Interesting article you linked to re: gay culture. And spot on.

The other day, for the very first time in a total of 11 months here, I saw a heterosexual couple --I presume--she was wearing a burkha--holding hands in public. Of course the dozen other young male couples canoodling that I saw are a very common sight. We always refer to Thursday as "man love Thursday", since it's the start of their weekend, the equivalent to our Friday night.

But of course: "It's not sexual, it's just a release" which is the explanation frequently given among those who will acknowledge it.

What I don't understand is: when you say that all the Muslims that don't want to kill us are not by definitions "good Muslims" (and why you of all people get to be the arbiter of that I'll let slide for the nonce) then what do you propose we do with them? I infer that you want (understandably) to exclude Muslims who wish to kill non-Muslims from American residency. You haven't said explicitly what should be done with them, but I assume deportation (regardless of citizenship), detainment in prisons or camps, execution, something along those lines.

But what do we do with all the "pseudo-Muslims," the ones that don't want to kill us, and may in fact make us heathens the occasional daal or Manhattan cocktail, as my Muslim friends have? Do they get the same treatment as the fundamentalist Muslims? Are you advocating genocide, or merely apartheid?

You've made it clear that you hate Muslims. What are you suggesting we do about them, including the ones who aren't quite Muslimy enough by your definition?

@ franko: I most definitely do not hate Muslims. Muslims are simply the people who are under the grip of an oppressive ideology called Islam. If anything, I have pity for them....they are blinded by their religion and vast majority of them are simply living in fear. Fear that you and I will never know. My "little brother", a good kid of about 19, one of the interpreters I work with all the time--who is a Muslim--had his little sister (4 y/o) kidnapped a couple of weeks ago. Fortunately, the police were able to rescue her and several other children the enemy were holding for human traficking/organ harvesting--sadly not uncommon, even in the "secure" capital. There are countless other examples of Muslims treating each other with unspeakable violence, all in the name of a religion that justifies it as long as it is committed against the "unfaithful" (Definition may vary depending on the person interpreting it)

Honestly, I don't have an answer or a solution for stopping the spread of this poisonous ideology that advocates violence against any who disagree. But I do know that the answer is NOT. And that is burying our heads in the sand, and pretending it is not a problem, or directly at odds with the principles of freedom upon which our nation was founded.

franko,

You are obviously new here. Go to Jihad Watch and read a while then "when you say that all the Muslims that don't want to kill us are not by definitions "good Muslims"" will be answered.

As for letting the bad Muslims (non-practicing) in the country, I have no real problem. But when I have to modify my life to accommodate your religion -- go the fuck elsewhere. I don't care where. If you can't handle the fact that I have a modicum of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- you haven't gotten the American concept.

Some Muslim Cabbies Refuse Fares Carrying Alcohol
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/25/AR2006102501727.html

Liberty means the right to make my own decisions that only effect me, and my kith and kin.

Freedom means that I don't have to support the effects your liberty has on you and your kith and kin.

But I, as the owner of the taxi company, have the right to fire your ass for your beliefs. You as the cab driver can go back to Somolia, or wherever.

Hey Other Beth: Thanks for your service!

rpm daddy: You're quite welcome....proud to do it, even if it is exceedingly frustrating at times.

Semper Fi,

what do you propose we do with them?

If they're non-citizens, send them home. If they're citizens, we're unfortunately stuck with theml; let's at least recognize that they may mean us ill. And for heaven's sake, until we've got a handle on the problem, let's stop importing more of these potentially dangerous people, who take advantage of our freedoms to champion an ideology that would rob us of our freedoms!

Amy;

I read the email your fan who is a solider sent to you. It doesn't seem to support your conclusion. He seems to write that the radical Muslims are problem, but that not all Muslims are like that.

How is that different from the diversity of Christians in our own country, from people who blow up abortion clinics on one end to the average American who is a Christina on another?

Isn't what he has to say more about Afghanistan that Islam itself? Would someone who wrote about all Christians after living in Ireland or rural Italy be correct?

Don't get me wrong, I do thing the radical and backward elements of Islam are more dominant than in Christendom, but look at what Europe was like in the middle ages and what we are like now.

I do agree in zero tolerance for burqas, sharia and similar things.

In my book cultural tolerance begins at home. Our values matter too and immigrants coming here should learn to adapt to them.

"How is that different from the diversity of Christians in our own country, from people who blow up abortion clinics"

Oh for fuck's sake. Really? You're pulling out this as your argument?

A Christian who delves deeper into the Bible may become a funeral-stalking, clinic bombing nut. But those are incredibly few and they are roundly denounced by other Christians. (The guy that runs the Westboro Baptist Church has only his family as members). Christians who want to become more righteous can decide to be anything from Orthodox to Snake-Handler to Unitarian. And ultimately Christians are following the lead of a guy who said "blessed are the meek" and "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Muslims are following a pedophile of a warlord. A Muslim who wants to become more righteous and delves further into the Quran will find he is demanded to kill. Other Muslims will praise his actions when he becomes a martyr. The infrastructure of Islam supports those views with Imams who preach a message of death and intolerance.

*That's* how it is different chucklehead.

The Other Beth, thank you for the good work you're doing over there. Come home safe.

Islam is the official, state protected ideology from Morocco to Indonesia. It cannot be challenged, contradicted or criticized. Only Turkey and Syria, and maybe Lebanon and Iraq are sort of secular states, along with nominally secular Israel and the former soviet republics in that area. There is a reason there are no churches, synagogues, temples in Saudi A., and are restricted in many other places.
Also, you can find the quote in an interview published April 23, 2009 in the Saudi Daily 'Okaz, reformist thinker Ibrahim Al-Buleihi expressed his admiration for Western civilization.:

"[Western civilization] humanized political authority and established mechanisms to guarantee relative equality and relative justice and to prevent injustice and to alleviate aggression. This does not mean that this is a flawless civilization; indeed, it is full of deficiencies."

http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/3264.htm

Let's hope there are more like him.

The "militant Islam is no different from militant Christianity" argument must be the latest variation on Godwin's Law. There simply are no radical Christian groups that compare with Hamas, Al Quaeda, or Hezbollah. When's the last time you ran into a bunch of militant Lutherans? Furthermore, while the New Testament urges Christians to bring everyone into the fold, there is nothing in there, from the Gospels, to the Acts of the Apostles (a fascinating book), to the Epistles requiring any infidel-slaying.

And, since somebody's bound to bring up the Crusades, it might be noted that whatever political, cultural, military, and other factors contributed to those centuries of conflict, the Crusades have in fact been over for some time.

> What I don't understand is:

I think you don't understand more than that.

> What are you suggesting we do about them,
> including the ones who aren't quite Muslimy
> enough by your definition?

Your implication is fatuous. The problem we've having with these people is not that they do or don't meet our tastes for Godliness in religious pursuit, and it's tremendously crass of you to pretend that it is. The problem we're having with this faith is that it ennobles the worst in humanity, specifically the worst character of 11-year-old boys. Their faith, pursued in accordance with in its unmistakable, unimprovable text, is violent and uncivilized. Primitive. The problem is them; not us. Them.

The next century or so will be a test. I think modernity, education and wealth are going to continue to pummel at the impoverished roots of this faith... The attractions of Islam to a fearful and illiterate soul (terrorized women, dominance of the weak, etc.) will continue to be eroded by a culture which improves the outlook for all lives.

Perhaps Islam's power can be fractured as has Christianity's. Even though the proper practice of the faith indisputably demands complete authority over humanity by means honest and dishonest, perhaps Islam's faithful can be convinced to ignore the troublesome parts of the text, just as Christianity has learned to ignore so many injunctions from its Holy book.

If not, Islam must be exterminated. Persuasion, violence, whatever it takes.

but look at what Europe was like in the middle ages and what we are like now.

So your argument is that Muslims can and will change. My response is that it would be great, but can they please work through their growing pains in their own countries and not involve us?

Not only have the Crusades been over for some time (roughly 800 years now), the "evil Crusades" argument rings hollow if you look at history after 1350AD. Namely fights between the Turkish empire and Europe such as Vienna in 1683, Venice vs the Turks in the Med in the late 1500s and the whole Balkan mess. Nevermind that the original "reconquista" was a response to the Moors taking over southern Iberia (Spain) for 700 years and that fight started in the 1000s and took till 1450AD or so to unite Spain. Muslims and PC types cry about the Crusades yet ignore that there were Muslim armies marching into southern France in 732AD (a mere hundred years after Muhammed gained power/started Islam).

@ steve: Allow me to answer your comments directly since I'm the fan who's a soldier (Marine, actually, but it's not important for the purposes of this discussion) who posted what I did on Amy's blog.

First of all, it's over simplistic to say that radical Muslims are the problem. They are, of course, but it goes deeper than that. The problem is the religion/ideology itself. One that, as Amy points out, was founded by a barbaric, cruel power-hungry pedophile whose "revelations" from his god happened to justify whatever conquest or actions he was engaging in at the moment.

Those who truly follow the tenets of this religion are not *radical*--they are simply following the instructions of their holy book. They are the faithful Muslims. Many, many Muslims are nominal Muslims and want to enjoy the pleasures of life, haven't even personally read the Koran. They basically do their own thing within the confines of their culture and consider themselves followers of Islam but in reality, their practices are simply a result of the culture (obviously deeply saturated with the influence of Islam) they've been born into and know nothing besides it. "Why do you do it that way? I don't know, we've always done it that way" etc

Let me try to compare your argument about Christians and Christianity to Muslims and Islam. When someone who calls himself a Christian blows up an abortion clinic (first off, can you come up with more than 5 total, maybe, if that?) he/she is acting in DIRECT OPPOSITION to the tenets of the faith, which teaches love and forgiveness and to leave vengeance in the hands of God, and to "turn the other cheek".

When a Muslim drives a vehicle packed with explosives into a coalition convoy, he is acting IN ACCORDANCE with the tenets of his faith, which advocates, even requires, the slaughter of infidels.

Get it now? Your argument is so flawed as to not even qualify as a logical argument.

@ Elle: Many thanks...just a few more months!

I'd also like to thank otherBeth for her service. I wish more citizens would realize what a tremendous sacrifice it is for those who serve our country.

Interesting story, gives a bit of a insight into the shady side of Afghanistan. It reminds me a little of that disturbing rape scene in movie The Kite Runner.

Also reminds me of when in college, one year I hooked with with two former Iranian brothers. Their family had escaped Iran when the islamic revolution swept their country. 5 of us rented that room. The other two were Japanese brothers, and there was myself. Never really knew the Iranian brothers well as they were always busy. Nice guys in general, when they were around. But something that was odd, to me at least, about them was that they frequented the gay bar often. They were not gay. At least that is what they said, and I believed them. Both were popular with women. But the gay bar was their hang out.

Amy said: Christianity [does not | does] command Christians to murder non Christians.

Fixed it for you: depends on which part of the New Testament you take on board. Either Jesus represents a new covenant with God, or Jesus insisted upon the continued validity of the Old Testament.

Which has explicit direction to kill non-believers:

Deuteronomy 13:6-10 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die.

Strictly speaking, the NT is (as far as I remember) devoid of explicit direction for Christians to kill others. However, it is rife with descriptions of how God will treat those who fail to accept His mercy, which were used as reasons to impose, by any means, true belief.

And St. Paul left plenty of grist that helped make Europe as fertile as a freshly plowed field for the Holocaust.

franko said: What I don't understand is: when you say that all the Muslims that don't want to kill us are not by definitions "good Muslims" (and why you of all people get to be the arbiter of that I'll let slide for the nonce) then what do you propose we do with them?

Let me help by taking a step back: All good monotheists are bad monotheists.

All good Jews are bad Jews, in the sense that they either don’t know, or selectively disregard, God’s directions that we moderns have collectively assessed as being, for lack of a better term, “inoperative”. Jews for Jesus can roam Israel without the slightest fear of being stoned to death. Almost without exception, Jews of the 20th century would be viewed as “bad” Jews by their forebears of a 100 years ago.

Similarly, all good Mormons are bad Mormons. To be a good Mormon requires believing in Doctrine and Covenant 132. Very few Mormons today would qualify as good Mormons 150 years ago.

For any number of similar reasons, all good Christians are bad Christians.

And all good Muslims are bad Muslims.

Unfortunately, today, there are almost no good Jews, Christians or Mormons. However, there are way too many good Muslims.

And all good Muslims, in order to qualify, must want me dead.

So what should we do about good Muslims? One or more of:

— Continuously expose Islam for the fraud that it is.
— Use C-17s and C-5s to airdrop so many Valium (or thorazine) capsules over the entire Muslim world that they can’t tell, never mind care about, the difference between an AK-47 and a cat.
— Fit A-10s with crop spraying equipment, coat Mecca with pig blood, then ask the obvious question: “So, what is Allah (piss be unto him) willing NOW?”

Heard of any Christians stoning anybody for nonbelief?

Clearly, Christians do not take the Bible literally. Contrast that with Islam's death toll just this month, from religionofpeace.com

Muslim apostasy is punished by death, as the Quran commands. I'm an atheist -- post-Jewish. When Jews hear that they laugh a little or say "Oh." None are trying to decide whether I should be hung, stoned, or beheaded.

Know what I resent most about Franko?

Me neither. There are too many contending offenses to be certain.

But consider this:

> But what do we do with all
> the "pseudo-Muslims,"

Who is he quoting? No one... The phrase is his own invention. Lefties and (and other sorts of bleeding hearts) do this all the time... They luxuriate in the fantasy that their own souls are pure, while those around them are crippled by a simpleton's hatred. And they characterize these fantasies as direct quotations, and then they get upset... With something that nobody else ever said, or even WOULD have said. These transparent stupidities are dipped in a thick layer of smarm, like "the ones who aren't quite Muslimy enough by your definition".

Who "defined" anything of the kind? Whose spirit is bitter enough to come up with something like that? So far, those words come only from Franko...

I doubt very much they will get the other Beths message, I wrote practically the same thing yesterday and these idiots response was to throw out the same pathetic dribble we responded to yesterday

... to not think you know it all, to question what you do think you know, to be willing to say you were wrong.

You hit the problem of Islam right on the nose: it presumes, through the Quran and Haddith, to possess perfect, self contained, total knowledge.

While not actually knowing anything.

In contrast to rational inquiry, which has as its primary lesson this: the more you know, the more you know you don't know.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/203085.php

And this incident isn't an aberration.

Everybody check this out for more disgust - http://www.nst.com.my/nst/articles/23wah/Article.

Other Beth

Know where your coming from. Did a year in country and know about "man-love Thursday". Those Pashtun's are something eh?

Aquamarine: Your link is broken.

Sorry folks ! Link was active when I posted it ! Try this one - http://bernama.com/bernama/v5/newsindex.php?id=509105.

Hopefully this'll work !

NTEB: Muslim Leader Admits Islam Not a Religion of Peace

CBN News traveled to London to talk with Anjem Choudary, a leading Muslim radical who says Islamic teachings are what shaped his pro-jihad message. Hear in his own words that Islam is NOT a "religion of peace", but rather that Jihad and the killing of Christians and Jews is authorized by the Koran....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU_BczRk2wo&feature=player_embedded

@Richard: Indeed....my fav is the bestowing of the flower and what it symbolizes...

"Strictly speaking, the NT is (as far as I remember) devoid of explicit direction for Christians to kill others. However, it is rife with descriptions of how God will treat those who fail to accept His mercy, which were used as reasons to impose, by any means, true belief."

One of the points that Robert Spencer makes about these kinds of comparisons is that the Christian Bible was written by many sources over thousands of years (considering both the OT and NT.) It is therefore widely open to interpretation. The Quran on the other hand was written by one man over a 20 year period and the punishment for not taking it literally is death ... as commanded in the Quran itself.

Spencer concludes that the figurehead of Christianity is known as the "Prince of Peace" and so the Bible should be interpreted within that context. The figurehead of Islam was a warlord and a despot and so the Quran must be interpreted within that context.

You really should check out Dales link - Iran which just got a seat on the UN's womens rights council is executing a woman for beimg raped by her husbands murderers

AllenS:

[The New Testament] is therefore widely open to interpretation.

You are correct.

Which is why those who use past Christian conduct to condemn present Christianity completely miss the point (full disclosure: I am an anti-theist).

Yes, at a time -- five centuries ago -- when almost everyone accepted the Bible as gospel truth, people did things we would not countenance today.

However, that was then, and this is now. The Bible's complex origins (multiple authors, various translations) makes it easy for theists to rationalize changes in belief when pushed by material evidence, while not having to abandon belief itself.

In contrast, Islam, by presuming to possess total, literal, truth (abetted by one author and no translations), is very brittle.

People with brittle beliefs do not react well to contradiction.

Wow, what a great religion. Not only does it suck for the women, but it sucks for the majority of the men as well. So it appears that it only benefits the rich old goats that can afford mulitiple wives of various ages. No wonder they have to threaten to kill to convert people.

The Catholic Church mellowed out - relatively speaking - because people across the west have been leaving it in droves. Without that factor, it would still be "hooray for Franco!" time and "we get to decide what films American audiences are able to see."

I go to Mass every week. But I know the church's history and a few decades worth of moderately good behavior doesn't expunge its criminal record.

Which decades were they behaving kevin_m?