I'm with you on this. I should have put a smiley somewhere in there. FWIW, I was trying to poke fun at the labels. I guess it didn't come across that way. Damn the written word! :)

Strother, here's a little info:
The holocaust of the Hindus was of similar proportions, the only difference was that it started in the year 715 C.E. with the Arab Muslim invasion of Sindh and continued for 1100 years, i.e. for more than a millennium, till the brutal Muslims were effectively overpowered by the Hindu Marathas in 1720 C.E.

Historians have described the Muslim attack on the Hindus as a conflict of Black with White. Since times immemorial India had been invaded by many people from different parts of our globe (in fact, it was the same for all countries). But what contrasted the pre-Muslim invaders from the Muslims was that after their initial clash with Hindu military power, the pre-Muslim invaders merged into the general mainstream and even the memory of their having come as invaders itself disappeared. We do not consider Emperors like Kanishka (a Ku Shan or Kushana), Milinda (an Indo-Greek), Rudradaman (a Shaka or Scythian from pre-Muslim Iran) to be non-Indians. These invaders have merged into today's general Hindu population.

But the Muslims with their barrack like lifestyle and their contempt for everything non-Islamic, have left a wounded civilization in India. The brutal Muslim tyranny has till today left a split in India's national character, even after the country was vivisected into two parts - to create Pakistan as a state for Indian Muslims. But in spite of the division of this country to create a separate homeland for the Muslims in 1947, many of them preferred to stay back and today account for the recurrent communal riots, the killings of Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir and the renewed demand for special status and for the Islamization of India.

Shaun, get your facts straight. for 500 years muslim raiders had been invading the outskirts of Europe & in their traditional peaceful fashion they would lop off the heads of the men & thake women & children as slaves. After 500 years, Europe retaliated. And yes they killed quite a few muslims (a pittance in comparison) in Jeresalem. This was a combination of revenge & an attempt to end the raiding. It was NEVER, let me repeat, NEVER an attempt to convert muslims to Christianity.

I can give you pages of quoted from the koran & haddith instructing muslims to use to sword to either convert or kill infidels. I believe they are the only "religion" instructed by their holy founder to act in this manner.

If you study a little bit before you let your feelings get the best of you, you will realize just what it is we are dealing with.

Anyone here read Deuteronomy much? It is what started my exit from Christianity as a child.

Which is more offensive: Pakistan being formed by offical partition for Indian Muslims or Tennessee seceding from the U.S. so that its citizens could enslave humans because of their skin color?

I may be completely off base, but......to try to bring this back On Topic here in OT.

What needs to be done in order to really win the war on terrorists? Here is my thoughts.

FOLLOW THE MONEY

That simple. Root causes aside, what is the enabling agent? Would these people be able to do these actions without funding from somewhere? Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that there was not a HUGE problem with terrorist worldwide (even though they probably hated Israel/US) until oil made them rich enough to do something about it.

When they did not have the money to cause problems outside of their own little sandbox no one cared. The world runs on money or did we not notice.....

I am a little surprised that no one has mentioned this. You guys are slipping.

"The light" or an oncoming train?

You probably missed the annoying little fact in the other thread about Christians in Iraq. They were relatively secure under Saddam (not because he was a good guy, but because he was a bit of a stickler for law and order). In the post-Saddam vacuum, Christians are getting what they believe are serious death/extermination threats.

Also, I suggest you look at the example of Iran, a nation of 70 million that did not need to be bombed to have an election, and whose people elected leadership more likely to limit religious freedom and speech.

Here's a nice little excerpt where the pres. would benefit from going over his old notes:

--------------------------
At that debate Bush recalled that the U.S. humanitarian mission in Somalia -- begun by his father, President George H.W. Bush -- had "changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong."
He was referring to the deaths of 18 U.S. Army rangers who were killed in Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, after a gun battle. U.S. forces were soon withdrawn from Somalia.
"The mission was changed, and as a result, our nation paid a price," Bush continued. "And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building."

-------------------------

IMO, there is a big difference between "nation building" for humanitarian reasons vs regime change in the America hating, terrorist infested middle east. I would guess that GWB feels the same way.

I think I got your point Strother. We should submit to the muslims as they obviously hold the moral high ground. But I'm still unclear on a few things.
1. Should we give all our posessions away as reparations for slavery?
2. What about the Indians
3. Should we convert, slit our wrists or wait for them to lop our heads off?
4. If YOU decided to convert and your daughter was raped, would you be the one to stone her to death (as required to maintain the family's honor) or would you assign that task to a son?

This discussion was actually going quite well, for a while. Thanks.