Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

[Passions]

Muslims are inherently violent people. They only know how to take out revenge by killing. It's in their culture. Like savages.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: rahvin
You cannot coexist peacefully with a religion that has as a principle tennet of belief that nonbelievers should be killed.

Many extremist religions have made that statement. In the past Christianity made that statement regarding the Muslims. One only has to check the past few years with Franklin Grahams comments. Every population has a distribution of extremists

The Koran does not mention killing infidels as being a path to heaven, nor does it ever mention the virgins.

Every religion has it's freaks that feel their only way of gaining power is to destroy another sect.

It is a fact that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have very common roots and are similar in many respects. However, it is the twisted and power hungery nature of man and governments that have warped every message that the religion was meant to create.


The question is, as previously stated by others, can any extremist live with others?

You are right, most semitic religions have statements of hatred within their holy books. It arises from the belief that only theirs is the true path. However....

Christianity and Judaism have reformed themselves. Even the most fanatic Christian today would not contemplate strapping himself with explosives and destroying a mosque, it is only only islamists who are now doing so.

Islam has failed to reform itself and I believe it is incapable of doing so.

 

[mOeeOm]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Duh, I know that, I'm saying whats the problem?

Apparently freedom of speech, faith and expression exists only for you and your kind. You can kill as much as want, treat your women like cattle, treat people of other faiths as sub-humans and you can get away with all by claiming political incorrectness when others point you your faults.

Actually I was wrong, you sir are the STUPIDEST ISLAMIST I HAVE EVER REPLIED TO. The smarter ones latleast conceal their barbarism behind a facade of political correctness, but you have no qualms exposing the true nature of your beliefs. So it is okay when people are killed when they change their faith?????

Are you nuts???? or stupid????

I don't any of the things you said, and no we hate killing or violence, it is the last resort when the other side doesn't want a peaceful solution.

Theres no need for profanity Grow up please, theres no reason to get really mad on a forum for discussion is there?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: rahvin
You cannot coexist peacefully with a religion that has as a principle tennet of belief that nonbelievers should be killed.

Many extremist religions have made that statement. In the past Christianity made that statement regarding the Muslims. One only has to check the past few years with Franklin Grahams comments. Every population has a distribution of extremists

The Koran does not mention killing infidels as being a path to heaven, nor does it ever mention the virgins.

Every religion has it's freaks that feel their only way of gaining power is to destroy another sect.

It is a fact that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have very common roots and are similar in many respects. However, it is the twisted and power hungery nature of man and governments that have warped every message that the religion was meant to create.


The question is, as previously stated by others, can any extremist live with others?

You are right, most semitic religions have statements of hatred within their holy books. It arises from the belief that only theirs is the true path. However....

Christianity and Judaism have reformed themselves. Even the most fanatic Christian today would not contemplate strapping himself with explosives and destroying a mosque, it is only only islamists who are now doing so.

Islam has failed to reform itself and I believe it is incapable of doing so.

I would think the correct way of looking at it is that Islam and geographic location has kept these cultures below the economic development of the rest of the world. As a result they have turned out to be a largely economically poor group of people. When people like this are imposed upon by other, more wealthy cultures, they fight back. It doesn't help that western nations are mostly Christian and are seen as being on a crusade to eliminate or conquer Islamic nations.

We see it in our own country in minorities that are less affluent. It is a common theme. People who are successful are happy and are not malcontents. We see it in the US and other places in the world.

Take for example Egypt. 20 years ago they had problems with poor Islamic teenagers turning to terrorism because they had no hope. The government cracked down on them, which only bred more hatered. Eventually they took a different tact, they educated the demographic and now Egypt has a lower terrorism base (I didn't say non-existent).

Furthermore, there are just as many extremists in the US as their are in any other countries. One only has to look at the fight for ID, abortion, and moralist agendas to see that the extremists are trying to limit freedom within our own country.

Those beliefs have been personified in individuals like Franklin Graham and Pat Robertson (kill those who we don't like). They may not strap a bomb to their body and go and kill somebody, but they try to influence policy, limit rights, and gain the favor of ignorant masses. They merely wield their power in a more subtle and much more destructive way than a suicide bomber.


To those who simply blame Islam, you are even more ignorant than those who you belittle.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: dugweb

Originally posted by: mOeeOm

Originally posted by: raildogg Keep in mind that many parts Islam have been spread by the use of the sword and traitors usually get killed. Nice way of keeping

''traitors usually get killed.''....uh huh....keep going?

actually ya... My Iranian friends and I were having a discussion on religion, and I asked them "what if you converted to another religion while you were here in the states?" and they said they couldn't because they would never beable to return to their country because the penalty was death.

yup
http://answering-islam.org.uk/Index/A/apostasy.html
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/index.htm

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Even the most fanatic Christian today would not contemplate strapping himself with explosives and destroying a mosque, it is only only islamists who are now doing so.

Islam has failed to reform itself and I believe it is incapable of doing so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Liberation_Front_of_Tripura

The Baptist Church of Tripura was initially set up by missionaries from New Zealand in the 1940s. Despite their efforts, even until the 1980s, only a few thousand people in Tripura had converted to Christianity.

In the aftermath of one of the worst ethnic riots, supposedly engineered by the Church, the NLFT was born in 1989 with the help of the Baptist Church. Since then, the NLFT has been advancing its cause through armed compulsion.

The Southern Baptist Church has been accused of supporting this violent campaign by providing funding and arms for the group. In April of 2000, Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was caught providing 50 gelatine sticks, 5 kilograms of potassium and 2 kilograms of sulphur and other ingredients for making explosives to the group. Halam later confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for the past two years.

In another incident in August 2003, police arrested the secretary of a Baptist Christian Missionary church in North Tripura District who was in possession of five kg of potassium, one kg sulphur, few gelatin sticks and 45 gm of high explosive materials.

In Tripura, such arrest and seizures of arms and explosives from the members of the Baptist church is a common occurrence and the link between the National Liberation Front of Tripura and the Southern Baptist Church has been well established.

What do you figure these guys are blowing up, or as long as they don't strap it too themselves, it's all good?

 

[deepred98]

Originally posted by: rahvin
You cannot coexist peacefully with a religion that has as a principle tennet of belief that nonbelievers should be killed.

are you serious :disgust:

uh that is just crap bushies tell you to justify their invasion

no religion actually tells you to kill nonbelievers only radical sects of that religion does and those sects number as a minority

anyways are you christian cuz maybe you'd like to go on another crusade some day... oh wait bush already is! :|

 

[envy me]

Are catholic priests capable of co-existing with the rest of the world without molesting young boys?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Many extremist religions have made that statement. In the past Christianity made that statement regarding the Muslims. One only has to check the past few years with Franklin Grahams comments. Every population has a distribution of extremists

The Koran does not mention killing infidels as being a path to heaven, nor does it ever mention the virgins.

Every religion has it's freaks that feel their only way of gaining power is to destroy another sect.

It is a fact that Christianity, Judaism, and Islam have very common roots and are similar in many respects. However, it is the twisted and power hungery nature of man and governments that have warped every message that the religion was meant to create.

The question is, as previously stated by others, can any extremist live with others?

There is a difference between infidels and non-believers. Sharia dictates the execution of athiests (and I wouldn't be supprised if that also applies to believers of multi-diety religions). The infidels tag applies to only Jews and Christians (and possibly other mono-theists).

You cannot have peace with a religion that dictates death to those that don't believe the "right" way. Until Islam follows the path of chrisianity and reinterprets the written beliefs in a more love your neighboor and not kill you neighbor manner there can be no peace with it. Personally with as strongly and prominently these beliefs are placed in the religion I don't believe they could ever water the religion down such that there wouldn't be significant groups engaged in killing others per Sharia.

 

[Remy XO]

Muslims and Christians have been fighting for thousands of years. Since the world is pretty mcuh christian now, what can you do? Kindve reminds me of King Louie the VII and his Christian Crusade to the Holy land to retake muslim controled Jerusulem

 

[LegendKiller]

Please show me examples of where the Sharia dictates that believers must destroy infadels and what country follows that Sharia. Almost all modern islamic countries do not follow Sharia, which is usually limited to non-secular states. S-A, a Wahabbi based country is one of the last true followers of the Sharia and even they don't follow all of the laws.

Furthermore, the Sharia is nothing more than an interpretation of the Koran, much like the Bible is an interpretation of Gods way, warped by man to their own ends. If one were to follow the original old testament (a jewish book with pagan and islamic leanings) you would see that it doesn't go anywhere near teaching what is taught in modern religions.

The Sharia is likewise warped by fundamentalist (narrow section of the population) beliefs. To extrapolate the Sharia to all Muslims is to extrapolate Evangelical stupidity of Franklin Graham to all Christians.


Try here to get educated

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: dugweb
I personally know serveral Iranians that are very dear to me. I am not racist. But this is really getting ugly, especially with the riots in France, and the general trend in violence around the world. The majority of it seems to be centered around the Muslim faith Why is this?

It seems like Muslim extremists are united in destroying the free world. It's as if they are threatened or opposed to anyone but themselves. I am especially disturbed by the Australian story. These guys were competing to see who could cause the largest terror strike first.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Not meant to be flamebait, It's something I'm honestly curious about. What's going to happen when this all comes to a head.

there is over 1 billion muslims in the world, most of whom just live their lives day to day just like everyone else in the world. why is that when a few bad apples do something bad it's suddenly a trend? I said the same thing about the AMC Pacer, thank god we got past that

 

[Sixtyfour]

Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

No, it's against their religion.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Hell on earth if we let it continue.

 

[rickn]

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

No, it's against their religion.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Hell on earth if we let it continue.

Saddam needs lawyers? puhleease. his fate was sealed the day he was captured, regardless of his legal representation. in the mean time the fanatics have some fun with their target practice

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please show me examples of where the Sharia dictates that believers must destroy infadels and what country follows that Sharia. Almost all modern islamic countries do not follow Sharia, which is usually limited to non-secular states. S-A, a Wahabbi based country is one of the last true followers of the Sharia and even they don't follow all of the laws.

I'm not sure about the destroy infidels, but Sharia is inherently barbaric and whacko. It calls for the execution of atheists, homosexuals, and creates a slavery system through the death for apostates. It also calls for the discrimination in different degrees to people of the book (Christians and Jews) and non people of the book. I would be a little scared to see what else it says about non people of the book. In addition, it also calls for barbaric punishments.

No country really follows Sharia Law, but for the purposes of the question in the topic, strict Muslims (who follow the above atrocities) cannot naturally and rightfully co-exist in a civilized world.

Furthermore, the Sharia is nothing more than an interpretation of the Koran, much like the Bible is an interpretation of Gods way, warped by man to their own ends. If one were to follow the original old testament (a jewish book with pagan and islamic leanings) you would see that it doesn't go anywhere near teaching what is taught in modern religions.

The Sharia is likewise warped by fundamentalist (narrow section of the population) beliefs. To extrapolate the Sharia to all Muslims is to extrapolate Evangelical stupidity of Franklin Graham to all Christians.


Try here to get educated

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

I think a less strict interpretation of Islam could be fine.

 

[AznAnarchy99]

i dont support the riots in france, but it has done its purpose.. open the eyes of the world of the oppression there.

 

[BBond]

Some interesting history and perspective on what are mistakenly being referred to as "Muslim" riots in France.

Just as with the U.S. in Iraq, the French brought this all on themselves. Some people would like to characterize the rioting as the work of Muslim "fanatics" but the truth is these are disassociated French youth who aren't considered "French" by the "real" French.

This should all sound very familiar here in the USA.

The Problem with Frenchness

Mark Steyn of the Chicago Sun-Times commits most of the gross errors, factual and ethical, that characterize the discourse of the Right in the US on such matters.

For instance, Steyn complains that the rioters have been referred to as "French youths."

''French youths,'' huh? You mean Pierre and Jacques and Marcel and Alphonse? Granted that most of the "youths" are technically citizens of the French Republic, it doesn't take much time in les banlieus of Paris to discover that the rioters do not think of their primary identity as ''French'': They're young men from North Africa growing ever more estranged from the broader community with each passing year and wedded ever more intensely to an assertive Muslim identity more implacable than anything you're likely to find in the Middle East. After four somnolent years, it turns out finally that there really is an explosive ''Arab street,'' but it's in Clichy-sous-Bois.


This paragraph is the biggest load of manure to hit the print media since Michael Brown (later of FEMA) and his Arabian Horse Society were profiled in Arabian Horse Times.

The French youth who are burning automobiles are as French as Jennifer Lopez and Christopher Walken are American. Perhaps the Steyns came before the Revolutionary War, but a very large number of us have not. The US brings 10 million immigrants every decade and one in 10 Americans is now foreign-born. Their children, born and bred here, have never known another home. All US citizens are Americans, including the present governor of California. "The immigrant" is always a political category. Proud Californio families (think "Zorro") who can trace themselves back to the 18th century Spanish empire in California are often coded as "Mexican immigrants" by "white" Californians whose parents were Okies.

A lot of the persons living in the urban outer cities (a better translation of cite than "suburb") are from subsaharan Africa. And there are lots of Eastern European immigrants. The riots were sparked by the deaths of African youths, not Muslims. Singling out the persons of Muslim heritage is just a form of bigotry. Moreover, French youth of European heritage rioted quite extensively in 1968. As they had in 1789. Rioting in the streets is not a foreign custom. It has a French genealogy and context.

The young people from North African societies such as Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia are mostly only nominal Muslims. They frequently do not speak much Arabic, and don't have "proper" French, either. They frequently do not know much about Islam and most of them certainly don't practice it-- much less being more virulent about it than Middle Easterners.

Aware of their in-between-ness, young persons of North African heritage in France developed a distinctive identity. They took the word Arabe and scrambled it to produce Beur (which sounds in French like the word for "butter"). Beur culture can be compared a bit to hip-hop as a form of urban expression of marginality and self-assertion in a racist society. It is mostly secular.

Another thing that is wrong with Steyn's execrable paragraph is that it assumes an echt "Frenchness" that is startling in a post-Holocaust thinker. There are no pure "nations" folks. I mean, first of all, what is now France had a lot of different populations in it even in the 18th century-- Bretons (speakers of a Celtic language related to Welsh and Gaelic), Basques, Alsatians (German speakers), Provencale people in the south, Jews, etc., etc. "Multi-culturalism" is not something new in Europe. What was new was the Romantic nationalist conviction that there are "pure" "nations" based on "blood." It was among the more monstrous mistakes in history. Of course if, according to this essentially racist way of thinking, there are "pure" nations that have Gypsies, Jews and others living among them, then the others might have to be "cleansed" to restore the "purity."

Yet another problem: France has for some time been a capitalist country with a relatively strong economy. Such economies attract workers. There have been massive labor immigration flows into France all along. In the early 20th century Poles came to work in the coal mines, and then more came in the inter-war period. By the beginning of the Great Depression, there were half a million Polish immigrants in France. Their numbers declined slightly in the next few years. There were even more Italians. There isn't anything peculiar about having large numbers of immigrants who came for work. And, few in France in the early 20th century thought that Poles were susceptible of integration into French society. Minister of the Interior Nicolas Sarkozy, who has made himself unpopular by exacerbating tensions with intemperate language, is the son of immigrants (I guess he does not count as "French" according to Steyn's criteria.)

Steyn wants to create a 1300-year struggle between Catholic France and the Muslims going back to Tours. This way of thinking is downright silly. France in the 19th century was a notorious ally of the Muslim Ottoman Empire, and fought alongside Muslims against the Christian Russians in the Crimean War. Among contemporary French, 40 percent do not even believe in God, and less than 20 percent go to mass at all regularly. Many of the French of non-European heritage are also not religious.

The French repaid the compliment of Tours by conquering much of the Middle East. Bonaparte aggressively and viciously invaded Egypt in 1798, but couldn't hold on there. But in 1830 the French invaded Algeria and incorporated it into France. Algeria was "French soil." They reduced the Algerian population (which they brutalized and exploited) to marginal people under the colonial thumb. The French government of Algeria allowed hundreds of thousands to perish of famine in the 1870s. After World War II, given low French birth rates and a dynamic capitalist economy, the French began importing Algerian menial labor. The resulting Beurs are no more incapable of "integrating" into France than the Poles or Jews were.

So it wasn't the Algerians who came and got France. France had come and gotten the Algerians, beginning with Charles X and then the July Monarchy. They settled a million rather rowdy French, Italians and Maltese in Algeria. These persons rioted a lot in the early 1960s as it became apparent that Algeria would get its independence (1962). In fact, European settler colonists or "immigrants" have caused far more trouble in the Middle East than vice versa.

The kind of riots we are seeing in France also have occurred in US cities (they sent Detroit into a tailspin from 1967). They are always produced by racial segregation, racist discrimination, spectacular unemployment, and lack of access to the mainstream economy. The problems were broached by award-winning French author Tahar Ben Jalloun in his French Hospitality decades ago.

(Americans who code themselves as "white" are often surprised to discover that "white people" created the inner cities here by zoning them for settlement by racial "minorities," excluding the minorities from the nicer parts of the cities and from suburbs. As late as the 1960s, many European-Americans were willing to sign a "covenant" not to sell their houses to an African-American, Chinese-American or a Jewish American. In fact, in the US, the suburbs were built, most often with de facto government subsidies in the form of highways and other perquisites, as an explicit means of racial segregation. Spatial segregation protected "white" businesses from competition from minority entrepreneurs, who couldn't open shops outside their ghettos. In France, government inputs were used to create "outer cities," but many of the same forces were at work.) The French do not have Jim Crow laws, but de facto residential segregation is a widespread and intractable problem.

The problem is economic and having to do with economic and residential exclusionism, not with an "unassimilable" "immigrant" minority. (The French authorites deported a lot of Poles in the 1930s for making trouble by trying to unionize and strike, on the grounds that they were an unassimilable Slavic minority.)

On the other hand, would it be possible for the French Muslim youth to be pushed toward religious extremism if the French government does not address the underlying problems. Sure. That was what I was alluding to in my posting last week.

The solution? Recognizing that "Frenchness" is not monochrome, that France is a tapestry of cultures and always has been, and that sometimes some threads of the tapestry need some extra attention if it is not to fray and come apart.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

No, it's against their religion.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Hell on earth if we let it continue.

Wow, so I guess the 99.99% of Muslims NOT doing those things (assuming that about 1 million Muslims have been involved in those activities, itself a stupidly high number) are just waiting for their chance, right?

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Please show me examples of where the Sharia dictates that believers must destroy infadels and what country follows that Sharia. Almost all modern islamic countries do not follow Sharia, which is usually limited to non-secular states. S-A, a Wahabbi based country is one of the last true followers of the Sharia and even they don't follow all of the laws.

Try here to get educated

http://answering-islam.org.uk/Sharia/

It's funny when people don't read thier own links...

Some Quranic exegetes state that Qur'an 2:256 has been abrogated by the following verses:

O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them.... (9:73)

O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you.... (9:123)

Say unto those of the wondering Arabs who were left behind: Ye will be called against a folk of mighty prowess to fight them until they surrender.... (48:16)[7]

The Qur'anic passage la ikraha fi d-dini ("there is no compulsion in religion") is generally understood to mean that no one should use compulsion against another in matters of faith. There is much to commend this interpretation. As it is understood here, the statement represents a principle which has gained a recognition of international dimensions: the principle of religious tolerance. Historically also the alleged meaning of la ikraha fi d-dini appears to be warranted. "The People of the Book", i.e., the members of the older revealed religions, particularly the Jews and the Christians, were in principle never compelled to accept Islam. They were obliged, while residing in territory under Islamic domination (dar al-Islam), only to recognize the supremacy of Muslims and, at the same time, as an external indication of this recognition, to pay a separate tax. In all other matters they could maintain their inherited beliefs and perform their practices as usual. They even were allowed to establish their own internal administration.

To be sure, however, the situation was different for members of the pre-Islamic pagan Arab society. After the community which the Prophet had established had extended its power over the whole of Arabia, the pagan Arabs were forcefully compelled to accept Islam; stated more accurately, they had to choose either to accept Islam or death in battle against the superior power of the Muslims (cf. surahs 8:12; 47:4). This regulation was later sanctioned in Islamic law. All this stands in open contradiction to the alleged meaning of the Quranic statement, noted above: la ikraha fi d-dini. The idolaters (mushrikun) were clearly compelled to accept Islam - unless they preferred to let themselves be killed.

However, one-fourth to one-third of the Islamic population passionately demands the immediate introduction of the Sharia and is prepared, in some places, to enforce it with the help of terrorism and revolutions. In each Islamic country, fundamentalists and liberals wrestle over the Sharia. In Syria, these differences led to a civil war in 1982 -- one in which the army brutally defeated the uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood. Turkey was already rid of the Sharia by 1926, emerging as a secular state. But in other countries a re-Islamisation is underway -- especially in Morocco, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan, where the Sharia or the Qur´an have been legally introduced as fundamental law. Until now, the enforcement rulings have not been enacted in detail, nor have they been abandoned. The establishing of the Sharia and its enforcement is subject to a continual developmental process in all Islamic countries.

Next time try reading and understanding before you tell someone else to while provding a link which backs up everything you just attempted to refute. Islam is a religion that has very specific mention of the death penalty for apostacy and athiests. It also provides complete acceptance of slavery and even proclaims it as a requirement in some situations. Until Islam can reinterpret it's scripture and water down the meaning of them it will NOT be a religion of peace. There are very few religions that have so much proclaimed violence in them that still exist. Christianity and the Jews were very successful in elimating abhorent and evil behavior that had been mandated in thier scriptures and holy writtings through both later writtings and a general reinterpretation of meaning. Neither of these events have occured in Islam and infact over the last 50 years there has been a reversing of western influence that had "civilized" Islam into recognition of basic human rights.

 

[Chinadefender]

You may also ask : Are US Neo-con Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

No, it's against their religion.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Hell on earth if we let it continue.

Lets not forget the attacks in Jordan and India recently.

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Chinadefender
You may also ask : Are US Neo-con Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

I don't have any great liking for neo-cons, but I certainly haven't seen any of my countrymen run into a crowded Middle Eastern hotel and or restaurant and blow themselves up maiming hundreds of people around there and at the same time killing many innocent civilians.

 

[imported_Condor]

Originally posted by: AznAnarchy99
i dont support the riots in france, but it has done its purpose.. open the eyes of the world of the oppression there.

Naw, it's opened the eyes of the world to the Muslims there.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/

 

[Sixtyfour]

Originally posted by: rickn

Originally posted by: Sixtyfour

Are Muslims Capable of Co-existing with the rest of the World?

No, it's against their religion.

State of Emergency in France

Sadaams defense lawyers killed

Australian Terror Plot foiled

What scares me is the trend. What are the consequences of this trend?

Hell on earth if we let it continue.

Saddam needs lawyers? puhleease. his fate was sealed the day he was captured, regardless of his legal representation. in the mean time the fanatics have some fun with their target practice

By killing Saddams lawyers muslims prove that they are stupid, since it's a proof that they don't understand what they want, they just keep on terrorising.
When they can't keep that trial in Iraq, they are going to take Saddam to EU and he is not going to get death sentence.
So killing lawyers is working against their desire.

Idiots i say.