Contrary to some not-so-authoritative officials, I don't find it peaceful, forgiving and kind, unless you are already a Muslim. Rather I find it accusatory and full of anger. That's my impression, having read it. Read and be you own judge.
In every war, the first casualty is said to be truth. In this one, our politicians have not even begun to admit to us what it is really about.
Waging a war on "terror" is the height of stupidity. The author says that our leaders haven't admitted to us what this war is really about. I wonder if they've admitted to themselves what it's all about.
FINALLY!! Finally someone just out and says it. Those SOBs are out to get us, always have been, always will be!
There is an Islamic terrorism based on socio-religious perceptions. It may not include the whole Arab and Muslim world, but it perceives the terrorism it wages against the West as an integral part of its religion. The West in general and the USA in particular cannot ignore it and should therefore unite their efforts in an attempt to find different means of countering this kind of Islamic terrorism.
The West should learn from one of the best students of Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism, the Dutch scholar, Prof. Johannes Jansen:
In a fiercely competitive society the dominant religion may preach that the greatest virtue is to love ones neighbor. The religion of a group which over the centuries has become marginalised may, on the other hand, preach that God has exclusively and explicitly chosen those who follow his commandments. This group may come to believe that it plays a central role in the history of God and his creation. In a society where the law is not much more than an interesting but highly theoretical matter, the major religion may proclaim that following Gods laws is the only way to put things right. . . Islamic fundamentalism is both politics and religion. It has a dual nature. When it is analyzed as if it were a movement that has political nature only, mistakes are made because fundamentalism is fully religion at the same time. 
In the Islamic world one cannot differentiate between the political violence of Islamic groups and their popular support derived from religion. They, at any rate, do not recognize any disparity.
The important question remains as to how the West should defend itself against Islamic terrorism. To address the question would require another article. Suffice it to say that in order to deal with this problem, the West must first recognize that the present terrorism on the part of the Arab and Muslim world is Islamic in nature.
Link to full ICT article: Is There an Islamic Terrorism?"
The rising tide of nationalism, not only among the European millets, but among the Arabs too, who had allied with the British against the Ottoman Empire during World War I, persuaded the Turks that Islamization was no longer a viable ideology for Turkey. This left Westernization and Turkification as alternatives.
Because there had been no tradition of modernization within the Ottoman Empire itself, the only available model of it was Europeanization, which the Ataturkists chose
One day the Turks woke up to a new government mandate that rags were no longer allowed, all Turks were to start wearing suits and ties, rags on the heads were now not allowed, "hats" with brims were now the only legal headdress.
In that the Taliban has only recently outlawed the education of women and mandated that all women be covered head to toe, it's only logical that these stoneage types will basically do what ever they are told.
I say make them eat Sushi on Thursdays.
I understand almost all of them hate us; many of them want to destroy western civilization; many of them want to kill us, gang-rape our daughters, enslave our sons, and impose their vision of Islamic utopia upon the unenlightened masses world-wide. (In all fairness, there might be five or six muslims living in the U.S. who don't really feel that way about us.)
They're almost as big a threat to us as ALL the Democrats, half the Republicans, all the statist bureacrats, and all the other home-grown aspiring tyrant-wannabees.
But we can work with these people; we can negotiate with them -- get them to see the benefits of living in a democracy (where you only have to brainwash 50 percent plus one to get your way, on their dime). We can show them how to establish a system where you don't have to personally get involved when you want someone dead: you just join the majority party, then send out professional guys-with-guns to burn and pillage in the name of the majority. You can demonize your enemies beforehand to generate a positive media image for the campaign, limit the targets to the small groups and individuals on your list, then move on to other groups and individuals as needed.
It's so immature and unprofessional to blow up people and buildings indiscriminately, without the proper segregating and demonizing required for nearly full public support for your actions. These Jihad critters have so much to learn about this business.
Islamophobia has exacted a brutal toll in reprisal for Islamic violence. This includes the shooting down by the US of an Iranian airliner in July 1998, the assassinations carried out by the Israelis, the savaging of Muslim Chechnya by the Russians, the hangings of Islamists in Xinjiang by the Chinese - still continuing - the coalition turkey-shoot of the Iraqi army after its retreat from Kuwait and the near-genocide of Muslims in Bosnia.
People are in effect saying about bin laden "It's okay, he's Islamic, it's what he has to do, it's his religion".
IT'S NOT OKAY!!!! The man is a psychopath!
When Christians blow up abortion clinics or federal buildings with daycare centers, people aren't saying "oh it says in the bible that one must blow up abortion clinics". People label these nuts as pyschopaths and terrorists, and you have to do the same with bin laden and the talliban, okay?? You can't blame it on their religion, because your giving them an excuse to do what they do.