Very sad. Very sick.

we happened to be watching BBC news when she first returned after exile.

today, happened to be watching BBC again this morning as the story of the bombing broke. then reports she was fine. then reports she was injured...then in serious condition, then dead.

agree. damn shame.

And possibly very serious for the region - and the world. Pakistan is the nursery for islamist extremists, and Bhutto was one of the few stabilising influences.

We need to keep an open mind, all of Islam is not the enemy.
extremist is correct peter.Its truly just a small element of the Islamic faith.

..as with Christian extremists.

or any extremists, for that matter.

we spent 10 days in Islamic Turkey last year, and i have to say they were perhaps the nicest, most welcoming people we've encountered. Friendly with very good senses of humor. boy, you should have seen the help we got when we had a "accidental" flat at 1AM. tire repair/minor body service came with tea, cake, and good conversation - all for $45 US.

...as with Belizean time share salesmen extremists

...or narrow minded right wing extremists.

peace on earth, goodwill towards men. (and women, and animals)

please SJ you could not be so narrow minded to believe that Christian extremists are causing the ills of the modern world. Could you?

...or empty minded left wing wackos.

peace on earth, good will towards men (eat animals)

Obviously not all Muslims are extremists, any more than most Christians are. But it must be acknowledged that those two religions are structurally the cruelist and most intolerant major religions on earth. Strange, because AFAIK Judaism (which spawned both of them) doesn't have those characteristics, but is a hugely tolerant and gentle religion.

The major difference between Islam and Christianity is that the latter, being older, had its extremist phase some centuries ago, whereas the former is still going through those growing pains.

Must agree with you p2, the problem here though is that present day thinking, at least as it seems to pertain to this board is on track for several hundred years ago.(Not all just a few)But then agin what do I know I'm just a redneck right wing extremist.

Peter,
The Jews’ mission is as it always has been — to bring the world to ethical monotheism. Ethical monotheism means there is one God and therefore one moral standard. I can't see tolerance in that but I believe your correct about the rest.

Maybe you're right, Elbert, but I don't see any sign of them trying to use force to achieve their end (other than in their disgraceful treatment of non-Jews in Israel). But again, as it's such an old religion maybe their extremist phase was so far back in time as to have been largely forgotten. They didn't invent monotheism though - that came from Abraham, who was a cunning local politician who evidently had sufficient charisma to impose his will on his major part of the then known world. He invented it out of nothing, pure and simple, and imposed it in a draconian fashion - much as Christians did a few centuries ago and (some) Muslims are doing now. I suppose he was the Mesopotamian version of Napoleon.

Extremism of any kind is dangerous. Regardless of any ancient history, the world must be much more forceful in its condemnation of how Islam has been taken-over by a violent minority today. At no point in recent history has anything in Christianty come close to what is going on in the Muslim World right now in the name of Allah -- shameful, ignorant, and completely sad.

Extremist Christianity was at its worst during the Inquisition. The Vatican was bloodthirsty in its quest for power and money in Europe. (The idea of catholic priests not being allowed to marry came over 300 years AFTER the formation of the Catholic church. The reason? Priests were traditionally wealthy people with estates and money. Once "married" to the church they could only leave their money and power to one entity....the Vatican. The Vatican is not the fabulously wealthy entity you see today because of the collection box at the local church!).

Radical Islam is at its worst now because of the power and money struggle for Middle Eastern oil. Bin Laden and the other extremist top guns want control of the Middle East, and particularly Saudi Arabia, because he/they want the oil revenues.

Either way...it was and is never about a god (or "God"). But, "rallying the believers" behind archaic and unproven visions of heaven and hell is a great way to turn normal people into bloodthirsty killers.

When looking for a reason for bad things that otherwise don't make a lot of sense ALWAYS follow the money.

Not in recent history no, but look back a few centuries. At a time when Islam hosted most of the world's scholarship (not just in "Islamic studies" but across a wide gamut of science and mathematics) Europe was beating itself up with Christian extremism. For ages after the reformation you had to be very careful which side of the Catholic/Protestant line you stood. One year you might be pilloried for being the one, the next you would be burned alive for being the other. Must have been an appalling time to be around (though remarkably some great artists managed to survive it all and produce stunning works).

I'm afraid though that we're kidding ourselves when we talk of "extremists taking over a religion". A close read of the holy books of Christianity and Islam shows that "extremism" is actually the norm, and intolerance of non-adherents to your particular dogma is structural to those religions. A "non-extreme" Christian or Muslim is actually a bad Christian or Muslim, one who picks and chooses which edicts to follow. I find it strange that Judaism doesn't also preach intolerance, but I don't believe it does (at any rate, not in the same violent way). And the eastern religions, whether multi-theistic or mono-theistic, are all (so far as I know) tolerant of non-believers and non-violent.

An interesting discussion topic is "would the world be better off without religion?". It's a very complex topic that doesn't want glib answers. Religion has always been invented by people because they can't visualise "the universe" (for want of a better term) and can't accept that they cease existing when they die. That's a major driver in the need for religion. Another is the need to conform, not to stand out from the crowd.

Uniformity of clothing/body decoration is crucial here, and clothing "uniform" can be found across society. It's just your statement to the world that you belong to a particular club, a particular group of people. "Traditional" garb which has no obvious function, such as the necktie generally worn in business in the west, the "skull cap" (can't remember what it's called) worn by traditional Jews, the dog collar and elaborate robes worn by Christian ministers, even the suspenders and straw hat worn by Mennonites - it's all intended to tell others which group you have affiliated yourself with. Although apparently designed as an inclusive sign, it's usually treated as an exclusive one.

The above was written before Chris' excellent post and refers to Otter's. But what Chris said brings us back to Abraham. He was a powerful man who shamelessly invented a single God to replace the multitude of gods otherwise worshipped at the time, and then used his political muscle to force people to conform to his new religion. By murder and intimidation, just as happened in later centuries and still goes on today in Islam. His "religion" was totally man-made as was his "God", and all the descendant "religions" have as much or as little raison d'etre as his original. Anyone who thinks there is some supernatural being according to the precepts of today's Abrahamic religions would do well to remember that. A simple re-translation of the Christian bible from the original languages, with some objective research into who wrote what and when, shows that the "Christian message" as it's seen today was deliberately fabricated at stages along the way. So much of what is accepted as "traditional and fundamental" was actually created out of nothing by later people wanting to expand their power base. It is the ultimate con trick.

The Jews have been preoccupied with survival for the last few century’s and are by no means immune to the aggressive behavior of the rest of humanity. Did you hear about the young Israeli boy to young to be in the army, he was delivering letters to his brothers fighting in the Gaz Valley, and killed an icon of the enemy’s with a rock then cut off his head to display as a trophy for the Israeli army.
It wasn’t on CNN. Its in a Hebrew manuscript the Christians fashioned into their bible. I think its called The book of Samuel

Very good. But getting to more recent times I've seen no sign of jews actively trying to convert people to their way of thinking, let alone using force to achieve it. To a large extent they just get on with their lives and only interface with others as far as survival requires. What's wrong with that?

Good commentary perdro2. I am a libertarian, and as such agree with much of your objective and reasoned interpretation.

I think Chris similarly hits the mark. Money is less an issue than power -- although many times they are synonymous. If there were no religion, there would be other excuses for power-grabbing and violence.

The only thing I take issue with is the suggestion that extremism is the norm if you read the scripture. I guess we would need to delve more deeply into the definition of extremism. In the Quran, it is specifically instructed to kill infields. In the Bible, there is plenty of violence, but God/Jesus does not prescribe violence for non-believers. This is a key difference.

With this as a basis, one can chalk-up Christian extremism as religious leaders run amok with power and Islamic extremism as simply following the will of Abraham.

good observations, otter. i assume you meant 'infidels'.

otherwise, for all this great banter, i am very unconvinced the islamic extreme had anything to do with Bhutto's killing.

good point sj -- I think it was those craving power using Islamic extremism as a rallying cry -- nothing more.

Jane,
I believe a Taliban leader linked to Al Qaeda killed Bhutto?
seriously , did i miss something?

maybe elbert, but don't confuse his affiliation with his motivation and those of his allies -- likely something far more sinister here.