Generalissimo in OBL = The Good Muslim
I found that part of his sentence to be a very interesting subject for debate. It immediately fires off two questions in my set state of neurons:
1) Doesn't the argument: "It's not the gun, but the person holding the gun", apply here? We find a lot in all Abrahamistic religions that could be used to encourage oppression and discrimination, and indeed, history of all these religions has shown this to be the case, yet today you find few christians (or relative few I should say) willing to "pick up that gun".
2) And the follow-up question would then be, under what circumstances would people adopt and execute the idea that a whole general group of people must be fought against by any means necessary, for the glory of a religion that, at the same time teaches to love and respect your fellow man?
So, with those two questions in mind, I guess what I would be arguing in this debate is that religion in itself is not really the inspiration for oppression and discrimination in the middle-east (or elsewhere), but instead a tool used to excuse the same. The inspiration comes from a troubled political climate, spawned of an aggressive culture that historically has proved useful for survival. The religion is also the result of that harsh environment, and therefore, no matter the intentions of its' originator for it to promote peace and stability, it has elements of aggression or it wouldn't have survived that cultural environment.
It's the culture, not the religion (entangled as they may be), that promotes oppression, as is evidenced by the fact that christianity, as the culture around its' followers have slowly changed over the years, can no longer be considered as dangerous and menacing to free thought and differing opinions, as it most definitely once was.