[kellwolf]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, no. True, the Muslims I've personally known here in the States have been seemingly peaceful and relatively tolerant; however, predominately Muslim countries encompass many more areas than just the Middle East. And due to the wonders of modern technology, we are able to observe the goings-on in these other countries without having to actually be there.
And I could go on about some Christian hypocrites I know, but I do know they aren't trying to kill non-believers.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, then why do you constantly focus on Middle Eastern extremist Muslims and assume they represent the majority? My example was focusing on extremist Christians in one geographical area: the South. The are neither the majority nor representative of all Christians.

[ QUOTE ]
But you're missing the point. They are infrequent and they do not happen 'daily.' They are RARE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already said that I jumped the gun on "daily," so you can drop that one. My point was that they do happen. I wouldn't call them rare, infrequent possibly. Volcanic eruptions and tsunamis are rare.

[ QUOTE ]
CNN, for example, would have pounced on some anti-war rhetoric if given half a chance, because they are against the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, CNN and all major news networks (including Fox) are for ratings, doesn't really matter their ideologies. Let's look at this for a minute. CNN starts talking about Muslim leaders condemning their fellow Muslims, the war ends due to popular outrage since we discover that not all Muslims hate Americans. CNN's ratings drop since they can't keep a daily body count going to slam Bush anymore. They have to go back to reporting on the plight of the American farmer or some parade in Iowa since there's not much else newsworthy. Not exactly a barn burner in the ratings category. Now, if they sit on the Muslim outcries, they can milk the war for all it's worth in ratings. CNN, and most news channels, are at their hearts a business. No news network really goes on the air to change the world, that might be a by-product. I'm not saying that this IS happening, but it could be. Considering it took me all of fifteen minutes to find Muslims speaking out, I don't see it as too far fetched.

Now, let's jump across the globe to Falluja. You're a Muslim living in war torn Iraq. You know what the extremists are doing is wrong, and you'd like to say something about it. But, you have a wife and three kids. Sure, you could go on television and say how wrong Al Queda is and how they are ruining your good name. When you come home, your house is burned and the charred remains of your family are on the front lawn. So, was it worth it to you? That's the decision people in Iraq have to face. Personally, I'm not brave enough to sacrifice my family for a television statement. I have nothing but admiration and respect for those Muslims in the area (not the ones across the world who will remain pretty much untouched, that's like codemning Hitler from Canada) who do speak out. But since they do it "rarely" in your opinion, I guess their sacrifice doesn't count.....

[ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between someone being persecuted and someone fighting (in whatever context) against an infidel. And are we fighting? I thought this was merely a debate. And I don't know that I'd call a simple disagreement a 'fight' anyway. Tell you what, I'll look it up and get back to you...

[/ QUOTE ]

You missed the point. Translations are tricky things, and word choice is what makes it so tricky. The word "fight" or "fighting" is one of those tricky words. Technically, according to Webster, we are fighting since it's defined as " A quarrel or conflict." It's also used to describe "A confrontation between opposing groups in which each attempts to harm or gain power over the other, as with bodily force or weapons." That's probably the most used term. How about this one: " To make (one's way) by struggle or striving." That sounds an awful lot like prevailing over persecution. My point was that one word mistranslated or translated out of context can alter the meaning of the entire phrase. Were the Muslims meant to struggle and survive persecution like the Christians, or were they meant to wipe out all other religions on the planet? Depends on who you ask and what translation they use.

[ QUOTE ]
These 'cherry-picked verses' are relatively important, since THEY are what's causing people (directly or indirectly) to kill and be killed..

[/ QUOTE ]

So do you agree that he cherry picked those to inflame people against Muslims in the way Al Queda uses them to further their cause? My point was that they're taken out of context (like many Christian verses often are for one means or another). In and of themselves, they sound pretty damning. However, when put into context with the Koran, it's a different ballgame. It's like saying Jesus was an alcoholic b/c he drank wine, Abraham was a murderer since he was going to kill his own son, and Lot was a pediphile since he slept with his own daughters.

[ QUOTE ]
Jews killing Muslims in the name of religion? Are you talking about them defending their country and killing terrorist leaders?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, I'm talking about Israelis bombing in Palestine, most often against civilians, not terrorist leaders. If that's defending their own country, then we're in a lot of trouble as a civilization.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think so. In an al-Qaeda house in Afghanistan, New York Times reporters found a brief statement of the “Goals and Objectives of Jihad”:

[/ QUOTE ]

So, the "goals and objectives of Jihad" have nothing to do with motivating religious minded people to follow them? Read them again. Their written as a call to arms for radical Muslims that hate the West. Now, assuming their Jihad is complete and we are all wiped out, do you think they'll hold open elections for leaders? Doubtful. The leaders of the new order will be the leaders of the Jihad, the people that wrote that. Religious wars are essentially power grabs for those the lead it. It was true of the Catholic Church during the Crusades, it's true of Al Queda and it will be true for the next religion that uses violence to attain thier goals.

BTW, how's that research on the Inquistion coming?