Secondly, how can anyone objectively look at Iraq and the fiasco that this administration’s mismanagement has caused there and have any response other than doom and gloom? Even moderate Shiites over there are now saying it was better under Saddam. The only people I’ve heard with much optimism about the situation are usually Bush apologists.

Thirdly, Bush has repeatedly earned the moniker Chimperor with his usurpation of congressional rights, heavy handed political browbeating, moronic decisions and speech patterns, and Rove’s “if you can’t find a scandal manufacture one” campaign style, among many other debacles. I’m amazed the man hasn’t been impeached yet, and I go even further in thinking he deserves to be shot for treason. Our country, our economy, our reputation, the environment, and the world will take decades to recover from the damage he has perpetrated.

Frankly in my opinion, anyone who still thinks Bush is a good or competent president fits the definition of someone with “a closed mind like a steel trap welded shut.”

To do this of course, we need to be discussing BOTH the negative and positive. My perception is there exists a bias toward the negative. To me this reflects a desire to prove what you think is right, instead of a desire to seek the deeper truth. Those who throw around terms like “Chimperor”, in my opinion, have a closed mind like steel trap welded shut.

I also challenge those who aren’t of the Christian faith or have spent little time in church and then liken Christians to Islamic fundamendalist to get more Christian educated. You demonstrate your total ignorance of the attitudes and desires of mainstream Christians. If you would put the same amount of effort into understanding Christians as you do to slandering them and the Christian faith in general, I predict that you might actually be as embarrassed by of some of those more outrageous comments. I feel embarrassed for you as it’s really obvious you don’t understand Christians whatsoever.

Plain and simple: ignorance=prejudice

Iraqis Believe Violence Will Abate, New Report Says
Pentagon Finds Hope Is Tied to New Government

Attacks and casualty levels against civilians and military personnel in Iraq have risen “substantially” since the December elections, but Iraqis hav…

Fundamentalist Islam and Christianist fundamentalism have theologies that differ in detail . . .

The difference between teaching “nonsense” and murder is just a simple detail of theology then?

. . .but their view on social issues is essentially identical.

Sounds to me like you are suggesting equivalence, unless you think penalizing short-wearing with death is not a social issue.

If it comes down to evangelical protestantism vs. radical Islam, I would choose Joel Osteen over Zawahiri any day. When its all said and done, at least you can reason with the former, and they don’t face a penalty of death for changing their mind on things.

On the other hand, even a staunch conservative (e.g. me) can see that the fundamentalists in both sects are spending a lot more effort on trying to institute their vision of a past society that never was than in bothering to follow the teachings of their founder. And, from what I have seen, the visions of those fundamentalists are a lot more alike than either is like either of the teachings that they claim to be following.

Which is why I suggested that having one group do things that help strengthen the other (and both have) is not surprising. Do I think that they consciously did so? Not really. But the results remain.

Why are you so averse to assigning responsibility for evil behavior on the perpetrators themselves? Just because they are people of colour? I bet you blame Canadian society for the Islamist plot to destroy Toronto, eh?

There is a soft bigotry of low expectations towards Muslims in the middle east, deservedly so, based on their own beliefs and actions. If Chimpy McHitlerburton made a mistake, it was expecting the greater muslim world to act like decent, enlightened human beings.