What I note in this case, as in all debates, no matter the level of erudition, is that everyone presents a self-contained argument, encompassing every aspect of the subject. World views are always exclusionary: either A is true or B is true, but never both A and B, mixed in different proportions

That approach may actually serve well as a starting point, but I’m always disappointed when that’s where a discussion ends: with separate presentations having no meeting points.

As a reader, I’m glad to be able to do what those in a discussion won’t. I can learn that even opposing arguemtns can each contain an amount of insight and wisdom

This era of Islamic fundamentalism and warfare by terror will be analysed and re-analysed for decades, even centuries. The West is having to deal with something entirely foreign to it, as represented by Al Queda. I’m not surprised that we are still in the first stages of learning how to deal with it, both mentally and in battle.

This was a good lesson along the way.