Could something as mundane as the desire to avoid an arranged marriage to his cousin really have been at least a contributing factor in driving Khan to becoming a killer?

We all have our favourite answers, answers to which we cling passionately. It was because of Iraq. Palestine. "Western" nastiness towards Muslims. And so on.

Benford's law states:

Passion is inversely proportional to the amount of real information available.

Meyer's corollary to Benford's law states:

To maintain passion people will avoid information.

After London's 7/7 bombings the BBC planned a docu-drama about Mohammed Sidique Khan, the supposed leader of the quartet who detonated themselves with such deadly effect in London. The Beeb dropped the project. I suspect they abandoned it when it became apparent that the information uncovered would upset the Left's pet theories.

Fortunately Shiv Malik, initially hired by the BBC to script the production, continued his investigation and Prospect Magazine published his research. You can find it here.

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?&id=9635

Here is what Malik has to say about Khan's suicide video:

"The video is 27 minutes and 29 seconds long. Most of it is filled up by a speech from senior al Qaeda member Ayman al-Zawahiri, but the central feature is Khan's address, which runs to six minutes and 11 seconds. It has two parts, but it is only the first—about British foreign policy—that ever gets played in the mainstream media. Part two, which makes up three quarters of Khan's speech, is addressed to Muslims in Britain."

Notice that the media only play the bit that fits with their beliefs. It's all about Iraq. If the Brits had not invaded Iraq Khan would have played cricket instead of blowing himself up.

But, as Malik demonstrates, perhaps it's neither about Iraq nor about the Muslim conquest of Britain. Perhaps in the end it really is something much more mundane.

Read the article and decide for yourself.

You may very well be right, but being wed to a cousin is the norm, as is the wedding being planned for you.
I think some idiotic powers think if we humans live together even if first thoughts are we can not we will become the one people we would all like at some remote time in the far future.
It will not work, our nature will not let it ,while such blind hate exists.
It one day will be found the mainstream west will have learned to hate us much as those who hate us and kill in the name of a God.
Consider my thought ,if my cousin wed my cousin after my uncle told him he must do so would we not be upset?
If our whole family did so?
Do I even have the right to think this way?
Well how did those who murder us get the right to hate us for being us?

well, it's quite simple, really: in the early 1900's, the british admiralty formed the opinion that a nation that didn't have control of large quantities of bunker oil was a nation without a navy, and without an empire. the oil struggle began.

it continues today, in many ways. it's not neat, on a chessboard. it's not fair, there can be no rules when survival is the stake. the actors are many, diverse, and wind their personal objectives into the struggle. the struggle has erupted into war several times, but goes on unabated when 'peace' breaks out.

i suppose the struggle will continue until the oil is gone, or supplanted, or human society collapses.

steven, the people at the pointy end of the oil struggle aren't 'naice', neither are they good family men. this is true of jihadists, and cia assassins. on both sides the good family men are at home reading their newspapers, and shaking their heads.

in general, i support the moslem side of the argument. the west struck the first blow, and has been assiduous in creating brutal puppet governments as a tool of hegemony. i am unsurprised that islamists have struck back without regard for any notions of fair play. they learned the lack of rules from the west.

DEMOS,

Khan was not the "Muslim side." He was an individual who, faced with particular circumstances, reacted in a certain way. Even if he saw himself as PART of what you call the "Muslim side" he could have reacted differently.

The question is why did he choose to kill? In a secular democracy like the UK there are many other options.

I am interested in your view that there is a "Muslim side." You are right of course. Khan was of Pakistani origin and Pakistan has no oil. The ideology that made Khan identify with Iraqis is Islam.

But do you understand the implications of what you're saying? When you talk about "The West" and the "Muslim side" you are giving credence to Huntingdon's much reviled clash of civilisations thesis.

I have a different take on this. When I see people whose minds are infected by a religion or ideology to the point where they lose all sense of proportion, where they become fanatics in fact, the phrase that comes to mind is "cannon fodder." During the cold war the Soviets used such fanatics in an attempt to destabilise Germany and Italy. Google "Baader-Meinhof" and "Red Brigades."

The United States, via Saudi Arabia, used Muslims to bleed the Soviets to death in Afghanistan.

Right now Pakistan is using Beluch tribesmen and the Saudis are using Sunnis in Khuzustan to destabilise Iran. We may be sure that the Israelis are supplying whatever assistance they can to Iranian Kurds and Azeris who want to secede from Persian control.

What I'm trying to point out, DEMOS, is that fanatical young men whose heads are filled with visions of glory have been used as cannon fodder throughout the ages. This age is no different and certain strains of Islam seem to be almost designed to turn young men into cannon fodder.

So when you say you "support the moslem side" make sure you understand what it is you're supporting. You may find you're supporting those who are exploiting the Muslims to a greater degree than "The West" ever did.

`Hmmm, I read the link to the background story of Khan.
Bit of a worry that.

One of the biggest problems with moslems is their cousin marriage
practice. I am not an expert in genetics but I believe just too many
moslems have married their cousins and it has resulted in a widespread
behaviour problem. If they could be persuaded to abandon that practise
it would probably take at least two generations for its effect to fade out.

If you watch some of the films of events in Palestine, don't just watch
the crowd, watch an individual in the crowd and you will see some very
odd behaviour.

We already have an increased genetic problem here in Australia as well
as in the UK where there was a Parliamentary attempt to make it illegal
for cousins to marry after an enquirey in the Midlands Health Service.

So inbreeding is a likely cause of behavioural problems?

I guess that explains a lot about the nature of the British Royal family and a significant amount of the aristocracy.