Obama Chooses Joe Biden as VP

[KillerGremlin]

I agree for the most part...I agree that a "terrorist" is someone who targets innocent or unarmed people, and usually attacks are done for some gain or reason (such as fear). I also agree that the Al-Qaeda are beyond reasoning and beyond negotiating. I am also aware of pre-Gulf War attacks, but I wasn't aware that they started as early as the 60s. That is new and interesting information, and I thank you for presenting it. I'd like to think there is some deeper political meaning behind the terrorists other than fear of westernization. I understand that our western culture is very much so in conflict with the Middle East. However, what is our primary motivation for originally getting involved with the Middle East? Perhaps I need to do more research, but at the current time, we are in the Middle East "spreading Democracy" and getting oil.

That's my limited view. As for the suicide-bombing, and the 70 virgins or whatever...I think it is all crazy. Most of the people who partake in the suicide bombings are mentally unstable as you said, and brainwashed. Truly a tragedy.

I'm not advocating terrorism, or suggesting I agree with the Al Qaeda. I just think a "War on Terror" is a flawed way to go about dealing with the issue, and I think it was deceptive advertising by our current administration.

[Professor S]

To answer your question, I first got interested after 9/11, because I wanted to know more about fundamentalist muslims and their motivations. The more I learned, the more shocked I've become. I was looking for some commonality, something within the society that gave hope for a future without such hatred and violence, and I've only found one answer: Reformation.

The key problem with Islam today, and not just extremist sects, is that it is still considered the absolute literal word of God. There is no interpretation. It is what it is, and everything else is heretical and will come to Allah either willingly or by force.

The problem with this view is that there ARE different interpretations of Islam, and so we have Suni's and Shites at each other's throats for a thousand years. To give you an western allegory; it would be like Methodists and Lutherans shooting RPG'as at each other.

Cristianity USED to be like this, and there is a long sad history of horror caused by the Catholic church, but after the reformation much of this changed. All Christian faiths became much more tolerant of each other in time, and in turn other religions as well, and the Western world has benefitted greatly from this.

In the same time period, the Middle East has essentially remained in the dark ages, relying on Western technology and know how to even get their own oil out of the ground. It is a sad history of a sado-masochistic culture that is in desperate need of change. There are some that want to change it, but unfortunately the "no interpretations" clause still gets in the way. Too many moderates refuse to publicly denounce and work towards global islamic reform because they completely separate their form of Islam from all others, not realizing that the worst makes the good seem bad.

[The Germanator]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I'm not advocating terrorism, or suggesting I agree with the Al Qaeda. I just think a "War on Terror" is a flawed way to go about dealing with the issue, and I think it was deceptive advertising by our current administration.

I totally agree with this and I had a professor who explained pretty well why the idea of a "War on Terror" is flawed. It's flawed because terrorism is a type of war tactic, like trench warfare in WWI for example. To declare war on a specific tactic itself just doesn't make sense. It's too abstract. Wars against a specific foe are can be just, but wars against abstract tactics of war ("terror/terrorism") go against rationality.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by The Germanator

I totally agree with this and I had a professor who explained pretty well why the idea of a "War on Terror" is flawed. It's flawed because terrorism is a type of war tactic, like trench warfare in WWI for example. To declare war on a specific tactic itself just doesn't make sense. It's too abstract. Wars against a specific foe are can be just, but wars against abstract tactics of war ("terror/terrorism") go against rationality.

Your professor was arguing semantics and concentrating his objection on small points and not the greater issue. The "War on Terror" is a three word name for a complex issue. We're not fighting the tactic, we're fighting those that use the tactic.