TIMKINS

I agree, in principle. But the problem is that agenda's are not driven by moderates in Islamic circles without massive backing from the West. How long do u think Musharaf would last without George ? :)
The 'real' Muslims do not want dialog, they want an Islamic state.
If they do want dialog, the agenda is to further the interests of achieving that state. "When the time is right".
Nominal Muslims are a bit labradorish, but the fair dinkum ones are more the pitbull.

Pericles, I am no philosopher, but...Pericles Funeral Oration was a famous example of rhetoric; Sophocles was condemned to death for sophistry; Plato had a problem with rhetoric as an art of persuasion...I don't, keep it up.

Is Osama Bin Laughing the Goldstein of Orwell's 1984?

A focus of hatred and a justification for everything, who is already dead.

Pericles

The mind can understand phrases like 'I am a liar' simply because it is not a self-refuting statement, as there is the possibility that a person lies some of the time, not just all or none.

The statement that reality is constructed by language only allows people to claim 'demonisation' by avoiding looking at whether the comments are TRUE or not (or partly true). It is an intellectual copout for people who don't want to face a 'reality' that they don't like.

Unfortunately for them, reality does not depend on how you describe it. Language can describe reality (and can be judged accurate or not by how well it does describe it), not construct it. To view it any other way is not only logically incoherent, but shuts down any real discussion of ideas.

Islam (or at least certain significant proponents of it) is either a danger to our way of life or it isn't. Once you can determine whether the concept is accurate or not, then it is possible to say whether someone is 'demonising' or merely stating a true fact.

This reality is constructed by language rubbish just allows the avoidance of determining the truthfulness of a claim by trying to shut down discussion without addressing the issue.

We see this time and time again. Impinge the motives of the speaker, rather than address the issue. Someone opposes affirmative action, they are racist. Someone opposes homosexual marriage, they are a homophobe.

Deal with ideas by addressing those ideas, not by avoiding the issue.

Pericles, I think I mixed up Sophocles and Socrates, told you I am no philsopher...

Grey, surely "I am not a liar" is the classic self-refuting statement, the one that sci-fi writers ask the rogue computer when they want it to self-destruct?

Whatever. But believe it or not, my intention is not to avoid discussion by hiding behind language constructs, it is more to make sure I understand the ground that we are standing on.

You state that "comments are TRUE or not (or partly true)", but this doesn't stand the reality test. As these forums show, they can quite easily be true to one set of people, but not to another.

Then you say "reality does not depend on how you describe it. Language can describe reality (and can be judged accurate or not by how well it does describe it), not construct it."

According to this, for every little thing there is something called an accurate reality . And therefore by definition an inaccurate one (or many). These, you say, "can be judged accurate". But this is where we part company, because it always makes me ask: "Who is the judge here?"

Your illustration is not too much help with my confusion either.

"Islam (or at least certain significant proponents of it) is either a danger to our way of life or it isn't. Once you can determine whether the concept is accurate or not, then it is possible to say whether someone is 'demonising' or merely stating a true fact."

My first concern is "who decides which are the significant components of Islam are a danger to our way of life?" I suspect you'd say "why, the terrorists of course,". My suggestion to you then would be that it is actually terrorists that you fear, which, in my book at least, renders the Islamic aspect irrelevant.

All I can hear from your post is "Islam is bad", which has all the strengths and weaknesses of a football slogan.

Carn the Pies.