[Yaponvezos]

Then the use of the word "Islamist" is wrong as well as it's just a synonym to "Muslim". "Jihadist", "Jihadi" and "Radical Muslim" are more like it.

No matter how a word might be used in one part of the world or another, the meaning of a word, in its literal form, should be clear and used accordingly. Above all else it's just a matter or respecting any language of the world.

[Lingster]

The main difference is intent.  If you are able to prove that Michael Moore and Charlie Sheen had the intent that their movies/documentaries were to be used for Al-Qaida and the Taliban rather than just spitting out worthless conspiracy theories (as they are), then I would jump onto the "They are committing treason" bandwagon, but as it is, the burden of proof is on you to prove their intent.  Without intent there is no treason.

Michael Moore's last anti-American lie-fest is being used by the enemy to motivate its fighters, and he was so horrified by this that he went out and made another anti-American distortion, this time cozying up to Fidel Castro instead of Osama bin Laden.

Michael Moore manufactures anti-American propaganda to sell overseas, and then lives fat and happy in the United States.  I think his intent is pretty obvious: he wants to be rich and he doesn't care how many of his fellow citizens he has to throw under the bus to get there.

[Lingster]

Then the use of the word "Islamist" is wrong as well as it's just a synonym to "Muslim". "Jihadist", "Jihadi" and "Radical Muslim" are more like it.

No matter how a word might be used in one part of the world or another, the meaning of a word, in its literal form, should be clear and used accordingly. Above all else it's just a matter or respecting any language of the world.

Here's the Wikipedia entry on Islamism.  I have to admit that I'm not unusually concerned with fairness to Islam.  I think it's an irredeemable death cult and hope to see it wither away.  And yes, I've read the Quran and knows lots of Muslims.

(Actually reading the Quran was a real eye-opener, and I encourage everyone to do so.  This blog post is also instructive.)

[ScottG]

I can't argue that Michael Moore isn't a scumbag because he is, I can only argue that wanting to be rich and trash talking isn't treasonous, only unpatriotic.  I would argue that Nancy Pelosi going over to Syria and talking with those terrorist supporters by going completely against the State Department's request that she not, borderes much closer to treason than Michael Moore.  Her actions showed a deliberate defiance to the State Department and undermining of the White House than the movies that Michael Moore makes.  Remember, Michael Moore's movies are only being viewed by people that already hate the president.  Anyone that either likes the president or just doesn't hate him, probably hasn't seen his movies.  He's preaching to the choir.  I can't stand President Bush and I didn't even see the movie because I recognized it for the twist-the-facts one-sided argument that it is.  Do you honestly believe that his movies are the sole reason that people are joining Al-Qaida?  Many of the people in Al-Qaida are forced to be there (some suicide bombers have been found strapped to their car seats indicating that they didn't want to be there.)  Nancy Pelosi's actions have given the other side hope – which is a powerful motivator.  She is the person that could/should be getting looked at for treason, not Michael Moore nor Rosie O'Donnell.

[Yaponvezos]

Well I have to disagree with you on this one. Fairness and leniency are two different things. Everyone deserves the former, only some deserve the latter.

And according to that wiki entry, you 're opposing the right of some or all muslim citizens to choose the way they want to be organized and develop their laws as they see fit? Why would you do that? Internal workings of a country are none of your business as long as they don't harm you. And please don't say that they do harm you as there is no way on earth to prove that law you, as well as everyone else outside a particular country, don't have to abide to actually hurts you.

Extremism, irrationality, distortion of simple facts, lack of proper education, personal problems and bias are the enemies of humanity through the ages. It's as simple as that.

[Lingster]

Well I have to disagree with you on this one. Fairness and leniency are two different things. Everyone deserves the former, only some deserve the latter.

Islam isn't a person or even an entity.  It has no rights and I have no obligations to it.

And according to that wiki entry, you 're opposing the right of some or all muslim citizens to choose the way they want to be organized and develop their laws as they see fit? Why would you do that? Internal workings of a country are none of your business as long as they don't harm you. And please don't say that they do harm you as there is no way on earth to prove that law you, as well as everyone else outside a particular country, don't have to abide to actually hurts you.

There is no right to tyranny, slavery, to treat women as livestock or torture homosexuals to death.  Sharia is wrong and should not be tolerated.

Extremism, irrationality, distortion of simple facts, lack of proper education, personal problems and bias are the enemies of humanity through the ages. It's as simple as that.

There's also evil in the world, Yaponvezos.  There are people who are driven to do evil things.  Islam gives those people a free pass, so long as they do it in the name of Allah.

[Yaponvezos]

Since Islam is not a person or an entity you have no obligation to it? So I take it democracy is a person and/or entity and you have an obligation to it? Civilization and culture is not a person either, let alone an entity. Let's not give a damn then.

I'm not saying what's wrong and what's not about Sharia. I'm saying it's a country's people's decision, not yours. If they plead for help, then help. If they don't, you just have no right to force your help upon them. Chances are you will just piss them off further and before you know it the whole thing escalates.

Evil is just what human flaws lead to, it's not a driving force. Hitler sincerely thought he was on a quest to heal humanity. What he did was wrong and nuts. But he meant well. The problem was his mind, through his personal pathos, distorted that initial innocent thought and messed everyone up. Well everyone except the german economy. He actually saved it.

[cpbell0033944]

Wow – this one has moved on a bit!

1./  

The main difference is intent.  If you are able to prove that Michael Moore and Charlie Sheen had the intent that their movies/documentaries were to be used for Al-Qaida and the Taliban rather than just spitting out worthless conspiracy theories (as they are), then I would jump onto the "They are committing treason" bandwagon, but as it is, the burden of proof is on you to prove their intent.  Without intent there is no treason.

This is basically what I've been saying all along.  If the intent is to cause attacks against their homeland, then OK, it might be treason.  However, I've read Moore's writings (not all, but some), and have never found any hatred of his country therein.  Hatred of what is happening in his country, yes, but hatred of the US itself?  NO.  This is all tied-in with the Neocon "If you don't support what the President is doing in your name, then you are not a patriot and are helping Al Quaida" propaganda.  I happen to hate what my country did to African slaves in the sugar plantations of the West Indies, but does that make me a traitor?  I don't think so, but, if it does, well, put the handcuffs on me now, officer, I'll come quietly.

2./

And according to that wiki entry, you 're opposing the right of some or all muslim citizens to choose the way they want to be organized and develop their laws as they see fit? Why would you do that? Internal workings of a country are none of your business as long as they don't harm you. And please don't say that they do harm you as there is no way on earth to prove that law you, as well as everyone else outside a particular country, don't have to abide to actually hurts you.

Someone once said that the true believers in democracy and fairness support a person's right to believe in something that they themselves hate, because, despite their dislike of the belief, their conviction in the freedom of expression of an individual is stronger.  However, as far as Sharia law is concerned, I agree that it is intolerable.  There are limits.  However, Lingster does keep tarring Islam as a whole with the Sharia brush, which is grossly unfair, IMO.

3./

I would argue that Nancy Pelosi going over to Syria and talking with those terrorist supporters by going completely against the State Department's request that she not, borderes much closer to treason than Michael Moore.

I disagree with this strongly.  Trying to establish dialogue with terrorists, to bring them around to a civilised way of thinking, to extend an olive branch towards people in the hope that they might reform is a noble act.  If the late Mo Mowlam hadn't sat around a table with Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley, people in Northern Ireland would still be blowing each other up.  The fact is that her pioneering efforts brought enemies around a table to share power, and made that corner of the world a far better place.  I don't give a flying **** what the State Department says.  If she's trying to get terrorists around a table, then she's to be applauded.

4./

Islam isn't a person or even an entity.  It has no rights and I have no obligations to it.

Islam is a meme that needs people to survive – they are its carriers, therefore you do have obligations towards it through the people thatfollow it.

[cpbell0033944]

Update:  I've just read that Pelosi's actions are against the Logan Act, which I understand to be part of the Constitution, whereas Mowlam's actions were with the backing on the Prime Minister.  Just thought I'd clear that up before anyone else criticises me.  I therefore retract my comment on Pelosi's actions – I agree that she shouldn't have gone if it violated the US Constitution, and, as the penalty is apparently three year's imprisonment, she should be jailed for her actions.

[Richard]

THEIR

[Author]

Posts