Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (358929)	11/16/2007 4:30:38 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1577945

HE points out additional foreign fighters going to Afghanistan, but both the Taliban, and foreign fighters where already there before we invaded. And the additional fighters would still be there if we left, until and unless they succede in their effort to impose a radical oppressive Islamic dictatorship. After that they might stay anyway, or they might move elsewhere to find new battles. Nothing really. However he is now embarking on another rightie attempt to paint Muslims as the human equivalent of the pitbull. His painting Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their ilk to be the human equivalent of a violent pitbull or something worse. He is talking about Islamic fanaticism, not all Muslims. He accurately points out that these fanatics are aggressive, not just responding to aggressive actions by others but staring new fights and he gives several examples. Of course Muslims are far from the only group causing problems in the world, but violent Islamic fanaticism is one of the worlds major problems, and is much more wide spread than aggressive violent fanaticism in the name of any other religion. One last comment......if the Muslims of Pakistan want to have a purely Muslim state and if they vote it into place, of what business is it to your author and his rightwing constitutency? If they want a Muslim state in Pakistan that is there business, what the author was complaining about is not just an officall Muslim state but rather those who seek "a purely Muslim state", meaning "cleansing" the state of anyone who is not Muslim, and also anyone who does not accept an fanatical oppressive version of Islam as official state policy. That is not only unjust, its also not what many Muslims in Pakistan and elsewhere want. The fanatics desire to impose such a system by force on everyone they can. After all, many of those same supporters of his want to see a Christian state in the US. Nonsense. That is the desire over only a few. And it certainly isn't my desire, and it certainly is Hitchens'. He isn't just an atheist, he's anti-religion.