Are you talking about recent discussions on this board? Or other discussions elsewhere?

Quite frankly, I have plenty objection to the totalitarian treatment you describe. But on the other hand, the solution to FIX that is NOT based on military action from the United States.
Time and time again, that only proves more detrimental to the U.S. in the long-haul as we give the terrorist extremist nut-jobs MORE propagandic ammo to recruit MORE terrorists and RAISE the terrorist threat.

The solution to fix that is with diplomacy, and I have heard some promising indications from the current administration to making PROGRESS in advancing more diplomatic solutions. Solutions which deal more with intelligence than invasion.
I found Bhkad's example of Algeria VOTING IN a theocracy by democratic action incredibly funny.
What good is there in "bringing democracy" to a people who will democratically subvert the rights of the people?
Why waste our time???


Again, not sure if you are talking in general or to specific issues on this board.
I have tried to be extremely explicit in that the real threat from terroristic violence is "won" by the Muslim extremist side. Hands down with no real debate.

There have been some extremely focused discussions recently on this board, claiming that there is a legitimate threat within the U.S. from Islam VOTING in "dhimmitude". (The fact that the people using the phrase "dhimmitude" don't really know what it means further belies their claim.)

And along THOSE SPECIFIC lines, I think the threat is clearly won by the Christian side. Speaking extremely specificly, there is MORE of a threat from religious LEGAL manipulation in the U.S. from Christians than from Muslims.
But such statements should NEVER be confused beyond the boundaries that the statement clearly denotes. LEGAL manipulation. IN the U.S.
Not war on terror.
Not to say that the Muslim crowd doesn't perform some pretty heinous "legal" manipulations in other countries.

I am all for doing what we must against the war on terror.
Unfortunately, as I believe you point out elsewhere, "what we must" is a phrase that is disputed.
Also disputed is what can be called "war on terror", as there have been misplaced attempts to label the Iraq invasion as part of that. Although, of course now that we have INTRODUCED NEW terrorist elements in Iraq which were unable to thrive there previously, I guess the U.S. has "made" it so...

But at the same time, when you say: "well, sure the large majority British Muslims want you in jail if you diss them, but just lookie what I found -- seven Jews in Hebron and 14 Christians in Little Rock who think the same thing about their religion/culture!"
It needs to be pointed out that these are BRITISH Muslims, and what is going on in the U.S. is a CHRISTIAN dominated phenomenon when it comes to legal manipulation and a pseudo-"dhimmi" attitude.

Among the flip side of the coin, there is also a pretense that pointing to Islam somehow means that their wrongdoings are mitigated. That isn't the case.
If the foreign Islam examples were happening more in THIS country, you would hear me complain more about them in THIS country.
But they aren't.


Quite frankly, this is applicable in a specific way.
It is also a fallacy in a specific way in which you note.

It is a fallacy to pretend (analogous to my previous mention) that such an observation somehow makes the Muslim action LESS of a tragedy.
It doesn't matter what Christians did 500 years ago. It is STILL WRONG of Muslims to perpetuate it today.

But the "applicable" portion comes in how some UNIVERSALLY CONDEMN the Muslim religion. It's a bit like the older brother making fun of his sibling for falling off the bike while learning to ride it. Failing to acknowledge that it was years ago that HE ALSO was doing the same thing.
There HAS BEEN PROGRESS in Islam towards doing the "right thing".
This progress should be ENCOURAGED.
To paint the entire religion with wide brush-strokes (as some people do) is doing the situation a disservice. We should encourage those who are making progress, instead of alienating them.


I guess over-all there are some on the liberal side who make me want to say "<bleeping> Berkeley". The reality of what you talk about does exist.
But at the same time, I think there are SOME times when the attempt to acknowledge the whole situation overlooks the areas where AGREEMENT DOES OCCUR.
And along those lines, I think we (and by "we" I mean myself and others on this board) agree that Islam clearly has the position of having the most dangerous extremists. The war on terror is real, and needs to be fought.
Invading Afghanistan was a GREAT thing, and we need to destroy al Qaeda in the best means possible.

Plenty beyond that to squabble about, but I think that as we argue about the "other" details, these items of agreement sometimes get lost.