" 

 :I was not being rude at all.  Calling you a shit-eating, uncle-fucking donkey rapist, that would have been rude, but I have not done that. 

 :As to Cyprus, I am not sure what that has to do with Islam at all.  Turkey is a secular state. 

 :But none of this matters here.  If you want to discuss pros and cons of Islam, the political developments in Cyrprus, etc., there is Usenet and a bzillion discussion forums that you can use.  The Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. 

 :You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of NPOV.  The purpose of the Wikipedia is not presenting ""objective truth"" (which is more elusive than some people realize), but a presentation of available knowledge on the subject from the neutral point of view. 

 :So, the following is not NPOV: 

 :""Islam forbids attacks on civilian targets, and there are no Islamic terrorists.  People who get killed by the muhajedeen deserve it."" 

 :Neither is this: 

 :""Muslims are bloodthirsty maniacs who delightly in killing infidels, especially women and children."" 

 :Note that I did not say anything about the truth or falsehood of the above statements - merely that they are not NPOV. 

 :But the following would be NPOV: 

 :""According to CAIR and so-and-so and such-and-such, and other prominent Muslim theologians, Islam forbids attacks on civilian targets, and any attacks on civilians in the name of Islam are contrary to teachings of Islam.  However, according to Daniel Pipes, they are really apologists for terrorism, who half-heartedly condemn it strictly for PR purposes."" 

 :""The issue is further complicated by whats-his-name, who takes the view that attacks against civilian targets are permitted if they are in retaliation for enemy's attack on one's own civilian targets.  The extent to which this view represents the views of Muslims is in dispute.  According to Daniel Pipes, 95% of all Muslims think this.  But according to Prof. Dorkenburger, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Utana and author of 'You are an intolerant bastard', Daniel Pipes is an intolerant bastard."" 

 :Daniel Pipes, Prof. Dorkenburger, Usama bin Laden, and people from CAIR could all read the above and agree that it describes the situation accurately.  This would not require them to agree on whether or not Mr. Pipes is an intolerant bastard, whether or not CAIR is lying through its teeth, whether or not Prof. Dorkenburger has the slightest clue, or whether or not the people in the WTC deserved to die. 

 :Hope this clarifies things for you.   "