like they got Van Jones. They don't care what damage they do to policy or security as long as they obstruct the current administration.

The controversy over Hussain presents two main issues: one, do his personal words and deeds belie a lack of integrity that makes him unfit for such a position of trust; and two, do his views, as reflected in the comments he tried to obscure, raise a different kind of legitimate concern about him representing America to the Muslim world?

The first issue can't be successfully minimized. Gartenstein-Ross tried but the best he could do was tread lightly on some aspects of the scandal, ignore others and end up, as he himself seemed to appreciate, splitting hairs in a vain, desperate attempt to exonerate his buddy. The facts are that, on his own, Hussain knew that his comments in Chicago, defending al-Arian, were indefensible. That's why he took the extraordinary measure of asking the journal to erase them five years after publication. Then, with the apparent full support and cooperation of the White House, he dissembled, didn't admit at first that he'd even made the call, pretended he didn't remember what he'd said in Chicago, and lied as best he could until presented with incontrovertible evidence. Every step of the way, he demonstrated a wiley dishonest character. Put it this way -- will anyone ever believe him again if he says he's misquoted? Of course not.

The second issue can only be answered in the negative for anyone who truly understands the problems with Islam. You, Mr. Lynch, obviously don't. OF COURSE people like Hussain are happy to declare violent jihad unIslamic. But because that's not true, they're only participating in an endless shell game where they and their co-religionists who say the opposite keep the rest of us spinning. If Hussain believes what he says, let's see him debate Muslims who claim the opposite. Let's see them all get out their Korans and Hadiths and invoke the authority of various scholars to make their case.

I know from my own reading who *I* think would win. It won't be the Hussains of the world. Or his colleague John Brennan who blithely declared jihad to be about inner struggle and that alone last week. This whitewash won't get far in a real debate amongst bona fide Islamic scholars. They know that and that's why they'll only sell these lies to the likes of you, people anxious to believe such nonsense because to think otherwise would threaten your ignorant assumptions.

I have no opinion on the particulars Rashad Hussain appointment.

I do take exception to Mr. Lynch's characterisation of the "jihadist movement as a dangerous but tiny fringe movement" as blatantly false and I have absolutely no doubt he knows it to be false. This is the same rubbish Rashad Hussain has tried to pedal in his paper "Reformulating the Battle of Ideas: Understanding the Role of Islam in Counterterrorism Policy."

It is not possible to separate the various 'Jihadist' or 'Islamist' from Islam.

Coming from the Middle East and travelling thruout the Middle East, Central Asia and South East Asia I have seen a huge sea change in the centre point of these societies shift to the right and an increasingly Salafist world view. This has been fuelled, no pun intended, largely by the oil rich Gulf states, officially and non officially, funding a much more radical 'Islamist" agenda.

They do this not least of all by way of building local mosques and schools (Madrassas), training local religious leaders by way of scholarships to Islamic Universities (Wahabi, Salafist institutions i.e. Islamist), in Saudi Arabia and other sympathetic institutions across the Arab world, progressively inculcating the recent and future Muslim generations to a much more radical interpretation of Islam.

In addition to building a chain of radical religious institutions from the west of Africa to the east of Asia, these same parties pour billions of dollars into political parties across the region, euphemistically referred to as 'green money'. Turkey's Justice and Development Party is a good example of how green money funding has brought a an Islamic party to power, and redefining Turkey increasingly as an Islamic country to an Islamic state completely negating Attaturk's vision of Turkey as a modern secular state.

It is fair comment to say that the vast majority of Muslims like most people in the world are generally far more preoccupied with the mundane and ordinary aspects of daily survival. It is important however equally fair comment to note although few are motivated to become active Jihadists there is no small reservoir of sympathy and support for the various violent factions of Islamists.

The goal of the Jihadists or Islamists has never been violence for the sake of violence, it is to promote an Islamist agenda of states governed by and according to Sharia and/or Islamic Institutions ala the Iranian model.

The passive acceptance of Terrorism has in no small part largely been fuelled Israel Arab conflict in which all brutalities against Jews has been celebrated and trumpeted across the Arab and wider Arab world. This legitimacy and hero worship has in turn led to situation where many Muslims with a grievance see no inconsistency adopting the model of terrorism for their local Jihads.

It is only now that Muslims are so frequently the victims of terrorism that Islamic leaders are condemning Terrorism. However it is far from unequivocal and in fact usually quite nuanced so as to allow for continued violence primarily against Jews or others such as Hindus who are seen in opposition to Islamic goals and values. It has not been an unequivocal or universal rejection by any stretch of the imagination as Mr Lynch or Rashad Hussain would prefer people to believe.

"After the failed Christmas bombing most would agree that the task of combatting violent extremism is as urgent a national security priority as ever. "

...

I'd have a lot more respect for that statement if somebody else made it, Marc. I've been a sometimes-reader of your blogs for about 5 years now, and I don't think I've ever seen you miss an opportunity to take the side of violent extremists. Your emotional defense of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood springs to mind, for instance. And besides that, how can anyone take seriously a pledge of commitment to combat violent extremism by somebody who can't even spell "combating" correctly? :P

From the article: He went on to argue that "If the global coalition to stop Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups is to succeed, it must convince potential terrorists that Islam requires them to reject terrorism." Indeed, he argued, "The most paramount task for the global counterterrorism coalition is to emphasize that engaging in terrorism is antithetical to the shari’ah, or Islamic law." This is not a close call.

That's right, it's not a close call, it is an outright fabrication. Islam does indeed call for terrorism, this is self-evident in the Koran/Hadiths despite the meaningless platitudes of well-dressed, likeable, "moderate" Islam apologists.

From the article: That a Muslim who has written so powerfully against extremism and terrorism is nevertheless so casually tarred as a terrorist sympathizer is shameful.

Sorry, but we've heard this line before from our housebroken lovable "moderates." People following the Islam issue, and that's a lot of people these days, are well aware of the deception inherent in Islam (I believe the word for this practice is actually "tiqua") and are less inclined to buy the party line from the "religion of peace."

This level of politically correct naiveté is an unfortunate thing to witness on FP.

When did this author defend the Egyptian Brotherhood? I'd be curious to read that article, and have a laugh at this jackass.

Does anyone else notice anything strange about "administration's envoy to the Organization of Islamic Countries, part of the broader strategy of outreach to the Muslim world" ... etc ? Do we have an envoy to the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish worlds ? Further down, "It is good to see a Muslim appointed to such a position". Does anyone else see anything wrong with this sentence, and with this attitude ? Are we only required to use Muslims to talk to this fantasy "Muslim world" ?

The only justification for all this can be based on strict realism : just as we hold our nose and negotiate with dictators and despots, we will (just to get thru this brushfire of Islamist extremism) do that with the OIC and other such bodies. But it has to be understood as a deal with the devil, rather than a normal practice.

These smear attacks by bigots are to discourage Muslim Americans from even thinking of entering public service and government.

Thanks for the spell check but if I want a Wikipedia answer I can find it myself mate.

So, this is a dead concept that has no place in moderate, modern Islam? Thank god, that's great news! So, that must go a long way towards explaining why the charmingly moderate Council on American Islamic Relations is under investigation by the FBI and why a CAIR board member is being stuffed back on the proverbial boat for terror links. It also explains away the Egyptian Brotherhood's internal statements about "destroying western civilisation from within." Yeah, nothing to see here folks, no problem with Islam whatsoever, it's a religion of peace, and above all integrity.

MikeG, an admitted muslim from above, insists Taqiyya is "only present in some" Shi'a ideologies... ignoring the vast raft of Shi'a, Sunni, Ibadi, and other Muslim clerics who have wholeheartedly endorsed it as a concept, especially in dealing with the "Kafir."

It must be heartening to have a religious doctrine that makes it an article of holy faith to lie to the unbelievers.

Sreekanth,

The idea of the "Ummah", or of "Dar Al-Harb" (that's the non-Muslims) versus "Dar Al-Islam" (guess who), is a central pillar of Islamic theology. Dealing with an organization of Islamic states is like dealing with the supposedly "moderate" Muslims who march up and down the street once a week outside my window demanding the US government be replaced with their beloved "Khalifa."

Islam, $cientology, "Atheist Communism", "Fascism"... why so many ideologies in the world that want to simply take over?

Since when is telling the truth and having videotape of the comments become a smear. The fact that there was an attempt to cover it up is far more serious. It means they knew if these comments were made public they would be extremely unpopular. Why would we want a man representing the United States who thinks our justice systems made up a case against Al-Arian?

The next question is why does the President keep nominating people who hate America?

As a Jew, to me these anti-Muslim comments sounded better in the original German.

Are you serious? You never heard a Jew speak against prejudice?

Wow! Are You for f#$%ing real? And your metric is Europe where Jews were persecuted so if it doesn't rise to the level of the Nazis Arabs and Muslims get a pass and a pat on the back?

1300 years to choose from. Sadly there is no lack of misfortune Jews suffered in Arab countries and the wider Muslim world. Start with Mohammed and the MASSACRES of Jews that followed his conquest of the Arabian Peninsula.

You reference Spain. The 'Golden Age' which historian Bernard Lewis along with many others has amply documented is a myth. You are suggesting we not only go back 700 years to find an example of Jewish Arab harmony, but also outside the Middle East.

In Granada 5000 Jews were MASSACRED by Arab rioters because of rumours that a Jew attempted to have relations with a Muslim Arab woman. Sounds like a pogrom to me. That is only one of the delightful episodes from the 'Golden Age'. The great philosopher Rambam was forced to flee Spain.

For the sake of Brevity I will limit myself to only the more outrageous events. This then is an incomplete picture and doesn't address the ordinary harshness Jews suffered on a daily basis. The Jizya. or tax Jews were forced to pay for being Jewish. It is no coincidence that the Jewish population remained static or shrank over the course of Islamic lands.

In Morocco from the start of the Arab conquest during the time of Idris 1 tens of thousands of Jews were MASSACRED. The Almohads, in the mid 12th century MASSACRED over 200.000 Jews(a scale not matched by Europe until the Nazis). After the Almohads Jews trickled back in but when they were forced to flee Spain Jewish women were raped sold into slavery and the men killed or captured and also sold into slavery.

This was all a long time ago I hear you say so lets fast forward... 19th Century, all well before Zionism and Israel were an Issue. 1805 Algiers Jews MASSACRED, 1828 Baghdad Jews MASSACRED, Damascus 1840, 1848, 1890 Jews MASSACRED, Beirut 1862, 1874 Jews MASSACRED, Dair al-Qamar 1847 Jews MASSACRED, Jerusalem 1847 Jews MASSACRED, Cairo 1844, 1890, 1901–02 Jews MASSACRED, Mansura 1877 Jews MASSACRED, Alexandria 1870, 1882, 1901–07 Jews MASSACRED, Port Said 1903, 1908 Jews MASSACRED, Damanhur 1871, 1873, 1877, 1891 Jews MASSACRED.

Yemen was historically the worse as persecution there was continuous and not subject to the rise and fall that punctuated Jewish life in most of the Arab world.

Just to be clear it was not only the Arab countries. Turkey Istanbul 1870, 1874 Jews MASSACRED, Buyukdere 1864 Jews MASSACRED, Kuzguncuk 1866 Jews MASSACRED, Eyub 1868 Jews MASSACRED, Edirne 1872 Jews MASSACRED, Izmir 1872, 1874 Jews MASSACRED.

Sadly Iran was even worse than the Arab lands. Jewish history there is littered with forced conversions, expulsions from one city to another and Jews MASSACRED. In Tabriz 1830 Jews MASSACRED, same year forcible conversion of the Jews of Shiraz. 1839 Mashhad Jews MASSACRED and survivors were forcibly converted. 1867 Barfurush Jews MASSACRED.

If Mr Hussain is to be a representative of America and not an apologist for America, the first thing that has to happen is he needs to make it clear, and I would stress crystal clear to the Islamic nations, that his loyalty is to The United States and its constitution. Any business conducted before this would be a fools errand.

It's amazing how one defends Islamists in America by stating that they were opposed to 911. What they forget to mention is that these Islamists have absolutely no problems whatsoever with suicide bombers from Hamas or Islamic Jihad blowing up innocent Israeli men, women, and children on busses, in supermarkets, schools, restaurants, and shopping malls, nor do they have a problem with Hamas firing more than 6,000 rockets into Israeli cities that hit kindergartens, hospitals, and homes or Hezbollah sending thousands of missile into Israeli cities.

It's very nice for an Islamist to say they were opposed to 911 but you cannot be against one kind of terrorism and support another kind. Just because you live in America you cannot be against terrorism here but support it elsewhere.

And for the record, Moslems in America have been strangely quiet about all the terrorism directed at the world by Islamists since our 911. Tens of thousands have been maimed and murdered in Israel, Iraq, Turkey, Tunesia, Jordan, Egypt, Spain, England, Bali, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan, Somalia, and The Philippines but American Moslems are quiet about the carnage, even when 90% of it has been directed against other Moslems.

When in doubt, call someone an idiot. Brilliant strategy.

And while I'll be the first to admit I'm an uneducated idiot, I'm also the first to consider others people's ideas. I appreciate your arrogance and otherwise complete lack of class. ITGURU, you sir, are what's wrong with the world today. Enjoy your weekend jackass.

And here we have another Muslim apologist who blames the Islamic world's problems on colonialism. It's only been five minutes since the last time that tired old argument was trotted out to soothe a silly concerns of the kafir.

No violence in the Koran eh? Maybe you should read this vile little book occasionally (and don't forget the Hadiths!) as it's littered with quaint passsages advocating violence against the kafir, against Jews, against women, basically against anyone who isn't a Muslim male. I'll post a few passages for your own information, I look forward to your feeble "out of context" arguments, we've heard it before but we'll humour you anyway (yawn). Anyway, one of my personal favourite non-violent passages is:

9:29 "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

Ah such beautiful words from the religion of peace! So, it looks like Mo commanded all Muslims to carry on fighting the Kafir (that's us pagan scum, by the way) until they either accept Islam or pay a tax to ensure they are not killed by the Muslim majority. Gee, I wonder if this passage explains the persecution of the Egyptian Copts? Or the countless other examples of Islamic intolerance to other religions?

Would you like me to dig up the many wonderful passages outlining Allah's commands regarding how to handle those pesky Jews? How about the passages advocating beating women? How about the passages about the Muzzo male's god-given right to rape slave girls?

How fair of you to assume I'm a racist (and you therefore assume I am white, most amusing!) because I'm able to understand and criticise the religion of peace. Funny thing about Islam it's actually not a race, it is a primitive, fascist political ideology. In my travels in the counter-jihad movement I've encountered many people of many races, all of whom have been brutalised by Islam. Your pathetic claims of racism wear about as thin as your feeble attempts to claim the Koran is non-violent.

If you have any further questions I'd be happy to assist in educating you.

Kalamere: My sentiments exactly, I thought that post was so spot on.

Jordan C said: Islam is no more hateful or violent than Christianity, it's just younger and hasn't yet matured into a fully compatible religion for the modern age. It will though; globalization demands it.

I'm inclined to agree with you, Christianity is comparably vile. But, the caveat here is that Christianity has demonstrated the ability to change over time. Islam, perhaps because it is a political system that merges the "divine" with the temporal, has shown a complete inability to progress. Even the so called "Islamic golden age" was marked not by a fundamental change in the practice of the faith but by a collection of scholars who rejected much of Islam's teaching outright in favour of Greek rationalism.

That's a pretty fair argument and I'm embarassed to say I hadn't considered Christianity at the point of its 1400th year. I daresay you've provided a glimmer of hope for the Islamic world!

Nice try, you make a much slicker argument than many of your cohorts who simply say “you will die! Islam will rule the world infidel scum!” but again, this is nothing we haven’t heard before from the likes Ramadan, Cooper and a million others and your arguments are easily refuted. In the interests of speed I’ll address a few of your specific points:
Mohammed Joe: That passage refers to the pagans of Mecca (who were violently intolerant of the Muslims

Ah I see! Thanks for clearing that up with your predictable “out of context” nonsense. Once again we’ve got the whole Muslim martyr complex rearing it’s bearded head. A) The context in which that passage sits (which is questionable) is irrelevant as these passages are used by Muslims to justify persecution and hatred of Christians, and B) maybe you should make it your personal crusade to rectify this gross misunderstanding of the beautiful religion of peace, and it seems loads of your co-religionists are getting it wrong and killing Copts in Egypt, Christians in Pakistan, etc.

Mohammed Joe: You demonstrate in no way that you're a scholar of Islam but simply pick a couple of quotes from an English translation of the Quran (not the same thing) that you clearly don't what they're about.
And here we have the other classic argument “it’s not in Arabic therefore you can never understand it.” Seriously? You’re trotting that sad old line out? How stupid do you think we Kaffir are? Have you noticed how many English copies of the Koran are floating around these days published by Muslim organizations for the purposes of conversion? You reveal yourself to be dishonest in this little rebuttal, but no worries, we’re quite used to your type.
Mohammed Joe: Furthermore, people bring up the issue of the Copts in Egypt, but these people are hardly repressed when compared to the actual Muslim majority itself.
Oh my god, I’m literally laughing about this passage. If we had any suspicions about your poor character this confirms it. So the Copts, a tiny Christian minority in a sea of Islam, are actually oppressing the “Muslim majority” in Islam’s core state, Egypt? Are you having a laugh? Tell this to the thousands of protesters in the UK, Canada and around the world fighting to stop the sanctioned murder of Copts in Egypt. You are a ridiculous person.
As for Iraq War number one. Saddam got a little too big for his britches and invaded the west’s business partner, Kuwait. We slapped the little man down for his transgression, very simple. As for Iraq War number two, this was horrible and the result of our need to control the world’s oil supply as Iraq has the second largest oil field on earth (and the first one is nearly out of petrol). My hope is that what appears to be a permanent US presence in the region will eventually result in a more stable country. My Kurdish friends are thrilled with the occupation as it has gone a long way towards ending their ongoing persecution by the Muslim majority who somehow seem to lack your own “all you need is love” interpretation of the Koran and see fit to slaughter the Kurds at will. If you ever want to hear chilling firsthand accounts of the brutality of the religion of peace, talk to any of the older generation of London’s Zoroastrian Kurdish community, a truly great group of people.
As for the Saudis, yeah, they are perverts by and large but they are purists and are respected throughout the Islamic world for making a pure Islamic state a reality on earth. What do I make of the west’s relationship with them? Quite despicable, but those camel loving jackasses are sitting on Gawahar Field, so there is a pressing need to play nice with them. The big question will be whether or not they have invested wisely enough to keep the game going, as once the oil is gone, unless the Saudis have made themselves a significant enough force in world finance they will find their place at the table no longer exists.
Mohammed Joe: I'll say it again, the foreign policies pursued by the West in particular the US, are the fundamental cause of the violence emanating from the ME but you seem to argue otherwise because you probably like those policies and don't want to see them changed.
Wrong again Mohammed, it is fair to say that foreign policies pursued by the UK/US alliance are the source of terrorism against western countries, but to say that the Koran is simply a pleasant book of peace that is absolutely not to blame for the turmoil that exists in the middle east is absurd. To say that the Koran has nothing to do with the oppression and murder of women, Christians, Hindus, gays and Jews in the Islamic world is barely even worth a dignified response.
And now, finally, for this little gem: racism is simply the idea that you are superior to someone else based on ethnicity, culture, race or some other defining characteristic.
Sorry Mohammed, wrong again, here’s the actual definition of racism: the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.
Please note for your own education that the definition places the emphasis on RACE (gee, maybe that’s why it’s called RACE-ism Einstein). So, is Islam a “race?” Shockingly, you can find Muslims of all races, I daresay Islam is not a race. It is actually an antiquated, fascist political ideology that it’s adherents choose to support. So, how does that make someone who criticizes Islam a “racist” again?
I’m sure you think you’ve done quite well in our little dialogue, but I’ve been dealing with these straw man Islamic apologist arguments for a couple years now. You, and people like you, are utterly full of sh*t, and the sad fact is that you seem to believe a lot of your own nonsense. You’re probably some adorable little middle eastern studied student from the US who feels bad about Iraq/AF, wants to support the underdog and fight “racism” or a host of other “isms” that mommy, daddy and school tell you are destroying the world. Am I in the ball park here Mo?

Of Islam as you are prejudiced towards its adherents. That passage refers to the pagans of Mecca (who were violently intolerant of the Muslims), the Quran refers to Christians, Jews and others with a holy book and knowledge of God as 'People of the Book' and clearly affords them protection as evidenced that they still exist after 1400 years whereas as Muslims who fell under the sway of Christians in Spain, Sicily, Crete etc were wiped out.
You seem to have a very high regard for your own opinion of Islam which you have every right to, but you don't have a right to your own facts about it. You demonstrate in no way that you're a scholar of Islam but simply pick a couple of quotes from an English translation of the Quran (not the same thing) that you clearly don't what they're about. And you don't seem much interested in really knowing what they're about either, wanting something to reinforce your prejudice rather than challenge it, hence your casual and contemptuous disregard for context.
Furthermore, people bring up the issue of the Copts in Egypt, but these people are hardly repressed when compared to the actual Muslim majority itself. Are you aware that the government there has prohibited the building of Mosques in many areas and shut many more down so it can more easily control the populace through government issued sermons? Are you aware that of over 20000 political prisoners there, the overwhelming majority are Muslim? And do you care for the fact that this corrupt dictatorship is propped up by a $1.6 billion yearly grant from the US?
I don't have to go into the distant colonial past to identify the serious causes of the grievances Muslims from across the ME identify with regard to the US:
1. Invasion, destruction, death and mayhem in Iraq caused by US & UK starting in 1991. This is in the here and now! You may think it all legitimate (including the deaths of over half a million Iraqis children during the sanctions period), but what on earth would make you think the Muslims would share your prejudice?
2. Ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to make way for more Jewish settlers from Russia, Europe, the US and elsewhere, facilitated by grants of over $2.5 billion in assistance to the Israeli budget.
And lets not start on the Saudis (the source of that perversion called Wahabism) and the military and training programs that monstrous dictatorship receives from Britain and the US to help keep them in power. Not to mention all the other dictatorships currently propped up by the West (Jordan, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, etc) Nowhere were these regimes chosen by the population.
Despite all this, you would have us believe that the Palestinians would happily vacate their homeland for the Jews if it wasn't for that pesky Quran! Or that the Iraqis would happily submit themselves to a violent foreign domination resulting in the deaths of many if only it were not for a few passages in the Quran.
I'll say it again, the foreign policies pursued by the West in particular the US, are the fundamental cause of the violence emanating from the ME but you seem to argue otherwise because you probably like those policies and don't want to see them changed. Let me guess, you were one of those who supported the invasion of Iraq but don't regard it as an act of unprovoked violence?
You clearly demand of Muslims and Arabs that which you would never tolerate for yourself - meek acquiescence to a repressive foreign domination and if that is indeed the case, then yes you are racist. And by the way I never assumed you were white (unlike you assuming I'm a Mohammed), racism is simply the idea that you are superior to someone else based on ethnicity, culture, race or some other defining characteristic and by virtue of that, believe that you are afforded superior rights (like invading their countries).

Nice try, you make a much slicker argument than many of your cohorts who simply say “you will die! Islam will rule the world infidel scum!” but again, this is nothing we haven’t heard before from the likes Ramadan, Cooper and a million others and your arguments are easily refuted. In the interests of speed I’ll address a few of your specific points:
Mohammed Joe: That passage refers to the pagans of Mecca (who were violently intolerant of the Muslims

Ah I see! Thanks for clearing that up with your predictable “out of context” nonsense. Once again we’ve got the whole Muslim martyr complex rearing it’s bearded head. A) The context in which that passage sits (which is questionable) is irrelevant as these passages are used by Muslims to justify persecution and hatred of Christians, and B) maybe you should make it your personal crusade to rectify this gross misunderstanding of the beautiful religion of peace, and it seems loads of your co-religionists are getting it wrong and killing Copts in Egypt, Christians in Pakistan, etc.

Mohammed Joe: You demonstrate in no way that you're a scholar of Islam but simply pick a couple of quotes from an English translation of the Quran (not the same thing) that you clearly don't what they're about.
And here we have the other classic argument “it’s not in Arabic therefore you can never understand it.” Seriously? You’re trotting that sad old line out? How stupid do you think we Kaffir are? Have you noticed how many English copies of the Koran are floating around these days published by Muslim organizations for the purposes of conversion? You reveal yourself to be dishonest in this little rebuttal, but no worries, we’re quite used to your type.
Mohammed Joe: Furthermore, people bring up the issue of the Copts in Egypt, but these people are hardly repressed when compared to the actual Muslim majority itself.
Oh my god, I’m literally laughing about this passage. If we had any suspicions about your poor character this confirms it. So the Copts, a tiny Christian minority in a sea of Islam, are actually oppressing the “Muslim majority” in Islam’s core state, Egypt? Are you having a laugh? Tell this to the thousands of protesters in the UK, Canada and around the world fighting to stop the sanctioned murder of Copts in Egypt. You are a ridiculous person.
As for Iraq War number one. Saddam got a little too big for his britches and invaded the west’s business partner, Kuwait. We slapped the little man down for his transgression, very simple. As for Iraq War number two, this was horrible and the result of our need to control the world’s oil supply as Iraq has the second largest oil field on earth (and the first one is nearly out of petrol). My hope is that what appears to be a permanent US presence in the region will eventually result in a more stable country. My Kurdish friends are thrilled with the occupation as it has gone a long way towards ending their ongoing persecution by the Muslim majority who somehow seem to lack your own “all you need is love” interpretation of the Koran and see fit to slaughter the Kurds at will. If you ever want to hear chilling firsthand accounts of the brutality of the religion of peace, talk to any of the older generation of London’s Zoroastrian Kurdish community, a truly great group of people.
As for the Saudis, yeah, they are perverts by and large but they are purists and are respected throughout the Islamic world for making a pure Islamic state a reality on earth. What do I make of the west’s relationship with them? Quite despicable, but those camel loving jackasses are sitting on Gawahar Field, so there is a pressing need to play nice with them. The big question will be whether or not they have invested wisely enough to keep the game going, as once the oil is gone, unless the Saudis have made themselves a significant enough force in world finance they will find their place at the table no longer exists.
Mohammed Joe: I'll say it again, the foreign policies pursued by the West in particular the US, are the fundamental cause of the violence emanating from the ME but you seem to argue otherwise because you probably like those policies and don't want to see them changed.
Wrong again Mohammed, it is fair to say that foreign policies pursued by the UK/US alliance are the source of terrorism against western countries, but to say that the Koran is simply a pleasant book of peace that is absolutely not to blame for the turmoil that exists in the middle east is absurd. To say that the Koran has nothing to do with the oppression and murder of women, Christians, Hindus, gays and Jews in the Islamic world is barely even worth a dignified response.
And now, finally, for this little gem: racism is simply the idea that you are superior to someone else based on ethnicity, culture, race or some other defining characteristic.
Sorry Mohammed, wrong again, here’s the actual definition of racism: the belief that there are characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to each race. 2 discrimination against or antagonism towards other races.
Please note for your own education that the definition places the emphasis on RACE (gee, maybe that’s why it’s called RACE-ism Einstein). So, is Islam a “race?” Shockingly, you can find Muslims of all races, I daresay Islam is not a race. It is actually an antiquated, fascist political ideology that it’s adherents choose to support. So, how does that make someone who criticizes Islam a “racist” again?
I’m sure you think you’ve done quite well in our little dialogue, but I’ve been dealing with these straw man Islamic apologist arguments for a couple years now. You, and people like you, are utterly full of sh*t, and the sad fact is that you seem to believe a lot of your own nonsense. You’re probably some adorable little middle eastern studied student from the US who feels bad about Iraq/AF, wants to support the underdog and fight “racism” or a host of other “isms” that mommy, daddy and school tell you are destroying the world. Am I in the ball park here Mo?

You are correct, weeding out this filth from the establishment of US politics is a struggle. The god-believing idiots are wealthy, mobilised and very powerful.

Telegraph UK, 28th Feb, 2010:

The Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) -- which believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state -- has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve "mass mobilisation" of voters.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Jim Fitzpatrick, the Environment Minister, said the IFE had become, in effect, a secret party within Labour and other political parties.

"They are acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it's at local government level or national level," he said.
"They are completely at odds with Labour's programme, with our support for secularism."

Mr Fitzpatrick, the MP for Poplar and Canning Town, said the IFE had infiltrated and "corrupted" his party in east London in the same way that the far-Left Militant Tendency did in the 1980s. Leaked Labour lists show a 110 per cent rise in party membership in one constituency in two years.

In a six-month investigation by this newspaper and Channel 4's Dispatches, involving weeks of covert filming by the programme's reporters:
IFE activists boasted to the undercover reporters that they had already "consolidated ... a lot of influence and power" over Tower Hamlets, a London borough council with a £1 billion budget.

We have established that the group and its allies were awarded more than £10 million of taxpayers' money, much of it from government funds designed to "prevent violent extremism".

IFE leaders were recorded expressing opposition to democracy, support for sharia law or mocking black people. The IFE organised meetings with extremists, including Taliban allies, a man named by the US government as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and a man under investigation by the FBI for his links to the September 11 attacks.

More "moderate Islam" that isn't so moderate, and is acting to enforce Islam's covert agenda to subvert democracy. Disgusting.