ReligionDispatches.org

The Christian Trinity is a weird idea. The Prophet found it easy to divert people to his Muslim belief, which fostered zealots pursuing heavenly rewards by bringing infidels to their faith.
But they are WRONG! The Muslim faith does not reflect God's reality.
Abott's 'Flatland' explains contiguous dimensional worlds in which spirits unseen can live right beside us. Jesus of Nazareth said he was from that world, telling us many things that are quite impossible, even ridiculous, if this material world is 'all that there is'. 'Techie Worlds' (available at Amazon.com) examines Jesus' statements, finding them mechanically logical and very possible in Flatland's higher worlds. This is the way science verifies theories: examine many phenomena and if the theory makes them understandable, that theory is probably true.
Centuries ago Muslim philosophers were noted for good sense. 'Techie Worlds' gives us a new view of the worlds God made. This view is so new that most Christian thinkers are not aware of it (but 'Techie Worlds' only supports what they already rest secure in). C'mon, use your intelligence. Get your brains in gear and discover how our worlds are really made and work
GeorgeRic

The problem is not Muslim extremism. It is the nature of religious thinking (i.e. faith and belief) itself. Faith and belief have allowed people to justify doing horrible things to their fellow human beings for thousands of years. The Fort Hood massacre is just the latest example.

"The problem is not Muslim extremism. It is the nature of religious thinking (i.e. faith and belief) itself. Faith and belief have allowed people to justify doing horrible things to their fellow human beings for thousands of years"

While the above statement is certainly true, faith and belief are certainly not the sole culprits. Greed,love, jealousy, egoism, sex, (I can go on and on),have all been used to justify horrific acts on fellow human beings. What should we now decry human nature? The nature of 'faith' did not cause the massacre at Fort Hood, in the same way that 'love' did not cause OJ to kill his wife (if he did it that's how it would have been done). In this case it appears (so far) that Islamic extremism seems to be 'a' prime (if not 'the' prime) motivating factor involved. Now other evidence might appear that would lead to other conclusions, such as a note or an admission, Hasan is still alove after all. At this point however, it would be counterproductive and downright dishonest to discount the most logical culprit: Radical Islamic Fundamentalism.

But have we created radical Islamic fundamentalism by taking their land and oil and treating them like third world people who in our opinion shouldn't care how we treat them?

That statement is factually incorrect. The United States has not 'taken' any of 'their' land. And we certainly buy (at quite a price) 'their' oil. By the way who exactly is the 'they' your talking about?

I think we created a problem situation when we decided to move the Palestinians out to make room for Israel. A two state solution might now be a possible fix, but that is hard for us to work towards because we have people here and there who feel God has given Israel more land and a few more people still need to be moved. This is kind of like the American response to the Israel/Lebanon war during the previous administration. We are against war, and we told Israel the bombing has to stop, but not immediately, first continue for a little while longer to make sure enough of the country has been destroyed.

The reason some people are blaming Islam for all this uproar is due to the history of the islamic peoples. Jihad massacre is not a new thing.

Islamic societies have been stagnant for a long time. Stagnation is perhaps the reason that foreign powers were able to move in on them.

Due to the various horrible political and economic reverses they endured, many are now putting their hope in theocracy, as another set of wretched people once put their hopes in communism.

They don't need non muslims to make themselves wretched, they can do that all by themselves.

In my opinion (and I don't consider myself prejudiced against other ethnicities--on the contrary), it is unwise to allow people whose forebears are from the Middle East, where wars are being waged, and who still adhere to those countries' religious and social systems, to serve on U.S. Army bases. An analogy that occurs to me is one of animals that are domesticated, but which in times of emergency revert to their feral ways, and unavoidably so.

It also may be regarded as a kind of conflict of interest to have those persons serve in our Army when there is war going on in their home countries. It asks too much of those whose ancestors are from the Middle East to serve our country and simultaneously wage war on their own people. And, the security risk is simply too great.

I have read that during WWII, servicepeople who were of Japanese or German descent were not sent to fight in Germany or Japan.