "are the principal source of legislation" under the Egyptian Constitution . This puts a stiff cork in several of your orifices; and once again proves you are a lying enemy propagandist for totalitarian Islam. Unfortunately the Egyptian Copts aren't enjoying any Egyptian secular "justice;" rather they suffer under Egyptian Sharia injustice. What a huge mountain of lies you have constructed, you are an expert all right; an expert at lies and propaganda for the benefit of our enemies, and a legend in your own mind. You are our enemy.

"We, the people of Egypt, out of determination, confidence and faith in all national and international responsibilities, and in acknowledgment of Allah's right and His Heavenly Messages... Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic its official language. Principles of Islamic law ( Shari'a) are the principal source of legislation."

http://www.egypt.gov.eg/english/laws/Constituti...

"In 1980 the National Assembly accepted an amendment to the constitution which declared Islam to be the "religion of state" and acknowledged the Sharia as "the principal source of legislation". The constitutional changes were matched by a government sponsored program to bring gradually the whole of Egypt's civil law into harmony with Islamic law."

"In 1982 the Penal Code was amended to make: "inciting civil unrest by exploiting religion with the intent to threaten national unity by means of propaganda or approving extremist views expressed verbally, in writing or in any other way; and showing disdain for or denigrating a heavenly religion (Islam, Christianity and Judaism - ed.) or its adherents offences affecting the security of the state and punishable by imprisonment from 6 months to 5 years or by a fine of between 500 and 1,000 pounds".

"These broad and ill-defined laws are used by the government to imprison revolutionary Muslim extremists. But they are also used to restrict the right of Christians to question publicly and peacefully Muslim doctrine and practice. In practice the state generally tolerates the public denigration of Christianity, but intervenes when Islam is challenged publicly."

http://www.amcoptic.com/egyptmag/idea.html

"This is what has happened in individual incidents... such as the Zeitoun incident a few days ago, or the Alexandria incident two years ago. If we observe closely, we find that these criminals then disappear, and are not brought [to trial in] any court, and no one hears about them afterward."

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/2800...

"In Sunni Muslim-dominated Egypt, the law allows the repair of churches without a prior permit but church officials must give written notice to the provincial authorities, the EIPR said. According to officials from the Archangel Michael Church, the state security intelligence has prevented repair from being carried out at the church for the past 11 years."

http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/08/25/egyptian-...

"Two Coptic Christians wrongfully arrested for killing a Muslim during the May 31 attack on Abu Fana monastery in Egypt have been tortured and sent to a detention camp so authorities could try to extract a false confession, their lawyer said. Egyptian authorities sent brothers Refaat and Ibrahim Fawzy Abdo to El Wadi El Gadid Detention Camp near the Egypt-Sudan border on Nov. 22. A week earlier they were bailed out pending their court case – but never released – and held in a Mallawi police station until their transfer to the camp. The brothers’ attorney, Zakary Kamal, said the timing of the murder at the monastery rules out any possibility of the two Copts having committed it. Monks at Abu Fana say the Fawazy Abdo brothers were far from the monastery at the time of the attacks. Security forces are detaining the brothers to blackmail the Coptic Church into testifying that the attack against Abu Fana monastery in Mallawi, Upper Egypt, was not religiously motivated, Kamal said. “They want the whole issue to be seen by the public as if it were an exchange of gunfire and a criminal case that had nothing to do with persecution of Christians,” he told Compass. At the beginning of Refaat and Ibrahim Fawzy Abdo’s captivity in June, police subjected the two men to electric shocks eight hours a day for three days to try to force them to testify that the Abu Fana monks were armed during the attack, sources said."

http://infidelsarecool.com/2008/12/02/egypt-pol...

The giving of individual examples does not cover the whole. I have no doubt that many Muslim countries are fully inspired by God's law, but even in those cases, not necessarily the 7th century interpretation.

My whole point is that your comment is a generalization and yet your backing them up with individual cases of that are a simplification. I still consider that modern secular laws fly in the face of unworkable interpretations of Shari'a and that is why most nations and peoples have rejected implementing a theological based legal system. Though homosexuality and sodomy is considered immoral in Islam and clearly expressed in those haddith-based Shari'a, most Muslim countries do not punish homosexuals if the subject is kept out of public. That is a right's issue, but nevertheless that is the reality right now. Adultery is not a capital crime in most Muslim countries and stoning is done in four or five that I know of. Adultery is still considered a crime, for both men and women, in most countries but that is a reflection of the moral standards that you have if the bulk of the population is Muslim - that does not mean backward theological "interpretations" (ie Shari'a). Adultery results in a fine, and certain loss of custody of infants and the courts interestingly will offer immediate unullment of marriage if the other party wishes it. Certainly there are those backward nations that will have biased to the man over the women, over the last three five years though six nations have changed laws accordingly.

I think, it is a fair statement to say that Islamic principles reflect the laws of any Muslim country because as in any country the laws reflect the morals and standards of its people. That, however, does not mean Shari'a "functions in the background of all majority Muslim societies, and it invariably trumps any secular law." A Shari'a system means theological interpretation and control over laws. Inheritance, death penalties, divorce rules, allowing alcohol sales, movement of women in public, education rights all would not exist in many countries if your statement was correct, but they do.

Actually I'm happy to hear that you are not arthur; thanks for clearing that up. It was only a theory; I accept the truth and I'm not embarrassed - only liars like you are embarrassing to themselves.

I believe that arthur is anti-Christian because his statements were not compatible with the teachings of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not a prophet; He was God incarnate and the Prince of Peace, and His kingdom is not of this world.

Islam does not have more in common with Judaism than Christianity because Islam violates the command "you shall not murder" (Jihad), and "you shall not commit adultery (Polygamy under Sharia)," and "you shall not steal (theft of non-Muslim property under Sharia), and "you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor (Taqiyya and Kitman under Sharia).

Your constant use of the world "liar" is rather sad actually. I do not call you a liar, I consider that your base of information or perception is simply wrong. I could follow suit with you but that would simply be wrong. I am certainly not emberassed over anything when it come to my experiences, beliefs and opinions.

I agree with you that ARther is obviously anti-Christian, I smelt that also in his method of statements. Though I believe Jesus as a Prophet and not as a God incarnate, I can only add that any Muslim whom disrespects Jesus simply is a very piss-poor Muslim in any one's books.

S_R, I will, though, put you to taks over your last sentance. The law of though shall not kill applies to Islam and your comprehension of what is "Jihad" is skewered. The word Jihad as it is known in these troubling times is a word more used by westerners than most Muslims. Radicals and extremists use it for their sick political goals as an excuse, but "Islam does..." as you say is incorrect. The word Jihad means "struggle in defence of" and the history of the use of that word shows only that. The defence of attacks from the Meccan Pagans, the response to the declarations of Holy Crusade by Uban II and other later Popes and in fact they were the only "jihads". The incorrect assumption by many that the expansion of Islam was never referred to or declared a "jihad". The last 30 years is another story.

Your assumption that polygamy is adultry can be disputed until the end of days. Christian polygamists will certainly argue. I think, if you actually do some further research, that "adultary" is considered amongst the most vile of morale crimes within Islam and the sanctity of formal marriage is paramount in Islamic principles. The remark about theft of non-Muslim property should be looked at closely, it is in some of the disputed haddiths and thus for me is not real pure "shari'a". That rediculous base on what happened in a "normal and typical 7th century Arabia" is relevent for today. Pure Islam copes with modernity, extremism does not.

The last and most interesting terms you have used it Taqiyya and Kitman. That word is used more by Robert Spencer and Hugh Fitzgerald then the entire Muslim world put together and anti-Muslim blogs brag and use it as the great "escape clause" (not matter what you answer, your a liar), and it simply is ludicrous. I regularly ask other Muslims here or where I travel all over the ME, South Asia or here in North Africa and the only ones who actualy know the words are theology students or Imams and all of they say - "oh yeah, I read that somewhere". I think Spencer in his desperate researches to look for something stumbled accross it. It has no relevance at all.; As I pushed to find out more about those words, I had the pleasure of going to Fez here in Morocco which is the second oldest on-going University in the world and the Maliki School of Islamic School of Jurispudence and asked one of the senior professors there. He said that it is a reference, under Shari'a that, if you or your family are threatened with death or slavery if you do not renounce your faith, that you may do so verbally but in your heart retain your faith, to later re-declare. That was the reason and motive and simply put, it is in the books as an "old world thing" that has no relevance or value of today.

Apart from that, there is enough examples and actual demands in the Qur'an itself to condemn false witness (lies) multiple times.

I stand by statement saying that in fact Islam has more similarities to Judaism than Christianity, starting with following those commandments of Mussa (Moses) which is often known as the "laws of The Book" or Kitabun al lakatan (قانون للكتاب ) and also more closely associated with Abrahamic Laws that are not so often accepted in Christian society.

I called you a liar because you are a liar; and I've used the term primarily as descriptive, but the description is usually perceived by liars primarily as an insult.

You said that Geert Wilders discriminates against people based on race and sex, i.e.: that some people should not be equal under law based on race or sex. That is a lie in regards to Geert Wilders, but true in regard to Islamic Sharia Law. When I asked you to back up your lie with direct evidence in Geert Wilder's own words that all of here can actually read or listen to; you refused, saying it was (since you are an intellectual) somehow a waste of your valuable time - that we here are not worth the expenditure.

Islamic Jihad is not just inner personal struggle, and not just defensive. Islamic Jihad is also coercion, assassination, murder, mass-murder and conquest. This has been true since the 7th century. This is another of your lies.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=25155...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=ye...

So, there you have it. You are an insulting liar and an enemy propagandist for the evil of Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law, and you should therefore be mocked and banned from this blog.

Therefore based on your last post, which is based on two pathetic would-be references, your an ugly agenda-based bigot whom uses and abuses the Founding Fathers of America to cover up your base and vile hate.

The above video link reveals the ugly hateful bigotry of totalitarian Islam, spoken by Muslims in a British Mosque and in plain view for all to see. The video is certainly pathetic, but it is true; and it is evidence against your lies. The second link is an excellent analysis of totalitarian Islam, i.e.: Sharia Law, and since you are its supporter I'm not surprised that you would find it distasteful, just as Goebbels would find anti-Nazi literature distasteful.

My agenda is the same as our Founding Fathers.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson

We shouldn't "exterminate the vermin (all Muslims);" but we should stop Muslim immigration until our war with Totalitarian Islam (Sharia Law and Islamic Jihad) is over. I think Congress, the President (maybe the next one) and the Supreme Court should all declare Totalitarian Islam (Sharia Law), Fascism and Marxism as un-Declarational - something even worse than un-Constitutional. un-Declarational political power is casus belli - cause for just war in defense of sacred human life and lliberty. Never forget; our Declaration of Independence is an eternal declaration of war "against every form of tyrannty over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson

I think you may be right SR

My God Sir Arthur,

You make ME sound like a raging Lefty.

And Im Part of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.

Dang Art, stop holding back and tell us how you really feel. Should we crank up the gas chambers and fire up the burners in the crematoria too???

Yes there are two types of paedophile taliban. Dead ones and live ones. The sooner they all convert to the dead ones the better for our brave troops!!!

The Left Rev Venner needs to have a "heart to heart" with Rev Franklin Graham.

Freedomlvr: The left Venner, agrees with stupids like Campbell Brown, Rev. Graham would waste his time talking to this Godless guy. GRRRR

Perfect: File this under “too stupid to know better” Amen Brother!

If this sissyfied REV???? doesn't beat all, what an idiot. His brain is rotton and his mouth is full of rotton garbage. "From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks," so I think we all know where everyone's heart is on here. Too bad, GRRRRR!

Nazi Germany was the enemy of the individual's sacred rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; just like the Taliban.

“We’ve been too simplistic in our attitude towards the Nazis”

“The Nazis can perhaps be admired for their conviction to their faith and their sense of loyalty to each other.”

“We must remember that there are a lot of people who are under their Nazi influence for a whole range of reasons, and we simply can’t lump all of those together... To blanket them all as evil and paint them as black is not helpful in a very complex situation.”

First it is Islam that you equated Nazism, now it is Taliban-tribalism, what next, American political Liberalism?

I think there is not one posting here that does not have the words Nazism, Totalitarianism or Marxism in it and to think, one reader wants you into politics? Wow, can US politics actually sink any lower?

"First it is Islam that you equated Nazism, now it is Taliban-tribalism, what next, American political Liberalism?"

Yes. With the current state of our Dear Leaders pushing legislation on us that A Great Majority DO NOT WANT and with The UhBama Administration trying to shut down all dissenting voices, then , Yes, They are like the fascist Nazis.

"I think there is not one posting here that does not have the words Nazism, Totalitarianism or Marxism in it and to think, one reader wants you into politics? Wow, can US politics actually sink any lower?"

I hope not, but it probably will anyway.

The Taliban are simply Afghan and Paki Muslims who are devoted to Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law and murdering/torturing Islamic Jihad. The Taliban is no different from al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or Hamas. Why is this so difficult? I believe there is method to your madness here - you are a totalitarian yourself.

Yes, there is a link between Nazism, Marxism and Islam - they are all totalitarian political ideologies with mass-murdering, torturing. terrorizing police and military machines.

You keep forgetting or hiding from the truth that "peaceful" Muslims have a rigid allegiance to Islam, even with its totalitarian law and murdering jihad; thus the deafening silence from them and their irrelevance. This corresponds exactly to the irrelevant majority of "peaceful" Germans in the 1930's and 1940's who maintained allegiance to Nazi Germany.

http://infidelsarecool.com/2009/12/02/islam-and...

Unless the vast majority of Muslims reject totalitarian Sharia Law and mass-murdering Islamic Jihad; the world is in for Nuclear and Bio-weapon nightmare. World War IV will make World War III (Cold War) and World War II look small.

You are more than just a liar; you are an enemy.

Storm_Rider:"You are more than just a liar; you are an enemy."
The crux,the gist,the guts,the bottom line,the final word,the meat and bones and the pith all rolled into a tidy little nutshell.
That should be our starting point and our vigilance.
You da man,Storm_Rider!

Silly boy, Storm Rider! Didn't you know that as long as the likes of the Taliban, et al are in the minority Islam is above criticism? And what's all this about comparing Islam with Nazism and Marxism? How can you be so foolish? Didn't you realise that Islam, unlike the other two, is the trailblazer for Democracy in a troubled world? Solkhar, like 99% of Muslims, seeks friendship and thoughtful dialogue with all religions, welcoming them into Islamic lands without persecution or censure. You, like John and, alas, me, all too often fail to see the points Solkhar makes, so we must try harder in order that his reason and fairness become clear. Solkhar tells it like it is (he is going to educate us, shortly, about the "other" Taliban) so we must take full advantage of his erudition, veracity and well-meaning intentions. Got that?

It's like someone saying don't fear the spear; only the tip is sharp. Totalitarian Islamic Sharia Law and mass-murdering Islamic Jihad is the tip of Islam's spear, and the ordinary "peaceful" "non-violent" Muslims are the shaft - not sharp but essential for the spear's function.

Substitute "Nazi Law" for "Sharia Law"

Substiutue "Gestapo, S.S. and German Military" for "Islamic Jihad"

Substitute "Ordinary German" for "Ordinary Muslim"

This is excellent, a brilliant point. If you are retired from intelligence work, I wish you would go back. Your country needs you.

Intelligence work? I doubt it. Having been linked and worked with intel collectors for 22 years and being a supplier of data for the intel community here in North Africa for the last 8, I see nothing that even remotely looks like someone who has an understanding of the world. The constant references to founding fathers, no such references to other important idealists from other nations, persistant references to Totalitariansim, Marxism and National Socialism are signs of someone who simply has read a few too many novels.

The very hard working and dedicated group of professionals that actually do intel collection and analysis are people that do not show xenophobic tendancies, absolutely NEVER generalize and understand the difference between radical Muslims, political Arab-Nationalism, tribalism and what is pure Islam, let alone its relevance of today.

Solkhar, you don't know what you ae talking about -- again.

Bronwyn, and I continue to say that you should stop dreaming that you even have the foggiest understanding of what the subject is.

Tsk, tsk, Bronwyn, go back to back and when you wake up, try and not pretend your even remotely aware of the subject matter, let alone why and what your on about.

You are an anti-American "professional" dedicated to Totalitarian Islam. You are obviously not hard-working because you spend far too much time defending Political Islam on conservative American blogs. Your constant undermining of the American Founding Fathers and references to "important idealists" from other nations are signs of someone who has become a legend in his own mind.

Your idea of "intel" is no doubt that which will blind America to the capabilities and intentions of our enemies - yes our Totalitarian Islamist enemies.

What you think my motives are have nothing to do with your dreams of reality.

My ideal of "intel" collection and analysis comes from 29 years of hard work, including within the OSCE and though I claim no great contribution, I have participated in data collection and working with analysts all throughout my career, up to the present.

All your phrases, your going on about "founding fathers", your overly liberal use of the worlds totalitarian, marxism and nazism simply does not stick with anyone who has been associated with the real business of analysis and protecting our countries from tyranny, extremism and terrorism. That all-to-easy accussation that because I certainly do not agree with your assumptions that I am anti-American is less than pathetic. I have not not only worked alongside Americans, have worked in the US, currently provide data to US authorities but know what defending means obviously better than you. Add to that I have lost in the 9/11 attacks what I considered good friends (they used the word buddies) whom were dedicated and decorated FBI staff, I know they would be laughing at your words and accussations.

You have constantly failed and contradicted your own words. In this and other threads you have stated that you have no issue nor problem with Islamic faith and practice yet you constantly bag it. You have constantly and incorrectly said I am defending political-Islam - whatever that really means. I have never done so. I have never supported "radical and political Muslim groups" which is the real term.

The very imature and predictable blame, that someone does when they have no ammunition is predictable. I disagree with relevance of your TJ quotes and over-use of the term Founding Fathers and thus you say I undermine it. Your very arrogant "Americachauvinism" is clear and obvious, only what is American is good and is the cure for the world, you have claimed that now a number of times. Such language is in fact why over the last decade the US was considered by many nations, Eurpopean and developing as an arrogant and dispised society. This damage will take decades to repair. The US is a great place, it has some great ideals but for my part it is certainly not the best, the greatest or my prefered country to ever live in or visit regularly - though I do for family reasons. There is no "greatest, best or perfect" society and that is the simple truth.

I have heard what you say here and elsewhere many times, from you and others. Yep, Americans are viewed as arrogant, so are the French and the Greeks, and also the arabs, especially the muslims. So what? If Americans are arrogant, at least they have cause. Everybody from a 1st tier nation has just cause to be arrogant as well. Would you rather that we American chauvinists were condescending? That would really have you bubbling spit wouldn't it? I agree with you on several points actually, one main point of view I semi-question. You say that there are basically 2 types of muz....the "Radical and political muslim groups", and others. These others are, supposedly, nice, quiet semi-assimilated, or, at least, somewhat habituated to living in the west, and are not the "trouble making kind". Well and good. I still dislike them. I detest their robes. their stink, their ugly mosques and their pushiness. The second category may be harmless, sincere, and eminently peaceful as newborn lambs....but they still seem to be "in-your-face" with their "but I'm a muslim, and that's our custom". I agree also that the government should develop enough gonads to address the muz and tell them flat out what we like, what we don't like and how their behavior should be modified to accommodate us rather than the other way around.....but that ain't going to happen. With the PC pandemic raging here?....no way are the politicos going to do anything but appease. I lived in the Detroit area for several years, and since there is the largest concentration of arabs outside the M/E there, I know what works with them. You got to kick their asses....then they really believe that you're serious. And as you say, 2nd and 3rd generation are, somehow, no longer such assholes as their daddies were. Although I have never really thought about religion as ever being a "factor" in my relations with others, with muslims, it seems as if it is always the MAIN factor...especially with new immigrants. And it always comes to a bottom line....to trust, or not to trust, or even befriend or not, a muslim, just on the basis of what their relation to islam is. The problem boils down to: How can I tell? How in the world can I be expected to understand enough about this person, of foreign origin, to make a decision on whether trust can be given? And why should I bother to understand this foreign crap? And how many people do you think really give a damn about islam in the US? Not too many, I can assure you. Ask the man in the street who the Secretary of state is for their own state and you'll get the very same blank look if you ask them about islam. All they know is "them %$#@@%& muz bastiges is the ones that killed all them folks in New York on 9/11". The arabs that I know tell me about it. The Christian arabs suffer because the bad name islam has put on all arabs here causes suspicion of them. Many times it's justified. The muz arabs will screw over the Christian arabs in a heartbeat....I've seen that too. Muz scum bucket got his butt kicked over that one. Messed with the wrong Syrian that time. I have no idea what the answer is. Muslims kill each other with regularity. The fact that Iran may have, or will have very soon, an atomic weapon of mass distruction is the kicker. Israel may destroy Iran. They will have to do that BEFORE the Russian built air defence system is "on line". How much time is that? The Russians have discovered the business technique of "Cost over runs", production delays, and unanticipated cost appendages and they're milking the Iranians. That's going to be the limit though. When that system goes on line, nothing but stealth tech will penetrate Iran's airspace. So Iran can kiss their asses boodbye just before that happens, since Israel doesn't have the stealth tech (at least that we know of) and that act will kick over the whole can of worms. That's when the poop will definitely hit the air circulating device.

I have seen your type of response many times as well.

Apart from what I think is your very misguided comments about Iran - on the other thread you dismissed my comments about Syria's anti-Air defence being so strong as being my imagination yet I quoted IDF and a major Israeli newspaper as confirming sources. So, just so I do not have to bother writting the same on that, .......; go fool yourself!

Now on the topic of the perception of the US. Though my comments can be justifiably called generalization, I defend that considering most on this blog are generalising and over-simplifiying all the time.

I am talking about US political/diplomatic power-plays and relations, as well as some US-based MSM. It has nothing to do with the country's successes, military or economic power itself, but those factors were used and abused as an excuse. The polarizing of US politics, and a domination for a long period of the more far-right/conservative element created a political example of the term "Ugly American". That turned into poltically motivated diplomatic arrogance. I know this because I know many US diplomats whom had to suffer for a decade whilst political leadership pushed a line that simply ran against the grain of many nations, both developed and western or poor "third world".

Before that happened, the US believed in constructive engagement, kept its justifiable strong image and independence, protected its own trade and position and forced some factors based on its political strength - most nations would do that. But, for almost a decade it become the matter of course at levels that simply made many enemies and a great level of diplomatic leverage was lost. The ideology of some players, like the last VP, Rummsfeld and some others stepped even further, promoting other ideologies that simply were shocking to most diplomats. The image of Rice going to traditional allies with very high levels of good governance but are constitutional monarchies and then in front of the head of state talking about systems without democracy are evil, will forever be etched in the memories of all world leaders. The thankfully short-period of a former US Ambassodor to the United Nations destroying the US's capacity to work within that organisation is still making hard-working diplomats suffer. "Bolton's blundering" is a well-known catch-phrase in the State Department to this day.

Basically, for almost ten years, the ugly process of a right-wing US administration walking around the world with a "we are better than you and so you must listen to us" and "unless it follows the American image, it is wrong" was destroying America's image overseas.

Again, I have a great respect for the US, I have worked there, worked with US diplomats, law enforcement officials and military on and off for almost 29 years. They celebrated only two great events over that period - the day Congress forced Bush to get rid of Bolton and the day that far-right interference in the art of diplomacy was voted out.

I may be "misguided" about Iran. So be it. I'm not misguided about the US. People here are sometimes amazed by the stupid shit the government does. Most Americans are pretty easy to get along with and WANT to view people as individuals rather then generalize for/against folks based on a "group". That has evolved over the years. For myself, I'd rather do that. Politicians big failing is misrepresentation of the majority, basically because they have no contact with the same conditions of the majority. They only pay attention to those who lay out the most money for their re-election. The Japanese say that "business is war" and I think international politics is also...just somewhat subdued. As the muslim nations are emerging as a "power", their petro dollar power is getting them into real problems, and that ripples into the world at large. Voluntarily or involuntarily, those dollars are being used to export the islamifascist, islaminazi, political islam (whatever you'd call it) agenda on the world. The world, obviously, is disturbed and is gradually figuring out that this is an imposition, and and irritation. What you are seeing here, in this forum, is a reaction to islam's imposition on our world and some really resent it. Yep, there are also folks that speak from fear and ignorance here, but we are crippled by a MSM that only tells us what they carefully filter through their leftist agendas. Fox started to try to change that but they've sunk into personality cults and Obama bashing. Al Jazeera...what a crock of crap they present to the world. To call them a non-agenda news agency is laughable. It's obvious what those dicks are about.
You have an opportunity here. You could be providing us with a valuable resource, as a fountain of knowledge about what is happening that our media would never tell us....or you can continue to be the pompous asshole that you've been and just continue to pontificate about how superior you think you are and how ignorant all us peckerwoods in here are. Your choice. Let me know how you feel about it. Hopefully, you'll be useful to truth and knowledge rather than just shining up your ego.

Tonto, I in fact have not much a problem with what you say and a great deal of it is more than is natural and understandable concerns.

I have not condemned the people of the US, as I have mentioned many times, I have family and good friends there and both the last and the present US Administrations are in fact one of my clients. I regularly visit Pittsburg, Baltimore and San Diego because of family. My argument was about a certain strong faction in the previous administration's leadership and how it affected the overall image of the country. I also agree with your statement that said "Politicians big failing is misrepresentation of the majority, basically because they have no contact with the same conditions of the majority. They only pay attention to those who lay out the most money for their re-election.".

That statement is not only correct but I should point out to you that this is also the case in the rest of the world, including the Muslim one. There is always this assumption by many that the failings or excuses of one nation or people does not apply to others. The authorities of many if not most Muslim nations does not reflect the will of its people as well.

As for the petro-dollar as you put it, please do not forget that only half the nations of the Muslim world have oil. Thinking that all the Muslim countries are oil-rich nations with camels, t-towels on their heads is a good way to get things wrong quickly.

Another thing, do you see the english language Al Jazeera International? I say that because I also have a pretty low opinion of the Arabic version of Al Jazeera. The other is quite different, they have different editors and controls and only share access to journalists. I do watch A-J International and have stopped altogether the Arabic version. As for Fox, yes they are now so agenda-driven that not much of it is worth it. My preference is to watch a bit from A-J Int, BBC World, CNN, Sky News and France 24. That gives me a pretty good mix and variations of opinions. Sometimes I watch Al Arabia to get a different perspective on key issues.

A last thing, I do not pontificate or presume that I am more intelligent or better than others. I ONLY remark on subjects that I am aware of, work with and thus have knowledge on and then point out the errors. I do not remark on US politics, only foreign affairs or how they should deal with Muslims. I talk about and point out errors people make in what is Islamic principles and what is the sick politics of society and culture by Muslims. I never defend the evil behaviour of Muslims or organisations at all, if anything I have equally condemned.

My ego has nothing to do with anything, if I let that get control, I would have avoided spending my evenings here at all.

Excellent, Storm Rider.

I was going to ask the question again, when has a posting of yours not mentioned the three words Totalitarian, Nazi and Marxism and then I noticed the last one was not in the above.

Let us add one more thing to your equivillance above:

Substitute "Strorm_Rider " for "dangerous simplifications and generalizations"

As opposed to your deep and meaningful retorts, I suppose. What a twit you are.

Mmmmmm, if I am a twit and then base what conclussions you have jumped to, I take that as a complement.

“I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” Thomas Jefferson

That goes for Totalitarian Monarchy, Totalitarian Marxism, Totalitarian Fascism and Totalitarian Islam. Count me in with Thomas Jefferson and against you, solkhar.

Actually if you look up the history, Thomas Jefferson sold out his so called standards to agreeing in signing for the payments of hostage demands by Barbery Pirates based in Oran and Tunis. So much for the tyranny of man.

What is most ironic is your going on ad nauseum about Thomas Jefferson to the point of making the name less valuable than it is, and add to that, Thomas Jefferson has about as much relevance to the lives of people living outside the United States as Layla & Qaiss has outside the Middle East.

No, solkar you are a liar, an enemy and a sell out to sacred human liberty. Thomas Jefferson talked the talk and he walked the walk.

"Long before Jefferson had ever been elected President, he abhorred the idea of paying homage to the Barbary states. On many occasions he had petitioned Congress and President Adams to take military action against the Barbary powers, each time to no avail. Eventually, as an envoy to France Jefferson abdicated his position on the Barbary Pirates and gave in to the pressure of Congress... After Jefferson became President, he felt he finally had an opportunity to deal with the problem of piracy in the Mediterranean... Congress and President Adams had failed to act judiciously to solve the problem of the pirates. Adams had succeeded in keeping the United States out of an anti-piracy confederacy with other American countries. Congress had also been slow to offer acceptable amounts of money for tributes to the Barbary states. In fact, Congress had authorized a mere $80,000 for the appeasement of the Barbary powers. This was only a fraction of what it would have cost the United States to secure peace in the region. All of these previous efforts had failed, and their failures were threatening a rather large part of the United States' international trade: one sixth of American exports of wheat and flour went through the Mediterranean... Jefferson wanted what he always had, war. It appears that Jefferson, in dealing with the Barbary pirates had decided that it would be cheaper and more beneficial to fight a war than continually to pay homage... Jefferson wanted what he always had, war. It appears that Jefferson, in dealing with the Barbary pirates had decided that it would be cheaper and more beneficial to fight a war than continually to pay homage. President Jefferson had made his entire presidency one that stressed reduced budgets and spending, and the discharge of the public debt. Continuing to pay large ransoms and other gratuities would not achieve this goal; fighting a short decisive war might. Jefferson saw this as an opportunity to advance the goals of his administration, and decided, therefore, to deploy the navy... Congress did authorize the appropriate measures of allowing the navy and the President to capture and make prizes of Tripolitan vessels. The authorization led to a war effort the lasted for four years."

http://www.pccua.edu/keough/Thomas%20Jefferson%...

“As our enemies have found we can reason like men, so now let us show them we can fight like men also.” Thomas Jefferson

that's not entirely accurate Solkhar.

When Jefferson became president in 1801, he took a hard line against the terrorists and their sponsors. “I know that nothing will stop the eternal increase of demands from these pirates but the presence of an armed force, and it will be more economical & more honorable to use the same means at once for suppressing their insolencies,” he wrote.

The president dispatched nearly all ships of the fledgling American Navy to sail thousands of miles across the Atlantic to do battle with the North African thugs. After a few initial reverses, daring raids on sea and land by the new Marine Corps, (earning the phrase in their hymn “….to the shores of Tripoli”) they won sweeping victory.

And yet he also paid ransom fees and did not refuse point blank showing his true absolute dedication to his principles "as Strorm_Rider" implies. I could add to that along with the other founding fathers, whom I think were great men, that according to S_R perfection was created, and thus all men were created equal - though blacks, native population and women had no voting rights or worse. He then tried to change the subject by saying that it was British, which is funny, because I thought they were kicked out under a thing called "independance"!

My point here, and I was not interested in being a part of S_R's constant "but in America we do this, or America is great" as if it is some form of answer to all issues and problems, which to be honest - it is not at all.

I simply do object to such patronizing and arrogant use of language which flies in the face of all the quality and dedicated American professionals I have worked alongside for over almost 30 years.

Many of the quotes that were quoted are important, some have partial relevance but the context and the assumptions made from them in the subjects discussed are few and far between. Add to that, any attempt to say it, you get that school-yard - "your anti-American" or "your a supporter of totalitarian political-Islam" .

As for the battle agains the pirates, it was an important victory in many ways, it also allowed the very weak Sultan in Morocco to finaly stick the finger out of whatever deep dark hole it was in to start putting them out of business. During those very first years of US independance, it was Morocco that first recognised the country, then they had a strong trade pact, then the pirates changed it all, then the payments to their demands, then this war and then a really strong treaty and even a permanent trade delegation in "rue des consuls" in Rabat.

I don't know Beejj. I think there is plenty to criticize about islam. How about the 14,514 jihadi attacks since 9/11 for starters? The week of Dec. 5-11 had 30 jihadi attacks, with 258 dead and 812 critically injured. If the truth were told, in all, this was a slow week for the muz scumbags v. the world. Islam started as a fake in the first place, but since the beginning, has been "run off with" by the clergy just like the Catholic Church was for centuries. The saving grace to the world was the concept that "Church and State are SEPARATE entities" and the islamists are trying with all their strength to reverse that trend. To islam, the separation of Church and State is ruination and the end of islam as they see it. Myself, I have no use for any organized religion that demands total control of behavior....no matter what the religion is. All religion is a "suggestion" not a law. Islamists find that impossible to consider. To islam, the koran and hadith is law....whether or not it was something cooked up by a Mecca street beggar and bandit or not. Law should, and actually is, a set of behavior patterns agreed upon by the members of a society. Anybody has a choice to adhere to those patterns or not...and as a result, be punished or removed from that society. That concept is as old as time, religion is a relatively new concept and completely bogus as far as I'm concerned. The laws that really count are those that a society makes for itself and is mutually accepted by all members....membership after the passage to adulthood is voluntary.

Armour-plated wisdom, as always, Tonto.

Rusty iron plating perhaps.

For starters he has equated Islam with 9/11 and following that line he has faulted from the beginning.

You're an idiot if you think 9/11 is an invalid talking point. The 9/11 event was a muz ideal....look at the 14,500+ jihadi events that follow to back up my point. Deny that and you demonstrate taquiya....that means you lie. Quit trying to run that crap around here. Nobody is stupid enough to buy in to that, and personally, I find it insulting.

I guess there is one in every group who simply represents the base naivity on this planet, or to put it in another way, I was in early in 2006 in Chad for work and had a debate with a 65 year old post master (in a mix of French and Arabic of which I speak both) whom was adimant that all Christians are sanctioned to kill Muslims without fear of punishment. I think he is just like you. He remembered Italian and French soldiers when he was a child, he watched the bombings on TV by missiles in Iraq and said that is proof, undeniable proof, to refute (which I did) is an insulting lie!!!!!! ..... and so on.

As Bill Engvall said, "I hate stupid people" and "there's your sign".

There is your sign Tonto!

That was a totally pointless and stupid comment. What exactly is your point, aside from your knee jerk necessity to blather "something"??

"We should fully understand our religion. Fighting is a part of our religion and our Sharia. Those who love God and his Prophet and this religion cannot deny that. Whoever denies even a minor tenet of our religion commits the gravest sin in Islam." Osama bin Laden

"The pieces of the bodies of infidels were flying like dust particles. If you would have seen it with your own eyes, you would have been very pleased, and your heart would have been filled with joy." Osama bin Laden at the wedding of his son in southern Kandahar about the 17 sailors who died suicide bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen

http://www.usvetdsp.com/osam_qts.htm

"We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all. (…Inaudible…) due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all that we had hoped for... We were at (…inaudible…) when the event took place. We had notification since the previous Thursday that the event would take place that day. We had finished our work that day and had the radio on. It was 5:30 p.m. our time. I was sitting with Dr. Ahmad Abu-al-((Khair)). Immediately, we heard the news that a plane had hit the World Trade Center. We turned the radio station to the news from Washington. The news continued and no mention of the attack until the end. At the end of the newscast, they reported that a plane just hit the World Trade Center. Osama bin Laden

Shaykh: Allah be praised.

"After a little while, they announced that another plane had hit the World Trade Center. The brothers who heard the news were overjoyed by it." Osama bin Laden

Shaykh: "Fight them, Allah will torture them, with your hands, he will torture them. He will deceive them and he will give you victory. Allah will forgive the believers, he is knowledgeable about everything."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BIN112A.html

LOL, the classic failure of using the words of radicals to represent the whole.

If you go to the right hand column of this blog you will see a very good box that shows a series of famous quotes. Hitler said that he believed that what he is doing is in God's name.

Thus, following your logic, World War II and the Holocaust is based in the Christian upbringing of Adolf Hitler.

Good one Strorm-Rider.

The words and actions of Osama bin Laden and other Islamic Jihadists relate to ordinary Muslims just as the words and actions of Adolph Hitler and other Nazis related to ordinary Germans.

One must feel pity for the fate suffered by ordinary Germans during World War II; the same pity one must feel for ordinary Muslims today. Ordinary Muslims are bound to be driven off a cliff just as the ordinary Germans were. Many ordinary Germans became enemies of ordinary Americans during World War II; I'm afraid (God forbid) the same will be true with many ordinary Muslims today because they have remained a rigid shaft behind the tip of the spear.

"You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" Adolph Hitler

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepac...

Funny cause Storm_Rider was actually the person who provided me with all
those quotes. I don't see your logic Solkhar. Can you clarify?

LOL, the way you put it as a heading John made me shudder with condemnation and then reading the article - well it is abit different.

The poing being is that there are two types of Taliban and the subject the Bishop is saying is based on a concept that I actually to a degree support.

The subject is that it needs to be recognised that the majority of Afghanis are very-strongly conservative with equally strong tribalistic identies and habits. Those values and beliefs are not just going to disapear as much as we all wish they did. The importance of this recognition goes a bit further, you must recognise that the average Afghani, be he or she a part of the collective "Taliban" identity or not are not murdering thugs bent on destruction of the West. They are simply strongly identified to their tribal roots and very heavily persuaded by their only communication network, the Mullahs, madrassas and tribal elders. At present, they are persuaded by the militants, not by the government.

The idea that is now given, is that by recognising that the Taliban identity is not all evil and here to stay, that they should be recognised and that any future Afghanistan must include them. If that is done, under the condition that peace with the West and rejection of terrorism and the support to Al Qaeda etc, the war can more easily be stopped. Also, as a bonus, such cooperation with the Taliban will have a long-lasting affect of slowly liberalizing them.

The Bishop, in his style, is trying to push that view by targetting the commonality, instead of the differences. Thus, instead of highlighting the backwardness, sexist and self-destructive habits of of the Taliban, he is highlighting that the average Afghani is a pious individual who believes in God.

Personally I support the reality of constructive engagement, but only after destroying some of the major infrastructure and leadership of the militant Taliban first - thus their influence is at its lowest and the coalition will have look all the more morally superior when they turn around and offer collaboration.

Two Types of Taliban:

1.Living.
2.Dead

I like #2 Better.

Solly, You sure use a whole lot of words to say a Whole Bunch of Nothing.
Anybody ever tell you that?

Here's an example of the "strong tribalistic identies and habits" you speak of and now are advocating we tolerate...yes, you are "tolerating" it with your "I kind of get what he says" mentality.

http://twurl.nl/8mqgsh

It's pacifism, plain and simple. Why must we lower our level of moral standards in order to "deal" with the barbaric scum of the planet? Why is it so hard to defend our values?

What this Rev is doing is trying to "understand" the needs and desires of the average Afghan. In doing so he throws every moral principle, every person who's bled for those rights and principles, every person currently risking their neck in the name of those morals and principles under the bus in order to gain favor with the indefensible.

It's like digging through a pile of sh** looking for the missing gem. IT may be there, but it's still buried inside a huge pile of steaming sh**. For this guy to hail the great qualities of the Taliban is despicable and a mockery to everyone who's fought them on the battlefield.

It's just another example of over analyzing the battle between good and evil.

For what it's worth. There is only 1 Taliban. I don't agree with you that there are "decent" Taliban. If they're not fighting the troops, but they're still stoning adulterers, blowing up kids schools, demanding Jizya from non-muslims, beheading foreigners along the the brutal treatment of the women and children, they are STILL the enemy even if they never pick up a gun.

John, I think you missed my point altogether and giving a sordid example (from Somalia, not Afghanistan) has no relevance at all.

Your assumption that I consider that a decent taliban exists is based on perception of what Taliban means. You can call all the daughters, boys and wifes of Taliban as Taliban and thus you condemn them in the same generalized boat. As for the concept of Taliban and the tribalism, I personally detest it and consider it to be about the most low society can get. I have more respect for anamism in the jungles of South America or the savannahs of central-eastern Africa.

The point that I made is the reality that they are not going to dissapear and also that the war in Afghanistan is not against all of the Taliban but the militant version. That is my point. Each time giving examples of horrid tribal habits makes not a difference to that reality that they are there, and the reality is that to have success in Afghanistan is to first have peace, defeat the militants and Al Qaeda and then tackle the tribalism which reailty says will take time but can be achieved only through the enemy of radicalism - normality. That is my point and that is my only point.

actually it is entirely relevant since it's the same Islamist thinking in Somalia comes from the same Wahabbist Islamism that's in Afghanistan.

Maybe I can give some better examples of the atrocities of the Taliban

http://infidelsarecool.com/taliban

That's a good start.

I don't condemn the children of the Taliban. You're incorrect. In fact I have an entire section of my website dedicated to children's rights under Islam.

http://infidelsarecool.com/childrens-rights-in-...

The children are the victims. It's when they become indoctrinated into that same radical way of thinking that they become the enemy, and yes, sometimes they become the enemy at a very young age. They teach them early and often.

The indoctrination of children is only one of many despicable and detestable acts by these people.

I'm glad that you "personally detest" the acts of the Taliban. So what should be done about them? Should we just ignore them? Pull out of Afghanistan? Should we sit back and allow the perveted ideology to continue in that region? Or is the NATO mission in Afghanistan a just cause?

John I have explained above what should be done. Not ignore them, no. NATO's mission in Afghanistan is not to take out Talibanism but to take out terrorism and those that support it. Thus, the current leadership - if that is what it could be called - supports terror and thus they must be taken out.

What is needed is to cause a "coup" of sorts within the Taliban communities. They must be recognised as not going away and thus must become collaborators in a new Afghanistan. Once that is done and there is peace, only then can you start fighting the disgusting tribal doctrines of the Taliban. To not do so is in fact also targetting the children, as you are destroying their infrastructures - their families.

A point of clarification. Afghani Talibanism is not like but equally as bad as Somali extremism. The difference is that Talibanism is a "hybrid of Wahhabism and locla tribal customs". The wahhabist clerics in Saudi condemn constantly the tribal-usurping of wahhabist principles and they have even called them unclean and heresy. The reason that OBL is there is that as all militant radicalism that exists in this world, they are willing to forgo principles of faith for political expediencey - rather than the other way out. That needs to be understood to understand the reality on the ground.

So to summarize your question, no we should no pull out of Afghanistan at all, we should in fact double the troop numbers with the increase being from other Muslim nations - which will have the biggest impact on the local population's perception of this being a western invasion. The militant Taliban should be beaten to a pulp and Al Qaeda should be exterminated. At that point of military victory then the remaining Taliban whom did not participate should be given the opportunity to participate in the new Afghanistan on condition of devowing conflict and showing adequate support to the laws of the new Afghanistan.

When such a peace is made, the west should heavily invest into Afghanistan, build business, trade and have a strong presence. Such a western presence should acknowledge the strong religous values of the country and over a decade or two you will find Afghanistan would be more "modern" say than Pakistan could ever get. The old Afghanistan had a rather secular Kabul and Kandahar with a very tribal and intraverted rural base, it would not be difficult for it to come back to that.

John, you really must stop missing Solkhar's point. We all must. I recommend that you post a general message telling all IAC contributors to stop missing Solkhar's point. The poor guy must be so frustrated to have his point missed all the time.

There are TWO types of Taliban? Pray tell us about the second type - the type that does not murder and forbid education of girls and performs no amputations of limbs and noses and refrains from adorning girls' faces with strong acid and which allows females to be out of doors unescorted, etc, etc, etc. It's strange that I have heard no tidings of the "alternative Taliban", but I know they must exist, because you say so. You would be the last person to fabricate. So, please tell us about these others. How do they differ from the common-or-garden variety, and what are their deeds that have brought them to your attention (but not mine)?

No, Solkhar, the Bishop is NOT highlighting that the average Afghan is a pious individual who believes in God. He is talking exclusively about the Taliban. Cease your inventions, man!

Beejj, your incapacity to read my text is breathtakingly rediculous.

I said that the difference is the militant and the average. Yes, all those horrible tribal-customs - slightly exagerated by you but still that can be forgiven, does exist and that the first objective should be to admit their existence and make peace and then work on the better ways of tackling radicalism - by providing normality, which is by definition the natural enemy.

Thus, yes Beejj, the Bishop is highlighting that he average Afghan is a poiouos individual who believesi n God - the same Abrahamic God.

Solkhar, you are a charlatan. The saddest thing about you, though, is that you believe the lies you write. You twist words and then claim not to have done so. I strongly advise you to read your own messages. And no, Solkhar, the Bishop is talking about the Taliban. Read his words. Oh yes, I smiled when you referred to my "sight exaggerations". See? You are even prepared to deny the true nature of the monstrous outrages perpetrated by your Muslim brethren. Thou art a stranger to truth or, perhaps, its mortal enemy when your religion comes under its scrutiny.

Beejj, I love your name calling, it is so, so ..... you.

You love to add things that people do not say. Do I deny the monstrous outrages that people of my own faith do? No, never. If anything, it is you who denies the "true nature" barbaric actions by man when given the capacity to do so. Right now the majority (not 90 per cent as some put) of such horrible acts are certainly being done by Muslims and like mankind always does, they will try and justify it in some fashion, even claiming that it comes from God. History has proven it and even in the last decade we have examples of Serbs and Rawandans, the decade before it others, horrible wars before that and it goes back since day 1. Your not understanding the "true nature" is that you blame one set of people and their faith and deny the rest.

As for slight exagerations, your posting was. Do all girls in Taliban AFghanistan have acid on their faces? That is one example. They did do that to some girls, but not all, thus making your argument, a piss-poor exageration.

Get real Beejj.

Don't wriggle, Solkhar. Why should I not call you a charlatan? You ARE a charlatan. You clearly wrote that there are two types of Taliban, and I questioned this, asking you for clarification, but you attempt to cover your tracks by waffling on about Rwandans and Serbs. TELL US ABOUT THE ALTERNATIVE TALIBAN.

So not ALL Afghan girls have received the acid-throwing attention of the Taliban. Whoopee-do! In your mind, until such time as this is the case, one is not allowed to say anything critical of your mental-case coreligionists.

Get truthful, Solkhar.

Yes, John should be sending an message to all posters - to learn to f*cking read posts before opening their mouths.

Your confession of not taking the subject serious is clear with your "whoopee-do". To so pathetically claim that all Afgani girls have acid in the face with such importance and then to deminish that to a simply whoopee-do when shown it is not the case throws such light on your own value structure.

Not that I believe you will have read beyond this point, you can condemn the disgusting behaviour that Muslims do all day long and I will happily join you. The simple thing is you do not, you target the entire faith and you give incorrect facts and that is all I care about.

You simply must stop embarassing yourself by claiming that things are said by me that are not. Your assumption that I support such people shows you do not read my posts and that you just like to "have a go" for the sake of it.

Pitiful, Solkhar. Not taking the subject seriously? I take the plight of Muslim women very seriously indeed and long for the day they will be allowed to join the human race. My use of "whoopee-do"? A stranger to the use of sarcasm in order to underline a point, are you?

No, you if you throw in emotive exagerations and generalisations like all girls in Afghanistan have had their faces damaged by acid then you have not the quality to be serious. Add to that your use of poorly placed retorts and then to be a .... as you welsh say "Twll tin" to hide your error by calling it sarcasm is only pure and utter "cachi" to again use the language of those mountain folk!

To use one of your pet lines: you have missed my point. I did NOT say that all Afghan girls have had the Talibanic acid treatment. I said that until such time as this happens you would have us believe that everything is hunky-dory and we should not look upon Islam unfavourably. Who's the one not reading?

Is this the best you can do? How embarrassing!

Still waiting for word about the alternative Taliban, Solkhar.

Since you did not bother to read what I said, nor what I repeated on this thread, you missed it.

Missed it? Nay, old fellow. You referred to the fact that the war in Afghanistan is not against the Taliban, but its militant version. Thus, as you previously indicated, there must be two Talibans, one being the militant version. Now, I asked you for some proof of this: for actions or words uttered by the "non-militant Taliban"; something that would substantiate your claim, but you fail to do so. If some such "mild" Taliban indeed exists there would be evidence aplenty, and you would have been swift to come forth with such evidence, but the fact that you have not leads me to believe it is all a figment of your imagination engineered to pull the wool over people's eyes. I don't know if you ever had much credibility, but the tank is running low. Here's your opportunity, then, to redeem yourself.

The proof in there for all to see my dear Welsh pudding, it is in the fact that the entire country and tribal population are not at war with the west nor do they support the militants. So, if they are not with the militants, what are they? Go figure!

I am not supporting their behaviour, since you fail to read anything over five lines long, you will miss this point too - I have objected each and everytime to their barbaric tribal abominations.

Your proof has lots of holes boy. In Iraq we are soon to see total war between sunni and shias...and perhaps, between a couple different sects of shia vs. shia. Of course, this is nothing new since skirmishes of this same war have been ongoing since 641 (our calendar)....since before Ali got wasted. That war is going on today and will escalate to insanity as soon as the Americans tuck their tail and cap up. The fact is that this war has been constant, The ill feelings have been going on for ever. The last chapter of totally committed battle was in the 80s....and only about 8 million muz got perished....not a bad number. That was the conflict between shia Iran and sunni (then) dominated Iraq. Right now the shia seem to have the upper hand because they are the ones training in the police force and the army. That's also why sunni from all over the middle east are pouring into Iraq to support the sunni under-dogs. Iran, of course will leap at the chance to support the shia in Iraq. Islam is the opposite of what it says it is. Dar al islam is supposed to be an imposed peace brought on by the submission of the "faithful". In actuality, there has been unremitting war between the various factions of islam since 640....almost since the very beginning. That ipeace is a myth like the one about "The Golden Age Of Islam". That was a crock of crap too. The west seems to have been a target of opportunity more than anything else. Islam fears the west and the progressive views it brings.....there is the essential problem.
You're right about the Afghanis though. They think the taliban are wimps and "arab iinterlopers. The tribes just make alliances of convenience....because they like a fight, especially if it's profitable. The taliban is not "blood" so they are second class wherever they go in Afghanistan. They bring in money and guns though....that's what keeps them alive there, and that's about all that does.

You can't get away with this, Solkhar. It's no proof at all. You seem to be implying that the entire population of Afghanistan are Talibs, so the ones who perpetrate violence are the bad-guy Taliban, while the remainder of the population are good-guy Taliban. I applaud your invention, but I fear your credibility has suffered yet another blow.

Your constant exagerations and putting words into what people do not say is incredible. Your consistancy would be applauded if it was good, which it is not.

No, the entire Afghani population is not Taliban. Talibanism is an extremist ideology which is a mix of wahhabism, salafism and tribal practices. Though the entire rural and mountain tribes are not "Taliban" they are all exclusively influenced by those ideals that the previous Taliban government and the current militancy has forced upon them.

The entire point here is you see all taliban as the one single militancy supporting community of which it is not. The reality is that not all the Taliban groups after the fall of the regime are now fighting the conflict, in fact some have even joined the Afghan military and are members of parliament. They remain Taliban but they have refuted the militant war.

No invention, just simple basic facts that anyone should be able to know if they bothered to try and read and learn a bit instead of ....... imagining something based on zero knowledge.

Again, you are agreeing that there is one Taliban. The fact that some of them have deserted the ranks of those who continue to kill and maim is neither here nor there. The moment the baddies gain the ascendancy the "reformed" ones will come out of their closets and it will be business as usual. I will start believing in your mythical good-guy Taliban when their spokesmen come forth to damn the actions of the baddies.

Your argument is neither here not there.

Oh dear, Solkhar, you are becoming desperate. Am I to feel suitably crushed by your juvenile response? You, old fellow, revel in the vacuous and the nebulous, but when you are taken to task over a concrete matter, such as your assertion about there being two Talibans, you crumble.

'Tis funny how the great Islamic enlightenment has steeped our crumbling Solkhar in such a greyness of reason.I can hear the sirens and bells of fire-engines racing to douse his pants-aflame.