[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

What exactly do you think is different about the Crusades, Kev? Or the Inquisition? Do you believe Western nations have evolved beyond that sort of atrocity for those sorts of reasons? Although I would disagree that would certainly be an arguable position.

It is arguable, but I'll concede you the point.

The problem with this "aww shucks, all religion has its nuts" argument is that it completely overlooks some serious systemic problems not only in islam, but more specifically in the middle East. I won't get into them, because we've been there a million times.

It's my understanding of where other nations, cultures, and religions have been in the past that makes me take Islamic extremism so seriously. This isn't just a small group of crazies causing a lot of problems. And while the actual number of people blowing themselves up and fighting in iraq may be very small, relative to the size of the muslim faith, it doesn't mean there aren't serious cultural and governmental problems that encourage terrorism.

Do you think that past genocides and holy wars are irrelevant to the current situation because they aren't happening now and this is? Again, defensible, but I would say the past might be instructive and serves as a decent shield against arogance and superiority

If you were actually doing this I'd say yes. But what you, and others are actually doing is playing the moral equivalence game. Some look at history and see it as a reason to take action. Others seem to look at it and take it as an excuse for apathy and blind relativism. As if suicide bombing and intolerance were just phases these nations go through, heck, they'll grow out of it. We did!

I mean, how could we POSSIBLE criticize Islamic extremists who killed a reporter this year? WE BOMBED JAPAN! AND WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM, AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS!!? IT WOULD BE SOOO HYPOCRITICAL!!

I feel like I'm perfectly capable of feeling guillt for our own wrong doings, for the wrongs of my country, my religion, and whoever else, while at the same time calling out other evils. My guilt-meter can multi-task.

We actively encouraged and empowered Islamic fundamentalism in a few global hotspots during. Perhaps encouraging religous fundamentalism is a bad idea an we might think about not encouraging it in the future. It may be that encouraging and empowering religous zealots could be counterproductive even if, and this is highly speculative, they are not Muslims.

AND OMG, THE GUILT!!! HELP ME, I'M LIBERAL AND FEEL SHAME!!

Do two wrongs make a right? Is bad policy in the past justification for irresponsible policy today? Do we let radical Islam slide, even at the expense of our security, because we supported it in the past?

I'm not saying that we aren't currently fighting Islamic extremism. I'm saying I think we are fighting it blindly, poorly, and in a way which entrenches and supports our enemy, and that this is largely due to arrogance. I don't think it would hurt to remeber that we have not been holier than thou for very long in the march of history and there are no guaranties we will remain holier than thou.

We have made mistakes. But currently, there is no contest.

I agree with you wholeheartedly however that we are doing some things wrong. I would love to have a different administration take this on, one that's tough on radical Islam, as well as terrorism supporting states, yet with a little bit more tact, a lot more diplomacy, and less with the trigger happy.

I don't like the Bush administration, however I still realize that we have a very clear enemy in this fight.

I think one thread that brought us to the moment we are now in (just one among many, don't get nutty on me) is that we are of God and they are not. Amidst the many reasons we went to war, I think in there, to some degree, far less crazy than what it takes to behead someone, it helped that W is (by his own description) a fundamentalist.

It's his fundamentalism that has helped free a heck of a lot of muslims from a tyrannical regime. I have no problem with presidents using their faith to help them determine their decisions, just as long as they respect the boundaries of faith we have here in America.

Past presidents, some of our greatest, used religious rhetoric to justify everything form wars to economic policies. I don't believe that this was a "Crusade" on Dubya's part.