1. I have already said I am aware there are interpretations of Islamic theology/jurisprudence that are powerful factors in creating extremists. In certain areas, Islam can be very useful to theocrats and radical tacticians in maintaining power and motivating people to kill themselves for a higher cause. I've also said there is a large divide in Islam based on interpretation; I think that is the real litmus test of the future. You are not understanding my larger point so I'll expand. Harping about Islam, while ignoring eveything else, is ignorant for several reasons:
- A: If Islam was sufficient, in itself, to cause terrorism there would be a regular distribution of extremists across the world, regardless of the historical, cultural, political, and socio-economic make-up of the countries in which they live. As I said before, Xinjiang is not Nigeria. Ghettoes in France are not suburban Iranian communities in Southern California. I never said underdevelopment alone is SUFFICIENT to cause terrorism, but only a bonehead would think it plays no role whatsoever.
- B: No religion is monolithic. Christianity today is absolutely nothing like it was a millenium ago. It took bloody wars, the collapse of colonial empires, and the rise of enlightenment thinkers to transform Western societies into what they are today. The religion had no choice but to adapt if it wanted to remain relevant. This is how progress happens.
- C: Blaming Islam only is pointless -- it just stokes the coals of smug, self-righteous fury in Western boneheads. Some people get off on reducing complex social phenomena into "good vs. bad" conflicts, so that they can feel like the good guy. These types get a rush out of frothing at the mouth about how Islam is the enemy when another suicide bombing takes place in Iraq or Israel. I think this kind of mentality is embarrassing. It's also politically counterproductive for the reasons I've stated to kiwi_trader.
2. Your repeated mention of the wealth of bin Laden and others is not a counterargument to what I've been saying, any more than me bringing up one 17 year old, fatherless, poor Palestinian suicide bomber is proof of my argument. Not even highschool kids would think like that. I'm looking at things systematically, and I'm not making a controversial argument. If you can't understand this, then I'm not going to try to explain myself further. You'll just end up ignoring what I say and repeating yourself later.
Usually it takes a few posts to get a sense of the kind of person on the other end. When you said something about getting through to my "cerebellum," I realized that there's probably not much more fruitful conversation here. Furthermore, while you demanded every Middle Eastern country apologize for the slaying of a nun, you called for impartiality and a trial of the soldiers in Haditha. The nature of both incidents seem straightforward to me (the latter has pretty much been verified by the Pentagon and the press). I think this is enough for me to intuit what kind of person you are, and I can probably predict a whole range of political positions you have based on that alone. I'll let you have the last word.
