Only about one sentence I’m not sure:
You wrote:
“We don’t see secularism as a religion, but others(in this case non-Western Muslims) do.”

But isn’t secularism per definition
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism )
considered as a threat by all religions? Especially by a religion that is claiming to be the only one authority that is giving moral and law to a society.

I don’t think that this necessarily means that they have to consider secularism just as another religion.

And before we get sidetracked back into the war in Iraq, there are many ways that the west forces it’s values and beliefs on other nations that do not include direct war. That is why the feeling that Islam was under attack by the west existed long before the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Our(that is the Western World) “religion” is that of secular materialism. And we are actively attempting to force that “religion” on every nation in the world.

What are the real values of the “western world”?

What is the western philosophy that should be offered as a positive and exemplary quality to the world?

By which examples and standards should this philosophy then be lived and showed in a demonstrative way?

And in which way this should be demonstrated?

What you are writing for me is one of the dilemmas of this war: “nobody” seems to know what it is really for!

And this is a big part of the difficulty in this “conflict”:

The ones are pretending a war against (their) religion – to find followers that will support those leaders and their interests.
The others are pretending the existence of dangerous weapons and so on – to find followers that will support those leaders and their interests.

The ones are very immoral with terroristic attacks, killing thousands of innocent people.
The others are attacking several countries (ooops this was the wrong one), killing thousands of innocent people.

I would much more prefer a “war” of morality and if it must be… for several people… of ideology.

But if mankind doesn’t understand that we must learn to live together on one planet… we all will be losers.

And this will much more be a matter of communication than a matter of pure military actions.

Here the circle closes:
how can it happen in such a war, with the modern means of communication that the war waging parties don’t seem to be able to communicate their aims and justifications?

Is it because these aren’t there – or aren’t honest?
Or is it just a lack of ability in communication?

Also, in the minds of most people in the US, the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other locations are not separate wars, but are rather individual battles in a worldwide conflict against Muslim terrorists. This is true even for those in the US who are against the Iraq invasion. So when politicians in the US mention the war, they usually are not referring exclusively to Iraq, but rather to the larger conflict. Technically, the Iraq conflict is a separate war from the Afghanistan conflict, but people in the US tend to group them together with all the other conflicts.

So when I mentioned “the war” in my post, I was not singling out the Iraq conflict from the rest of the conflicts that the US is currently involved in. But rather referring to the entire group of conflicts that are taking place in the Middle east and surrounding areas.

What you are writing about is WAR. That means one COUNTRY is attacking another one.
That is absolutely not the same level!

For 3 main reasons this doesn’t seem adequate to me:

1.) Until today I have never heard a REAL reason for that invasion in Iraq. There had been no terrorists (before (!) the war). The maintained weapons did not exist there, not even a real (!) suspicion for them! It was a lie, as you know! So where is the justification to begin a WAR?

2.) Even if the terrorists would have been there: it is a kind of “escalation” that has a lot of “collateral damages” – thousands of civilians killed and hurt (raped….) by US-Americans. Can this be right? Will the people in those countries and in the world be able to understand this? Is this really superior moral?

3.) Until today I have no real prove that these means of war (!) are good and adequate to reach their aim: they have not really destroyed those terrorists or their structures. Moreover they have brought many new people there to the terrorists and their ideas. Simple people there see just the aggression and invasion by the foreigners. How can they know about the backgrounds, this history of some terrorists that once made something evil in another country? So they start to be against this injustice, this immorality, this threatening… by the west.

To say it very clear: I’m absolutely against all kind of terroristic attacks and their originators and even hard means for eliminating such cowardish and wretched thoughts and actions seem appropriate to me.
But I do not think that it is right to interchange one wrongfulness with another one.

And I think this approach isn’t Christian, too.

I am sure there would be much more intelligent means to fight against terrorism and terrorists.

I am mourning for that thousands of innocent (!) people on both sides who had to give their health and their lives to this war!

I think this would be the same for you if foreign troops would come to your country.
“Probably” you wouldn’t like this either and could understand that feeling… and the resulting point of view?

Probably you as a people would be interested at least to know the reason for this aggression?!
And if this would have been only certain tales about mystic “weapons” from the assaulting government?
Enough reason to stop fighting and give them your country? And to say “yeah they are very right… Really good and honest people have been invading my country”…?

It’s obvious they think they’re still fighting them.