My point is I feel that the act was more a reaction to UK foreign policies than religion, it had religious connotations due to the words he used, but the driving force behind the attack was political and not religious.
You both may disagree, but that is how I see it.

You don't understand that Islam IS political. If you ask a Muslim they will tell you that Islam is not just about their personal relationship with God, but that it is a way of life, and a culture, and it is every aspect of life. So you need to understand that to Muslims, Islam is always political.

Just like the Catholic church is also political. just like Feminism is political, just like homosexuality is also political.

So, if the Muslim "generals" aren't going to get 72 virgins in Paradise, is that why they make do with four on earth ..... :conf:

Fair enough, but it would be impossible for a Jainist with the same political grievances to act in such a manner.

That is the key thing for me. If a belief in a different religious dogma can change the outcome of this horrific scenario, then somewhere down the line, that dogma needs to be identified as a problem. Not the sole problem, but a problem nonetheless.

jesus as made a good point in his post:shocked:,.
your post does not detract from the point he was making.

its very hard to fight someone who is not afraid to die for what they believe in.

Who's trying to detract?

I had previously made the same point, albeit ironically ..... :rolleyes:

But isn't that the definition of a fundamentalist... to take religious dogma to extremes?

A bit of a truism there, I believe ..... :idc:

But when the dogma itself is naturally extreme, when is that the issue under the spotlight? A fundamentalist Jainist will get less violent, the same cannot be said of the Abrahamic religions.

it is but it sums up the fact that we will never win this war, we can only try to prevent the loss of life.

Imagine if Martin Luther King or Ghandi decided to be terrorists, would we even know their names? probably not. They are heroes because they advocated NON-VIOLENT change. If they had tried to lead terrorists for their causes they would have only hurt their causes. instead Martin Luther King was able to make the KKK the bad guys, and Ghandi was able to make the British the bad guys, and their strategy was far more effective.

Imagine if homosexuals were blowing up buildings and doing suicide attacks, murdering heterosexuals at weddings. Would that help or hurt the gay equality cause? It would certainly hurt it.

Nobody wins a war where ALL sides are "not afraid to die for what they believe in".

In war, 'collateral damage' cannot be "prevented".

It is under the spotlight very much so, the dogma of jihadism advocated by sunnis for instance.
Like I said yesterday more needs to be done to raise awareness of the difference in muslim teaching to identify extremism

Sounds a lot like cancer, but strides are being made, a little at a time. Keep up a little bit of the hope there, Sheriff, all is not lost yet.

this is a very different war, in which only one side fights fair, one side fights to protect the other fights to destroy.

Your simplistic view appears to suggest unfamiliarity with the true nature of "war" - I suggest further, deeper, reading ..... :pipe:

like cancer you never know when it will strike who it will try and kill.

I feel like i'm not getting as much attention as i'd like in this thread. just saying...

unlike most I don't need to take up most of the page to say what I mean!
if you cant post without being rude I suggest you go and read a book on good manners!

every little helps alex:wavey:

Who's being rude?

Physician, heal thyself ..... :wink:

I'm paying attention to you Alex:)

Omah manages to get over everything he wants to say with one pipe smiley sheriff... why can't you? haha!

you are by suggesting I need to do more deeper reading, would suggest you think im not educated enough to under stand war!
take your pipe else where.