And Another Thing…

Islamist violence, like most religious extremism, has existed for hundreds of years. However:

“blindingly stupid argument that the war in Iraq “actually brought Islamist terror to Britain’s streets for the first time.””

Er, so how many Islamist terrorist incidents were on Britain’s streets prior to that, exactly?

I felt Eric Joyce’s resignation letter was a wee bit contradictory. He firstly argues that in terms of Afgahnistan and other NATO committments (a) the other European nations are not pulling heir weight, and (b) that this means an ever greater US presence, which he sees as undesirable. He then argues we should set a time frome for downsizing our own contribution. Logical ?

I’ll ignore the “Iraq = terrorism” argument. Too much of a moot point.

I would, however, ask Mr Joyce why he felt the best way to understand the mess we have in these wars is to vote “very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.” (source theyworkforyou.com)

It does seem odd to argue that Labour may become (are?) untrustworthy on defence but, at the same time, make certain no-one knows what happened.

I thought everyone had stopped taking MacIntyre seriously years ago?

I agree with Tom. We need to kill thousands of Afghans to win their hearts and minds, instal a west leaning democracy which treats women like sex slaves and protect the poppy fields so British drug users can enjoy heroin prices at world lows due to record production levels.

All the above are factual results of our essential war in Afghanistan.

Have we learned anything form Malaysia, Vietnam and Iraq?

Nope.

Has anyone ever long term won in Afghanistan?
Nope.

And of course, all these Islamist bombers and would be terrorists cells that are being disrupted in the UK are largely form : Afghans? Nope.

From Pakistan!

The words: an incompetent appalling waste of lives and money in a misdirected campaign : seem an inadequate description.

We spend billions persuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with only scant evidence that it will prevent an attack in the UK.

No good insisting that we have had only a few incidents since, there is no evidence to suggest it would have been otherwise if we had no presence in either country.

Whatever judgment has been used in persuing conflict in either place has resulted in a huge cost to be paid for by the taxpayer.

Lets get the hell out of it before it gets really nasty

The shoebomber?

No I never agreed with going into Iraq. Sorry wasn’t stupid enough to swallow the WMD excuse. It was a bad war which has destabilised the middle East.
Didn’t agree with Afghanistan either.
No one wins these wars.
Why not be honest about our reasons for being there? It’s Oil & gas pipelines=money=greed.
There weren’t Bombs in London till you lot invaded Iraq.

PS. Meant Taliban bombs of course. Sorry.

I dont believe Eric is a hypocrite no i believe Eric wants to get re-elected and being on the anti- war side will aid him in this

Had to go to google to realise the Michael Mcintyre reference was not entirely serious. I think. You could confuse a stupid person.

New to your excellent blog.

Hypocrite no, but his timing’s unfortunate; either careless or, more likely, deliberate.

‘Down with war’ seems to be the simplistically cosy mantra of many on both the left and the right. The former, despite all the lessons from the past, still seem to believe that ‘giving peace a chance’ is all that is needed in our complex world, the latter that ‘we should leave all those ghastly foreigners alone to fight each other’…

A coherent and convincing analysis of the folly of our occupation of Afghanistan. http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com/2009/09/get-out-of-afghanistan-now.html

I write as someone who was and is totally opposed to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not agree that,
“a war that actually brought Islamist terror to Britain’s streets for the first time”

What the war in Iraq did was to give the violent and evil people who bombed us a specious raison d’etre.

I used to get beaten up at school. The bully would usually say, “Are you looking at me?”, to which there is no answer that will satisfy a moron who basically wants a reason to vent his anger on society in general and me in particular. The terrorists are no different, but, and it is a big but, you have to ask yourself why these atrocities did not happen before Iraq, and why, many countries in Europe have escaped this style of murder and mayhem.

The answer is complex, but involves our unexplainable “special relationship” with the USA and our domestic pandering to a way of life that is contrary to British values.

Right now, and we have to start from right now, even pulling out of Afghanistan altogether is not going to affect the problem of Islamic inspired terrorism that has emerged during the years of New Labour.

“…the war in Afghanistan is sadly necessary and the public’s impatience with the mission’s progress can have no bearing on the rights or wrongs of our presence there.”

The arrogance of New Labour knows no bounds. You dispute the argument that British born Islamists have been radicalised following the folly of the Iraq War, because knowing it was an illegal war fought on a lie is bad enough. Admitting that it not only killed hundreds of thousands of innocent men, woman and children in Iraq, but also dozens in London, would of course spell the end of the New Labour party once and for all.

I have not yet heard a convincing argument from anyone in government, here or anywhere else for that matter, backing up why we are fighting an unwinnable war in a country with which we share nothing in terms of democratic values. Fighting the Taliban because they gave shelter to the 9/11 terrorists is not, I’m afraid, sufficient justification for the growing toll of dead and injured.

It took almost thirty years to work out that terrorists in Northern Ireland could only be stopped by talking to them. How long do you propose we wait before we start talking to the Taliban? And how many more people, British and allied soldiers and innocent civilians amongst them, have to die before it happens?

Sorry mate, you’re wrong. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime that you and all the other spineless Labour MPs who voted for it should be eternally ashamed of. The 7/7 bombings were a direct consequence of this – if you poke a stick into a wasps nest, don’t be surprised if you get stung. Your wars have increased the risks to the Briths people, not made us safer. That is the main reason why I won’t be voting Labour at the next election.

Ah yes, those dreadful lefties.

Eric Joyce may not be a hypocrite but read this:

“Earlier, the former security minister Tony McNulty told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme today that “some three quarters of all the significant plots in this country can be traced right back to that whole frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, so I don’t think that link is a false one”.

“Having watched the Soviets be defeated in Afghanistan [in the 1980s], we walked away, and the end result was Tora Bora, 9/11 and the Taliban government,” he said.

“We must learn the lessons of history … I’m very clear that that link with terrorism is hugely important.”

So who armed the resistance to the Soviets? Err the US.. And where did they send it through? Err Pakistan..
And who opposed the invasion of Aghanistan? We did..

As for “learning the lessons of history” the speaker as usual was ignorant.. No-one has successfully invaded Afghanistan.. from Alexander the Great to the British the Soviets.

Hypocrisy anyone.

The speaker of course ?

Tom McNulty

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics

Nice to see such hypocrites in action./2009/sep/04/afghanistan-eric-joyce-resignation-mcnulty

Tom: “Isn’t it wonderful how some on the Left try to pin the blame for terrorism on the British government, and not on the murdering psychopaths who actually set off the explosives on London’s transport system?”

Let’s try placing the blame for these terrorist attacks right where it belongs – religion.

And not just the rabid, fundamental type, how about the placid, forgiving nice that refuses to come out and say that people’s extreme beliefs and views are not just wrong but dangerous.

Where were the major religious figures when Islamist went mental over some Danish cartoons (which are NOT against Islam as they were not done by Muslims) or when Salman Rushdie had a Fatwa placed upon him??? Oh yes, they were joining the Mullahs in saying blasphemy is a terrible crime.

Sadly the war in Afghanistan does not seem winnable as the hearts and minds we are trying to win over have been brainwashed by their religion and no amount of bombing, aid or freedom will change that in the short term.

The last lot of problems with the IRA were started by Labour when the then Labour government sent in the troops with a shoot to kill policy.John Major had to sort it out.
This Labour government atacked Iraq on a lie and wonder why we have now such Islamic unrest in our country.

You need to face up to the truth Tom no matter how hard it is for you.

The next Tory government will yet again sort out Labours mess.

If there’s any justification for continuing the war in Afghanistan, it’s to bring peace and prosperity to a ravaged country. Is there any hope that British and American forces can do that and if so, how long will it take? (40 years was the recent estimate of a British general.)

Right now, British soldiers are dying so that the Afghan parliament can pass laws making it legal for a man to rape his wife, and so that a corrupt administration like Karzai’s can stay in power. Is this worth the sacrifice?

America’s war in Vietnam was morally justifiable (in my opinion) but they eventually had to pull out because they had no chance of victory. I think we should make the same decision in Afghanistan.

The war in Afghanistan, if argued properly, and by someone with the respect of the nation, can be justified. Much of the terrorist atrocities, most notably 9/11, were based in Afghanistan where the Taliban government actively encouraged and protected terrorists. If we had focused solely on that war, and if the government had given it the support it needs in terms of troop numbers and resources, then it could have succeeded, with an Afghan army capable of stopping the return of the Taliban, and a properly democratically elected government.

Sadly, our government decided not to resolve that war, and instead invaded Iraq, which personally I still don’t think can be justified. Because of the lack of public belief in the reasons for invading Iraq, and the sunsequent loss of trust in our government, the war in Afghanistan is viewed by many as an extension of the Iraq war, and therefore unjustifiable and wrong.

Our government is failing to make clear why we entered Afghanistan. It is failing the troops that are there, and unforgivably spinning against any military person who speaks out against the government.

Gordon Brown is not the man to win the argument. His popularity is at an all time low, he is too associated with briefings against those that don’t toe the party line, and his refusal to fund the army when he was treasurer, and now as PM, are well documented. Until there is a change in the messenger, the message will be irrelevant.

Am I grasping this: All you have to do is say sorry and then embark on a new campaign of nonsense?

I thought that this model was usually whipped out of you by the age of seven!

“Behind the hand attacks by any Labour figure on senior service personnel are now, to the public, indistinguishable from attacks on the services themselves.”

*****************************************

What *can* Eric by talking about?

The likes of this perchance?

*****************************************

Asked by Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance they give to service personnel in relation to their commenting to the media.

…Was she therefore surprised at the public comments of Sir Richard Dannatt and Sir Jock Stirrup, which threaten to undermine our effort in Afghanistan and give succour to the enemy?

*****************************************

Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. Mate of yours, Tom, isn’t he?

Perhaps you could let him have a guest blog so he can explain how a General asking for equipment to save the life of the soldiers under his command is likely to ‘give succour to the enemy’.

I’m not a lefty but…

I won’t say the government is ‘to blame’ for 7/7. Obviously the only people directly responsible were those idiots who decided blowing up dozens of innocents on trains and buses was okay.

But.

Do you really believe that fighting these wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is decreasing the likelyhood of more attacks in this country? Long term?

I and a great many others think the opposite is probably true.

There _may_ be short term advantage to us, as any idiots like those mentioned above may well decide to head out to Afghanistan to cause trouble there, knowing that it’s a lot easier there than here to get an AK47 or the necessary bits to make an IED.

But when we’re ‘finished’ in Afghanistan (Or to put it more accurately when we decide to pull out, I’m not sure Afghanistan is ‘finishable’) where do you think the remaining jihadists will go? Do you think they will stay in Afghanistan or do you think they will head to the West?

Lords Hansard 21 July 2009 btw

[...] suicide bomber and the war in Afghanistan. By captainjako Tom Harris has a post in which he rails against left-wingers suggesting that our government’s foreign policy brought Islamist terror, i.e. the 7/7 bombings, to [...]

If those who set off the London bombs were, as you say Tom, simply murderous psychopaths, there’d be considerably less to worry about.

Unfortunately, they were nothing like as unusual as that description would suggest.

They were, by their own admission, deeply devout muslims, joyful in their pursuit of eternal paradise by destroying the unbeliever and becoming glorious martyrs for Islam

Several national polls put the figure of muslims in this country who believe that killing civilians here is fully justified, at between 6% and 9%. Well over one hundred thousand.

So far, at least, with one exception,the security services have kept us safe.

But it amuses me to think what a fuss there’d be if the Church of England announced that 6% of its adherents thought that killing muslims in Britain was “fully justified”, and that those who did so were guaranteed eternal paradise.

Lord Foulkes is a chum of Toms ?

Tom ? Really ?

As a justification for invading Iraq “we now live in a globalised world, and despite the fact that Islamists have been murdering their political and religious opponents in cold blood” is far weaker than either wedunnit to find EMDs or wedunnit to establish democracy.

Presumably it would be alright for Syria/Libya to drop burning materail on British villages because Chritians have been murdering other Christians for some time.

As a supporter of NATO’s bombing of maternity hospitals to murder & ethnicaly cleanse Serbs, to kidnap children to sell to western brothels & to dissect living people, to sell, in parts, to our hospitals, I do not think you can seriously accuse any Islamists of doing anything worse than you have.

Liberanos:
“But it amuses me to think what a fuss there’d be if the Church of England announced that 6% of its adherents thought that killing muslims in Britain was “fully justified”, and that those who did so were guaranteed eternal paradise.”

I think you’ll find they do. The proportion of people who are willing to give up their own freedoms to try to keep safe without putting up a fight suggests they would be more than happy to have the killing of any minority if they were told it was in the interests of the majority’s safety.

The solution, such as it is, is to have the so-called majority of moderate Muslims to come out against the fundamentalists, inform the authorities on them, shun them in their own communities and show them that just because they are of the same religion they are not one of you. Until this happens people will rightly look upon the Muslim community with suspicion. They will think that because we do not hear loud voices and protest marches that the majority is in tacit collusion with the extremists. If you can gather numbers to protest a Danish cartoon then surely you can arrange a protest at terrorist attrocities in your own country.

Eric Joyce seems to have a very safe seat which rather suggests that he *has* resigned out of principle rather than for shabby political gain.

How unusually brave (for a Labour MP anyway).

Er?

What happened there . . . was it something I said?

Was it because I agreed with Mo . . . and he’s got Blue Hair?

There was a protest rally in Scotland after the Glasgow Airport bombing which was organised by Muslims but I have to say personally I don’t really see the point.

The point of protesting at things like the Iraq war is because the decisions are taken by a democratic government. They can be influenced. We have a right as citizens to make our feelings clear and they have a duty to listen to us because they are our government. Doesn’t mean of course that they have to do as protestors want, but they have a duty to listen to the concerns of the public and respond to them.

Terrorists on the other hand are not going to be influenced by marches and rallies etc. They don’t care what we think. What do you think would happen? Would they be sitting in their caves saying oh dear, look how many people are marching against us, we need to find a better way of explaining our decision making and engaging with these people or we might not be re-elected as terrorists.

I don’t think so.

As for the idea that Muslims have to march about protesting against terrorism simply to prove that they are not terrorists. Duh. Most people killed by Muslim terrorists are other Muslims.

Incidentally Liberanos if we took a poll asking how many British people think that killing civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan is justified I suspect the figure would be a lot higher than 6 – 9%.

Whether we like it or not, engaging in war means killing civilians. That cannot be avoided.

Unless you are a pacifist, you too believe that killing civilians can be justified.

The underlying issue is therefore not whether it is right or wrong to kill civilians but whether any particular war is justified.

“Isn’t it wonderful how some on the Left try to pin the blame for terrorism on the British government, and not on the murdering psychopaths who actually set off the explosives on London’s transport system?”

Yep, absolutely.

And the loons of the extreme right and the online wannabe abusocracy are EXACTLY the same in methods and views most of the time . . .

Traitors or fools for the most part, for they are usually politically tendentious in approach, rather than genuinely convinced of any error in policy.

Why in b***ery do we not pay the Afghanis a good payment for their opium, thereby

1. Neutralising the Taliban.
2. Enabling THEM to improve their local economies
3. Ameliorate the worldwide shortage for medical morphine.
4. Take out the drugs barons by – as in 1 – paying the growers well.

That would be cheaper in terms of money, and more important, in terms of lives.

Why? Tell me Tom, please?

And why is the pipeline NEVER mentioned? Could it be that Big Gordo thinks us stupid? He would be well advised not to. Am getting an interesting response from the people I know working in public services; whereas a year ago their hackles rose when I laid into Brown, now they sit there looking glum. They know I was right, and that he is and was and ever will be a walking disaster.

You are going to be annihilated at the elction. And serve you right. The Labour Party should be ashamed for waving Brown in – everyone knows he is unfit for high office. No wonder the rumours about his health and state of mind are bubbling back again.

Why should we suffer for his total incompetence, and the utter incompetence and spinelessness of Labour. Party before country is an offence against democracy.

Quietzapple “Generally pro Gordon Brown” – oh dear, gawn yersel son.

Proving that it *is* possible to be a Labour troll on a Labour blog.

Tom you just need to come to terms with the fact we will never win in Afganistan.
It was a mistake to send them in, and in Labour fashion you refuse to accept it was a mistake.
How many more need to fall before we bring them home.
The fight should be against these people in Britain. You have put off doing at home what needs to be done.

The Times is reporting that Eric Joyce resigned, among other reasons, because of a plan by Kevan Jones to “chase Sir Richard Dannatt” over his expenses.

If this is true, it makes his resignation all the more honerable, and the attitutude towards the army within this Government all the more reprehensible.

@Indy

“…Whether we like it or not, engaging in war means killing civilians. That cannot be avoided.”

Absolutely agree.

Devout muslims believe they are at war with the unbeliever in this country. And that is their justification for killing us.

I point this out in case any still really believe that the religion which rewards this action with promises of eternal paradise, ten thousand slaves, seventy-two virgins and a thick carpet is no more dangerous to us than ,say, the Church of England.

“James Macintyre just posted a piece entitled “The hypocrisy of Eric Joyce”, which basically claims that if you supported the invasion of Iraq (which both Eric and I did), you therefore have no right to suggest that the public’s patience might be running out with the argument that British efforts in Afghanistan are aimed at preventing terrorism in Britain.”

Let’s ‘unpack’ this a little. Firstly, if you supported the invasion of Iraq, you were wrong, end of. Possibly looking out for your political career, possibly just thick as, but definitely wrong. Forget ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’, the campaign of misinformation undertaken to justify military action against Iraq was breathtaking in it’s audacity. If anything destroyed our faith in politicians, it was this, that not even public inquiries could dent the wall of plausible deniability erected by the ’45 minutes’ merchants.

We, the people who opposed that military action from the start, could have been wrong, the politicians might have been telling the truth about intelligence honestly compiled by agents. It just wasn’t a very likely possiblity, but you all acted like it was, anyway.

Now, you seem to be suggesting that even though that monstrous foul-up that you colluded in led to the US and UK governments ‘taking their eyes off the ball’, as it is commonly expressed, in Afghanistan, you can still mouth platitudes about how the campaign is going. I don’t know this MacIntyre, but he seems to have the right of it. The point of attacking (not invading) Afghanistan was to capture the people responsible for ’911′. Eight years and 200+ dead British soldiers with many more maimed later, are we any nearer that goal? Is there a new goal? ‘Oil’ await your answer…

Considering that the London bombers actually told us that they were taking the actions that they did because of the Iraq war, and after Tony Blair had been re-elected again, it is very hard to see how anyone could argue that the two things are not connected.

Islamism is not random, and neither is it necessarily rooted in Islam itself, any more than the mediaeval witch burnings were an inevitable result of Christianity. In each case people make choices in how they interpret their religion. What we see in al quaeda and its offshoots is a reactionary political movement that uses violence to achieve its objectives, which are primarily concerned with the presence of the US in Saudi Arabia and US foreign policy in the region.

We do not need to be a part of that, mainly because US foreign policy is wrong, and to blindly follow it is wrong in itself, as well as exposing us to risk.

The British Army will never be victorious in Afghanistan and the Afghans know it. They are just waiting until we get kicked out – again.

Liberanos that is a ridiculous statement ”devout muslims believe they are at war with the unbeliever in this country” your average Scottish muslim – not a few of whom are Tom’s constituents – believe no such thing and you, and he, do a great disservice to Scottish muslims by printing such nonsense.

When you walk past the central mosque in Glasgow you will see signs posted at all corners saying May God Bring Peace and Prosperity to this City. I have yet to meet any devout muslim who disagrees with that sentiment.

The wee man who runs my local corner shop is a devout Muslim.

He is not trying to kill me.

Sometimes he sells me crisps that are out of date but that’s not the same thing and he always knocks 20p off the price …..

“Liberanos that is a ridiculous statement ”devout muslims believe they are at war with the unbeliever in this country” your average Scottish muslim – not a few of whom are Tom’s constituents – believe no such thing and you, and he, do a great disservice to Scottish muslims by printing such nonsense…”

If this is nonsense, then someone should explain to those same average Scottish muslims why the families of so many of those who die for what they call their religious duty, are being so stupid when they publicly rejoice in the glorious Islamic martyrdom of their offspring.

And then someone should explain why the martyrs themselves, clutching the koran to their chest, proclaiming their steadfast devotion to the cause of Islam in their own videos, are lying.

Surely the answer for muslims who are less devout is to protest loudly and change the rules. Not pretend the rules are not as they are.

@Indy.

The muslim who runs my corner shop only tries to kill me when he sells me cigarettes.

But he would be the last person in the world to call himself truly devout.

Not drinking alcohol and visiting the mosque is not what we’re talking about here.

Carrying out to the letter the religious imperatives of the koran, regardless of the cost, is what the martyrs themselves and senior islamic scholars and clerics the world over have in mind.

The fact that they may be wrong is not the issue.

The fact that 120,000 of those who believe it are living here certainly is.

Liberanos do you think the same veneration of martyrdom and suicide is equally wicked when it forms part of the Jewish tradition?

As I attempted to explain, there is nothing inherently contained within the Q’ran which drives people to be suicide bombers.

They are reactionaries. And what they are reacting to is real. As was the case with events that drove the Jews to build a similar tradition.

But so far, as a fellow south sider along with Tom, I haven’t actually met any muslims determined to kill me or any who show the slightest inclination to support my death. Have you?

Ah so when you say ‘devout’ you don’t actually mean devout.

Got that.

@Observer

The veneration of suicide as espoused by any religion at all is entirely their business. ‘You worship life, we worship death’, as one devout muslim pronounced recently.

But when that veneration includes taking me with it, for a reward, I object.

These muslims are reactionaries indeed. That is, they cling to the original verities… uncomfortable as they are to modern, civilised westerners and those muslims they refer to as westernised apostates.

@Sammy

Geddaway! Surely No 10 below is that nice Mr Chameleon?

Troll:

–verb (used with object)

1. to sing or utter in a full, rolling voice.

2. to sing in the manner of a round or catch.

3. to fish for or in with a moving line, working the line up or down with a rod, as in fishing for pike, or trailing the line behind a slow-moving boat.

4. to move (the line or bait) in doing this.

5. to cause to turn round and round; roll.

6. Obsolete. to hand around, as a bowl of liquor at table.
–verb (used without object)

7. to sing with a full, rolling voice; give forth full, rolling tones.

8. to be uttered or sounded in such tones.

9. to fish by trolling.

10. to roll; turn round and round.

11. to move nimbly, as the tongue in speaking.

–noun
12. a song whose parts are sung in succession; a round.

13. the act of trolling.

14. a lure used in trolling for fish.

15. the fishing line containing the lure and hook for use in trolling.

Origin:
1350–1400; ME trollen to roll, stroll < MF troller to run here and there < MHG trollen walk or run with short steps

@Indy

I probably failed to make myself clear.
When you say devout you possibly still refer to the kindly muslim gent in the corner shop.

When I say devout, I refer to the muslim who carries out the religious obligations of his faith to the letter.

To the letter.

“that old, dishonest, craven and blindingly stupid argument that the war in Iraq “actually brought Islamist terror to Britain’s streets for the first time.” In Macintyre’s mind, Islamist terrorism never existed before 7/7/05″.

The leader of the 7/7 cell was radicalised by Bosnia. Al-Qaeda and Islamist militant (not the same as “terrorist”) groups were extremely active in London prior to 2001.

Fact is, anyone who is devout (regardless of religion) blindly follows the letter of their faith. The problem here is faith.

Any of the main religions can be quote mined to provide solace, justification for great works of charity or mindless violence. NB mindless!

If people make decisions based on one or two thousand year old texts in the 21st century then can we really be surprised that good people do bad things?

Until we remove religion from these situations then the political issues, which have a solution, will be swept under the carpet.

People don’t do bad things because of religion. The Koran is full of passages extolling peace and love. They simply use religion to justify something they would be inclined to do anyway.

Likewise homophobic bigots who claim to be Christians. How can you be Christian and ignore the teachings of Jesus? How can you be Muslim and ignore the teachings of Mohammad?

Simon, seriously? All terrorists are bad people just looking for an excuse?

Does it not seem more likely they were actually relatively normal people indoctrinated into a dangerous way of (not) thinking that religion seems especially suited to induce. Some people with certain aims then use this state to encourage these people to commit attrocities.

@Paul “Simon, seriously? All terrorists are bad people just looking for an excuse?”

Yes, and No. I’m saying that Religion is not the reason for doing bad things. It’s an excuse. The 9/11 and 07/07 terrorists had their own reasons for mass murder. But they were educated enough to know that both the Christian bit of the Bible and The Koran explicitly state killing is wrong. They knew that they would not be getting their 77 virgins and eternity in paradise. If that was really on the cards wouldn’t Bin Laden have been the first to blow himself up?

@Simon

Osama has important work to do for allah. He will be happy to die when, in his view, that becomes more important than his work.

The koran explicitly forbids killing…except when the cause is just.

It’s extraordinary how often that last part of the phrase is left out. But one can see how that puts a rather different slant on it.

The bible is also full of smiting and killing thine enemy, extolled as a prime virtue in god’s eyes.

If someone decides to base their world view and way of life on ancient books of magic, we can expect odd behaviour.

You can’t blame the books. They’re just historical curiosities.

So you’re right. It’s the people.

It’s not religion that is the problem (although it is). The problem is blind faith and adherence to a particular view of life, justice and morality that the people who taught them religion happened to peddle.

The people at the top of the tree do not believe the gibberish they say – the Pope does not believe in a literal Adam and Eve but it suits his purposes if less educated people happen to take that view of the Bible. Likewise OBL may not think there are 72 virgins waiting for him, his aims may be more political but it suits his purpose perfectly if others happen to believe that.

As for people believing stupid things – most Christians, even the well-read ones, believe in a literal paradise sitting at the hand of god when they die. To compartmentalise (or justify) this view against all reason they cling to the notion that the bible is somehow a special book and so some will believe p[arts literally and others will try to take more general morals from it. Either way is wrong and both ways lead to people doing bad things for bad reasons.

Many people are happy to give up their autonomy to some higher power, or some charlatan pretending to be in contact with the higher power. This allows unquestioning obedience and absolves the person of any moral responsibility because if god ordered it, it must be right. It also enables people to manipulate impressionable/vulnerable people to do things that they would not otherwise do. Hence not all terrorists are ‘inherently bad people looking for an excuse’ and the real target for security services should be the manipulators at the top of the tree.

There’s a great line in The Simpons when Ned Flanders is asking why God appears to have something against him,

“I’ve done everything the Bible says – even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff! ”

Anyone who says they take the Old Testement literally is either a fool or a liar, which is probably why Christ said you could pretty much ignore it.