a moral dilemma

Biowepons need a delivery system, they are no where near as devastating as nukes.

Nukes, well we all know what they do and there is nothing "precision" about them either.

Incidentally I have not been and never will be involved in developing weapons !


[Edited by Dr_simon on 01-27-2003 at 08:01 PM]

whoa, i didn't expect this topic to get this much of a response. just try to keep it undercontrol guys, this discussion is great and it would be a shame if we had to end it so try to stay calm.

Yo Pony One. It´s just silly to say serbs started the war. Evry former Yugoslav country shares the same responsiblillity about who started the war. And Milosevic wasen´t the only dictator and killer, how about Franjo Tudjman and Alia Izetbegovic? They didn´t really sit with they hand tied. They did same genocide against serbian people but what pisses me off is that nowone cares about theyr acts and evryone areso focused on Milosevic instead.

And Bush, that sucker should first work on to protect his own people in his own country. I know that USA today is real wild west and ther´s a quiet war goin´ on there whole time. He maby should protect his own people first and than rest of the world ´cause many more americans were killed on the streets than on 11 sept.

Bush should step of. He should be substituted. Evryone are turning against him even americans. He´s the tyrant and dictator. America is far away from democracy ´cause only gov. decide what to do and they screw the people.

Dejan: please do not use expressions like "**** off" and "shut up"..
i really dont want to close this thread, but if the it is the level ill simply have to close it.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov

What 'other peaceful way?' Sanctions have failed for twelve consecutive years. Limited air strikes have failed, diplomacy has failed. What other peaceful method of resolution is left here? We're prolonging the inevitable while allowing more innocent Iraqis to starve and Saddam more and more time to prepare for an attack - very effectively lengthening any action that will have to be taken agaisnt him.

A sloppily executed war will invaribly lead to more trouble, but look at US military doctrine: precision strikes against military targets, minimize civilian casualties, treat POWs well, encourage disloyalty in the enemy's ranks...

This won't be sloppy.

Why didn't they remove Saddam in the war a decade ago ? Back then the U.S. could have insisted on removing that Bastard (Saddam) , since he has been a real threat to everyone... But they didn't simply bec they wanted to keep more & more U.S. military bases in the region (for domination for sure) , and removing him would have solved the problem easily ... And perhaps most of the credits would have gone to the UN instead too.

Now they're pretty sure their military bases in the region are permenant , they just want to increase their domination over the region by taking over such a big country that's swimming in oil like Iraq ... And all the excuses the U.S. are claiming for this war are bullsh*t .

First they tried to link Saddam to Bin Laden & other extreme groups , then claims about Iraq developing Nukes & other weapons of mass-destruction which threatens the whole world ... Now after all the excuses proved to be a complete faliur , they just say Saddam should go off Iraq or else we'll strike ... Everybody knows that a guy like Saddam would never accept such a deal , so what's the point ? The U.S. seems very determined to strike whatever it takes , right?

Other peacefull suggestions might be having the UN pushing Iraq to make some political corrections , democratic elections , trying to help the people by sending food not helping the regiem by sending money.

By the way , there are a plenty of other countries that deserve more punishment than Iraq (nowadays) , but probably these countries will never get striked till they find oil in their lands , and move to the Middle East !

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
The difference between nuclear and biological weapons is (once the bodies are burried), psychological.

There are no excuses for using these weapons against countries that don't have them as Bush wants.

This quote from Bush just adds to his stupidity , by these words he's like encouraging non-nuke countries to develope nukes for self defense , cuz they may get nuked for Bush's TOP SECRET NECESSITY reasons !
i.e. Bush is like starting a race for developing nukes.

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
What 'other peaceful way?' Sanctions have failed for twelve consecutive years. Limited air strikes have failed, diplomacy has failed. What other peaceful method of resolution is left here? We're prolonging the inevitable while allowing more innocent Iraqis to starve and Saddam more and more time to prepare for an attack - very effectively lengthening any action that will have to be taken agaisnt him.

A sloppily executed war will invaribly lead to more trouble, but look at US military doctrine: precision strikes against military targets, minimize civilian casualties, treat POWs well, encourage disloyalty in the enemy's ranks...

This won't be sloppy. [/B]

Why didn't they remove Saddam in the war a decade ago?

Because the coalition was falling apart. The Saudis especially balked at actually invading Iraq.

Now they're pretty sure their military bases in the region are permenant , they just want to increase their domination over the region by taking over such a big country that's swimming in oil like Iraq ... And all the excuses the U.S. are claiming for this war are bullsh*t .

First they tried to link Saddam to Bin Laden & other extreme groups , then claims about Iraq developing Nukes & other weapons of mass-destruction which threatens the whole world ... Now after all the excuses proved to be a complete faliur , they just say Saddam should go off Iraq or else we'll strike ... Everybody knows that a guy like Saddam would never accept such a deal , so what's the point ? The U.S. seems very determined to strike whatever it takes , right?

Trying to link Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden is outlandish. I've said that already. The "Preemptive Strike" plan was just dumb. Bush has completely screwed his credibility here. As for Iraq's WMD programs, they're very real, and Saddam is insisting on keeping them for a very specific reason - to bully and/or conquer his neigbors. If you happened to pay attention to Hans Blix' report to the UN yesterday, you will have noticed the Iraq isn't complying fully, has a ton of holes in their reports, isn't allowing reconosance flights over Iraq, etc, etc, etc. The same old game. Why? They're hiding something. Any pshycologist could tell you that in a second.

Your description of US deployments fails to noticed that being so widely spread weakens an army, which is why that up until 9/11 Bush had been trying to get as many troops as possible BACK IN THE US. Two years ago, Europe was crying about Bush cutting back on our share of Peacekeeping troops in Kosovo and other areas of the world. You really haven't been paying attention to the news over the past three years, have you? Also, since you're still hammering on the issue of oil, you probably don't understand the nature of the world oil market. I'm not going to waste any more of my breaktime explaining it.

Other peacefull suggestions might be having the UN pushing Iraq to make some political corrections , democratic elections , trying to help the people by sending food not helping the regiem by sending money.

How do you expect to [u]force[/u] Saddam to do anything? You can't. The "sending food" idea sounds a lot like the Food for Oil program. We've seen how effectively that's forced Saddam to give up and reform. NEXT!

By the way , there are a plenty of other countries that deserve more punishment than Iraq (nowadays)

I agree. However, (and I find myself repeating things I've said in this very thread already yet once more), no other nation in the world finds itself in a situation similar to Iraq and the under the stipulations ending the Gulf War.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Trying to link Saddam Hussein to Osama bin Laden is outlandish. I've said that already. The "Preemptive Strike" plan was just dumb. Bush has completely screwed his credibility here. As for Iraq's WMD programs, they're very real, and Saddam is insisting on keeping them for a very specific reason - to bully and/or conquer his neigbors. If you happened to pay attention to Hans Blix' report to the UN yesterday, you will have noticed the Iraq isn't complying fully, has a ton of holes in their reports, isn't allowing reconosance flights over Iraq, etc, etc, etc. The same old game. Why? They're hiding something. Any pshycologist could tell you that in a second.

Psychology has got nothing to do here , we're talking about countries not individuals !

And for Blix' report , it's realy obvious to any dumba$$ that he was pushed by the U.S. to say few lines against Iraq , that the expect more co-operation , blah blah blah ... You can see this in Baradey's report too , they were both afraid to say a nice report about full Iraqi co-operation with the inspections not to make the U.S. government angry.

And till the inspectors find real weapons that violates international treaties in Iraq , U.S. should never strike ... For God Sake, you don't put someone in prison without real evidence . That would be terribly Injustice !

Frankly I think the U.S. is sure that there isn't any dangerous weapons in Iraq ... That's why they are so sure that such a war would be easy , and that's why they don't speak sh*t about striking N Korea , cuz the U.S. is pretty sure that N Korea got weapons that's can cause seriously painful casualties to the U.S.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
Also, since you're still hammering on the issue of oil, you probably don't understand the nature of the world oil market. I'm not going to waste any more of my breaktime explaining it.

This has got nothing to do with the fu*king oil market ... It's about blood vs oil , or blood vs money... Human values , or is it worthless in the eyes of the current U.S. (oil) government.

Your replies considering this subject is copies of what U.S. officials says in the media , and actualy no one is buying this crap.

That's why I'm insisting on my points ... The main reasons for an American war against Iraq is OIL & DOMINATION .
And I won't stop mentioning this till someone says some realy good points to prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
How do you expect to [u]force[/u] Saddam to do anything? You can't.

He has been already forced to accept UN inspectors , open presidential palaces & sites , make reports full of info about military programs , allowing UN ispectors to meet Iraqi scientists ... NEXT ?!

[Edited by SLY on 01-28-2003 at 04:32 PM]

[i]Also, since YOU'RE still hammering on the issue of oil, you probably don't understand the nature of the world oil market. I'm not going to waste any more of my breaktime explaining it.
[/B]

I don't know if the YOU I put in capitals refers to anyone in particular or is an expression of general disagreement towards those who suggest that the republicans have primarily financial reasons for invasion.
I haven't a clue about oil politics, I dont' want to waste your breaktimes but does anyone have a good book/website on this subject? On the other hand, am i right in saying whatever the Americans might want to be done with the oil (sell gradually so higher prices can be fetched when oil is rarer or sold fast) is more likely to happen if they control it?

Also someone mentioned they thought the only difference between biological and nuclear weapons is only psychological. Not so. Biological agents could potentially be selective. Some people might be immunised to their effects, some might be more or less susceptible on the grounds of their race and (less feasibly) it might be the case that someone knows how to produce viruses which implant resistance genes into a "desirable" sector of the population. The Americans refused to uphold a 1972 sanction allowing inspection of its own facilities. .. Quelle surprise! Maybe they were hoping to pick up some tips from the Iraqis and wanted to take it back to their labs to make antidotes (perhaps a euthemism for improvements).
Nuclear weapons, by contrast, are DEFINITELY broad-spectrum world-****ers. Bear in mind though that whatever they might want to do to the rest of the world their shares still demand that they retain some kind of market to sell crap to.

One point, I have known lots of really excellent, idealistic, funny Americans and I'm sorry if my last use of the word American suggests I'm tarring anyone here with the same oil products as I do their "leaders"/jailers.

Originally posted by SLY

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
How do you expect to [u]force[/u] Saddam to do anything? You can't.

He has been already forced to accept UN inspectors , open presidential palaces & sites , make reports full of info about military programs , allowing UN ispectors to meet Iraqi scientists ...

But ONLY after the threat of war from a leader he KNOWS will pull the trigger, and ONLY to gain time, if only to strengthen his defenses. The more prepared he is for an invasion, the better the chance he has of holding onto power. This is very basic tactics here. And though he's allowed inspectors to talk with Iraqi scientists, he's never once allowed them to talk to the inspectors WITHOUT four or five "minders" who listen to the entire discussion. This is in the report. You do realize that the Iraqi government is notorious for threatening not only individuals but their families to ensure their cooperation, right? Why do you think the scientists who have escaped to the West are so adament that removing Saddam Hussein from power is so important? Read the report, read the Iraqi ambassador's response which denied that their are holes in the report or that Iraq has failed to comply in any way (::cough BS! cough::), then read Colin Powell's response. See who's statments hold the most water in comparison with those of Hans Blix.

To make one last (probably futile) stab at explaining the oil market, and why insiting that oil is the driving reason for this war is so pointless...

The price of oil is based on an open [u]world[/u] market. More oil on the total market = cheaper oil, les oil = more expensive oil. You can learn that by listening to the BBC or NPR news.

Now, in the individual case of Iraq's oil, the US only consumes it. France, Germany, and Russia export most of it to the world (making them a lot of money), the Iraqi people get a little food out of it, Saddam Hussein gets a looser border with which to smuggle arms, Joe World Citizen pays more for oil because Iraq is only producing about 25% of its potential output, and finally Mr. US Oilman makes more money because the price of oil is higher. In the event of a war with Iraq, the United States has no right to claim the wells under international law. This means they go to the Iraqi people. In this instance, Joe World Citizen gets cheaper oil (but probably not much since Iraq is likely to join OPEC), Mr. US Oil Man looses money because the price of oil has gone down, Iraq gets big financial gains (since UN sanctions are gone and it's now exporting it's own oil), Saddam Hussein gets to be an exile or face War Crimes charges (that he's very much earned), and France, Germay, and Russia are out of the oil money they were making at the expense of the Iraqi people.

I can make a much stronger case that portions of the opposition to war in Iraq (namely France, Germany, and Russia) are more influenced by oil than the US.

As to Nuclear vrs. chemical and biological weapons (particuarly biological weapons), and the differences between the two:
Biological weapons are potentially just as destructive and far more difficult to control. In the case of a nuclear detonation, a limited area is (very) effected by the blast, then fallout follows the prevaling winds until it works its way out of the atmousphere. Air bursting nuclear weapons (such as those in the US arsenal produce less fallout than groundbursting weapons (because they don't kick up as much radioactive dust). Given the ammount of background radiation in the air today (absolutely in thanks to US, French, and Russian nuclear weapons testing during the 40's, 50's, and 60's and those nice holes in the ozone), we'd really hardly notice the difference. Biological weapons on the other hand have incubation periods where those infected are contagious but don't show symptoms. This means that there can close to a week between an attack and the initial indications of it and close to a week before any attempt to control the infection can be initiated. Because of mass transit, air travel, a Small Pox attack can be spread all over the world and absolutely randomly and cost MANY more lives than a single nuclear attack in MUCH more random a pattern.

Are you beginning to understand my position yet?

Originally posted by u10ajf
[QUOTE]Nuclear weapons, by contrast, are DEFINITELY broad-spectrum world-****ers. Bear in mind though that whatever they might want to do to the rest of the world their shares still demand that they retain some kind of market to sell crap to.

In an open exchange, yes. Bush's statement was undoubtedly to discourage Saddam Hussein from using chemical and biological weapons, in effect attempting to bring the MAD principal (Mutually Assured Destruction) that helped prevent a US/Soviet nuclear exchange into this new conflict.

How smart time may prove that to be, I have no idea. I do know that the US or ideally, a coalition of nations involving the US could very effectively fight Saddam with conventional weapons.

Warning:This is not directed to any one individual.
View it in it's context.I'm simply expressing an opinion.
Ever seen how your friend says **** you to you and you don't fight.But some dude in the pub says the exact same words and all hell breaks loose?
It's the context in which you view it.
Now;

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
...the United States has no right to claim the wells under international law...

Really?
So,under what international law does the US have the right to remove a sovereign nation's regime from power?
Saddam is a muther****in' SOAFA(son of a funny animal) that needs to get his butt kicked.
Fine then.Under what international law does the US unilaterally have the right,the mandate,to remove a muther****in SOAFA from power?
I think the US's regard for international law,or indeed any international agrgeement(international law is a type of international agreement) is well documented.Look at the Kyoto treaty.Look at how Clinton handled the grenades issue.Millions of innocent people have been and continue to be maimed by grenades in Africa and elsewhere.But when an agreement that has potential to rid the world(or drastically reduce) of grenades,you punks want to keep them coz you need to keep the divide between North and south Korea littered with these widgets.You people will only "respect"(the quotes are mine.I think America has a crooked smile on her face when she talks about respect)international law when it serves your interest.Of course we all want to do things that serve our interests.But when your own interest does not go with the majority's interest,you don't give a **** what the rest of the world feels.And you have the economic and military might to "point out"(again,the quotes are mine) this fact.
I don't know why the question of mandate and right seems so lost on you.
I also don't know who allowed Bush to watch that movie,I think it was "Pay it Forward",where a guy is charged,and I think jailed,for a murder he is expected to commit in the future.Bush,if you'd read the fine print that comes at the movie's end,you'd have seen something to the effect that all the characters and events depicted in the motion picture were works of fiction.It doesn't work like that in real life.
Another thing,I gather that about three quarters of Americans are opposed to the war.If you are,and you won't stop your dumb ass president and his cronies,you won't be any better than your dumbass president and his cronies.In my mother tongue,there's a saying that,loosely translated,means "There's no difference between a thief and someone who watches him steal".You need to somehow,some way stop this madness.
Still another thing:
Someone was telling me that the US once propped up Saddam Hussein so as to counter the Iranian leader,the Ayatollah,who was vitriolly anti US,anti west.Then Saddam became what he became,and now the US,perhaps a bit ruefully,wants him out.Now,if that is true,I'm not surprised that suicide bombers do what they do.Coz I can start feeling,in an ever so slight way,the kind of anger that can be sparked by a bully's disregard for others,the bitter resistance sparked by oppression.
Do you guys remember how petty the "reasons" for the start of the last worls wars were?
Learn frrom history.
That war is not an option.
Under whatever circumstances.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
But ONLY after the threat of war from a leader he KNOWS will pull the trigger, and ONLY to gain time, if only to strengthen his defenses. The more prepared he is for an invasion, the better the chance he has of holding onto power. This is very basic tactics here. And though he's allowed inspectors to talk with Iraqi scientists, he's never once allowed them to talk to the inspectors WITHOUT four or five "minders" who listen to the entire discussion. This is in the report. You do realize that the Iraqi government is notorious for threatening not only individuals but their families to ensure their cooperation, right? Why do you think the scientists who have escaped to the West are so adament that removing Saddam Hussein from power is so important? Read the report, read the Iraqi ambassador's response which denied that their are holes in the report or that Iraq has failed to comply in any way (::cough BS! cough::), then read Colin Powell's response. See who's statments hold the most water in comparison with those of Hans Blix.

Very funny , Saddam needs time to build weapons and plans to resist U.S. invasion with the UN inspectors inspecting every inch in Iraq ... What a conclusion !

About the Iraqi scientists thing ... It was claimed that the U.S. is trying to attract Iraqi scientists , as they did with German scientists before ... It's a bad attitude anyhow.


Back to my point ... Iraq has been forced to do many things peacefully , and can be forced to do other good things peacefully too.

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
To make one last (probably futile) stab at explaining the oil market, and why insiting that oil is the driving reason for this war is so pointless...

The price of oil is based on an open [u]world[/u] market. More oil on the total market = cheaper oil, les oil = more expensive oil. You can learn that by listening to the BBC or NPR news.

Well, any idiot can figure this out , it's not quantum physics ... The more for sale , the lower the price & vice versa ... That's the fundamental theory behind open market economy , not only the oil market.

And yes, the U.S. can't sieze the oil wells according to the international law , but at least will controle everything by the Puppet they will put into power after removing Saddam... Which is very important to the U.S. as I can see ... Not to mention total domination over the whole region , and being a real threat against Iran from both side (Iraq & Afghanistan) .
That's what I mean , the war isn't only for claimed weapons of mass-destruction (if they exist) , it's about Oil & Domination ... Mostly domination... That's realy cruel !

Originally posted by Raskolnikov
As to Nuclear vrs. chemical and biological weapons (particuarly biological weapons), and the differences between the two:
Biological weapons are potentially just as destructive and far more difficult to control. In the case of a nuclear detonation, a limited area is (very) effected by the blast, then fallout follows the prevaling winds until it works its way out of the atmousphere. Air bursting nuclear weapons (such as those in the US arsenal produce less fallout than groundbursting weapons (because they don't kick up as much radioactive dust). Given the ammount of background radiation in the air today (absolutely in thanks to US, French, and Russian nuclear weapons testing during the 40's, 50's, and 60's and those nice holes in the ozone), we'd really hardly notice the difference. Biological weapons on the other hand have incubation periods where those infected are contagious but don't show symptoms. This means that there can close to a week between an attack and the initial indications of it and close to a week before any attempt to control the infection can be initiated. Because of mass transit, air travel, a Small Pox attack can be spread all over the world and absolutely randomly and cost MANY more lives than a single nuclear attack in MUCH more random a pattern.

It's not about Nuke Vs Bio ... Each of them is worse than the other... You can't use any of these against countries that don't have them , it's a criminal act according to the international law ... Now Bush wants to violate this law , and of course no one can ever accuse him .
That's my point , I'm not comparing between these.

OOOOH, you've gone and had this debate without me...
I'm agreeing with alot of Dr simon's views...

The problem is we're living in post sept 11 partoitic foaming at the mouth, "i'll believe anything" dogma..
What scares me is that the majority of poeple i know believe that Bin Laden was giulty of sept 11 (be it planning, giving the order etc) with out seing the evidence first hand.. there are now poeple who firmly believe the sadam is linked with al quida with out ever being shown the evidence... THis scares the living crap outta me. How can you accept all this purely at face value? and surely being a nation that's a becon of democracy, why the hell are you acepting secret government?

THe problem is that saddam hussien is one of our worst dictators, and i as an arab want him out. But i dont want "freedom" given to the iraqis at gun point by the american admin, who knew full well of what he was upto (as the poeple from amenesty interantional pointed out), but never had any PR ammo... now they do... The intrests of the US admin isn't "freedom" in anyshape or form... because if it was the sanctions wouldn't have been made so tight...

Oil: oil prices will RISE at the threat of war, but once you put in a docile easy to milk regime like saudi's (and I can tell you from poeple i've talked to, it's no better than saddam's).... THe US could stand to make a large amount of money from this venture, but as with all empires, although the pay of is good the bill is long and bloody..

Saddam can have his sanctions lifted, and he woulnd't be abel to do a thing, as he knows, he would face and an unequal return of force... he was told this when he REALLY had WMDs at the start of the gulf war...

I'm sorry I haven't read all the pages, and i haven't had time to make a more coherent argument... I'll be back to check this out... as for now, I've got more f-ing anatomy work to do...

Welcome back, educatedfilm!

I think a lot of people are reacting to entrenched stereotypes instead of examining some more intersting possibilities.

I think we can agree that the Hussein regime is harmful to the people of Iraq. Where differences arise is in the suggested response. Let's step back for a second, and see how things look if we discard some of the 'common knowledge' that colours our perception of the situation.

Put aside the notion that control of Iraq's oilfields is at the heart of this crisis. Return to the 'war against terror' idea for a while, and see how this fits.

Iraq has had ten years in which to prove that there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction in place. Say what you will about the presence, or absence, of UN inspectors, the bottom line is that the conditions Saddam Hussein agreed to at the end of the Gulf War have not been met. Even by the standards of the UN, there is justification for military action. (I might add here, that when the UN apointed Libya to chair the Human Rights Committee, it lost its credibility).

Some background history on US involvement in international conflict:

America was late getting into the Second World War. In fact, the US never officially declared war on Germany. War was declared against Japan after the attack on Pearl Harbour. America's wartime contribution was most important in reclaiming the Pacific theatre from the Japanese. And yes, that led directly to the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The major blow to the German forces in Europe was provided by the Russians, at a loss numbering in the millions of dead and wounded.

Where America earned the right to be proud of itself was in the post-war reconstruction period. General MacArthur was so instrumental in rebuilding Japan after the war that he became a hero to the Japaese people. Under the Marshall Plan, the US poured billions of dollars into rebuiding the destroyed economies of Europe, particularly Germany. Restoring the economies of Germany and Japan, while fostering democratic forms of government, ended the cycle of vengeance and recriminination that caused the Allies to win the First World War, but lose the 'peace' that followed it.

I suggest that Bush has studied the history of his nation enough to understand the situation at present much better than ohters give him credit for. Iraq must be dealt with before it becomes a bio-nuclear-armed menace.

It is no coincidence that its main target is the only democratic government in the region. For all its faults, Israel is the only country in the area that is not ruled by some form of dictatorship. This is at the root of much of the fear and hatred directed at it by the surrounding regimes.

Now, what happens when the US, with or without an international coalition, removes Saddam Hussein from power, and supports the kind of transition to democracy that was fostered in post-war Japan? The economic sanctons are lifted, the oilfields go back into production. Iraq may or may not join OPEC. Either way, the wealth produced from oil exports reaches more of the people because it is no longer being diverted to support a totalitarian police state. People discover a kind of personal freedom and responsibility that is unknown in any other part of the Arab world. And that causes great nightmares for the House of Saud, the Syrians, the Jordanians, and the regimes in Oman, Yemen, and the UAE!

It is useful to remember that most of the terrorist hijackers who took part in the attacks of 11 September 2001 were Saudis. Osama Bin Laden is Saudi. The Wahibi form of Islam that foments violent destruction of the decadent West is Saudi in origin. Contemplate the future of such evils in a democraticly governed Arab society. At the moment, they are useful to the ruling Suadis as a distracton from there own abuse of power.

It is important to realise that before these "Islamic" terrorists turned their venom on America, they were killing, torturing and violating fellow Muslims! These terrorists do not represent the majority of Muslims any more than the vile Ian Paisley of Ireland represented all of Christendom.