Yes AIR,some of the Islamists are no better than Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld and all the other facists that seek to enslave us,but we cannot label all Muslims or all Christians as being facist.

I think you are all being unfair towards John Passant.While I don't agree with the socialist philosophy,he is genuine in his passion for a better world.So open you minds and look for better solutions for a world on the brink of self destruction.Corporatism and greed has been a monumental failure.

Hi Arjay,

The word is 'fascist'. And of course, not all Muslims are fascist, far from it. However, as with fundamentalists in other religions, including christianity at various times over the last thousand years when it was at its most reactionary and fascist, if you like, some Muslim believers have been persuaded that the entire world should be Islamic, in accordance with the Book, and some factions of those believers do seem to believe that any means are okay to achieve this end. Any means. And that life on earth, especially for unbelievers, is ultimately immaterial, the sooner it's over the better.

So yes, some Islamists are no better than the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world. Some may be even worse.

I don't understand what you mean about being unfair to Mr Passant - for one, I don't have any major quarrel with his views, and I'm surethat he would agree that the tasks ahead of progressive forces in Tunisia and Algeria and other MENA countries are formidable.

Jo

Yes people! religion is the answer:)

OH dear:)

BLUE

Ummm - where did you get this from, Boaz?

>>Firstly... no one in Government seems to have suggested to the 'breeding like rabbits' populace that any more than 3 children max is ultimately dangerous for the exact reasons in Part A above.. LOTs of people NO jobs.<<

Tunisia's TFR is 2.1 - down, incidentally, from 7.2 in 1962.

Compared with Australia, it looks like this:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:TUN&dl=en&hl=en&q=tunisia+total+fertility+rate#met=sp_dyn_tfrt_in&idim=country:TUN:AUS

So this is "breeding like rabbits" in your terminology? That's a bit harsh.

True to form, you never check your facts.

Just a word on the use of the term "Islamist". According to the web (and this is Western term) it refers anyone "supporting or advocating Islamic fundamentalism".

It is not a fair description of the bulk of the Muslim population. Keep in mind that most people deliberately targeted by these fundamentalists have been Muslims.

Yes, exactly, Grapefruit, not all Muslims are fundamentalists, any more than adherents to any other religion or similar backward body of thought.

However, once we differentiate Islamists from 'normal' Muslims - and then differentiate those Islamists who preach exclusion and superiority from those who preach violence and extermination, and put those calls into practice - we have to admit that many Islamists around the world do seem to resort to pretty brutal tactics to get their point across: blowing up market-places, schools, bus-queues is a bit more extremist than counter-arguments to letters to papers, or cartoons, or anti-Islamic speeches.

The right to free speech extends to Islamists, they can express their repugnant opinions, but only up to the point where they hint at violence against non-believers: that's the limit. Offensive speech is a necessary part of free speech, certainly, as any OLO contributor knows, but not speech which incites to violence or contempt. Democracy may trump backward philosophies such as religions, but it does not have to tolerate calls for its own suspension or overthrow.

Joe Lane