There is much I agree with Ayaan and much I don't.

Her statment about finding justification for Bin Laden's attacks in the Qu'ran, Islamic military law, does not for example justify the killing of innocents, stealth attacks, or attacks on other faiths. Before you assume that the existence of military law within the religion means its somehow primed for conflict understand that the Prophet was a statesman and a military leader as well as a holy man, forming the relgion during turbelent times of inter-tribal conflict.

Her view of Islam is deeply rooted in the Wahhabism traditions of Saudi Arabia where she has spent most of her formative years, which spread to Somalia. PBS Frontline's House of Saud can provide background for how that came into being and what effect it has had for the development of extremism.

Its a strict interpertation of Islam that is firmly based in Sharia law and does not reflect the rest of the Islamic society across the world, as such her views have been misused by neo-conservatives to justify the clash of civilisation between democratic society and Islam as a whole. Her own stance is at occasions nearly insulting to other members of her faith.

It is just impossible to expect a religion to reform itself overnight, her stance to me at times reads like an expectation that Islam should be thrust into the 21st century schools of thought. That is impossible to do, it would more prudent to allow change to occur within the religion through reform that seeks to return to ethical and pluralistic intentions of the scripture.

There is much also to say about Saudi Arabia that stipulates submission to relgion because within that context it means submission to the rule of the Saudi royal family and their continual grip over oil resources, its not so much a issue of religion then but an issue of keeping power and control.

But I understand that her views may have be skewed more because of the horrible repression she has faced. Anyways upvote.

OK. Where to begin, *deep breath* the lizard people and the British Royal Family (hybrids) formed the illuminati from the remnants of the shattered Hippopotamous Kingdom, who in turn were driven from their watery realm on Sirius *deep breath* so they had to settle here, you see!? Now listen very carefully...the Trilateral Commission fought the Bilderbergers for control of the Tomb of the Crystal Skulls.

(Or did the Crystal Skulls fight the Trilateral Commission for part control of the Bilderberger's Tomb? I always get turned aside at that part and factoring the compound interest...)

You gullible nitwit.

One of the first non-Afghan volunteers to join the ranks of the mujahideen was Osama bin Laden, a civil engineer and businessman from a wealthy construction family in Saudi Arabia, with close ties to members of the Saudi royal family. Bin Laden recruited 4,000 volunteers from his own country and developed close relations with the most radical mujahideen leaders. He also worked closely with the CIA, raising money from private Saudi citizens. By 1984, he was running the Maktab al-Khidamar, an organization set up by the ISI to funnel "money, arms, and fighters from the outside world in the Afghan war."

Since September 11, CIA officials have been claiming they had no direct link to bin Laden. These denials lack credibility. Earlier this year, the trial of defendants accused of the 1998 U.S. embassy bombing in Kenya disclosed that the CIA shipped high-powered sniper rifles directly to bin Laden's operation in 1989. Even the Tennessee-based manufacturer of the rifles confirmed this. According to the Boston Globe,

^ oh look, QM isn't a total retard. How strange that must be for some of you guys to try to take in!

THAT is the reason why you should go easy on the comment moderation, and why people should realise that online persona does not equal "real" person.

theo I think you are overreacting, this isn't so much a "free speech" thing as a "variety of contribution" thing. You are offended... so what? this isn't a place to shield you from offence, this is a place to expose yourself to it and engage it properly. Nobody here is dissing you or saying they agree with QM. QM never said "fuck all sand niggers" as far as i know. That would be totally different.

QM, you are wrong, and you are offensive to some people, but i have a lot of respect anyway. Respect is not endorsement.

Westerners have their fair share of "us against them" vibe, you know? How can you categorise and denigrate muslims WITHOUT an "us against them" vibe? I don't know how you can avoid seeing that duality.

I respect your standing up for the military, I too support the troops, I've even worn a uniform and saluted the royal family, hence I disagree with sending soldiers into a shitstorm for no reason except profit for rich people.

You won't make "liberals" quiet by trolling, just like you're not going to "solve" the "muslim" "problem" with any kind of violence. Iraq was a secular country before you went in and smashed the place up under a false pretext with no declaration of war. Maybe there could have been a better way to "modernise" their "backward" ways than raining down fire Old Testament style? Were you surprised when the whole "welcomed as liberators" thing went wrong? I wasn't.

We all fear fundamentalist pseusoislamic nutcases destroying our freedoms. That would be bad. However, your brand of "solution" is making things worse, not better. And your country can't afford it. And do you think the oil thing is a coincidence? And you have to destroy freedoms at home, making the whole exercise a laughable contradiction.

Keep on trolling! (well i prefer ranting but that's just me)

Our Queen Bea is one of the main players in the Bilderberg Conferences. She's phenomenally wealthy, and has a lot of power, just not directly through her royal title. Willem is just her douche-son. Marrying dictator-daughters, having nazi-father and in-laws. At least we make our royalties shut up politically, which sadly means they have to exert their power behind the scenes. But then again all the in-bred royal families in Europe are evil. (I'm on a roll here, but I'm just scared shitless by you Americans losing every mentionable freedom, and I see the same shit happening here!)

Realizing you are living in a despotic system requires free thought.

Free thought is dangerous and discouraged thoroughly in Saudia Arabia, not because of religion, but mostly because it would make the population realize that the royal family holds none of their interests in mind as they gallop around the world in the private jets.

The reason to worry is because it is a matter of degrees (no pun intended). We are at a point where it is very likely inevitable that many of the lowest lying inhabited lands will be below sea level within decades. The question is, how far do we let it go?

To be honest, I'm generally of the opinion that any "damage" humans have caused over the last century or two is not going to get "fixed" in the next decade or two, no matter how hard we try. But it's not about "fixing" the whole thing - it's about mitigating the future costs to humanity, whether those costs are directly counted in human lives, national economies, or the size of your children's backyard.

I am continually amazed by those who claim all the human-induced climate change science is bunk and/or propaganda. The implication would seem to be a world-wide conspiracy being conducted by thousands of scientists, economists, politicians, activists, etc. I mean, why not just come right out and say it - the Knights Templar and the Zionists are behind the whole thing right? They've been running the world for 2000+ years, and will continue to do so no matter what we do. When they need to shift the world economy in a particular direction, they dream up crazy things like the cold war, moon landings, global warming.

The choice we have before us is one of resource allocation. We've done a crap job of it so far - should we continue to do so because it's convenient to "our way of life"?

And here's the question I can't get out of my head... If the USA's dependence on "foreign oil" is such a major risk to national security, why are we providing tax subsidies to companies that are willing to do business with the likes of Chavez, Putin, and the Saudi royal family? Does that make sense? Should we not be providing that kind of support to companies that operate solely in the interests of the United States?

just a thought....

What about the Thai people who aren't as stupid as you? Shouldn't they be allowed to visit any damn website they please?

My in-depth research into this issue consists of reading the first couple of paragraphs of Wikipedia's Censorship in Thailand article, but I think they tell us everything we need to know:

"Freedom of speech in Thailand was guaranteed in the articles 39, 40, 41 in the 1997 Constitution.

According to those articles, censorship may be imposed to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others, protect public morals, and prevent criticism of the royal family and insults to Buddhism. In addition, criticism of the King is banned by the Constitution."

Wow, that's some great freedom you've got over there.

What is this Mike Ware thing you keep mentioning, as far as I know he's just an opportunistic ass who got a video from the net... whats this he followed someone bit?

I always find it ironic how America is so cozy with the most oppressive government in the middle east, the wahabi monarch state of Saudia Arabia. A country with a handful of rich royal families and vast poor majority, who are taught hate as unspoken policy towards other cultures so they don't question the current status quo...