War against terror

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]I didn't know that the first US aircraft hijacked was by a Puerto Rican...

First recorded one was by Peruvians, not Puerto Ricans.

And indeed I was talking about terrorism and its growth and aim at the US, which was the 1970s and 1980s.

The first recorded US aircraft hijacked.

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/index.cfm?docid=5902

Very good list of terrorist "incidents" between 1961 and now.

You didn't say that. You said first "US aircraft hijacked."

Quote[/b] ]The first recorded hijacking occurred in May 1930, when Peruvian revolutionaries seized a Pan American mail plane with the aim of dropping propaganda leaflets over Lima. No hijackings were then recorded until 1947. Between that year and 1958, 23 hijackings were reported, mostly committed by eastern Europeans seeking political asylum. The world's first fatal hijacking took place in July 1947 when three Romanians killed an aircrew member.

Are you seriously arguing with me over commercial aviation matters?  

EDIT:

Quote[/b] ]The first recorded aircraft hijack was on February 21, 1931, in Arequipa, Peru. Byron Rickards flying a Ford Tri-motor was approached on the ground by armed revolutionaries. He refused to fly them anywhere and after a ten day stand-off Rickards was informed that the revolution was successful and he could go in return for giving one of their number a lift to Lima.

More info. Hilarious but a hijacking in any case.

Blame the State Department...

Quote[/b] ]

First U.S. Aircraft Hijacked, May 1, 1961: Puerto Rican born Antuilo Ramierez Ortiz forced at gunpoint a National Airlines plane to fly to Havana, Cuba, where he was given asylum.

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Blame the State Department...

I usually do...

[Bernadotte 0]

To put it simply, holy books are not charters of rights but are moral compass guides so that we may critically analyse to chart our directions. To use the holy book otherwise would be an attempt to recreate situations of the past so as to follow faithfully the path of ancients; an impossible and utterly stupid task for as each second pasts, the moment is gone and replaced by a new moment, and each new moment are all inconsistant changes.

And what if the holy book of the Jews promised to them the land where Palestinians have lived for centuries?

And what if the holy book of the Christians says that Jesus Christ will not return until the Israelites have repopulated the holy land? And what if George W Bush along with about 1/3 of Americans actually believe that to be true and are guided by it?

[Panda-PL- 0]

And what if the holy book of the Christians says that Jesus Christ will not return until the Israelites have repopulated the holy land?  And what if George W Bush along with about 1/3 of Americans actually believe that to be true and are guided by it?

That's some shocking news, pal.

Which exectly bible says that?

In my "Illustrated first Bible for the youngest" there is no such claim.

But really which one in particular. Can't remember if Jesus actually said that.

\/ Bernadotte: Must be a sign from God. Seriously: "be nice to Avon Laidy".:) And I though She ment the article.

[Bernadotte 0]

Panda, just have a closer look at the website you posted earlier:

@ July 13 2005,20:14)]but then some real info from real organisations.

UN:

http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/condemns2.html

You're a darling but you don't even know why yet.

Thank you.

Pay speacial attention to the section on Christian Zionism and then you might understand why Avon was praising you.

[denoir 0]

Remove the religious warped interpretations and you will see the mess is nothing other than what secular intervention cannot solve. Without religion, the criminals will find difficulty in obtaining recruits, will have no choice but to sit on the peace table and work out the best deal possible.

I agree with that. There are however a few practical problems.

First of all, how can one in theory say which religions are ok and which are supposed to be considered as "false", "twisted" or whatever. In the world we have a bunch of sects, some with fewer followers than others but they all have in common is that they have faith in their religious beliefs - without any foundation to back it up. So you can't really say like Blair  did:

And I say to our Muslim community. People know full well that the overwhelming majority of Muslims stand four square with every other community in Britain.

We were proud of your contribution to Britain before last Thursday. We remain proud of it today. Fanaticism is not a state of religion but a state of mind. We will work with you to make the moderate and true voice of Islam heard as it should be.

The first statement is probably quite correct. The last statement is rubbish. Is Blair in position to say what the "true voice of Islam" is? What is he basing that on? What grounds does he have to say that one sect's beliefs are correct and the other sect's isn't?

Well, he could try with the argument of majority. So what most Muslims in Britain believe = "true Islam" and the rest is "false Islam" or whatever. I'm sure for the Christian part, the Catholics (as the largest Christian sect) would appreciate such a classification, but I doubt that other sects would. Besides, are the British Muslims followers of "true Islam" anyway? I don't see any Sharia laws being enforced in those communities.

So choosing validity of arbitrary sects based on arbitrary faith, interpretation and values is nonsense.

What does that leave us with? Perhaps that murdering civilians is wrong, regardless of what your religious beliefs tell you? Well, if there's some form of external non-religious moral code that we use as a frame of reference, why all the talk about religion? Why endorse one sect over another?

Which brings me to the motives of the terrorists. We now know two very essential things - they were British and they were suicide bombers. The first fact shows that there is not any direct personal reason for getting revenge. They haven't lost family members in Iraq or anything like that. In addition it contradicts the usual mantra that poor education and poverty are the root causes of terrorism.

So we've ruled out direct reasons such as personal vengeance and indirect reasons such as ignorance and poverty. What is clear is that their agenda is political and religious. The fact that these were suicide bombers single out the latter one. You can without a doubt murder innocent people for political causes, but you don't end your own life in such a cold calculating manner so that you can kill as many civilians as possible. Mentally sane human beings do not do such things per default. You need a fanatical conviction - an extremely strong faith that you'll be rewarded in the afterlife to do such a thing.

Without the religious faith behind, this would have not happened. Religion is the core issue here - and in this case Islam. Religion is irrational by nature as it requires blind faith. Now I'm not saying that all irrational people are homicidal maniacs, but it is easier for an irrational people to do irrational acts, such as killing yourself in order to kill civilians, than it is for rational people. And irrationality is directly proportional to the degree of faith. Compared to most other religious groups today, Muslims are more dedicated to their faith. You still have of course a wide range of degrees of faith within the group, but the center of that range is more on the fundamentalist side. And this in turn means that there are more people that are extremely religious and willing to do anything for their faith. It wasn't always Islam of course - during a long period of time Christians were far more fundamentalist than Muslims. The situation today is however that the practice of Islam is to a large degree fundamentalist.

This doesn't let the other monotheistic religions of the hook. They are just as irrational in theory, it's just that the followers today are far more pragmatic and rely on universal secular values and morals to a higher degree than to blind faith in religious dogma. Or at least they express it in a different way.

I think it is unfortunate that the politicians such as Blair are more worried about the protection of the minorities than they are about the root of the issue itself. Religious faith is a question of degree of irrationality. The extreme version of it isn't a separate issue, the fundamentals are the same.

There is however difficulty in handling it in a liberal western democracy. Very few people would want to ban religion as it would be a violation of the right of the individual. This is of course a very noble sentiment, but in practical terms, the people whose rights you protect are trying to destroy you. What do you do? Do you violate your own core ethical principles and oppress those that might be of danger to you? Or do you risk supporting something that has a vastly different world view and wouldn't mind imposing that view on you?

[Panda-PL- 0]

Denoir... and what is rational?

Are You rational.

If You aren't religious, then what reason do you have not to kill people?

Is being a "good man" justified and rational for a non religious person?

And if there was God, wouldn't it be irrational not to belive in Him? Is it rational to claim there is not one?

Agnosticsm is far more rational - it is indeed the essence of rationality.

On the other hand the existence of this world is totally irrational from its start to its end. How could one be rational and at the same time belive in his own existence. Doesn't being alive imply irrationality? One more thing is that we have atheistic suiciders too. Wonder why?

You're drifting offtopic.

Sarcasm:

There are atheist, or anticlerical forums, which are full of "open-minded people" ready to discuss with You.

I even saw a thread "a minute of silence in salut to all that have died because of religion". (Is it rational to salute dead people? But again - is it rational to do anything, since You're already dead?).

[Bernadotte 0]

Very few people would want to ban religion as it would be a violation of the right of the individual. This is of course a very noble sentiment, but in practical terms, the people whose rights you protect are trying to destroy you.

I can't think of one example where banning the religion of a group bent on destruction made them stop.  Can you?  

[Panda-PL- 0]

Very few people would want to ban religion as it would be a violation of the right of the individual. This is of course a very noble sentiment, but in practical terms, the people whose rights you protect are trying to destroy you.

I can't think of one example where banning the religion of a group bent on destruction made them stop.  Can you?  

Lenin was irritated when he discovered, that people were still religious, even when he shown them visions of new, perfect world... The communists then tried by force.

If there was no other way to eliminate religion then to kill some people would You do?

And if You did wouldn't that make You a fanatical terrorer?

And is there another way?

Think twice.

[denoir 0]

@ July 14 2005,03:25)]Denoir... and what is rational?

Simply put, to base your perception of the world on empirical evidence rather than on arbitrary authority. To require to a degree of consistency and logical coherence when predicting the effect of some action.

Quote[/b] ]Are You rational.

I try to be, but of course I'm not always rational.

Quote[/b] ]If You aren't religious, then what reason do you have not to kill people?

Is being a "good man" justified and rational for a non religious person?

Moral and ethics do not at all have to be founded on religion. On the contrary, most rules of conduct are quite practical. A society can't work if people are murdering each other.

Personally, I like to be a "good man" because it brings me joy. People like me then and I like to be liked. I try not being "evil" because it gives me a bad conscience - for not living up to my moral code.

I would be more worried about people who need to be bribed with a reward (heaven) or threatened with punishment (hell) to behave correctly.

Quote[/b] ]And if there was God, wouldn't it be irrational not to belive in Him? Is it rational to claim there is not one?

If there was a God and he didn't show his existence in any way, then it would be quite rational not to believe that he exists. And if there was an invisible green monster under my bed, then it would be quite rational not to believe in it.

Quote[/b] ]

Agnosticsm is far more rational - it is indeed the essence of rationality.

No, agnosticism is not necessarily rational. There could be a green monster living under my house. I don't know and I have no way of checking. Should I be agnostic in regard of the green monster?

Are you agnostic about Zeus, Ra or perhaps Nephilim (Sumerian God)?

Quote[/b] ]On the other hand the existence of this world is totally irrational from its start to its end. How could one be rational and at the same time belive in his own existence. Doesn't being alive imply irrationality?

What on earth are you talking about?

First of all "rational" is a term used to describe a human state of mind. You can't say that "the existance of this world is irrational".

Quote[/b] ] One more thing is that we have atheistic suiciders too. Wonder why?

Because you make things up? Do you have some statistics for that?

It's ok, I have some for you. Suicide rates:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_mal

and Church attendance:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/rel_chu_att

Let's take my country, Sweden as an example:

Church attendance: 4%

Suicide rate: 20/100,00 (ranked 29th)

And let's now take your country, Poland as a second example:

Church attendance: 44%

Suicide rate: 24.7 /100,00 (ranked 22nd)

Gee, so you are more religious, but kill yourselves more often. Look at some more countries and you'll see that the by you alleged correlation between atheism and suicide is rubbish. I don't think there is really a correlation the other way either. Suicide in the vast majority of cases is committed by clinically depressed people. It's a disease, not a question of faith or lack thereof.

Quote[/b] ]You're drifting offtopic.

No, actually, you are drifting offtopic. I was discussing the role of religion in terrorism - which is the topic.

[denoir 0]

Very few people would want to ban religion as it would be a violation of the right of the individual. This is of course a very noble sentiment, but in practical terms, the people whose rights you protect are trying to destroy you.

I can't think of one example where banning the religion of a group bent on destruction made them stop.  Can you?  

Well there were a bunch of Christian sects in the middle ages that got wiped out by the Catholic chuch. You had IIRC the Dulcinian movement that advocated killing rich people.

But in modern history, none that I can think of.

[Panda-PL- 0]

Quote[/b] ]Definition: Suicide rates per 100,000 people

...

2. Russia 74.1 (1994)

...

16. France 30.4 (1995)

Quote[/b] ]Definition: The percentage of adults surveyed who claimed that they attend Church services one or more times per week.

...

28. France 21% *

...

53. Russia 2%

Hmm... Don't You think that economical reasons are of far larger signifficance? Russia as an example.

And France - despite being laical, and despite better wealth still has suicidal rate higher then Poland. That would mean that in fact Religion makes You respect life.

About rationality - When I say something is irrational i mean "its origin and existence cannot be explained in a rartional way". Well, can You?

You like to be liked? But then again You'll die and Your memories - as You claim - will die with You. Anyone You've ever met will eventually die, as well as all humanity.

Therefore there is no sin, or suffering (also no suffering to You).

What reason You have not to kill?

The offtopic drift progresses...

But without me. If You find anyone else who'd like to discuss with You - have fun (what for, You'll die anyway But if You insist on talking...). For me the case had been closed for a couple of months now - and I know all possible arguments you might present and none of them has a logical proof to it.

Goodbye Donoir, It was nice talking to You.

Better give up on this "stop religion - stop terrorism" idea. Doesn't work, really.

[philcommando 0]

What works and what don't work in the fight against terror?

What don't work in this war that all mankind has gotten involved in is for people to have ostrich views;- hiding its head in a hole rationalising that what he cant sees, others cant see it too.

Panda, this is not a reference to you for you did see the problems and am not blind. But what would work in this fight? Statistics as reference leading to an inevitable predictable event in the future? ( financial whiz kids thought it work, but it failed repeatedly - stock market prediction that relied on statistics crashed irrationally at will) Continued postings without addressing and proposing solutions to the underlaying causes will only lead to really offtopic on the fight against terror.

Do illuminate our minds, trapped on the tunnels with the victims rationalizing the cause of their death, on how you think the war can be won. ( no sacarsm intended to you Panda- the dead innocents and their families need to have a reason why in one mad moment their hopes and dreams, rights of being human were snuffed out by one single act and how such episodes may be avoided in future)

[Panda-PL- 0]

What works and what don't work in the fight against terror?

[.....]

Do illuminate our minds[.....]

About Islam-related fanatical-suicidal bombings?

I'd have to quote Miles Teg to do that. His method is the propper one and I strongly support His vision of Islam.

Shall His opponents sucseed we'll have no future.

And I think that there are strong indications in Qu'ran to prove he's right. The Prophet said that among the people those calling themself christians are closest to muslims - what is the difference between Christianity and Judaism is new testiment. And if so then in The Prophet's vision the true Islam is the one  based on "five pillars", not the literal interpretation ('cause thet's basically what most Jews do).

And if the literal interpretation of selected fragments is finally abolished Islam will no longer contain fanatists - because the rercruitment grounds will dissapear (exactly what happened in Christianity - and Islam itself is going trough similar transformations now).

^That is my point of view on fanatical terrorism as a phenomena.

The non - Islamic terrorism (political is indeed majority) is to be delt with like criminals (it is laical, so no intelectual/theological concepts discussion there).

Of course I don't intend to discuss with Denoir about religion itself. And this post is not intended to convince anyone that religion is a good thing. And as long as one doesn't try to convince others with force the differences do serve humanity (even communists said that antythesis is necessery for progress).

I have a lot of work to do and my oppinion is - I think - 100%clear now.

Thanks.

[denoir 0]

@ July 14 2005,04:47)]Hmm... Don't You think that economical reasons are of far larger signifficance?

Of course they are, that's the point! There are far more significant factors than religion as a reason to commit suicide. There is however no direct correlation for the wealth either.  Compare say Belgium (44% church attendance, 37.3 suicide rate) with Switzerland (16% church attendance, 29.5 suicide rate).

Quote[/b] ]Russia as an example.

And France - despite being laical, and despite better wealth still has suicidal rate higher then Poland.

France is laic (separation of church and state), but still fairly religious (22% church attendance).

Quote[/b] ] That would mean that in fact Religion makes You respect life.

No that would mean that you don't know much about inductive reasoning and the scientific method. You can't be selective about data - just pick examples that fit your model. If you look at the data you can clearly see that there is no correlation.

Quote[/b] ]About rationality - When I say something is irrational i mean "its origin and existence cannot be explained in a rational way". Well, can You?

Well enough not to need to resort to supernatural explanations.

Quote[/b] ]You like to be liked? But then again You'll die and Your memories - as You claim - will die with You. Anyone You've ever met will eventually die, as well as all humanity.

Yes, and I will never be the king of Belgium or an astronaut. Truth may not be as lovely as fantasy, but I prefer to stick to reality.

Of course there's suffering. You punch me and it will hurt me. I punch you and it will hurt you. As for sin, no there is no sin in the religious meaning. There are however violations of universal human morals and values.

Quote[/b] ]What reason You have not to kill?

Are you seriously saying that if you weren't afraid of hell that you'd be murdering and raping? Are you saying that your religious faith is the only source of ethics for you? If you are, it just proves my point. What is your religious belief anyway? It's stuff that you read from scripture, hear from your priest and has its origins most of the time in what your parents told you. It's all blind faith in authority, and if that authority abuses its power over you, then you can indeed go and do very nasty things.

Quote[/b] ]For me the case had been closed for a couple of months now - and I know all possible arguments you might present and none of them has a logical proof to it.

You know all possible arguments..hehe..that's very funny. But you are in luck, this is not the place to discuss theology, so I won't. The topic that I'm interested in discussing is the very obvious link between fanatical religious belief and terrorism.

Quote[/b] ]Better give up on this "stop religion - stop terrorism" idea. Doesn't work, really.

How do you know? Has it been tried? The link is there, and the London attacks are an excellent example of it.

Anyway, to go more on topic:

Religious extremism in Pakistan [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

Suspicions that at least one of the alleged London suicide bombers may have been radicalised while in Pakistan raises questions once again about religious extremism there.

Most analysts agree that the London bombers - three of whom police say were Britons of Pakistani descent - were probably trained by "minders" far more experienced in the use of explosives. UK investigators will be keen to know if the London bombers had been trained at any time in Pakistan or neighbouring Afghanistan.

The family of one of the suspected bombers has confirmed that he studied religion in Pakistan, although it is not clear that he went to one of the Islamic schools which have been accused of fostering extremism. The path to Pakistan is one that has been taken by many high-profile extremists.

British-born Omar Sheikh is currently languishing in a Pakistani jail after being found guilty of the kidnapping and murder of US journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi. Before that Omar Sheikh had fought in Bosnia and Indian-administered Kashmir.

Recent evidence indicates he was also the mastermind behind assassination attempts against Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. UK national Richard Reid was sentenced to life in prison in the United States in 2003 after being found guilty of trying to blow up an airliner with explosives hidden in his shoes.

Investigators believed he received training in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the late 1990s. Then there is Saajid Badat, raised in Gloucester in the west of England. He was found guilty by a UK court this year of conspiring with Reid to blow up the airliner.

"I have a sincere desire to sell my soul to Allah in return for paradise," he said in a letter to his family, believed to have been sent from Afghanistan.

Proliferation of militants

The spawning of a network of Islamic militant training camps in Afghanistan during the fight against Soviet control there and, later, during the rule of the hardline Islamic Taleban has been well documented.

So too the role the CIA played, hand-in-hand with Pakistani intelligence services, in training and arming anti-Soviet fighters.

The unwanted spin-off for Pakistan was that areas of the country became awash with guns and saw a proliferation of different militant groups. The unwanted spin-off for the West was that Pakistan became a country where it was easy for militants to take refuge and get backing.

What is less clear is how much all this has changed since President Musharraf threw in his lot with the United States after the 11 September attacks and declared war on extremists within. There is little evidence that his attempt to rein in extremists in Islamic schools (madrassas) has worked.

"I want to go back and fight the Americans, I can't wait anymore," was the typical comment of a madrassa graduate to the BBC well after Gen Musharraf's stated clampdown on them. Banned militant groups have tended to reappear under different names. On the other hand substantial numbers of suspected militants have been captured or killed by the security forces, particularly in the wake of the assassination attempts on Gen Musharraf towards the end of 2003.

Not convinced

President Musharraf's government maintains that it is unrelenting in the fight against Islamic extremism. But others are not convinced. In recent weeks the head of the CIA and the US ambassador to Kabul have come as close as they can to saying that Osama Bin Laden is sheltering in Pakistan, without actually saying the words. The ambassador was furious when a Pakistani TV station interviewed the man believed to be running the Taleban's resurgent fight against US-led forces in Afghanistan.

The interview took place inside Pakistan, but the TV station has been tight-lipped about the exact location. Most analysts believe it was carried out in the southern city of Karachi.

So critics will argue that the networks supporting extremists are still alive and strong in Pakistan. Wednesday's revelation by Interior Minister Aftab Khan Sherpao that his country supplied information to the UK government which helped prevent an attack in the UK before May's general election will do little to dampen that view.

[miles teg 1]

Denoir, you can't force atheism on people.  I don't believe in any organized religion, but if someone were to try and force atheism on me and attacked my very core belief systems not just with words but by preventing me from speaking or learning more about my beliefs as well as the beliefs of others, then you could bet that I would fight back fiercely if they used violence or force against me.  

Religion may be simply fantasty and a romantic notion to you Denoir, but to billions around the world it is reality.  Speaking only for myself, I have had way to many unexplainable incidents as well as spiritual experiences that can not be put into words, to simply ignore religion or the belief in a here-after.  

Quite honestly if I was an athiest, I would not have much reason not to screw people over.  I might not rape people or murder people (due to natural laws of cause and effect that would lead to negative things happening to me) but I almost certainly would try to make as much money as possible, and to get away with as much as I could get away with with the goal of maximizing my own pleasures and success as well as those of my family.  I would also try to have as many kids as possible with as many different women as possible to maximize my biological calling of spreading my genetic information on into the future...which in a way is a sort of afterlife genetically speaking.   Of coarse maybe I could rationalize not doing bad things to avoid bad things happening to my offspring in the future (with the goal of social stability) but thats the future and I can't predict the future...and hey...if you only live once, ya gotta live it up!!!

But...I don't believe that.  I do believe in really experiencing as many of life's aspects as possible and really enjoying and reveling in life, but I also believe in Karma (what goes around comes around in this life or the here-after) and in something past death in some form or manner.  

But again this has to do with my own experiences with the paranormal which is personal and I will not discuss it for others to ridicule.

To Panda.  Yeah you are right.  That is one arguement used against Islamic extremists...but it gets far more complicated when you get into Hadiths.   Its in the war of Hadiths and between Wahabi/Salefi scholars vs. moderate Sunni and more liberal Sufi scholars that it gets really complicated in some areas of Islamic Law and interpretation of Sunnah.  But it is very true that for the most part, it is fairly easily to take apart Al-Qaeda type Islamic ideologies using strong Islamic theology based upon historical context and the writings of well respected early scholars of the Hadiths (Sayings and History of the Prophet Mohammed and his followers).

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Bordoy 0]

Without religion, people would choose another excuse to kill people and you take that away, they will choose another. Conflict is part of mankind and can never be got rid of, no matter what.

[orson 0]

Quote[/b] ] you can't force atheism on people.

I couldnt see any point in trying to force anything on people ,

they will just fight against it .

 It is however time that the truth is told about the religions that hold so many back and cause so much hatred .

For me to take any religion seriously , you would have to put your money where your mouth is .. not playing at it while really your entire aim in life is to acumulate wealth .

Initially the reason for religion in all forms was to give guidance and direction to the masses , to gather people behind a common goal with the same base messages ...

1) be good and accend to heaven ( reward )

2) be bad and descend to hell ( punishment )

and so driven by the selfish motive of "will i get to heaven?" the masses set forth .

At various points through history some have sought to use the religious structures in place to manipulate the masses to there own ways of thinking .. the church of Rome being a classic example of greed and exploitation in the past .

The crusades are another example , and into modern day when the prevailing religion is the dollar .... we still undertake crusades in the name of our god the dollar , at the behest of some small greedy little men trying to play with the worlds population .....

Take any world leader ... strip him and what do you have ?

A naked man/woman ..... nothing more , and they all have personal goals and ambitions ..

Do any on this board acually believe things would get better if the AQ just stopped ?

No there would be some "other" threat within no time at all ..

It is a cycle as has been mentioned , but its on a far bigger cycle than most are seeing , they use the media like a 2 bit bunko booth operator " watch the left hand !" while the right is shafting you .

There are some clever people on these boards , maybe instead of arguing , another way to work things could be found .... a new government sytsem that actually works .

I mean we have tried all the others so far and none work  

[denoir 0]

Denoir, you can't force atheism on people.  

Who's talking about forcing anybody? You are as far as I'm concerned free to believe in ghosts, fairies, alien abduction, god etc

What I am saying is that we need to take a closer look at the whole thing when it comes to terrorism, not just the small homicidal parts. The extremes are a consequence of the fundamentalism of the mainstream. If your mainstream is pragmatical and rational to a larger extent, then the extremes might be fundamentalist, but they won't be homicidal. Why don't we have Christian suicide bombers? Because mainstream Christianity today uses its faith in a far more pragmatic and liberal way. Islam is problematic because today its mainstream is dogmatic and fundamentalist.

Being an apologist for that is no good, especially in context of terrorism.

Quote[/b] ]I don't believe in any organized religion, but if someone were to try and force atheism on me and attacked my very core belief systems not just with words but by preventing me from speaking or learning more about my beliefs as well as the beliefs of others, then you could bet that I would fight back fiercely if they used violence or force against me.

Religion is overcome by education and a solid quality of life. Since the introduction of science religion has taken a less dominant position in explaining the world - that trend is very clear. When we know about celestial mechanics, we don't need Ra to pull out the sun every morning. When we understood lightning, there was no need for Thor any more etc

And I would claim that every single person in the world is an atheist to a certain degree. Do you believe in Zeus? Do you follow the religious laws of the old Egyptians? Are you fearful that Huitzilopochtli might get vengeful if you don't sacrifice a few slaves to his honor each year?

I don't think religions should be banned and especially not by force. I do however think they should not be encouraged. We should not respect religion more than belief in alien abductions or that little green gremlins are living under my bed. I think that in the context of terrorism, if we're repeating the mantra that there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam, that we won't solve anything.

And I'm not singling out Islam because it is different from western theology. In the middle ages and for a long time after that, there was something seriously wrong with Christianity. Fortunately with the advent of science, and with social progress secular humanism became dominant in the west, which suppressed religion. With the exception of a small layer of fundamentalists, modern Christians are far more secular than they are religious.

Quote[/b] ]Quite honestly if I was an athiest, I would not have much reason not to screw people over.

It is very sad if that is the case (which I don't believe for a second). People who do get their complete morality from the dogma of their faith are potentially very dangerous. All you need a priest or an imam (who you accept as a complete authority in religious matters) to tell you that killing is ok, and off you go.

Let me put it in a different way. You do not approve of suicide bombings, right? Are you making that judgement on a purely religious belief that killing innocent people is wrong, or is there something else there?

If it is your religion that tells you it is wrong, then you are a hypocrite talking about religious tolerance. Then you are just promoting your sect's values over the values of other sects. If you truly believe in full religious tolerance and respect, then you should respect the faith of the homicidal religious fanatics. If your morality is based on your faith, then you have a lovely little holy war there, your faith vs their faith.

Or is there something else behind it? Could you possibly believe that killing innocent civilians is wrong, regardless if your faith says its ok or not? Could there possibly be a more fundamental set of values that go beyond religion?

Bordoy:

Quote[/b] ]Without religion, people would choose another excuse to kill people and you take that away, they will choose another. Conflict is part of mankind and can never be got rid of, no matter what.

Oh there is plenty of other excuses to kill people. And yes, people have often used religion as an excuse for violence. The case in London however as well as the WTC attacks and the numerous attacks in Israel are not a consequence of religion being used as an excuse. You don't kill yourself over an excuse. That's the fundamental difference. If you are going to kill yourself for a cause, then you most certainly believe in it.

[iNeo 0]

Why don't we have Christian suicide bombers? Because mainstream Christianity today uses its faith in a far more pragmatic and liberal way. Islam is problematic because today its mainstream is dogmatic and fundamentalist.

Because the Christian countries don't have a purpose. It wouldn't matter if the Iraqies or whoever were Christians or Muslims, they would still do it because they feel they don't have any other means.

[denoir 0]

Ah, but these weren't Iraqis. They were British. Born, raised and educated in the UK. So the "terrorism as a consequence of desperation" theory doesn't hold in this case. They were middle class, ok educated and well-integrated into British society. Then they went off on religious quests and came back as fanatics.

[iNeo 0]

Does being raised in England mean they can not feel solidarity with their own people?

[Apollo 0]

Does being raised in England mean they can not feel solidarity with their own people?

I think what Denoir means is that terrorism isn't nessecary a consequence of depraved living conditions of the individual who commits it.

But IMO i think the majority of "terrorists" are just people attackign from a depraved position ,only specialized terrorists organizations like Al-Quaida really use good educated people for operattions that also are quite complex.As a matter of fact many of Al-Quaida's opperational method's remind me of the KGB in the cold war era ,not the bombing itself ,but the method's of covering the prepperations making use of sleeper cell's and on the spot indoctrinated people.

ANother thing ,while many see religion as an origin of the Al-Quaid for of terrorism ,personally i think the origin that made Al-Quaida strong to the level that it is today ,and it's specific goals it has ,has to do with the political situation in key country's of the midlle east (most notably Saudi Arabia) ,the relation between the USA and these goverments ,the influence of the USA on these goverments (Saudi Arabia is practicly a USA puppet) ,and the resentment of much of the Middle east poppulation of the political meddling of the USA in such country's.

With other words ,IMO the political origin is way more important than the religious origin ,IMO Terrorists don't have the goal of ridding the world of all infidels (although such "populist" words might intice support for them) ,but their goal is far more political ,carving power in the Middle east for a greater entity that needs religion to create an form of unity.

Religion can unite many people from the Midle east ,north Africa or West Asia for a common goal ,whereas nationality cannot achieve that.

The fact that there have been long time mujahedeen movements ,where volunteering muslims of the whole muslim world fought a specific country ,for the comman muslim goal ,must have convinced some people in the middle east that religion is an awsome power tool in that region ,and that it can be used to crave power there.

IMO terrorists ,atleast at the top ,misuse religion for purely political gains ,as they know they can créave manpower of it ,religion is only the means ,the goal is worldly power IMO.

Quote[/b] ]Compare say Belgium (44% church attendance, 37.3 suicide rate)

44% curch attendance??? are you using figures from the 60's?

[iNeo 0]

Does being raised in England mean they can not feel solidarity with their own people?

I think what Denoir means is that terrorism isn't nessecary a consequence of depraved living conditions of the individual who commits it.

Yeah but they can still feel solidarity with those of their people who still live in those conditions right? And they might blame West. I mean I don't think they would feel much different if their religion was Christianity.

[Bernadotte 0]

Why don't we have Christian suicide bombers? Because mainstream Christianity today uses its faith in a far more pragmatic and liberal way. Islam is problematic because today its mainstream is dogmatic and fundamentalist.

Mainstream Christian Evangelism in the US is every bit as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the mainstream of Islam that you describe.  And it wields a great deal more power.

Religion is overcome by education and a solid quality of life.

Let's forget, for the moment, that Osama bin Laden is well educated and rich and that nearly all of the 9/11 pilots lived comfortable lives and had university educations.  Let's look at an American recently convicted for supporting terrorism:

"Ali al-Timimi, 41, a Ph.D. in computational biology and a self-professed Islamic scholar whom prosecutors described as enjoying "rock star" status among his followers in Virginia, was convicted today on all ten counts against him, including soliciting others to levy war against the United States and inducing others to use firearms in violation of federal law."

My point is, if you cast your net in search of those lacking education and quality of life then the most important fish will slip through.

...if we're repeating the mantra that there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam, that we won't solve anything.

Are you professing a clear enough understanding of mainstream Islam to say it is the primary culprit?  And is anyone here professing a clear enough understanding to say "there is nothing wrong with mainstream Islam"?

Furthermore, would you have blamed the actions of the Jewish terrorist organisation, LEHI, on mainstream Judaism or was there "nothing wrong" with mainstream Judaism?

With the exception of a small layer of fundamentalists, modern Christians are far more secular than they are religious.

Small layer?  I guess you don't have access to American satellite TV.  You probably don't recall the position held by fundamentalist evangelical minister Rev. Billy Graham in the Nixon, Reagan and Bush Whitehouse.  In fact, it was Graham who got George W to give up the bottle for Christ's sake.

But again, my primary concern is when fundamentalist Christians use their clout to push forward a bible prophesy driven agenda in complete disregard of international justice and human rights.

Denoir your mantra is no different than that of Dr Daniel pipes - "Militant Islam is the problem and moderate Islam the solution" - and who could disagree?  Just don't forget to look past the obvious harm caused when religious militancy picks up a gun.  Religious fundamentalists of all flavours have done far greater harm when in control of government policy than an explosive vest.