with rants like that Altrav one would be a fool to believe in you.

No one should can say that there isn't a problem in the Muslim world and Muslim communities. The fact that killing, violence, rape, crime, and terrorism are becoming more prevalent by Muslims is a reason to do something about this. The most anyone can say is that this isn't done by all Muslims, even if the population of Muslims who do keeps growing.

Therefore I reiterate. If the leaders in the Muslim community want any credit, they should address the problems instead of trying to defend themselves when more people are angry or fearful of Muslims. They are doing a disservice saying "not all Muslims," when the problem is growing. Work to fix the issue or wait for others to try to fix it in their hands, in their own way. I garentee that won't be an option that will acknowledge good Muslims from extreemists, and likely will be taken by those who aren't enforcing the law but instead by those who are angry and fed up.

This debate on "not all Muslims are extreemists," only will end in harming the Muslims that are good if they are out there, or it will throw a blind eye to those that evil and in the extremist variety, which will allow them to grow. Then when action will be taken it will either be too late (because too many of the population is extreemist to be able to easily overrun, jail, or remove from the country), or the action will be to all and any Muslim before it gets worse and is too late.

So much useless debate. Tell the Muslim leaders to fix their community or if they won't, wait for the police to fix it for them, or worse the angry mob that follows to put the action to work. If they at least make efforts to make things right that might go farther then they expect. There is a problem in the Muslim world. And unfortunately it's a growing problem. Doing nothing says that you are ok with the problems, and that they are not a problem at all.

To ALTRAV

My naturally cynical nature prevents me from seeing you defending KKK members and Nazis using the same judgemental standard that you use to defend Muslims.

PSYCHOLOGY 101. The principle of collective guilt. Within any society, if an identifiable demographic group which seeks acceptance within the wider society, has members who routinely engage in violence and terrorism towards other members of that society, then the onus is upon that acceptance seeking group to denounce their own radicals who are the causing the violence. They must completely disassociate themselves from their own radicals, stressing that they do not even consider them part of their group.

This public disassociation is particularly important if the offending group really does have an ideology which quite plainly instructs and sanctions it's members to engage in violence and terrorism against the wider society. The offending group, especially it's leaders, must not only denounce their own dangerous members, they must also publically renounce those instructions in their own ideology which just happens to be the cause of the problem. And they must do both of these things publically whenever one of their own engages in spectacular acts of violence and terrorism against the wider community.

Failure of the leaders of this group to collectively renounce their own radicals, and those violence advocating aspects of their own ideology directed at non members of their group, will result in the wider demographic of non members labelling the entire offending group as a collective threat to the rest of society. Especially if the leaders of this group seek to blame the victims, and the mainstream members of the offending group refuse to sanction or replace their own leaders.

As for 9/11. Your principle is, that every crackpot conspiracy theorist has only to make a crackpot allegation, and the onus of proof is upon the mainstream to prove it is not true.

Such a principle is more worthy of hilarity than serious consideration. And then you say that you are worried about what people think of you.

LEGO, I have written previously on the topic you just spoke of and I agree with you.
If you care to go back some many weeks, you will find my theme echoes yours, so we are in agreement there.
As for 9/11, given the time I can expound on all the things that did not add up, and we are expected to, just as you are expecting of me, to believe unreservedly, what has been put out about 9/11.
OK, let's pick one or two flaws then.
Why was it originally only mentioned once or twice and never again, that there was a convoy of military like trucks, driving into the basement after work and leaving the next morning, before work started, for weeks, preceding 9/11.
No credible answer.
Why was the actual collapse an 'implosion', rather than a natural collapse.
Those trucks were the teams of men setting up the explosives as one would to bring down a building by implosion.
If the buildings fell naturally as we are led to believe, due to the heat of the burning fuel, they would have toppled even slightly, taking out neighboring buildings and killing thousands more people.
Now if you were a terrorist wanting to kill as many infidels as possible and really make a name for yourself, would you not wait till the buildings were full of workers?
So here we have instead, some workers are told not to come to work on this day, the buildings magically fall perfectly within their own footprint and low and behold the buildings were not completely staffed at that particular moment.
I was in LA that day, as it happened.
I sleep with the telly on when I am away, I awoke to the news flash.
The channel I was on had a very clear reception and the one thing 'I' noticed immediately, is that I reckognised the sound of implosion, which was later confirmed by others.
These are just a few 'facts' that have not yet been explained.
So do not dismiss my suspicions, unless you can explain these anomalies, and more.