And just watch everyone‘s civil liberties and freedoms get further eroded, with this being the highly dubious justification. Unfortunately life cannot be controoled to the n-th degree, there are bad people out there, but the neo-con/neo-lib response is grossly disproportionate. One might almost think that some would like further authoritarian powers and play up the terror angles as a cover.

Despite protestations to the contrary the bomber’s failure

The would-be bomber only failed in terms of destroying an aircraft and the lives of his fellow passengers. He succeeded in generating “wall to wall coverage” and serious suggestions of (what he and his friends would probably call) further oppression of Muslims from additional security measures including profiling to torture of suspects to US attacks in Yemen.

So is it 4 or 6?

I’m confused.

How very dare the US help Yemen combat terrorism.

Jim Jepps, you really fundamentally misunderstand this attack. How depressing, after all these years.

The bomber’s motivation was religious.

Not really. Radical Islamism is a political creed rather than a religious one. Plenty of Muslims (including fundamentalists) do NOT subscribe to this violent ideology.

What would the world be like if we rewarded non-violent protest with this kind of media coverage?

Al Qaeda are not in the ‘protest’ game. They have no grievance. They seldom make any demands (they don’t even always remember to call for US troops out of Saudi. This isn’t about getting their way or wringing concessions from the West.

It’s obviously news but the response feels disproportionate.

Oh puleeze… are you really arguing that American or European media shouldn’t give any more coverage to terrorist acts on their own patch and (potentially) involving their own nationals than they do to attacks many thousand of miles away involving only foreigners?

Must we immediately ascribe this act to “Al Qaeda”. Clearly, the sorry affair has sealed the fates of many innocent Yemenis, and I think, to use the brazenly insensitive phrase, we should hold our fire until more information is in the public domain.

Jay…

Not really. Radical Islamism is a political creed rather than a religious one.

A political creed which holds that human acts should be subordinate to the will of Allah. Sounds a bit religious to me.

BenSix

Sounds a bit religious to me.

If you cannot distinguish between Islamism and Islam, how are you ever going to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism or between Chrisianity and Christian Democracy?

This guy wasn’t any more pious or devout a Muslim than the guy that runs my corner shop.

Where they differ is in their politics, not in their religion.

This guy is a violent terrorist.

The guy that runs my corner shop is a Liberal Democrat councillor.

This blog post reads almost like a parody of woolly thinking.

Jay Law…

If you cannot distinguish between Islamism and Islam, how are you ever going to distinguish between Zionism and Judaism or between Chrisianity and Christian Democracy?

Different forms of Islamism are interpretations of Islam. Forms of Zionism which base it within the Torah are also religious. Heavily authoritarian strains of Christianity – say, those which thought that the Inquisition was a jolly good idea – are/were also religious.

The guy that runs your corner shop clearly has a different interpretation of Islam.

Torture is out of the question but taunting him with ‘Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!’ has never felt more appropriate.

‘Where they differ is in their politics, not in their religion.’

Belief that he will be rewarded with virgins in the afterlife is religious not political.

He may designate himself ‘Muslim’ just like the guy in the shop but clearly the guy in the shop doesn’t share the same religious belief in being rewarded for committing murder – even if he shares the same political objections to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There’s a political dimension to Islamism just as there is to more liberal branches of Islam but they are still primarily religious belief systems rather than political forms because they are rooted in superstition, one malign and one relatively benign.

Belief that he will be rewarded with virgins in the afterlife is religious not political.

True.

But I’m guessing my corner shop guy thinks he’ll be rewarded too.

As did my Methodist father and Catholic mother. Both of whom were led to join the Labour Party by their religious beliefs.

That did not, however, make their socialism ‘religious’.

It was a political position adopted after the application of reason to a moral framework built by religion.

Islamism may be much the same – but without the application of reason or the moral bit.

It should – for all practical purposes – be treated as a political not a religious phenomenon.
Particularly if you need to get other Muslims onside to help defeat it.

Torture is out of the question but taunting him with ‘Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!’ has never felt more appropriate.

Or calling him the Knickerbomber.

Jay Law@10

As far as treating Islamism as a political rather than a religious phenomenon – don’t a lot of the ex-Islamists who are now trying to stop radicalisation of the young do it from “this is not a proper interpretation of Islam” angle?

Which makes atheists open their mouths in wonder, and think, WTF, you have to be told that’s a wrong interpretation of a religion rather than just downright bad or wrong?

‘Or calling him the Knickerbomber’

Oh, I hope that name sticks!

The problem with labeling Islamists ‘political’ is that the term at least suggests a compromise might be obtained – and there isn’t one.

It’s a fundamentalist belief system not open to debate.

Capitalist, socialists, anarchists, etc all ultimately believe authority rests in human beings like themselves not some mythical superbeing who knows all and sees all.

Religious fundamentalists may offer an ‘interpretation’ but they believe that ‘interpretation’ is the only correct one.

They don’t say ‘the way I read this passage suggests…’ they say ‘this is what God says!’

As he probably burnt his pecker off at least he won’t be able to breed any more little fundamentalists.

‘As he probably burnt his pecker off at least he won’t be able to breed any more little fundamentalists.’

Sure to make this year’s Darwin Awards.

The problem with waging war-by-suicide is you loose your best troops early on.

Spot on, Shatterface: “The problem with labeling Islamists ‘political’ is that the term at least suggests a compromise might be obtained – and there isn’t one.”

In the 1980s and 1990s, it was possible for the UK and Irish governments to conduct secret discussions with the Provisional IRA. IRA/Sinn Fein had an agenda, which they eventually agreed to compromise. This isn’t the thread for details about how and why; let’s just agree that the majority of Republican terrorists put down their weapons.

Islamist terrorism cannot be pacified by political measures. The demand is a global caliphate, with no room for compromise. They don’t care about the predicament of Palestinians or Iraqis or the Muslim underclass in the UK — those concerns are just arguments for recruiting the vulnerable, the angry and the disaffected. If by some miracle, those problems were resolved over night, the Islamists would latch onto something different.

It’s always difficult to disentangle the religious from the political, I’m not sure if it’s possible. I doubt if anyone would describe the Raj as religious because the colonizers were mainly white anglo saxon. The situation in Ireland was much the same, the argument was really about nationalism and republicanism but this got lost in the Protestant v Catholic discourse.
Of course, whatever is expedient to the western argument will be utilized, much like the,so-called, Holy Crusades.

I think I speak for the majority of Muslims, including myself, in condemning acts like this.

My religion IS in fact one of peace and understanding and a look at history will show just that.

I find it sad that there are people out there who are claiming to be Muslims and murdering people. Anybody who goes around killing other people, regardless of the reason is not a Muslim. Killing is not a part of my religion and never has been. Those who do kill in the name of my religion can go to hell.

The only thing is, it’s not “fail to blow up a plane” vs “actually blow up people in Afghanistan etc”. It is not about succeeding or failing, it is ALL about who the victims or potential victims were.

And the sad fact is that if you pick on US or UK or generally Western victims, you’ll get a lot more coverage in Western media than if you focus your violence within the Middle East.

Interesting also that you say it is the US who don’t learn. Seems to me the terrorists don’t learn either, vis-a-vis their actions leading to military action against their innocent countrymen, women and children.

MD (17)

> I think I speak for the majority of Muslims, including myself, in condemning acts like this.

I’m sorry, but on a forum we are all just one voice.
If you think there is a widely shared view among Muslims – please can you point out URLs of the high-profile, mainstream leaders expressing it

> My religion IS in fact one of peace and understanding and a look at history will show just that.

Again, that is your own view, and you’re entitled to hold it.
But I wonder how you would explain issues such as: why Mohammed personally was involved in the beheading of unarmed prisoners?

> Anybody who goes around killing other people, regardless of the reason is not a Muslim.

So by your definition, Mohammed himself was not a Muslim.

Because he was a military ruler, waged wars and was involved in personally beheading prisoners; as well as commanding others to kill on his instruction (like the women caught in adultery, who he sentenced to stoning)

> Killing is not a part of my religion and never has been.

Maybe your religion is different one to the mainstream Islam of those who follow Mohammed – who’s religion was involved with killing from the early days.

Mainstream Islam has the death penalties for three core things – adultery, apostasy and heresy: and all 3 reasons go back to what Mohammed did and commanded.

MD

There do seem to be some prominent Muslims who would not agree with your definition that “Anybody who goes around killing other people, regardless of the reason is not a Muslim.”

Eg, just this week Iranian cleric Ayatollah Abbas Vaez Tabasi , who is close to the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei said that the country’s opposition leaders are “enemies of God” who could be executed according to Islamic law.

@18 Clarice: “Seems to me the terrorists don’t learn either, vis-a-vis their actions leading to military action against their innocent countrymen, women and children.”

As long as they hold extreme views, terrorists cannot learn. Some grow up and become politicians, philosophers and theologians. Or parents and citizens. But they, themselves, have to choose to change.

Minor correction. The military intervention in Afghanistan was directed against Al Qaeda, an organisation with a predominantly Arab/Egyptian leadership. Had the Taliban, as evil as they are, not hosted them, Afghanistan would not have been invaded. Co-religionists rather than countrymen, perhaps?

KB Player @ 11

Which makes atheists open their mouths in wonder, and think, WTF, you have to be told that’s a wrong interpretation of a religion rather than just downright bad or wrong?

Interesting point. I guess the de-programmers from Quilliam just go on the ‘what works best’ principle.

Meanwhile I bet some theists are left open mouthed in wonder to see an atheist asserting moral absolutism as if it were the most natural thing to do!

@19 – And Jesus was not a Christian. Not sure what your point is.

@21 Charlieman – Good point, thanks for the correction.

Clarice

> @19 – And Jesus was not a Christian. Not sure what your point is.

My post at 19 didn’t mention Jesus or christianity.

What specifically is your uncertainty?