Loudmouth; "I suspect that this is going to be a very long, IDEOLOGICAL struggle involving billions of people, not just a struggle against a relative few bombers and butchers."
Although the fanatics wage war in the name of god, and they base much of it on their perception of the teaching of their prophet, its not the entire reason. If it was nothing more than an ideological struggle between Islam and Christianity then the targets for terrorists would be churches and the clergy, not office buildings and the general public.
I cannot see billions of people involved in some kind of armed struggle, In any war the non combatants always far exceed in number the willing, or not so willing, participants, The greatest war of all times WWII with its relatively primitive technology only directly involved a small number of combatants compared to the total population.
My biggest fear is that terrorists may one day obtain nuclear weapons and the capacity to use them. Then the army of terror has to be no more than a handful of people.

Well, Paul, did write:

" ... a very long, IDEOLOGICAL struggle involving billions of people, not just a struggle against a relative few bombers and butchers",

EXPLICITLY suggesting an IDEOLOGICAL struggle, not necessarily just a military one, or a whole series of relatively small military ones - in other words a 'battle' of ideas, not necessarily weapons, a struggle between what I suggest are backward, pre-modern and reactionary ideas, versus a necessarily imperfect and evolving body of beliefs and practices which derive from notions of equality and the universal rule of law.

I guess, in short, a struggle between dogma which can't or won't evolve, explicitly because of its own internal rules, and a body of principles which evolves with society.

I DO use the word 'imperfect' deliberately, because that's how real life works, as opposed to any reactionary Utopian theory which seeks the impossible, i.e. perfection in society, and the 'necessary' 'removal' of all those who stand in its 'perfect' way.

And yes, I do believe that all Utopian theories are eventually reactionary, anti-human, no matter how prettily they may be expressed, 'for the good of all mankind', that sort of thing, because there is always that 'exception' clause - what do we do with the 'exceptions', those who regrettably don't fit in, or want to fit in, or be converted ? Unfortunately, they must be 'subtracted',. I.e. Gulagged, beheaded, used for body parts, etc.

Down with all Utopias !

Joe

Dear Paul,

I share your fear of nucelar weapons.

If more and more nucelar weapons are built, and if more
sophisticated means of delivering them are devised,
and if more and more nations get control of these vile
devices, then surely we risk our own destruction.

If ways are found to reverse that process, then we can
divert unprecedented energy and resources to the real
problems that face us, including poverty, disease,
overpopulation, and the devastation of our environment.

We may hope and trust that our ultimate choice will be to
enhance the life on this bright and lovely planet on which
billions of us share our adventure.

The only way to stop terrorists
from getting hold of dangerous weapons is not to manufacture
them. No matter what the security, or how vigilant the
authorities are, criminals, terrorists, and whoever is
determined will eventually get what they want if it is available.
No matter how protected the weaponry may appear to be.

"EXPLICITLY suggesting an IDEOLOGICAL struggle,"
Joe, did not Christianity go through an ideological struggle, before and during the time of the inquisition when science and reason was suppressed by the Catholic Church on the grounds that it mostly contravened religious dogma. One of the finest minds that ever lived Galileo Galilei was subjected to investigation by the church to see if he was in contravention of the bible, and to determine if his science was in fact heresy. To save his own life Galileo had to recant much of what he believed. Fortunately science and reason won out over fear and superstition and western civilisation was able to move into an age of enlightenment, which continues to this day. I wounder how many years of scientific advancement the Catholic Church was able to suppress 200, 300 maybe, no one really knows!
Is it possible that those in the world today who are being subjected to religious fanaticism, with dogma which can't or won't evolve, will eventually see it give way to enlightenment? If that was possible with Christianity, could it not also be possible with Islam.

Lexi
"The only way to stop terrorists from getting hold of dangerous weapons is not to manufacture them." So true.
My greatest fear is a rough state such as Pakistan could supply a third party, (terrorists), with nuclear weapons to be used against a perceived common enemy, in this case India. Even a small nuclear device, the size of a brief case would unleash mass destruction.

>>To the extent that a garbled set of instructions can provoke a brutal murder, I think that most certainly we can 'blame Islam'.<<

I'm less inclined to agree, Joe. Men will kill each other under little more than a garbled set of instructions. But this was not a cold-blooded murder. The frenzied hacking at the body, even post-mortem, suggests a degree of rage and passion that I find hard to believe could be achieved through indoctrination alone. On some level - maybe the completely fukcing batsh!t crazy level that you and I would never want to understand - it was personal for these guys.

>>We would never have heard of these men if they'd done this to some poor bugger in a back lane<<

But they wouldn't have. They'd have rolled him and killed him, but they'd have scarpered the moment he shuffled off the mortal coil. The ones who stay around to inflict post-mortem abuse are the Ted Bundys, the Dennis Nilsens, the Jack the Rippers: they are proper sickos.

>>I suspect that this is going to be a very long, IDEOLOGICAL struggle involving billions of people, not just a struggle against a relative few bombers and butchers. Perhaps it will go through some horrible phases, an all-out war between Shi'a and Sunni, forexample.<<

Give them a few hundred years and I think they'll come around.

I'm not up on my Judaism but the Old Testaments of my bibles suggest they were a pretty cranky mob who did a fair bit of arse-kicking in their day but have now settled down a bit. They were the first of what we might call the 'angry' religions.

TBC

Christians used to be fairly ferocious too. I've been reading up on the English Civil War lately... a political war as well as a religious one but how many Catholics died just because Cromwell didn't like the way they worshipped?

Christians settled down too and brought us the Enlightenment. I would suggest that was more than fair recompense for all the years of Endarkenment they had worked at before.

Islam is the last of the angry religions (Mormons et. al. don't count) to be founded. Like a good cheddar and fine red wine, angry religions obviously need a decent length of time to age. I'd give it a few centuries yet before Islam is ready to stop acting like a teenager and have a reasonable adult conversation. Until then, let's try to keep them away from the nukes.

>>Let's not forget that Indians, Carribean blacks and others have been subject to similar behaviour from the great British public in the form of strident women and violent young men and some reacted violently in turn. Was that the fault of Hinduism or Rastafarianism or a simple human response?<<

Again, this was not a simple human response. Oppressed groups might lash out violently but they don't go past basic thuggery. It takes a fairly unique pathology to spend a good few minutes trying to remove a dead man's head after you've already killed him.

Cheers,

Tony