passing a compelling message - which is hate speech.

Pretty sad huh: one's compelling message is the other's hate speech. Hey, that could be the right slogan for the blog-sphere!

There is something very secret society as well about it and that message.

I think it was Ms. magazine that had a compelling study (backed up with poll responses) recently on how the only thing that really separates Islamic men-on-the-street and Western men-on-the-street is not their attitudes toward participatory democracy, secularism in government and personal freedom, but their attitudes toward women's role in democracy and women's personal freedom. It's all about gender. Question after question on the poll revealed the gap.

So really, this is all my fault. If only I would keep my hair covered and confine my horizons to the kitchen and bedroom, the world wouldn't be in this sorry mess. We would be able to work something out with these Islamic gentlemen!

In any case I am not afraid of an Islamic fundamentalist takeover of the United States, because I know that my sisters and I will never be taken alive. We will form Amazon commando units in the Adirondacks and the Appalachians and the Rockies, just like in RED DAWN. Those who are lucky enough to escape our penis-slicing wrath will be enslaved in jeweled collars as Dinks, for reproductive purposes.

Bring. It. On.

What is in the frozen custard anyway?

..and we read continued justification for these horrendous acts that occur world-wide, against Christians, Jews, Hindus and democratic societies everywhere, linking Afghanistan, Iraq, poverty, Britany's, Jews ad naseum as the reason behind it. Is it is all about these 72 virgins???...I think this idea has then completely brainwashed.

Interesting to note the BBC refusal to use the word "terrorist" as a description of the perpatrators. How can we clue in, as you say, unless we are willing to acknowledge who or what it is we are facing? All this worry about political correctness is serving to handcuff effective public protection. Democratic values seem to "help" democratic enemies...Also interesting that public video cameras seem to be playing an invaluable role in this investigation. Do we need more of them in Canada - as reality, rather then fear - tells us it will be hitting here soon? (I really like sapphires)

I think that has nothing to do with it. I think there is something of a knee-jerk on our receiving end of it associating it with the ever cited 72 ladies that may be missing a deeper problem or theory.

I like the BBC ditching "terrorist" as it is a useless word to describe an unterrorized community. The acts did not and do induce terror. They are only cultish murderers. By calling it terror, it implies that it is having an effect beyond the immediate. Terrorist only implies weakness on the terrorized and success in inducing that terror on the murderers' part.

But they are not "freedom fighters" either as no one is to be freed if they win. Also, they are not "militants" unlike, say, Hamas as they really do not espouse anything.

I am also surprised by the cameras as a record keeper but they did not work as a preventative which they should have if there was a proper base of understanding of these people. Intervention is made possible when cameras using biometrics pick out known suspects getting together publicly as these four apparently did via trains. To be effective the cameras have to be pervasive in public places and have to be tied into massively fast image understading computing power.

But, is a terrorist defined by "intent" or "result"?

Perhaps there is no such thing as a terrorist...rather, terror as a device or tactic used by an enemy? Where is my Webster...I must look it up...

Terror is an experience only of the recipient. If that aim is unsuccessful then the label of the act as such is wrong.<p>Interesting also to note this from the Times just now on the British intention to mobilize the Muslim community:<blockquote class="smalltext">The Government would also look urgently at how to strengthen the process for deporting the hardline priests who incite hatred. He said this would involve opening up dialogue with Muslim leaders both at home and abroad to mobilise the "moderate and true voice of Islam". He added: "I think we all know that security measures alone are not going to deal with this." Michael Howard, who had earlier expressed his full backing and support for the Prime Minister in his actions following the attacks, said: "The peril we face extends far beyond our shores, has taken the lives on countless Muslims and is part of a criminal conspiracy to destroy our shared way of life." Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, the West Yorkshire town which was home to one of the bombers, said the situation in his constituency and further afield represented "the most profound challenge yet faced by the British Muslim community". He said: "Condemnation is not enough, and British Muslims must, and I believe are prepared to, confront the voices of evil head on. This is a defining moment for this country and I can assure you that my constituency of Dewsbury will not be found to be wanting," he declared.</blockquote>

There are no unique skills required to motivate young men to senseless violence. It has been done for thousands of years and for thousands of reasons. Young men can be convinced to shoot each other because someone from another street looked at someones sister the wrong way; because they were picked on at school; because there is 'honor' in following you your dad's/brother's/grandfather's footsteps; or because they have come the think the "state" is wrong. It should surprise no one that there are four Britons who could be manipulated into these acts.

It seems to me important to separate the motivations of the sad souls who do the bombing from those who manipulate them into the bombings. The people who actually blow themselves up are likely no more relevant to the architects of the event than the explosives or the backpack they're loaded into.

I think -- and I think you agree -- it's the motivations of the architects that we should be concerned with. It also seems to me that their motivations are political and that the bombs are not meant to terrorise but are meant to provoke a response.

I disagree but only in the first part. There is very little history of suicide attack (distinct from being a fighter) without some inordinate brain washing even if, like Japan in WWII, it was on a large scale. Plus that kind of mental manipulation takes a very long time and takes steps which start with basic indoctrination. It also implies a lot of rejected candidates.<p>As a result, that a Palestinian teen is a suicide bomber does not suprise me due to the state and history of the culture, its facts and myths. But where is the indoctrination happening when it is not a culturally majoritarian point of view? Where is the recruitment centre? Find that first door, that first pamphlet and that is where you find the architects or at least start to track them as then you can trace the money.

Everybody I talk to says the same thing: "Why? What do they hope to accomplish?" And I just don't know. In the US I can see a clamping down on civil liberties as a goal, but in the UK there isn't the same kind of society - their civil liberties aren't as keenly protected, but their society is far more socialist. It's also a far less reactionary society, so... Nope, I don't get it.

"Terror is an experience only of the recipient. If that aim is unsuccessful then the label of the act as such is wrong."

Which is why journalists should really be called news-cultists because fewer and fewer people feel they have been journaled by the media.

That well could be, though most on hearing the word "blog" still do consider exlax the antidote.

"Everybody I talk to says the same thing: "Why? What do they hope to accomplish?" And I just don't know."

A terrorist bombing is not really a strategic act; it may follow a loose "strategy" but somehow I can't ever imagine Osama Bin Laden sitting in a war room and assessing that a suicide bombing has failed to accomplish something. You'll never hear a terrorist mastermind going, "Damn! We lost a good guy in that mission -- and for nothing. Let's adjust our plans for next month!"

A lot of it is magical thinking. Eventually, God or Jesus or Allah or whoever is going to return, and every bombing magically "brings" that moment closer.

I'm sure I'm just stating the obvious here, but indulge me. Is the act itself not just an extreme "statement of faith"? It that it has nothing to do with achieving "goals", but simply an extreme act of martyrdom to the faith? The same which can not be achieved by throwing yourself in front of the Route 49 bus.

Rather, a public "suicide" which is really an attack on the unfaithful, and the deaths of the infidels that result from this act, is meant to prove the strength of the individual's belief that he is not of this world, but the next. In this extreme view, his death only "means" something if the unfaithful die with him.

The focus of the attempts to deal with these killings should start with those within the society that would promote this extremism.

That maybe the case in the way that Georgetown (purple koolaid) or Wacko (choosing to die in the flames) were extreme statements of Christian faith. But we think of those was perversions of faith through brain washing. The cultish nature is not undermined just because a cult's members are fervent and latch on to the legitimate. Misappropriation is not legitimized by acting on the misappropriation. I think we agree with chasing the message of the cult before it acts is key.

I think that what we're looking at is a combination of things. One thing might be anomie. These guys are young, middle class people living in a Western society. Maybe they're a little unsure of what they're doing in life. So they're somewhat adrift and looking for meaning. Then they meet someone who has a mission or purpose for them. So there's a little bit of political opportunism here. That is, their leaders recruit them because of self interest. I don't think the whole thing is devoid of rationality or self interest. But where there are these ordinary middle class teens involved it looks like a hybrid: an extreme form of nationalism crossed with something like Columbine.

I'm a little worried about this prosecuting people for their ideas business though. Are we going to set up a rule book for what constitutes extremism. Sounds like show trials might be among the results.

I wonder if Marian would see the prosecution of the likes of David Ahenakew, for instance, as "show trials"?

<p>[Ed. <i>starting to stray again</i>]:<blockquote><blockquote><small><small><small><small><small><small>With respect to the worry about prosecuting people for their "ideas", here is a little excerpt from the letter Mohammed Bouyeri (nom de plume: "Abu Zubair") which he personally "delivered" apparently in a quite calm and deliberate manner, by sticking it to the chest of Theo Van Gogh with knife, after shooting him 6 times and sliting his throat. The letter is addressed to the scriptwriter of Van Gogh's short film "Submissions", and Dutch politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali:

"I challenge you with this letter to proof that you are right : You don't have to do much for that :Mrs. Hirshi Ali :Wish Death if you are really convinced that you are right.If you accept this challenge, you will know that my Master, the Most high, has exposed you as a bearer of lies.
"If you wish death, then you are being truthful". But those who never wish to die, because of what their hands (and sins) have brought forth".
And Allah is the all knowing over the purveyors of lies .(2:94-95).
To prevent myself of having to the same wish coming to me as I wish for you, I shall wish this wish for you:
Mijn Rabb (master) give us death to give us happiness with martyrdom.Allahoemma Amien"

I am sure Van Gogh would have appreciated a little "early intervention" with Mr. Bouyeri, as well as his like-minded future martyrs, with a heart to heart about their so-called death wish "ideas", rule book or no rule book. To bad we can't ask Van Gogh about his views on "bleeding hearts", although we know he had a "personal" experience.</small></small></small></small></small></small></blockquote></blockquote>

From an Indian paper the <i>Deccan Herald</i>:<blockquote class="smalltext">The Third of the British-born bombers, Hasib Hussain, has been described as a “dopey” but gentle giant. He was a below-average student who also acquired an interest in religion after visiting relatives in Pakistan two years ago.A family neighbour in Leeds commented: “He was not the brightest lad around. He started dressing up in flowing Muslim dress. He must have been brainwashed.” In America, Alan Capps, editor-in-chief at the US Homeland Security Institute, said UK security agencies would be searching for two more people; one would be the actual bomb maker and the other, the ideologue who kept the bombers’ minds concentrated on what they had to do.</blockquote>

I don't understand what David Ahenakew has to do with anything. And I think we're all in a lot of trouble if we start trying to tap everyone's phone and computer and then try to see if any of these thoughts can be called crimes. Also, there is a subtle kind of paranoia in our reaction to these attacks that is bugging me. I don't like conspiracies especially this idea that there are criminals among us. Of course there are criminals among us. There are always criminals among us. Anyway, we will see. But I don't think that anything can be done that isn't already being done to prevent these kinds of attacks. Unless of course you want to sacrifice freedom in the name of freedom.

I wasn't the one who starting talking about all this scrutiny of "ideas" leading to "show trials".

Ahenakew is an example of the fact that we do have a "rule book for what constitutes extremism" - one aspect of it is called "hate crimes", wherein we are "prosecuting people for their ideas", hate ideas, spoken or written publicly, ie. 'Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of an offence...'– Criminal Code of Canada 319(2)

What constitutes "hate" or an "indentifiable group" etc. is the subject of a whole other debate but just remember, Marian, regardless, Big Brother still loves you.

That is incredibly off point except as a bad example in regards to the idea that someone is spreading hate. The events of 9/11 to 7/7 point out the falsehood of anyone having concerns about criminalizing the spreading of false lies that incite violence. And leaving out half the elements of the crime - the bit about inciting - is going nowhere as viable thought. <p>Read about some aspects of how hate crime really works here and here.

Steyn has another great opinion piece in the the July 19 Telegraph, see: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/19/do1902.xml

It includes the gem: "The London bombers were, to the naked eye, assimilated - they ate fish 'n' chips, played cricket, sported appalling leisurewear. They'd adopted so many trees we couldn't see they lacked the big overarching forest - the essence of identity, of allegiance. As I've said before, you can't assimilate with a nullity - which is what multiculturalism is"

Hence multi-culturalism is irrelevant to this question, though it is a convenient for Steyn's ever jerking knee. <p>How did such liberty rights in relation to Christian beliefs create the Oklahoma bombings or the IRA? Mucho even if mucho twisto. Surely we are right, then, to obliterate all faiths and cultures to protect us against these evil few. No, that would be stupid and a distraction. It also would be doing the cultists bidding, being the tool of the terrorist. Thanks for recommending that. I think I am going to pass on the IP in question (yours) to the proper authorities when the round-ups begin. I am sure you will agree that action against you and your terrorist sympathizers is warranted.<p>No, it is the choice of individuals to be evil and the choice of individuals to create cults that co-opt legitimate aspects of community like religion and culture. If you think that shifting state money away from multi-cultural funding will have any effect whatsoever on terrorism you are in fantasyland.

I didn't create the idea of people having their phones tapped, I read it in the paper. I brought it up here because you were fear mongering and that's what fear mongering has lead to in the past. That, rounding up all our dark skinned brethren, and the curtailment of civil liberties.

And while it's true that you didn't bring up the idea of prosecuting people for their ideas, you were quick to run with it and happily confused Bouyeri's acts with his ideas in this passage that Alan minimized:

[Ed.: <i>it was minimized for a purpose as will be the text below. It is a side-track and a inflamation of a side-track. That is "bad debate" therefore not part of the text that will be allowed to exist in full font. Hint.</i>]<blockquote><small><small><small><small><small>"With respect to the worry about prosecuting people for their "ideas", here is a little excerpt from the letter Mohammed Bouyeri (nom de plume: "Abu Zubair") which he personally "delivered" apparently in a quite calm and deliberate manner, by sticking it to the chest of Theo Van Gogh with knife, after shooting him 6 times and sliting his throat. The letter is addressed to the scriptwriter of Van Gogh's short film "Submissions", and Dutch politician, Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
"I challenge you with this letter to proof that you are right : You don't have to do much for that :Mrs. Hirshi Ali :Wish Death if you are really convinced that you are right.If you accept this challenge, you will know that my Master, the Most high, has exposed you as a bearer of lies.
"If you wish death, then you are being truthful". But those who never wish to die, because of what their hands (and sins) have brought forth".
And Allah is the all knowing over the purveyors of lies .(2:94-95).
To prevent myself of having to the same wish coming to me as I wish for you, I shall wish this wish for you:
Mijn Rabb (master) give us death to give us happiness with martyrdom.Allahoemma Amien"

The problem is, Bouyeri isn't a criminal because he has bad ideas. Lots of people have bad ideas. Many of them are Christians. He is a criminal because he killed a guy. The ugly prose is just adding insult to injury.

On the Ahenakew thing: oh I get it. As a liberal, I’m responsible for everything my fellow liberals do including fining bigots for shooting their mouths off. Actually, my views concerning speech are well known around here. I have even butted heads with Alan about freedom of expression, but no matter, we're all the same to you. One liberal is as good as another, eh?

I can still remember laughing heartily when Steyn blamed Islamo-terrorism on Canada and Europe. Of course! It couldn't be Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 bombers came from) or even Pakistan (where Osama -- remember him? is likely hiding), oh no, that would be too simple. It's Canada! Sheer genius.</small></small></small></small></small></blockquote>

Okay. But you've minimized my comment about Steyn and my comment about liberals which have to do with something else.

All of the above is moot anyway because I was trying to incite calm, meanwhile there's been another bomb. It figures.

This is pretty much a Steyn and Barney the Purple Dinosaur free zone. Both get attention for no reason. Don't expect fine editorial treatment when either is mentioned.