Robert,

>Doug,
>
>I have no difficulty with the fact that the guilty might claim to be Muslims, only with the erroneous deduction from that position that the Islamic religion is guilty in some way (I'm NOT accusing you of this at all): it is analagous to me believing that because a Catholic IRA member attacks and kills someone that, therefore, Christianity is somehow responsible. As I've said elsewhere, nobody (in the Western media) talks about the IRA (or the UDF, UVF, UDLA, Real IRA or any of the other similar organisations) in terms of 'radical Christianity' but it seems to be open season on Islam.

I quite agree with you on this point. What was that old saw..

All Cretans are liars
You are fromCrete
Therefore, you are a liar.

Bad logic.

Let me restate this a little and see if it makes sense. Since these folks who are Muslims (and radical by behavioural definition) themselves insert the religious component then it strikes me as reasonable and normal that those who respond will pick this up. It seems to me that the 'solution' to this is for the leaders in the Muslim (Islam really) world to publicly, forceably and unequivocably denounce this attribution and to demonstrate their position by their behavior - such as offering these folks up for justice. IOW, actions speak louder than words.

Personally I think these folks have placed themselves and their faith in harm's way.

I won't go into the internals of Islam but suffice it to say that it does teach at least the ultimate domination of all other religious systems by itself. I do not wish to offend anyone by making that statement but I believe I can cite my case. Look, what I'd suggest is that you dig out my earlier posted URL and do a little research. Islam has roots that go way way back into the ancient religion of Babylon and the Moon Goddess..



>
>The point I was trying to make (rather unsuccessfully it appears!) was that many had decided that this crime was committed by some so-called 'Muslim' group without any evidence **whatsoever**, with no facts to back that assertion: I was trying to show that alternative scenarios, however improbable, could also be made with the same LIMITED amount of information. I was also complaining about the attachment of a religious label to terrorists and then the terrorists+religion to a location in the misty distance somewhere to the East....I was trying to separate the issue of religion (as some members of that religion will inevitably have been killed in NY) from the terrorism aspect. I was complaining that the guilty had "taken seeds of truth and planted fields of hate" and that the Western media seem intent on a full harvest.
>
>Regards, etc.
>
>Robert Ladyman
>

>snip<

Well, that may have been the case yesterday but today those decisions have turned out to be true. This crime was perpetrated according to the suspect list by Muslim relligious fanatics. Would you be willing to take a wager on whether or not that at some point Allah's name will be invoked as the justification for these atrocities? Remember I did not make that link, should it exist. The perpetrators apparently have. If the perpetrators did then I will take them at their word. I dare say that neither you nor I have all the facts here as well. I understand that you are separating religious belief systems and actions but in the face of the evidence I think you're going to find that a tough thing to do. I'd say the same thing for the Crusaders who slaughtered and murderd millions in the name of Christ or Hitler who slaughtered millions in the name of the Aryan race or Stalin who simply did it for power. Equally wrong IMO.

As far as the 'fields of hate' thing goes, sure, it's wrong. But, I'd be willing to bet that without the ample watering by the Palestinians dancing in the streets that the crop would be much smaller....