First off, thanks for jumping in X. I was getting tired of Maggie not listening to anything I had to say.
That being said, I have more to say to her.
They don't necessarily conceal themselves among *another* group of people. Most terrorists come from a society that has at least some support behind them. For any terrorist to succeed, they have to have that support. Otherwise, they'll be turned in straight away. Look at it this way: it is estimated that for every terrorist 'soldier' there are 35 people in the support network - and that doesn't even count the sympathizers.
Your third argument is flawed simply because you can't understand what either I or X are saying. We're not saying that the victims of terror should "embrace" the terrorist propaganda. What we
are saying is that there are reasons why these terrorists are not shunned by their communities. Most propaganda is based on a grain of truth, which is used as the starting point for a series of lies. But that little bit of truth, something that rings true to their base, has to be there for them to garner any kind of support. Then they are caught in the net, and are more willing to listen to any of the lies that follow.
So we are not arguing for the terrorists. We are arguing that the reasonings behind the terrorist's philosophy need to be understood if we are ever going to eliminate them. Killing a few, we have seen, is just a Band-Aid. More spring up in other parts of the world. (You could say that the same is true for the spread of Communism.) You have to show that they are wrong, and myopic declarations of their evil nature do nothing to advance this.
So we aren't arguing along the same lines as the terrorists. If anything,
you are. Terrorists, especially religious terrorists, promote every struggle to the level of "cosmic war." Suddenly, they are fighting for the will of God, and their enemies are the enemies of God. What you are doing is the same thing. We live in a more secular society, so our concepts of "God" and "infidel" boil down to "good" and "evil." You are doing this, Maggie. You are painting anyone with a dissenting viewpoint as on the side of terrorists and therefore bad. Your delineations are along the same lines as the terrorists - just the sides are flipped.
I think that these people are evil. They have evil intentions. But to paint them as such without bothering to understand their evilness is to play right into their game (the one you outlined directly above). It promotes argument 3 in the minds of the people in argument 2, and the ranks of the terrorists grow.
I don't pretend to know that I have all of the answers, nor do I claim to be an expert on terrorism. I have done a little study, though, and it has taught me that this form of quick delineation does little good in forming a complete and cohesive policy. That is why I object to it.