xepherys

While I agree that a more in-depth understanding of Islam would be a good groundstone for james t kirk, I also have a tendancy to agree with a lot of the points in this thread that have been posted by, AFAIK, generally white westerners. So, here are the facts as I see them:

Let's take iraq alone, for a moment, as that seems to be where Americans focus most of their distrust of Muslims lately. First, while Muslims are the majority remember that there are different backgrounds and cultures within that, and that there are also Christian religions and religions that are neither Muslim or Christian. You have Shi'ite and Sunni Arabs. You also have Shi'ite and Sunni Kurds. These peoples, even where a religion is shared, generally do not like each other. The Arabs feel the Kurds are an inferior people. The Kurds feel the Arabs oppress them unneccesarily. Then you have the Christian and Jewish Kurds... who generally also get along (within the tolerance of any social group) with Muslim Kurds and face the same persecution from Arabs (that is more racially based rather than religiously). Then you have Assyrians... some of whom speak Arabic, and some who speak Kurdish and some who even speak, if you can believe it... Aramaic. Some Jewish Kurds also speak this language. Now language, in and of itself, can be a huge marker for distaste and intolerance in the regions of Northern Iraq. You have Yazidis, which come from Kurdish stock and speak Kurdish, but are of a quite different culture and religious group (neither Muslim nor Christian). If this is confusing, there's more... There are two distinct dialects of Kurdish that are different enough to prevent fluent conversation (similar to Mandarin and Cantonese). There are also various madhhab (four I believe) of Sunni Muslims, Arabs generally belonging to Hanafi (stemming from the time Iraq was ruled by the Ottoman empire) and Kurds are generally Shaf‘i (which is futher broken down into two mystical sects that equate to something akin to Western political parties, but in a religious sense). Now mind you there are also additional religious, linguistic and cultural groups and sub-groups not listed here. The fact that the region is still populated at all shows that tolerance IS POSSIBLE within these vast groups of people.

So what was the point of all of the above? It is this...

There is certainly war and trouble within Christian countries, both between Christians ans Christians and between Christians and non-Christians. They are not a 100% peaceful people either. HOWEVER, historically speaking, there is a larger sheer number of occurances of extreme violence within the Muslim world, and to the same point, involoving the Middle East as a whole. Outside of the Crusades, Christians have never gone into a "holy war" and declared that God Himself dictated that rape and slaughter of the innocent was not only acceptbale, but part of their path to Heaven. Even during the Crusades, this type of practice, while it occured, was generally frowned upon. In the Muslim world, this type of thing is ALSO generally frowned upon, but the extremists have a much higher fervor regarding their religion than Christian extremists.

The end result of all of this is my opinion... which is that I do believe that military action to stop the slaughter of the innocent at the hands of Saddam Hussein was acceptable. I also believe that military force to stop Al Qeida in Afghanistan was acceptable. HOWEVER, I believe (even as a soldier) that the on-going war in Iraq is bullshit. It may, however, be partially nessecary bullshit, as many Iraqis truly DO want to have a more democratic nation. I don't, however, support George W. Bush as our President and/or Commander-in-Chief. I think he's a pompous ass, and that his outright lying does nothing but embarass us in the world's eye view. So... less tolerance for extremists... more tolerance for non... better understanding (all the way around) of everyone else's position, and less political bullshit.

How's that for a long-winded post?