To Ianus: There is always a BUT

I am in general agreement with what you have said before this. But what you say above is news to me since my limited knowledge of Turkish history certainly led me to believe that it was Mustafa Kemal who took Turkey out of or at least tried to free his country from the Islamic grip. I would imagine from what you say that freeing Turkey from Arabian imperialism like adopting European alpahbet in place of Arabic, abolishing the veil, European attire, bringing in secular law in place of Islamic law were only cosmetic changes and just a sort of camouflage to fool the rest of the world.

If you did not care about and follow Muslim thoughts how do you know that they think irrationally, what those thoughts are and make comments about them? Even the seven-year-old in me can see that you have made a whole lot of assumptions. Your deep study of history may have made you come to those assumptions.

But. There is always a but, dumping the crimes committed by kings and dictators on the doorstep of ordinary people would be like placing the crime of the Pope in dividing up the rest of the world for the Spanish and the Portuguese to exploit or the crimes of the inquistion on all Catholics past or present. (http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c7.htm). Now the important thing is that the Christian world has realised the con job done on them by the purveyors of their religion. That is the big difference. The Muslim world is only slowly waking up to this fact. That is something (the waking up) on which there can be disagreement i.e the ordinary Muslim is incapable of seeing that he is being conned because of the indocrination from childhood.

Throwing aspersions on the intellectual level of the people in a debate does not raise the level of the argument, it merely makes it degenerate into a squabble as some of the posts here clearly demonstrate. You have kindly taken me out of the seven-year-old mental level but maybe you spoke too soon. I am trying to make sense of what you are trying to tell me. Let me give it a try. You can then slot me into the juvenile category you think appropriate after you read it.

1)You are telling me that I am trying to con you (non-Muslims) into believing that the Muslims have been conned into believing that theirs is a religion of peace etc. And my purpose in doing that? Shall I guess? So non-Muslims will be sympathetic towards Muslims because the dumbos have been conned.

2) You see an argument (puerile) in the statement I have made. You will have to educate me here like you did about historical theories. I think I made a categorical statement not an argument. You have converted it into an argument and since it is a puerile one it means that what I have stated is false? Which leads to the conclusion that Muslims are knowledgeable about the need for jihad to subdue all non-Muslims, they are aware of poor ethics of Islam and its founder and they know that theirs is a religion violent by nature i.e. almost every Muslim knows his religion encourages criminal behaviour in themselves and other Muslims and was founded by an unethical person. This leads to the further conclusion that every Muslim deserves to be eliminated for the greater good of humanity.