Yes, there is some of that. But of course it isn't the only reason, or anything but an occasional and overplayed ancillary reason. This is about animus, not virgins in heaven. And in many cases the animus has a parallel.

This has made me think again of Osama Bin Laden's letter to America, from 2002. The full thing is translated here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/24/theobserver

An excerpt which relates to some of the above:

While seeking Allah's help, we form our reply based on two questions directed at the Americans:

(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

As for the first question: Why are we fighting and opposing you? The answer is very simple:

(1) Because you attacked us and continue to attack us.


Whatever you take 'us' to mean, this has manifestly not changed. I'm not saying it should have (or shouldn't have), just that it hasn't.

The letter goes on to be frighteningly bonkers in all of the expected ways, but makes a couple of points that ring true as well - though they are easy wins.

You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases more than any other nation in history. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement

Fair enough.

What happens in Guatanamo is a historical embarrassment to America and its values

Again, fair enough.

As an aside, and ignoring the often vile reaction of the wider American public to the killing of Bin Laden, I'm not quite sure what right the US Seals had to murder those with Bin Laden, including his young wife - or what right they had to commit this act in Pakistan without the Pakistani authorities knowing anything about it. It isn't soothing tensions between Pakistan and America, and America wasn't exactly popular in Pakistan to begin with.

Celebrating Bin Laden's death is, in a base way, just about understandable, but it is also both hideous and short-sighted. Anyone who really thinks that the world is now a safer place needs to pinch themselves bloody hard, because they're obviously asleep.

Well actually, Rory, I DO think it's about virgins in Heaven. My point was the early Christians embraced hideous martyrdom because they BELIEVED they would have martyrs' crowns in Heaven. Bombers expect virgins, they really do. We think they are crazy and strange and maybe they are but THAT is why they wish to die. IRA murderers were, in general, not so willing, which cut down on their effectiveness. Political animus is just not enough. We are talking about religious belief here. The undermining of Islam itself is what we need and fervently desire. Justice, or not, for Palestinians is neither here nor there. Bombers will go on killing themselves so long as they BELIEVE.

John – the stuff about virgins is doubtless there in the Koran, but there’s plenty of nutty stuff in the Book of Revelations, too. Most Muslims are as unlikely to seek a martyr’s death (unless extremely provoked) as the average member of the C. of E.
The disturbing point about Islamist bombers is that so many are suicide bombers. This method might make a sort of sense in heavily policed areas of Israel, where it must be near-impossible for someone recognisably Palestinian to leave a suspicious package somewhere. It makes very little sense in Britain or the U.S., where security is low, except in a few high-profile places.
A horrible man who left nail bombs in immigrant areas and gay pubs in London a few years back shows how easy it is to create damage without harming yourself. If the destruction of life and property is the aim, much can be done with a gallon of petrol and a box of matches, once again at little risk to the perpetrator.
So when the tube bombers in London, or the doctor that tried to explode in Glasgow Airport, use suicidal methods, shouldn’t one guess that suicide is as much the aim as bombing is? Typically the perpetrators are educated Muslims who have been brought up in Western society; my guess is that they suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance, unable to reconcile the values of their Western education (and the cultural success of the Western way of life) with the certainties of their religious faith. Shaky in their identity, they seek a melodramatic way out of the confusions, attacking themselves as destructively as anyone else who happens to be in the way.
In Britain, I suspect that this is largely a problem of second-generation immigrants. Maybe future generations will be less insecure in their identities, and less likely to be led into fruitless self-destruction.

I think, George, I may have been careless and sloppy in my argument. I do not believe (well of course I don't) that most muslims seek a a martyr's death. My point was, and is, that they have a pool of people who DO, which western terrorists of the Irish or German variety, do not, and that makes them much more dangerous. Their religion must be relevant here, mustn't it? Modern Christianity is quite different from the Diocletian/Constantine version. Bin Laden did not seek death of course, not for himself. He is one of a long line of comfortable intellectuals who send other people out to commit mayhem. We have our marxists in Hampstead or wherever they live now. Death to Eric Hobsbawm. NO, I don't mean that. I almost like Eric Hobsbawm. I've got a book of his on my shelves and i did read it once. Nice pictures, apart from anything else. Anyway, old Hobsbawm is not the kind of person I meant.

Did you know Scottish Nationalism had its terrorists? They flourished in my childhood and blew up pillar boxes. The not terribly nice poet Hugh MaDiarmid was a Scottish Nationalist, also a Stalinist comunist. I'm sure that nice roly-poly Mr Salmond is not like that.

Now, I have problems with Islam, but I find this statement utterly despicable. Take this vile and unhelpful nonesense back, John. Who is 'we', John? Right-minded people? You and the EDL? And this from a moderator, too. How welcoming your words are to any current or prospective Muslim members of Eratosphere.

What's the EDL? And why is the statement despicable? Poeple are saying right and left that the undermining of Christianity is what we desire? Or, more particularly, the undermining of the Catholic Church, or the undermining of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland. Or, come to that, the undermining of belief in the Monarchy or the undermining of marxist thought. My reasoning is as follows.

1. Islam encourages believers to seek martyrdom. Not ALL Islam perhaps, but a branch of it certainly.
2. Terrorists desire and believe they wiil be Islamic martyrs which makes them more dangerous terrorists because they set their lives at nothing.
3. Terrorists threaten my well-being.

You believe, as I do not, that Religion is a kind of special case. Religion is in the market place and must take its chances. I did not say we must or should persecute muslims for their beliefs. Nor should we persecute Scientologists, or believers in voodoo, not for their beliefs. I knew, yes I really did, a welsh girl who genuinely believed in fairies. I would not persecute her for her belief but I might mock her. I didn't as it happens, but I might.

What do you think, Rory, about undermining the Hindu belief in caste? Or do you not suppose this to be a religious belief. But it is, Rory. It is. Or one of the most vicious religious beliefs I know, the Calvinist belief in the doctrine of Election. Can we seek to undermine these?

Now don't go about throwing words like despicable about. And don't suppose muslims are children needing to be looked after.

I disagree, Rory, that the organization is nothing but a stamp, and that its records do not matter. Those dozens of hard drives and thumb drives were jammed with files, and I doubt they were iTunes downloads. Yes, of course there are records that reside elsewhere, and Al Quaida is decentralized to a large degree. I'm not pretending that Osama's hard drives contained everything we'd like to know, or their seizure will end all threats against us. But they are certain to contain very useful information, in my view. Remember, just getting the name of Osama's courier a few years ago, one tiny bit of information, is what eventually led to the raid in the first place. A little bit of information is a lot to go on. And thousands of megabytes of information are likely to contain at least some valuable tidbits, if not, as I suspect, information that might actually prevent some horrible attacks that would have killed thousands.

Obama's decision not to simply bomb the place to smithereens, but to go in with the SEALs and have the possibility of seizing the files and hard drives, was not just wise, but to my mind lends legitimacy to the mission, which otherwise would have had no other purpose than assassination, which I think would have been justified in its own right, but is harder to justify than a mission that also involved the gathering of valuable intelligence to prevent attacks against thousands or even millions of innocent civilians.

I'm not convinced these events will lead to more Al Quaida recruitment. I think it might lead to less. The image of an invincible Osama, who can blithely thumb his nose at a Superpower that, despite all its efforts, is powerless to find him, was a powerful recruitment tool, a symbol to many of the organizations power and justice. Now there is Something Bigger Than Osama, which is likely to be demoralizing.

We're seeing fewer demonstrations in the Muslim world (and less violent ones) than we saw when the Florida pastor burned a Koran in secret for an audience of a dozen followers. The pastor's action led to eight UN workers being killed. I haven't heard of any attacks on UN workers or embassies in reaction to Osama's killing. The Muslim world has been surprisingly calm and silent. Perhaps this is because the democracy movements had already been siphoning off Al Quaida support when the masses began to see that such movements brought actual results and had a genuine chance of succeeding, whereas Al Quaida brought only an escalation of the problems in their lives and more autocracy.

John --

Of course we can and should challenge religious beliefs. You are clearly misunderstanding (and no doubt unintentionally misreading) my post if you think I disagree about that. It began: 'Now, I have problems with Islam, but ...'. But your targeted attack on Islam in what I quoted from you this morning - 'The undermining of Islam itself is what we need and fervently desire' - is inflammatory. Someone like, say, Salman Rushdie, might believe that Islam needs to grow up, to modernise - but your comment isn't like Rushdie's. Perhaps it isn't quite what you mean. I don't think you are 'despicable', of course, but the above statement remains zealous and distasteful to put it mildly.

Your quip about not supposing muslims are children is very silly, but there we go. I'm sorry if my comment offended you personally, all the same. It wasn't meant to. But your statement about what 'we fervently desire' smacked of something I find - and I'm glad I find - very nasty.

You write: 'Islam encourages believers to seek martyrdom'.

I loathe all brands of religious zealotry, John, as it happens; and I find the codes and laws adopted in certain muslim societies utterly inhumane. I campaign against them. But the above statement is so obviously sweeping. One could say 'Christianity encourages the Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of ex service personnel'. These sorts of statements miss the point somewhat, though, don't they? Statements of this sort have the potential to be needlessly offensive to anyone who identifies with the first noun(s) but not with the other one(s). One does well to choose one's words carefully with these things.