Boots, if you'd actually looked up Rauf, you'd notice that he's been an American-Muslim ambassador hired by the state department for years, and if you actually read what he said (instead of the stupid "america worse than Islam" statement) you'd see that what he actually said was extremely reasonable, and said in something called context - which you lack completely with that headline quote. He was pointing out terrorist-extremist motivations, one of which is America's foreign military presence, civilian casualties, etc. Do some actual research next time. And I think I posted that same stuff a few pages back.
If 51% of Muslims weren't terrorists, would Islam still be ok? I said a majority, not .01% (again, you are moving the bar further, you said .1% before, now its .01%).
Yes. At what percentage would you consider the mosque non-offensive? Or does it have to be zero?
Just because the IRG said this was in response to another flight that was shot down, it doesn't mean it isn't religiously motivated.
Actually, when they say "We shot down this plane because the US shot down that plane" I find that a pretty reasonable argument. Apparently you prefer "We shot down the plane because Allah" as a motivator, so I can't help you. One must recognize that the politics of their actions comes first in most cases. They may say "we did this, Allah be praised" but they're throwing in the last bit to fit in with their constituents and gain approval for their actions - kind of like how the President always says he prays for the country all the time, and he actually might not. It's a political maneuver.
Here's a better question, since you don't seem to accept politics as the prime motivator for terrorists. What is their motivation? And why do they keep, in your mind, lying about the factors by always naming practical, political responses?
When you say "It's political" you are trying to ignore the politics of religion as well. You can have a political issue that is religious. You can have an Islamic Extremist group start a jihad on the US.
I agree, political issues can be religious. Abortion is a great example. But I see terrorists as reactionaries against Western power for a long list of reasons which I detailed in another thread some time ago. Islam might be in there, but if it is its one of the lesser motivations.
If you tried to use the same logic of "it's political, not religious" because they had a specific cause (the flight that was shot down) you could (falsely) argue that 9/11 was 'just political' because they were responding to the presence of the US in the Middle East.
Why yes, I do think 9/11 is political. They struck two extremely political buildings with symbolic meaning - the WTC represents US economic dominance and therefore US interests at large. By blowing it up they saw themselves as attacking the US economic system and globalization, which they see as a primary contributor to the shittiness of the Middle East and the badness of their countries. They could have flown those planes into any building - NYC isn't exactly short of targets - but they chose a completely secular, political building to take down because they were sending a political message. Then they attacked the Pentagon as well. This one's pretty obvious, I would think - Pentagon represents the American military, attacking it is meant to "get back" at the US for our military interventions in the area. You should also remember that the Pentagon is about 2 minutes via airplane from the Mall. If they were actually mounting a religious assault on everything American, why wouldn't they just go blow up our national monuments and cultural centers instead of the Pentagon? They also have blown up US embassies - again, a symbol of American foreign presence. Why hit those if their goal is purely religious? Why wouldn't they be hitting churches, attacking all of Europe and every other western country they can get access to who is also not Muslim?
I assume due to your (falsely) you believe the attacks on WTC and Pentagon were not political. What kind of action was it then, and why were those two locations chosen over many, many others?
*eagerly awaits a straw man, a completely falsified statistic, or reply to a very small portion of my post pointing out how wrong it is*
Nope, that's what you do
And 94% of everyone I've talked to today agrees completely with everything i said, so I win.
Also, to avoid 3 pages of yelling which is what happened last time I posted the apparently-controversial view that terrorists have fairly understandable motivations, I do not in any way think they are justified in doing so. I'm simply trying to show what their thought process is - there is no value in being ignorant.