I understand your point, but it has inaccuracies. First-off they will eat pig to fit in, if it will advance to completing the task...noted during the 19 hi-jackers of Sep 11th. Secondly, there is a difference between terrorist. But the tactics stay the same when fighting them. I have referenced this several times before, but read "When Devils Walk The Earth" by Ralph Peters. Enjoy Vapid

The enemy has always been the fanatic, and every religion has had its "questionable" prophets and followers. Besides, if Islam itself was a recognized threat to the Western world, why does the US military itself acknowledge Islam as legitimate, and for that matter, actually contain muslim chaplains? Two and three decades ago, there were Irish men and women using their variations of Catholism and/or Christianity to kill British soldiers in Ireland, much the same way radicals in the Middle East are doing now: terror bombs (even part of the Bible suggests, "you're either for God, or against Him, there's no middle ground. And that you should be about in the world "slaying His enemies/infidels".) That's no different than what some muslims have chosen to do. There is nothing glorious about committing cold-blooded murder in the name of any god (even devout Satanists do not go around with a bloodlust for murdering innocent children with IEDs, or even go terror-bombing christian churches): using religion to cover your dirty work has always been, and will be for a long time, one more justification for mankind to kill that which he chooses to fear and not understand (other cultures and beliefs.) There is nothing divine or glorious about the behavior of islamist fanatics: they're just stupid. But clerics have brainwashed them into doing their dirty work in the name of some Almighty's jihad, and the fanatics are foolish enough to follow them. Like when you try and get rid of dandelions to keep your lawn looking even green: you don't just pull out the weed: you have to destroy it by the roots. And too many clerics have been "seeding" evil variations of islam in the minds of so many people, just as there have been questionable preachers here in the US and other countries. Just pulling out the weeds doesn't solve the problem: you have to kill the source that's seeding and encouraging the weeds to grow (the root.) And there are far more effective (and civilized) methods of getting your point across (democracy and voting: let ALL the people's voices be heard, not just the clerics.) Terrorism solves nothing: it only antagonizes the situation. But fanatics are too stupid to realize that, and they accept without question whatever the clerics command of them (just like a good little follower, always obey, never question.) I absolutely abhor its use, but if assassination is the solution, then perhaps it must be done. Martyrdom, nothing: the dead cannot encourage evil intent as much as the living.

"Two and three decades ago, there were Irish men and women using their variations of Catholism and/or Christianity to kill British soldiers in Ireland, much the same way radicals in the Middle East are doing now" I don't believe this is true. I assume that you are referring to the IRA, hardly a catholic or christian organization. The political philosophy of most IRA members was generally some variant of Marxism. They wanted to drive the British out of Northern Ireland, but they were not doing so in the name of Catholicism. I don't doubt that you could get some nut who would kill people in the name of Christ, but he would quickly be disavowed by any Christian religion. This type of argument was used for Timothy McVeigh. Timothy McVeigh rejected Catholicism and was a nihilist. His actions were based on his radical anti-government beliefs not Catholicism. Hitler and Stalin were both raised as Christians, but they rejected their respective religions and their subesequent crimes had nothing to do with their former religion, but with their later politics. Unfortunately Bin Laden and his ilk drape themselves in the mantle of Islam and in their interpretation of the Koran. I agree that Islam in and of itself is not a threat but it is being used as such by a psychotic fringe element.

I beg to differ on the point that Islam is not anyone's enemy. As a political / religious philosophy, it does contain ideas that specifically target certain named groupings and classifications of people as enemies. We find ourselves at the crossroads where action meets actor, Islam meets Muslim. It's all in how Islam is implemented. It's my belief that Osama Bin Laden implements Islam as intended by its pre-scientific desert barbarian authors. Especially when he kills people. He's literally "doing Islam." But we're back to actions and actors. We can say communism is oppressive, but really all we can do is show that communists have been oppressive. I don't buy into the technicality that because Karl Marx never mentioned AK-47s that these communist oppressors hijacked a noble philosophy, so attempting to seperate Muslim terrorists from examples of Islam-in-action is an even harder sell. Ultimately, wrapping the corpses of dead Muslim terrorists in pig carcasses is not going to do anything but outrage the easily incited. I don't think it will increase or decrease the number of active Muslim terrorists, but it does give them "outrage" to point at for their recruitment. We just gotta make sure that when action meets actor, Islam meets Muslim, the actor doesn't already consider being wrapped in pig flesh to be more outrageous than 3,000 people dying in flames and collapsing concrete. The problem is exactly that.

Muslims are different, first of all they don’t trust in freedom and equality; more, terrorists are fanatics who trust to go straightway to their Heaven when death killing faithless people. We have no way to punish them: they aren’t afraid of death, what more we can do? --------------------------- I don't think that is quite accurate; I am sure I will go to heaven but that doesn't eliminate my fear. Terrorists are not just devout, they are nuts so it is hard to read their minds.

So suggesting that Islam itself IS adversarial to western cultures, does that then suggest that the US military is actually adding to/encouraging dissention within its own ranks by incorporating muslims in its chaplain corps? As to the point I made about Ireland (Protestants vs Catholics), here's one person's essay, with reasonably decent citation to back it up (to anyone interested, I would suggest reading the books listed in the biblio): http://allfreeessays.com/student/Northern_Ireland_Conflict-Religion_vs_Politics.html Religious strife, mostly sects of christianity and catholicism, has painted the history of Europe in blood. So many of the conflicts throughout european history, even that which was dragged into the Far East and New World, and the Crusades, were about doing "God's work", and divine right stuff: so back in the day, that was all the justification needed for europeans to go about killing those who refused their gospel. Seems that Islam is doing no differently today. As to the point of any christian churches denouncing the modern-day false prphets: doubtful. Biblically, Christ discourages worldliness, yet all these prosperity preachers abound. The 10 Commamdments discourage considerable behavior that most churches tolerate (on the grounds that, "we're all just mere mortals, so it should be expected we falter." As if that justifies anything.) Also, what of the 7 deadly sins, that many churches say can be forgiven,..for a nice healthy donation/"sacrificial offering" into the church's funding (but Biblically, the "way to Heaven cannot be bought with gold or silver.") Several years ago, a church I used to attend voiced its outrage over the US BATF handling of the David Koresh/Branch Davidian incident. Sure, the govt went a tad too far, but people needed to realize the monster Koresh had become (how many "mistresses" did he make of his congregation? Reports from survivors suggest some females were minors. Yet very few churches rose to condemn him for his obvious blasphemies and perversions. So all depending on one's interpretation of religious scriptures, can one justify what acts one commits in the world, be they brutal or compassionate. Just as some catholics or christians chose to interpret scriptures more peacefully or more violently than another, so too do some muslims do the same. The saddest interpretation of all is that, whatever divine message was inteded, it was a message of peace, not a message of terror. Religion is man-made, taught in man-made institutions, based on man-made ideals. But there is indeed something spiritual inside a person that runs much deeper than our worldly, corporeal bodies. But some people would rather choose to terrorize in the name of their religion, rather than seek the peace spirituality primarily offers. One tends to wonder: with today's era of worldwide, near-instantaneous media reporting, could a Crusades era be gotten away with as was done centuries ago? Or a modern-day Spanish Inquisition? Or a European nation invade another country all in the name of God, but more directly in the quest for gold? In today's world, could modern versions of European colonial expansion be tolerated? Mostly, such things were done based on any given nation's quest for worldly profit and dominance, backed up by their claims to a Divine Right. It was all the justification that those religions thought they needed back centuries ago. How is that any different than what Islam is doing in places today? (except centuries ago, instead of AKs, IEDs, beheadings, and hijacked airplanes, it was smallpox, bubonic plague, guillotines, and burnings at the stake that killed thousands and millions of "infidels".) Are some members of Islam behaving any more ignorantly and brutally than some members of Christianity and Catholicism have behaved in the past?

"Are some members of Islam behaving any more ignorantly and brutally than some members of Christianity and Catholicism have behaved in the past?' Slavery was legal 150 years ago, but you would not excuse it today becasue of that fact, would you? Because religion "A" did something bad 100s of years ago does not mitigate nor excuse religion "B" doing that same thing today. If you take a look at scientific polls taken in Arab and Islamic regions of this planet you cannot fail to note a significant percentage of those polled who indeed support the use of terrorism against mainly Israel and secondly the US. Look at the literally hundreds of religious schools in these regions that teach anti-semitism, spout anti-US lies, promote hatred of non-believers, and treat women as third-class members of society at best. Look at the dozens of major media sources in these nations (some of which are supported by the State in which they are based) which repeat these lies and parrot the hatred these schools and 'teachers' relate. Show me anywhere where such a degree of religious bigotry, teaching of hatred, and actual desire to harm exists in Western religious establishments today...you can't, hence any attempt to equate the role in terror played by a significant minority of Islamics in the Arab/Islamic world with that of religious establishments in the West falls flat. NewGuy

Several years ago, a church I used to attend voiced its outrage over the US BATF handling of the David Koresh/Branch Davidian incident. Sure, the govt went a tad too far, but people needed to realize the monster Koresh had become (how many "mistresses" did he make of his congregation? Reports from survivors suggest some females were minors. Yet very few churches rose to condemn him for his obvious blasphemies and perversions. ----------------------------- actually i think most churches would regard them as beneath their condemnation