Osama Bin Laden is Dead

Just curious, how many times did his name have to be written in the Death Note anyway?

But yeah, war on terror is hardly over. Someone new will come out and continue the Islamic extremism. All because America interfered with the Iranian revolt and tried to keep the shah in power. Seriously, we gotta stop getting in another country's business, not until we get all of the facts, at least.

Gemini Spark said:

But yeah, war on terror is hardly over. Someone new will come out and continue the Islamic extremism. All because America interfered with the Iranian revolt and tried to keep the shah in power. Seriously, we gotta stop getting in another country's business, not until we get all of the facts, at least.

Click to expand...

The role America has played in shaping the Middle East is only nominally the reason. Here's the real basis of Middle Eastern hatred for America: Islamic fundamentalists can't abide that a culture of nonbelievers would vastly outstrip their "righteous" culture politically and economically. They view the very fact that we are more prosperous as a source of humiliation. They would therefore despise America even if we had stayed completely neutral to their affairs throughout the twentieth century.

Fawfulfan said:

The role America has played in shaping the Middle East is only nominally the reason. Here's the real basis of Middle Eastern hatred for America: Islamic fundamentalists can't abide that a culture of nonbelievers would vastly outstrip their "righteous" culture politically and economically. They view the very fact that we are more prosperous as a source of humiliation. They would therefore despise America even if we had stayed completely neutral to their affairs throughout the twentieth century.

Click to expand...

I really have to disagree here. While the United States is currently the world power, it's hard to hate someone who has never directly affected you. Do you hate Bill Gates enough to commit suicide in an attempt on his life?

The real issue is our Cold War era diplomatic policies against the spread of Communism along with a cultural disconnect on the reaction to those policies. A great example that might make more sense to you is the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Japanese culture is very different from American culture, and the Japanese generals in charge of the attack put their own morals and culture into their expectation of the reaction. They expected us to bow our heads in defeat as we had lost in honorable combat, and therefore leave Japan alone to do their thing in the Pacific. This is of course exactly the opposite of what happened, and as an American I'm sure you know that you would have likely reacted the same way that Americans at the time reacted. While this may sound foolish in hindsight, it's very hard to judge the reactions of cultures that may be very different from your own, and our own Cold War strategies for preventing the spread of Communism fell into this trap as well.

Our Cold War policies made plenty of sense at the time to us, and were of course perfectly well-meaning in our attempt to stop the spread of the evil we considered communism to be. You need only look at Vietnam to see how our well-intentioned foreign policy could be warped into something that honestly was about as far from having a positive effect as possible. While I personally don't understand the effect that these policies had in the Middle East as I, like the policy makers at the time, don't really understand the cultural impact these decisions would have, it's clear that they managed to piss off a significant percentage of the Arab population instead of the intended effect of stopping the spread of communism, and when that cultural irritation also happens to coincide with a significant poor population of young males with no future and the belief that they can do good by killing themselves for the cause, THAT is where you end up with suicide bombers.

One only needs to look at the recent revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya to get a perspective on the real issue. Our policies at the time ended up putting some authoritarian dictators into power because that was considered better than communism, and several decades of abuse at the hands of those dictators has generated some considerable resentment. Our relative prosperity has almost nothing to do with it.

Mystic said:

The real issue is our Cold War era diplomatic policies against the spread of Communism along with a cultural disconnect on the reaction to those policies. A great example that might make more sense to you is the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Japanese culture is very different from American culture, and the Japanese generals in charge of the attack put their own morals and culture into their expectation of the reaction. They expected us to bow our heads in defeat as we had lost in honorable combat, and therefore leave Japan alone to do their thing in the Pacific. This is of course exactly the opposite of what happened, and as an American I'm sure you know that you would have likely reacted the same way that Americans at the time reacted. While this may sound foolish in hindsight, it's very hard to judge the reactions of cultures that may be very different from your own, and our own Cold War strategies for preventing the spread of Communism fell into this trap as well.

Click to expand...

But you just said it yourself - we are dealing with a cultural disconnect. We are attempting to apply our own standards of outrage and anger to these people, and the fact is that it's simply not enough to account for their actions. I don't mean to say that our interference in the Middle East has made no difference; clearly it has. But it isn't the core of this cultural clash. The main problem is that we are dealing with a society that is rife with intolerance and a firm conviction of its own superiority.

Mystic said:

Our Cold War policies made plenty of sense at the time to us, and were of course perfectly well-meaning in our attempt to stop the spread of the evil we considered communism to be. You need only look at Vietnam to see how our well-intentioned foreign policy could be warped into something that honestly was about as far from having a positive effect as possible. While I personally don't understand the effect that these policies had in the Middle East as I, like the policy makers at the time, don't really understand the cultural impact these decisions would have, it's clear that they managed to piss off a significant percentage of the Arab population instead of the intended effect of stopping the spread of communism, and when that cultural irritation also happens to coincide with a significant poor population of young males with no future and the belief that they can do good by killing themselves for the cause, THAT is where you end up with suicide bombers.

Click to expand...

This is the conventional wisdom regarding the conflict in the Middle East, and it rests on a base of flimsy logic. Close examination of this view reveals two major problems.

First, if this is all it takes to inspire suicide bombing, then why the hell isn't suicide bombing a million times more common than it is? Where are the Native American suicide bombers determined to take back their land? Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers eager to spread chaos in China? The history of the world is spattered with the blood of powerful cultures stepping on vulnerable cultures, and yet suicide bombing is a very new phenomenon, practiced in a narrow range of contexts.

Second, you have the suicide bomber demographic completely backwards. Suicide bombers are not typically uneducated males with no prospects - they are usually well-educated men from the upper and middle class. For example, one in three Palestinian suicide bombers has a college education, compared to one in six Palestinian men in general.

The decision to kill oneself requires an astounding level of motivation. People rarely blow themselves up for political reasons. Religion, on the other hand, is a different matter entirely. You don't conduct a suicide bombing without a very good reason - and the belief that you will be richly rewarded in the next life is about as compelling as it gets. In the Middle East, suicide bombings are called "sacred explosions", and there's a pretty important reason for that.

Mystic said:

One only needs to look at the recent revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya to get a perspective on the real issue. Our policies at the time ended up putting some authoritarian dictators into power because that was considered better than communism, and several decades of abuse at the hands of those dictators has generated some considerable resentment. Our relative prosperity has almost nothing to do with it.

Click to expand...

Before I continue, let me state for the record that I completely agree with you that our support of Arab tyrants has been unpardonable. Clearly we have much to atone for in this regard. But the simple brutality of a government can't possibly be the whole story; look at how many people supported the Taliban, who were even worse than the Soviet invaders they drove away. What makes these dictators different is that they had strongly secular agendas, and even took great lengths to suppress religion in their countries. To many in the Arab world, our backing of tyrants such as Gaddafi and Mubarak is tantamount to a direct assault on their faith.

The source of my general distrust for religion lies in a very simple observation: unsubstantiated doctrine tends to be far more conducive to divisiveness and hatred than a genuine thirst for knowledge and truth. Religion is without question the biggest source of unsubstantiated doctrine in the modern world. It unifies individual communities of people, only to pit them against other communities. Religious faith intensifies but contracts the sphere of a person's moral concern - he may experience tremendous solidarity and love for fellow believers, but is much less likely to value nonbelievers as fellow human beings.

Yes, we would be fools to ignore the role twentieth-century politics has played in solidifying hatred for the West in the Arab world. But we would be much bigger fools to forget that it was their faith which strongly predisposed them to such intolerance in the first place. The political conflicts we tend to blame for our problems in the Middle East, such as our involvement in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion, certainly fanned the flames of hatred, but they didn't start the fire. Religious dogma did.

Fawfulfan said:

But you just said it yourself - we are dealing with a cultural disconnect. We are attempting to apply our own standards of outrage and anger to these people, and the fact is that it's simply not enough to account for their actions.

Click to expand...

That is in fact NOT what I was saying. What I'm saying is that our policies were made with the assumption that the people there are like us. That is in fact not the case, and therefore our policies during the Cold War intended to stop the spread of communism instead harmed the people in the region and made the people there hate us, honestly with good reason.

The core of the problem is that our policies ended up doing a lot of harm to the people in the Middle East by propping up the regimes of dictators and scumbags, and therefore a significant percentage of their population has a strong dislike for us. This has nothing to do with our culture, religion, or any other difference. It has everything to do with mistakes made in our past that are damaging us today.

Mystic said:

This has nothing to do with our culture, religion, or any other difference. It has everything to do with mistakes made in our past that are damaging us today.

Click to expand...

Fallin' asleep waiting for someone to post this, also, spending millions of dollars in the mere fact of killing an old man wich hadn't done anything in 10 years and wasn't physically involved in the famous incident (Not like I'm saying he's innocent), is just... Wow, someone was killed... Big deal.

Sonnarkku said:

Fallin' asleep waiting for someone to post this, also, spending millions of dollars in the mere fact of killing an old man wich hadn't done anything in 10 years and wasn't physically involved in the famous incident (Not like I'm saying he's innocent), is just... Wow, someone was killed... Big deal.

Click to expand...

Not to be technical, but bin Laden presided over a large number of attacks since 9/11. The Madrid bombings, the London bombings, not to mention all kinds of smaller terrorist strikes throughout the Middle East itself.

But I get where you're coming from--the end of bin Laden isn't the end of Al Qaeda.

Fawfulfan said:

First, if this is all it takes to inspire suicide bombing, then why the hell isn't suicide bombing a million times more common than it is? Where are the Native American suicide bombers determined to take back their land? Where are the Tibetan suicide bombers eager to spread chaos in China? The history of the world is spattered with the blood of powerful cultures stepping on vulnerable cultures, and yet suicide bombing is a very new phenomenon, practiced in a narrow range of contexts.

Click to expand...

The Tibetans don't suicide bomb because their religion (Hindu) advocates peace. Native Americans are unlikely to suicide bomb as well due to belief of being a part of the earth and killing oneself would be considered harmful to it (however, they are not a stranger to standard warfare). Whereas Islam provides reward for martyrdom. That is my guess.

Second, you have the suicide bomber demographic completely backwards. Suicide bombers are not typically uneducated males with no prospects - they are usually well-educated men from the upper and middle class. For example, one in three Palestinian suicide bombers has a college education, compared to one in six Palestinian men in general.

Click to expand...

The suicide bombers ARE the uneducated males with no prospects. The LEADERS are the wealthy upperclass.

SSNTails said:

The Tibetans don't suicide bomb because their religion (Hindu) advocates peace..

Click to expand...

Buddhism, not Hinduism. Hinduism is primarily located in the subcontinent. People sometimes get these two religions mixed up, but Buddhism and Hinduism are as different from one another as Christianity is from Greek mythology. Buddhism is entirely focused upon rational self-exploration and the internal quest for truth - Buddhists do not actually worship a deity in any traditional sense, which is perhaps unique among modern religions. Hinduism, on the other hand, is a henotheistic religion - that is, a religion which worships a single god that is divisible into many "component" gods.

It's pretty important not to mix up the two, because while Buddhism is indeed generally a religion of peace, a large percentage of Hindus are exceptionally violent, particularly towards Muslims (and Muslims cheerfully return the favor). Pakistan and India are two separate countries mainly because Hindus and Muslims cannot coexist peacefully.

Indeed, the Hindu doctrine of reincarnation and Nirvana is also pretty good at inspiring suicide bombing, as the Tamil Tigers demonstrated in their eagerness to blow themselves up. Although their goal of political autonomy was fairly secular, most of them were devout Hindus, and there can be no doubt that their conception of death predisposed them heavily towards dying for their cause.

SSNTails said:

Native Americans are unlikely to suicide bomb as well due to belief of being a part of the earth and killing oneself would be considered harmful to it (however, they are not a stranger to standard warfare). Whereas Islam provides reward for martyrdom. That is my guess.

Click to expand...

That was kind of my whole point. Some beliefs, including many from mainstream religion, are intrinsically dangerous. Tibetan monks and Native Americans shoulder their unjust treatment because of what they believe. Al Qaeda operatives do what they do because of what they believe. This is what I have been trying to say: what the Arab world believes is more relevant than what the West has done to arouse its wrath.

Yes, we have done some unconscionable things in the Middle East, and maybe some of their anger is justified. Perhaps we should have taken a hardline stance against Middle Eastern tyrants. But perhaps we shouldn't have totally eradicated Native American culture and driven them off their land, either. Somehow, we don't have to answer to them, but we have to answer to religious extremists in the Arab world? The reason can be found in cultural belief.

SSNTails said:

The suicide bombers ARE the uneducated males with no prospects. The LEADERS are the wealthy upperclass.

Click to expand...

Not really; terrorism is from top to bottom a middle-class and upper-class institution, particularly religious terrorism. It is not necessary, or even typical, for suicide bombers to be motivated by a lack of prospects in this life. There is an enormous wealth of data that shows that in most countries and most terrorist networks, even the suicide bombers themselves are usually educated and well off. Astonishingly, terrorists aren't even that much more likely to be bachelors; plenty of suicide bombers have families.

When you consider this last fact, there's actually a very good reason why the lower class isn't more active in terrorism; if a middle class or upper class family man conducts a suicide bombing, the wife and children he leaves behind will probably still be able to support themselves. For those living in poverty, their death will mean the starvation of their family. Only the most passionately devoted will consider that to be a price worth paying.

Members of Al-Qaida have said they will take revenge ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlOIy6QEbes
Enjoy.

SSNTails said:

I agree with Wombatlord. I don't think there's much significance to his death. From what I've read, it sounded like they could have taken him prisoner, but a soldier put a bullet in his head 'when he resisted'. Considering Osama has to be hooked up to a kidney dilation machine, it makes me wonder how much 'resistance' he could have put up.

It's also sort of akin to killing someone that belongs to Anonymous. By their death, you really haven't done much to affect their movement. Since he's been on the run and hiding like a little girl for about 10 years now, I'm not sure the impact it would have on morale, either.

Click to expand...

I hate to contridict the great SSNTails; but Al-Queda's morale will definantly be strangled. When someone joins Al-Queda, they don't swear allegiance to Al-Queda, they swear allegiance to Bin Laden. Now that he's dead we have successfully cut Al-Queda's head off. (metaphorically of course!)

SSNTails said:

The Tibetans don't suicide bomb because their religion (Hindu) advocates peace. Native Americans are unlikely to suicide bomb as well due to belief of being a part of the earth and killing oneself would be considered harmful to it (however, they are not a stranger to standard warfare). Whereas Islam provides reward for martyrdom. That is my guess.

Click to expand...

In some cases, it doesn't matter so much what the religion itself teaches as much as it matters what the people in power teach. It seems to me that suicide bombers are motivated by the teachings of the terrorist groups that plan these things. In a culture where there is no separation of their religion and their state, they motivate their followers both politically and religiously, but I think its a safe bet that their goals are political and not spiritual regardless of their claim.

Yes, we have done some unconscionable things in the Middle East, and maybe some of their anger is justified. Perhaps we should have taken a hardline stance against Middle Eastern tyrants. But perhaps we shouldn't have totally eradicated Native American culture and driven them off their land, either. Somehow, we don't have to answer to them, but we have to answer to religious extremists in the Arab world? The reason can be found in cultural belief.

Click to expand...

Notice we're having a harder time overpowering the Arab world and forcing them to conform to our western ideas? I don't agree with extremism, I believe that you run the deadly risk of becoming your own enemy if you carry something to the extreme... but its a political weapon with a LOT of power.

I don't think religion is the cause for such things as this, I just think that in the hands of certain people like these terrorists, its a tool. As I've said before, their culture is in the midst of much more warfare than ours. So there is far more political motivation for extremism.

JEV3 said:

Notice we're having a harder time overpowering the Arab world and forcing them to conform to our western ideas? I don't agree with extremism, I believe that you run the deadly risk of becoming your own enemy if you carry something to the extreme... but its a political weapon with a LOT of power.

Click to expand...

On one hand, I agree with the general anti-extremism sentiment of your statement, but I have to dispute the claim that we are "overpowering the Arab world" or "forcing them to conform to our Western ideas". It would be ridiculous of me to claim that we have done nothing against the Arab world, and indeed I haven't claimed anything of the sort. Clearly we've done a lot to be ashamed of. But put in the context of the whole history of Western civilization, our interaction with the Arab world in general has been fairly small, to say nothing of our negative impact upon it.

Think about it this way. Discounting our collusion with Arab tyrants, which I have already discussed, Middle Eastern wrath against the West makes far less sense when thought about in terms of secular politics than religious politics. Without religion, how would the Arab world feel about our support of Israel? At most, maybe a tad indignant. With religion? You can hardly blame them for being outraged as all hell...anti-Semitism runs very deep in Islamic doctrine (also in Christian doctrine, but western Christians tend to ignore this). Without religion, how might they feel about our support of the Taliban during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? They might actually be grateful that we helped Afghanistan maintain its political autonomy. With religion? It would seem a source of great humiliation that they would be assisted by a nation of apostates.

Also, consider this: A lot of Middle Eastern leaders are actually a bit more liberal than the pious masses. For example, King Abdullah briefly considered allowing women to obtain drivers' licenses in Saudi Arabia...but his subjects were so outraged by the idea of women drivers that he didn't go through with it. Given that Saudi Arabia is the world's only self-admitted absolute monarchy, and that King Abdullah basically rules the nation with unchecked authority, it's saying a lot that his people forced him to do anything.

JEV3 said:

I don't think religion is the cause for such things as this, I just think that in the hands of certain people like these terrorists, its a tool. As I've said before, their culture is in the midst of much more warfare than ours. So there is far more political motivation for extremism.

Click to expand...

But the point I am trying to make is that it takes so little effort to use religion to justify violence, as opposed to practically any other pillar of human culture you care to name. Historically, logically, and even empirically, it is such an effective inspiration for violence that any other, more conventional explanation for the root cause of violence in the Arab world just seems downright implausible to me. Frankly, the conflict is so much easier to comprehend if you suppose that religious tension led to political tension, rather than the other way around.

The ease of justifying violence with religion has two main effects. First of all, it creates an easy source of people willing to kill for the cause of extremists--namely, those who share their religious beliefs. Such people will not always fall in with those on the fringes (observe, for example the vast majority of the world's nearly two billion Muslims who are not terrorists), but they are certainly more likely to do so. Second of all, those who choose to use religion for more benign purposes are loath to explicitly criticize (or tolerate explicit criticism of) the extremists. Any Muslim who wants to condemn the actions of Al Qaeda generally has only two courses of action: claim that Al Qaeda is somehow misinterpreting the mandates of Islam (which is, for the most part, patently untrue), or admit that the mandates of Islam are themselves to blame.

The real root of the problem, I believe, is that whenever a society accepts that the truth lies in religious text, that society as a whole becomes less capable of deciding right from wrong (which is, of course, the exact opposite effect the founders of our modern religions intended). They must accept that since morality is dictated by God, it need not necessarily correspond with anything that can be directly observed. It's only a short leap from that assumption to the assumption that slaughtering innocent people is justifiable under the "right circumstances".

Of course, religion isn't the only thing that inspires the slaughter of innocents. It happens all the time in the realm of secular politics as well (North Korea, for instance). But the heart of the matter is that in order to murder millions of other people--and feel that you have done the right thing--you must have embraced some form of unsubstantiated dogma or distaste for evidence. And religion is the perfect repository for these darker qualities of human nature. In light of this, I simply find it much more plausible that the violence in the Middle East is the fault of religion, rather than some sort of modern political tension--or, more precisely, that the modern political tension is the result of religion.

VØLT said:

Members of Al-Qaida have said they will take revenge ...

Click to expand...

If that I so, then show us an actual footage of an Al-Qaeda member stating so.

Anyways, so far, I'm pretty much with this:

Dross said:

People asks me "Dross, what do you think of Bin Laden's death?" ...Am I suppoused to celebrate a person's death? a human being that had childhood lived trough his or her life until finally death came? well, that question is pretty malicious, and oftenly it is "sarcastic", expecting you to scream "USA, USA", well, I personally, won't celebrate his death, but I am also not against the ones who dealt him that death, but the fact of being happy about it is an insult to our species wich are meant to be based on respect and not be some murderous monkeys. I was once told "Who kills with iron, is killed with iron", Osama was a terrorist, and the way he ended, was partly his fault, despite the many cultural flaws USA has, I'll leave them with their war against terrorism, aswell as with their war against drugs, sooner or later, they will realize that erradicating conflict with war is like killing a donkey by fapping.

Click to expand...

Fawfulfan said:

You can hardly blame them for being outraged as all hell...anti-Semitism runs very deep in Islamic doctrine (also in Christian doctrine, but western Christians tend to ignore this).

Click to expand...

I haven't read the entire Quran, but the selection that I have doesn't really seem anti-semitic any more than any other religion would be. Take for example the following selections:

Quran said:

Many of the People of the Book wish they might restore you as unbelievers, after you have believed, in the jealousy of their souls, after the truth has become clear to them; yet do you pardon and be forgiving, till God brings His command

Click to expand...

The opening of this section indicates that there is already conflict between Islam and the other Abrahamic Religions (including Judaism and Christianity). Yet it advises them to be forgiving, and to leave that judgment to God.

Take also into account that the first converts to Christianity WERE Jews. In the Acts of the Apostles, in Peter's sermon to the Jews while he does talk about how they handed Jesus over for crucifixion his response to then was that they could seek forgiveness:

Acts of the Apostles said:

For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all that are far off, whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.

Click to expand...

It is also a teaching of the Church, that the crucifixion was to carry the burden of the sins of ALL peoples, across all time... not just those of the Jews. As for anti-semitism, the Church has made efforts to make a stronger connection between itself and the Jews, just recently I read about them changing the language of a prayer in order to be less offensive to the Jews.

Nonetheless, despite this message of forgiveness tension between cultures arose in the Medieval period. I will again emphasize that despite embracing the religion, the barbarians that took over after Rome's fall were very warlike and so their political culture of war tried to draw religion into it. It was not the religion that dictated this conflict, it was the inability of these two peoples to get along and so they started to use religion as a way to fuel these tensions.

This is the state of affairs when Mohammed comes onto the scene, with his own interpretation of the Abrahamic faith to spread but now his religion is just another part of the already existing conflict.

Quran said:

The Jews say "The Christians stand not on anything"; The Christians say, "The Jews stand not on anything"; yet they recite the Book. So too the ignorant say the like of them. God shall decide between them on the Day of Resurrection touching their differences. And who does greater evil than he who bars God's places of worship, so that His Name be not rehearsed in them, and strikes to destroy them?

Click to expand...

Once again, we see a "God will decide" thrown in, as an answer to the conflict between the Christians and Jews. I included the last part because while its very likely this is in response to attacks on Islamic places of worship, since Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God, this statement should discourage also attacks on synagogues and churches. While Islam considers them unbelievers, the Quran plainly states they believe in the same God:

Quran said:

And they say, "Be Jews or Christians and you shall be guided." Say thou: "Nay, rather the creed of Abraham, a man of pure faith; he was no idolater." Say you: "We believe in God, and in that which has been sent down on us and sent down on Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob, and the Tribes, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus and the Prophets, of their Lord; we make no division between any of them, and to Him we surrender."

Click to expand...

If all three religions worship the same God, why is there such conflict? The religions should all be able to have peaceful conflicts. They can argue over doctrine, and plead common ground on the doctrine they share. Oh, there's this part, I believe this is that tricky part you've been talking about:

Quran said:

And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you, but aggress not: God loves not the aggressors. And slay them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying.
...but if they give over, surely God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is God's; then if they give over there shall be no enmity save for evildoers.
...holy things demand retaliation. Whoso commits aggression against you, do you commit aggression against him like as he committed against you; and fear you God, and know that God is with the godfearing.
(emphasis added)

Click to expand...

Its somewhat a problematic passage, looking at just the words used it appears to contradict itself between the first and the third selection I included. However, looking at the meaning behind this passage, I think its very important to pay attention to the part that I italicized. It advises quite ruthless behavior, but it is only for retaliation. In other words, a dramatic example of eye for an eye. The middle selection still speaks of forgiveness.

It is also important to take this into context. Islam was born in the middle of warlike Arabia, and the pagan Arab tribes made it very difficult for Mohammed to get a foothold there so after his exile he came back and fought them. This is why he advises retaliation. Earlier in the passage, where it said that there is no greater evil than preventing worship of God is probably the tenet of their faith that justifies going to such measures. When have we ever shown such desperation? World War II comes to mind...

However, as with most holy texts, the way its interpreted means more than the what is actually set in there. Much of the conflict between Protestantism and Catholicism is over the interpretation of the Bible (individual versus centralized interpretation). The way that the Quran is interpreted would be different depending on the culture that interprets it.

This is a pattern we saw in the Middle Ages with Christianity, where because Christianity was professed by a warlike people, they interpreted it in a warlike manner at which point they became the aggressors that the Muslims were advised. If it fits the political agenda of whoever is in charge, they could claim that we are the aggressors for meddling in the Arab world, for getting involved in conflicts in Israel, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Of course, that contradicts this passage, directly following the eye for an eye bit above.

I repeat again, the middle-east has been a hotbed of political conflict for centuries. Protestants interpret the Bible in any way they please, and most of the time they interpret it as a message of forgiveness and peace. Our political culture, especially pacifist sentiments of the people in response to the cold war, allows us to see other interpretations as radical. It is for that same reason why I, as a student in America, would interpret the Quran differently than another citizen who is looking for something to blame for terrorist's attacks on our country, or than someone in the middle-east. For what I see as an "eye for an eye" passage aimed to defend their right to hold their faith, the other two may see as a call to war.

You say that it is easy to use religion to justify pretty much anything, but why would they use religion? For political reasons. I do want to note that you said "modern political tension" and I would say that in the case of the middle-east, its not completely modern. A lot of growth has been prevented because of continued political tension from early times. (There was a time when this was reversed: again, the Medieval period)

I do not subscribe to the Islamic faith, but I am unwilling to demonize another religion or the people of that religion just because of the current media. I believe that conflict between religions should be peaceful debate over doctrine, and should not be drawn into wars which only end in shame.

Keep in mind that Al-Quaeda is a terrorist group, it doesn't have approval of the government at all, it's just like the Ku Klux Klan in United States, or the FARC in Colombia...

Officially, yes, but Pakistan has been very lackadaisical in fighting Al-Qaeda.

So after being forced to watch the news, now I know that there are even more terrorists attacks from people who used to like Bin Laden, and want to keep his legacy going. You can kill off one terrorist group, but then another will soon come into power and replace the old one.

What are your sources? A terrorist attack is not something that happens everyday... Specially if it's from the SAME group.