Great creative name choice. Sheikh ? Yeah right.A mile outta style JAVA FROTHBALL. Slow down on the RAGE. Is it that time of the month again mister PLO ? Or is that PMS ? I get confused here.....

...is that a certain South Carolinian has been drinking from an Endisto river laced with khat leaves.

How many of 56 member of OIC have not passed resolutions, or publicqally stated their opposition to 'terrorism' or been party to recent international resolutions condmening terrorism, since 9-11. Does anyone actually know?

When is the last time that an Arab language newspaper carried a front page headline condemning terrorism or extremist governments (i.e. Syria, Iraq pre 2003, Iran, Afghanistan pre 2001, Libya, etc.), whether that was Islamic religious leaders of secular leaders? Who gives a flip whether the governments make a worthless declaration to the rest of the world. What are they telling their own people? Show me where the Arab/Islamic world is condemning extremism and terrorism to their own people. They aren't.

1. Discussion began with the claim that no Muslims had made public condemnation of terrorism on behalf of Islamdom. 2. As I pointed out considering that there is no central leadership it would be difficult to do. Howver, looking at organization of Muslim countries - note several communiques condemning terrorism. 3. Now the assertation is that these condemnations are done in secret language which Muslim public does not have access to or does not understand- as according to some they are still living in 7th century and are just getting the hang of new fandangle traffic lights! Muslim pubic has access to variety of sources of news- in addition in general the supine media tends to carry communiques etc of Governments- and especial - something like special meeting held at Kuala Lumpa in Malayasia specifically in wake 9-11. Where would the evidence be that such meetings were not reported in the Muslim media? Or the condemnation of terrorism was not made. If you have proof that such a gathering was not covered by the Muslim media it would be useful to share it. 4. The Muslim media is not however the only player in the game. It is also true that about five corporations control most of the global media output- and if CNN and Star channel and various sattelites programems that are beamed by variants of Fox news etc - do not carry this 'global condemnation of terrorism' which seems rather far fetched. Muslim socieites are not heremetically sealed versions of Cold War peoples republics - the closest that came to description are probably the Baathist regimes... As matter record- the 9-11 attacks were condemned by the Iranian government and there were vigils in north Tehran for the victims of 9-11. Of course, they did not say simon says... so I am not sure if it counts. 5. As for the assertation that no Arab newspaper carried full page spread... I am not great reader of the Arab press nor do claim to be- but I would also hazard guess when ever they have condomned terrorism they never said Simon says either. 5. The idea that no there has been no Muslim condemnation of terrorism is simply belied by the facts. it is true there has been no condmentation of terrrorism that will satisfy the many Islamophobes on the list- and I doubt there will be, since what is being sought is no condmenation of terrorism but a sanctifation of the just nature of the American 'war on terror' and the nature of American world power itself. This is the naracisism that under lies the claims that the US was attacked because of its virtues rather than its vices. A nararcism that something report on strategic communication just released by the Defence Science Study Board (?) discusses. If anyone is interested in it can be found on the Pentagon website: http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2004-09-Strategic_Communication.pdf

"sanctifation of the just nature of the American 'war on terror' and the nature of American world power itself." Don't think for one minute that you're not as phobed-up as anybody else is. Let me reind you that attacking us because of our vices is no virtue.

"Don't think for one minute that you're not as phobed-up as anybody else is. Let me reind you that attacking us because of our vices is no virtue." 1. I am not sure what you mean by 'being phobed-up' as anyone else.'-do that everyone is racist, or anti-semite or Islamophobe.... 2. I do think that attacking a country because of its vices is a virtue. That would be position of many on SP who supported the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that it is a virtue to attack f the vices of Saddam regime. Am not sure were you would stand on this question is a virtue to attack someone because of their vices? Does it matter? I guess we probably feel better if we think that our enemies oppose because our goodness rather than our 'vices'.

Woah there, Herbert Epstein. Come back up to the shallow end. Attacking anyone is no virtue, it's a survival mechanisim. That's twice now you've claimed many of us think that we were attacked because of our goodness and our virtues. I say it is because Islam has been hijacked by death-worshiping, fascist, rabid dogs. Perhaps that's just a way to make myself feel better....

"That's twice now you've claimed many of us think that we were attacked because of our goodness and our virtues." Is n't that what is meant when people say that America was attacked because the attacker hate its freedoms, because of its democracy etc etc ... Don't you think freedom and democracy are describing virtues or good things if you prefer...

"Is n't that what is meant when people say that America was attacked because the attacker hate its freedoms, because of its democracy etc etc ... Don't you think freedom and democracy are describing virtues or good things if you prefer.." OF COURSE NOT! It means that (stay with me) the....attacker....hates....see right after where it says "attacked because"?