Moved....

Moved...

    Rosie O'donnell shows her true colors every time she opens her mouth.  Let's look at her comment that 'radical Christians' are just as dangerous as 'radical Muslims.' 
    Starting with the assertion itself, we see the absurdity right away.  Whoever she thinks a radical Christian is, I am certain she has never witnessed one, in the name of Jesus, blowing up a pizza parlor full of children, or beheading a woman for being raped, or rioting in the streets because someone drew a cartoon of Jesus.  Her main argument was that we were bombing innocent people in other countries, and therefore 'radical Christians' are just as dangerous as 'radical Muslims.'  Of course some innocents are killed in all wars.  The problem with her argument is twofold.  First we are not purposefully killing innocents anywhere, the 'radical Muslims' are purposefully killing innocents.  Second, in our fighting we aren't using war in the name of Christianity, the Muslims are fighting in the name of Islam.
    The conclusion she reaches in the case of Christianity is the conclusion she would not reach in the case where it was her personal life that was being protected.  Imagine if someone came up to her and tried to assassinate her, and consequently her security guards shot back at the guy.  Additionally, in the process of him returning fire her security guard shot and killed a woman standing behind the attacker.  Would she really accept the charge that she is no better than the would-be assassin because he was trying to kill an innocent and she did kill an innocent?  I think not.  Now let's say that the attacker was trying to kill her in the name of Jesus.  Would she really accept the charge that her atheism is just as dangerous as the attacker's ideology, because he wanted to kill an innocent, and she did kill an innocent?  I think not.  Would she really accept the charge that the innocent woman was killed in the name of her Atheistic ideology?  I think not.  I only wish she could think clearly, and she wasn't blinded by her faith.

The moral equivalizers are out again, I guess this time of year is a busy season for them.  It really is like a gut reaction for them, blurting out "Tim Mcveigh" whenever there is mention of deadly Islamic Fascism in general, or Osama bin Laden in particular.  For all those who cannot understand, on a philosophical basis, the difference between horrible acts perpetrated by members of Western Culture and those by the ideological Brotherhood of Islamic Murderers, allow me to explain. 
First let's define our criteria, and then we are done.  Because it really is so simple, that the conclusion follows immediately, and hence the reason why those of us who see the difference instinctively cannot believe the magnitude of denial on the part of those who don’t (read liberals).  The criteria are these: 

Let us not judge a system/philosophy/religion ('system' for short) by any acts that certain members/adherents/zealots ('members' for short) may commit.  Instead let us judge based upon:
1.  Whether or not the system tolerates, justifies, or even promotes those acts, by and large, and,
2.  How members who commit such acts are received within the system, by and large.

            Now that we have a means of making a judgment as to the worth of a system, or even the threat posed by the members of a system to those on the outside, we can look at the two cases above.  First let's look at Timothy McVeigh. 
            The systems to which Liberals often claim he belonged are Christianity (McVeigh was raised Catholic) and Middle-America.  It is patently obvious that the Catholic Church cannot be said to support or condone the terrorist act committed by Timothy McVeigh, neither does Middle-America.  Even the most rabid liberal would be hard pressed to come up with any evidence of significant support for McVeigh within these groups.  There were certainly no Catholics celebrating McVeigh’s bombing of Oklahoma, in the streets or in the parishes, nor were there street celebrations in Iowa, Kansas, or wherever else Middle-America may be found.  Neither can it be said that McVeigh was received with great reverence by either system, nor were his acts copy-catted by others in these systems, nor was he heralded as a hero in the churches of America, Middle or elsewhere.  In fact he was tried and put to death by ordinary Americans, this being the ultimate rejection of his act.
Now let's look at Islamic Fascists, in particular let’s look at Osama bin Laden.  The system to which he belongs is Islam, and it only takes a few rhetorical questions, asked in exploration of the criteria above, to find an answer.   Were there Muslims dancing in the streets of Palestine, Cairo, Istanbul and Tehran on Sept. 11, 2001?  Did Osama bin Laden find a large support network?  Does he still have one today?  Is there ample Islamic support for what Osama did, even within the mosques?   Have there been copy-cats following his example?  Did the actions of Osama bin Laden fall in line with those of Islam’s supreme exemplar, Mohammed himself (one might also ask if Timothy McVeigh’s actions fall in line with those of Christianities supreme exemplar, Jesus Christ)?  Is there ample Islamic Scripture which justifies the murder of civilian infidels?  The answer to all of these questions is a resounding, definitive yes, and therein lies the difference.