Truly the left and right do meet at times, and when they do, it can be amazing to see how conservatives will behave like liberals, and liberals like conservatives. Drivel like this shows how much of the moralizing of both sides is in fact nothing more than a form of moral relativism that romanticizes the excesses of others that by all rights it should be rebuking:
In our eyes, the islamist suicide bomber has come to epitomize "the terrorist", a modern savage.....yet in fact, this "other" is a man whose life revolves around the mosque, daily prayer, restrained dress, moderate fasting, a tight-knit family and community. When pushed to the limit, a committed muslim may decide to sacrifice his own life...for what he sees as a greater social and spiritual good. Which one of us in the west will do this now?
Clearly the author is not one, nor has he met one. In fact there are many people in the West who would sacrifice themselves, however they often belong to religious groups, or if irreligious, come from families that highly value civic virtue. Christian missionaries from the West who even now are suffering and dying in less hospitable environments as well as atheist, civic virtue-minded men like Pat Tillman who sacrificed wealth and advancement for service to his nation. However, the question itself is a stupid one, as most people will never have an opportunity to find out exactly how far they are willing to go to stand for what they believe in and cherish, since they will never have a gun to their head demanding they abandon it.
On the surface this archetypical Muslim man seems like the antithesis of the corrupt and decadent West. He is religious, tries to obey many strict rules governing his behavior and in the abstract values his family. However, it does not mean that at heart he is any different from a "corrupt, materialistic Westerner." In fact, any rational human being would have to question the heart and nature of a man who could live by such strictures, and then make it a moral duty to murder people who have never met him and done him harm. If it is legitimate to say that he was harmed by decadent, sexualized Western media, then it is also legitimate to say that the West has been harmed by the poisonous filth spewed by much of the Islamic clergy and media in the name of their religion.
There is a tendency among conservatives to see these things as dichotomies like religion versus secularism. However, this ignores the fact that there are irreconcilable differences between many of the groups that are to be lumped together as one big happy family. One need only compare the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Koran of Mohammed to get a feel for how radically different Christianity and Islam are. In fact, Western secularism itself has been traditionally informed by the former; there is far more common ground between many Western secularists and born again Christians than there is between born again Christians and Islam. Many PCisms, such as the Cult of non-Judgmentalism are descended from Christian religious errors.
One can only conclude that anyone who has a soft spot for "pious Muslim men" who turn radical and sacrifice their lives in battle against the materialistic West is at heart a fellow traveler of the Islamists and is guilty of treason at heart. That they cannot be convicted in court for aiding and abetting the actions of our enemies is beside the point. Their sympathies lay with men and women who commit acts that are, objectively speaking, immoral to the point of being violently depraved. While some understanding can be had for those who sympathize with elements that want to forcefully remove us from Iraq, there can be no mistaking that anyone who generally sympathizes with the portrait painted above is in a category that deserves derision and contempt.
Actually, they are different. They're Marxist in their mentalities. Take it from the horses mouth,
Just like the red tide of the East, the ends justifies the means with these people. But like the Good Book sez, "The wicked shall be undone by their own wickedness."