Syed, there is a simple way to stop people giving religion a hard time. Keep it out of politics. How many people do you see attacking Buddhism for instance?

As both Islam and Christianity to a lesser extent are political and affect our lives, your suggestion would mean no freedom of political debate. Religious leaders could do as they please, hiding beyond your suggested laws. Thats the slippery slope down towards theocracy, which applies in so many Islamic countries. Thats exactly what alot of Muslims fled, when they moved to Australia in the first place. So your idea won't work sorry.

Hello Sunisle, sounds like you need to stop watching so many Michael Moore doco's. You don't seem to care about slaughter of non-muslims by muslims all around the world, from Indonesia to Sudan and back.

The point of the cartoons was to see what the Islamic reaction to them would be. Jylands Posten suspected it would be violent, and the cartoons depicted that. The hypocrisy lies not with the US, but with muslims who demand respect for their religion, yet disrespect the Jewish holocaust in vile cartoons, Buddhist statues in Afghanistan and their general Christophobic tendencies in places like Saudi Arabia.

The behaviour of some muslims is indeed disrespectful. What goes around comes around 'eh!

Bushbred - Part Two

We can also give the example of the illegal attack on Iraq, a preemptive strike, which no democratic government in its right mind should ever attempt.
Most political science tutors, will read from a text book how the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, disgusted with Napoleon discarding his role of liberator to that of emperor, wrote a thesis on Perpetual Peace for a troubled world. Certainly he meant a democratic world, not with one power calling the tune, like the US is at present, but for a Federation of Nations, with libertinian rules that must not be broken. In fact, the League of Nations tried to be patterned on it, and later the UN.

But two nations have been the major trouble with the UN, notably the Soviet Union and the United States, both nations believing they had the qualities for global rulership. Naturally, Immanuel Kant, would have regarded such attitudes with scorn, especially as regards libertinian values.

But now with the Soviets gone, thank goodness, we have Pax Americana with ambitions not much different from Pax Romana, and with a government run mostly by ex-oil executives and Jewish backed neo-cons. We do pray that in the Middle East, we can trust this self-appointed world body to replace the UN, but America’s record in the Middle East, along with its ally, Pax Britannia, since WW1, does not give knowlegable ME historians much hope

Sunrise

Are you awake or merely mumbling in the pre-dawn?

Fact:

9/11 preceeded armed conflict between the US and it's allies in Afghanistan and in the push to rid Iraq and the world of Saddam's menace.

It wasn't the other way around as you suggest.

Besides even a cursory evaluation of the recent history, oh of about the last 1000 years, will show clearly the cause of violence in the mid east.

There is also ample written on the subject of why the cartoons were first published. It had little to to with being deliberately offensive. It was done essentially to prove that drawing pictures of Mohammed for a Kiddies story book about Islam wouldn't cause grief to Muslims.

When first published in September last year there was hardly a ripple of criticism and the point seemed proved. Once the idiots in charge in the mid east (Now that is a silly idea) with political barrows to push got hold of them an orchestrated campaign of violence followed.

We islamaphobes and bullies are at least well informned unlike your self. I'd prefer those states than ignorance.

Myriah

I am not ignorant as you have suggested. I am learning. That is the reason I joined OLO and that is the reason that I posted the question to the author.

I do not understand the similarities and/or differences between use of the terms Muslim and Moslem. I would like to know.

Do you have the answer?

Cheers
Kay

PS: There are many knowledgeable people in this forum. I may not agree with their ideas, but I learn heaps - even from those who tend to rant and rave at times. C'est la vie.

MYRIAH said

[people are ignorant and are commenting on issues they have no basic knowledge of. - ...people do not know the facts and lack knowledge but yet are willing to give firm comments…]

Myriah, problem number 1.... do YOU know the facts of Islam ?
do YOU know the full story of the life of the so called prophet ?

Example.
I used the story of "the Jewish woman throwing garbage on his yard, daily for years, and when she stopped, he enquired about her health"..in a little bible study group where I did not say she was Jewish, or that 'he' was Mohammed.. and people were touched and moved! Like you probably have been.

But Imagine this, then I tell them the OTHER side of that mans character, where he arranges the MURDER of a poet who mocked him !
I think their faces will change ! (Kaab bin Ashraf)
There are other numerous examples of genocide, murder, torture and sexual things, from ISLAMIC sources, but I won't mention them again here.

The Mafia dons did 'nice' things to gain popular local support too.

Now..ask yourself THIS.. if you knew of both sides of the mans character, at the SAME time, would you regard him 'fondly' ?
I hardly think so.

Now.. we don't have to 'insult' him, we just have to tell the true facts and realities. Its enough for people to know about him. But I'll almost guarantee, you would not want 'non muslims' talking about his life like that because the 'tone' and meaning and 'spin' cannot be controlled.

SUNISLE.. I for one say YES let David Irving come and give his 2 cents worth ! and then.. what he says can be subjected to critical scrutiny and tested for facts or simple allegations.