One aspect of the alleged bomb plot which has provided a tremedous boost to the atavists, is the so-called “Baby bottle bomb”.
As the Daily Telegraph reported on August 14, “Scotland Yard are quizzing Abdula Ahmed, 25, and his 23 year old wife Cossor over suspicions that they were to use their baby’s bottle to hide a liquid bomb”.
This appalling and macabre idea is just what the rabid right needed to stoke up images of how sub-human Muslims are. Prepared to blow up their own baby! For example, John Howard, Australian Prime Minister:
“That would be an appalling reflection on the lack of humanity of that child’s parents.”
That is one of the more moderate quotes. I won’t repeat some of the stuff from US blogs.
One allegation on those blogs, that I can’t track down any original source for, is that the police found baby bottles containing residues of potentially bomb-making chemicals. This allegation has also been quoted to me in comments on this website.
Whether police really have said this, is a matter I can’t clarify. But if they have, consider this. I am looking at a bottle of Milton sterilising tablets. I, and generations of British parents, used these or similar chemicals to sterilise my baby’s feeding bottle. The instructions read thus:
Active Ingredient
Sodium Dichloroisocyanurate
Warnings
Harmful if swallowed. When in contact with an acid, releases a toxic gas.
Hydrogen peroxide is also widely sold in pharmacists and can be used for various domestic purposes including as a disinfectent.
A very high proportion of baby bottles would show traces of potentially dangerous chemicals. It means nothing.
I hope that the allegation is untrue and this young family intended no such crime. But there is nothing uniquely Islamic about infanticide. Indeed, in the last two days the news bulletins have covered prominently the stories of a British man who allegedly jumped from a balcony clutching his two children in Crete, and the inquest on a woman who threw herself under her train with her nine year old child.
Horrible? Yes. Have Muslims wreaked more horror on the World, either historically or in the last five years, than those professing other religions? No.
Once you float disinformation (story about Muslims using baby bottles to make bombs and killing their own babies in the process) , and it gets repeated often enough, it then becomes popular lore. Very effective propagandizing technique.
Craig said: "Horrible? Yes. Have Muslims wreaked more horror on the World, either historically or in the last five years, than those professing other religions? No."
This is a misleading rhetorical question as I'm sure you're aware. You are even wrong prima fascia in the 'historical' context. The folks ranging from Mecca to Bysantium and Iberia would argue otherwise I suspect, if they had survived to argue about it.
The fact that you have to compare "Muslims" to all other categories combined itself suggests that you are concerned that one fifth of the world's population causes a disproportionate amount of damage, and frankly the framing of the question is wrong.
Find another group of people who attack civilization with even a fraction of the zeal Islam does. You can't. There are approximately 280 active Islamic terror organizations afoot in the world today, spanning the entire globe. How many similar Christian organizations do you know of? Buddhist? Shinto? Hindu? Even Sikh?
Don't make the Sophist mistake of using capabilities as a measure of "horror" either. It is a common ploy to use Hiroshima, Dresden etc as a litany for western caused "horror", but this has little utility since it is not a measure of intent.
The current US administration, which has killed over 100,000 people in Iraq (old but most recent estimate) claims to be Christian, and divinely inspired, too. Of course, people who do not love their neighbour, turn the other cheek etc are not Christians, by definition, but Bush et al claim to be, with apparently straight faces.
Scott,
Yet again, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
The Second World War killed some 65 million people. Very few of those were killed by Muslims, who were pretty preipheral. Same is true of the First World War, which killed some 15 million.
Historically, the most costly war in terms of human life was probably the Tai Ping rebellion in China, led by a Messiah figure with a half-baked religion picked up from Christian missionaries. Few people in the West have heard of it. There was no significant Muslim engagement in that war either.
The conquests of the Seljuk Turks, and earlier of Tamerlaine, were indeed bloody. But on nothing like the scale of the above. And not in the least bit out of proportion with what Christians were doing in the same period. (The Hundred Years War being the most egregious example. That was partly religous. And you quote Byzantium. Don't forget it had been sacked and fatally weakened by Catholic crusaders who regarded the Orthodox Byzantines as heretics).
Worst mass murderers in history? Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler come to mind. Any of them Muslims? No.
There is simply no basis for claiming that Islam is uniquely violent and responsible for the ills of the world, any more than any other religion. Only a particularly stupid xenophobe would attempt to argue otherwise. I post this merely in case anyone is reading your remarks and enclined to gie them credence.
"Let me spend two hours with an honest man, and I will find enough incriminating in his words to hang him with".
If you buy it in a bottle with a childproof top, it's going to be possible to synthesise explosives from it…
Anyone with any real knowledge of explosive devices will know that almost anything can be made to go bang, and that with remarkable simple chemistry. Equally, a very large number of suitable materials can be found in most homes.
What has yet to be shown is that there was the intention to use this knowlege to lethal effect. That is the nub of the debate. So far all we have had is a series of wild rumours (from which source? one might ask) which the more gullible have taken as fact.
Let's get the real evidence – as to motive or intention – up for proper scrutiny before we start making damn fool accusations and assertions.
Craig said "There is simply no basis for claiming that Islam is uniquely violent and responsible for the ills of the world, any more than any other religion. Only a particularly stupid xenophobe would attempt to argue otherwise. I post this merely in case anyone is reading your remarks and enclined to gie them credence."
That is an unsupported and ridiculous statement. There are 280+ active Islamic terror organizations around the globe today. Lets say, for definitional purposes, that we take off 100 or so…and hey, why not take off another 80 just to make sure we err on the side of benefit of doubt. Can you name me a fraction of a fraction of that number of terrorist organizations sporting religious credentials? Nope, you can't. You can barely do it even if you cheat and plumb the sometimes sad history of Christianity, even though I am asking for extant organizations; ones active in 2006.
Find another group of people who attack civilization with even a fraction of the zeal Islam does.
Scott:
I'd like to take you up on this but I have forgotten how to measure collective zeal among groups who attack civilization. Any hints?
Craig,
After you've made such a bruhaha subsequent to your expert analysis of the Sunday papers are you at all starting to feel a bit ashamed of your eagerness to call this all a hoax now that the police have uncovered martyrdom tapes recored by those involved or are you just going to deflect this to some other irrational rant that brings you attention?
Also, "There is simply no basis for claiming that Islam is uniquely violent and responsible for the ills of the world, any more than any other religion. Only a particularly stupid xenophobe would attempt to argue otherwise. I post this merely in case anyone is reading your remarks and enclined to gie them credence."
Yeah, a "particularly stupid xenephobe" or anyone with half a brain or more that has studied the Qur'an, the ahadith, history, the Hamas covenant, Hizbollah, or any of the other jihadi groups, causes, motivations, statements, actions, proclamations or ideological foundations.
You get far too much attention already Craig and your opinions sure ain't worth it.
chooseDoubt,
No, I'm still a sceptic. It was at this stage in earlier cases that "police sources" told us about the ricin, about the "chemical weapon vest", about de Menezes vaulting the barriers. Let's wait and see if these really were martyr videos by the accused.
There could indeed be the germ of something here. But I still feel confident the "Bigger than 9/11 talk" was bollocks, as was the "brew your own high explosive on the plane" rubbish, and that the arrests were politically timed.
Craig
Wikipedia has a list of "Terrorist Organisations" to reply to ScottSA's backhanded challenge to contrast the group of accused organisations identified by muslim faiths with others. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_or…
___
But Chris's statement did not refer to "terrorism" , but rather 'violence' and 'responsibility for the ills of the world'
These do strike me as much better terms to judge fairly *all* applicable organisations, rather than just those routinely accused of "terrorism"
For myself, i generaly hold the people with the money to spend and the media to persuade responsible for the results of their expenditures and persuasions. If things are degenerating and suffering, strife and hazard are increasing, the budgets and policies arent working.
Others blame the impoverished and traumatised communities which predictably spawn enemies of the richer states.
Statisticaly, even in todays political climate of hightened antagonism that is such good business for militarists, our individual chances of being harmed by terrorist action are utterly dwarfed by other risks -traffic accidents, cancers, crimes, sheer Bad Luck.
Im hopefull that in time common dialogue, conscientious education, and perhaps new modern organisational forums will agree the solution to all this hurting and hating threatening us now. We'll resolve most importantly make no more enemies, and take the sh*t thats coming to us in proportion with the rest of the mess we've gotten ourselves into:
climate, pollution, food, employment, population crisis…..
Thankyou for your conscience Chris &all.
oh crap I meant to thank Craig &all – its late 'night %}
Craig,
Actually I have seen estimates ranging from 49million to 62million, but not 65million. Are you stoking the flames there a little bit? Seems that the more time passes, the bigger the number gets… Of course, the politics of the person quoting the number has much to do with it.
Bullwhip 7,
It is not a period of history I have studied in great detail. I wouldn't argue with you at all on any figure between 50 and 65 million. it makes no difference at all to my basic point, that the War on Terror is not on the same scale, or even anwhere close to the same ballpark, as the Second World War.
I am not sure what you meant about politics influencing the figure.
Craig
Scott,
First of all, when you present the number 280 as the number of Muslim Terrorist Organizations it's as if you're saying that the problem is the number of organizations rather than the membership of said organizations. I would rather face 280 terror cells of say, a few hundred (thousand?) people each, than 3 gigantic ones.
Let's not forget Israel's record of destruction and yes, terrorism, in pursuit of a religiously & ethnically pure state.
Collective punishment is terrorism. Israel and the U.S. are very good at collective punishment. So are many oppressive regimes around the world, many of them directly supported by the U.S.
How many white supremicist domestic terror cells have been identified? If they aren't publically listed do they not exist? Is it not terror when the racism is implicit and socially sanctioned as in the case of the lynch mobs of the early 20th century?
Is it not terrorism as long as it's "State Sponsored Terror", except when sponsored by our "enemies"?
How about Christian pro-life terrorism? Sure, they don't quite have the body count but if we're going to round people up for thought crimes and possible intent I can think of a lot of dangerous religious zealots here in America that need to be scrutinized.
It reminds me of the old standby of fearmongering, Satanic Cults sacrificing children. More Christians kill their kids, often because they think God told them to, than anyone claiming to worship Satan or any other pagan deity.
No doubt distortions of Islam result in honor killings and a plethora of other horrors but the whole pretense of "our faith" or "our nation" being intrinsically "good" while the "others" are the opposite is ridiculous. It's ridiculous for a Muslim, Buddhist, Catholic, Evangelist, Jew or anyone else to say it.
And if "…capabilities…" are not valid "…as a measure of "horror" either…" then why is anyone worried about "enemy" capabilities? Why do the methods count against Saddam when he's out of favor but not when he's doing the bidding of the U.S.?
On the question of "intent" with regard to Hiroshima, etc…WTF!?! Are you trying to say those were unintended deaths? It has not been proven that dropping those atomic bombs saved any lives. If it makes you feel better about it to believe that then go right ahead.
The problem is, whether or not some Americans believe they are a force for "good" in the world, a majority of the world does not see it that way. That is a big problem. I fear we will be dealing with "blowback" for generations.
I wish I didn't have to say this, as I know personally one of the key police personnel in the de Menezes saga, but I no longer trust any of the public pronouncements of police or politicians involved in the hysteria over terrorism. Criag, you are right. The "authorities" in the UK are using the terror threat to exert power and control over us through fear – a trick with a very long pedigree.
All this talk about the relative unpleasantness of different religions obscures the point that all religions have a fascist/authoritarian character about them, which is why we should be worried, very worried, about putting power and weapons into the hands of religious fundamentalists, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or Sikh.
Craig's historical body counts are irrelevant to the present-day problem, which is that Islamic fanatics see it as quite acceptable to kill their enemies by any means available, and are supported by a view that revenge is acceptable. When Craig justifies Islamic violence by pointing out the failures of British and US policy he simply reinforces this thirst for revenge. I am not a Christian, but I can see the wisdom of the principles of "love thy neighbour" and "turn the other cheek". Where are these principles apparent in Islam? Instead, we see Muslims in Iraq killing people almost indiscriminately, for such trivial reasons as wearing shorts or selling ice. Are Britain and the US to blame for that? The chilling video left behind by one of the 7/7 bombers clearly displayed this flawed philosophy that the sins of the British and the US (as he saw them) justified him killing innocents (whom he saw as guilty) on a massive scale. That is the problem. That the British and US response is flawed in no way justifies the original error.