18 and death to go

So, a funny thing has so far come out of the London bombings. I guess I should not say funny, but a point to take note of, none the less. One of the suicide bombers was only 18 years old, and born on British soil. Perhaps the significance of this is not apparent immediately, but bear with me, please.

It is not uncommon for young, 18 year old men to be swept up in the passions of the day, and sign up for some ill-advised endeavor. Many a young man has found themselves serving in the US military for much the same reason. Now, it may have been a good decision for them in the long run, or a catastrophic one, but the original impulse may have been poorly thought out to say the least. I cannot say that I do not belong to such a club, but that is a story for another day. The prerequisite for men to embark upon such endeavors is that they are not strongly dissuaded from doing so on most quarters. While some may be dissuaded from joining the military by their parents, and they may sign up as a form of rebellion, there must be at least one or two institutions which support, in general, such an endeavor. Using the aforementioned as an example, one may have parents who are hippie pacifists who think that all soldiers are murderous thugs, and that their sweet and innocent angelic child should never speak of enlisting, that sweet angel had to come into contact with institutions, such as teachers, clergy, or society in general who did not view military service with such venemous misconceptions.
So, what this tells me is that this 18 year old Londoner, born on British soil, must have had at least a few institutions which praised terrorism. It was not likely his school. I am going to give his parents the benefit of the doubt, and say that they did not encourage their children to blow themselves up, murdering scores along the way. It was definitely not British society. So, who was it? well, considering that he was devoutly muslim, and muslims are known for this kind of thing, then I would say that someone in his congregation got ahold of him. I mean that, he got ideas of virgins awaiting him, and killing in the name of God from someone else. Someone from his faith. A muslim.
Now, since he was 18 years old, this would mean that he was about 14 when 9-11 happened. 14 years old. At 14 years old, it is still possible to mold a young mind. This means that the moderate muslims failed. They said that they were a religion of peace, but apparently, they failed to teach that to their young boys, and now, even after seeing where it leads, the muslim community of which he was a part refused to send a clear signal to him, or anyone else within their community that terrorism was against Allah. Had they done so, then undoubtedly, undoubtedly, he would have, at the very least, tried to figure out who was right; the "extremist msulims" of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, or the "moderate muslims" of Britain.

Therefore, it is my conclusion that even after 9-11, the muslim communities made no effort to reclaim theyr religion from the terrorists. None. They didn't have to man the barricades and face off against them in the streets of Kabul. They didn't have to set up some sort of resistance network in an occupied country (Jesus, even the French did a halfway decent job of that!) , all they had to do was disavow terrorism, in the safety of London.
But they did not. They must have condoned terrorism, either openly through preaching, through the subterfuge of equivocating it with military attacks against Taliban terrorists, or through public denial synchronous with, and overruled by, private encouragement.

They used to say that it was a fringe element of muslims that have hijacked Islam. Now, I am hearing that it is the leaders who have hijacked Islam from it's adherents. The truth is that a 14 year old muslim boy cannot tell the difference between an extremist and a moderate simply because there is no daylight between the former and the latter.

Respectfully Submitted,
 -doc Russia