Let me ask a serious question ;-)
A popular defense of Islam as a whole right now is to not confuse the minority with the majority. Of course, it is always the minority that actually goes off into battle while those at home just pump their fists in the air.
In the absence of state actors, how does one define "the enemy"? This is the same issue that Israel has not been able to solve. A few months ago, Israel agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas and the usual other terrorist baddies. But someone, whether of those groups or independently, decided to blow themselves up an Israeli bus. From Israel's point of view, what would have been the best response? What could they do to best achieve the outcome they wish for? I ask this not as a defense of Israel but rather as the question of how a state should act vs. a non-state entity.
In war, the majority is always defined by the minority. Only a small percentage of the pop goes to the battlefield. In that situation though there is an identifiable state leader.
Whether rightly or wrongly, Islamic terrorism is being used for political gain - or rather, to alter the political structure of the world. How should "the west" handle this?
Last edited by Colin at Sep 16 2003, 05:00 AM
|