Given that the Vatican accumulated its wealth by threatening people with supernatural terrors, yes, there’s a sort of equivalence.
Are you in turn suggesting a moral equivalence between wealth accumulation (by which I assume you mean wealth creation) and the parasitism of the Vatican?

Pedants’ corner: the translation would be terrorist*s*, as mujahideen is the plural of mujahid

And, in any case, a proper translation of mujahid is simply someone who strives or makes an effort. I’ve heard Arab friends who are working two jobs to support themselves through university described as ‘mujahid’ – because of the huge effort they’re making, and with no connotation of terrorism. Of course, one who wages war on behalf of Allah is also called a mujahid – but the root is the same. They’re making a big effort and lots of personal sacrifices to do so.

Wish they wouldn’t bother, though.

Right – that’s more than enough boring words from me for one strip!

Far from flaming, I think there’s a lot of truth in that. Although one could have a philosophical argument about the merits and/or necessity of leadership: could an army have been assembled for the quasi-suicidal operation that was the Normandy landings in WWII without large amounts of propaganda and misinformation by ‘old men’? And where would Europe be now, if it couldn’t? I’m playing devil’s advocate, of course – and from your comments you sound like a committed pacifist (a position I respect, but don’t personally endorse), so you would probably push back against this point. But it’s a fair debate, I think you’d agree.

@John Moore

Not being devil’s advocate here: I’m afraid I rather disagree. Sadly – very sadly – terrorism almost always works. That’s not rhetoric on my part. Look at the withdrawal of US forces from Beirut after the car bombing there; the gain of power by former Irish paramilitaries (of both persuasions) through bombing their way to negotiations; the withdrawal of US bases from Saudi Arabia; the hijacking of aeroplanes by the PLO to raise awareness of their cause; and many, many other examples.

On a deeper level, one can construct an argument which shows that any society that tries to resist violent attempts to de-democratise it (crudely what al-Qa’idah and its affiliates are trying to do now, at least in one sense) will inevitably have to focus more on security and less on preserving the civil rights of its citizenship. Hence a ‘victory’ of sorts for the suicide bomber. We’ve seen a lot of that in the West since September 2001.

And on a deeper level still, the very fact that this website exists, that in the West issues of terrorism and security are never far from the news and our collective consciousness, and that world policy is forced to adapt to whatever violence it is faced with, shows that terrorism always, always, always has an influence on us. And the hand of the rational is often forced in a direction that would not normally be of his choosing (such as giving up on democracy in Afghanistan – which looks likely – or self-censorship when discussing religion, or finding new sources of oil in dubious African dictatorships rather than the old dictatorships in the Middle East), simply through this forced response.

Just a few thoughts for bedtime

Don’t forget to order your PrayerMAX 5000 early in time for Xmas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVUfLJVSdjg

Well C Rabid, you’re only one party in a gay marriage if you married to a person of the same gender as yourself.

So it’s rather confusing for you to attempt to define marrage as man-woman in one post and then claim to be in a gay marriage in another one.

A senseless act, indeed. And it’s truly hard to rationalise. One of my unhappy tasks in Yemen was to try to come to some understanding of how and why young people are recruited to carry out these suicidal and irrational acts. One could write huge books about it (and some have, in fact), but I agree with you that it’s difficult for anyone with an ounce of rationality to comprehend. But here are a few general thoughts of mine:

1) A recruiter is not always necessary. Hamas, for example, have almost no need to go out and find people to act as ‘martyrs’. The resentment, politics, and culture of the region seems to provide a never-ending stream of volunteers. More than they could ever use in operations, in fact. These suicide bombers can probably be considered to be acting entirely of their own volition, and fulfilling what they see as their personal duty and fate.

2) In other places (such as Yemen and Somalia) there is a huge overlap between what one might term a ‘constituency’ of young people who wish to fight in general (eg in local tribal wars, not linked to religious issues), to fight for political causes (eg in guerrilla armies), and to fight for Allah against infidels. In other words, the same group of people, from the same background, appear easily recruited for three very different types of purpose, only one of which is religious.

3) So there is something about the disaffection and hopelessness of this constituency that is key here. Poverty, poor governance, lack of opportunity and unemployment all play a role (but note that this does not appear to produce suicide bombers in equally poor countries such as Malawi or Uganda). Lack of access to outside information is also important (i.e. a tribal village whose only source of information is from the local Imam or elders). Perception of political injustice (whether justified or not) seems to play a major role. Finally, local traditions of honour and reciprocity for injustice can add fuel to the fire.

4) Although the recruits are almost always brainwashed into a religious fervour (they rarely arrive ‘ready made’ in terms of religious motivation), the recruiters are frequently far more canny and political. In fact, they will often treat suicide bomber volunteers as their own personal ‘army’ by which they hope to achieve political influence. For example, the government of Yemen (through the proxy of influential local Sheikhs) used mujahideen returning from the war against the USSR in Afghanistan to help fight its own political battle against socialists in the South. Yemen was reunified on the back of this policy. Recruiters in Iraq have much the same attitude, and use suicide bombings far more to stir racial tensions and achieve political goals, than to carry out Allah’s instructions (even if that’s what the bombers themselves are led to believe).

5) Suicide bombers from rich countries (Saudi, the UK, etc.) are a greater mystery still. The questions about poverty don’t apply, and in the West neither do those about bad governance. This goes someway, I think, to explaining why it is that it is in these societies that we see the most lengths taken by recruiters to religiously indoctrinate their targets. This is accompanied by a large dollop of brainwashing about perceived injustice.

But like I said, the whole issue is almost infinitely complex. There are other fascinating areas for discussion (why do supposedly rational scientists and engineers feature prominently in the ranks of bombers; what is the role of mothers in indoctrination; etc). But the one-sentence answer to the question “how can the young be recruited by the old to carry out these atrocities” is probably something along the lines of “through a subtle blend of political and religious indoctrination, targeted at an existing disaffected and religiously compliant constituency”. This sadly means that women and children are no more immune to this exploitation than the men, and are protected only by local cultural norms that they should not take part in fighting. If those norms are absent, or can be hijacked and perverted, then they become fair game.

I’ll still stay married to my sheep, though: God told me it was OK.

‘…your lot hijacked…‘ – sorry if the link went over your head, though I guess most things do. The point was, no one ‘hijacked’ anything.

Two things rabbits are good at; hopping randomly in different directions, and squeezing out an endless series of shitty nuggets. You’ve proved yourself proficient at both of those Rabit. As you don’t take your own prejudices sufficiently seriously to bother arguing for them, I’m going to take MyCatIsGod’s advice – you’re a troll and not worth wasting any more time on.