>>>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38698500/ns/politics-white_house/>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>How about a dinner for the families of the 3000 Americans who died on 9/11?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Those aren't Obamas people. Islam is.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>He continues to show his true colors (I said colors - oh well I've been declared racist enough I don't care).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>He is a traitor and a liar that needs to be eliminated.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Beep Beep
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Dept of Homeland Security alert.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Of course you're right. What the US really need is internal religious conflict. Its worked so well for so many other countries.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Islam brought the fight to us. What's new?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Actually 19 or 20 Islamic terrorists brought the fight to us. What is sometimes forgotten now is that Al Qaeda was a dimly understood and loosely organized group 15 years ago. You probably already know the English translation of Al Qaeda is "the database." (Hmmm). It meant a closely guarded secret of those who could be trusted. A little medieval? Oh yeah. But the fact is they remained a fringe element of Islam and even of terror. The first many of us in the west ever heard of them was the foiled border crossing in the northwest just before Y2K. And even then we thought the attacks were random terrorist attacks, not coordinated.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Oh. I forgot how peaceful and tolerant Islam has been aside from those misunderstood boys.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Show me where I have ever defended the terrorists. They may have thought they were well intentioned but I am not disappointed that they are dead. What I have said -- consistently, over and over -- is that the terrorist stain should not be extended to all Muslims. Any more than the actions of Timothy McVeigh should be projected to you or me, for example.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't disagree with your separating the terrorists from the religious majority. I do think your numbers are (way) off though:
>>>>>
>>>>>
http://www.danielpipes.org/comments/65537>>>>>
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2006/>>>>>
http://www.bt.com.bn/classification/opinion/2007/05/28/how_many_terrorists_are_there>>>>>
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Commentary/2006/10/Counting-Terrorists-More-or-Less-a-Distraction>>>>>
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm>>>>>
>>>>>In 2006, there were 14,000 known acts of terrorism which killed 20,000.
>>>>>
>>>>>Those articles are widely differing but some contain actual facts and numbers of know terrorist acts and members. Worth the read if you truly want to face the facts. Anyone who has been watching the world or who was unfortunate enough to have to pay attention (and have access to intelligence reports) has know for years (and years) how prevalent terrorism is. 9/11 just brought it to the awareness of Americans who live in a bubble of false security. Bill and others may go to the extreme in considering too many part of a terrorist organization (at least as enemies of the state), but you always seem to go too far in the opposite direction as well. Reality is most likely somewhere in between, but closer to Bill's estimate than yours....
>>>>
>>>>Hello Tracy,
>>>>
>>>>I see you have repatriated to the Isle of Man ;-)
>>>>
>>>>You misunderstand or misrepresent my point. I did not say terrorism has gone away. We have joined the Europeans in having terrorism as a daily reality. Flying on an airplane has become an ordeal rather than an adventure, as just one example. My point was the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
>>>
>>>Quite right, but as far as I know, the 'vast majority' of Muslims don't seem to have the ability to stand up and shout at the terrorists within their religion. If they do not take a stand, then they must agree with terrorism and it's goal.
>>
>>I do not accept that conclusion. From what I know about Arab countries -- admittedly little -- speaking out is not common.
>>
>>You're on my permanent Good Guys list, as you know. We just disagree on this issue.
>
>The bottom line on this issue is that the Muslims have the right to build at that location as it meets the specifications regarding freedom of religion as laid out in the Constitution. However it remains a most insulting endeavor on their part towards the citizens of the United States. If they are the peaceful people they claim to be, they should relocate much further away and eliminate 'Cordoba' from it's name.
That is a nuance I have missed. If the mosque is an intentional act of provocation on behalf of Islamic zealots then I am against it. I took it, reading lightly, as just another church. Maybe there is no such thing as just another church that close to ground zero.
