Eco-Jihad - the Islamist version
With thanks to Dr Richard North (whose far greater mind appears so frequently to think like that of His Grace), this 'Islamist' parody of the eco-jihad promotional film is exactly what His Grace was talking about when he referred to 'climate change terrorism'.
If this is offensive - as well it might be to both Muslim and non-Muslim alike - by what reasoning was the original 10:10 Richard Curtis film ever deemed to be morally acceptable? Does this communicate truth, or is it a perversion of a creed? Does it incite hatred, or is it legitimate expression of belief?
What would be the response if those being exploded were homosexuals?
Isn't this precisely what the 'Islamist' in our midst did on 7th July 2005? You take your bombs onto London underground, identify the unbeliever, press a button and blow him to smithereens. Why is it 'funny' to blow up those who happen to believe that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, yet grossly offensive to liquidate others for their sincerely-held beliefs?
Perhaps blowing 'the Right' to kingdom come is a legitimate pursuit: the world would doubtless be a far better place without heterosexual homophobes, Christian Islamophobes and Thatcherites.
And you can count on the pathologically-socialist luvvies and darlings to donate their time and talent free of charge in this righteous pursuit.
But this parody poses a searching question: what is the difference between 10:10 and 7/7, other than that one group thinks it 'funny'?