Mikey, if you think the drivel quoted in that article is going to convince me to agree with Pat Robertson, you're sadly mistaked.
First, I would NEVER take the word of a fundamentalist Christian on what the Holy Book of another religion taught, any more than I would accept the interpretation of a Mulah on what the bible taught. You are correct in that Islam is a religion that is in a later stage of development than Christianity, but it's only +/- 500 years.
As I said in another thread yesterday, I've been worried about Islamic fundamentalism since before the embassy takeover in Iran. The reasons for the increase are wide and varied, and don't always have a lot to do with religion as such. Some of it is rooted in nationalism and anti-colonialism. Some of it is based on the oppressive governments under which it develops - blatant political activity is squashed immediately, whereas it can often hide under the guise of religion.
So, it just isn't as simple as some folks would like to believe. And we could expand this war to include the Pakistanis and the Saudis, I suppose, and radicalize millions more of them; that would certainly help our position right now, wouldn't it?
Oh yeah, and
Quote:
|
Ironicly Iraq is NOT a fundamentalist State, however Saddam is a pragmatist and is more then willing to use the terrorist as it favors his policies.
|
Are you saying he
is, or might? If you think he is, Where's the beef?