Quote Originally Posted by dylandog View Post
The most naive idea of all is that this is somehow a clash of cultures, a fundamental clash between the values of Islam and those of the West. It's a seductive idea, because it eliminates the need for rational thought, ethical self-scrutiny, and other nuisances. It is easier to talk in simple and essential terms than it is to read history. But it's also a self-evidently ridiculous idea. Islam has been around for 13 centuries. The conflict with the West began about 50 years ago, in the wake of the breakup of the Ottoman empire, the carving up of the Middle east into colonial mandates, the creation of the state of Israel and so on.
It's not such a naive idea. The conflict is a lot older than 50 years. You can trace it all the way back to the Crusades, and you hear Moslems mention it often.

The truth is that Islam is a demanding religion that is inconsistent with principles of democracy. It functioned best when the church and state were one, under the caliphs. And that's Bin Laden's stated goal. He wants to restore the the Caliphate.

I was in grade school and high school before the days of political correctness. Then, we learned that Islam is a religion of conquest. The fundamental principal is to spread the faith by the sword. I have read parts of the Koran that leave little doubt that that's the case. In fact, a friend of mine who's very open-minded studied the entire Koran. He confirms what I said above. That's where the idea of cracking skulls and slitting throats comes from. We've heard it called a peaceful religion, but it's far from it. There is no acceptance if Infidels.

I'm not saying that there aren't peace loving Moslems. I'm talking about the focus of the religion. The moderates we've dealt with are in secular regimes. But the orthodox find that abhorent. I'm not talking about extremists I'm talking about orthodox practitioners of the religion. In reality, that's all there is, because there has never been a reform movement in Islam. So, in a country like Egypt or Jordan that is "moderate", it's achieved by being secular, and the government fears the people, because it knows that the free practice of the religion would result in their overthrow (or under a democratic system, being voted out) in favor of a more theocratic system. That's why there are no Moslem democracies. You have either some form of dictatorship or some form of theocracy.

I don't know how many of you saw the interview a few months back with Bin Laden's ex body guard (60 Minutes), who's living in Yemen. The man was relaxed, smiling and calm, just like the president of Iran, but there were no really outragous comments during most of the interview. He spoke moderately about Lord Osama and, although he had all the political attitudes of Al Qeada, he impressed me as someone who could be my neighbor (we don't have to be political allies). The man gave an excellent impression. At the end of the interview he spoke of his family and all the children were preschool or slightly older. He said off hand thathe hoped some day his son would be a martyr. When questioned by the interviewer, he said "I'm willing to sacrafice my son. Are you willing to sacrafice your daughter?"

It is certainly not naive to think that there is a clash of cutures with radical Islam, but I also suggest that there is an inherent cultural clash between Islamic philosophy and democracy and western philosophy. The more dictatorships you eliminate, the more theocracies you'll be creating. The naive idea is that if we eliminate dictatorships the islamic world will become democratic.