People are entitled to voice their own opinions. Even those who ignore the salient points, crowbar a reference about the Germans and WW2 into a reply, and witter on about a perfectly normal human reaction!

I would suggest you have a read of Carl Von Clausewitz, at the very least you will have a better understanding about War, and perhaps it will take your mind off
the indignities of public transport......

never seen Cadbury been accountable for obesity, or BMW for speeding.....

it's not the product that kills people, it's how it's used.

At least Iraq is a safer more secure country for the ten of thousands of innocents [iwe[/i slaughtered.
Oh, wait on a minute..........................................................................................................

Wear your Help for Heroes wristbands with pride, no really!

How utterly stupid. Your proposition seems to be that if you can provide an example of "atheist suicide bombers", (why did you introduce suicide bombers, btw?) this "disproves" an argument that eliminating religion would reduce wars and violence? Do you believe what you proposed there is actually a valid argument?

Just to pick one single current example, would Sunnis kill Shias for being Shias, or Shias kill Sunnis for being Sunnis, if from midnight they suddenly were of no religion, or is that too hard a question for you?

Btw the Black Tamils were hardly atheists. From what I have read, they were mostly Hindu, and therefore many would certainly have believed in an afterlife; but those suicide bombers were mostly selected and brainwashed from an early age and their motivations were rooted in that brainwashing. Al Jazeera did a good report on these which I suspect will be available on YT if you want to learn something. A brainwashed worldview and ideology is to me largely indistinguishable from "religion", it is surprisingly easy to indoctrinate people even into the extreme, eg a bunch of seemingly intelligent and educated people mostly agreeing to die for Charlie Manson's crazy views.





How breathtakingly naive. All religious killers always find perfect justification for the vilest massacres and abominations directly from their interpretation of those books. Whoever is "interpreting" the book easily finds you guilty for something or other, and then you have to die. Or are you arguing that the hundreds of thousnads of religious killings are all of "guilty" lives?

"I have here a beautiful hand-made Qassam rocket, to you, £50 cash, no vat, no invoice, no questions asked, it'll make a lovely conversation piece for your mantlepiece or the middle of your dining table and can be decorated by your children with poster paint in a myriad of designs, serving suggestion shown on box. PS, don't hit the base too hard with, for example, a hammer and nail, or be tempted to drill through the case to find out whats inside it because even we don't know, please dispose of carefully and under no circumstances throw it over your neighbours fence".

Indeed! This is my whole point. 99.9% of people
Take what they read in the main stream media as fact when the reality is, it's best to keep an open mind. One prominent msnbc (now NBC news) reporter actually lost their Job early in the conflict due to them wanting to air an anti isreal report. Search Russell brands you tube show "trews" the one with the fox presenter who interviews someone from the West Bank

Whilst on the subject of media, it frequently annoys me how the media "show" moves from spot to spot and then almost completely ignores and forgets about the places they've just been to or other places.

Recently, with events in the Middle East & Africa, has been a perfect example of how the media report and often over-report from one place with almost total disregard to others. I can only assume because they've got themselves setup there so they'll use the situation as much as they can.

For instance we had the world's media in Libya during the conflict. Then Gaddafi was killed, then virtually nothing for years.
The same for Iraq, media crawling the place during the "insurgency" then nothing, despite plenty of Iraqis still dying.
The same is true for Syria, Ukraine, Israel-Palestine, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Somalia and I'm sure there are others too.

When this conflict first started, Anonymous organised a demonstration in London. Over 10,000 people turned up. At the exact same moment that the demonstration reached Downing Street, do you know what the BBC did? Interview Tony Blair with his pro Israel views! You couldn't make it up! The next Anonymous demonstration attracted over 100,000 people but again, not one mention on the BBC yet in the past, the BBC has reported on the likes of fox hunting demos attracting around 5.000 people. Why is that?

#gazaunderattack
@youranonnews

In the lazy, cut-price age of global communications (but at a cost on an accountants spreadsheet) the news media are spoon-fed "news" stories by whoever is the most powerful interested party, as soon as that party's goal has been achieved then the news feed stops and everyone moves on.

Which is precisely what makes the newspapers bleating about "investigative journalism being damaged by Leveson" so laughable, they wouldn't know what "investigative journalism" meant until they looked it up in a Thesaurus or happened to trip up upon some Pilger documentaries from the 1970s on Youtube.

John Waite on Radio 4's Face The Facts is pretty good too.

But true to form, the BBC are axing the prgramme in 2015 due to budget cuts

You mean they offered a balanced view, as per the BBC Charter? Coverage of a pro-Gaza protest and then a pro-Israeli stance? You couldn't make it up. Shocking. I assume in your mind reaching Downing Street and cutting to Blair was symbolic and planned and probably clear evidence of a Zionist plot?

No mention of Gaza protests?
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-28383460Thousands march through London over Gaza crisis[/url
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28492479=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28492479Gaza conflict: Berlin protests show dividing lines[/url
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-28504779Hundreds join Belfast Gaza protest[/url
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-28502303Anti-Israeli protest on the streets of Edinburgh[/url
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-28383431Protesters join rally for Gaza[/url
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-28509791Policing of violence at Cardiff Gaza protest 'poor'[/url

They're even reporting on your lot protesting on their reporting.
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-28278951Manchester protesters march against BBC coverage and Gaza bombings[/url
[url=http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-28531909'Bristol Friends of Gaza' protest camp outside BBC[/url

I have no problem with a person taking a firm stance on this issue, even an unbalanced one such as yours. But the obsession with BBC reporting is ridiculous and slightly baffling given the BBC has a clear public duty to deliver unbiased reporting - and that includes the pro-Israel stance.

FWIW, I've seen several Israeli officials being grilled pretty harshly by BBC reporters, and I'm seeing almost blanket coverage of the carnage in Gaza. I'm not sure what about this is unacceptable.