<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/10/washington.terror.plot/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/10/washington.terror.plot/index.html</a></p>
<p>I think it might not be so much that people want to harm us for what we believe in, but instead for our attitude towards interfering with what they believe in.</p>
<p>But I could be being overly simplistic about this.</p>
<p>Yup subjugating women to the status of housepets, killing all free thought, and living in the 1500’s are good things. But that might be simplistic.</p>
<p>I ment the headline that we were at war with islamic terrorists</p>
<p>I was actually watching this live. For the first time, Bush has done something right. I remember back when he apologized to Muslims and said Islam is a religion of peace. Maybe this guy is beginning to realize the truth. Congrats Bush.</p>
<p>Well, cnn has never been very good at crafting headlines - let alone whatever follows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Congratulations on lumping together 1/3 of the world’s population. Really, bravo. That’s just impressive. Islam, like every other religion, can be manipulated and abused to suit the needs of those individuals who desire to do violence upon others. I would argue that Islam provides the excusable ideology that Communism provided for much of the Cold War for the petty power grabs and terror unleashed upon society. Organizations such as Al Qaeda (which, in truth is not really an organization so much as a borader movement, similar to Communism), have seized upon the militant ideology available to them and in turn has spawned imitations. </p>
<p>President Bush, by playing to this stereotype, in no way addresses the myiad of root causes and grievences held by Islamicists around the world.</p>
<p>Moderate Muslims must help identify and eliminate/marginalize those who kill in the name of Islam. Until they do that, and very few have to date, then we have no choice but to go to war with Islamic fanatics. If that offends moderate Muslims, perhaps they aren’t moderates after all.</p>
<p>Well, Al-Quaida used to be an orginization, but lots of bombs and troops made it into a movement</p>
<p>It’s really the most fundamental logic. Let’s just say that the following sentence is true (It is not, but for the moment, let’s pretend it is true)</p>
<p>All terrorists are muslims.</p>
<p>OK, even if this is true, it does not follow that all muslims are terrorists.</p>
<p>Got that?</p>
<p>Well, Bush did say we’re at war with Islamic terrorists, not Islam.</p>
<p>Why don’t we listen to what the President of Iran and the followers of Islam who want to blow up planes say? They hate us because we are Christian, or Jewish, or believe in Western style liberalism. We are infidels. That’s the root cause. How does President Bush address that root cause? Tell people that they have to convert to Islam?</p>
<p>Yeah, you think the wacked-out republicans are conservative? You should see these terrorist guys.</p>
<p>Actually, what I meant, barrons, is that we took it upon ourselves to invade a country and institute our beliefs over a longstanding society based as much in religion as anything else, on the basis of retaliating against terrorism. While it may have been less than ideal, democracy isn’t playing out too well either, and this war has gone way past retaliating for september 11.</p>
<p>“President Bush, by playing to this stereotype, in no way addresses the myiad of root causes and grievences held by Islamicists around the world.”</p>
<p>Absolutely despicable statement. The “root cause” is that we are not Muslim.</p>
<p>^ well, it doesn’t help that not only are we not muslim, but we’re trying to make iraq dispose of many of their societal and governmental ideas that were based in islam.</p>
<p>Most of Islam is perfectly fine. I wonder when the last time these terrorist guys went on the hajj.</p>
<p>I say this because of the case of Malcom X. While he wasn’t radical like these guys were, he wasn’t opposed to violence to pursue his cause. Then he went on the hajj, and while there, he saw Islam for what it was. He came back to America, preached peace and love, and was quickly shot by the radicals he used to be a part of.</p>
<p>
And this is bad why? Becuase “Islamic fascits” isn’t redundant? Seriously people - we recognize that “eco-terrorists” distinguishes those nutjobs from your standard tree-huggers; likewise, “Islamic fascists” differentiates between Muslims and suicide bombers who act in the name of their religion.</p>
<p>Several part response:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay. Fine, terrorists hate our freedom.</p>
<p>The root causes I was refering for example is the difference between say Hezbollah and Hamas. Hezbollah is a Shiite organization sponsored by Iran with the expressed purpose of driving Israel out from Southern Lebanon which Israel occupied for 18 years. Hamas on the other hand is a Sunni organization with a militant wing with the express goal of erasing Israel from the earth and creating a Palastinian state. If the two were to meet (as we’ve seen in Iraq) theymost likely would be fighting each other. Another example is Shamil Basayev, the Chechen “Islamic” terrorist. The Chechens practice a very loose, modern version of Islam compared to the Wahhabi version practiced in Saudi Arabia and propagated by Al Qaeda and their ilk. Basayev himself could barely be considered Muslim before the 2nd Chechen war began. He only turned overtly “Islamic” when it became obvious he could attact funding from groups across the Islamic world by pandering to their beliefs. Finally, the separatists in Aceh, Indonesia, are considered “Islamic terrorist” because they are fighting for a separate state within Indonesia. </p>
<p>Do all of these groups have any connection other then they use Islam as a ideology? No. </p>
<p>Is it fairly obvious that they have different reasons for fighting? Yes.</p>
<p>To say that you can lump together “Islamic terror” is like saying you can lump together Christian churches.</p>
<p>Apologies, I misunderstood your meaning.</p>