There have been a series of posts in these comments (as well as from the lunatic pants-peeing right wingers originally quoted by Glenn) alleging in a very simplistic manner that Islam itself is an incredibly dangerous and anti-democratic force. (And not components or elements of Muslim individuals or groups such as extremists, or totalitarians, or fundamentalists, but "Islam" per se.)

I presented a summarized speech from a Muslim woman arguing about what is needed to preserve and extend democracy in her society. Which is a Muslim society. Which is currently under attack from many directions, including from Islamic rebels.

In her argument she does not suggest that any part of helping support those valued goals would be to demonize Islam as a magically anti-democratic force. Thus she suggests that forces which strengthen or weaken democracy are not the faith identification of the population, but other, more identifiable and actionable factors.

Is that confusing still?

It was your follow up, you know, the last paragraph that I quoted that I don't get. Syntax, grammar, the usual suspects. Does not compute. Unnerstand?

-- totallyblase

Versus:

However, here is one real person, one real woman, in a real Muslim nation, who does not appear to believe that her cause of moderation, equality, and democracy in her society will be advanced by simplistic screeds that Islam against whom all civilized peoples must battle or die.

Why did you find this passage difficult? Do you normally require that English teachers sit beside you, helping you diagram English sentences before you comprehend?

Here's a simplified version for the diagrammatically disabled:

Here is...one...who does not...believe that her cause...will be advanced by simplistic screeds.

Better? Able to read now, with a warm bottle of milk to make it go down better than the coffee which makes you jittery?

Get over it. If you want to make a point, get your act together.

Now, go away boy, you're bothering me . . .

-- totallyblase

You'll notice me disagreeing strongly with people's substantive point but not crying into my milk about how some grammatical error wrenched me into being unable to comprehend the substantive point.

And you didn't just say, hey, that's a sentence with too many comma phrases and, gosh, you dropped an entire phrase.

I read it once. Refilled my coffee mug, read it again. Went to the bathroom and washed my face with cold water, and read it a third time. Same as baseball. Only three swings at the ball and you're out. I think you were trying to say something, and maybe quite cleverly in your own mind, but sorry, somewhere between the cup and the lip . . . . alas

Cue closeup! Camera 3! I want my closeup!!!

A whole camp show script about having to stare dumbly, drink coffee, you couldn't understand it, try again, 1-2-3 step kick, and you couldn't understand it, jazz hands while gliding left and you still couldn't understand it. (Note: that was not a grammatically proper sentence, the main subject-verb phrase of the sentence is missing and is implicit. Do you need a touch up of your make-up and a rundown of your blocking?)

I mean, you apparently re-enacted the entire Rocky Horror Picture Show because someone on blog comments wrote a long and convoluted sentence.

The problem with comprehension wasn't from a long sentence which dropped a key phrase. It was because you had no substantive response to what non-disabled people could understand to be the points made by the 'young lady' and what they had to do with the lunatics recommending that we all just admit that "Islam" is the problem.

Welcome to Chinese Restaurant. Please try your Nice Chinese Food with Chopsticks the traditional and typical of Chinese glorious history. and cultual.