Ricky:

So, you can't wait 100 years for the evolution of a culture? Whats your alternative? A violent end to that culture?

Obviously that is not a possibility. I think we have no choice but to be vigilant. As I write this I hear about a "successful" terrorist attack by Muslims in Kenya.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-19780692

Hundreds of protesters are said to have rampaged through Buddhist neighbourhoods, smashing statues, burning down monasteries and attacking houses.

The violence spread to the outskirts of the port city of Chittagong, where a Hindu temple was also attacked.

Bangladeshi Home Minister Mohiuddin Khan Alamgir visited the scene and described the violence as "premeditated and deliberate acts of communal violence against a minority".

If only these Budhists had more patience and perspective.

It took one Al Shabab member to thro that grenade into a church in Kenya.
And you're saying that one Al Shabab memebr represents all Muslims?
Or that Al Shabab in itself represents all Muslims?

Note that the atatck was a reprisal for the Kenyan military invovlement in the elimination of he last Al Shabab stronghold in Somalia . Its an attempt to generate religious violence in Kenya between Christians and Muslims... Now you can focus on the event or focus on the response by Kenyans typified by this:

"Religious wars have destroyed countries elsewhere. That should not be replicated in Kenya," said Adan Duale, a Muslim Member of Parliament.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2 ... or-Kismayo
This act is exactly within the realm of of most religious violence being promoted for political purposes. Al Shabab is being destroyed. Only in a lanscape of interreligious conflict can they hope to maintain a foot hold. So they throw a grenade.
And hope that ALL Muslims are viewed as culpable.

Ricky:

And you're saying that one Al Shabab memebr represents all Muslims?
Or that Al Shabab in itself represents all Muslims?

Really?

Really?

No,.Not really. Which is why I asked the question, rather than made ainference,.
Why did you raise this issue then?
Ray

As I write this I hear about a "successful" terrorist attack by Muslims in Kenya.

Literally, while I was posting on Redscape I heard about this on the radio. Now that I've read an article on it, I haven't seen evidence that just one person is responsible. For G-d's sake, he threw it into a church during a sunday school service. "Ainference" that.

The reality is that Islamists violently conflict with Christians, Jews, Hindis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Animists, Atheists, and each other. However, these other religions generally don't seem to conflict with one another, and when they do it is rarely violent.

Ray Jay wrote:However, these other religions generally don't seem to conflict with one another, and when they do it is rarely violent.

Apart from in India, right?

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:However, these other religions generally don't seem to conflict with one another, and when they do it is rarely violent.

Apart from in India, right?

good point.

ray

However, these other religions generally don't seem to conflict with one another, and when they do it is rarely violent.

You mean, to your knowledge, not in the last few years?
Because historically, this simply isn't true.
Hell, a Christian shot up a Sikh temple in Minnesota a few weeks ago.... With worse results than the Al Shabab operative managed in Menya....

Yes please do a statistical study of violence between Islam and other religions relative to religious violence amongst non-Islamic religions. How about we limit the data to the century in which we currently live?

It took one Al Shabab member to thro that grenade into a church in Kenya.
And you're saying that one Al Shabab memebr represents all Muslims?
Or that Al Shabab in itself represents all Muslims?

Oh come on Ricky, do try to keep up.

The point that we've been making is that Islam is more prone to these kind of religiously inspired acts of violence than other faiths. Of course it doesn't mean that all Muslims are like this, or even a majority of them. I'm willing to bet I know a lot more Muslims than most people at Redscape, many of whom are friends of mine, so obviously I know that the violent ones are very rare. Nevertheless though, the fact that most muslims are peaceful doesn't change the quite obvious fact that many millions of them are not, or that a lot more violence is carried out in the name of Allah than in the name of any other faith. The fact that some incidents of religiously inspired violence do exist in other faiths does nothing to change the fundamentals.

The fact that yousteadfastly refuse to acknowledge what seems blindingly obvious to me is something I find very bizarre.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

Page is a Christian? What evidence do you have of that?

bbauska wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

Page is a Christian? What evidence do you have of that?

good point ... it's really a racial incident.

This sounds vaguely familiar to the Columbine shootings. RickyP said that was a Christian shooting as well. Just because someone lives in a supposed "Christian" country, does not mean they are a Christian. He provides evidence that not all Egyptians are Muslim by bringing up Coptics. Yet anything in the US is a "Christian" incident.

Hmmm, Agenda, perhaps?

or perhaps an ainference ...