KMB
The quotes you offerred date back as far as the 1700s and the most recent being 1955.

You cannot possibly compare the state of the world and popular thought as it was to the present world in 2009. We are now a global economy with vast improvements in technology with greater access to information, and hence knowledge about other peoples than ourselves.

Obama's attempts to be inclusive are not to be derided but encouraged. A truly secular world can only be nutured in an environment that does not attempt to exclude. Exclusion is just one ingredient in the growth of religious fundamentalism.

Your comments are only valid in relation to fundamentalist Islam. Just as they would be for be any fundamentalist regime which includes terrorism.

Christians no longer advocate for Crusades although there are still missionary programs, but thankfully not violent in nature.

The simple mistake you make is confusing Islamic terrorist groups with Islam - the religion. The Taliban does not represent all Muslims.

Any religion or religious texts will and can be distorted for evil purposes, which in the end, have very little to do with religion and more to do with economic and social status. Thriving economies with a high standard of living tend not to breed terrorism.

If Christians were tarred with the same brush as the oppressive and incestuous sects in the American bible belts you would be the first to jump up and say but they are not real Christians who follow the message of Christ.

Pelican,
"The simple mistake you make is confusing Islamic terrorist groups with Islam - the religion."
False, terrorists derive their justification directly from the Koran and the actions of Mohammed who represents their ideal man.
The simple mistake you make is not being able to reconcile the fact that most Muslims are peace loving, in accordance with the best of human nature, whereas Islam in its literal form brings out the worst in human nature.
Just study the actual life of Mohammed.

"The Taliban does not represent all Muslims."
True, but it does represent Islam in its purest form.

"Any religion or religious texts will and can be distorted for evil purposes..."
True, but the Islamic texts are not being distorted by terrorists, they are being distorted by "moderates" and their western apologists.

"...which in the end, have very little to do with religion and more to do with economic and social status."
False, otherwise why don't you see all impoverished non-Islamic societies engaging in Islamic-style terrorism?
Osama bin Laden came from a very wealthy family.
Some of the highest profile terrorists have been doctors and engineers, etc.

"Thriving economies with a high standard of living tend not to breed terrorism."
Hmmm...trillions of petro-dollars don't seem to have helped the middle east much.

The terror:poverty link is just not demonstrable but the terror:Islam link is.

http://myminddroppings.wordpress.com/2008/12/09/the-root-cause-of-islamic-terror-is-islam-itself/

And what motivates the Tamils and Basques and Irish, KMB? Islam?

It's clear that it isn't violence that upsets you, but Islam's claim to be the one true religion. But you know that YOURS is the one true religion, and thus any flimsy propaganda is justified in the war on the infidels.

KMB
"The terror:poverty link is just not demonstrable but the terror:Islam link is." This is less than sustainable in fact.

You are now showing your lack of knowledge of both Islam and the history of "their terrorism". I suggest you read about the Muslim Brotherhood. Then once you've absorbed that perhaps you'll be able to take part in an informed discussion on the topic. Clearly you don't know, understand or want to understand.

Of particular note is both their ideology and the circumstances for their creation and pospering.
BTW Wikipedia is not reading on the subject. any more than reading the daily BS/paper a source for real information.

Sancho,

re: "the Tamils and Basques and Irish"

I asked "otherwise why don't you see ALL impoverished non-Islamic societies engaging in Islamic-style terrorism?"
I didn't pretend that there were no other such examples.
The isolated cases that you refer to are localised issues more related to claims for autonomy/terrirory.
The problem with Islam is that it claims the entire world as its territory under the authority of Allah while categorically denying the autonomy of Dar al-Harb and hence we have global jihad.

"It's clear that it isn't violence that upsets you, but Islam's claim to be the one true religion. But you know that YOURS is the one true religion, and thus any flimsy propaganda is justified in the war on the infidels."

Localised violence is of course regrettable but it doesn't represent the existential threat posed by those who crash airliners into skscrapers or who would gleefully release anthrax into Western cities.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2d5_1240507553
Many religions "claim to be the one true religion" and why wouldn't they?
It's only appeasers who can accommodate multiple, mutually exclusive "truths".
My denying Christ three times will never convince you I'm not a Christian so what more can I say?
Nevertheless those fanatics have some interesting Koranic quotes:
http://www.letusreason.org/Islam12.htm

We started with one of his quotes and here we go again:
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile hoping it will eat him last" Winston Churchill

I have to go now, I think I hear a cock crowing.
There it goes again.

*I suggest you read about the Muslim Brotherhood.*

Ah Examinator, but out of the Muslim Brotherhood came
Sayd Qutb and "Milestones", freely available on the net.

It is Qutb's philosophies that are followed by Al Queda
and others.

Yes, the Koran is a violent book with violent suggestions.
So is the old Testament. Few Xtians take the old Testament
seriously, but many Muslims take the Koran seriously.