That is what I call revisionism. Again, people view Islam as some monolith that has no differences within it. The Muslims of Spain were different than the Mamalukes, who were different than the Ottomans, etc. They had different beliefs regarding expansion. Some wanted to expand far (e.g. Ottomans), but that had nothing to do with “spreading Islam.” Others were happy to be where they were until they were killed or forced out (e.g. Spain–same thing done to Jews too).

The Islamic expansions had little to do with religion and a lot to do with economics and general empire building. No different than Britain, France, Spain, and Portugal. Heck, there are even some who believe that the Pope sincerely wanted the Crusades for purely religious reasons and not economic and political considerations (home and abroad).

Some went across the ocean to the Americas and enslaved thousands and forced them to convert or die. Ooops, wait . . . those were Christians.

‘Although U.S. authorities say there is no credible intelligence regarding a specific threat against such hospitals, the bulletin said there have been persistent reports of “suspicious activity” at medical facilities throughout the United States.’

Hmmmmmm…..

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-08-27-terror-va_x.htm

‘This pattern will continue until Islam suceeds in dominating the world, or until it is crushed completely.’

Are you serious? Maybe you arnt aware of the background of Chechnya.

Saudi wahabbis are well situated within Saudi Arabia, with a system of fundamentalist teaching, younger generations of Saudis are becoming more fundamental in their interpretation of islamic religion. Saudi Arabia might turn out to be like Egypt in which a moderate leader is the head of the state yet cannot remove religious constraints. Saudi Arabia still funds terrorism and without change in their educational and overall societal systems it will revert to a more fundamentalist point of view.

Saudi Arabia have already been criticized for their protection of Mecca and Medina, they refused the protection of the mujahideen, al qaeda, other foreign fighters and opted for US protection in the war of im not sure if it was Iran v. Iraq, or Invasion of Kuwait. they feared Saddam would use military force and occupy them as well.

The House of Saud’s Wahabbi chickens are coming home to roost. Or rather bomb. So events are stirring in that foul nest.

I believe the extemely cautious approach to S.A. is due less to it’s oil pumping, than its being the land of Medina and Mecca. You think Najaf is a “holy city?” You ain’t seen nuttin.

Cordially…

Never mind. I’m goin to Miami to hang out with Fat Joe & Mr. Cheeks.

Out!!

The real tragedy is that the real power brokers are not “Muslim Terrorists” – they are the people who are using these people to pursue their political cause. The power brokers don’t sent their own families to meet Allah – they use these pawns to do their dirty work.

Likewise, women who blow themselves up for a cause are not in any way liberated – just the opposite, the chicken men get their women to do their dirty work.

Goodbye to both of you.

Why dont you criticize President Bush, he fails to stop Saudi Arabia from currently funding terrorist groups, and has failed to name them one of the axis of evil due to the fact that we are dependent upon Saudis oil.

Its Funny how you state that Putin and Clinton are weak, when Russians have been fighting muslim rebels continously, Clinton was criticized by Republicans every time he tried to use military force in order to protect ethnic cleansing and political warring.

Iraqs funding of Hamas was to the families of the suicide bombers, that doesnt create much of a incentive for hamas since they are still intent upon violent action for the independence of Palestine. If you want to go after true contributors of terrorist organizations go after Saudi Arabia which Bush certaintly wont touch due to the US dependency of their oil. Why do you believe it was Iraq which caused terrorist attacks? There is a clear difference between Al-Qaeda and the Baathist Regime perhaps you have been watching too much Fox News to know of it.

“It means that if I’m a terrorist and YOU are fighting a Bill Clinton or Vladimir Putin-like, weak, half-hearted & lackadaisical, and only interested in symbolic crap (like approval ratings & polls) war on terrorists……..I’m coming to kill you anyway. Air France is next. ”

Symbolic? Kinda like lets get Saddam and his no WMDs to wag the dog.

Iraq? Let’s see. Saddam finances Hamas & whomever else wants to kill us. Putin & girly man French President Chirac were both in bed with Saddam, stealing money from the UN Oil-For-Food Program – all meant for the Iraqi people – while assuming it would spare them any terrorist attacks.

Saddam doesn’t finance anyone now. I did not know Saddam financed Hamas, but what does Hamas have to do with this? Hamas generally keeps its terrorism in Israel, not Russia. I know Iran backs Hezbollah. How is Chirac a girly-man? Because he doesn’t blindly follow Bush a law Blair? Also, do not act like the US doesn’t have financial interests in Iraq. That is why they promised oil companies 30-50 year contracts for fields. However, the oil companies are scared for two reasons. 1) Not sure the contracts are legal; and 2) do not trust the security.

Bottom line: Lie down with dogs, my friend, somehow, someway, you will eventually get up with fleas. Or passenger planes droppin like flies, if that suits you better.

Lie down with dogs. We never do that!!! We only lie down with upstanding Mujahadeen in Afghanistan! We are somehow different!!!

Any questions?

My point is simple, how does Chechnya play into Russia not entering the Iraq debacle? There is no broad brush for terrorists to describe motivations, although you can do a broad brush that they are all evil.

Britain learned long ago that the massive disasters against innocent Irish Catholics only drove up membership in the IRA. Are we to think that Abu Ghraib and other problems won’t do the same?