Replies

I agree with your assessment. However, I think there IS a political and military reason why our government does not acknowledge the religious element to the present conflict. Namely, if we openly agree with Bin Laden that this is a RELIGIOUS war, then all Muslims, regardless of their sympathies will be forced by Islamic law to come to the aid of their fellow believers. Such a wide scale conflict would surely stress our capabilities to the breaking point, as well as unleash too many terrorists acts within our own borders from Muslims who do not sympathize with Bin Laden. For this reason, I think it is best that President Bush keep up this humanistic/naturalistic approach. Don't you?

Yes. An important consideration that many appear to miss is that while one side can declare a war for purely religious reasons (as Usama already has), the one against whom they have declared it can resist and counter-attack for reasons having to do with personal security not directly related to their own religion at all. Both sides don't have to be doing things for the same reason for the war to have been one caused for religious reasons. For instance, when you are robbed at gunpoint and resist by icing the gunman before he can ice you, you're not engaging in the same action for the same reason. You both want your money, but the robber doesn't have a legitimate right to it or to your life or to threaten your life. His attempt to take it for "selfish", criminal reasons, doesn't make your defense of your money and life equally "selfish" and criminal.