Germany and Austria-Hungary got chopped up too.
Actually, rational does not mean reasonable. They both clearly come from related words–one meaning to construct logical arguments and the other meaning to engage the power of reason in one’s mind–but they have distinct etymologies and they clearly have distinct meanings.
Rational and reasonable can be used as synonyms in certain contexts, but there is not a necessary equivalence.
One meaning of reasonable is “acting in moderation.” I suspect that you would not accuse the rioters of acting in moderation.
Since I have already stipulated that they can be used as synonyms in certain contexts, did you have a point? 
That if something is rational (that is, in accord with reason) then it has to be reasonable. You can’t ever have something that’s in accord with reason unless you’re using it to mean “moderate and not excessive.” That is, you can be reasonable but not rational, however you cannot be rational but not reasonable.
This.
Add a feudal mentality to a religion based on warrior prophet and all it needs is a mechanism that perpetuates an unquestioned belief. The basic tenets of the religion are repeated 5 times a a day and this heavily reinforces that mindset.
I assume he meant Aum Shinrikyo, who were responsible for several nerve gas attacks in Japan in the 1990’s, killing a couple dozen people in all. It’s not a great example of a terrorist organization — they were trying to use the attacks to shift attention away from themselves, rather than to create political pressure — but there are lots of other examples where that came from. The IRA, the FLQ, some neo-Nazi groups, …
Yeah, I agree it makes sense. If Zionism was going to build Israel, Palestine was the most likely rock on which it would be built.
Do you think the Caliph would have broken off a piece of his empire and given it to the Jews? How would that have worked?
So is the use of terrorism somehow logical on the part of the terrorists? How do we make it illogical for them?
Ninjas 
That is a 250 page book you just linked to. Can you provide a slightly more pinpoint cite?
It provides a look at quite a bit of history. That’s the point.
[quote=“wmfellows, post:39, topic:540753”]
[quote=“FinnAgain, post:38, topic:540753”]
Wahabism existed before the state of Israel was created. The Muslim Brotherhood existed before the state of Israel was created. Khomenism emerged as a reaction to British and American policies in Iran.
It sounds like you are saying that terrorism is not the inevitable result of wahabism, the Muslim Brotherhood and Khomenism. Would you go so far as to say that terrorism would have been unlikely to develop from these things without a catalyst like Israel. If another catalyst would have done it can you give an example of some other catalyst that might have provoked the same reactions?
Yeah? Well, tough shit. Africa would be in a right pickle if everyone who had origins there decided they wanted to return to their “homeland”.
It’s logical for the terrorists because it suits the methods of recruitment and organization that are familiar to them and accepted in their society.
In Western society, recruitment etc. that we are most familiar with is essentially state-run and bureaucratic. In the ME, the state-run bureaucracies are often of lesser importance than smaller-scale groups organized around sects or schools. These provide both learning and in many cases social welfare - see for example Hamas, or the way Wahhabism is spread through Madrassas.
How to undermine that? IMO, by replacing the “good” aspects - social welfare, education, etc. - with other organizations. This would of course take lots of money, and not ne as “sexy” as hunting down terrorists.