So you're saying she clearly meant [word for word quotation of an idiomatic expression]? Yeah, sure, whatever.
Funny thing, most people actually mean what they say, you have spent most of the thread trying to paste your interpretation onto it with little evidence. If you want me to expamd on what I think she meant, it'd be that "Terror is not confined one particular religion or group."
As for "which religion Terror is", it is no particular religion but rather the nature of religious belief itself that enables fanatics to become terrorists.
You should have just stopped at the underlined part.
Composition fallacy. I didn't say all terrorist acts are explained by religion, nor did I say that terrorists acts where religion is involved are explained solely by religion.
I'm saying a religious mindset affords terrorism far more easily than a non-religious mindset.
See I'd disagree. Terrorism is a result of politics and an extremist political view. Where regilion comes into terrorism is where that religion and politics is mixed. In the West it is rare to find large groups that use terror to push a politico-religious agenda since we tend to keep our politics and religion separate, however elsewhere, especially in Islam countries where religion and politics are one and the same thing, we tend to see more "religious" terrorist groups.
However, if you look at them, you'll find that they do what they do due to political, not religious reasons. Take Al Qeada for example. They do what they do not because they are trying to convert the US to Islam, but rather their actions are political in nature. They want the US to stop supporting Israel and what they see as corrupt ungodly goverments in their own countries. They also want the US and its allies out of the Arabian Peninsular. These are political goals (though due to the nature of Islam they have a religious undercurrent.)
Here are some statments you might also want to consider:
Robert Pape compiled the first complete database of every documented suicide bombing from 1980-2003. He argues that the news reports about suicide attacks are profoundly misleading — "There is little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world's religions". After studying 315 suicide attacks carried out over the last two decades, he concludes that suicide bombers' actions stem from political conflict, not religion.
Michael A. Sheehan stated in 2000, "A number of terrorist groups have portrayed their causes in religious and cultural terms. This is often a transparent tactic designed to conceal political goals, generate popular support and silence opposition."
Terry Nardin wrote, "A basic problem is whether religious terrorism really differs, in its character and causes, from political terrorism... defenders of religious terrorism typically reason by applying commonly acknowledged moral principles... But the use (or misuse) of moral arguments does not in fact distinguish religious from nonreligious terrorists, for the latter also rely upon such arguments to justify their acts... political terrorism can also be symbolic... alienation and dispossession... are important in other kinds of violence as well. In short, one wonders whether the expression 'religious terrorism' is more than a journalistic convenience".
Professor Mark Juergensmeyer wrote, "..religion is not innocent. But it does not ordinarily lead to violence. That happens only with the coalescence of a peculiar set of circumstances - political, social, and ideological - when religion becomes fused with violent expressions of social aspirations, personal pride, and movements for political change." and "Whether or not one uses 'terrorist' to describe violent acts depends on whether one thinks that the acts are warranted. To a large extent the use of the term depends on one's world view: if the world is perceived as peaceful, violent acts appear to be terrorism. If the world is thought to be at war, violent acts may be regarded as legitimate. They may be seen as preemptive strikes, as defensive tactics in an ongoing battles, or as symbols indicating to the world that it is indeed in a state of grave and ultimate conflict"
Following this line of though, Clinton is completely correct, terror has no religion, it is a political tool.
