My God is the real God.

Your god and his followers are trash and we can kill them.

/insert religion here/

We ask Muslims to condemn terror. Yet we don't make it clear what "terror" is. Is terror the targeting of civilians for political reasons? Okay. But what about the terror inflicted on civilians who die due to "collateral damage" during military operations?

Throughout the Iraq war, the U.S. has used "terror" methods on Iraq civilians in a variety of contexts:

(1) When the war began our attack was labeled "Shock and Awe" by military commanders. The words "shock and awe" are nearly synonymous to the intended effect of "terrorism." The idea was to strike fear ("shock") into people and make them fear overpowered and helpless ("awe"). You have to work hard splitting hairs to claim this is in any way different from the motives of a terrorist.

(2) The U.S. policy toward Iraq civilians has been abusive from day 1. We dropped cluster bombs on markets. A Frontline documentary that you can find on YouTube shows a U.S. soldier running over a man's car (which he used as a taxi to make a living) to punish him for looting a small amount of food. Among many other things U.S. soldiers did to civilians was forcing a teenage boy to jump in a river, where he drowned. The list of humiliating and abusive things U.S. soldiers did to Iraqi civilians is endless -- and I'm talking about before the insurgency began.

(3) In Fallujah, we bombed over 70% of the city's buildings to rubble. The city's residents who did not evacuate were killed on sight, with no distinction made between civilians and insurgents. Anybody who left their house for simple tasks such as seeking food and water was killed on sight. It has been well-documented that U.S. helicopters and planes targeted people people in the street at a long range without establishing that they were enemy combatants. It is also well-documented that we used white phosphorous as a munition against people, in violation of international agreements. In effect we used chemical weapons (WMD) on people. How is this not "terrorism"? There are also countless instances of the U.S. bombing groups of people who turned out to be having weddings.

(4) After finding and killing Saddam's sons, we dressed their corpses and purposely put them on display to demoralize their former supporters. When Saddam Hussein was hastily executed, his death was videotaped and send around the world, where anybody could see his dead body with limp broken neck. The former images were actively encouraged by the U.S. military, while the latter were undoubtedly "leaked" out by them in such a way that they wouldn't have to take responsibility. How is parading corpses not a form of psychological terrorism similar to what was done to Daniel Pearl by Pakistan extremists?

(5) The U.S. military has shown time and against to be hostile to the international press. It is well-documented that a U.S. tank purposely shot a shell into a hotel full of journalists (they claimed there was gunfire coming from the building, a claim later proven to be false). They've purposely shot or rocketed Al Jazeera cameramen and reporters on numerous occasions. There is currently an Al Jazeera cameraman in Guantanamo Bay who will not be given due process. They also attempted to kill an Italian journalist. Though most attacks are alleged to be "accidents" it has been demonstrated repeatedly that the U.S. military's stories do not add up.

(6) The U.S. military's treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib is demonstrably torture. Many prisoners have been beaten to death, electrocuted, had attack dogs sicced on them, had feces thrown at them, made to be in naked sexual positions, and much more. There is evidence of rape of both male and female detainees. At least 75% of the prison's detainees were not charged with crimes and turned out to have been rounded up at random. Guantanamo Bay is scarcely better. Meanwhile the CIA runs secret prisons in various countries where there is no accountability, and the U.S. is known to engage in the process of "extraordinary rendition" where prisoners are sent to countries that use harsh torture methods. (How is torture any better than terrorism?)

(7) Members of the U.S. military have on many occasions been found guilty of murdering Iraqi civilians without any cause or justification. 21 civilians in Haditha were slaughtered due to a squadron's frustration at an unrelated IED attack. In another recent scenario, a 14-year-old girl was raped, her body burned, and her family killed to destroy evidence. In another case, a 52-year-old man was pulled out of his home for no reason, shot repeatedly in the head and chest, and then posed as if he were burying an IED. These are just some of the known cases. There are undoubtedly dozens more that have been covered up.

There are many other examples I could cite. The bottom line is that the U.S. has done an incredible amount that could be considered "terror."

This also applies to Israel and its actions toward Palestinian civilians (even during times of peace). Israel's attack on Lebanon often resulted in many unnecessary civilian casualties, often for no purpose other than to demonstrate military might. It is well-established that Israel dropped cluster bombs on civilians in violation of international agreements. How is this any different from "terror"?

Really -- one side cannot claim the high ground. We cannot complain that Muslims don't do enough to speak out against teror when we ourselves are merely mincing words/definitions and not holding our own people to the standards we claim are important.

I have never perceived that the vast majority of American Muslims felt anything other than dismay, outrage and despair at the events of 9/11, despite the right wing nuts who want to paint them as a fifth column. In contrast to several countries in Europe, to my knowledge there has never been a terrorist attack or a significant terrorist plot uncovered that was perpetrated by American Muslims. This fact speaks for itself.

Having said that, I have perceived a certain... well I wouldn't want to use the word "equivocation" or even "minimizing" to describe it, but a use of language among Muslim leaders in America and worldwide that, even though it condemns atrocities like 9/11, usually contains some sort of footnote or caveat relating to American agression, or Palestine, or the worldwide opression of Muslims by the West, etc.

Not that pointing these things out is necessarily a bad thing -- I don't believe America or Israel have done much good in the world by their actions in the time since 9/11. Yes, we could justify the invasion of Afghanistan to some degree (I only wish it had been better carried out/supported), but the invasion of Iraq has been a catastrophy of massive proportions, the effects of which will be with the world for the rest of this century, at least. Israel has similarly, through its own intransigence and arrogance, has directly contributed to the current dangerous, impossible situation in which it finds itself, as well as that of the Palestinian cause. Certainly all these countries need to reevaluate their strategies, and at the very least emphasize peacemaking

But I find Mr. Wahhaj's language, as well as that of many other Muslim religious figures, disturbing in spite of all that. His comment, "...in the old days, that best generation, they loved jihad, and they loved death," is depressingly similar to the language used by certain terrorist organizations to promote indiscriminate slaughter. He is by no means the only "moderate" Muslim to employ such speech. And the "Jews Caused 9/11" myth has gained too much traction to be dismissed as merely an urban myth spread by a few crazies. When I read or hear such things, I, like the author, try to chalk most of my unease up cultural differences. But a nagging feeling remains -- if they are so opposed to terrorism as lately experienced in so many tragic situations around the world by innocent people, why do they continue to speak so blithely of death and warfare? How can they seriously claim that the 9/11 hijackers, terrorists in Iraq etc. are not "real Muslims"? This can only damage others' understanding of their condemnation.

I'm an atheist (and liberal btw), so I don't pretend to understand all the spiritual mumbo jumbo about "spritual warfare" and whatnot. A Christian anthem such as "Onward Christian Soldiers" bothers me almost as much. But I can't deny that there is a certain darkness to this discussion of terrorism among Muslims (what I have seen and read at least) that I find, at the least, to be ignoring reality. Already certain "Muslims" are using these hideous tactics on other Muslims, a trend that I fear is just beginning. It's happening every day in Iraq, where both Sunnis and Shiites claim the other are not truly Islamic. And the streets run red with blood in the name of God.

It may not be fair, but it is the responsibility of Muslims themselves to condemn unequivocally the indiscriminate slaughter of unarmed civilians in the name of God and to no military purpose other than to spread hatred and fear. Not for the sake of non-Muslims, but for themselves.