I believe that would be considered an irrelevant conclusion. For example, except for religion, the Muslims everywhere share most of the cultural traits as the non-Muslims in their society, but they are not at war with the West either.
We are not at war with most Muslims, either in the Middle East or outside of it. We couldn't win that war anyway.
In the Muslim world culture is inseparable from Islam.
And yet, there are a number of predominantly Muslim cultures, and many interpretations of Islamic theology. We are at war with the neo-caliphates and their cultural ambitions.
Nonsense!
If, as you say, this is a cultural war then the culture we presumably at war with is the Middle-Eastern culture.
But if we are at war with the Muslim part of the Middle-Eastern culture but not the non-Muslims then it is ipso facto a religious war.
The fact that we are not at war with each and every Muslim makes no difference, the salient fact is that everybody who is waging war against us is Muslim and they are waging thast war for religious reasons.
To make the cheese more binding, many Pakistani Muslims — who are not part of the middle-Eastern culture — are also at war with us.
In the name of islam.
That makes it a religious war.
Say It: Muslim Terrorist According to the Canadian Islamic Congress, the newspaper you are reading is "stirring up hatred against an identifiable group of Canadians." As proof, the group has prepared an analysis of what it says is anti-Muslim sentiment in the print media. The results were released yesterday. Out of nine newspapers analyzed, the National Post was judged worst.
The CIC's report caused us concern. Like all mainstream media outlets, we make a good-faith effort to report news objectively. The CIC's claim that we have not only failed in this regard, but also engaged in an ongoing propaganda war against a particular religion, is very serious.
Our concern evaporated, however, when we actually read the CIC's report. (We urge our readers to do likewise. It has been posted at www.canadianislamiccongress.com.) The study purports to be an objective, statistical analysis of the incidence of "anti-Islam terminology." What counts as "anti-Islam terminology"? Apparently, the term "Muslim terrorist" does. Under the CIC's rules, it counts for 80 hate points. So do "Muslim militants" (70 points), "Muslim extremists" (60 points) and "Muslim fundamentalists" (50 points).
The CIC's campaign is not a battle against hate. It is a battle against truth. Pop quiz: What do al-Qaeda, Hamas, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Pakistan's Harakat ul-Mujahidin and Egypt's al-Jihad have in common? Not just that they are made up of people who happen to worship Allah, but that they fight with the explicit aim of destroying secular governments and instating Muslim theocracies. "Muslim terrorist" is therefore an entirely apt term. The religion of such terrorists is not incidental to their terrorist acts as is the case with, say, Timothy McVeigh or Spain's Basques. Islam is their raison d'être, their inspiration, their call to battle, their means of recruitment and, in the second before they explode themselves, their great comfort.
That fact is reflected in the names the groups pick for themselves. How, we'd like to know, would the CIC have us refer to the Palestinian terrorist group Islamic Jihad? When the group triumphantly claims responsibility for blowing up a disco or a school bus, should we be careful to report the claimant group as "Is***ic Jihad" so as not to promote "stereotypes"? For that matter, how many hate points do we get for using the word "Hamas"? Presumably that group's name is off-limits, too, because it is an Arabic acronym for "Islamic Resistance Movement."
Finally, we should point out that if there is anyone who needs to be lectured about hysteria and hyperbole, it is the CIC. Last month, a CIC representative told a Commons committee that the treatment of Muslims in the days since Sept. 11 is comparable to that of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. He also claimed that "hundreds" of Arabs and Muslims have been arrested and detained, refused normal toilet facilities and left naked in cells. Proof? None.
Like the vast majority of Canadians, the members of the National Post editorial staff bear no ill will toward Islam or the many Canadians who peaceably practise it. We will not, however, be cowed into self-censorship by those who see truthful reporting as an act of hate. If the CIC is concerned with anti-Islamic sentiment, it should turn its attention to its source — the monsters who blaspheme Allah by attacking civilians in His name. Blaming the messenger will get the CIC nowhere.
(The National Post editorial, December 7, 2001)
http://www.nationalpost.com/commentary/story.html?f=/stories/20011207/812263.html