Ah, Tom. There's a very slippery slope here, with a precipice at the bottom. Not a good runout. Traps, and questions. And, reality.

I'm sure you can see the difference between trying to use

one extremist as an example of an entire religion of one billion people, spread across one-third of the world, and

quoting the appointed defence minister of a nation and using him as a representative of that nation.

Aschroft, for instance, can't speak for all Christianity. Not appointed. Can speak as a Christian. Not all Christians are uptight enough to cover "Justice". Would be considered, rightly, an extremist.

He can be quoted as a representative of this administration, however.

There is a difference between a secular nation and it's representatives, the people designated to speak for that nation,

and a theology which knows no national boundaries.

And then you go on to quote the same Hizbullah representative as a representative of all Islam. There have been many, many Islamic representatives repudiating these guys.

Clearly they do not represent even a minority of Islam. Clearly you choose to believe they do represent Islam.

What I'm wondering is why people choose to deliberately pick inflamatory statements from a small, very small, minority of Muslims and try to ascribe them to all Muslims?

Why would people want to spread hatred and prejudice?

They have to ignore evidence. For instance, the US working with Pakistani Muslims, the US installing a Muslim regime in Afghanistan, the Muslims in Uzbekistan, and the other regions of the former USSR. Clearly there is no Muslim or Islamic plot against the US.

They have to ignore the majority of Muslims. And they are saying the Muslim US citizens are traitors, or not Muslims. Can a Navy brig be far away from them if the people who ascribe to all Muslims the beliefs of a few have their way?

It's curious. I don't want to believe the implications of all that.

Arf