They prey on the weak, naive, and poor...

[Deja Q]

Fascists do. Terrorists do.

I read in the Jan 5 2005 issue of Readers Digest, from an Islamic woman living in Canada, about what it will take to end terrorism. "The War Within Islam" (pg 102).

She's self-aware, noting that the situation can only lead to ultimate peace or world war.

She speaks that "soldiers from Vermont or Kansas or Indiana can win" (pitiful grammar, though I ain't perfect either...)

She says "What's at stake is nothing short of peace or global war. If the fundamentalists triumph, we will see" (nasty stuff).

However, her article is anti-Islam. And if she truly is Islamic, she wouldn't have opened her mouth in the first place. And if it ends up being war, I'm sure lots of Islamic fundy men will look her up.

Her talk of Christians is virtually non-existent and she speaks of business and democracy.

The battle, according to her, is between "mainstream modernists against cruel bigots with a warped vision of the faith". Whoo boy. The fundies usually say their vision is right and everyone else is warped. Why should I believe her when she's coming across far more like a capitalistic shill than being true to any faith or even herself?

"The Jihadists feed on poverty and ignorance, blaming the secular rulers in Muslim lands" - that's another award winning quote.

as is "America can't save the world from radical jihadists. But brave Muslims can." (Gee, are there no brave Americans? :eyes: )

I looked up readersdigiest.com to find the full article. They have a link to "This month's issue". Amusingly, as of the time and date stamp in my message, their current issue reads "January 2004". :eyes:

But she did write a book: "The Trouble with Islam". I'm sure that'll do her a lot of favors in Saudi Arabia.

I wish her well, but most individualists need to remember that they're not going to find allies on any side. Any individual knows that, right down to the core. I don't think she does. (her anti-Islam, coyly pro-capitalist stance speaks volumes about who she wants to be buddy-buddy with. Burn one bridge and build another with kerosene-soaked balsawood...)

[InvisibleBallots]

1. Republicans are cruel, and enjoy other people's suffering

[MissBrooks]

2. Talking in generalities...

My mother is a Republican. She is neither cruel, nor does she enjoy other people's suffering.

We just disagree on political and social items. That's all.

[evil genius]

4. lets not start talking about mothers

your mother may be a lovely woman, but if she's a republican she needs to be brought around, as do they all. The agenda of the republican party is to comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted. Period.

[Deja Q]

3. Exactly. The neocon fundies are the taliban.

Just the other side of the planet coin.

If we looked at things in human terms, we'd find Republicans who are damn good people (usually as local friends or acquaintances, I can't think of any in power who are good people) and a few vile Dems (Lieberman, Biden, Hollings, Kerry, et cetera)

[evil genius]

5. fundamentalists are the same, regardless of faith

fundamentalist: Noun; one in whom something is fundamentally wrong, usually a lack of reasoning ability and a viscious intolerance of those not sharing the fundamentalists delusions. Thus, fundamentalists are particularly intolerant of those able to draw obvious conclusions from observed facts, those refusing to seek shelter in conforting falsehoods and those wishing to lead their own lives.

[HawkerHurricane]

7. Fundamentalist;

from the English 'Fundament', refering to a person's behind or arse, and 'Mental', refering to the brain or head. Hence, 'Fundamentalist' is a believer that one should have thier own head shoved up thier ass.

[evil genius]

8. i like that.

i'll make it my second definition. along with: 3. sitting in a sewer and adding to it.

[Sporadicus]

6. From the Title of Your Post

I thought you were talking about televangelists. I decided long ago that Reader's Digest is a RW organ.