Terror Alerts

[ramonmercado]

Pietro

Of course, Osama is obviously a reasonable man. I believe everything he says. Just like I trust Blair.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

Pietro

Of course, Osama is obviously a reasonable man. I believe everything he says. Just like I trust Blair.

It's not a matter of whether we believe what he says, or not. It's whether the core bunch of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have a negotiable position, or not, however untenable. You say not, Binliner and Fisk say there are negotiable demands. It doesn't matter whether there will actually be any negotiations.

 

[Quake42]

Not, perhaps, the most tasteful comment from a former Guantanamo inmate on this latest terror plot...

Moazzam Begg, who was detained by the US at Guantanamo Bay without charge before being released, was among the others to attend the meeting.

"I hope that when the truth manifests itself that, metaphorically, heads will roll with the people who put out these stories in the first place," he said.

More here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6328689.stm

 

[ramonmercado]

Pietro

Of course, Osama is obviously a reasonable man. I believe everything he says. Just like I trust Blair.

It's not a matter of whether we believe what he says, or not. It's whether the core bunch of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists have a negotiable position, or not, however untenable. You say not, Binliner and Fisk say there are negotiable demands. It doesn't matter whether there will actually be any negotiations.

But binliners type of state in iraq, SA, etc is not negotiable. it is an islamic state run under the sharia and anyone who disagrees is a servant of shaitan who deserves death.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

...

But binliners type of state in iraq, SA, etc is not negotiable. it is an islamic state run under the sharia and anyone who disagrees is a servant of shaitan who deserves death.

Whereas now, Iraq's an exploding suicide jockey themepark. What's your point? You think we're spreading the message of peace through Democracy?

And, Saudi's already Sharia Extremity Lopping Central. But, the Princes and their deputies behead to stay in power, so what's the difference?

 

[wembley8]

I find it inexplicable that otherwise intelligent people refuse to accept the fact that Islamic terror tactics are completely beyond the pale in a civilised society.

Look, we were happy to use terror tactics in WWII and incinerated thousands of civilians as a war of hitting at german morale. (Not all that effectively as it turned out). I don't agree with these tactics, but suggesting that only Johnny Foreigner users them and we civilised folk don't is simply not right.

It's also important to remember that no one in London, Leeds, High Wycombe or Birmingham is living under an occupation. There is absolutely no reason why UK Islamists cannot express their political views peacefully.

Don't you know there's a war on? Not my view, but it's the view of many in the US - and Islamic extremists.

I didn't agree with IRA bombings either, but I can see what they're trying to achieve and why.

 

[wembley8]

Check more carefully and you will see that their bottom line is an Islamic World State.

Have you got a reference on this? It sounds a lot like m'learned friends observations on the IRA - what British propogranda said they wanted, and what they would actually settle for, were two completely different things.

I think there's still a strong strain of we-will-not-negotiate-with-terrorists in governmental PR - alongside the covert negotiations with groups who might well be described as terrorists. al-Sadr, this week's enemy, next week's friend (or is it the other way around?).

 

[Quake42]

Don't you know there's a war on? Not my view, but it's the view of many in the US - and Islamic extremists.

I didn't agree with IRA bombings either, but I can see what they're trying to achieve and why.

And so... what exactly? It's generally quite clear what terrorists of any hue are trying to achieve. Does that make it OK? Does that mean that government policy should be changed to suit the extremist fringe?

I'm not clear what you're trying to argue here. In my neo-Nazi terror group analogy, what then? Should the government have started deporting non-whites after David Copeland bombed Brixton and Brick Lane? Or should the policy of appeasement apply only to Islamic terrorists and/or people who oppose Bush and Blair?

I'm genuinely puzzled by your views on this.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

... Or should the policy of appeasement apply only to Islamic terrorists and/or people who oppose Bush and Blair?

I'm genuinely puzzled by your views on this.

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why opposing the lunacies of the Bush/Blair pact (what they're doing can't be dignified with the term, 'plan'), for the Middle East, is in some way 'appeasement'? Appeasement was allowing Hitler's army to march into Czechoslovakia. Bush and Blair marched us into Afghanistan and into Iraq, for falsified reasons. Allowing Israel to march into Lebanon could be considered appeasement, I suppose. Just as allowing any of Israel's Arab neighbours to march into Israel would also be appeasement.

There's far too much marching in and out countries, for spurious reasons, being allowed to go on at the moment and it should stop, before we can't hear anything at all above the sound of marching feet and the terrible cacophony of warfare that goes with it. We will be fighting a bad war for the wrong reasons. Even if we win in the short term, the consequences may be more terrible than we dare to contemplate. But, we bloody well should contemplate them and not just give ourselves over to a kneejerking herd instinct mentality that clutches at any a priori rationalisation, justifying criminal acts of war, that happens to come along.

To paraphrase Dylan Thomas, we should not go gently into that. We really should , "Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

That's not appeasement.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

is the point being made here not the appeasement of people in a democratic state who, through acts of terrorism, oppose the policies of blair and bush rather than simply appeasing those who oppose without resort to violent tactics? :?

 

[ramonmercado]

...

But binliners type of state in iraq, SA, etc is not negotiable. it is an islamic state run under the sharia and anyone who disagrees is a servant of shaitan who deserves death.

Whereas now, Iraq's an exploding suicide jockey themepark. What's your point? You think we're spreading the message of peace through Democracy?

And, Saudi's already Sharia Extremity Lopping Central. But, the Princes and their deputies behead to stay in power, so what's the difference?

When did I ever say I liked Iraqi "democracy"? Why must you invent enemies?

My point is that Bin Laden wants an even more oppressive SA & Iraq. Socialists have nothing in common with Islamic Fundamentalists.

 

[Quake42]

There's far too much marching in and out countries, for spurious reasons, being allowed to go on at the moment and it should stop, before we can't hear anything at all above the sound of marching feet and the terrible cacophony of warfare that goes with it. We will be fighting a bad war for the wrong reasons.

I agree. Invading Iraq was wrong and has caused far more problems than it has solved. Afghanistan I think was a completely different situation and the two should be looked at separately.

My point is that there are very good reasons for Western forces not to have invaded Iraq. The fear of nutters blowing up Tube trains should not be one of those reasons.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

is the point being made here not the appeasement of people in a democratic state who, through acts of terrorism, oppose the policies of blair and bush rather than simply appeasing those who oppose without resort to violent tactics? :?

I'm not sure.

However, it certainly would be wrong to appease terrorists committing acts of terrorism, especially directed against our Democracies and societies. It would also be wrong to use the such acts of terrorism as justification for the inordinate use of force. Terrorists are criminals, not enemy combatants and should be pursued as criminals. They should not be used simply as an excuse to invade countries which had previously been placed on a 'To Do list'.

For one thing, by glorifying the acts of carnage, committed by these benighted twats, with the nonsense term, 'enemy combatants', we're quite literally turning them into 'outlaws'. How romantic, like self detonating Robin Hoods. By putting them outside the Internationally agreed system of law which we use to contain the horrors of war within at least a thin boundary of civilised restraint, we help turn them into heroes and martyrs fighting a Holy War against a brutal and unscrupulous enemy, instead of gullible and mislead fools, engaged by third parties in futile acts of self annihilating carnage.

They believe they have the certainty of Truth on their side and they can point to us, because with the dichotomy between what we say and how we act, we prove to them that, in the words of the old Westerns, "White man speak with forked tongue."

We are the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist's best recruiting sergeants. By projecting our worst stereotypes onto Muslims, we help confirm their worst stereotypes of us.

We seem to think that the Islamic Fundamentalists despise Western weakness and vacillation, however it's pretty obvious that they despise our deceits and insincerity far more. Not to mention the vast technological, industrial scale of our remote control acts of indiscriminate terror, against civilians and enemies alike.

The tale of King Richard I (Cour de Leon) and Saladin, during the Crusades, should be a lesson to us all. Straight and honourable dealing with Muslims and the Muslim World would achieve far more than the present duplicitous over-reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

That may seem naive, but the present course of action the West's committed to doesn't seem to be working very well.

 

[ramonmercado]

Some sources on Osama and Political Islam:

The "three foundations," as outlined by Al Zawahiri are as follows:

"The Quran-Based Authority to Govern." According to Al Zawahiri, Al Qaeda supports the creation of an Islamic state governed solely by sharia law. Secular government or "man-made" law is considered unacceptable and deemed contrary to Islamic faith.

"The Liberation of the Homelands." Al Zawahiri argued that reforms and free elections will not be possible for Muslims without first establishing "the freedom of the Muslim lands and their liberation from every aggressor." He also emphasized the importance of establishing control over the Middle East's energy resources and described the Muslim world as "impotent and exposed to the Israeli nuclear arsenal."

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/RS21973.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Muhajiroun

http://www.militantislammonitor.org/article/id/836

http://www.tomgrossmedia.com/mideastdis ... 00394.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keywo ... zbuttahrir

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1178419.stm

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

is the point being made here not the appeasement of people in a democratic state who, through acts of terrorism, oppose the policies of blair and bush rather than simply appeasing those who oppose without resort to violent tactics? :?

I'm not sure.

However, it certainly would be wrong to appease terrorists committing acts of terrorism, especially directed against our Democracies and societies. It would also be wrong to use the such acts of terrorism as justification for the inordinate use of force. Terrorists are criminals, not enemy combatants and should be pursued as criminals. They should not be used simply as an excuse to invade countries which had previously been placed on a 'To Do list'.

For one thing, by glorifying the acts of carnage, committed by these benighted twats, with the nonsense term, 'enemy combatants', we're quite literally turning them into 'outlaws'. How romantic, like self detonating Robin Hoods. By putting them outside the Internationally agreed system of law which we use to contain the horrors of war within at least a thin boundary of civilised restraint, we help turn them into heroes and martyrs fighting a Holy War against a brutal and unscrupulous enemy, instead of gullible and mislead fools, engaged by third parties in futile acts of self annihilating carnage.

They believe they have the certainty of Truth on their side and they can point to us, because with the dichotomy between what we say and how we act, we prove to them that, in the words of the old Westerns, "White man speak with forked tongue."

We are the Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist's best recruiting sergeants. By projecting our worst stereotypes onto Muslims, we help confirm their worst stereotypes of us.

We seem to think that the Islamic Fundamentalists despise Western weakness and vacillation, however it's pretty obvious that they despise our deceits and insincerity far more. Not to mention the vast technological, industrial scale of our remote control acts of indiscriminate terror, against civilians and enemies alike.

The tale of King Richard I (Cour de Leon) and Saladin, during the Crusades, should be a lesson to us all. Straight and honourable dealing with Muslims and the Muslim World would achieve far more than the present duplicitous over-reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

That may seem naive, but the present course of action the West's committed to doesn't seem to be working very well.

well quite but this doesn't really explain why apparently neutral people seem quick to assign blame to our government for the actions of extremists when the same logic wouldn't be applied elsewhere. sermonising about the 'war on terror' proves one thing - that you can hold strong views on the subject without believing that it legitimises slaughter. the actions of our government may provoke many things but british citizens carrying out atrocities against other british citizens in britain? i'd say the way the anger is expressed makes the emotion behind it and how it is provoked of little consequence.

 

[jefflovestone]

The tale of King Richard I (Cour de Leon) and Saladin, during the Crusades, should be a lesson to us all. Straight and honourable dealing with Muslims and the Muslim World would achieve far more than the present duplicitous over-reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

That may seem naive, but the present course of action the West's committed to doesn't seem to be working very well.

I appreciate the sentiment behind this, but I think there's a big difference between then and now. There was a lot more potential parity between Richard the Lionheart's culture and that of Saladin compared to that of the Western society now and the Islamic East. I think the West has since changed in far more ways than Islamic Culture.

 

[Peripart]

The "three foundations," as outlined by Al Zawahiri are as follows:

"The Quran-Based Authority to Govern."

"The Liberation of the Homelands."

Is the third one too horrible to utter, or have I missed something?

 

[ramonmercado]

The "three foundations," as outlined by Al Zawahiri are as follows:

"The Quran-Based Authority to Govern."

"The Liberation of the Homelands."

Is the third one too horrible to utter, or have I missed something?

Click on the link and Allah the merciful and compassionate will enlighten you.

 

[Pietro_Mercurios]

The tale of King Richard I (Cour de Leon) and Saladin, during the Crusades, should be a lesson to us all. Straight and honourable dealing with Muslims and the Muslim World would achieve far more than the present duplicitous over-reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

That may seem naive, but the present course of action the West's committed to doesn't seem to be working very well.

I appreciate the sentiment behind this, but I think there's a big difference between then and now. There was a lot more potential parity between Richard the Lionheart's culture and that of Saladin compared to that of the Western society now and the Islamic East. I think the West has since changed in far more ways than Islamic Culture.

There certainly is, Richard I had the travelling troubadour, Blondin, to get him out of trouble. Tony Blair had Alistair Campbell ...

 

[wembley8]

I'm not clear what you're trying to argue here.

Simply that because someone labels a group 'terrorist' does not mean that a negotiated settlement is impossible.

And that we should be suspicious of people who want us to favour violence and bloodshed as a solution rather than negotiation. I don't think that military force alone is going to provide any sort of solution in Iraq or Afghanistan.

I'd rather your neo-Nazis were sitting round a negotiating table or trying to get elected than planting bombs.

 

[jefflovestone]

The tale of King Richard I (Cour de Leon) and Saladin, during the Crusades, should be a lesson to us all. Straight and honourable dealing with Muslims and the Muslim World would achieve far more than the present duplicitous over-reaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin

That may seem naive, but the present course of action the West's committed to doesn't seem to be working very well.

I appreciate the sentiment behind this, but I think there's a big difference between then and now. There was a lot more potential parity between Richard the Lionheart's culture and that of Saladin compared to that of the Western society now and the Islamic East. I think the West has since changed in far more ways than Islamic Culture.

There certainly is, Richard I had the travelling troubadour, Blondin, to get him out of trouble. Tony Blair had Alistair Campbell ...

Well, there is that. It's just that, as culture go, I think they've gone too far in separate directions for genuine integration or perhaps even acceptance.

 

[Quake42]

I'd rather your neo-Nazis were sitting round a negotiating table or trying to get elected than planting bombs.

Yes but would you suggest changing government policy on immigration in order to appease them? That's the question.

 

[wembley8]

Yes but would you suggest changing government policy on immigration in order to appease them? That's the question.

'Appease' is a bit of a weasel word. Was government policy changed to 'appease' the IRA over the Good Friday agreement? Did we 'appease' the Soviets by not nuking them over Afghanistan?

The issue here is whether it is possible to negotiate with extremists; I believe that it is. Some people may think that this necessarily constitutes appeasement, to me that's a naive view adopted through ignorance of history. Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Cameron attacks Muslim leader over Nazi comment


David Cameron today criticised a Muslim community leader who compared anti-terror raids in Birmingham to the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The Tory leader, who met Muslim elders at Birmingham Central Mosque for almost two hours, emerged from the talks to urge all sections of the community to support the police. Read more... Speaking outside the mosque, Mr Cameron also rejected claims by its chairman, Dr Mohammad Naseem, that Britain is becoming a police state and that the terror threat has been invented. 'He's completely and utterly wrong and I think that's not responsible at all,' Mr Cameron said. 'It's quite clear from the events of 7/7 and other events that Britain does face a terrorist threat and we need to confront that and defeat it.' But Mr Cameron added that whilst combating terrorism is vital, it is also essential to make sure that an entire community is not demonised in the process. 'I was very pleased to come to Birmingham today to come and listen to British Muslims and to come and learn. 'For the last few weeks and months, I've been talking about the importance of community cohesion. 'I had a series of meetings this morning about that and also to reflect on some of the recent events in Birmingham. 'It can't be said often enough that British Muslims, the overwhelming majority, want to be part of a strong and successful country and they want to see the barriers come down that can divide us. 'It's also equally clear that there is a small number of very dangerous extremists that we have to confront and defeat... and everyone has to do that, the Muslim community included.' Questioned further about comments made by Dr Naseem last week, Mr Cameron added: 'I don't think Britain is becoming a police state. 'We have the rule of law, we have an independent police force and they do an extremely good job - they should be supported.' 'It's very important that everybody knows that and reflects on that.' Dr Naseem had likened the treatment of Muslims in Britain to that of Jews in Nazi Germany.

The official also said the UK was becoming a police state and accused the Government of 'picking on' the Muslim community to pursue a political goal.

He said the nine terror arrests in the city last week were an example of the Government justifying its political agenda and anti-terror laws. 'They have invented this perception of a threat,' he told reporters.

Talking to the Press Association today, Dr Naseem was reluctant to disclose details of the talks. 'I think dialogue of any kind is always a help and in time it will bear fruit,' he said. Mr Cameron's visit, his second to Birmingham in eight days, followed his first major intervention on Islamic extremism.

He urged ministers last week to pay less attention to 'loud' Muslim groups who often do not represent the views of their communities.

Mr Cameron said many such groups pursue an agenda of 'separation rather than integration', and the Government could not afford to 'defer' to their views.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... ge_id=1770

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Ex-terror suspect blasts 'Police State for Muslims'

One of the nine men arrested under anti-terror laws said he had been scarred for life by his detention, branding Britain a "police state for Muslims".

Abu Bakr was among nine suspects held over an alleged plot to behead a Muslim soldier.

He and another suspect were released early yesterday. Detectives have until tomorrow to question the seven other suspects.

Speaking on BBC2's Newsnight yesterday, Mr Bakr said: "It's a police state for Muslims, it's not a police state for everyone else, because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims.

"That's quite an open fact because the people who have been arrested under terrorism laws, the groups for example that have been banned under the terrorism laws, the people that have been affected by terrorism legislation, have been Muslims.

"So we are feeling the brunt of it all. We are the ones that are being locked up, detained, and then told go back to our lives."

Mr Bakr said the episode would live with him for the rest of his life.

He said: "I'm scared for myself and my family, because I've been picked up and told to go back home and everyone assuming someone can pick up their life after such a major incident that occurs.

"And, you know, this is going to affect me for the rest of my life."

Mr Bakr was among eight suspects picked up in a series of dawn raids in Birmingham last Wednesday. A ninth was stopped on a motorway in the city several hours later.

He and another were released without charge from Coventry's Chace Avenue police station.

In a statement, the men said there had been no mention to them by police of a plot to kidnap or behead any soldier.

http://www.24dash.com/communities/16258.htm

 

[Dingo667]

I am so amazed about this. Of course muslims are targeted more than others because it is muslim extremists that hate our guts. DUH!
I have to write it in such a simple way because it seems that the FACT that extremist muslim terrorist are MUSLIMS seems to go right by the muslim community.
Hey lets leave all muslims alone, because they are muslims and we don't want to upset them, lets see if we can find some muslim terrorists amidst the mormon community for a while until working our way through every other belief in order to keep it equal...oh apart from muslims, because we all know that their extremists would never spread hatred.
What a load of bull.
And to the muslim communities I'd say if you are fed up being thrown into the same pot as your extremists muslims, do something about it and show the rest of us that you don't secretly actually agree by keeping stumm and moaning every time one of your lot is arrested.
There are ways you know. Maybe listen to your imman next time and if you don't agree with his extremists views shop him. Show that you care. Make us non-muslims as angy as you for the intrusions into the muslim community by letting us know that the majority of you don't actually agree with the extremists views.
I know many don't agree but I also know that many do. However how am I supposed to tell them apart?
If the police goes and nicks muslims I have to trust them that they have a bloody good reason.
If they don't have a good reason, they must have at lest THOUGHT that they had one and I am grateful that we err on the safe side. The worst case scenario would be if they stop their investigations for the single reason that "nicking muslims will make them angry so lets not do it".

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

dingo, i'd agree with much of what you're saying but there is an issue as to how suspects (and remember they're not guilty whilst they remain just that) are treated in comparison to non-muslim suspects. i guess it's one individual who's been freed's word against the police (who are acting on intelligence we're not fully privvy regarding the threat they personally might face) but they do claim a certain heavy-handedness against people who are often found to be innocent.

 

[Dingo667]

dingo, i'd agree with much of what you're saying but there is an issue as to how suspects (and remember they're not guilty whilst they remain just that) are treated in comparison to non-muslim suspects. i guess it's one individual who's been freed's word against the police (who are acting on intelligence we're not fully privvy regarding the threat they personally might face) but they do claim a certain heavy-handedness against people who are often found to be innocent.

Yeah, I actually know that [deep down], I just sometimes like to call a spade a spade... :?
Of course it is important that those "suspects" that turn out to be innocent get at least a decent "sorry" or maybe lets treat suspects a little more respectful until actually proven guilty. I agree to that. However in some of these cases it isn't necessarily that those arrested are actually terrorists, they may just be sympathist to the extremist view, which in itself might be construed by some people as a little on the cheeky side.
But yeah lets be a bit more civilised about the whole thing, including my own opinion but I can't help ranting when something strikes me as blatantly wrong. We don't have a muslim targeted police state. I'd even go as far as to say: "Don't flatter yourself". I don't like this "We are victims" attitude. I could play the same tune, just replace muslims with woman and german and I can tell you stories that would bend your bones...

 

[wembley8]

If the police goes and nicks muslims I have to trust them that they have a bloody good reason.

Why - Did you miss the whole business with the Irish in the 70's?

More recently, did you see the 'ricin plot' story?

The police are human and fallible and under a lot of political pressure. Unfortunately, the results of their errors can be catastrophic for the pople involved, and in this case in particular their ability to misread the situation ("extremist = terrorist") could make the problem very much worse.

 

[Quake42]

More recently, did you see the 'ricin plot' story?

I did. From memory, the jury acquitted most of the accused after lengthy deliberation. they were not aware at that stage that one of the accused had stabbed a policeman to death during the arrest; which seems rather odd behaviour if the arrest was a completely unjustified attack on innocent Muslims, etc.

The murderer was subsequently also convicted of attempting to manufacture ricin.

In this case it seems a number of people were arrested and a couple released after a few days. This is not unusual in large criminal investigations.

I know little about the released man except that he worked in a bookshop which was known for selling hate material. I can see why the police might have thought he was involved in the alleged plot, even if he was not. At the end of the day he has been kept in custody for less than a week and then released; it hardly compares with the ordeal of the Guildford 4 or Maguire 7.