It's important to remember that democracy itself is not necessarily objectionable to even Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, they like it, because given true democracy, they would win elections in countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

What Bin Laden criticizes are our secular values and international military foreign policy. Interestingly enough, both of these have also been criticized by Christian Conservatives, our very own glassy-eyed fundamentalists. (Some of whom even bomb civilian targets!)

We should make no mistake, for many on the extreme right wing of Christianity, the fight on terrorism is just a proxy for their global fight against all religions but their own, and they speak in t...

It's important to remember that democracy itself is not necessarily objectionable to even Islamic fundamentalists. In fact, they like it, because given true democracy, they would win elections in countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

What Bin Laden criticizes are our secular values and international military foreign policy. Interestingly enough, both of these have also been criticized by Christian Conservatives, our very own glassy-eyed fundamentalists. (Some of whom even bomb civilian targets!)

We should make no mistake, for many on the extreme right wing of Christianity, the fight on terrorism is just a proxy for their global fight against all religions but their own, and they speak in these terms.

Think of all the times that we talk not about defeating terrorism or tyrants, but of "defeating radical Islam" where in the term "radical" is simply a term arbitrarily injected to make the sentence "defeating Islam" sound a little bit better. If anyone doubts it, just try explaining to me the theological differences between "radical" Islam and Islam.

Tough question and this is likely and insufficient overly simple answer but:

I think the question is - is there an actual way in which peaceful co-existence can happen. Huntington argued no, but has since been the subject of substantial criticism inside and outside of the academic community. Interestingly enough though, several friends in the military (ROTC types) have mentioned that in their education on the Middle East, they had to read Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" (a book arguing that Islam and democratic western values are fundamentally at odds and will inevitably fight). The fact that our military is being trained that our conflict is inevitable can in no way help de-escalate....

Tough question and this is likely and insufficient overly simple answer but:

I think the question is - is there an actual way in which peaceful co-existence can happen. Huntington argued no, but has since been the subject of substantial criticism inside and outside of the academic community. Interestingly enough though, several friends in the military (ROTC types) have mentioned that in their education on the Middle East, they had to read Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" (a book arguing that Islam and democratic western values are fundamentally at odds and will inevitably fight). The fact that our military is being trained that our conflict is inevitable can in no way help de-escalate. So 1st who really is devoted to conflict?

Whatever our motives and the manner in which that has become rationalized or institutionalized, what are fertile grounds for terrorism? Those who lack, who suffer oppression, and who have witnessed some of the hypocrisies of the western system are probably ripe (a very mainstream perspective).

This may be optimism but I'd argue if we eliminated our oppressive measures in Iraq and Afghanistan, and thus corrected the hypocracies we have created (things like condemning Sadam for torture but in turn partaking in it) we'd deescalate the scenario. Shows of respecting Islamic culture might also be worth while - why not turn some of that PR away from elections and towards promoting our image abroad.

Sounds too easy? Well consider this, we've ramped up campaigns that are anti-islamic and raised the bar for extreme oppression. Classic islamic conflicts like Palestine pale in comparison to the US occupation of two Islamic countries. If withdrawals and policy shifts happened they might claim victory, but I doubt that is a greater call than self-righteous cries of indignation against oppression.

Is letting them have their own country really giving putting them on the same level as the US? Cute comment aside are you seriously equating the two? I'd be curious to hear how a democratic Afghanistan or Iraq - or hey even Islamic World - is analogous in world standing to the US. And if "we" clean up this sham we call a democracy than let them be like us (in that regard)!

I have to question on what level saying "power corrupts" answers anything. Its like when the biography channel/e entertainment says in almost every program "but then fame would turn to disaster" or some similar rubbish. As if fame mandates drugs, promiscuity, alcoholism etc. etc. as if no further explanation was necessary...

Is letting them have their own country really giving putting them on the same level as the US? Cute comment aside are you seriously equating the two? I'd be curious to hear how a democratic Afghanistan or Iraq - or hey even Islamic World - is analogous in world standing to the US. And if "we" clean up this sham we call a democracy than let them be like us (in that regard)!

I have to question on what level saying "power corrupts" answers anything. Its like when the biography channel/e entertainment says in almost every program "but then fame would turn to disaster" or some similar rubbish. As if fame mandates drugs, promiscuity, alcoholism etc. etc. as if no further explanation was necessary - I pray life has more potential for variation than that. People are responsible for their actions be they famous rich ignorant or not.