Quote:they will condemn it in public.

Ah, yes. But do they mean it?

(October 3, 2010 at 6:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:they will condemn it in public.

Ah, yes. But do they mean it?

By 'they' do you mean politicians?

If "yes', asked and answered.

THIS is true: A few years ago,our then Prime Minister, John Howard, was taken to task for breaking a campaign promise. (no,really).

Speaking slowly,as if to a rather dim child,the PM explained that the issue in question had not been a 'core promise'.What's rather scary is that people actually swallowed that explanation.

Um, no. I was answering Frodo who made the original comment about the majority of muslims.

If they do believe it they're kidding themselves.

All believers willingly kid themselves.

I would suggest that pointing to Palestine after 1948, Afghanistan after 2001, and Iraq after 2003 won't quite deliver an objective scientific analysis of the true muslim stance towards the west - that video is more about an occupied nation's reaction towards the misfortunes of their invaders, and their invaders' principal allies. Sad and very shocking, but understandable.

Christianity is a threat to the Mid-East as much as Islam is a threat to Christ countries. Two different forms of retardation will cause fighting. Perhaps WWIII this time around?

Not really. Christianity is a spent force in the west, and islam is a religion not a country. The needs of people in the Middle East for resources - land, energy, food and water - and the reaction of western capitalism to those needs are better predictors of war than religious allegiance.