Do islamics want to take over the world? Sure they do, but so do christians, and the hindus, and the buddhists. The nasty thing about religion is that each group believes they are right and everybody else is wrong.

Now are the islamics succeeding? Well, not really! Have you ever seen a shiite and a sunni agree on anything? youtube is full of “debates” between the 2 religious sects that always degrade into shouting matches, and threatening comments posted by viewers. Osama has failed miserably…uniting the muslim religion under a single leader???? Ha! How naive could he be!

The short answer is yes, you are shallow.

The longer answer takes a deeper reply. I’ll type slow as I understand you don’t read very fast. It is OK to move your lips.

In #19, you wrote:

Everyone is a terrorist, so no one is a terrorist, so it makes no difference at all if anyone blows up a bunch of people?

If you are the parent, child, sibling, neighbor, or whatever of the person killed, does it matter if the cause was a child with explosives strapped to his body or a 500 kg bomb dropped from a F-16? The end result is the same. Another innocent life taken because of someone else. Not many people jump up and down for joy because their mother was killed by those fighting for a good cause.

Would it make any difference if the US government is killing a bunch of people? Wheee.

They and their friends, the Israelis, do with impunity. They do it under the banner of “freedom”. The lives of the people they conquered mean nothing. So I guess the “freedom” only applies to them.

In #21, you wrote:

You do remember how “panties on head” were [sic] “torture”, right? So, the natural result of that was a poll showing that most US citizens thought “torture” was okay.

Panties on the head was just one thing. I don’t recall anyone suggesting that in itself amounted to torture. It was degrading and extremely insulting to the prisoners. It was classified as abuse.

What was classified as torture was the snarling dogs inches from the prisoners faces. Forcing prisoners to make human pyramids while naked. Putting them into cold cells without clothing or blankets. Taping wires to their genitals then making them stand with their arms outstretched or they would be zapped. Forcing prisoners to have sex with each other. Sodomizing boys. Making women strip in front of men.

Nor do I ever recall US citizens thinking torture was ever “OK”. Torture has always been anathema to Americans, in fact, to the whole civilized world.

After all, water boarding, feeding people feet first into shredders, feeding people to starving dogs, and drilling holes in them with hand drills are all “morally equivalent” to something as frivolous as “panties on head”.

As I pointed out, the “panties” episode is abuse. Only you and the other shallow people equate it as torture and therefore allowable. Maybe the question should be where is the line between abuse and torture. If it was that offensive to your culture and beliefs, then maybe it is torture.

#28 I agree.

“Islamic rule of the world is the ultimate goal (of Al Qaeda).” As much as it is the Christian goal. Christians believe it is their God given right to overcome and ‘save’ the infidels.

“Houston we have a problem…”

If only these goddamn ‘missionary’ religions would stop trying to convert and ‘save’ everyone we would be all better off.

Cheers

As for this article: It’s nice to see that intellectual rationalization is alive and well.

I expect better of you Mr. Dvorak.

But who would be amazed by that, after all, Ben was heading the organization that used to be the spanish inquisition before becoming pope.

pj

History shows the failures at this approach. It simply doesn’t work. It always comes crumbling down on them.

Cursor_

When the commonalities are more important than the differences, then it is fair to say they are “the same” at least for those commonalities.

What is not accurate is to say any two things that share some common elements are the same for all their characteristics.

You will find this logical error in just about every argument that starts without defining its terms.

Happens all the time.

If you hate oppression, should you fight against it? If you love oppression, should you fight for it?

You’re statement sounds good, like a sound bite, but it’s flawed.

Very effective as sensationalism in the media, but wonder how much it will matter in the long run.

“And then the old Nobadaddy aloft
Farted and belched and coughed
And said:

I love hanging and drawing and quartering
Every bit as well as war and slaughtering

Damn the praying and singing
As long as it will bring in
The blood of ten thousand
By fighting and swinging!”

- William Blake

#5 with all due respect, you are wrong. Islamic rule of the world is the ultimate goal. We could pull everyone out and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference.

—–

You, just like the vast majority of Americans, are a complete and utter moron.

The real question, however, is what is best for America (and to a lesser degree humanity).

Only what is best for humanity is best for America. If we can’t apply our ideals to others, then we are disingenuous if we claim those standards apply to us.

If our ideals don’t apply to us, then any justifications we provide for our actions are self-deceptions.

We can only win by setting the better example.

If we win by setting the better example, then everyone wins.

If we try to win by making others lose, we will end up losing also.

PS. I believe if God exists, he holds self deceivers in greater contempt than those that lie to others.

PPS. Arianna Huffington is a babe.