How To Solve The Problem Of Terrorist Islam?

...........
Far too often we are wrong, yet point the finger at another and claim that they are wrong, and far too often it is done in the name of God.

You may be right in terms of what some people believe.
However, the current war against Islamic Fascist terror is not being waged "in the name of G-d." It is being waged as a national response to a perceived threat. You may disagree with the "perceived threat," but the US is not waging a "religious" war.

Why should Islam reform?

Because Islamic Fascists that claim to be practicing their religion are brutally murdering those that do not agree with their particular vision, mostly Muslims...
The problem is that there are many state supported clerics; journalists; leaders; shieks; mullahs; etcetera who support this Islamic Fascist practice of murdering innocents, mostly Muslims....
So, either all of Islam is going to eventually get with this program, G-d forbid, or the umans are going to have to get together and condemn this sort of activity. That would be a major reform.

Why should Islam as a religion reform and Christianity not do the same?

As far as Christianity brutally murdering innocents in the name of their G-d, I can tell you from personal experience, as a Jew, that they are no longer practicing this sort of activity, at least in the United States...
I believe their may be a few countries or sects around the world that believe in Killing for Christ, but, as far as I know, there are NO Christian religious leaders promulgating murdering other innocent Christians; or Jews; or Muslims; or Hindus; or any other peoples.
If I am wrong about this, someone should help me learn what Christian scholar or leader is advocating the murder of innocents.
Whatever else Christians ought to do to "reform," fine. That's between their G-d and them.

As long as you point the finger at Islam as being the problem then at least one follower of Islam is going to be pissed, and will find spiritual fuel to oppose you in any number of ways.

This is perfectly understandable. However, if their anger is such that it justifies murdering "infidel" babies because they are pissed at my finger pointing, then I claim the ethical and civilized high road and pronounce them a danger to civilization.

Per your question:
"Why do you think that the United States has to reform in order for (evil) Muslim (fascist death cultist) terrorists to reform."

The answer seems clear. We are a hypocritical force smugly spreading ourselves culturally around the world...not fully addressing our own.

Okay. I will try and understand this. You are claiming that we need to "embargo" or some how curtail the spread of "American culture" (G-d, what an oxymoron ) to the rest of the world?
And we need to address... I'm not sure what, instead.
I suspect that this is not what you mean, but I also suspect that this is an important part of what you believe we need to reform.
So, maybe you could be more specific?

We need to succeed but so OFTEN we do not. If we took it upon ourselves to be closer to the Gospel then perhaps things would change, but we seperate church and state...sortof.

Again, I am unclear on what you are advocating here? A more religious stance on the part of the US?

"Accomodating and reforming in the face of a vicious enemy has not been a sound historical practice."

Then the Native Americans and Africans did the wrong thing, and should have picked up guns and slaughtered White folks every chance they got?

No. Because your "slaughtered" epithet would make them as "guilty" as the White folks.
However, in principal, yes. One reason the American Indians have tracts of land called "reservations" is because they did resist the invasion of the White folks. If they would have been capable of resisting and counterattacking in a more organized or effective manner, then they would now be the owners of large chunks of North America (Central & South too, if you are including all natives.)
The "accomodation and reform" that Native Americans underwent in "the face of a vicious enemy" destroyed their culture; their heritage; their people; their entire way of life. It was NOT a sound practice if they wanted to preserve these things.

"The U.S. is less interested in Empire than the former Iraqi regime"

How do you figure this is the case. I was speaking with a man while in Peru recently, and he was disgusted that the US went into Iraq. As far as he could see it was a move for their oil (like many others I spoke with), but he stated that the US is dangerous because it is the empire that doesn't admit it is the empire unlike Rome or Britain. Know thyself came to mind.
T.M.

Obviously you are intelligent and articulate and you enjoy mincing words. Your questions are rhetorical and I doubt you really want an answer for any reason other than to shoot it down...yet the task is compelling for the while and the practice is good...

M3 said
"You may disagree with the "perceived threat," but the US is not waging a "religious" war."

Flat out wrong...

"Pope John Paul II has a strong message for President George W. Bush: God is not on your side if you invade Iraq. But the President told the pope's envoy the leader of the world's Catholics is wrong....The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion."

Hmmm.....

This is very much a religious war. Even more so if you consider that the US sets about creating its empire via economic forces primarily (only use force if the opposition doesn't bend), and on every single dollar bill it clearly states "In God We Trust". It's as though every dollar is a bullet. Evidence of a colonialist agenda???? Is this really beyond your sight? Japan,The Phillipines, Bolivia, Puerto Rico, Iraq...is the US presence there purely beneficial and benign?

I have not researched this recently, so you may correct me if I'm wrong, but last I knew, we do not have troops in the Phillipines and Bolivia.
I believe that our troops in Japan are there at the behest of the Japanese.
Puerto Rico happens to be a United States possession. They get to vote on it regularly. And, of course, Iraq is the question.
If you are claiming that the US has waged "imperial wars" against smaller (Bolivia?) or weaker (Spain) nations, then of course you are correct. We also kept slaves; didn't allow women to vote; rigged national presidential elections; let wealthy capitalists murder and crush their opponents; etcetera.
However, as time has gone on, the US has attempted to correct these abuses, sometimes violently at great cost.
Today, 2004, I don't think you can call the US an Empire in the normal usage of the word.
This is where my confusion lies. You think we are ??something not good, but what it is exactly, I cannot tell.
As far as a religious war, that makes no sense to me.
I can suppose that you might be an Atheist and therefore find any mention of religion in anything offensive, but that is also an extreme "religious" point of view where an individual claims that "since I believe in No Religion, all others should refrain from expressing their beliefs."

M3 said
"As far as Christianity brutally murdering innocents in the name of their G-d, I can tell you from personal experience, as a Jew, that they are no longer practicing this sort of activity, at least in the United States..."

You're a Jew speaking for the actions of all christians in America? I can think of more than a few Christian based hate groups that would love to kill you. Minorities are killed in this country all the time by bible thumping Christians aiming at cleansing this land. And yes there are plenty of countries around the world in which Christianity is used as a killing agent Rwanda comes to mind. I believe some 90% of the country is Christian...but killing doens't have to take place immediatly. It's possible to poison a population's water with toxic run off.

M3 said
"if their anger is such that it justifies murdering "infidel" babies because they are pissed at my finger pointing, then I claim the ethical and civilized high road and pronounce them a danger to civilization."

Point a finger and three point back old chum. And your high road ain't so high and your civilization ain't so civilized...that's the whole point.

Hmmm. I am using the analogy that you brought up about pointing fingers.
I believe, quite strongly, that the deliberate murder of innocents is evil.
And, I believe that evil needs to be resisted. As much as possible.
I would venture a guess that most cultures; religions; countries; peoples; etcetera consider the deliberate and brutal murder of innocents, Evil.
Obviously, some don't. I believe that those that do not and practice this hideous crime need to be destroyed.
Do you disagree?

M3 said
"You are claiming that we need to "embargo" or some how curtail the spread of "American culture" (G-d, what an oxymoron ) to the rest of the world?"

Oxymoron - Etymology: Late Greek oxymOron, from neuter of oxymOros pointedly foolish, from Greek oxys sharp, keen + mOros foolish
: a combination of contradictory or incongruous words (as cruel kindness); broadly : something (as a concept) that is made up of contradictory or incongruous elements

Please point out the oxymoron in my statement. American culture? Do you think this is the oxymoron? Because that is exactly what is in question and under attack. American culture can be spotted by non-Americans thus it exists...and yes it is a force that can be seen as threatening. McDonalds, and other fast foods, music, films and any other cultural product that is sold abroad and injected into another cultures mainstream at the expense of that cultures own products.

Hollywood has inflicted so much damage around the world it's frightening. The values that are bound in these products are absorbed and at times stand in conflict with a given countries values. Cram them down their throat enough times and it becomes normative. The kids listen to hip hop and dress with the bling even though they have no idea what they are saying and what they are representing...the adults buy into the capitalist model and pursue money to all ends even if it means destroying the integrity of their social structures...

Whereas I am not sure of the "capitalist model" thing here, I basically agree with you.
However, as a free individual who is responsible for the choices I make, I choose not to engage in "American culture," as you put it.
I (and my family and most of my friends) do not eat McDonalds.
I do not listen to "popular music" that I find offensive. Or watch movies that I find offensive. My children do not listen to hip hop or dress in bizarre and provocative manners.
We choose to disengage to a limited extent.
It is interesting that elsewhere on this Spirituality & Religious Forum, there were comments by Europeans about how prudish Americans are and how easily offended by profanity.
Anyway...

The US needs to keep itself out of the dealings of other countries. It needs to pay attention to the ills within its own boundries and root out the evil that lies within itself before trying to root out the evil in any other land. If it wishes to be a true model of a super power then do it by example not by might. Show the rest of the world how to take care of themselves by showing them how we take care of ourselves, not by blowing them up or forcing them into an economic strangle hold.

I think that the bombing that muslim groups do in IRAQ are right...cuz IRAQ is in a middle of a war...and it seem that the IRAQs PEOPLE JUST DONT WANT US TO BE THERE.......

Process for curing the problem

1) place a tariff on all oil imports. Begin small, and continue to increase it until it forces a reduction in consumption.

2) Use the money collected to provide energy related projects such as solar, wind, biomass etc that will provide energy and jobs.


Each increase in tariffs will reduce our foreign oil consumption. We don't have to totally eliminate it, just reduce it to a level that will not enslave us to their countries.

Sorry to disagree, but the entire island of barbados has solar rooftop collectors for hot water production. If a third world country I think we could. The reason we don't is because the keep the price artificially cheap.
As a result this country wastes huge amounts of energy, mostly because they "like" to. I used to live in Atlanta which is sometimes referred to the world's largest moving parking lot during rush hour. Bumper to bumper traffic at a crawl for and hour, twice a day, and eight lanes wide. 90 % of the cars have one person in it. No one wants to conserve, no one wants to manage their energy use.
A tarriff would reduce consumption almost immediately.

We've had high prices and the economy will survive. If this had been done ten years ago we wouldn't be in Iraq today, guarenteed. They'de be broke, and hungry and would want our food. They wouldn't have the money to buy these weapons, the air would be cleaner, and unemployment would be lower.

Sorry to disagree, but the entire island of barbados has solar rooftop collectors for hot water production. If a third world country I think we could. The reason we don't is because the keep the price artificially cheap.
As a result this country wastes huge amounts of energy, mostly because they "like" to. I used to live in Atlanta which is sometimes referred to the world's largest moving parking lot during rush hour. Bumper to bumper traffic at a crawl for and hour, twice a day, and eight lanes wide. 90 % of the cars have one person in it. No one wants to conserve, no one wants to manage their energy use.
A tarriff would reduce consumption almost immediately.

We've had high prices and the economy will survive. If this had been done ten years ago we wouldn't be in Iraq today, guarenteed. They'de be broke, and hungry and would want our food. They wouldn't have the money to buy these weapons, the air would be cleaner, and unemployment would be lower.

Re:Solar panels would not work in New England

True, and if the oil price was low enough New Englanders would be burning oil to melt the snow off their lawns! Raise the price and you promote solutions. New England has plenty of wood fuel and they turned to it in the last energy crisis. They generally have more congested poplulations which support mass transit better.

No one solution will be the total solution but each contributes to the solution. The current system will not sustain itself. Eventually millions and millions of people in the developing world will begin competing for that same oil. Pay now or pay later.