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.

Having read the background story, I personally do not consider that it makes any difference if khan was Muslim or not. Now that might seem strange to many but in this case religion was a tool nothing else.
I have recently published a book about the BLACKSHIRTS in one of my books in the INSPECTOR-RIKATI® series, and while its leader was a Catholic he pursued to take people of the streets and then train them to be BLACKSHIRTS and to then cause fear into the community and take over the country.
Various of his Members left the group when I assisted them in their court cases in return for them to stop that nonsense.
In January 1995 it resulted to the leader making known he was going to kill me. Since then I reminded him about this.
His problem was that he needed me because of his ongoing litigation problems and on the other hand he hated me for focussing on a Member and then help them in return for them to leave the group.
As such, first hand, I was able to be aware how people can fall for such kind of a cult and no matter what will do anything regardless of the consequences.
As one of the former Members made clear to me he hated to be involved with the BLACKSHIRTS but the moment the leader phoned he just felt he had no choice but to do whatever the leader wanted.
In my view, we are focussing too much upon Muslims rather then upon the real issue being that people become vulnerable and then become the pray upon zealots who have their own cause and could not care less what happens to their followers.
With my special lifeline service MAY JUSTICE ALWAYS PREVAIL® I have been dealing with people, since 1982, who contemplated suicide/murder even mass murder and too well aware that unless you can get people when they are most vulnerable you might be too late.

As one man made clear, some-10-years-later, that had I not assisted him at the time he would have killed his son, as he then really believed it was for his son own best will, but now he realised how crazy he then was to wanting to kill, his own child. Regretfully, many others cannot get help in time and end up committing atrocities. Perhaps next time you see a person then consider a friendly word can just make the difference between life and dead.
I know, because many have told me that afterwards!

Time-and-again people would make known to me that it isn’t money but just having someone who is willing to listen to them, even if that person could not assist in resolving the problems.

Regretfully too often people are too busy in their own life-problems that they have no time for others.

When a called indicated wanting to commit suicide/murder I would never seek to attempt to talk the person out of it, rather I would just talk and then by this pursue the called himself/herself to decide not to proceed with what was contemplated. Also I made always known that suicide was the-act-of-a-coward, leaving those behind to grieve! OK, I had plenty of callers then having a go at me, but it was basically a cold shower to them. As a caller explained to me, he had expected me to urge him not to go ahead and did not expect me to challenge him in how I did and this was what caused him not to proceed. He had contemplated to go ahead if I had asked him not to do so as some defiance, well he didn’t get that kind of response.

Cults are springing up everywhere and soon or later one of them may just get its followed to do hideous things the cult followers never may have contemplated when they joined but now are sucked in to do, just that the followers feel committed to do so regardless they may not really want to do so. That is the real danger we are facing!

We are not dealing with a cult, we are not dealing with what some claim is the new communism, we are dealing with the new Nazi movement.
Yes we can if we look find the British Empires finger prints on crimes against the for fathers of todays terrorist.
And the dysfunctional America that at the end of ww2 said Empire building must end.
Yes all true ,but nothing the west ever did is as insane as this Nazi like madness.
Why do they kill? poverty? a thousand reasons exist but in the end it will one day be them or us.
And in a way they have won already just look at the mess America is in right now.
Like Nazi,s they gather suport from some who do not even understand the true evil they follow.

Wobbles,

There is evidence that the effects of inbreeding may be more insidious than had been previously thought. This from New Scientist:

"Using his new technique to study wild animals, [Dr. William] Amos has found that inbreeding could be more important in determining an individual's chances of survival than random factors such as environmental change. What's more, he argues that the adverse effects of inbreeding are not restricted to the offspring of brother-sister and parent-child matings, but span the entire spectrum of relatedness. Some biologists think that Amos's claims are overblown. Others argue that we still don't know enough about the genomes of most animals to use genetic markers as a reliable indicator of inbreeding. But if Amos is correct then the implications are far-reaching. We should change the way we try to protect endangered species and stop wasting time trying to rehabilitate sick animals who will only fall ill again. We might even have to think about human disease in a different way. There is a lot at stake here - not least Amos's reputation."

(Too close for comfort, New Scientist, 18 October 2003, p38)

On the other hand there are other studies that show inbreeding may not be as much of a problem as Amos suggests. Summing up I would have to say that, while the jury is still out, the preponderance of evidence suggests that inbreeding is best avoided.

In a Western society where cousin marriage is rare, marrying your cousin will probably not cause problems. However in some families in Pakistan and through much of the Arab world cousin marriage has been the norm for many generations. Such families are inbred to an extent unknown in Western societies. It is POSSIBLE that this does cause behavioural problems.

See also: Hominid inbreeding left humans vulnerable to disease, New Scientist, 25 January 2005.

Yes wobbles, behavioural problems can frequenctly result because
of mental genetic problems. A particular problem then gets carried
on with subsequent cousin marriages. Perhaps even magnified.

I am speaking here from some experience although not from cousin
marriage causes. What surprises me is that such practise exists in
rural communities, as farmers are well aware of inbreeding problems.
I presume you understood my reference to the UK Midlands Heath service
was because Leeds is in the Midlands where there is a large Pakistani
population and the report specifically detected that community.

The issue was that khan desired to marry his own way not dictated by family tradition. By this he became basically an outcast and so sought solace with those who appeared to show him an understanding.
Being it a cult, or religious group or whatever, the moment a person is vulnerable he can be exploited.
That is what I sought to indicate in the previous post.
While in Khan’s case the Islamic religion was more obvious others who are not bonded to a particular religion will seek solace with whom ever is available.
In my view, if khan could not have been able to seek solace with some Islamic group he may have joined any other group that may have suited him.
If we focus too much upon “religion” rather then upon why the person joined a “religious group” a “non-religious group” or whatever then we will never get to understand what drives people to be willing to not just kill themselves but also others.
As I indicated, the BLACKSHIRTS intended to provide board and accommodation for 200 street kids and then basically train them to be a kind of BLACKSHIRTS army.
It was their vulnerability that was intended to be exploited!
Over the years, in the numerous discussions I had with the leader about the harm flowing to some of his members as result of BLACKSHIRTS activities he made clear that this would be better for the cause of the BLACKSHIRTS. It was precisely the kind of mentality Jihads movement use to promote people to become suicide bombers, that they are to be sacrificed for the good of what its organisation stands for.

Khan’s transformation to become a suicide bomber itself ought to be a clear indication that he was willing to sacrifice his own wellbeing for what he held the good of the cause! Once we understand that this transformation is possible to anyone we might just learn to counteract this. If we ignore the real cause it may only get worse.