Don't they believe that any non-Muslim living in what was once "Muslim land" is an "invader"?

And of course, anyone associated with a war against a Muslim nation or group is an "aggressor."

So that pretty much takes care of all Americans, English, Australians, Israelis...

Speaking of this Tantawi person, last year I heard Israel's former Ashkenazic Chief Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau speak. He mentioned an official visit he made to Egypt (pre-Stupidfada) in which he had the 'honor' of meeting Tantawi at Al Azhar. They had a relatively polite and pleasant chat. Afterwards Rabbi Lau thanked Tantawi for his hospitality and expressed his desire to reciprocate, inviting him to pay a visit in Jerusalem ("I said Jerusalem, not Israel" stressed Rabbi Lau). Tantawi shook his head and said no, he wouldn't come to Jerusalem until he could do so with his passport being stamped "Palestine".

#1

I'm sure you know this, but in Islam the world is divided into two halves or 'houses'; one is the house of Islam and the other is the house of war [against Allah]. In other words, the parts of the world that are not [yet, in their belief] Islamic are by their very nature war zones. Take 190 countries in the United Nations, subtract the 57 OIC countries and you get 133 countries that are war zones, as far as Islam is concerned.

Did somebody say Tantawi?

Remember this Tantawi with the unusual Tuetonic first name?

I wonder if there's any relation...

Egypt, plaguing the Jews for 5000 years, no matter who's running the damn place. Time to bust out my Zionist remote control.

It's not a religion, it's a diagnosis.

Even Gordon gave up trying to make excuses for these assholes.

OT: Three days ago, Sweden’s biggest morning paper, Dagens Nyheter, published an article by Jan Samuelsson, who wrote that hatred against jews is "reasonable and justified" because of the actions of Israel.

(from a Swedish blog, see fourth item from top)

I just want to know exactly what percent is considered a small percentage of radicals? Are we talking .1%, 1%, 15%? When they keep going on about there being 1.3 billion on them in the world, I'd like to know how many million Muslims this small percentage takes up.

#5 Bob G.

It's not a religion, it's a diagnosis.

It's not a religion, it's a disease!

The sheik, he's just bitter that Al-Azhar University didn't rank on Playboy's list of Top Party Schools.

#8 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

According to a Saudi prince, whatishisname, Khalid, I think, only 10% of muslimes are radicals.

That makes it about 130 million. I would think that presents a big problem with a disposal. Does someone know about a relatively clean dispersal device?

On the second though, the enviromental issues are not that pressing.

@#!%^
Should be: On the second thought, the environmental issues are not that pressing.

preview amicus meus.preview amicus meus.preview amicus meus.preview amicus meus.preview amicus meus.

Way OT: Whoohoo, CBS just lost their jihad against the Reagans!

For the record, I personally don't mind them doing a warts-and-all documentary of an American president, but that sort of thing seems more appropriate say 40 years after he left office. But to do it fifteen years after he left office and while he's dying? And then to deliberately fabricate material to make him and the First Lady look like idiots and monsters? To consult with none of his close family or advisors on the accuracy/spirit of the portrayal? Abominable. I wouldn't be happy if this were done to the Clintons either. This malicious crap does no one any good.

#13 Model4

Well, in a related theme, I heard that Larry Flynt is preparing to produce a film based on the Clinton years.

Just kidding, for now anyway.

Meanwhile ally Pakistan oppresses Christians, with US money:

[Link: www.pakistanchristianpost.com...]

A martyr is one who chooses to suffer death rather than renounce religious principles.

They must be thinking of murderer, one guilty of unlawfully killing another human, especially with premeditated malice.

Charles;

But remember; it’s just a small minority of fanatic extremists who have hijacked a tolerant, peaceful religion, and the US gives Egypt more than $2 billion a year in foreign aid.

I admire the fact that you can write that with a straight (though tongue in cheek) face, or better yet that George Wahabi Bush can say that with a straight face. We will not win this war until we correctly define the enemy - Islam (I do not distinguish between radical Islam and "moderate' Islam as there is no such distinction. As others (Pipes for one) have stated, "terror is a tactic, not the enemy."

“Invaders and aggressors” are very flexible words, of course, and can also include New York office workers and Russian theater-goers and Aussie nightclubbers.

Let's not forget Red Cross Employees, U.N. staffers, beauty contestants, Shi'ite Clerics, Olympic Athletes, Christian Pastors (and their families), women, beach goers, firemen, police officers, "compromisers", mayors, deputy mayors, fullbright scholarship givers, inhalers, exhales, night clubbers, fine diners, those on busses, plains, or ships, taxi drivers, pregnant women, WTC tourist, Jews, Christians, agnostics, atheist, Muslims that haven't lost their minds, Muslims that have lost their minds (but just in a different way), dishonorable cousins, student protesters, Canadian photographers, and anyone who doesn't fit into any of the above categories.

For reference Muhammad Tantawi, the law of my religion states:
If someone is coming to kill you, arise quickly and kill him first

If that's aggression, I am proud to be an aggressor.
I want my 2 billion a year back.

bring it, jihadi scum.

A good op-ed by David Brooks on the reality of evil in Iraq: [Link: www.nytimes.com...]

The Wahhabis control the Sunni religious positions throughout the Muslim world, and they are fanatics. The drive to suicide-murder emanates from the mosques, the madrassas, the religious schools -- the Wahhabis control this.

But it seems that the Muslim people who respond to polls are not as fanatic-sounding as the religious leaders (depending on the country). A Pew poll in 2002 asked Muslims if suicide bombing in defense of Islam is justified.

[Link: www.queensu.ca...]

In Lebanon, a former French protectorate and a hotbed of Hizbollah fanaticism, 73% said yes, only 21% said no. In Ivory Coast, it was 56% to 44%. In Bangladesh, 44% to 37%. In Nigeria, 47% to 45%.

But more said no to suicide bombings than yes in: Jordan, Pakistan, Mali, Ghana, Uganda, Senegal, Indonesia, Tanzania, Turkey, and Uzbekistan. In Uzbekistan, 7% said yes to suicide bombings, 84% said no.

The question was not permitted in Egypt.

Even though the Quran opposes suicide, the radical Islamists are able to re-interpret things to approve of it. But not all Muslims are convinced of this radical Islamist view.

It's not only the Wahhabi-oriented radical Islamists who are into suicide-murder. Palestine Islamic Jihad consists of Sunni Muslims who are devotees of Khomeinism, even though Khomeini was a Shiite. They receive funding from the mad mullahs of Iran. And they are one of the big three Pali splodeydope organizations. The other two are Hamas (which gets half its funding from the Saudi-Wahhabis), and Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (which is part of Fatah and gets its funding from Arafat) and is Arafat's answer to the terrorist competition with Hamas.

And just what muslim land are they protecting from invasion? Let's see, the Hebrew culture and Judaism document themselves as being around, occupying what is now Isreal, for over 5000 years. Mohammed and the Quoran did not appear on the scene until the 4th century AD and did not occupy Isreal until the 5th or 6th century.

Now, who again is the invader?

Islamic law is an oxymoron.

#23

I just want to point out, since accuracy in argument is very important, that the Israelite settlement of the land took place beginning about 3300 years ago and that Muhammad was born at the end of the 6th century, not in the 4th.