T Wilkinson - Couldn't have put it better myself. Just because this is a blog doesn't mean you can omit to check facts Mr Burleigh. When you write history you do your research and it shows. Go and do likewise in this area.

1. You equivocate on the term 'celebrate'. Use of the term 'martyr' (or an untranslated original) may entail celebration (i.e. approval of) his conduct: it doesn't entail throwing a party in honour of it. I don't know (and neither, I assume, do you) whether the Standard were correct in saying that he was regarded as a martyr, and if so whether that implies anything beyond simply being killed. In any case, the family do appear to think he was killed, which surely trumps any inference you might make from the supposed 'martyr' label to a belief in his bomber status. 2. The notion that Tanweer was framed or murdered isn't especially preposterous - certainly not to the family, who seem to believe it, which is the relevant issue. Perhaps you would suggest that since it is preposterous, it is implausible that they really do believe it. As with the term 'celebrate', this confuses the public and private aspects. If they proclaim such a belief, that is enough to rebut the claim that the 'party' is openly honorific of a suicide bomber. 3. I didn't suggest that you called for anyone to be shot - only that to me the 'something must be done' attitude is reminescent of that fictional general (Korn, I think - memorably played by Orson Welles in the film). I'm genuinely not sure what you mean by 'in the US' - are you referring to people being prevented from leaving or entering that country? In any case, many practices have recently become established in the US which we may not wish to emulate. 4. I can only go on appearances - as will posterity. All I can say is please don't jump (or stumble) onto this Islam/Axis of Evil/Terror War bandwagon, which is similar in very many ways to the cold war Red scare. I don't deny, and am assured by historian friends, that you are a reasonable man 'on most issues', and proud of it. I wouldn't have bothered either rebuking or reasoning with you otherwise. You must recognise that a sensationalist piece in the Evening Standard reporting unattributed (and unquoted) opinions/motives is a poor source. You must also recognise that there is a major propaganda campaign under way whose bloody effects to date are all too apparent. I only ask that you think carefully before effectively helping Neo-con hawks to influence minds, or as in this case - and more importantly I fear - 'hearts'.