Chris. A well argued essay which highlights the current confusion of some cowardly political discourse. The use of moral or religious equivalence in explaining or excusing Islamic violence is the act of the 'usefull idiot'.

ConservativeHippie:

You should read the article more carefully and the author's bio if you need more convincing.

It is an apology for 'good' religion over bad religion. It is a Christian who wants to paint Islam as evil and his own religion as a good thing. It is not the violence and terrorism he is really concerned about but the threat that Islamic behaviours pose to Christain behaviours. All violence and terrorism is wrong no matter what causes it. We should be dealing with the problem not as a religious issue but as a human issue. The author should focus on the violence and not the religious rationalisations for that violence because that is what they are.

No religion should be allowed to justify their behaviour they should be forced to examine the deeper reasons for it and to see that one religious person is motivated by the same fears as the next.

Well and given what it could cost us; as Joe has said, not before time!
Rhrosty.

141 words non stop... only crazy people ramble on like that.

One big flaw in your thinking Ojnab, is the Jihadists are openly declaring war on the West and other Muslims in the name of God (Islam). The Jihadist believe they are fighting a religious war.

Not once in the last 100+ years has the USA, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany or China started a war on religious grounds or for the purpose of spreading Christianity to non-believers. The fighters may have been Christian and hoped god was on their side, but they were fighting for their countries, not for Christianity.

Although the western countries you fear so much and consider to be so evil are primarily Christian in belief and values, they are also essentially secular in nature. If you want to consider democracy and/or capitalism forms of religion then you might have a slight argument but the people in the armies under these systems wouldn't believe religion was the motivating factor for their call to duty.

There are no redeeming qualities in ISIS. Quit trying to make excuses for these ratbags.

Ojnab,

I agree with most of ConservativeHippy's comments, so I'm not going to repeat them, apart from emphasising that the motivation for Western policy is not the proselytisation of Christianity, but strategic and economic interests. You could argue that the manner in which Western governments have pursued their interests is morally repugnant, however that's a completely different issue.

Islam, unlike Christianity was propagated by violence from the beginning, so I think Ashton has a valid argument, there is no moral equivalence.

I'm not a Christian BTW.

Conservativehippie

You mention your dislike for the term ‘Da’esh” claiming:

1.That “one regular contributor to OLO has started ”using that term and

2.That the term, recently employed by the French Foreign Minister (and interestingly, employed late last year by the Abbott government, but now abandoned) is “political correctness BS”

First, may I say that I use that term and hope I am not alone amongst OLO contributors who does.

Second, the term is far, far from “political BS”.

The Anglosphere’s partners in the Arabian Gulf often use the term as does Egypt, which is no sympathiser of ISIS/ISIL/Da’esh.

The term is an acronym of ISIS’ full name:

ad-Dawlah al-Islāmiyah fīl-ʿIrāq wash-Shām, leading to the acronym Da'ish, Da'eesh, or Da’esh.

It is favoured by many hostile to those ethnically cleansing Syria and Iraq because it both denies the terror group legitimacy for a state or a proposed caliphate and because the group vehemently despises the term. As Associated Press claimed some time ago,the fighters threatened to cut out the tongue of anyone who publicly used the term Da’esh.

To boot, many Arabs like the term Da’esh because it sounds similar to an Arabic word that means to crush underfoot.