Agree, Kevin. In addition, I think "nationalism" should be applied here in a wider-than-usual interpretation: not referring to independent nations alone, but also to a wider gouping, such as a pan-Arab conscience. This then explains some of Wolfgang's questions and the fact that none of the London bombers (as far as we know or we are told) were of Iraqi or Afghani descent, yet their action is taken (by many, including me, though no proof is available) as being linked to Britain's involvement in those two countries.

I worked in the M.East for some years and I have friends in most of the countries around the Gulf of Iran and the Arabian peninsula. My understanding from long discussions with them in the past (10 years or so ago) is that they do indeed share this "pan-Arab" conscience, which comes into play when faced with a common enemy.

I believe that it is this wider interpretation of "nationalism", taking in racial (and possibly also some religious?) overtones, that is at work in this case. But religion is just part of it, and not the largest part either. To badge this common Arab feeling as a "religious idealism" would be wrong and misleading, and would miss the point. Religion may be used by those who would foment such feelings as a kind of "glue" (and also to provide incentives such as an enriched afterlife to the activists), but it is not the cause of terrorism. Not in this case.