http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4782343.stm?ls

As may be seen from the list above, the Mr Bigs are using adolescent idealists to do their dirty work.
The mantra 'its just a few fanatics' is starting to wear a bit threadbare in my ears at any rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4782343.stm?ls

As may be seen from the list above, the Mr Bigs are using adolescent idealists to do their dirty work.
The mantra 'its just a few fanatics' is starting to wear a bit threadbare in my ears at any rate.

You have no way of knowing that this is the case, artisan. (Unless you're privy to the inner workings of the security service, which would seem unlikely) It would seem equally likely to me that these guys were the originators of the plot rather than pawns.

And even if these chaps are 'pawns', which I doubt, it's always been that way.

The young are likely to be motivated, enthused, fired with passion. They're the perfect people to get to die for cause or country. Look at the ages of the soldiers who fell in WW1, against the ages of the politicians, General Staff, Kings and Kaisers who sent them to die.

It's the same today.

The problem with the 'Mr Big' theory is that there is an implicit suggestion that by clobbering the Mr Bigs we remove the problem. A Mr Big hypothesis is, I believe, the one that would be the chosen scenario for governments, as it would remove any issues surrounding policies that have led to a situation where people feel so little loyalty to their fellow citizens that they wish to kill them.

The 'radicalised fanatics' scenario is a nightmare for Governments - apart from having to catch these people as separate groups, they will also have to look at what domestic policies have caused a radicalised minority to commit treason.

Adolescent???? They average about 26 years old and only one is under 18.

As long as the religious hatred is being spread among young muslims there will be no shortage of young volunteers willing to die for the cause. I dont think it's just 'a few' fanatics either. Anyone believing this has definately got their head buried deeply in the sand. Maybe when the terrorists 'get lucky' the apologists' and 'denial merchants' will stop bleating and face reality. Britain is obviously not the 'spiritual home' of Islam, so why dont ALL who despise our way of life so much do something positive and move to one of the 'Islamic paradises' easily found in the Middle East?

Does the fact that Britain has a welfare system which is relatively easy to abuse hold any attraction for 'the few fanatics'? I certainly think so.

Does the fact that Britain has a welfare system which is relatively easy to abuse hold any attraction for 'the few fanatics'? I certainly think so.

According to the papers, many of them come from 'middle class' backgrounds, so I doubt if the 'welfare system' has ought to do with it.

Let us not forget that these people would never have been caught if it weren't for well meaning muslims on the inside who worked with the authorities to root them out.

As long as the religious hatred is being spread among young muslims there will be no shortage of young volunteers willing to die for the cause. I dont think it's just 'a few' fanatics either. Anyone believing this has definately got their head buried deeply in the sand. Maybe when the terrorists 'get lucky' the apologists' and 'denial merchants' will stop bleating and face reality. Britain is obviously not the 'spiritual home' of Islam, so why dont ALL who despise our way of life so much do something positive and move to one of the 'Islamic paradises' easily found in the Middle East?

Does the fact that Britain has a welfare system which is relatively easy to abuse hold any attraction for 'the few fanatics'? I certainly think so.


Its got nothing to do with 'hatred'. Thats simply a reiteration of the mantra that the neo-cons have been espousing.

Its foreign policy stupid.

Z

If British foreign policy is the reason behind attempted acts of terrorism then the charge of treason should be brought to bear on the culprits. The ballot box is the way to effect change, not acts of violence against innocent travellers.

By making excuses for the actions of terrorists, ie. blaming British foreign policy, then it is you, my friend who is the stupid one.

By making excuses for the actions of terrorists, ie. blaming British foreign policy, then it is you, my friend who is the stupid one.

I think you'll find that it's the case that the London bombers (in particular the guy who made the video) quite specifically made reference to our foriegn policy as being their rationale. Thus, I would suggest that the country would be foolish indeed to ignore it.
Examing the motivations of those who seek to blow us up isn't 'making excuses' it's common sense.

I think you'll find that it's the case that the London bombers (in particular the guy who made the video) quite specifically made reference to our foriegn policy as being their rationale. Thus, I would suggest that the country would be foolish indeed to ignore it.
Examing the motivations of those who seek to blow us up isn't 'making excuses' it's common sense.


Point made, then charge 'em with treason and impose the maximum penalty if found guilty.

The suprising thing is that some these people are living in family houses (some still with mothers and fathers) and surrounded by law abiding people, who then say they had no idea what they were up to.
It would seem very strange to me if my son, or his friends (who are also all family men, as some of these are) suddenly decided to grow beards, shave their heads and started to wear pyjamas in the street. If they suddenly became strangly religiously fanatical and suddenly had large ammounts of unexplained money and began planning trips to the USA, I would start to question their motives.
No one in these boys and mens families or communities does this.
They must be very naive, complacent people, or something.

According to the papers, many of them come from 'middle class' backgrounds, so I doubt if the 'welfare system' has ought to do with it.

Let us not forget that these people would never have been caught if it weren't for well meaning muslims on the inside who worked with the authorities to root them out.
Would these be the same type of people who led the authorities on a wild goose chase at Forest Gate?
Some people are saying that this has to do with foriegn policy.
That is nonsense.
If it were they could protest in the usual manner.
What this about is total warfare against this country and its people.
They want to destroy our society and turn the country into some wierd place that only they can imagine.
It amuses me when people say of them 'but they liked Cricket', as if that makes it all OK.
In their world pleasures of the flesh such as cricket would surely not be allowed.
Oliver Cromwells England would be like Sodom and Gomorrah compared to what these kiddies have in mind for us.
There is no point saying it will not happen because it will.
The thin end of the wedge is well and truly inserted.

Would these be the same type of people who led the authorities on a wild goose chase at Forest Gate?
Some people are saying that this has to do with foriegn policy.
That is nonsense.
If it were they could protest in the usual manner.
What this about is total warfare against this country and its people.
They want to destroy our society and turn the country into some wierd place that only they can imagine.
It amuses me when people say of them 'but they liked Cricket', as if that makes it all OK.
In their world pleasures of the flesh such as cricket would surely not be allowed.
Oliver Cromwells England would be like Sodom and Gomorrah compared to what these kiddies have in mind for us.
There is no point saying it will not happen because it will.
The thin end of the wedge is well and truly inserted.

I thought it was the intelligence that the police were supplied with that led to the wild goose chase.

Why are you blaming the victims ????

Some people are saying that this has to do with foriegn policy.
That is nonsense.
If it were they could protest in the usual manner.
What this about is total warfare against this country and its people.

When people protest by burning cars (as wrong as that may be), it doesn't mean that there isn't a reason to their actions.

As for the total war comment, I'll simply put that down to hypersensitivity.

The point about the cricket comment is to show that these people aren't the mental nutcases that you would like to protray them out to be.

As much as you would like to demonise them as being baby eating monsters, until you address the root causes, which ARE linked to foreign policy this will continue.

Funny how you dont want to go down that road, but perhaps by doing so it would acknowledge that there is an underlying reason.

Z

The suprising thing is that some these people are living in family houses (some still with mothers and fathers) and surrounded by law abiding people, who then say they had no idea what they were up to.
It would seem very strange to me if my son, or his friends (who are also all family men, as some of these are) suddenly decided to grow beards, shave their heads and started to wear pyjamas in the street. If they suddenly became strangly religiously fanatical and suddenly had large ammounts of unexplained money and began planning trips to the USA, I would start to question their motives.
No one in these boys and mens families or communities does this.
They must be very naive, complacent people, or something.

So its the faults of the parents now ?

LOL, once you've worked your way through everyone else, will you eventually get to the Prime Minister and even perhaps foreign policy ?

Z

So its the faults of the parents now ?

LOL, once you've worked your way through everyone else, will you eventually get to the Prime Minister and even perhaps foreign policy ?

Z
it always is in his eyes:) :)

Its got nothing to do with 'hatred'. Thats simply a reiteration of the mantra that the neo-cons have been espousing.

Its foreign policy stupid.

Z

Well, ignoring the 'stupid' epithet, how does killing civillians help change British Foreign Policy?

Seriously?

A proportion of the casualties of 7/7 were people who disagree with UK Foreign Policy. It's inevitable that a proportion of the people who would have been killed in this outrage would have also been antipathetic to UK Foreign Policy.

This country is a democracy - an imperfect one, but a democracy all the same. If you want to change the Foreign Policy, you vote the Government out. If you dislike the Foreign Policy of all Governments, then you can either :

1. Pursue the path of setting up your own political movement to get elected.
2. Leave the country and go somewhere else where you do approve of the Foreign Policy of the Government.
3. Organise an alternative 'Government' and carry out armed insurrection against the British Government with the intention of installing that Government - basically an act of High Treason.
4. Commit acts of terrorism to attempt to change the Government's mind.

It just looks like this bunch of murderously inclined individuals decided to avoid all the legitimate and peaceful approaches to policy change and go straight to killing people.

During the 70+ years of 'The Troubles' between the UK Government and Northern Ireland, atrocities of the type and scale carried out and planned by 'disaffected' Muslims in the UK were rarely, if ever, perpetrated by the Irish Republican movement. They did some heinous acts, but there is a difference in approach and scale to those being perpetrated by radicalised Muslim youth.

There is a fundamental difference in approach and attitude - what we as a community of British citizens of all creeds and colour have to work out what the Hell has happened here.

I'd go along with what JoeP says (apart perhaps from the bit about Irish terrorists).

The fact that hundreds of thousands of non-Muslims turned out before the invasion of Iraq to protest against it shows that there was a great deal of popular sympathy for the foreign policy stance that Zafar would like to see. But this sympathy has largely evaporated, or been pushed into the background, as a result of the atrocities on 7/7.

Well, ignoring the 'stupid' epithet, how does killing civillians help change British Foreign Policy?



I think the ultimate aim (of whoever is responsible) is to draw the dividing lines deeper between the average peace loving muslims and non-muslims rather than effect any sort of foreign policy change. Reading the comments of Artisan et al, it appears that this strategy is clearly working.

Well, ignoring the 'stupid' epithet, how does killing civillians help change British Foreign Policy?

Seriously?

A proportion of the casualties of 7/7 were people who disagree with UK Foreign Policy. It's inevitable that a proportion of the people who would have been killed in this outrage would have also been antipathetic to UK Foreign Policy.

This country is a democracy - an imperfect one, but a democracy all the same. If you want to change the Foreign Policy, you vote the Government out. If you dislike the Foreign Policy of all Governments, then you can either :

1. Pursue the path of setting up your own political movement to get elected.
2. Leave the country and go somewhere else where you do approve of the Foreign Policy of the Government.
3. Organise an alternative 'Government' and carry out armed insurrection against the British Government with the intention of installing that Government - basically an act of High Treason.
4. Commit acts of terrorism to attempt to change the Government's mind.

It just looks like this bunch of murderously inclined individuals decided to avoid all the legitimate and peaceful approaches to policy change and go straight to killing people.

During the 70+ years of 'The Troubles' between the UK Government and Northern Ireland, atrocities of the type and scale carried out and planned by 'disaffected' Muslims in the UK were rarely, if ever, perpetrated by the Irish Republican movement. They did some heinous acts, but there is a difference in approach and scale to those being perpetrated by radicalised Muslim youth.

There is a fundamental difference in approach and attitude - what we as a community of British citizens of all creeds and colour have to work out what the Hell has happened here.

The 'stupid' epithet is taken from the usual line of 'its the economy stupid'.

I never said the acts were justified, nor indeed whether they would work!

Its fine and dandy to say that we can vote on foreign policy, but the reality is that during elections 'foreign policy' is NEVER mentioned.

On that theme, can you tell me what our 'National Interests' actually are ?
They certainly weren't listed on any pledge cards during recent elections.

I certainly cant remember any election on my lifetime where foreign policy was even mentioned. Indeed, in 1997 after Labours election victory, Robin Cooks ethical foreign policy lasted for about 10 seconds.

There are many groups including the Muslim public affairs committee which advocate precisely what you've suggested, however, in todays world people expect everything now (not tomorrow). I guess this attitude tied up with people preaching reprisals on the West are what drive these predominantly young people to carry out these kinds of acts.

Make no mistake, I'm not condoning these acts, no more so than say condoning riots which have happened over the last 20 years.

Whilst the acts themselves are worthy of condemnation, nonetheless, the underlying causes which drive these acts need to be addressed.

I agree that all Brits need to work out a way of best tackling the problems, however by simply reiterating the ignorant mantra of 'oh they hate our freedoms' or 'oh they are mad' etc is tantamount to burying ones head in the sand.

Back in the early 90's, people had to riot in order for the wrongs of the poll tax to be taken seriously, whilst rioting and blowing people up are not the same, both show that there is an underlying cause to the acts (aside from the usual assertions of criminal and 'they hate us')


Z

Yeah these people don't just go;

"Yeah i hate these policies, i am going to make a bomb and kill people"

It's the helpless feeling that pushes them towards the radicals and then the indoctrination of hatred begins. The hatred is fostered, and heightened by very charismatic men. It’s no coinsidence that most suicide bombers come from middle class and well educated backgrounds.

I would challenge anybody to tell me that if some outside force had kept England in constant war for over 200 years, held us back and killed thousands of English people, to tell me they could take that sitting down. I know i wouldn't. But we are expecting other to be better than that?

Adolescent???? They average about 26 years old and only one is under 18.
I mean adolscent mentally. Anyone who falls for such a stupid notion as going to some great paradise if you blow yourself and all around you to hell, is either a child or mentally deficient.

(Besides that IMO anyone under 35 is adolescent. These days people dont start to grow up until that age. :) )

Yeah these people don't just go;

"Yeah i hate these policies, i am going to make a bomb and kill people"

It's the helpless feeling that pushes them towards the radicals and then the indoctrination of hatred begins. The hatred is fostered, and heightened by very charismatic men. It’s no coinsidence that most suicide bombers come from middle class and well educated backgrounds.

I would challenge anybody to tell me that if some outside force had kept England in constant war for over 200 years, held us back and killed thousands of English people, to tell me they could take that sitting down. I know i wouldn't. But we are expecting other to be better than that?

Thats the strange thing about all this, these young men are English.
They do not come from a country that has been occupied or has had war fought on its land for centuries.
The last time this country was invaded, in any serious fashion was in 1066.
Why do they feel so strongly about what is happening to peoplein Iraq etc. when they are English citizens?
If they are pacifists and against all war, why do they show it by trying to murder,in as horrible and vile way as possible so many innocent people.

If they want the war to end, they should be joining the army and getting out there helping us to victory.
Not going over to the other side.

Thats the strange thing about all this, these young men are English.
They do not come from a country that has been occupied or has had war fought on its land for centuries.
The last time this country was invaded, in any serious fashion was in 1066.
Why do they feel so strongly about what is happening to peoplein Iraq etc. when they are English citizens?
If they are pacifists and against all war, why do they show it by trying to murder,in as horrible and vile way as possible so many innocent people.

Because they have a common cultural background and a shared faith. Becoming an English citizen doesn't immediately turn you into a bowler hatted, Daily Mail reader in Surrey you know. If you're family has long established roots in another country it's not unreasonable to retain some affection for that place. It's more international than that anyway and I believe, more to do with the perception that Bush/Blairs 'War on terror' = 'War on Islam'

Thats the strange thing about all this, these young men are English.
They do not come from a country that has been occupied or has had war fought on its land for centuries.
The last time this country was invaded, in any serious fashion was in 1066.
Why do they feel so strongly about what is happening to peoplein Iraq etc. when they are English citizens?



I live in America, i love America, my wife is American. But i will always be English. It defines me. Every time i talk to somebody they ask if i am English. If i lived in America and somebody attacked England i would me angry, i would fly back and join up to fight for my country. But i will become an American citizen for a number of reason. Citizenship means very little.


If they are pacifists and against all war, why do they show it by trying to murder,in as horrible and vile way as possible so many innocent people.


I really don't think they are pacifists.


If they want the war to end, they should be joining the army and getting out there helping us to victory.
Not going over to the other side.

Its not just this war. They are saying they are angry at the deaths of their people. Saying they should join the English army and kill more of their people is kinda missing the point.

Because they have a common cultural background and a shared faith.
THE MYTH of multiculturalism depends on the belief that completely different cultures, and indeed contradictory world views, can peacefully co-exist within the same geographic and political space. The British political and intellectual elite have not only thought that multiculturalism is highly desirable but they have spent the last fifty years actively bringing it about. Now reality has collided with idealism and we find we have something of a problem on our hands.

[QUOTE=downtroad]I live in America, i love America, my wife is American. But i will always be English. It defines me. Every time i talk to somebody they ask if i am English. If i lived in America and somebody attacked England i would me angry, i would fly back and join up to fight for my country. But i will become an American citizen for a number of reason. Citizenship means very little.

The flaw in your comparison is that (and I'm assuming this) you were born in England. These people are 1st or 2nd generation English born. This would be like your children or grandchildren attacking U.S. facilities or people because they didn't agree with U.S. policy towards the U.K.
That's why we have elections,frustrating as they are sometimes.
In my opinion, I think that your last sentence poses the question of why would you take out U.S. citizenship if it means very little ?
Does it not intend an oath of allegiance ?
It comes across as less than grateful although I'm not sure whether you intended it to do so.

The flaw in your comparison is that (and I'm assuming this) you were born in England. These people are 1st or 2nd generation English born. This would be like your children or grandchildren attacking U.S. facilities or people because they didn't agree with U.S. policy towards the U.K.


You are correct. But i am not so sure it's a fatal flaw. In America people are 50% Italian, 20% Irish etc. American born Irish people still heavily identify themselves as Irish. etc.


That's why we have elections,frustrating as they are sometimes.

I am not defending what they do. I think at this stage we need to understand the process far more. Saying "they hate our freedoms" is getting us nowhere. We need to be studing the process of radicalisation. Any Psych major, PR expert or politicians will tell you (if they are honest) that humans can be very predictable, it's something we can try to understand.


In my opinion, I think that your last sentence poses the question of why would you take out U.S. citizenship if it means very little ?
Does it not intend an oath of allegiance ?
It comes across as less than grateful although I'm not sure whether you intended it to do so.

It's simple. If i stay on a green card i am limited to what i can do. Like leaving the country for long periods of time. If i take up citizenship i then get dual citizenship. I don't give up British citizenship, infact i cannot. So the system make it meaningless not me.

If America was to be attacked i would fight for her as well.

So in other words then halibut and downtroad, the followers of muslim faith are not English people at all?
They live here and they have all the benefits and assets of living in civilised country, even to the point of calling themselves Englishmen.
But when the line is drawn they are in fact in there minds not English at all.
My grandfather was not born in this country, in fact he came from a country that should hate England more than any other in the World, a country where a very high proprtion of the people were left to starve to death by the English.
Yet myself and many millions more like like me are spread throughout the world witout crazy ideas of world domination, and murdering as many of our fellow men as we can find.
Speaking for myself, I am the truest English patriot you could find.
It is for me and people like me that the way lies to change this country.
If we want a change of government, so be it. If we want to be a republic, so be it.
If peoples hearts and minds are not in this country, but in some third world arid desert, then let them renounce their citizenship and seek asylum in those places.
From there they can then fight and invade this country and take it over.
Not pretending to walk about as good English people by day, and becoming bomb plotting cowards by night.

Zafar,

The 'National Interests' concerned are irrelevant - it's the process I was interested in. As for Poll Tax riots - it's a rather different scale of operation, trying to kill a couple of thousand people?

And again, it's likely that the Poll tax would have bene repealed with a change of Government - how much impact the riots had is debatable.

But the point is, those riots, like those in the early 1980s in the Inner Cities, or further back in history the Peterloo Riots, etc. tended to take place without murder being the main objective, but with policy change being the objective. These guys just turn up, kill themselves and anyone in the vicinity without putting anything on the table.

If the underlying issues ARE British Foreign Policy then I explained the options available. If people don't wish to follow the democratic process, but prefer the path of terrorism or coup d'etat (options 3 and 4 on my list) then they are working outside the democratic process and in many ways invalidate their views. But the bottom line is, Zafar, that there IS a process that these yung men could adopt - it might take years to get results, but it is there.

But if the will isn't there in that section of the community, to walk away form violence and try 'jaw jaw' rather than 'war war', then there is sod all that the Government can do about it and to be frank I would NOT want or expect my Government to capitulate to a group of people with no stated policies and no way of expressing themselves except through mass-murder.

So in other words then halibut and downtroad, the followers of muslim faith are not English people at all?


Thats not at all what i was saying.

I think something many people don't get is that many people some to England and are proud to be English and idetify themselves as being English more so than even America. From my experiance anyway. You will always hear people saying they are 50% this and 20% that. These are non-muslims. Irish, Italian, African.

When in American you have The Ukranian Village. You have Irish people living together in huge areas together. You have Italian section, China town, the list goes on. Do you think this is wrong?

So people still identify themselves as being from their country of origin.

Nearly every so often i will or meet somebody from India or Pakistan who will say "i have a British passport too! We are both British. Ever been given free cab rides. The level of pride i find from people who have the same ENglish passport as me, is amazing. People seem to narrow in on the passport for some reason, not sure why.



They live here and they have all the benefits and assets of living in civilised country, even to the point of calling themselves Englishmen.
But when the line is drawn they are in fact in there minds not English at all.


They get the benefits from the taxes they have paid. Their is no "country". In England we all pay in to a pot and society helps people who are going through hardship. In America is much more every man for himself. I pay my taxes and i don't want those taxes going to help anybody else.

It's not that these poeple do not want to be English. But they are constantly reminded by the BNP, racists and the system that they are not actually the same. Racists need to take some of the blame for these people feeling disenfrachised in my honest opinion. Every time Muslism are lumped together, every time dumb statements are made by racists they are pushed firther away from identifying and being British and not a single white boy taking part in this discussion can identify with that feeling.


Speaking for myself, I am the truest English patriot you could find.


But you didn't join up to fight in these wars you beleive in?


From there they can then fight and invade this country and take it over.
Not pretending to walk about as good English people by day, and becoming bomb plotting cowards by night.

Thats not the way it happens. And the simplification of the process is why we still have a long way to go before ending this.

If the underlying issues ARE British Foreign Policy then I explained the options available. If people don't wish to follow the democratic process, but prefer the path of terrorism or coup d'etat (options 3 and 4 on my list) then they are working outside the democratic process and in many ways invalidate their views. But the bottom line is, Zafar, that there IS a process that these yung men could adopt - it might take years to get results, but it is there.
.

It is there, they are not choosing that route and we are still having these occurnaces that threaten businesses and lives. Now what? Do you suggest we just make that statement and leave it at that? Because thats not working.

We need to look more deaply than that or live with the consequences.

Because they have a common cultural background and a shared faith. Becoming an English citizen doesn't immediately turn you into a bowler hatted, Daily Mail reader in Surrey you know. If you're family has long established roots in another country it's not unreasonable to retain some affection for that place. It's more international than that anyway and I believe, more to do with the perception that Bush/Blairs 'War on terror' = 'War on Islam'
I am an proud Englishman as I have said.
However I am only second generation English, but I do not sit dewey eyed singing the praises of my grandfathers homeland.
Niether I am I a bowler hatted tory. I come from a long line of socialists.
I am a committed republican (some say I out to be commited :) )
Howver I want to achieve this in a civilised manner, and for the benefit of all the people in this country, not to turn us some airy fairy dark ages religion following set of automatons.
If the only way they can get their ideas across is by murder and mayhem, then they cannot have very good ideas can they.
What they do not seem to realise is that every time they do something like this it sets their cause back to square one in the eyes of right thinking people.
If they truly want to rule the world, why not issue a manifesto, instead of saying it is all in the Koran.
Do they honestly believe that 8 billion people will all go along with that?

In essence the people are mass murderers. We can dress it up in what ever way we want but they are disenfranchised people who feel so much hatred they are willing to kill many people.

And this isn't just a muslim thing. In China we have death cults, in America we have people like the Unibomber and the Waco people... they have hundreds of anti governement people who have huge amounts of arms. I even know one, who is really paranoid about the government. America has a history of people trying to kill Presidents.

In the 70's and 80's we spent so much time trying to understand serial killers. Thousands of books were written. When they were imprissioned we sent in Psycologists to try to understand why they do what they do. We learnt form that and that knowlege has helped us catch people.

This is what we need to do. We cannot stop it. We cannot bomb the hell out of a country and stop it form happening. And if we think that the current issues with Bin Laden et al are the long and short of it again we run the risk of underestimating the problem.

This provides an interesting insight into the psychology behind the suicide bomber..........http://usawakeup.org/psychology.htm

This provides an interesting insight into the psychology behind the suicide bomber..........http://usawakeup.org/psychology.htm

Not really, it was written by a film maker not a psycologists.

Not really, it was written by a film maker not a psycologists.
True, but we have psychologists here deeming child molesters and killers safe to be released from custody. Guess what, upon release they re-offend.
That film maker makes more sense to me than a lot of qualified psychologists.

That film maker makes more sense to me than a lot of qualified psychologists.
Quite. :thumbsup:

That film maker makes more sense to me than a lot of qualified psychologists.

Food for thought ... I certainly wonder at the reluctance of people of influence to wholeheartedly condemn the bombings. There's too many apologists for the indefensible around, it gives the impression that people actually think that these misguided and deluded people have a valid reason for their actions.

Unfortunately, whatever is done to try to discourage them would, it seems, only add to their ardour. Even though I'll be long dead and gone it's grim thinking that the whole world might end up Islamic. I feel sorry for our descendents if it ever comes about. :help:

Quote from the BBC site:-

"British Muslim groups have written to the prime minister calling for "urgent" changes to UK foreign policy.
In an open letter they say British policy is putting civilians at increased risk in the UK and abroad.
MP Sadiq Khan, who signed the letter, said British foreign policy was seen by many as unfair and unjust.
"Whether we like it or not such a sense of injustice plays into the hands of extremists," he said.
Lord Ahmed denied suggestions that the letter could in some way give comfort to extremists. He added that the conflict in Iraq had led to more extremism in Britain. "Iraq has been a problem - and, of course, because of Iraq we've seen the tension and also division in our communities and also increasing extremism in thie country." "

The above just goes to show how mealy mouthed these people are.
They have more faces than the town hall clock.
They are giving tacit support to the terrorists, by the way they have jumped on the bandwagon so quickly.

What they are infact saying is this, ."Do as we say and we will call our dogs off. If you dont do as we say, then we will claim that they are not our dogs"

Its got nothing to do with 'hatred'. Thats simply a reiteration of the mantra that the neo-cons have been espousing.

Its foreign policy stupid.

Z
It's got nothing to do with 'foreign policy'. Thats simply a reiteration of the mantra that the neo-bombers have been espousing.

It's religious fervour stupid.


:cool:

Quote from the BBC site:-

"British Muslim groups have written to the prime minister calling for "urgent" changes to UK foreign policy.
In an open letter they say British policy is putting civilians at increased risk in the UK and abroad.
MP Sadiq Khan, who signed the letter, said British foreign policy was seen by many as unfair and unjust.
"Whether we like it or not such a sense of injustice plays into the hands of extremists," he said.
Lord Ahmed denied suggestions that the letter could in some way give comfort to extremists. He added that the conflict in Iraq had led to more extremism in Britain. "Iraq has been a problem - and, of course, because of Iraq we've seen the tension and also division in our communities and also increasing extremism in thie country." "
The above just goes to show how mealy mouthed these people are.
They have more faces than the town hall clock.
They are giving tacit support to the terrorists, by the way they have jumped on the bandwagon so quickly.

What they are infact saying is this, ."Do as we say and we will call our dogs off. If you dont do as we say, then we will claim that they are not our dogs"
So you don't agree that British policy is putting civilians at increased risk at home and abroad, artisan?
Can you really disagree with Sadiq Khan when he says that British foreign policy is seen by many as unjust and unfair?
I can't really see what you're getting so upset about - and artisan, your last sentence - 'jumping on the bandwagon so quickly'? Makes no sense.

So you don't agree that British policy is putting civilians at increased risk at home and abroad, artisan?
Can you really disagree with Sadiq Khan when he says that British foreign policy is seen by many as unjust and unfair?
I can't really see what you're getting so upset about - and artisan, your last sentence - 'jumping on the bandwagon so quickly'? Makes no sense.

It probably is unjust and unfair, warfare,as far as I know, always is.

The point I am trying to make is:- are these people British citizens or not?
If they are, they are traitors, not uneducated fools, and should be treat as such.They are using mass murder to further the aims of an enemy.
If they are not, then they are enemies on our own ground, and after their terms in prison (unfortunatly we cannot execute them), deported to the country which they claim to represent.

Wether you like it or not this is a democracy.
The government were elected to run the country and determine foreign policy.
If you disagree with it, vote for another party next time.
However as all the main parties are agreed, you dont have much choice.

If I loathed this country and its people so much, I personally would leave and live elsewhere more in tune with my thinking.
But these people never will, and it is naive to think otherwise.

If people think that changing foreign policy will make one ha'porth of diffence they are foolish in the extreme.
This is just the latest excuse.

It is our internal policy we should be looking at.
Get into these nogo areas and drag these people out, try them, find them guilty and hang them.
This would have a three fold effect:-
They would go straight to heaven with their houris.
They would be off our streets for ever.
The name of Islam would stop being besmirched in the eyes of the world

It would not upset the mainstream muslims as we know. They say these people arnt muslims, so we would all be happy wouldnt we?

It probably is unjust and unfair, warfare,as far as I know, always is.

If people think that changing foreign policy will make one ha'porth of diffence they are foolish in the extreme.
This is just the latest excuse.

It is our internal policy we should be looking at.
Get into these nogo areas and drag these people out, try them, find them guilty and hang them.
This would have a three fold effect:-
They would go straight to heaven with their houris.
They would be off our streets for ever.
The name of Islam would stop being besmirched in the eyes of the world

It would not upset the mainstream muslims as we know. They say these people arnt muslims, so we would all be happy wouldnt we?

I couldn't disagree more artisan - by your own admission foreign policy is unfair and unjust and we have probably all seen one of the London bombers explicitly stating this as his motive for murder in his posthumously released video. If this country is seen to behave more justly and fairly in it's international dealings then we remove a large part of the motivation for the dissafected youth who might be radicalised.
Your 'hanging them' suggestion is, frankly, absurd and would be a massively powerful recruiting tool for those who seek to turn dissafected Muslim youth over to terrorism. 'It would not upset the mainstream Muslims'?
Yes it would and it would upset a great many other people too. As was discussed on the news last night the Police currently have a 50/50 success failure rate with their anti-terror raids - i.e. half of the time they get it wrong. I scarcely believe that bringing execution into the equation will help.

It annoyed me a little how the media wouldn't release the Nationality of these people, despite the fact the majority of the British Public knew, but I think the names give it all away. Anyone wanting to defend these people? there are usually a few.

It annoyed me a little how the media wouldn't release the Nationality of these people, despite the fact the majority of the British Public knew, but I think the names give it all away. Anyone wanting to defend these people? there are usually a few.

Defend them? They've not been charged with anything yet Jimbob. The nationality - British. It's quite usual for the police not to immediately name suspects you know.

Defend them? They've not been charged with anything yet Jimbob. The nationality - British. It's quite usual for the police not to immediately name suspects you know.
“Defend” them.

Some people (no names mentioned but read above) have such vacant liberal minds that they will defend absolutely anybody, and just can't see that there are plenty of wicked people on this Earth who do not deserve to live.

Don't justify their actions based on bad parenting, social deprivation, religious influences, misguided beliefs or whatever. All human beings make their own choices. I choose to obey the country's laws, pay my taxes and serve the Crown.

Others choose to murder civilians, rob, sponge off the state, and do nothing to justify the air they breath. Don't defend them, just march them into gas chambers.

“Defend” them.

Some people (no names mentioned but read above) have such vacant liberal minds that they will defend absolutely anybody, and just can't see that there are plenty of wicked people on this Earth who do not deserve to live.

Don't justify their actions based on bad parenting, social deprivation, religious influences, misguided beliefs or whatever. All human beings make their own choices. I choose to obey the country's laws, pay my taxes and serve the Crown.

Others choose to murder civilians, rob, sponge off the state, and do nothing to justify the air they breath. Don't defend them, just march them into gas chambers.

Ah. Return of the Uber-troll. What fun.

Ah. Return of the Uber-troll. What fun.
That wasn't the long winded high horse response I expected :suspect:

Ah. Return of the Uber-troll. What fun.
Uber-troll.

I like that.

But I'm still only saying it like I see it.

That wasn't the long winded high horse response I expected :suspect:

Sorry to dissapoint Jimbob; I'm sure there be further opportunities in due course.

give me that old time religion

Halibut, what's your justification for constantly making excuses for these traitorous dogs? They want to kill their own fellow countrymen for the sake of people, who adhere to the same religion as they do, in another country?

That's like Catholics planting bombs in England because they don't agree with the Queen being head of the church when they'd like it to be the Pope.

Change the record, side with your own for a change ...

theres going to be carnage in this once great country. mother of the free?
not anymore ,weak willed politicians have seen to that

Halibut, what's your justification for constantly making excuses for these traitorous dogs? They want to kill their own fellow countrymen for the sake of people, who adhere to the same religion as they do, in another country?

That's like Catholics planting bombs in England because they don't agree with the Queen being head of the church when they'd like it to be the Pope.

Change the record, side with your own for a change ...

Ruby, if you can find a post of mine where I've 'made excuses for these dogs' please show me and I'll be able to respond. 'side with my own for a change'? Who do you mean? The human race? Men? 'Christians'? White people? What are you implying there ruby?

It's got nothing to do with 'foreign policy'. Thats simply a reiteration of the mantra that the neo-bombers have been espousing.

It's religious fervour stupid.


:cool:

and where did that religous fervour stem from ?

Foreign policy stupid.

Z

Ruby, if you can find a post of mine where I've 'made excuses for these dogs' please show me and I'll be able to respond. 'side with my own for a change'? Who do you mean? The human race? Men? 'Christians'? White people? What are you implying there ruby?

Every post I read, you're disagreeing with someone. I'm not referring to a particular one, it's just the general tenor of your posts.

I'm implying that as an English person living in England you should be condemning traitors to this country and its people, treacherous, disloyal dogs who are trying to kill us and end our way of life, not sitting there in your ivory tower pontificating and enjoying the sight of your own magnanimity. Is that clear enough for you, Halibut?

I guess that the claim 'it's all down to British foreign policy' made by Zafar is not a common view on this forum. The muslim MP interviewed by John Suchet on TV was claiming the same rubbish, Blair should sack him immediately, the man is dangerous. Is he an English MP or a muslim MP? Does he follow Parliamentary law or Sharia law? John Suchet wasn't impressed with him either.

Every post I read, you're disagreeing with someone. I'm implying that as an English person living in England you should be condemning traitors to this country and its people, treacherous, disloyal dogs who are trying to kill us and end our way of life, not sitting there in your ivory tower pontificating and enjoying the sight of your own magnanimity. Is that clear enough for you, Halibut?

a) Why should it be a problem to you if I am always disagreeing with someone. As it happens I don't but we won't quibble about the facts.Wouldn't it be dull if we always agreed with each other?
b) I don't choose to condemn without thinking about stuff, ruby. I think if you actually read my posts you'll never find anywhere where I've glorified killing - and several where I've said it's wrong on both sides.
c) What's this 'ivory tower' nonsense all about? Pontificating? I express my opinion like anyone else, so unless you can be more specific or less antagonistic, I'll assume you have some kind of problem with me that I really can't do anything about and continue as usual.

so unless you can be more specific or less antagonistic, I'll assume you have some kind of problem with me that I really can't do anything about and continue as usual.

so that's ok then - as you were :)

Nice one Ruby, thee tell 'im !!!

theres going to be carnage in this once great country. mother of the free?
not anymore ,weak willed politicians have seen to thatnot according to meg munn, tonights star news paper


http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1691971

meg reckons there wont be any trouble at all,so is she saying we wont dare alter our laws and take on the mosques,thats where these threats come from,the young are incited by the older muslims,why can,t our police be allowed to search them without there bieng such a fuss made,it wouldnt happen if it was a synogogue or chapel,why as soon as anything remotely attached to islam hits the headlines do the governments spokesmen appeal for calm and peace,and why,if any one is arrested are we not allowed to know who it is ? this seperatism is one of the causes of the miss trust that occurs when people arn,t told whats happening,they are left to assume and this can prove to be dangerous

not according to meg munn, tonights star news paper


http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1691971

meg reckons there wont be any trouble at all,so is she saying we wont dare alter our laws and take on the mosques,thats where these threats come from,the young are incited by the older muslims,why can,t our police be allowed to search them without there bieng such a fuss made,it wouldnt happen if it was a synogogue or chapel,why as soon as anything remotely attached to islam hits the headlines do the governments spokesmen appeal for calm and peace,and why,if any one is arrested are we not allowed to know who it is ? this seperatism is one of the causes of the miss trust that occurs when people arn,t told whats happening,they are left to assume and this can prove to be dangerous
What do you think they ought to do? Appeal for agitation and violence?
Why aren't we allowed to know who it is who's been arrested?
a) We are
b) If we aren't immediately told names there are probably valid operational or legal reasons for this.
c) Can you offer any legitimate source to support your belief that Islamic terror suspects are dealt with any differently to other terror suspects?

What do you think they ought to do? Appeal for agitation and violence?
Why aren't we allowed to know who it is who's been arrested?
a) We are
b) If we aren't immediately told names there are probably valid operational or legal reasons for this.
c) Can you offer any legitimate source to support your belief that Islamic terror suspects are dealt with any differently to other terror suspects?
how about bloody sunday,the shoot to kill policy and the sas bieng caught red handed over the irish border,theres a list somewhere you can bet your life on it as to how many irish terrorists were shot on british soil,how many islamic terrorists have been stopped by lethal force of late

when the arrests were made the 8 am news said that 19 people of british pakistani decent had been arrested,by 9 oclock the word pakistani had been dropped,thats what i mean,why ? does it make a differance,we find out later when the names are given out for court appearances, so why the defence in the beggining ? its kid gloves treatment and you know it

and where did that religous fervour stem from ?

Foreign policy stupid.

Z

No Zafar, it stemmed from Surah Al-Taubah (Chapter 9 of the Qur'an for the non-Muslims) and well you know it.

Tell me, what 'Foreign Policy' are the Christians of Indonesia espousing to warrent 250,000 of them being displaced, 700+ of their Churches being burned/bombed and 7000+ of them being murdered???

The religious fervour comes directly from the Jihad ideology prevalent in the Qur'an and Hadith, and displayed in the life of Muhammed and his successors.

and where did that religous fervour stem from ?

Foreign policy stupid.

Z
Foreign policy has been around for centuries then, stupid?

How about This religious fervor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide)
I suppose that was foreign policy too? :rolleyes:

"Young Boys and Men used as Prawns"?

As Global Warming continues to take an effect and the rise in sea levels start to affect the natural prawn breeding grounds (mangroves) it is likely that a shortage will start to develop and alternatives will be sought.

Reformed fish pieces are already being used to make faux-scampi and prawnies but I think that the likelihood of ever using human flesh is extremely far fetched.

I am also curious as to why only males were considered. Does the original poster have some knowledge that male flesh tastes fishier?

"Young Boys and Men used as Prawns"?

As Global Warming continues to take an effect and the rise in sea levels start to affect the natural prawn breeding grounds (mangroves) it is likely that a shortage will start to develop and alternatives will be sought.

Reformed fish pieces are already being used to make faux-scampi and prawnies but I think that the likelihood of ever using human flesh is extremely far fetched.

I am also curious as to why only males were considered. Does the original poster have some knowledge that male flesh tastes fishier?this is one post i will not get involved with:hihi: sufice only to say, on the whole i have always thought women to be fishier :rolleyes:

"Young Boys and Men used as Prawns"?


I am also curious as to why only males were considered. Does the original poster have some knowledge that male flesh tastes fishier?
Maybe you should PM Halibut & Crayfish? :thumbsup:

Maybe you should PM Halibut & Crayfish? :thumbsup:
Can I volunteer to check? ;)




Sorry. Back to the discussion...

No Zafar, it stemmed from Surah Al-Taubah (Chapter 9 of the Qur'an for the non-Muslims) and well you know it.

Tell me, what 'Foreign Policy' are the Christians of Indonesia espousing to warrent 250,000 of them being displaced, 700+ of their Churches being burned/bombed and 7000+ of them being murdered???

The religious fervour comes directly from the Jihad ideology prevalent in the Qur'an and Hadith, and displayed in the life of Muhammed and his successors.
Indeed. the worst problems the world currently faces are born from the antiquated religious guide book that our misguided primitive cousins follow.
Unfortunately, they need another 1000 years of social evolution to grow up and have a place in the Western world
We've let them in and given them technology and world club membership too early.

Indeed. the worst problems the world currently faces are born from the antiquated religious guide book that our misguided primitive cousins follow.
Unfortunately, they need another 1000 years of social evolution to grow up and have a place in the Western world
We've let them in and given them technology and world club membership too early.


I couldn't have put it better myself Bartfarst, I fear that the present problems are only the beginnings of a very long and bloody situation where there will be no winners,only losers.

Indeed. the worst problems the world currently faces are born from the antiquated religious guide book that our misguided primitive cousins follow.
Unfortunately, they need another 1000 years of social evolution to grow up and have a place in the Western world
We've let them in and given them technology and world club membership too early.

Is that the same book that President Bush is reading from ?
Inwhich case I totally agree that it will take another 1000 years before he evolves :D

this morning, "up all night, 5 live " radio, there have been 45 raids carried out this week by the metropolitan police around london and birmingham in connection with terrorists attempt at heathrow to bring down several aircraft over the ocean.

this has caused a great number of houses to be emptied by the police,they are to be forensically searched,which could take weeks,each family have had to be allocated lodgigs in hotels which will result in a huge bill for the tax payer,the government are to meet to discuss the level of standard of lodgings for these people and any claim for compensation

this terrorism is costing the country dear ,just with the police budget it will run into millions of pounds, there was also mention of 20,000 pieces of luggage going missing at heathrow this week ,how do you lose 20,000 suit cases ?

how do you lose 20,000 suit cases ?

Since the scare lots of bags have gone in the hold that would normally be carried onto the plane as hand luggage. The baggage handling system has been unable to cope with the extra burden and so the airport authorities have been letting planes take off without the baggage on board, hoping to reunite passangers with their luggage later on. :loopy:

It occurred to me the other day that if I were a suicide bomber the best way to get around all this increased security is really very obvious;
swallow the explosives. Messy, but probably very effective.

It occurred to me the other day that if I were a suicide bomber the best way to get around all this increased security is really very obvious;
swallow the explosives. Messy, but probably very effective.

I think it might be a too difficult to swallow an explosive device whole but it might be possible to stick it up your ar$e with a bit of practice.

I can see the news story now: 'Police became suspicious when 16 devout muslims attempted to set up dates with Marc Almond'

Yeah these people don't just go;

"Yeah i hate these policies, i am going to make a bomb and kill people"

It's the helpless feeling that pushes them towards the radicals and then the indoctrination of hatred begins. The hatred is fostered, and heightened by very charismatic men. It’s no coinsidence that most suicide bombers come from middle class and well educated backgrounds.


Religion is the trigger, not some 'feeling of helplessness'.

and where did that religous fervour stem from ?

Foreign policy stupid.

Z

I think that even you'd agree that your belief system is older than middle east foreign policy.

Again, foreign policy may go into the mix but the trigger is a belief system (Islam) which espouses martyrdom.

Those Muslims who want to kill themselves would be a whole lot more productive if they followed the example of the Vietnamese monk who burnt himself to death in the street to protest against the then government. Blowing up airliners/trains/cafes full of women and children simply induces disgust and hatred – not a contemplation of the intricacies of UK foreign policy as it pertains to the Middle East! Then again, his belief system (Buddhism) isn't as blood soaked as the Ambrahamic faiths is it?

By the way, this leads onto a discussion around geographical determinism of religious faiths (desert – harsh environment –harsh religions, Asia (particularly East and Southeast), rainforests, abundance of water, food - contemplative religions, but that’s for another day.

Imagine: 23 young British Muslims converge on Hyde Park, drench themselves in petrol and go up in smoke while reciting Koranic verses. What would be the reaction then? But this isn’t even a remote possibility because Islam (and I won’t qualify that with ‘extremist’ or ‘fundamentalist’ because these are simply interpretations of the religion and as such are just as valid as ‘mainstream’ or ‘moderate’ interpretations) particularly lends itself to the slaughter of others.

Indeed.
Unfortunately, they need another 1000 years of social evolution to grow up and have a place in the Western world
.

But we've only got until August 22nd.........

I think that even you'd agree that your belief system is older than middle east foreign policy.

Again, foreign policy may go into the mix but the trigger is a belief system (Islam) which espouses martyrdom.

Those Muslims who want to kill themselves would be a whole lot more productive if they followed the example of the Vietnamese monk who burnt himself to death in the street to protest against the then government. Blowing up airliners/trains/cafes full of women and children simply induces disgust and hatred – not a contemplation of the intricacies of UK foreign policy as it pertains to the Middle East! Then again, his belief system (Buddhism) isn't as blood soaked as the Ambrahamic faiths is it?

By the way, this leads onto a discussion around geographical determinism of religious faiths (desert – harsh environment –harsh religions, Asia (particularly East and Southeast), rainforests, abundance of water, food - contemplative religions, but that’s for another day.

Imagine: 23 young British Muslims converge on Hyde Park, drench themselves in petrol and go up in smoke while reciting Koranic verses. What would be the reaction then? But this isn’t even a remote possibility because Islam (and I won’t qualify that with ‘extremist’ or ‘fundamentalist’ because these are simply interpretations of the religion and as such are just as valid as ‘mainstream’ or ‘moderate’ interpretations) particularly lends itself to the slaughter of others.

I'm rather confused with your statement.
I was under the impression that suicide bombings was a fairly new phenomenon :huh:

I'm rather confused with your statement.
I was under the impression that suicide bombings was a fairly new phenomenon :huh:


don't follow...what are you confused about?

don't follow...what are you confused about?


I think that even you'd agree that your belief system is older than middle east foreign policy.

Again, foreign policy may go into the mix but the trigger is a belief system (Islam) which espouses martyrdom.

You imply, that as the Islamic faith is older than our foreign policy, it is therefore somehow the trigger to the suicide bombings/martydom.

If the religion is, as you imply the trigger, we should have seen our history books full of these acts back in the 50's/60's/70's and 80's.

You imply, that as the Islamic faith is older than our foreign policy, it is therefore somehow the trigger to the suicide bombings/martydom.

If the religion is, as you imply the trigger, we should have seen our history books full of these acts back in the 50's/60's/70's and 80's.


You imply, that as the Islamic faith is older than our foreign policy, it is therefore somehow the trigger to the suicide bombings/martydom.

If the religion is, as you imply the trigger, we should have seen our history books full of these acts back in the 50's/60's/70's and 80's.

House of Saud, petro-dollars, whabbism, muslim brotherhood, end of imperialism – hasn’t it been building up to the current orgy of violence over the period you specify?

What is it that turns anger into action? For those Muslims who have committed murder it is their religion for within the ‘logic’ of Islam, violence and martyrdom are ‘rationale’ paths. It somehow explains how killing other humans including, utterly unaccountable children (unaccountable in terms of the ‘logic’ that voting adults are somehow legitimate targets as they participate in a society which allegedly perpetrates hurt against ‘brother’ muslims), is a good thing leading to the rewards of paradise. I don’t doubt that for most muslims this is an abhorrent distortion of their interpretation of the faith, but that doesn’t mean that my assertion that religion is the trigger is wrong.
Your argument is to suggest that guns don’t kill people, people do. That is, it isn’t the object that kills people but, for whatever reason, the person. In other words, religion doesn’t kill people, people (in this instance because of foreign policy) do. Do you really want to align yourself with the logic of the NRA?!

Moreover, within the logic of the Church of the Solar Temple, mass suicide was a ‘rationale’ course of action. Within the logic of Japanese nationalism, ‘kamikaze’ actions were ‘rationale’ and so on.

Free people from malignant belief systems (religion) and remove the trigger. Life is cheap when there’s another one waiting for you in paradise.

House of Saud, petro-dollars, whabbism, muslim brotherhood, end of imperialism – hasn’t it been building up to the current orgy of violence over the period you specify?

What is it that turns anger into action? For those Muslims who have committed murder it is their religion for within the ‘logic’ of Islam, violence and martyrdom are ‘rationale’ paths. It somehow explains how killing other humans including, utterly unaccountable children (unaccountable in terms of the ‘logic’ that voting adults are somehow legitimate targets as they participate in a society which allegedly perpetrates hurt against ‘brother’ muslims), is a good thing leading to the rewards of paradise. I don’t doubt that for most muslims this is an abhorrent distortion of their interpretation of the faith, but that doesn’t mean that my assertion that religion is the trigger is wrong.
Your argument is to suggest that guns don’t kill people, people do. That is, it isn’t the object that kills people but, for whatever reason, the person. In other words, religion doesn’t kill people, people (in this instance because of foreign policy) do. Do you really want to align yourself with the logic of the NRA?!

Moreover, within the logic of the Church of the Solar Temple, mass suicide was a ‘rationale’ course of action. Within the logic of Japanese nationalism, ‘kamikaze’ actions were ‘rationale’ and so on.

Free people from malignant belief systems (religion) and remove the trigger. Life is cheap when there’s another one waiting for you in paradise.

Islam has been around now for 1400 odd years. Of the issues you raised most can be directly linked to our foreign policy. Even Al-Queda was born out of our policy towards the Soviets.

If your assertion is to be validated, you would have to be able to show suicide bombings pre the last 50 years. That would atleast give some credibility to your argument of the problem being specifically with Islam.

You also say that most muslims think that the ideology is abhorrant, and you go on to mention the word interpretation. Therefore, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the problem is a mixture of foreign policy (supporting dictators such as the Saudi royal family) and the interpretation of a minority ?

Hardly a carte blanche issue of Islam ?

I think you'll find that it's the case that the London bombers (in particular the guy who made the video) quite specifically made reference to our foriegn policy as being their rationale. Thus, I would suggest that the country would be foolish indeed to ignore it.
Examing the motivations of those who seek to blow us up isn't 'making excuses' it's common sense.

Thats one way of looking at it.

Though of course its easier to use "British Foreign Policy" as an excuse, rather than say you are a brainwashed gullable fool who has been indoctrinated to believe that by blowing himself and other innocents up he will be rewarded with a place in the holy kingdom of the martyrs.

Islam has been around now for 1400 odd years. Of the issues you raised most can be directly linked to our foreign policy. Even Al-Queda was born out of our policy towards the Soviets.

If your assertion is to be validated, you would have to be able to show suicide bombings pre the last 50 years. That would atleast give some credibility to your argument of the problem being specifically with Islam.

You also say that most muslims think that the ideology is abhorrant, and you go on to mention the word interpretation. Therefore, isn't it reasonable to conclude that the problem is a mixture of foreign policy (supporting dictators such as the Saudi royal family) and the interpretation of a minority ?

Hardly a carte blanche issue of Islam ?

You have some points but, for instance, was the technology even around 50 years ago (I'm talking explosive vests and ball bearings)? I don't know why Muslims didn't take up suicide bombings pre 1950 but are muslims really angrier about today's foreign policy (or those aspects of it that they don't like) than life under colonial rule?! Further, do you not accept that certain aspects of Islam have been emphasised over others in the period you mention? This is regardless of foriegn policy as, you rightly point out, Islam has been around for 1400 years.

However, I think you miss the main point, which is that religion, not just Islam, is the root of all evil. The focus here is on Islam because it is Muslims that are doing it. See my previous post about why I don't distinguish between 'moderate' and 'extremist' interpretations of Islam.

It is true, however, that most suicide bombings have been carried out by Tamil tigers, a Marxist group. Strange, and perhaps morbid as it may be, I don't find these as abhorrent as faith based bombings, this with the caveat that use of child soldiers and any murder of civilians is unacceptable (military targets are something else). As a committed atheist, the fact that a human can be driven to kill himself and others because of a belief in the supernatural (72 raisins/virgins waiting on the other side) is sickening and nothing less than an insult to humanity.

You have some points but, for instance, was the technology even around 50 years ago (I'm talking explosive vests and ball bearings)? I don't know why Muslims didn't take up suicide bombings pre 1950 but are muslims really angrier about today's foreign policy (or those aspects of it that they don't like) than life under colonial rule?! Further, do you not accept that certain aspects of Islam have been emphasised over others in the period you mention? This is regardless of foriegn policy as, you rightly point out, Islam has been around for 1400 years.

However, I think you miss the main point, which is that religion, not just Islam, is the root of all evil. The focus here is on Islam because it is Muslims that are doing it. See my previous post about why I don't distinguish between 'moderate' and 'extremist' interpretations of Islam.

It is true, however, that most suicide bombings have been carried out by Tamil tigers, a Marxist group. Strange, and perhaps morbid as it may be, I don't find these as abhorrent as faith based bombings, this with the caveat that use of child soldiers and any murder of civilians is unacceptable (military targets are something else). As a committed atheist, the fact that a human can be driven to kill himself and others because of a belief in the supernatural (72 raisins/virgins waiting on the other side) is sickening and nothing less than an insult to humanity.


My friend, explosives have been around for centuries and metal ballbearings are certainly not technologically challenging.

The muslims of today remind me very much of the Jewish people around 2000 years ago. After being conquered by the Romans, and ruled by rulers appointed by Rome, extremism was naturally the next logical phase.

Similarly, the muslims have gone through a similar experience, however, in the modern world post globalisation, they have many other tools which allow for asymetric warfare. Mass media, instant communications and free movement of people allow a small number of people to inflict huge damage like no other time in history.

People are responsible for actions, not religions or idealogies (although it could be argued that people come up with ideologies and in many instances religions aswell)

I do find it odd that you find suicide bombings by Tamils less abhorant than say Al-Queda, but we all have different notions of what is, and what isn't acceptable.

Some will sacrifice themselves for, as you put it, the supernatural. Others will sacrifice themselves for a homeland.

Personally, I feel what scares people in the Western world is the understanding that people can actually sacrifice their lives at all...

My friend, explosives have been around for centuries and metal ballbearings are certainly not technologically challenging.

...

Explosives around for centuries? Well blow me down with a feather. Please don’t patronise, it is most childish.


People are responsible for actions, not religions or idealogies (although it could be argued that people come up with ideologies and in many instances religions aswell)

QUOTE]
I’m glad that you agree that religions are man made and that people are responsible for their own actions. What you’re missing, however, is that religion allows individuals abrogate their responsibilities. Man’s first responsibility is to his fellow man, not some dreamt up God.

[QUOTE=El-Mariachi]

Personally, I feel what scares people in the Western world is the understanding that people can actually sacrifice their lives at all...

I think that would be news to the millions of UK servicemen who fought against Nazism. Moreover, not scared, but sickened. Do not make the mistake of underestimating the depth of the West’s resolve. Societies based on freedom, liberty and democracy will always win over dictatorships; secular or theocratic. This is why this current wave of Islamist terrorism is ultimately futile and doomed to failure.

Explosives around for centuries? Well blow me down with a feather. Please don’t patronise, it is most childish.


There certainly wasn't any intention on my part to patronise, rather, I was simply looking at the technology involved, which as far as I can see is a combination of explosives, ball bearings and a human carrier.


I’m glad that you agree that religions are man made and that people are responsible for their own actions. What you’re missing, however, is that religion allows individuals abrogate their responsibilities. Man’s first responsibility is to his fellow man, not some dreamt up God.

In today's world, concepts such as honour, responsibility and duty are being lost. We seem to be heading in the opposite direction, where "society" encourages individualism, consumerism and selfishness. Can you attribute this as being caused by Religion ?


I think that would be news to the millions of UK servicemen who fought against Nazism. Moreover, not scared, but sickened. Do not make the mistake of underestimating the depth of the West’s resolve. Societies based on freedom, liberty and democracy will always win over dictatorships; secular or theocratic. This is why this current wave of Islamist terrorism is ultimately futile and doomed to failure.

You're taking what I said out of context. Comparing people going to war, an activity that no doubt increases the level of risk to ones well being, with something which will DEFINATELY result in ones demise is not a fair comparison.


I'm afraid there is no universal truth to the statement that a nations 'ideology' will somehow guarantee victory. Any sensible person can see that factors such as numbers, strategy and technology will have a huge bearing on the outcome of a conflict, however, its also needs to be recognised that having individuals who have no regard for their own life (or the level of casualties they are willing to accept) will enjoy a distinct advantage, especially in the context of Asymetric warfare.

I dont need to point out the outcome of the recent Israeli/Hezbollah conflict. A conflict in which a non state actor held out (and inflicting significant casualties) against one of the most advanced and battle hardened armies in the world.

If the only way they can get their ideas across is by murder and mayhem, then they cannot have very good ideas can they.

But if the will isn't there in that section of the community, to walk away form violence and try 'jaw jaw' rather than 'war war', then there is sod all that the Government can do about it and to be frank I would NOT want or expect my Government to capitulate to a group of people with no stated policies and no way of expressing themselves except through mass-murder.

I completely agree that diplomacy and democrate debate are the best ways to resolve issues and persuade others to your way of thinking. However, it does seem a bit hypocritcal to be preaching this and in the next breathe defend the foreign policy of the US and UK governments! These governments decided to use bullets and bombs to impose their will on another sovereign state and as a result have committed mass murder on a scale al-Qaeda can only dream of.

Why is our terrorism OK and theirs isn't? Why is it OK for Iraq civilians to be blown up in the persuit of our cause but not for British civilians to be blown up in the pursuit of theirs? Why are our "excuses" legitimate and theirs not?

Artisan and Joe, don't you think we should practice what we preach? Can you please explain the double standard?

As for young men being used as pawns, I agree. What's more, they can be found dying on both sides.

Personally, I feel what scares people in the Western world is the understanding that people can actually sacrifice their lives at all...
I think this is the smartest point that's been made on the SF for a long time.

What is the difference between a young man who become a soldier, and will fight or die for his country, and a young believer who sacrifices himself for his faith ?

Sir, Since Britain and the US decided to legitimise "pre-emptive strikes", our crimes and misdemeanours (euphemistically called our foreign policy), have led directly to the death of many thousands of innocent men, women, and children. However, I whole-heartedly agree with our political leaders that our foreign policy cannot justify the actions of al-Qa'ida terrorists. I am prepared to say this loudly and openly.

Now, can these same politicians agree with me that the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah could in no way have justified the death and destruction rained down on Lebanon by Israel. If not, why?

The above letter which was printed in todays edition of the Independent, very much highlights the contradiction we have in our current foreign policy.

I think this is the smarest point that's been made on the SF for a long time.
What is the difference between a young man who become soldier, and will fight or die for his country, and a young believer who sacrifices himself for his faith ?

If you really think that's a smart point, and meant that as a serious question, I'm very disappointed in you, Bago.

I would have thought the difference between a cowardly traitor killing and maiming his fellow citizens without warning for the sake of random people throughout the world who just happen to share the same religion and the bravery of an enlisted soldier sacrificing himself for the sake of his fellow citizens during the course of a declared war, would have been obvious. In fact to even mention them in the same sentence is outrageous in my opinion and a slur on our armed forces.

The treachery of these people is unbelievable, I don't know how anyone even dares to offer "foreign policy" as some sort of reason for it. They're just as bad as the perpetrators in my book.

I'm in shock and horror at some of the people posting on this and other similar threads. They seem to think this situation is some hypothetical, theoretical discussion about ideals and misguided beliefs. It's actually about our own people dissembling their true feelings and plotting to destroy us and our way of life.

Sorry that I disappoint you Ruby, but I thought that it was a very honest point made.

Well, I believe in fairness. If someone has bombed and killed many people who you feel some kind of ties with, why would u sit here and not blink an eyelid ? I suppose it boils down to patrioticism.

Maybe I feel numb to this whole thing. I've sat in front of a PC, and sprouted rubbish, and I bat no eyelids while people die out there. Whether it's the UK bombing Iranians left, right, and centre, to the ironic reversal of Brit-borns killing themselves who they feel they have a right because it's to sacrifice themselves for others in Iraq.

I can actually and easily see where others feel 'justice' needs to be made. I am not sure where I personally stand on such issues, but I can very easily see it.

The difference beteen the likes of IRA and the UK Government were one of 'threats'. Whereas the situation now with Iraq and the rest of the Muslim community on a worldwide basis in other countries is that innocent muslims have died. For what ? Maybe a few young and impressionables feel that they want justice to be seen to balance out this previous act of US/UK bombing Iraq.

Yes, violence against violence means war and deaths. That boiling point have been reached, so now drastic things are happening. Still, yet some people within the UK sprout mindless rubbish which doesn't help the cause at all. Fear all we want in the UK, but lives abroad are not worth saving ?

but lives abroad are not worth saving ?

I'm not talking about lives abroad not being worth saving, I'm not talking about people from other countries declaring war and trying to defeat or kill us.

I'm talking about our own people taking bombs into crowded places and detonating them without warning and not caring who they maim and kill, for the sake of random strangers elsewhere in the world and a religion they share. I'm talking about mobs of our own people carrying placards saying we should be beheaded, or die in some other horrible way, I'm talking about our fellow citizens saying that we deserved 7/7 etc.

That's treachery of the highest degree and anyone who tries to make excuses or find "reasons" for it is, in my mind, tarred with the same brush. There's no excuses, there were no excuses for the IRA and there aren't any excuses for this lot either.

As a person of partial Irish descent and with Irish looks and name, I came in for my fair share of suspicious looks during the IRA terror campaign years ago but other than saying that the Irish have long memories and remember things that happened many years ago as though they were yesterday, I never sought to excuse their actions. In the end it's been talking that overcame the Troubles, not terror.

These actions are just causing suspicion and unrest and doing their cause no good at all. After all is said and done, there are far more non Muslims here than Muslims and appeasement can only go so far ... you can't disadvantage the majority for the sake of pleasing a small minority.

What is the difference between a young man who become a soldier, and will fight or die for his country, and a young believer who sacrifices himself for his faith ?

There is no higher religion than human service. The warped ideology pertaining to suicide bombers could never be described as either unless you drink from the same cesspool they do.

I'm not talking about lives abroad not being worth saving, I'm not talking about people from other countries declaring war and trying to defeat or kill us.
I'm talking about our own people taking bombs into crowded places and detonating them without warning and not caring who they maim and kill, for the sake of random strangers elsewhere in the world and a religion they share.

Whereas I'm talking about the people who are trying to kill and defeat us have a claim to do so because of the actions that 'we' have taken in the past. Also, a good few of us within this country will feel an infinity to those that are fellow religious believers than those who are not. That is the bottom line. A lot of people debate about the issue, and say they don't understand the underlying mentality or the reason why suicide bombers happen. Well... this is the bottom line.

Maybe it is indeed the antagonism that is quite rife now that has instilled a sense of segregation. Even though I myself is not a muslim, or that truly patriotic, I can see the arguments from both sides. There's only so much a person can take before they retaliate.

These actions are just causing suspicion and unrest and doing their cause no good at all. After all is said and done, there are far more non Muslims here than Muslims and appeasement can only go so far ... you can't disadvantage the majority for the sake of pleasing a small minority.
That is why I would always be considered as an ethnic minority, and not be part of the majority, ever. Sometimes I think otherwise and is part of a 'united' community, but other times I'm set in my place, cos my differences would always be pointed out to me.

All I know is that, the facism in this country is rising faster than the people realise it themselves. Should the people be indeed be worried about terror abroad, or the terror at home ?

That's treachery of the highest degree and anyone who tries to make excuses or find "reasons" for it is, in my mind, tarred with the same brush. There's no excuses, there were no excuses for the IRA and there aren't any excuses for this lot either.
Thank you for telling me so, but I'm sorry that I don't share your view on patriotism. I'm just saying things as I see it. Literally. I'm sorry if I don't want to take sides on this big debate. Although it seems that you have already chosen a side.

I think this is the smartest point that's been made on the SF for a long time.

What is the difference between a young man who become a soldier, and will fight or die for his country, and a young believer who sacrifices himself for his faith ?

Everything and if you can't understand the difference, may your god help you.

All I know is that, the facism in this country is rising faster than the people realise it themselves.

.

Yes it is, Islamofacism. How long should we tolerate intolerance?

Whether it's the UK bombing Iranians left, right, and centre, ?
When?

Your semi-literate nonsense and crass errors in fact bring very little to the debate...

Everything and if you can't understand the difference, may your god help you.
Just because I dispute a point does not mean I am a muslim, thank you very much. I thought that UK promotes open democratic debates ? Obviously it does not sound like so. Such irony.

For your record, I'm an atheist. Maybe spiritual on parts, but never the less an atheist.

When?
Your semi-literate nonsense and crass errors in fact bring very little to the debate...
My mistake. I meant Iraqis. Well, at least it stirred up SOME emotions. Good !

Cos if others like myself have to read and endure the insensitivities of being an ethnic minority in this country again and again about how we contribute to the ills of this society, then it is high time that the rest of the country wakes up to their own words and racism within themselves. I truly mean that. I think it is high time that I spoke for myself.

Don't say that others should take responsibilities of their own actions like bombing themselves to death, when Islamophobia has been rife in this country, over and over again, and again. For the last couple of years now. If other ethnic minorities have to tolerate the tosh that are dished out sometimes, then the MAJORITY of the citizens within this country should also at least have the courtesy not to tar the rest of the Muslims with the same brush. Don't sprout one rule for yourselves, and another for others.

Thank you for telling me so, but I'm sorry that I don't share your view on patriotism. I'm just saying things as I see it. Literally. I'm sorry if I don't want to take sides on this big debate. Although it seems that you have already chosen a side

I'm got a lot of respect for you and your ideas normally, Bago, which is why I said I was disappointed before.

Let me just get this straight - you're thinking that patriotism can mean that citizens of our country can maim and kill their fellow citizens out of some misguided idea that they're revenging the troubles of people from another country? Patriotism is supporting your own country, not your religion or people who live in a country that your ancestors chose to leave in search of a better way of life, anyone who turns on their fellow citizens without warning and in support of another country, is a traitor to the rest of us.

Of course, I've chosen a side, our side! The side of normal thinking people of all races, religions and creeds who live in this country, the UK. Blowing up public transport without warning or without even bothering to make any demands is treachery of the worst kind. They don't care who gets killed, it could be, and indeed it will be, anyone - pregnant women, children, tourists - they don't care. And as for people who knew the 7/7 bombers saying they weren't capable of it - they obviously were capable of it - they did it.

They've turned their backs on the rest of us, in favour of people outside our country. They're traitors pure and simple and nothing anyone can say, can change that fact.

Normally, I have respect for your opinions also. I'm sorry if I don't agree with you on this one.

This is how I see it.
The suicide bombers DO NOT put the UK over their religion.
You yourself seems to be patriotic, fine.
I have not chosen to be patriotic. I don't know where I stand.
That about sums up my posts.

My question is, should anybody in this country put UK first even though we seem to be this controlling freak and go fight in anybody's wars willingnilly ? Will you, and do you still accept that ? Even though we have such a long-standing history of democracy whereby we protests against our government when we decide a war is immoral ? When have all this changed ? Right now, the sentiments of the nation is one that we should 'fear' this terrorism. Where the heck did this come from ? Why are people living in fear and pointing fingers at each other, and let all societal ills fall onto one group of the community ? Where is that level-headedness from generations previously gone to ??

Patriotism is supporting your own country, not your religion or people who live in a country that your ancestors chose to leave in search of a better way of life, anyone who turns on their fellow citizens without warning and in support of another country, is a traitor to the rest of us.
Is it really that simple ? If UK went to war with Ireland, would u not cringe ? What if you still have ancestors or distant relatives still in Ireland ? Where do u stand if that was the case ? Even though, you may not be able to relate to such ties, the religious believers do to some degree for other fellow believers.

If something happened to the Pope in the Vatican, do you think that the rest of the Christian world would sit idlely by ?

Give it a couple more generation, then this may be the case... However, this is not how I see the world, right now. It's funny, I don't think I was ever that political as a child, until I was much older, and maybe in an ironic way, I don't know whether this is good or bad. It is being in this country and being influenced in some ways which has made me so.

Do you know, I really can't be bothered to argue the point anymore. My point was EXACTLY that the suicide bombers didn't choose their country of birth and nurture over their Muslim "brothers". Therefore, other than treacherous and traitors, what else can you call them?

Your other point about Ireland, I'm English for a start and I'm not religious either. So no, I wouldn't cringe except insofar as I believe jaw jaw is better than war war. Most of the time - but eventually you have to take a stand. However, I can't foresee a time when Eire would declare war on us.

All I can say is, heaven help us if anyone does ever decide to go to war with us ... because it doesn't seem we could count on much support from within ... judging by some of the posts I've read on this Forum over the couple of years I've been a member.

I don't call them anything.

However, I can't foresee a time when Eire would declare war on us.
I bet u that, neither did any British Muslims would've envisaged themselves in the centre of public scrunity. As potential terrorists, or have ties with anybody outside the UK. Never say never.

I guess the judgement day comes when UK does go to war with other countries. As to whether one feels truly patriotic or not.

If a Govt causes a war, should the people be expected to automatically support it ?