"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."

And you could say that gun ownership breeds an attitude that tends toward violence. You could say that violent movies or video games breed violence. You and I, I think, support gun ownership, but we don't feel obligated to blog condemning gun crime... not even in one in ten thousand occurrences.

Are we obligated to, do you think? If being a Muslim entails a responsibility to condemn Islamic crime, how many things do we support that are in question, yet we don't make a point of openly disavowing them every time something happens.

Of course I wish there was more outrage from Muslims. I've blogged on it. It irritates us that they make a statement on an attack, but always tag a "but..." and address wrongs against them.

Yet... go back and look at how we blogged on the Abu Garaib incident, or the scattered wrongs US soldiers have committed. We ALWAYS have our "but", there too. I admit that I want more outrage, but in order for me not to be a hypocrite I have to say that we don't offer very much in terms of unqualified condemnation of the sins of our counterparts, either.

"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."

Damn that was beautifully said. I spend an entire thread trying to make that point. Problem is nobody seems to get it.

I wonder what that profile would be today...

I wonder what that profile would be today...

Look for a person of indeterminate gender with a mole on his chin.