Guys like him don't blow up buildings, they just motivate others to do it. I wonder where the hate speech PC crowd are at when he's preaching all of this hatred and violence? If it were a Christian minister saying these sorts of things they'd have him locked up already.

Guys like him don't blow up buildings, they just motivate others to do it.

One can same the same about Osama Bin Laden.  Last I heard, he had not blown up any buildings either.

Yeah, they're all for that martyr stuff as long as it's somebody else doing the dieing.

As I've said before, there's nuts in every religion. If you found one a day, you'd find 365 a year. Do you really think you couldn't find 365 Christians supporting abortion bombing, racial violence, etc.?

This guy is a waste of skin, no doubt. The part you omitted was the "with links to a suspected Al Qaeda operative".

"l-Hawsawi, a Saudi known as the "Al Qaeda paymaster," reportedly funneled more than $325,000 to the Sept. 11 hijackers, though the 9/11 Commission reportedly could account for only $15,000."

Personally, it would bother me if things I said sounded similar to:

"Lying is part of their religion," Abu Usamah is heard telling his followers in the special report produced by the British news show "Dispatches" on Channel 4."

or would seem to back up...

"America, the U.K., Germany and France, they have come against the religion of Islam," he declares."

The day we consistently see terrorists and people spurring on hate who have no connection to the usual suspects in the Middle East, then maybe I'll believe that Islam itself has a propensity toward violence. So far, every single example brought forth has been directly trained or indoctrinated by the same terror groups we see all the time. If Islam itself were the problem, with a billion adherents around the world you'd see plenty of terrorism unconnected with the usual suspects...

Listen, I may come off as being immovable about this, but I'm not. The day that I see groups spring up more often than they do in Christianity, I'll be perfectly open to the argument. Right now, though, we have radical "Christian" hate groups in Europe, in America, almost everywhere, and that doesn't seem to taint Christianity in your minds.

Why? Why don't Muslims, on their own, with no ties to al Qaeda, etc., sit down and read the Koran and decide to kill people? Why haven't they formed the same kind of militant groups in America that Christians have? Why haven't they been successful in creating "underground" groups wherein these people can exist in the same way, say, our Mormon fundamentalists do, hiding their leaders from justice for years at a time?

How easy would it be, in a nation that makes it so easy to possess firearms, etc., for American Muslims to form their own Waco-style strongholds? It takes little effort, and little money to do so. Yet, funding, support, training, PHILOSOPHY always has to come from these Wahhabi or Shia sects from a very narrow area in the world.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the problem, itself, comes from these areas? If a doctor saw an illness in a patient that only came from a particular spot, or a particular kind of bacteria, would he condemn the whole body to death? Would it be wise to do so? Wouldn't it be better to leave what doesn't do harm, since in reality what he might cut off might do a lot more good, and have no relation to the harm?

As I've said before, there's nuts in every religion. If you found one a day, you'd find 365 a year. Do you really think you couldn't find 365 Christians supporting abortion bombing, racial violence, etc.?

Actually, I am not denying that, nor have I. My point has been and continues to be that it is not the society that is breeding them. Or if it is society, then it is every society that is breeding them. But the commonality they all share (lesson in mathematics: just because all A are in B, does not mean that all B are A) is Islam.

Is it a perversion of Islam? I have been told it is, but not being a scholar on the Koran, I can only state what I have read, and not judge with authority. However, the ones EXPORTING terrorism (which would rule out Mexico and Greece) are predominantly Muslim. Not 100%, but right now better than 90%.

We can point to Northern Ireland to say that Christians do the same thing. But again, they seem to be pissing in their own pot and not targeting protestants and Catholics throughout the world. The same with Abortion clinic Bombers. They are not running to France to Bomb them. They are bombing the ones at home.

All societies have limited resources to deal with Criminals. On a national level, we call it defense. To not profile the ones doing the terror is to waste resources chasing Grandmothers from Norway. That will yield minimal results as none are trying to bring down buildings or blow up planes (so far).

If I am a cop on the beat and get a call that a bank has just been robbed, and I see 2 men in front of me, one running with a bag in one hand and a gun in the other, and the other strolling along with an umbrella, I am going to order the first to stop and pursue him. I may be wrong. But more often than not, I will be after the real perp, and not an innocent bystander.

"Or if it is society, then it is every society that is breeding them."

HOW? How is it every society? You don't find them springing up in every society without influence from this narrow selection, do you? Have you been able to produce American, or British terrorists that spring up WITHOUT connections to these other cultures?

"But the commonality they all share (lesson in mathematics: just because all A are in B, does not mean that all B are A) is Islam."

The widest commonality people with uterus cancer share is that they are female. Is being female the problem? Correlation isn't causation, and that's something people with pre-conceived bias against Islam can't seem to get through their heads. Its a farce to focus only on Islamic terrorism and then point out that all your examples are Muslims.

You're limited by what you pay attention to, and what they news bothers to report. You don't hear about south and central american terrorism. You don't hear about the tamil tigers. How many blogs did you see about the recent ETA bombing in Spain?

You can't answer a simple question. Why is it that Muslims, outfitted with the Koran, with Mosques, with Muslim communities for a hundred years, why don't they decide to become terrorists without the help of a few select and marginalized groups? Why is there ALWAYS a connection?

Think of the odds. If Islam was a "cancer", shouldn't there be SOME wackos that work on their own? Shouldn't there be some NON-wackos? Yet, we can't even find WACKOS that spring up the same way the Unibomber and Timothy McVeigh types do.

"If I am a cop on the beat and get a call that a bank has just been robbed, and I see 2 men in front of me, one running with a bag in one hand and a gun in the other, and the other strolling along with an umbrella, I am going to order the first to stop and pursue him. I may be wrong. But more often than not, I will be after the real perp, and not an innocent bystander."

A gun is not a religion. Period. Why not just say Arabs? How many terrorist attacks have been made by non-Arabs? The number of attacks by Caucasian Muslims are almost non-existent.

If bomb goes off, would you be in favor of the police picking out all the people in the crowd that appear to be Arab, ignoring the Timothy McVeighs that might be standing there laughing their asses off? What about abortion clinic bombings? Should police try to pick out suspects that are fundamentalist Christians?

Abu Usamah also calls for the public crucifixion of all "kuffar" and says they should be "left there to bleed to death for three days."

I believe the call to violence is enough to label him a terrorist and have him investigated - not that it means anything in the UK - hell we employ known terrorists to work on the tube tunnels?

Dr. Guy: What if tomorrow Islamic terrorists started bombing abortion clinics and killing abortion doctors? Would your logic hold up when police started hitting all the fundamentalist Christians in the area? Using your perspective, what would have been the odds that we would have quickly caught Tim McVeigh in a post-911 world?

Do you think the police can really afford to make assumptions based upon religion the way you are? In the history of the US, what is the percent of Islamic terrorism in the whole myriad of bombings that have taken place? England and Spain would be even worse.

In reality the amount of Islamic terrorism is infinitesimal. Using your logic, no one would have ever looked at Muslims in the most recent London bombings, they would have gone with the "obvious" choice and looked at Christians, right? When Spain jumped to conclusion that their al Qaeda bombing was the ETA, they were using your logic, right?

After all, if you are a cop on the beat and a bank has just been robbed, you're going to hit the people who have most often robbed banks. Well as far as America, and Spain, and England, the "usual suspects" aren't Muslims, not by a long shot.

HOW? How is it every society? You don't find them springing up in every society without influence from this narrow selection, do you? Have you been able to produce American, or British terrorists that spring up WITHOUT connections to these other cultures?

That is my point. It is not society that is doing it.  However you again deny the evidence and point to "outside" influences.  But then you have yet to prove that Al Qaeda sprang up in a vacuum itself.  It did not spring from any one society, but from many.  It did spring up from a single religion.  Is the religion to blame?  I dont think many are saying yes.  But we are saying that the religion is the commonality of them.

You're limited by what you pay attention to, and what they news bothers to report. You don't hear about south and central american terrorism. You don't hear about the tamil tigers. How many blogs did you see about the recent ETA bombing in Spain?

I beleive I addressed that already:

However, the ones EXPORTING terrorism (which would rule out Mexico and Greece) are predominantly Muslim. Not 100%, but right now better than 90%.

Why is it that Muslims, outfitted with the Koran, with Mosques, with Muslim communities for a hundred years, why don't they decide to become terrorists without the help of a few select and marginalized groups? Why is there ALWAYS a connection?

WHy?  How about going about it another way. As in the groups did not create the terrorists, but just financed them.  Why not 100 years ago?  Lack of means.  The groups are not creating the hatred, they are just facilitating its expression on the rest of the world.

The Nazi Party did not create the hatred of the Jews.  They just created an atmosphere where all the jew haters could gather and plan their extermination together.

The number of attacks by Caucasian Muslims are almost non-existent.

Russia would disagree with you.

I believe the call to violence is enough to label him a terrorist and have him investigated - not that it means anything in the UK - hell we employ known terrorists to work on the tube tunnels?

I wonder why Britain has not deported him already.

"That is my point. It is not society that is doing it. However you again deny the evidence and point to "outside" influences."

What evidence? Post it. Show me. Show me Islam spontaneously being violent without the direct involvement of outside POLITICAL, Middle Eastern influences. We've had Muslims in the US for most of our history. Show me a timeline that proves that without these narrow interests that they have been violent.

If Islam is a cancer, and you can equate it to a man standing on a street with a gun after a bank robbery, where is the consistent evidence of harm?

"But then you have yet to prove that Al Qaeda sprang up in a vacuum itself. It did not spring from any one society, but from many."

Hardly. Again, I'm sorry, but it is your ignorance of the situation that is to blame. Look at a history of al Qaeda. It came directly from Maktab al-Khidamat, which recruited mujahadeen for the fight WE SUPPORTED in Afghanistan. It has moved from there to areas that have civil strife, like Chechnya, Indonesia, South East Asia, etc.

They've been dismal failures establishing any hold here. It would take a blind person, or one governed by religious bias, to believe that the religion is what it takes. In reality their philosophy needs a specific POLITICAL culture to flower.

"WHy? How about going about it another way. As in the groups did not create the terrorists, but just financed them. Why not 100 years ago? Lack of means. The groups are not creating the hatred, they are just facilitating its expression on the rest of the world."

Come on. There were wealthy Muslims in America at the turn of the last century. They were founding Mosques, establishing the American Red Crescent, not starting sleeper cells, buying weapons and funding bomb factories.

If Islam is a "cancer", it's odd that only these specific parts of Islam are cancerous.

In reality the amount of Islamic terrorism is infinitesimal. Using your logic, no one would have ever looked at Muslims in the most recent London bombings, they would have gone with the "obvious" choice and looked at Christians, right? When Spain jumped to conclusion that their al Qaeda bombing was the ETA, they were using your logic, right?

See, again you are taking what I said and trying to twist it to conform to your beliefs and therefore make mine irrelevant.  At no time did I ever say that we should round up all christians just because an abortion clinic got bombed.  I did say that would be where I would start looking.  BIG difference.  The evidence would then lead to continue looking in that direction or another.

McVeigh was before 9-11.  SO how did they catch him?  He did not fit any stereotypes.  How?  Because they followed the leads.  If it had happened after 9-11, yes Muslim terrorists would have been everyone's first suspicion.  Look at today?  A plane goes down in Kentucky.  What is one of the first things that is reported?  "Terroristm is not suspected".  Why?  Because we suspect that first, until we gather the evidence that points us in the direction of the true cause.

You want me to be some muslim hating bigot that thinks they should all burn because I think we should look at muslims a little closer at airports, and they should be suspects in random acts of terrorism.  That is your perogative to make that leap of logic.  But I have never stated that.  The closest thing that I have stated, and still stand by, is that the religion breeds them.  Does the religion make 1.2b people terrorists?  Apparently not.  ANd I never even hinted at that.  But the religion does demand an obedience that while not breeding a billion terrorists, does breed a bunch of people unwilling or unable to condemn those that have been bred.  And that I find objectionable as well.

"You want me to be some muslim hating bigot that thinks they should all burn because I think we should look at muslims a little closer at airports, and they should be suspects in random acts of terrorism."

No, I want you to be a reasonable human being that looks at history, and reality, and sees that wasting our time picking over Islam and ignoring the real problems puts us in WORSE danger, and provides propaganda for real terrorists. It makes their argument for them, that we in reality distrust and dislike Islam regardless of real evidence that it is violent. We waste our time investigating and distrusting people who are so averse to terrorism that al Qaeda can't even establish a foothold here.

I have Muslims in my neighborhood. I have Indians. I knew people who were frightened out of their minds on the days after 9/11, because they believed if they walked to pick up their children with their scarves on, they'd be attacked by people who assumed they were coming to attack the school. Some weren't even Muslim, they were Indian, but hey, that scarf might as well be a gun to people who are scared to death.

One lady's husband risked his job for weeks to pick up his child because he looked "less Islamic" without the scarf. He was STILL worried that people would distrust him. He probably felt like an innocent man with a concealed-carry permit after a nearby bank was robbed.

You're using logic akin to that of gun control freaks. Guns are used to kill people, so the problem is the gun. There's a direct correlation to holding a gun to gun crime, and a lot of people waste their time trying to scrutinize and irritate people who own guns and never harm anyone. Islam tends to violence about as much as gun ownership, and probably a lot less.

Islam tends to violence about as much as gun ownership, and probably a lot less.

But the religion does demand an obedience that while not breeding a billion terrorists, does breed a bunch of people unwilling or unable to condemn those that have been bred. And that I find objectionable as well.