kactuz, like many others you blame the written word for the actions of man. How people choose to act and interpret the Holy books of the worlds religions is a personal choice. People choose, they are not compelled by books, television, comics, videos, or billboards to criminal acts. Nasty people always find a way to be nasty. If your worried about democracy and the rule of law fortify that democracy by exercising the law with out exception. Become an active participant of that democracy and don't wait for someone else to manage your principles of governing. Become an activist for the principles of democracy and law and not an activist against some persons religion. We have laws that say you can think whatever you want but, you can't act any way you want. Never mind laws against thinking. Exercise the laws against bad actions with out exception. Put people in jail for breaking the law not for breaking with their religion or any definition of it.

Aqvarivs, please engage your brain and read the following;

‘Those who maintain religions, and take steps to make them more attractive, must be held similarly responsible for the harms produced by some of those who they attract and provide with a cloak of respectability. Defenders of religion are quick to point out that terrorists typically have political, not religious agendas, which may well be true in many or most cases, or even in all cases, but that is not the end of it. The political agendas of violent fanatics often lead them to adopt a religious guise, and to exploit the organisational infrastructure and tradition of unquestioning loyalty of whichever religion is handy. And it is true that these fanatics are rarely if ever inspired by, or guided by, the deepest and best tenets in those religions. SO WHAT? Al Qaeda and Hamas terrorism is still Islam’s responsibility, and abortion-clinic bombing is still Christianity’s responsibility, and the murderous activities of Hindu extremists are still Hinduism’s responsibility.

As Sam Harris argues in his brave book ‘The End of Faith’ (2004), there is a cruel Catch-22 in the worthy efforts of the moderates and ecumenicists in all religions: by their good works they provide protective coloration for their fanatical co-religionists, who quietly condemn their open-mindedness and willingness to change while reaping the benefits of the good public relations they thereby obtain.’

Daniel Dennett, ‘Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenonomen’ p 299

The key word here is RESPONSIBILITY. At present the leaders of the monotheistic faiths (especially Islam) have a distinct lack of it.

Also;

There is no reason why non-religious people should have to put up with the fanaticism of religious fundamentalists in the 21st century. This is because modern science and 'source criticism' applied by modern historians have demolished the claims of both the Bible and the Koran.

So, while God may exist, heaven, hell, angels and miracles most definitely do not exist. At least, not in the literalistic sense.

Or to put it succinctly - religious moderates are nice but wrong, and religious fundamentalists are both evil and wrong. Either way, religious moderates and fundamentalists are both wrong and should not be exempt from sceptical scrutiny.

Justoneperson

Al Qaeda and other insurgents care so little about the people that they are prepared to fight whilst hiding behind them. A better analogy would be, someone is shooting at you whilst hiding behind a child, do you save your own life and risk the child’s by shooting back? Or do you just die?

If only the world really was as black and white as you see it. Do you think soldiers join the army so they can go out and kill women and children? I don’t. Unless you have ever been in that situation you have no way of knowing how you would react. I think it is therefore highly unfair for you to criticise.

Coalition forces take a host of measures to prevent killing or wounding of civilians.

On D Day, thousands of French civilians died when the allies stormed the beaches. Is that morally repugnant?

Al Qaeda are only active in Sunni areas (SH and the Sunnis ran the country) because the Shiites won’t accept them. Other Iraqi nationalists groups are now fighting alongside the coalition against Al Qaeda.

There are large numbers of foreigners in the anti coalition militias in Iraq. Iranian agents are working with Shia groups like Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians are crossing the borders to fight with Al Qaeda.

Iraqis are much more interested in peace and prosperity, than they are in whether America remains in Iraq in the short term. Unfortunately for them, there are many groups who are committed to destroying both these wishes. The countries surrounding Iraq have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak. Iran is fighting for influence in Iraq by supporting the Shia groups . Turkey wants to make sure the Kurds don’t get too strong and is funding their opponents. Syria and Saudi send money and fighters to Sunni areas to combat the Shia and Kurds.

Things seem to be cooling off in Iraq, with killings significantly down. Reconstruction is also starting to gain some momentum. The coalition can still be a force for good in Iraq.

Al Qaeda and other insurgents care so little about the people that they are prepared to fight whilst hiding behind them. A better analogy would be, someone is shooting at you whilst hiding behind a child, do you save your own life and risk the child’s by shooting back? Or do you just die?

If only the world really was as black and white as you see it. Do you think soldiers join the army so they can go out and kill women and children? I don’t. Unless you have ever been in that situation you have no way of knowing how you would react. I think it is therefore highly unfair for you to criticise.

Coalition forces take a host of measures to prevent killing or wounding of civilians.

On D Day, thousands of French civilians died when the allies stormed the beaches. Is that morally repugnant?

Al Qaeda are only active in Sunni areas (SH and the Sunnis ran the country) because the Shiites won’t accept them. Other Iraqi nationalists groups are now fighting alongside the coalition against Al Qaeda.

There are large numbers of foreigners in the anti coalition militias in Iraq. Iranian agents are working with Shia groups like Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians are crossing the borders to fight with Al Qaeda.

Iraqis are much more interested in peace and prosperity, than they are in whether America remains in Iraq in the short term. Unfortunately for them, there are many groups who are committed to destroying both these wishes. The countries surrounding Iraq have a vested interest in keeping Iraq weak. Iran is fighting for influence in Iraq by supporting the Shia groups . Turkey wants to make sure the Kurds don’t get too strong and is funding their opponents. Syria and Saudi send money and fighters to Sunni areas to combat the Shia and Kurds.

Things seem to be cooling off in Iraq, with killings significantly down. Reconstruction is also starting to gain some momentum. The coalition can still be a force for good in Iraq.

Paul.L Sorry about that last post,i hit a wrong button.
I am not defending the actions of Al Qaeda and like groups, what I have been attempting to atrocities aren’t all one sided.
I thought the analogy we were drawing was comparing “accidental” collateral civilian actions with “suicide bombings”.
Funny, I was about to accuse you of “seeing the world in black and white”
I suspect there would be an insane few in the services but this is not what this argument is about. And I am not criticising the ‘cannon fodder’, stop assuming what I am thinking you’re so wrong, it’s the politicians / lobby groups / think tanks promoting these actions that I direct my criticism.
I’m sure the majority of the forces on the ground do take considerable measures to limit civilian deaths, again I’m not criticising them!
The D Day French civilians death, repugnant, I’d ask the relatives of those civilians.
Thanks for the history lesson, yes I was aware SH a Sunni (minority) of the Baathist party ruled most of Iraq, ruthlessly.
They’re ‘nationalist groups’ when they’re on ‘our’ side and terrorist insurgents when they’re ‘against’ the coalition occupation, ah that’s how it is.
I repeat, what a mess, a ‘hotbed’ of terrorism nurseries the coalition invasion/occupation has created!
Your quote “Iraqis are much more interested in peace and prosperity”, well Paul.L then why the @*^% did we impose the sanctions and then invade them? We must be reading different info sources because the chances of same with the occupation doesn’t seem too good.
Iraq as a nation is dead, unless another ruthless dictator gets control of the military. Kurds always a problem (with Turkey). A civil war is occurring (with like supporting like), with the Jihad? groups taking advantage of the chaos, is that fair comment Paul.L.
From what I read I don’t share your enthusiasm, history will tell, all the best, Mark C.
While waiting for the 24 hr to pass so I could post my correct reply, I went googling, first one http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070801/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_070801091932
What was that about ‘things cooling off”