Mod. Note

All postings that are to do with the conspiracy theories, political analysis, finger pointing, etc. to come in to THIS thread, please, not the existing London Bombings thread.

Usual Forum rules and Terms and Conditional apply in this thread. Anyone posting personal attacks or anything viewed to be inciting violence will be banned and the postings removed.

Thanks for your co-operation,

Joe

Speaking of Paris, anyone else seen this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1524852,00.html)? Fox News, the US equivalent of Sky, making some rather sick comments in the follow-up to the bombings, plus one "journalist" who made an even more unbelievable statement prior to the attacks:

John Gibson said before the blasts that the International Olympic Committee "missed a golden opportunity" by not awarding the 2012 games to France. "If they had picked France instead of London to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?" He added: "This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics - let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."

Originally posted by DanSumption
Speaking of Paris, anyone else seen this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1524852,00.html)? Fox News, the US equivalent of Sky, making some rather sick comments in the follow-up to the bombings, plus one "journalist" who made an even more unbelievable statement prior to the attacks:

Good grief. "Fair and balanced" indeed... :loopy:

Originally posted by Greenback
Good grief. "Fair and balanced" indeed... :loopy:

For all their talk a lot of US Broadcast journalists are quite sloppy compared to their UK equivalents. Again, the odd individual who engages mouth before putting brain in to gear. Every country's got 'em.

And hell, even The Simpsons takes the mickey out of Fox! :)

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
For all their talk a lot of US Broadcast journalists are quite sloppy compared to their UK equivalents. Again, the odd individual who engages mouth before putting brain in to gear. Every country's got 'em.

And hell, even The Simpsons takes the mickey out of Fox! :)

Joe

I guess you'd probably hear similar comments over here made by callers on TalkSport and the like. At times like these I'm glad our news media is regulated to guard against such crassness!

Originally posted by JoePritchard
For all their talk a lot of US Broadcast journalists are quite sloppy compared to their UK equivalents. Again, the odd individual who engages mouth before putting brain in to gear. Every country's got 'em.
Yeah, but America (and in particular Fox) seem to have more than their fair share. I mean, this is hardly "engaging mouth before putting brain in gear". More a case of "engaging mouth before getting brain out of garage".

Originally posted by JoePritchard
And hell, even The Simpsons takes the mickey out of Fox! :)
Yeah, but scarily enough there's plenty of people in the USA who think it's a serious news channel, rather than some sort of sub-sub-Simpsons farce.

Despite the title of the thread being a poison chalice, It is the only other 'permitted' london bombing thread.

I think the overwhelming sense of relief that is was not an NBCR device is starting to leak through.

However, further terrorist atrocities in this country are a certainty. As Ian Blair, Charles Clarke and numerous others have pointed out in the last couple of days, there is nothing that can be done to defend against an attack like this.

So what course of terrorism prevention may be employed?

Do we need to understand the terrorist organisation and its motives?

Can a military war be conducted against a terrorist organisation?

Can poetry get any worse than this? (Sorry Ann, but even in the jaws of catastrophe, doggerel is still doggerel - even if you post twice)

Will there once again be an outpouring of aggression against visibly muslim citizens?

Thanks for the link DanSumption. I am shocked and appalled. I have sent an e-mail to Fox News registering my disgust at their insensitivity.

Hi Phan,

Not quite true about this being the only other thread - there's one about public ransport safety and another about whether support for the war has changed. There's the ICE thread - remotely related - and I'm sure that there will be a few more cropping up which will either get pulled in here or left to survive out there!!

Joe

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So what course of terrorism prevention may be employed?

Now theres a question! Against a determined individual (or small group of individuals) there is very little you realistically can do. Tryuing to stop these type of people would entail such a draconian curtailment of human rights that they would in all effect have won.

Do we need to understand the terrorist organisation and its motives?

Yes in two ways. Firstly we are fed the line of 'they are evil malevolent terrorists bent on destroying our way of life' which strikes me as a gross oversimplification of the actual situation and con only lead to further misunderstandings and problems. Secondly from a strategic and tactical point of view, you need to know how thes groups work and communicate if you want to effectively disrupt them and attempt to predict and avoid further attacks.

Can a military war be conducted against a terrorist organisation?

No - trying to wage a military war against a terrorist organisation (though I'm not entirely sure that organisation is the correct terms - community?) is rather like kicking a wasps nest to stop them stinging you!

Will there once again be an outpouring of aggression against visibly muslim citizens?

Yes, by the hard of thinking who seem to think that shade of skin = muslim = terrorist. Sad as it is they don't seem to be able to work out that violence only fuels, and is seen as justification for, further violence and that way leads a world we would all like to avoid...

When you see the photos of missing loved ones in the daily papers today, you realise how cosmopolitan our capital city is, and that the perpetrators of this atrocity did not discriminate against their victims.

No security measures are possible against such fanatics. We can only be constantly vigilant. An article in The Guardian said that perhaps Londoners might now have to do what they've never done before - start talking to fellow passengers on the tube and bus.

Charles Clarke has admitted that ID cards would not have stopped this atrocity, but I have to confess that my opposition to them is now waning. Do forummers wish to comment on ID cards?

In answer to Phan - I do not myself believe that a military war alone can prevent terrorism. Sadly, I think there are going to be more recruits to the fanatics who are prepared to bomb indiscriminately, and to take their own lives in pursuit of their cause - whatever that may be.

We have to engage with the third world nations, and assist in building and strengthening their democracies, as well as assisting in providing basic health and educational needs of our poorer relations. The rich nation's response to the tsunami disaster demonstrated that we do care about the plight of our fellow human beings. We have a long way to go yet though - but we do indeed have to make poverty history.

Just a few thoughts to get the discussion going.

We Are Not Afraid! (http://www.werenotafraid.com/?cat=2)

Also, a lovely piece on London after the bombs (http://www.guardian.co.uk/attackonlondon/story/0,16132,1525378,00.html) by Euan Ferguson.

Well, my primary opposition to ID cards is the national biometric database that supports its use and enforcement. For once I am in complete agreement with Mr.Clarke in that neither cards nor the database are even meant to be effective against this kind of outrage.

On Thursday, once again, ordinary people were turned into mincemeat to further the aims and objective of 'someone else' (i.e. a subset of the survivors)

This is a depressing story echoed worlwide, every hour.

I sometimes wonder at the moral mazes humans will construct for themselves in order to justify wielding the ultimate power over others.

Until we stop brutalising each other we will live in a brutal world.

Its sounds so simplistic, but it is pure logic. So who stops brutalising others first?

To be the first - is that a sign of weakness or a sign of enlightenened self interest?

Is this too important for governments to be allowed to decide?

I was thinking about something earlier... and perhaps my fellow forum members can put their views forward on it.

When does a bomb, which kills innocent people... become a terrorist bomb, or be lesser classified as 'collateral damage' ?

Are we experiencing the same horrors witnessed in Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Spain etc...

Leading to my final question.... do you believe a government could kills its own people to meet a political objective....

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
do you believe a government could kills its own people to meet a political objective....
Didn't Saddam Hussein used to do that sort of thing all the time?

Even the UK government may have been complicit in killings in Northern Ireland.

So I guess the answer is... yes.

'All postings that are to do with the conspiracy theories, political analysis, finger pointing, etc. to come in to THIS thread, please, '

Fair enough JoePritchard.



They're questioning the European Islamic site they cited:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8496293/

And it seems there may have been security excercises going on in the underground on the very same day.

Soooo ... 9/11.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm

Well, the webserver hosting the bulletin board upon which the claim was posted, is located in Houston Tx, and by all accounts has sufficient nebulous links with the bush administration to "foster a climate of peace and understanding".

But who did it is a side issue.

It's a symptom, if anything, of global unease.

Originally posted by CaroleK
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/090705bombingexercises.htm

That however is from the horses mouth as it were. Transcripts match audio footage at any rate.

don't look people!

--edit
If that is actually 5 live footage, I'm not a listener....

Originally posted by JoePritchard
For all their talk a lot of US Broadcast journalists are quite sloppy compared to their UK equivalents. Again, the odd individual who engages mouth before putting brain in to gear. Every country's got 'em.

And hell, even The Simpsons takes the mickey out of Fox! :)

Joe US news programs are dreadful on the whole. They feel free to say a person is guilty before they have even been charged with a crime, They show certain British news reports as if the are happening now e.g the bse crisis, and are always saying 'an American scientist has discovered this, that and the other thing - stuff thats been known for years! I don't believe the news anymore and feel isolated from reality:|

"The London bombings have the same signature as the Madrild bombings of 3/11. Both of these bombings are almost indistinguishable from the Bolognia bombing in 1980 that killed over 80 people.

The bombing in Bolognia was part of a CIA operation code named Gladio, where the US government would pay right-wing terrorists to carry out bombings to be blamed on leftists in Europe. All of this was blown wide open when two of the Bolognia bombers were convited in an Italian court, forcing them to spill their guts admitting that they were neo-fascists contracted by the CIA. Operation Gladio documents have since been declassified."

Now that is kinda scary.

Here is another link with stuff that is just difficult to ignore (http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/07/317720.html)

This site does however encourage users to encrypt their internet browsing.

You can find loads of paranoid rubbish on the interweb -wow, two bombers claim the CIA told them to blow stuff up, such reliable sources!

As regards the previous post "When does a bomb, which kills innocent people... become a terrorist bomb, or be lesser classified as 'collateral damage' ?"

The wording of this is strange, but there is a huge difference between (as an example) civilians being killed by a stray missile intended for a military target and civilians deliberately being targeted. Its a question of intent. Its the difference between murder and manslaughter.

Attacking civilians is a sign of weakness.

Thanks for the report from Wisteria Drive.
Who-ever co-ordinated the bombs in London, must be hugging each other for their achievements. Probably banging their heads on the floor in ecstacy.
Home grown cell, or north african? Does it matter? It happened here. They have achieved their objective. Made a statement.
What to do? - - - - They are really not far removed from the demonstrators seen smashing windscreens in the G8 protests, or the Animal rights people destroying property!
Here, the Sunday papers are full of it. All the leaders of the government and lesser parties are having their say. But in this era of political correctness, and Human rights, not to mention "Legal Aid" for the suspects, they have to be very careful in what they say.
My partner thinks that my politics are a little to the right of "Ghengis Khan". But I think that the indiscriminate bombing, of places, by who-ever who'm, declares that they have no rights whatsoever.
In democracy - - you have the right to your say. The freedom of speech. Not to kill and maim people! It is a cowardly and despicable attack by people infected with a virus that makes them think they have a right to change other peoples views.
According to Sharia law, - - - Stoning, -- beheading --amputation - - - are all perfectly legal, and are witnessed in the local square every Friday.
The leaders of the Muslim communities are quick to climb on board. Undoubtabley there are thousands of law abiding followers. What about the little enclaves that want to destroy our England? What about the Clerics who know of the zealots prepared to blow themselves into shanglira?
They do exist - - who teaches them?
This is my Country, and if multi-cultures brings us to this, and by that I mean "Vipers in the nest", then ask the leaders of such communities to root them out.
They would obviously know the zealots, and the preachers fuelling their thoughts.

[MOD NOTE] Political/aftermath end of other bombings thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48150) merged with this one.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
I was thinking about something earlier... and perhaps my fellow forum members can put their views forward on it.

When does a bomb, which kills innocent people... become a terrorist bomb, or be lesser classified as 'collateral damage' ?

Are we experiencing the same horrors witnessed in Israel/Palestine, Iraq, Spain etc...

Leading to my final question.... do you believe a government could kills its own people to meet a political objective....

two different answers to that.

As far as the government/media/propaganda machine is concerned, it's a terrorist bomb when it isn't one of ours. Ie all the insurgents/freedom fighters attacks are terrorist actions (even if targetting military targets).

The more objective answer is that it's terrorist action if it deliberately attacks civilians in order to cause terror. So insurgent attacks on military targets (even if causing civilian casualties) should not be called terrorist attacks, technically they are irregular iraqi forces fighting the occupation.

If we target a tank or a camp and someone screws up and we blow up a hospital (how exactly does that happen?) then as we had no intention of killing civilians it's collateral, not terrorism.

I'm sure the germans called the french resistance terrorists, we called them hero's. It's always worth trying to see if we have a parallel where the roles are reversed.

Originally posted by sheffco
In democracy - - you have the right to your say. The freedom of speech.

But for how long ?

Tony's cronies are determined to push the religious incitement bill through, and once that's enshrined in law you'll be liable to prosecution for suggesting without proof that Mulsims were responsible for the tube bombings.

I really am amazed by the posts who are "Slightly" anti British.
If you don't like the status quo, vote against it. Don't in anyway excuse violence as a means of protest, then abhore the reaction to it.
The people creating these incidents, believe in these ancient creeds. - - - Vengence being the accepted code.
Unfortunately, when apprehended, they have the resources of "Legal Aid", and "Bleeding Heart" societies.
Find Em - - stick em on a plane to where they came from, or bang them up on a dis-used oil platform in the north sea. Feed em, and leave the rest to their own anarchy. This happens in their own country! Why do we have to appear as a benevolent society, prepared to put up with the scum of the world?

Totaaly agree sheffco, not sure alot of the do gooders on here will agree tho?:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Originally posted by Cyclone
two different answers to that.

If we target a tank or a camp and someone screws up and we blow up a hospital (how exactly does that happen?) then as we had no intention of killing civilians it's collateral,.

WE being the operative wordWE
This is not a game of youthful groups playing around with theories, but lives and families etc.

If WE could identify a possible assasin? Would it be in the interest of the greater good to just "Take Him/her" out?
People seem to object to locking these possible assasins away. Do we have to wait until they prove themselves a threat!
Just watch the news, how many bleeding hearts society commentators are up there pleading there cause. (Salary)

Most of what we hear we believe to be true.

It could be a rumour about someone living on your street or someone at work.

We just instantly take it as fact. This is also true when any government gives us possible scenarios.

It could have been x or it maybe y....

Then the media take over, x and y are to blame. Every news channel, every paper.....


The headlines then convince us that this is fact.

So what does everyone make of the fact that Visor - a private crisis management company, whose chief is an ex scotland yard anti-terrorist policeman (http://www.visorconsultants.com/teamvisor_peter-power.html), was conducting an exercise simulating a simultaneous bombing of the tube in london at exactly the same time as the bombing ocurred.

This is the transcript of the 5 live interview on thursday morning:
POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

Is this a coincidence?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
So what does everyone make of the fact that Visor - a private crisis management company, whose chief is an ex scotland yard anti-terrorist policeman (http://www.visorconsultants.com/teamvisor_peter-power.html), was conducting an exercise simulating a simultaneous bombing of the tube in london at exactly the same time as the bombing ocurred.

This is the transcript of the 5 live interview on thursday morning:


Is this a coincidence?

Believe it or not similar things have happened in the past.

When the Allies invaded France in 1944, the Germans were holding wargames dealing with an invasion in precisley the same area.

A science fiction writer, in 1944, wrote a story about the creation of what we'd call an atomic bomb in such detail that he was visited by the FBI.

A schoolmaster who compiled crosswords for the Daily telegraph was arrested in 1944 after several of the codewords for parts of the D-Day opertaion appeared as answers to crossword clues. It was again a weird coincidence, explained only in the 1980s after a man admitted that as a pupil of that teacher he'd been in numerous pubs frequented by soldiers and officials who used the words, and he just passed teh words on to his teacher as possible 'good clues'.

Coincidences do happen - there have been many threads about religion and spiritual issues on the forum where apparently 'related' events have been pooh-poohed as coincidence, so I guess we can apply the same rules here.... ;)

Although I suppose we all tend to see causality rather than coincidence when our own 'hot buttons' are pressed.

Joe

Er, what? if terrorists were going to attack london, the underground is the logical target. There are probably dozens of these exercises going on all the time in london. And a hell of a lot more in the future.

No conspiracy , move along, nothing to see here.

Originally posted by pinlock
Most of what we hear we believe to be true.

It could be a rumour about someone living on your street or someone at work.

We just instantly take it as fact. This is also true when any government gives us possible scenarios.

It could have been x or it maybe y....

Then the media take over, x and y are to blame. Every news channel, every paper.....


The headlines then convince us that this is fact.

Pinlock this is the most sensible post I've read in a long time! You have hit the nail on the head. This is how extremist groups on all sides of the spectrum operate - "did you know that africans recieve £50,000 for a new car when they arrive in Britain" or "did you know the american government knew about 9/11 for 10 years before it happened".

This is also how the media operate - if you make a public statement you can put as many caveats in as you like and they will ignore them - so if you say "we don't know who did this, it could have been x, it might have been y, perhaps even z, but we're looking into it and wouldn't want to speculate at this time" - they report it as "Police point finger at X!"

It is also how academic research is reported - "Oxford finds that women are stupid" or "Bristol Uni does study on cats". Its daft cos you can't condense news like that! Politics, and life, is REALLY complicated!

(Mods sorry if this seems off topic but I think its supremely relevant :) )

Originally posted by sheffco
If WE could identify a possible assasin? Would it be in the interest of the greater good to just "Take Him/her" out?
People seem to object to locking these possible assasins away. Do we have to wait until they prove themselves a threat!
Just watch the news, how many bleeding hearts society commentators are up there pleading there cause. (Salary)

yes we do.
Otherwise someone might one day finger you as a potential assasin, and before you can say, no it's not bomb residue, it's 80 fags a day residue, bang you've been taken out.

Originally posted by skny
Er, what? if terrorists were going to attack london, the underground is the logical target. There are probably dozens of these exercises going on all the time in london. And a hell of a lot more in the future.

No conspiracy , move along, nothing to see here.
If it's true that this operation was centred around exactly the same stations, then this is coincidence worth noting, although given that Kings Cross is probably the busiest and most geographically complicated interchage in London, and all trains seem to have been through there, perhaps it isn't quite so unusual.

Is it perhaps possible that the terrorists got wind of this crisis management exercise and decided, for whatever reason, to base their actions around the same stations?

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Believe it or not similar things have happened in the past.
Coincidences do happen - there have been many threads about religion and spiritual issues on the forum where apparently 'related' events have been pooh-poohed as coincidence, so I guess we can apply the same rules here.... ;)

Although I suppose we all tend to see causality rather than coincidence when our own 'hot buttons' are pressed.

Joe

Very good points, I think. Inferring causality from coincidence is simply wrong. Coincidences happen all the time, literally. It's only us who attach significance to them when we notice them.

Spooky nevertheless, bombings being an exact copy of the exercise.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Very good points, I think. Inferring causality from coincidence is simply wrong. Coincidences happen all the time, literally. It's only us who attach significance to them when we notice them.

Spooky nevertheless, bombings being an exact copy of the exercise.

Indeed - a very strong coincidence.

Having said that the military excercise I mentioned above being run by the German Army in Normandy was so close that they simply started putting the actual 'moves' of the allies on to the wargames board rather than the moves of their gaming opponents.

Human beings are incredibly good at deriving 'false knowledge' from data - we seem to have a great need to create knowledge in times of crisis. I think it's a sort of throw back to childhood when you could go and ask your parents to make it all better.

For example, people have already started drawing instances of the number '7' from the events on Thursday, daft as that sounds. E.g. 7 / 7 / 2005 this has been read as 3 7s by some people 7, 7 and (2 + 5). There were two instances of 7 in the Running Board number of the bus. Stuff like that. We seek certainty in the midst of confusion, even if the certainty is false.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Human beings are incredibly good at deriving 'false knowledge' from data - we seem to have a great need to create knowledge in times of crisis. I think it's a sort of throw back to childhood when you could go and ask your parents to make it all better.
Absolutely! It's actually, I believe, a direct side-effect of why the human race has been such a succesful species. We are incredibly good at monitoring our environment and spotting correlations. This is why we have managed to build up such a great mass of knowledge, and (together with our thumbs, of course) is why humans dominate the Earth. But it comes with a downside: at times, we will see correlations where they don't really exist, there will be plenty of "false positives", and this is why conspiracy theories are as easy to come by as they presently are.

Speaking of coincidence....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4668287.stm

He must feel pretty weird.

In the summer of 2001 I had a film script under consideration by a couple of production companies in the States. It was about a massive terrorist attack on the city of New York.

Coincidences happen.

Joe

Just as a side note, I always see life as having postive and negative qualities.


Such as, the terrorist acts were definately negative.

Now consider those who gained from this atrocity (i'm not talking about the terrorists!)

i'm talking about the share traders, they immediately bought huge amounts of shares, after prices dropped, knowing that the price will rise, and it did.

Those who buy and sell share options also profited, ie they bet against the FTSE rising, on the 7th it dropped.....

I'm not saying that they have done anything wrong, No, because as they say, business is business and we need to operate as normal.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
For example, people have already started drawing instances of the number '7' from the events on Thursday, daft as that sounds. E.g. 7 / 7 / 2005 this has been read as 3 7s by some people 7, 7 and (2 + 5). There were two instances of 7 in the Running Board number of the bus. Stuff like that. We seek certainty in the midst of confusion, even if the certainty is false.

Joe

That's really not comparable to the Visor Crisis Management exercise simulating three bombs in the tube system at the precise locations the actual bombs were detonated.

It's not a question of certainty, so much as injecting an air of uncertainty. I think it is fair to say that such a coincidence is newsworthy in its own right - even though the exercise and the atrocity may well be completely unconnected. It would be remiss if Mr Power's experiences as related to the 5Live broadcaster, were not investigated by anyone.

So we shall see. This easily confirmable assertion (one quick call to mr Powers and 5 live would establish whether the transcripts are accurate) is in the public domain.

Will this curious coincidence make it into the 'news investigation' or not?

What did the FBI know?

Newsweek's Michael Isikoff has taken his share of abuse lately for Newsweek's not-true but-true reporting on the desecration of the Koran at Guantanamo Bay, so he ought to get some credit for this: Back in November, Isikoff and Mark Hosenball wrote a piece for Newsweek in which they said that U.S. law enforcement officials were extremely concerned about "evidence regarding possible active Al Qaeda plots to attack targets in Britain."

How worried were law enforcement types? This worried: "According to a U.S. government official," Isikoff and Hosenball wrote, "fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London's popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to cross-town meetings because they insist on using taxis in London's traffic-choked business center."

----------
Taken from www.salon.com

I don't know how many of you have seen this movie. I've seen the remake, and it was pretty good. If a little farfetched.

The Manchurian Candidate http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056218/ which dealt with the assasination of the president by a demented/brainwashed Korean war veteran was originally released in 1962. Of course, in November of 1963, president John F. Kennedy was assasinated in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald, a Korean war veteran.

Needless to say, the film was yanked from theatres, and pretty much ignored for more than forty years.

It was remade here http://www.manchuriancandidatemovie.com/whoisthemanchuriancandidate.html in 2004 by Jonathan Demme, and starred Denzel Washington.

Sometimes, truth really is stranger than fiction.

:) Sierra

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
That's really not comparable to the Visor Crisis Management exercise simulating three bombs in the tube system at the precise locations the actual bombs were detonated.



Like I said - the WW2 coincidences above were similar in some ways. But also - if you want to properly simulate a terrorist attack then you have to think like a terrorist. One of the best people to do this would be an anti-terrorist policement.

This sort of thing has been done repeatedly - the most famous recent example was the US soldier who was sacked from his job at being a terrorist because he kept doing things that a terrorist would do but that the organisers of the excercise hadn't thought of. Unsurprisingly, his 'terrorists' got their attacks through repeatedly.

As for the 'precision' of the positioning and timing of the bombs against the excercise, the 'precise' locations of detonation on Thursday morning were dependent upon so many things - the trains being on time, travelling at the correct speed, etc. that the bombs could have easily exploded plus or minus several hundred metres from where they did explode even with only a small variation in timing.

As was pointed out earlier, if you want to clobber London, go for the Underground. Once you make that decision there aren't that many 'choke points' within the system to choose from.

Joe

Originally posted by J-Blaze
How worried were law enforcement types? This worried: "According to a U.S. government official," Isikoff and Hosenball wrote, "fears of terror attacks have prompted FBI agents based in the U.S. Embassy in London to avoid traveling on London's popular underground railway (or tube) system, which is used daily by millions of commuters. While embassy-based officers of the U.S. Secret Service, Immigration and Customs bureaus and the CIA still are believed to use the underground to go about their business, FBI agents have been known to turn up late to cross-town meetings because they insist on using taxis in London's traffic-choked business center."
This is a bit of a no-brainer though, anyone could have predicted an attack, sooner or later, on the tube network, perhaps the response of the FBI just reflects the fact that Americans often feel unhappier taking risks like this (as evidenced by American tourists leaving London early because they don't feel safe there anymore). Perhaps the other US agencies don't have the money to throw around getting their staff taxis everywhere? Besides, it does say they "still are believed to use the underground", which in journo-speak means "I can't be bothered to check my facts but this is what somebody told me".

Having served a 4 day ban for telling the truth about the bombings I will AGAIN say it was always on the cards that we would suffer this type of attack.
Those who are to blame are the goverment for letting our borders become a joke,Tony Blair and Blunkett are the ones who have the blood of innocents on their hands.
Of course when you also go around the globe invading soverign countries and killing innocent Iraqis then you make yourself a target for Islamic terrorists.
And finaly those who said this was going to happen are now facing the prospect of up to 7 yrs in prison for telling the truth,EG Nick Griffin.
But you have to stand by your beleifs and do what is right for your country.

Originally posted by royjames
Having served a 4 day ban for telling the truth about the bombings I will AGAIN say it was always on the cards that we would suffer this type of attack.
Those who are to blame are the goverment for letting our borders become a joke,Tony Blair and Blunkett are the ones who have the blood of innocents on their hands.
Of course when you also go around the globe invading soverign countries and killing innocent Iraqis then you make yourself a target for Islamic terrorists.
And finaly those who said this was going to happen are now facing the prospect of up to 7 yrs in prison for telling the truth,EG Nick Griffin.
But you have to stand by your beleifs and do what is right for your country. :o :o :o But Roy if you were in power you'd be dropping those very same innocent Iraqis out of planes at 30.000 feet to deport them as no country on earth would let you land!
I’m not listening to a lecture on foreign policy from a self-confessed racist and a coward and a bigot!:mad:

Originally posted by royjames
And finaly those who said this was going to happen are now facing the prospect of up to 7 yrs in prison for telling the truth,EG Nick Griffin.


Come on Roy, stop towing the party line. You know that is not what Griffin has been charged with, so stop trying to mislead us all.

To be accurate, Roy, you received a ban for posting innapropriately after warnings on the thread.

Anyway, if the bombers are shown to be 'home grown' - i.e. British subjects, probably born here, who have been recruited by terrorist organisations at universities, colleges or Mosques (apparently the former are increasingly likely as recruitment venues for extremists as they are less likely to get thrown out of those places than they are most Mosques) then how will tightening the borders stop this happening again?

By the way - I actually agree with tighter controls on immigration; it's just that it would have been as much use as a chocolate teapot in this case if the bombers are Brits.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard

By the way - I actually agree with tighter controls on immigration; it's just that it would have been as much use as a chocolate teapot in this case if the bombers are Brits.

Joe

Or if they'd just come in as if on holiday!

I’m not listening to a lecture on foreign policy from a self-confessed racist and a coward and a bigot!:mad: [/B][/QUOTE]


Oh Mimi we have been down this road before,you ought to realise by now I am neither a coward or a racist.:mad:
As to Joes comment I thought I was banned for making a valid comment which one mod in particular did not want to hear.
oh and I also have received quite a few PMs saying I was right for saying what I did.
Anyway back to the thread,even if they are so called(home grown) the point is that Islam is the enemy of the western world and those who have done this terrible dead are most probably muslim.
I have to be careful what I say now the law has changed to stop free speech,but even if I am banned again everyone knows the truth now.
Oh and finaly I dont hold all muslims responsible for this attack ,just the faith which is used to justify the actions of a few.

Originally posted by royjames
Having served a 4 day ban for telling the truth about the bombings I will AGAIN say it was always on the cards that we would suffer this type of attack.



You should know by now Roy, you can only think what the moderators want you to think. You're certainly not allowed to hurt the feelings of those poor bombers - they have human rites.

Originally posted by royjames
Oh and finaly I dont hold all muslims responsible for this attack ,just the faith which is used to justify the actions of a few.

So do you hate the Christian faith too as the IRA used Christianity as an excuse for their bombings? Maybe we should "voluntarily but forcefully" (to quote the BNP) repatriate all Catholics to Rome. Never could stand these foreign religions anyway lol. ;)

Islam is not the enemy of the western world.

They do not use their 'faith' to justify their actions cos their actions are not justifiable.

You are trying to divide opinion and make people hate each other. Well tried love :clap: but it won't work. Stop trying to capitalise on what has happened, it is sickening. Those people didn't die so you could rally support for Nick the Prick.

:gag:

Originally posted by JoePritchard
As for the 'precision' of the positioning and timing of the bombs against the excercise, the 'precise' locations of detonation on Thursday morning were dependent upon so many things - the trains being on time, travelling at the correct speed, etc. that the bombs could have easily exploded plus or minus several hundred metres from where they did explode even with only a small variation in timing.

As was pointed out earlier, if you want to clobber London, go for the Underground. Once you make that decision there aren't that many 'choke points' within the system to choose from.

Joe

Nah. The mere fact that the correlation was so exact (according to Power) makes the coincidence more staggering, not less.

Even Visor's analysis showed up that the tube is nothing but a mass of connected choke points. The same effect could be created by bombing any three reasonably disparate points - the effects being the complete shutdown of the tube system.

I still think this is too weird to let it pass, yet not a single network beyond our friendly freak fringe has even noticed or cares. I'd like to hear how Power's exercise differed from the actual events. Might end up having to phone Visor myself.

Originally posted by royjames

Anyway back to the thread,even if they are so called(home grown) the point is that Islam is the enemy of the western world and those who have done this terrible deed are most probably muslim.

Oh and finaly I dont hold all muslims responsible for this attack, just the faith which is used to justify the actions of a few.

You are failing to make the distinction between faith and religious fanatics. It is not religious faith that is to blame, but the religious fanatics who justify their obscene actions based on a distorted and fanatical intepretation of their religion.

Much could be said of Christian zealots (some of whom, in the USA, have actually murdered doctors who have performed abortions).

So Islam is not to blame, and nor is it the enemy of the Western world. It appears that there may have been Muslims amongst the victims of this atrocity. The perpetrators of the London bombings didn't care who they killed, or what their victims religion was. Whatever their misguided perceptions and beliefs might be, they were by any definition simply terrorists.

Let us not forget that there were many Muslims in the emergency services who helped save lives and assisted the injured. Are they to be castigated because of their religion, Islam, and called the enemy of the western world? I think not.

Royjames I would point you to this:

I am a Muslim born and brought up in Manchester and i strongly condemn the horrific attacks of yesterday. In no way can the terrorists call themselves Muslims, they use the name of Islam as a cover up, but in no way do these attacks represent Islam. The word itself means 'Peace' and Muslims around the world greet each other with the words 'May peace be upon you'. The people behind these attacks should be caught and prosecuted severely as there is absolutely no justification for killing innocent civilians. No matter what the West has done in Iraq - TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT.
Tooba Farooq, Manchester, UK

this:

I am a Londoner and a Muslim. The people that carried out these attacks are not Muslims in my eyes, to kill innocent people is against the foundations of Islam. Muslims across the world should condemn and denounce these barbarians from having anything to do with our faith. I am so proud of my City for the solidarity Londoners have shown. We have to remain strong and not let the terrorists win.
Saira, London

and this:

I'm sad and deeply wounded by these horrific attacks on the innocents. Being a Muslim even hurts me more because those claimed for the attacks carry the name of my belief and turn the world against Muslims. Never once has the religion said it is your duty to take lives of people. It affects me in more than one way: I am hurt for the victims and their families, but I am also hurt for the future victims of hate crime. Please help us come together at this tragic time and help prevent hate crime towards innocent Muslims in London.
Lela Haan, Minneapolis, USA

Please do not make things harder for the Brits who are scared for their lives by stiring up hatred for Muslims.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/4659237.stm)

Roy,

Funnily enough we had a few PMs congratulating us for trying to keep the temperature down, so I guess that both sets of views are vindicated.

Secondly, what would be 'so called' about stating these bombers are home grown if they do turn out to be UK subjects? Richard Read - the 'Shoe Bomber' - has a good anglo-saxon name and was as guilty as hell. Brits exist who are dis-satisfied with things the way they are, Roy. They don't have to be of foreign extraction to dislike their own country. Many of the greatest acts of treachery ever committed aginst this nation have been carried out by people from the highest families of the land.

Unregistered - if we really wanted to control what people think, do you think we'd let you guys post? That is a laughable statement to make. Oh, and it's human 'rights', not 'rites'. And as far as I'm concerned anyone who commits these atrocious acts dumps any rights they might have had.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard


Unregistered - if we really wanted to control what people think, do you think we'd let you guys post? That is a laughable statement to make.


I don't know - what answer should I use ?

Phan,

Will be interesting to see where this one goes, but the other way to look at conspiracies is that they're actually quite comforting in a perverse sort of way.

If we start thinking that the bombings, assassinations or whatever else were carried out with the conivance or complicity of our own security services, then for some people that's a weird kind of relief because it has the element of 'control' about it. "Our defences are so strong that we can only be defeated by a 'stab in the back'" sort of argument.

For some people a conspiracy is more acceptable than the idea that 20 blokes with 100,000 dollars and some airline tickets could defeat the defences of the strongest nation in the world, or that half a dozen folks with 50 pounds of high explosives could manage such a coup in London.

But, will be interesting to see what comes up and I'll be the first to acknowledge that there is something rotten in the State of Britain if it can be proved.

Joe

Originally posted by Unregistered
I don't know - what answer should I use ?

You've clearly lost the argument already Unregistered.
Whilst sniping appears to be your style, it doesn't assist forummers debate the conspiracies and politics, etc., of the London bombings.

If you have no useful contribution to make to this serious issue, you could try looking up the red subaru thread, or the limericks thread perhaps.

Originally posted by redrobbo



You've clearly lost the argument already Unregistered.



Thank god for that.

Originally posted by Unregistered
Thank god for that.

Quite.

Anyway - Joe I agree that quite often people want to believe in some sort of 'conspiracy' to help them cope with the horrible things that happen. As if in some way to make the events pathological you are distancing yourself and your ilk from them.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Quite.

Anyway - Joe I agree that quite often people want to believe in some sort of 'conspiracy' to help them cope with the horrible things that happen. As if in some way to make the events pathological you are distancing yourself and your ilk from them.

I think that a conspiracy was at work is painfully clear, unless we are to believe this was the act of a lone madman.

Oh Mimi we have been down this road before,you ought to realise by now I am neither a coward or a racist.:mad:
As to Joes comment I thought I was banned for making a valid comment which one mod in particular did not want to hear.
oh and I also have received quite a few PMs saying I was right for saying what I did.
Anyway back to the thread,even if they are so called(home grown) the point is that Islam is the enemy of the western world and those who have done this terrible dead are most probably muslim.
I have to be careful what I say now the law has changed to stop free speech,but even if I am banned again everyone knows the truth now.
Oh and finaly I dont hold all muslims responsible for this attack ,just the faith which is used to justify the actions of a few.

Roy, Fuhrer Griffin 'predicted' these attacks did he? Well, it was hardly rocket science. Alot of agencies are well informed that these 'soft targets' are the most likely to get hit so it was hardly a revelation.

Anyway, back to the 'truth'.... SO, you know of Islam being the enemy of the Western World do you... maybe you could elaborate further on this.

YOU do realise how ridiculous you sound with your quote of ' I don't hold all Muslims responsible for this attack, just the faith which is used to justify the actions of a few'. This has interested me.... which part of the religion do you think condones the attack on innocents? I trust you will be able to supply a link and a verse reference to this.

Aside from firstly describing Islam as an enemy of the western world, you graciously concede that you don't blame all muslims. Well that you Mr James, I'm sure they will all be singing your praises in the Mosques.

Imagine Muslims worldwide thought the BNP were the voice of the British people..... that would be the greatest betrayal.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think that a conspiracy was at work is painfully clear, unless we are to believe this was the act of a lone madman.

Umm.. yes. Sorry.

for patchy....

"as the IRA used Christianity as an excuse for their bombings"

Don't remember that. Sounds like complete rubbish.


Before people start to get to bound up with the "Islam is a peaceful religion" concept and that, perhaps they could name me an Islamic country that doesnt suffer from domestic terrorism. When you look at the world over the past couple of years and see atrocities in Algeria, turkey, malaysia, bali, tunisia, egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, kashmir, yemen, jordan, sudan, chechnya, russia, india, morrocco, indonesia...there is a common islamic theme. No its not tony and dubya. I dont think its stretching political correctness to conclude there is a point where modern values and islamic tenets clash....violently

Originally posted by skny
for patchy....

"as the IRA used Christianity as an excuse for their bombings"

Don't remember that. Sounds like complete rubbish.


Before people start to get to bound up with the "Islam is a peaceful religion" concept and that, perhaps they could name me an Islamic country that doesnt suffer from domestic terrorism. When you look at the world over the past couple of years and see atrocities in Algeria, turkey, malaysia, bali, tunisia, egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, kashmir, yemen, jordan, sudan, chechnya, russia, india, morrocco, indonesia...there is a common islamic theme. No its not tony and dubya. I dont think its stretching political correctness to conclude there is a point where modern values and islamic tenets clash....violently

Islamic tenets, like christian ones, clash violently with 'modern values' that are predicated by a love of money. Christians are meant to hold usury and simony in contempt. It's just that a larger bulk of christians have been co-opted into worshipping at the feet of mammon without realizing it and now suck at satans teat with innocent smiles on their faces.

Name any country at all that doesn't suffer from domestic terrorism? Any country at all. The Vatican State? nope. Monaco, maybe. Liechtenstein, probably. i.e. not very many.

Is there anything to suggest that this bombing was carried out by fanatical muslims? (apart from a dodgy claim that , apart from misquoting the Quran, was posted on a texas bulletin board).

skny,

Even some Islamic scholars have agreed that most international terrorism is today committed by people who purport to be followers of Islam, BUT many of these people are taking the name of their faith and their God in vain.

I don't believe that there are any suras in the Koran that state that it is OK to kill women and children, despite the interpretations put on some texts by some radical clerics.

This is the logic that allows these same fundamentalists to call Western interventions in to Muslim countries 'Crusades'. It's sloppy thinking on both sides.

As for the comments about Islamic nations and terrorist atrocities, given that the worst terrorist outrage in the last 5 years took place in New York, a major city in that highly un-Islamic country the USA, that argument is weak. And neither are Spain and the UK Islamic countries. And neither is Israel.

The challenge facing the West today is that we have failed to get a grip on such extremist sects as the Wahabis in Saudi Arabia, that we have allowed people of seriously extreme views to create states and / or areas of influence in many parts of teh world from which they can operate.

Many Muslim givernments throughout the world have as much to lose from these extremists as Western Governments do. It's not Jews vs Christians vs Muslims; that's what the extremists of all sides want to propagate. It's those who would allow all beliefs to peacefully co-exist against those who would achieve the removal of those they disagree with by terror.

Sorry...meandering off topic here. Will try and shut up.

Joe

You have missed the point there entirely. My post was trying to suggest that islamic fundamentalism is not confined to the melting pot of the west (note all the countries I mentioned are not western)

Countries that dont suffer from domestic terrorism? Holland? France? Belgium? Germany (well..you could go back to bader-meinhof if you wanted) Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Portugal? Italy? Which of these countries suffers from a genuine domestic terror threat that ISNT islamic-based?

The vatican state suffers from domestic terorism? News to me.

This is not true; just one mad conspiracy theroy and if anyone wants to believe it its up to them.

MI5 or MI6 could have done the bombs under goverment intructions just to make sure the id card bill had more credibillity.

End of stupid theroy anyway.

When the IRA was setting bombs off all over England we set up negotians with them and found out what there grievances where, and eventually the british govermnet and IRA managed to reach some mutual agreement through a lot of compromise. Sometimes all people want is to be heard but there are a lot better ways than killing people, we ought to at least offer some talks we've done it with gaddafi in the past. Osama Bin Laden knows theres a massive price tag on his head and what does he have to lose. We don't actually know what Al quaeda disagreements are with the west,, and until we do we can't do anything and all we've got left is prayers for the innocent people who've died for nothing and those who will still die,, and the people of London were very brave, I don't know how i would have reacted, but my prayers are with the families of the innocent people who died Thursday

Originally posted by skny
You have missed the point there entirely. My post was trying to suggest that islamic fundamentalism is not confined to the melting pot of the west (note all the countries I mentioned are not western)

Countries that dont suffer from domestic terrorism? Holland? France? Belgium? Germany (well..you could go back to bader-meinhof if you wanted) Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Portugal? Italy? Which of these countries suffers from a genuine domestic terror threat that ISNT islamic-based?

The vatican state suffers from domestic terorism? News to me.

It's where JPII was shot in an attempted assassination.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Pinlock this is the most sensible post I've read in a long time! You have hit the nail on the head. This is how extremist groups on all sides of the spectrum operate - "did you know that africans recieve £50,000 for a new car when they arrive in Britain" or "did you know the american government knew about 9/11 for 10 years before it happened".

This is also how the media operate - if you make a public statement you can put as many caveats in as you like and they will ignore them - so if you say "we don't know who did this, it could have been x, it might have been y, perhaps even z, but we're looking into it and wouldn't want to speculate at this time" - they report it as "Police point finger at X!"

It is also how academic research is reported - "Oxford finds that women are stupid" or "Bristol Uni does study on cats". Its daft cos you can't condense news like that! Politics, and life, is REALLY complicated!

(Mods sorry if this seems off topic but I think its supremely relevant :) ) I think it is bang on topic actually. All these conspiracy theories, tabloid press rumours and pontification serve no purpose other than to upset people and make them paranoid.:|

Originally posted by skny
for patchy....

"as the IRA used Christianity as an excuse for their bombings"

Don't remember that. Sounds like complete rubbish.


Before people start to get to bound up with the "Islam is a peaceful religion" concept and that, perhaps they could name me an Islamic country that doesnt suffer from domestic terrorism. When you look at the world over the past couple of years and see atrocities in Algeria, turkey, malaysia, bali, tunisia, egypt, saudi arabia, pakistan, kashmir, yemen, jordan, sudan, chechnya, russia, india, morrocco, indonesia...there is a common islamic theme. No its not tony and dubya. I dont think its stretching political correctness to conclude there is a point where modern values and islamic tenets clash....violently
The common theme of terrorism in most of the countries you mention is not Islam but the government or rather the dictatorships of those countries being subservient to the Americans. The exceptions being Kashmir and Chechnya where they are fighting for independence against India and Russia respectively. If it wasn't for the total surrender by the Pakistani and Saudi, and Jordanian rulers to the wishes of aar Tony and Dubya, then Afghanistan and Iraq might not have been such easy targets to jump on, or at least would have needed different excuses to go there.
In the G8 after the dreadful events in London all European Leaders stood shoulder to shoulder and proclaimed,” We are all Londoners". What the so called terrorists in most of the Muslim countries are asking their spineless leaders is that same unity in the Muslim world against American aggression. Just imagine all leaders of the Muslim countries standing defiantly shoulder to shoulder and saying to the Americans enough is enough. They won't because they in the pocket of the democracy claiming corrupt regime supporting Americans. Terrorism is not a simple us and them concept, the vermin who planted bombs in London are cowards who committed mass murder for no more noble a cause than seeking publicity when the G8 were the focus of the world. That however should not be confused with the David fighting the American Goliath in his own country, be that Pakistan or Iraq or wherever. If sixty years ago the Germans had been more successful and invaded over here and regarded all opposition as terrorists I am certain my Granddad would have been proud to be a terrorist, and so I hope yours too.

I think we also need to stop using religion as a reason for these attacks. Most people who follow a religion do so in peace. They don't believe in violence and bloodshed. If so called extremist groups are terrorists attacking people in the name of religion they are using it as a front. It is a sick, senseless waste of human life, I don't know of any religion that teaches this. I am not religious myself but I know people who are and whatever religion they follow they all have the same opinion of terrorism, they think it is horrific:|

Strapping 200pound of explosives to yourself and blowing up a bus seems a strange way to meet your maker to me, funny thing religion isnt it?:loopy:

Originally posted by brooksy
Strapping 200pound of explosives to yourself and blowing up a bus seems a strange way to meet your maker to me, funny thing religion isnt it?:loopy:

Well it is a good way of rousing people for a cause, a war on terror I mean.

Not very hard to start a bombing campaign at all.

Doing it is the easy part, getting away with it is the problem.

Could you desist from using AMERICA as a one-stop easy explanation for the world's ills? I'm simply illustrating countries that have problems the west is not responsible for. Look at algeria.
At least 60,000 Algerians-Islamic militants, civilians and security personnel have been killed since the insurgency of 1992. This is not america's fault. Without america, there would still be hundreds of militant wahhabist cells attempting to install shariah-run caliphates all over the world.

"I am certain my Granddad would have been proud to be a terrorist, and so I hope yours too." And do you think he would be deliberately blowing up innocent civilians to make political/religious points or decapitating prisoners? Nowt to be proud of there. Sorry.

Nobody is saying its something to be proud of skny, the point i was making is these so called religous fanatics or martas as they are called believe in doing these evil acts will be accepted as heroes to there so called god.

Originally posted by skny
Could you desist from using AMERICA as a one-stop easy explanation for the world's ills? I'm simply illustrating countries that have problems the west is not responsible for. Look at algeria.
At least 60,000 Algerians-Islamic militants, civilians and security personnel have been killed since the insurgency of 1992. This is not america's fault. Without america, there would still be hundreds of militant wahhabist cells attempting to install shariah-run caliphates all over the world.

"I am certain my Granddad would have been proud to be a terrorist, and so I hope yours too." And do you think he would be deliberately blowing up innocent civilians to make political/religious points or decapitating prisoners? Nowt to be proud of there. Sorry.

the home guard had plans to kill collaborators with german forces if there were an invasion. That's our home guard killing our civilians to stop them aiding an invading force.

Bit of a stretch to see random commuters as collaborators though eh?

Originally posted by brooksy
Nobody is saying its something to be proud of skny, the point i was making is these so called religous fanatics or martas as they are called believe in doing these evil acts will be accepted as heroes to there so called god. But that is NOT the teachings of Islam, that is the teaching of fanatics with a grudge against the Western society because they won't allow them to do as they please. The west is in no way perfect but we don't condemn people because of religion.

It may not be the teaching of islam, but isnt it strange how a lot of the middle easrern countrys put a lot of there acts down to there religous beliefs. Just to note i have no religous beliefs at all and i dont attack anyone physically or verbally on theres ?

Originally posted by skny
Bit of a stretch to see random commuters as collaborators though eh?

that wouldn't be how the analogy played out though.

Is it a stretch to think about homeguard (after the occupation of the uk) who could pass for germans, making their way to germany and blowing up a train? Or in some other way taking action that would damage the german economy and scare it's citizens into wanting the army withdrawn from the uk? That doesn't sound far fetched at all to me.
Hell - we bombed dresden into a firestorm that killed thousands of civilians.

Here we go again: It can't be Muslims to blame because, er, well, Muslim means peace doesn't it? Glad we've cleared that up.

Even though Muslims have claimed gleeful responsibility for every hate crime against the West from 9/11 to the London tube bombings, none of them is really down to Islam simply because, er, well, we believe in peace (man).

And (here's the Catch 22) the bombers can do all this while repeatedly shouting the name of Islam from the rooftops, but the apologists can sweep it under the carpet by pointing out that the Koran says it's wrong to kill, so therefore Islam can't possibly be to blame.

That must mean that the IRA have nothing to do with Catholicism or Christianity because true Christians would never bomb or murder people. That's despite the fact that the IRA were nurtured and encouraged by the catholic community - just as the Muslim extremists are sheltering within the Muslim community in Britain right now.

Most Muslims may believe in peace, but please wake up and realise there are many Muslims who believe in death and destruction in the name of religion.

is this the work of islamic terrorists?

I didnt put a post up o0n this thread to attack any specific religion, but there seems to be a lot of heads being stuck in the sand. I think we need to wake up and smell the coffee folks?

It pains me to find myself supporting (at least in a small way) royjames and disagreeing with many forum members whose views I normally hold in high regard, but a big part of the problem here is "faith" (or, to put it another way, belief in ideas you have no way of proving), and there is much in Islam which can be used without a great deal (if any) of twisting, contorting or mis-representing, to support Thursday's bombings.

This is by no means unique to Islam: if we all took the Bible literally, then we would have long since put most of our non-Christian neighbours to the sword. Fortunately this sort of thing largely died out by the 18th century in Europe at least.

Also fortunately, the vast majority of Moslems, like virtually all Christians and Jews, have developed a selective blindness to certain passages of their holy teachings. But the existence of large numbers of people who still use millenia-old literature, of whatever flavour, to determine how they will live their lives is an anachronism and a danger to society.

Just for balance, here are a couple of quotations, one from the Koran and one from the Bible:

Koran 4:74-78
Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God; whoever fights for the cause of God, whether he dies or triumphs, We shall richly reward him.... The true believers fight for the cause of God, but the infidels fight for the devil. Fight then against the friends of Satan.... Say: 'Trifling are the pleasures of this life. The hereafter is better for those who would keep from evil....'


Deuteronomy 13:15-16
smite the inhabitants of that city with the edge of the sword, destroying it utterly, and all that is therein... with the edge of the sword.

...gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the street, and burn with fire the city, and all the spoil thereof every whit... and it shall be an heap for ever; it shall not be built again.


OK, let the holy war commence...

There are Islamic leaders who have extreme views that are related to their faith in the same way that Ian Paisely is related to Christianity.

There are groups originating from the teachings of these leaders, that are violent and are dedicated to the overthrow of ANY government that does not support their viewpoint.

That viewpoint is intent on the overthrow of all secular forms of government, and of Muslim governments that do not follow their extremist creed.

In many ways this is probably the most serious terrorist threat that we have encountered. These people cannot be bought off with money, with territory or with 'power sharing' or similar tools that have allowed us to dal with terrorists over the last century.

They defy the tenets of their own religion, are educated, dedicated and do not fear death. And they have it in for all of us who don't toe their line. In the 20th century we dealt with political totalitarianism; in the 21st century looks like we're going to have religious totalitarianism.

I'm pretty sure these attacks have been carried out by a group affiliated with Al Qaeda - having said that the religious affiliation of that groups holds the same relationship to mainstream Islam as the IRA or KKK do to Christianity.

Joe

Good post joe, can you right it in english now, only kidding.:heyhey: :heyhey:

Originally posted by brooksy
Good post joe, can you right it in english now, only kidding.:heyhey: :heyhey:

OK...think of a terrorist version of 'The Terminator'.

"It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead. "

Read 'doing what they want' instead od 'dead'.

Although The Terminator did get stopped. :)

And this lot can be stopped as well.

Joe

Let us not forget that in 1995 a previously obscure religious sect, Aum Shinrikyo, perpretrated an atrocity on the Tokyo subway. Twelve people died, and more than 5,000 people were taken to hospital.

The attack came at the peak of the Monday morning rush hour in one of the busiest commuter systems in the world.

The atrocity caused massive disruption and widespread fear.
The subway attack also showed the world just how easy it is for a small cult or group of terrorists with limited means to engage in chemical warfare. Or in the case of London and Madrid - bombs.

For a long time now, our government and the police have warned us that a terrorist attack is not a question of if, but when. The underground was probably always going to be the 'soft' target.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
In many ways this is probably the most serious terrorist threat that we have encountered. These people cannot be bought off with money, with territory or with 'power sharing' or similar tools that have allowed us to dal with terrorists over the last century.

They defy the tenets of their own religion, are educated, dedicated and do not fear death. And they have it in for all of us who don't toe their line. In the 20th century we dealt with political totalitarianism; in the 21st century looks like we're going to have religious totalitarianism.
The first paragraph is right on the money, this is more scary than previous terrorist threats because these people only take their orders from God, there is no negotiating.

But I disagree with the second point. The tenets of Islam include plenty which can be used to justify holy war, plenty of grisly threats and punishments for non-believers. There is also a lot that's more palatable, a lot that preaches peace and goodwill, but I would guess that can easily be read as implying peace and goodwill to fellow moslems.

Many have made the point that "Islam" means "peace". It is also, I believe, the case that the Moslem faith divides the world into the nation of Islam and the nation of War. Presumably, in these peoples' minds, we live in the nation of War.

I would like to re-iterate that I have no argument with Moslems, my beef is with religion as a whole. I wish the lot of them could stop living their lives according to archaic fictions and instead make their own rules for living happily and getting on in the world. Unfortunately this a lot harder for Moslems to do than for Christians and Jews, because the Hadith specifically instructs them to kill any of their number who renounces their faith (http://answering-islam.org.uk/Silas/apostasy.htm) (hence all the fuss over Salman Rushdie).

Some people will never accept the fact the koran does indeed tell its followers to fight the non beleivers and to kill them all,if you want me to show you the verses then let me know and I will glady show you.
Sharia law is there for all to see,some people need to wake up and stop hiding their heads in the sand,just how many bombs will it take for them to realise what is going on???
I despair sometimes at the english ,they deserve all they get .

Originally posted by royjames
Some people will never accept the fact the koran does indeed tell its followers to fight the non beleivers and to kill them all,if you want me to show you the verses then let me know and I will glady show you.


There are such sections - however, for several centuries Islam, Christianity and Judaism co-existed in various parts of the world - particularly Spain, for example.

I believe the main requirement for the Jews and the Christians was that they did not try and convert any Muslims. Tolerance was always practised towards the other 'Children of the Book'.

Having said that, I don't believe there are any sections in the Koran that support the slaughter of women and children, which was the issue I raised earlier on.

Roy, the issue here is as much politics as religion; there are many Muslim states in the world who have suffered terrorism from these people. In fact, it's likely that across the world more Muslims have been killed by Islamc terrorists than Christians and Jews have. We're dealing with a minority of people who have adopted one particular interpretation of their faith; that is no excuse to condemn a whole faith.

I do realise what's going on, Roy, as I stated above. We have to stop these people by whatever means necessary because they are a global problem. I think they are a larger threat to the world than even you believe, Roy, but don't regard them as being in any way representative of the Muslim faith.

Joe

Originally posted by mojoworking
Here we go again: It can't be Muslims to blame because, er, well, Muslim means peace doesn't it? Glad we've cleared that up.

Even though Muslims have claimed gleeful responsibility for every hate crime against the West from 9/11 to the London tube bombings, none of them is really down to Islam simply because, er, well, we believe in peace (man).

And (here's the Catch 22) the bombers can do all this while repeatedly shouting the name of Islam from the rooftops, but the apologists can sweep it under the carpet by pointing out that the Koran says it's wrong to kill, so therefore Islam can't possibly be to blame.

That must mean that the IRA have nothing to do with Catholicism or Christianity because true Christians would never bomb or murder people. That's despite the fact that the IRA were nurtured and encouraged by the catholic community - just as the Muslim extremists are sheltering within the Muslim community in Britain right now.

Most Muslims may believe in peace, but please wake up and realise there are many Muslims who believe in death and destruction in the name of religion. But a terrorist group is a terrorist group whoever they claim their god is. They are primarily terrorists. Where do you get the idea that every day working muslims are sheltering these bombers? If you have some information about it you should report it to the police. There are Muslims and Catholics all over the world. My husband was raised in a Catholic family but it doesn't mean he supports the IRA or would offer refuge to a IRA terrorist!

Originally posted by royjames
.....some people need to wake up and stop hiding their heads in the sand,just how many bombs will it take for them to realise what is going on???
I despair sometimes at the english, they deserve all they get .

I trust you will retract that last sentence royjames? No-one who died or was injured in the London bombings deserved all they got.

In the circumstances, your remarks are not only insensitive, but deeply offensive.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Having said that, I don't believe there are any sections in the Koran that support the slaughter of women and children, which was the issue I raised earlier on.
I think you're right there Joe. "Collateral damage" is probably one of the few Western imports these people have allowed to pollute their medieval mindset.

I think roys point was more of a political point ,granted it could be taken in the wrong context

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
I think that a conspiracy was at work is painfully clear, unless we are to believe this was the act of a lone madman.
Phan... stop playing with their minds! ;)

Originally posted by tulip
But a terrorist group is a terrorist group whoever they claim their god is. They are primarily terrorists. Where do you get the idea that every day working muslims are sheltering these bombers? If you have some information about it you should report it to the police. There are Muslims and Catholics all over the world. My husband was raised in a Catholic family but it doesn't mean he supports the IRA or would offer refuge to a IRA terrorist!

Where do you think the bombers (of all religious persuasions) live and prepare for action, the Hilton Hotel? No, it's common knowledge that they melt into the background of their own community where they obviously receive all the support and infrastructure necessary to carry out their deadly work.

I can't speak for your husband, but I, too, grew up in an Irish Catholic family/community and while we never had any direct dealings with the IRA, you didn't have look far to find vocal support (at the very least) for "the cause", so let's not pretend there's never been any support for the IRA within the Catholic community.

This is especially true in the USA where the IRA gets most of its funding from "every day working" American Catholics.

If you don't believe that, try speaking to the 5 sisters of Robert McCartney who are currently battling a wall of silence as they try to bring their brother's killers to justice.

Originally posted by skny
Countries that dont suffer from domestic terrorism? Holland? France? Belgium? Germany (well..you could go back to bader-meinhof if you wanted) Sweden? Norway? Denmark? Portugal? Italy? Which of these countries suffers from a genuine domestic terror threat that ISNT islamic-based?
Umm.. quite a few of them really.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Where do you think the bombers (of all religious persuasions) live and prepare for action, the Hilton Hotel? No, it's common knowledge that they melt into the background of their own community where they obviously receive all the support and infrastructure necessary to carry out their deadly work.
Don't talk such utter rot.

They do exactly what you would do if you were planning to commit terrorist acts.

They keep their heads down and only discuss it with those others directly involved. There is no 'Muslim conspiracy' whereby an entire section of society says nothing.

I've never heard such cobblers. I honestly though better of you mojo.

On that last point regarding the IRA, and I realise it may be getting off the topic somewhat, I'm irish and never met anyone who supports the IRA. Republican does not equal catholic, and loyalist does not equal protestant. From answers.com...

"A disingenuous tactic used by the British in the Anglo-Irish conflict was to draw attention to the religion of IRA victims if they were Protestant, and to play it down if they were Catholic. This was a crude but effective device, used to great effect in the press in Ireland and Britain, to portray the IRA as sectarian. In reality, the IRA killed anyone they believed was aiding the Crown forces, regardless of religion, and had many Protestant volunteers. In Castlederg in Tyrone, Protestants outnumbered Catholics in the local IRA at the time."

Back on topic, I think the religion of these terrorists is a highly significant point, not something to be disregarded.

Originally posted by skny
On that last point regarding the IRA, and I realise it may be getting off the topic somewhat, I'm irish and never met anyone who supports the IRA. Republican does not equal catholic, and loyalist does not equal protestant. From answers.com...

"A disingenuous tactic used by the British in the Anglo-Irish conflict was to draw attention to the religion of IRA victims if they were Protestant, and to play it down if they were Catholic. This was a crude but effective device, used to great effect in the press in Ireland and Britain, to portray the IRA as sectarian. In reality, the IRA killed anyone they believed was aiding the Crown forces, regardless of religion, and had many Protestant volunteers. In Castlederg in Tyrone, Protestants outnumbered Catholics in the local IRA at the time."

.

You've obviously never been to a Celtic v Rangers game! Try standing at the Rangers' end singing a Republican song or waving the tricolour at an Orange Day march and see how long you last. ;)

What next? Al Qaeda recruiting Jews, perhaps?

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet.

Who did it - and what was their motive (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525351,00.html) - very interesting reading. And the last few paragraphs should give food for thought for some of the anti-moslem voices on here, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Who did it - and what was their motive (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1525351,00.html) - very interesting reading. And the last few paragraphs should give food for thought for some of the anti-moslem voices on here, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

As always, a beautifully written and well balanced piece of journalism from the Guardian

That is most congently argued analysis of the London bombings that I've read to date. Thanks DanSumption.

I would like to echo your observation that anti-moslem voices are part of the problem, not part of the solution. royjames please take note.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Where do you think the bombers (of all religious persuasions) live and prepare for action, the Hilton Hotel? No, it's common knowledge that they melt into the background of their own community where they obviously receive all the support and infrastructure necessary to carry out their deadly work.

I can't speak for your husband, but I, too, grew up in an Irish Catholic family/community and while we never had any direct dealings with the IRA, you didn't have look far to find vocal support (at the very least) for "the cause", so let's not pretend there's never been any support for the IRA within the Catholic community.

This is especially true in the USA where the IRA gets most of its funding from "every day working" American Catholics.

If you don't believe that, try speaking to the 5 sisters of Robert McCartney who are currently battling a wall of silence as they try to bring their brother's killers to justice. I don't think any such thing! I don't know, has it occured to you that they might live in a house or flat alone or with a few other terrorists? Do you think terrorists are open about what they do in their spare time?

So the IRA are funded mainly by the USA are they? How do you know this? You seem to offer all this info about what terrorist do and how they are funding their operations. I'm surprised the anti-terrorist squad haven't put you in a 'safe house' under the witness protection plan!

Originally posted by tulip
So the IRA are founded mainly by the USA are they? How do you know this? You seem to offer all this info about what terrorist do and how they are funding their operations. I'm surprised the anti-terrorist squad haven't put you in a 'safe house' under the witness protection plan!

Are you seriously saying that you're not aware that the IRA gets much of its funding (not "founded" as you wrote) from well-meaning, but misguided Irish/American sympathisers? (when they're not carrying out one of the biggest bank raids in history, that is).

Other IRA funds come from various sources such as smuggling cigarettes and diesel fuel.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the religious divide, let's not forget that the Protestant Ulster militias are also criminals and drug dealers, that they assault Chinese immigrants, paint swastikas on walls and have managed to turn Belfast into the world's most racist city.

You really should get out more tulip.

Originally posted by mojoworking
As always, a beautifully written and well balanced piece of journalism from the Guardian

Small correction. The Observer.

Originally posted by Tony
Don't talk such utter rot.

They do exactly what you would do if you were planning to commit terrorist acts.

They keep their heads down and only discuss it with those others directly involved. There is no 'Muslim conspiracy' whereby an entire section of society says nothing.

I've never heard such cobblers. I honestly though better of you mojo.

Your patriarchal outrage is not a cogent argument Tony. If you'll forgive the clumsy analogy, sometimes I fear you're in danger of throwing out the baby of common sense with the grimy bathwater of political correctness.

There are dozens if not hundreds of Muslim extremist terrorist cells in Britain. Who do you think is running and maintaining these cells? The tooth fairy?

Originally posted by redrobbo
Small correction. The Observer.

Apologies, it's from the joint Guardian and Observer Digital Editions website.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Apologies, it's from the joint Guardian and Observer Digital Editions website.

Then I stand corrected! My apologies mojoworking.

Originally posted by royjames
Some people will never accept the fact the koran does indeed tell its followers to fight the non beleivers and to kill them all,if you want me to show you the verses then let me know and I will glady show you.
Sharia law is there for all to see,some people need to wake up and stop hiding their heads in the sand,just how many bombs will it take for them to realise what is going on???
I despair sometimes at the english ,they deserve all they get .


Yeah, could you point me to the verses please.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Are you seriously saying that you're not aware that the IRA gets much of its funding (not "founded" as you wrote) from well-meaning, but misguided Irish/American sympathisers? (when they're not carrying out one of the biggest bank raids in history, that is).

Other IRA funds come from various sources such as smuggling cigarettes and diesel fuel.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the religious divide, let's not forget that the Protestant Ulster militias are also criminals and drug dealers, that they assault Chinese immigrants, paint swastikas on walls and have managed to turn Belfast into the world's most racist city.

You really should get out more tulip. As you may have realised 'founded' was a typo. Yes, The IRA did get some funding from the U.S under the pretence of being a charity which some Irish American people donated unwittingly to. I'm sure you stated previously the Ira was mostly funded by the Americans and you implied knowingly gave money to be used for terrorism.

I'll take your advice and get out more. My first port of call will Belfast to see for myself the worlds most racist City, then I will visit my husband Catholic relatives in Sicily, a lot of them emigrated to the U.S but I'm sure I will find out that they all have mafia connections.

I have gotten around a little in my time. I moved to London when I was 19 years old to find the people there didn't pave the streets with gold or live on jellied eels. I later moved on to Surrey and was surprised to find everyone didn't wear green wellies and walk around with a shot gun under one arm and a copy of Sporting Life under the other. Two years ago I moved to the U.S - what a shock to find everyone didn't agree with everything the government did, hang on ever word the president said and carry guns around to take pot shots at innocent bystanders.

Where ever you go people are individuals not stereotypes. I suggest you stop reading tabloids, you will pick up more truthful facts from the Beano!

Originally posted by tulip
Where ever you go people are individuals not stereotypes. I suggest you stop reading tabloids, you will pick up more truthful facts from the Beano!

I couldn't agree more.

I don't read tabloids and haven't done so since Robert Maxwell bought the Daily Mirror - when was that, early 80s? ;)

Since you've now revealed that your husband is of Italian ancestry, then yes you're quite right, I'd say there's very little chance of him being an IRA sympathiser :loopy:

For your information, this is from the BBC News website, but similar material can be found all over the web:

Their cause has always been a united Ireland, but much of the cash that funds republican groups comes from the United States. So how will they fare amid the new crackdown on terrorism?

Ulster Unionist MP Jeffrey Donaldson wants to see the strong measures extended to Noraid, which raises money for the republican party Sinn Fein, which itself has links with the Provisional IRA.

"Without their funding, the IRA would not have nearly the same potential for violence that it currently has," he says.

Noraid has openly expressed support for the IRA but says it gives money for humanitarian aid, and denies its donations are used for the purchase of arms.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I couldn't agree more.

I don't read tabloids and haven't done so since Robert Maxwell bought the Daily Mirror - when was that, early 80s? ;)

For your information, this is from the BBC News website, but similar material can be found all over the web: Well, I'm not going to argue with fact quoted in an unkown article especially since the quote is by a pontificating individual who offers no fact to back it up. You will also find articles all over the web about ufo's, alien abductions, ghostly goings on an all manner of things. We were even told by the news media that false reports were going to be broadcast after 9/11. :)

Originally posted by tulip
Well, I'm not going to argue with fact quoted in an unkown article especially since the quote is by a pontificating individual who offers no fact to back it up. You will also find articles all over the web about ufo's, alien abductions, ghostly goings on an all manner of things. We were even told by the news media that false reports were going to be broadcast after 9/11. :)

Yes, once again you're quite right tulip. The BBC is not to be trusted with the truth under any circumstances. ;) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1563119.stm

oops, a bit of a slip up there you forgot to include the date of that impeccable bbc article; Tuesday, 25 September, 2001, 09:45 GMT 10:45 UK
Call for Noraid crackdown.

I think the so called charity was unmasked a while ago;)

Originally posted by tulip
oops, a bit of a slip up there you forgot to include the date of that impeccable bbc article; Tuesday, 25 September, 2001, 09:45 GMT 10:45 UK
Call for Noraid crackdown.

I think the so called charity was unmasked a while ago;)

2001 is only 4 years ago. Are you forgetting that you were claiming I made the whole thing up and it never happened at all not too long ago?

Since then you've also revealed the startling news that your husband is of Italian ancestry, in which case I'd say there's very little chance of him becoming an IRA sympathiser as you earlier feared.

"You've obviously never been to a Celtic v Rangers game! Try standing at the Rangers' end singing a Republican song or waving the tricolour at an Orange Day march and see how long you last.

What next? Al Qaeda recruiting Jews, perhaps?

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet."

I dont believe everything I read on the internet. As I am not "from an irish catholic family" but actually irish, ie from ireland. I had two relations in the IRB and one in the RUC so I'm not totally relying on google here for my geopolitical views. I also must say its strange to see you quoting from the internet so quickly after disregarding it as a reliable source of information.

Originally posted by skny
"You've obviously never been to a Celtic v Rangers game! Try standing at the Rangers' end singing a Republican song or waving the tricolour at an Orange Day march and see how long you last.

What next? Al Qaeda recruiting Jews, perhaps?

You shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet."

I dont believe everything I read on the internet. As I am not "from an irish catholic family" but actually irish, ie from ireland. I had two relations in the IRB and one in the RUC so I'm not totally relying on google here for my geopolitical views. I also must say its strange to see you quoting from the internet so quickly after disregarding it as a reliable source of information.

Nor am I relying on Google for my own personal experience growing up in an Irish Catholic family, but I always feel the BBC can be trusted with the truth. Wouldn't you say?

We lived in Glasgow for a few years when I was a kid and I had a good mate who was a pretty handy footballer and he had trials for several clubs. A few years later he told me that almost without exception the very first words the scouts would ask him was "what school do you go to, son?"

I think you know what that means?

Having waded through the 9 pages or so, and under the feeling of "Monday Morning Coming Down" - - - I must ask, which number on Wisteria Drive does the American Housewife come from?
While we're at it, from page three, don't omit that the 80+ is usually accompanied by a litre of scotch.
Religion? - - - I have a bit of experience of that. I was the one that got away from the jesuit promise.
Fundamentalist muslims? well I have been there too.
CIA? I have met a few.
I put the whole deal down to the resentment of the "Have Nots" against the have's.
I tend to agree, that a person may be quite happy with four wives - a tent - a camel and a few goats, but why should they try and convince me of the same?
The Muslim Council (Why do we Need one). It seems to be a bit of "Protesteth too Much"
Vengeance is mine, as the saying goes, and if the leaders of the mosques persist in saying that the fundamentalists are not among them, then we should legislate for a more open control on what they preach.
Do they have the same "Secrets of the Confessional" as was offered to the guilty IRA members? After all, murder is a crime in all religious beliefs.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Yeah, could you point me to the verses please.
See my post two pages back (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=487982#post487982)

I am pleased this thread is here, thanks Joe et al

I would first of all like to say something to Phan. I have been actively involved in some of our "business continuity planning" at work, that is where you work out what you would do if a bomb went off in your building, or you lost all your power in a blackout etc. You imagine a scenario, something like "You have been informed that there has been a gas main explosion on the High Street outside your building" and then you work out what you need to do to keep the business running or minimise disruption etc. You work out which bits of your business are essential and must have first dibs on available office space and which you can safely send home for a week etc.

Some organisations have teams who do this planning full-time, for a living.

What the man in the radio 5 broadcast was saying, as I understood it, was that he had gone into a company, as a consultant, to begin working with them on their business continuity plan. It was their first meeting and he had proposed a scenario, that was probably only a few lines long if it was like any of the others I have seen before, and said "You have been informed that bombs have gone off in the following locations x, y and z and the underground has been brought to halt."

They would then identify what problems that would cause them and what they could to limit them.

This is a process that takes ages, months and you have dry runs where you practice everything and see if it works.

Just like they did with the emergency services.

But as I understand it, this man said, to repeat, that this was his first meeting with them. They hadn't planned any responses yet.

So if their scenario imagined bombs exploding in the three places where they did in fact happen, I would call that spooky, a scary coincidence, but I couldnt go further than that.

The man who was interviewed probably only dreamt up his scenario the week before and none of the staff in the company he was consulting for knew what it was going to be (or that there would even be a scenario, not having gone through it before).

If that is not a coincidence, then I am not sure what you are suggesting, spell it out for me.

This post is too long for my other point so I will come back with that after.

Belle

I also sugest you google the koran and its all their in black and white,sharia law .
We are called the infidels ,check it out.
Or better still I have put sharia law on this site before,telling it all for everyone to see.
I cant be botherd to go through all my posts again but you can feel free to find it.
Pleasant reading.

Originally posted by polish_lady
I also sugest you google the koran and its all their in black and white,sharia law .
We are called the infidels ,check it out.
Or better still I have put sharia law on this site before,telling it all for everyone to see.
I cant be botherd to go through all my posts again but you can feel free to find it.
Pleasant reading.

what's your point, would it help if we post sections of the bible where it tells you to put people to the sword and strike down your neighbour for covetting your wife?

Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/) provides five pages of tedious, closely-packed, repetitive quotes from the Koran in his book, all of them basically articulating how Allah will deal with non-Moslems in the afterlife, and how it might be a good idea for believers to speed their journeys to judgement. And this doesn't even touch on the Hadith, which is often more explicit and bloodthirsty than the Koran.

Like I say, they are tedious in the extreme, but here is a flavour:


[We] shall let them live awhile, and then shall drag them to the scourge of the Fire. Evil shall be their fate (2:126)

Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatory is worse than carnage (2:190)

Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it (2:126)

Believers, do not make friends with any but your own people. They will spare no pains to corrupt you. They desire nothing but your ruin. Their hatred is evident from what they utter with their mouths, but greater is the hatred which their breasts conceal. (3:118)

God may test the faithful and annihilate the infidels (3:140)

Those that deny Our revelation We will burn in fire. No sooner shall their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge (4:55)

Believers, do not seek the friendship of the infidels and those who were given the Book before you, who have made of your religion a jest and a pastime (5:57)

You will find that the most implacable of men in their enmity to the faithful are the Jews and the pagans, and that the nearest in affection to them are those that say 'We are Christians' (5:80)

etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

I would like to reiterate that I have nothing whatsoever against Moslems, only against Islam, which I abhor as I abhor all religion.

I would also be very interested to hear from any Moslems how they square language such as that quoted above, which after all comes direct from God's mouth (although admittedly has subsequently been translated into English), with a peace-loving and inclusive attitude to life.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what's your point, would it help if we post sections of the bible where it tells you to put people to the sword and strike down your neighbour for covetting your wife?
I can't speak for polish_lady, but my point is that religion is a very dangerous thing and the sooner we rid ourselves of it the better.

And I already provided one such bible quote a few pages back; I can give you more if you want them.

This will seem very over simplified

But there you go, I am feeling very simple minded today.

I was thinking about how it would be if the terrorists turned out to be British, from Oldham for example.

I was thinking what their motivation would be.

I was thinking about angry young men with raging testosterone.

I was reminded of combat 18 skin heads.

They find something to get riled up about, an ill that they can blame for why their lives are not how they wanted them to be and then unleash violence in a big way.

It also reminds me of football hooligans who plan big fights with supporters of other teams where they go out with knives and chains to pre-organised scraps.

And all those blokes in Manchester (and other cities) that go out shooting each other at night in gang warfare.

The scale is obviously different, the weapons are different but I do feel there is some similarity.

I dont think the real reason for it has anything to do with Islam. That is the convenient hook they have chosen for their violent urges. (They might think God told them to do it, but I think the Yorkshire Ripper said the same didn't he?)

I think this is partly a bloke thing - white, black or asian, it is about getting angry and getting righteous and doing something very violent to "make them pay" (whoever "they" are)

I dont mean all blokes are like this, I dont know what I mean really, but sometimes as a woman, I do despair.

Originally posted by sheffco

I tend to agree, that a person may be quite happy with four wives - a tent - a camel and a few goats, but why should they try and convince me of the same?

Knocking on your door are they? I suggest you treat them like the Mormons (also four wives, but no goats or camels to my knowledge) and tell them you're a satanist! That usually sends them packing. Let us know how you fare.

Originally posted by sheffco

The Muslim Council (Why do we Need one). It seems to be a bit of "Protesteth too Much"?

The Muslim Council lobbies on political, economic and social matters of interest to British Muslims. Source: Google.

There are similar organisations representing the Jewish and Hindu faiths.


Originally posted by sheffco

Vengeance is mine, as the saying goes, and if the leaders of the mosques persist in saying that the fundamentalists are not among them, then we should legislate for a more open control on what they preach.
Do you not realise how ridiculous this statement is? In effect, you've found the leaders of the mosques (they're called Imams by the way) guilty of harbouring fundamentalists whether they admit it or not! Talk about a kangeroo court!

And you want legislation for more 'open controls' on what Muslims can preach too? Hmmm, you'll be telling me what to think next, and then legislating to control what I hear. Wasn't there a book on this subject - "1984" I think it was called?


Originally posted by sheffco
Do they have the same "Secrets of the Confessional" as was offered to the guilty IRA members? After all, murder is a crime in all religious beliefs.

The Sacrement of the Penance, is where Catholics confess their sins to a Priest in absolute secrecy to receive God's forgiveness and be reconciled. There is no similar practice in any other Christian denomination, or, I believe, the Muslim faith.

Murder is a crime, irrespective of any religious belief or none.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what's your point, would it help if we post sections of the bible where it tells you to put people to the sword and strike down your neighbour for covetting your wife?

Cyclone, I think you are missing an important point here. Islam is the only one of the major religions which has not undergone a process of secularisation. In other words, what is written in the Koran is regarded as literal truth and its followers are expected to carry out its edicts to the letter in their daily lives. Moreover, no distinction is made in it between politics and religion. It is of course true that bloodthirsty passages can be found in the Judeao- Christian canon (i.e. in the old testament) but the vast majority of Christians would regard these as allegorical anachronisms rather than as literal justifications for violence.

Originally posted by DanSumption
I can't speak for polish_lady, but my point is that religion is a very dangerous thing and the sooner we rid ourselves of it the better.

And I already provided one such bible quote a few pages back; I can give you more if you want them.

not for my sake, I agree broadly with what you feel about all religion. Although your dislike seems to be rather more focus than mine. I just think it's a delusion that people suffer under.

The polish lady seemed to be singling out Islam as the only religion that had texts of that nature, which clearly isn't the case.

PS - why do you call them Moslems rather than Muslims?

LC - do all Muslims regard it as literal truth and follow it that closely? It would appear not, so, it's religous fanatics, which you get in every faith.

Originally posted by Cyclone
not for my sake, I agree broadly with what you feel about all religion. Although your dislike seems to be rather more focus than mine. I just think it's a delusion that people suffer under.

The polish lady seemed to be singling out Islam as the only religion that had texts of that nature, which clearly isn't the case.

PS - why do you call them Moslems rather than Muslims?

LC - do all Muslims regard it as literal truth and follow it that closely? It would appear not, so, it's religous fanatics, which you get in every faith.

of course, by no means all Muslims follow the Koran very closely, even though if asked the majority would probably say it was the literal truth. In previous ages in Europe, of course we did have religious fanatics who were probably every bit as ruthless in their contempt for human life as Al Qaida. However, this was several centuries ago, i.e. before the process of European secularisation which I mentioned earlier. Secularisation goes far beyond the separation of church and state. It implies attitudinal and behavioural changes also. Secular values are incompatible with those of religious fanaticism. Islamic values and secular values have not yet been fully reconciled. At some point they probably will be, but its likely to be a long hard road.

Originally posted by Cyclone


LC - do all Muslims regard it as literal truth and follow it that closely? It would appear not, so, it's religous fanatics, which you get in every faith.

Spot on Cyclone. There are plenty of religious fanatics (of different faiths) who support their warped views by a literal interpretation of their religious belief. Take, for example, this quote from a thread discussing abortion........

"abortion is against the will of God. It is as simple as that
Levicus {sic} 12:10"

I found this post quite chilling. No discussion, no debate, no argument - it's against the will of god, and it's as simple as that.

How do you communicate with someone who holds such religious dogma? It's like having a dialogue with the deaf. They are not open to reason or persuasion. They quote the tenets of their religious book, and take comfort and shelter in a literal intrepretation of its edicts.

Religious fanatics can be dangerous people if they decide to
act in the name of their god, like the fanatical American Christians murdering doctors who perform abortions.

Lordchav is right, Islam is in some ways a special case because it makes explicit the fact that the only law is religious law, so secularism is explicitly forbidden, as opposed to Christianity with its "render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's". It also claims that the Koran is the pure, unadulterated word of God, making is less amenable to "allegorical" readings than the Bible.

Another reason why this is important: in the excellent documentary film The Fog of War (http://www.sonyclassics.com/fogofwar/), one of former US Defence Secretary Robert McNamara's eleven lessons is "know your enemy". McNamara, who was in charge of defence at the time the USA went into Vietnam, says that the Vietnam war was entirely the result of the Americans' inability to get inside the Vietnamese mindset (which he only subsequently managed to do when he met and talked to his Vietnamese opposite number many years later).

I have heard many pundits, from all parts of the political spectrum, trying to analyse the motives behind last Thursday's attacks, but almost all have done so from a basically Western, secular mindset, y'know the "these terrorists are misguided if they think this is going to affect our determination to do X, Y and Z" type of thing. Taken from an extreme literalist Islamic viewpoint, it is not necessary that these attacks change our mind in any way, they may just be read as "doing one's duty to God".

As to why I write Moslem rather than Muslim... I dunno, that's just how it's spelt in my head. Both are I believe correct spellings, as they are transliterations from Arabic. Just as their holy book can be called the Koran, Qur'an, Quraan, Quran or Alcoran.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what's your point, would it help if we post sections of the bible where it tells you to put people to the sword and strike down your neighbour for covetting your wife?

Wishes - Wishes! some-one is obviously frustrated.
The Bible - The Quoran? They both exhort people to smite them mightily.
There is a quote, that "Islam will exist until man sets foot on the moon"

Originally posted by redrobbo
"abortion is against the will of God. It is as simple as that
Levicus {sic} 12:10"

I found this post quite chilling. No discussion, no debate, no argument - it's against the will of god, and it's as simple as that.
Yes, also good proof of the low level of intellectual development of many who call themselves Christians. Apart from the mis-spelling of Leviticus, there is also the fact that there is no Leviticus 12:10 (it only goes up to 12:8), there is no explicit reference to "abortion" (a term which I find it hard to believe existed at the time the scriptures were written), and all Leviticus 12, in full, has to say is:


1 The LORD said to Moses, 2 "Say to the Israelites: 'A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. 3 On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. 4 Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. 5 If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.

6 " 'When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. 7 He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
" 'These are the regulations for the woman who gives birth to a boy or a girl. 8 If she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering. In this way the priest will make atonement for her, and she will be clean.' "

And lamb-sacrifice to celebrate a birth is a practice which is extremely uncommon, even among fundamentalist Christians, nowadays.

And aside from all this, anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" and then cites Old Testament law at you is an ass, because a large part of Jesus's supposed mission on Earth was to retract some of that angry sh*t his father had layed down before him.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Spot on Cyclone. There are plenty of religious fanatics (of different faiths) who support their warped views by a literal interpretation of their religious belief. Take, for example, this quote from a thread discussing abortion........

"abortion is against the will of God. It is as simple as that
Levicus {sic} 12:10"

I found this post quite chilling. No discussion, no debate, no argument - it's against the will of god, and it's as simple as that.

How do you communicate with someone who holds such religious dogma? It's like having a dialogue with the deaf. They are not open to reason or persuasion. They quote the tenets of their religious book, and take comfort and shelter in a literal intrepretation of its edicts.

Religious fanatics can be dangerous people if they decide to
act in the name of their god, like the fanatical American Christians murdering doctors who perform abortions.

But the number of 'fanatical American Christians' murdering doctors can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. This is hardly comparable to the threat from a global terrorist movement inspired by religious fanaticism.

OOhHH! dear
Seem to have stirred up a bit there!
I do happen to know a bit about the So called Christian Religion, I was beaten but not bu**red by them as the saying goes.
And would dare to say, that I have a bit mores experience of fundamentalism, than some of the people posting here. Christian and Muslim!
Watch the Calender - - There is about 400 years difference, we burned witches, went on the crusades, it really is a process of civiisation!

Is anyone else here as deeply troubled as I am by the fact that all the major US dailies seem to be taking a similar line on the bombings to royjames and his mob (http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/2005/07/11/us_press_paints_a_very_different_picture.html)?

Why have we allowed those so called radical Muslims to come here in the first place? It looks like they left other countries because they felt we are a soft touch and can do and say what they like here.

I think the security services should pick up these people and interogate them about what they know about the bombing. Also, lets not tie their hands as to what methods of interogartion they can use - remember they are doing it for us so we should be greatful.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Why have we allowed those so called radical Muslims to come here in the first place? It looks like they left other countries because they felt we are a soft touch and can do and say what they like here.

I think the security services should pick up these people and interogate them about what they know about the bombing. Also, lets not tie their hands as to what methods of interogartion they can use - remember they are doing it for us so we should be greatful.

what 'so called radical muslims', do you mean the ones with a big sign hung around their neck?

How about next time someone accuses you of stalking them we advise that we don't tie the polices hands, afterall they are doing this for us and we should be greatful.
I seriously worry about the way this country is headed when I hear people say or post such things.

With an understanding attitude like that, Sid, it's no surprise you can't get a girlfriend.

Actually, yes, I think slimsid was stalking me yesterday. Who wants to join my lynch mob? No holds barred.

Originally posted by Cyclone
what 'so called radical muslims', do you mean the ones with a big sign hung around their neck?

How about next time someone accuses you of stalking them we advise that we don't tie the polices hands, afterall they are doing this for us and we should be greatful.
I seriously worry about the way this country is headed when I hear people say or post such things.

What? I have never stalked anyone. What are you on about?

I mean the ones who openly preach bile and hatred against this country and encourage others to kill and plant bombs. As for what methods of interogation are used does it matter as long as it helps catch the bombers before they kill again. Or are you more bothered about the welfare of the fanatics.

One final point - if it turns out that any of the bombers were killed in the explosion (lets hope for all our sakes they were) I really hope they won't be added to the death toll lists. This would give them the same status as the real victims. Quite possibly a few rats were killed in the underground tunnels by the bombs (they do scurry around down there). It would be much more appropriate to view the bombers' death more like this that as if a human being had died.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Why have we allowed those so called radical Muslims to come here in the first place? It looks like they left other countries because they felt we are a soft touch and can do and say what they like here.

I think the security services should pick up these people and interogate them about what they know about the bombing. Also, lets not tie their hands as to what methods of interogartion they can use - remember they are doing it for us so we should be greatful.

It's possible that the terrorists responsible were born and bred in the UK.

And aside from the moral and legal issues surrounding the rounding-up of suspects on grounds amounting to, effectively, no more than the religion they happen to adhere to, torture is a notoriously unreliable method of gleaning useful information.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
What? I have never stalked anyone. What are you on about?

I mean the ones who openly preach bile and hatred against this country and encourage others to kill and plant bombs. As for what methods of interogation are used does it matter as long as it helps catch the bombers before they kill again. Or are you more bothered about the welfare of the fanatics.

One final point - if it turns out that any of the bombers were killed in the explosion (lets hope for all our sakes they were) I really hope they won't be added to the death toll lists. This would give them the same status as the real victims. Quite possibly a few rats were killed in the underground tunnels by the bombs (they do scurry around down there). It would be much more appropriate to view the bombers' death more like this that as if a human being had died.

sorry Sid - in the new and enlightened British 3rd Reich, you are now living on borrowed time. Afterall, someone made an accusation, you are bound to deny it. I'm sure you'll change your tune after a little bit of 240 volts to the nipples.

Encouraging people to plant bombs is already a crime, so if that were proven then i'm sure there would be charges leveled.

How would you like the rule of law to be applied in this country. It seems like you'd like it to be applied equally to all those who you deem to be acceptable, but to remove the protections it affords us from those who you deem unsuitable.

It's nothing to do with being bothered about the welfare of fanatics, it's to do with upholding the rule of law, which must apply equally to everyone or no one. No exceptions just because you happen to not like them.

To get to grips with the Islamic threat you have to try to understand why they do what they do?
When you have Blair going to war against a soverign country without the backing of the UN and killing thousands of innocent I raqis its no wonder the muslims feel they have to strike back.
In other words what you do abroad is going to come to haunt you on our shores.
We are paying the price for our foreign policies and for having very slack borders,I feel sure this will not be the last time we have this kind of atrocity.
I feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones because of our goverments mistakes,they dont deserve this.

It is not to do with religion - I mean those people who openly incite terrorism. If they do this they may have valuable information which will help catch the killers. Surley this is the most important fact and whatever interogation methods are considered most effective should be employed. Who cares about these people - lets protect ourselves or next time it might be YOU or your children that is killed by a bomb.

Human rights only apply to human beings!

Originally posted by slimsid2000
It is not to do with religion - I mean those people who openly incite terrorism. If they do this they may have valuable information which will help catch the killers. Surley this is the most important fact and whatever interogation methods are considered most effective should be employed. Who cares about these people - lets protect ourselves or next time it might be YOU or your children that is killed by a bomb.

Human rights only apply to human beings!

No, human rights apply to everyone. Otherwise we can claim no moral highground for anything that we do.

Live by your ideals, or stop pretending to be a moral country.
It is immoral to torture, whatever the justification.

Originally posted by royjames
To get to grips with the Islamic threat you have to try to understand why they do what they do?
When you have Blair going to war against a soverign country without the backing of the UN and killing thousands of innocent I raqis its no wonder the muslims feel they have to strike back.
In other words what you do abroad is going to come to haunt you on our shores.
We are paying the price for our foreign policies and for having very slack borders,I feel sure this will not be the last time we have this kind of atrocity.
I feel sorry for those who have lost loved ones because of our goverments mistakes,they dont deserve this.

Given that the insurgency in iraq is being fuelled by muslims from outside the country, what makes you think that the bombings in london may have been carried out by iraqis?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
It is not to do with religion - I mean those people who openly incite terrorism. If they do this they may have valuable information which will help catch the killers. Surley this is the most important fact and whatever interogation methods are considered most effective should be employed. Who cares about these people - lets protect ourselves or next time it might be YOU or your children that is killed by a bomb.

Human rights only apply to human beings!

And you are happy for governments and secret squirrel organisations to decide who is human and who is not?

You are happy for MI5 to pick you up, detain you indefinantly without access to lawers or appeal and to torture you just because you fit the profile of the sort of person drawn to extremist groups (sad loner, misfit, never had a girlfriend, doesn't know how to interact, has no friends, low IQ etc, etc.)?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
.

Human rights only apply to human beings!

well said mate:thumbsup: totally agree

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Why have we allowed those so called radical Muslims to come here in the first place? It looks like they left other countries because they felt we are a soft touch and can do and say what they like here.


I am just gonna cut to the chase.

Religious fanatics for me is nonsense, although they exist, I think they are far from responsible for these attacks.

These are patsies.

A Governmental organised effort to injure as few people as possible while creating maximum terror.

This terror is manufactured, my opinions are based on evidence.

I hate to even think that our democracy would be capable, but this has only just happened and already there is a load of evidence to suggest my greatest fear.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Human rights only apply to human beings!

Your bloodlust is so strong I can almost smell it being emitted from my monitor... but hang on. Who gets to decided what constitutes a human being? The Nazis dehumanised the Jews, Jews dehumanise the Palestinians, the Brits dehumanised the 'colonials', and so on. If someone isn't human, I imagine you don't tend to feel quite so bad about doing very nasty things to them.

In fact, I would imagine similar thoughts of dehumanisation were running through the minds of whoever planted the bombs in London.

Originally posted by Zamo
just because you fit the profile of the sort of person drawn to extremist groups (sad loner, misfit, never had a girlfriend, doesn't know how to interact, has no friends, low IQ etc, etc.)?
:clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by DanSumption


And lamb-sacrifice to celebrate a birth is a practice which is extremely uncommon, even among fundamentalist Christians, nowadays.

And aside from all this, anyone who calls themselves a "Christian" and then cites Old Testament law at you is an ass, because a large part of Jesus's supposed mission on Earth was to retract some of that angry sh*t his father had layed down before him.

Celebrate the birth ? From the passage you quoted it sounds more like the poor woman has to offer the lamb as atonement for post-partal bleeding and the dove for some unspecified 'sin', - perhaps the sin is conceiving in the first place ? And why should she be deemed to be unclean for twice as long after the birth of a girl than a boy ?

I once ploughed my way through Josephus in an attempt to understand where the Jews were coming from and they seem to be of the same mind as George Bush, - "If you're not with us you're against us".

True about Christianity, - the OT should have no part in it, yet it's always the OT that Christian fundamentalists use to justify their extreme positions.

But going way OT here,- sorry mods :D

Originally posted by Cyclone
Given that the insurgency in iraq is being fuelled by muslims from outside the country, what makes you think that the bombings in london may have been carried out by iraqis?


I never said it was the work of Iraqis:rolleyes: I said it was muslims who probably carried out the attack,you have to remember the muslims dont have any other way of getting their own back.
I am not trying to defend them but you have to ask why they did it?
Bush and Blair are responsible for this attack,they have made our countries hated around the world for what they are doing in Iraq.

It must be the most difficult problem a country , which thinks of itself as democratic , decent ,fair and compassionate , has to face. To wit :----
In such a society how does one deal with political and/or terrorist groups who openly avow to destroy or seriously weaken that society ?
Do you use their methods of violence and/or torture and generally fight , "dirty" or do you , "stick to the rules " of a civilised society ?
In the former case , you might become morally corrupted and if you got rid of the threat , you may not be able to be ever snow white again .
On the other hand if , by playing it clean you let the thugs and terrorists take over , then no-one much would have any human rights.
This is very general but there are aspects which all these situations have in common. How to remain untarnished and defeat evil at the same time ?
For example , if the authorities in 1930 had succeeded in stamping out the Nazi party and had prevented their take-over , would human rights have suffered ? After all , Hitler had set out his aims precisely in the 1920's . Was our bombing of Germany on a par with their bombing ? If we hadn't killed and done some very unsavoury things in the war , we could have ended up being ruled by the Nazis.
These questions are never easy to answer , perhaps even impossible and it's a great pity we even have to consider them-------but unfortunately that's the world as it is , not as we would like it to be.

Originally posted by kirky
well said mate:thumbsup: totally agree you could be right,its time to take the gloves off now,sort out just who is in our country,those that have no legal status to be here should be deported the same day they are discovered.

no holding camps where they tie up the legal aid system and make the solicitors into millionares,ship them off ,let them re-apply from abroad. any one who has a legitimate claim should be processed,the known illegalls should be returned.

this may not cut down terrorist attacks,but it will cut the number of suspects that the authorities have to check up on.

if they scream human rights,then listen to them,but listen to them from their home land, every one i know says the same thing,if they didnt get free benefits they would not come over here,admitted some people are making a nice living off these people ,solicitors,advisors,landlords etc,and we put up with it,but now the hand that feeds has been bitten,its time to take a step back and see what went wrong, i dont think id,s are the answer,if you make it you can fake it, repatriation is in my opinion the only way to protect our selves

Mod. Note

Just a little reminder that peronal comments about otherforum members is not acceptable.

Please keep discussions away from there!

Joe

Originally posted by depoix
you could be right,its time to take the gloves off now,sort out just who is in our country,those that have no legal status to be here should be deported the same day they are discovered.

no holding camps where they tie up the legal aid system and make the solicitors into millionares,ship them off ,let them re-apply from abroad. any one who has a legitimate claim should be processed,the known illegalls should be returned.

this may not cut down terrorist attacks,but it will cut the number of suspects that the authorities have to check up on.

if they scream human rights,then listen to them,but listen to them from their home land, every one i know says the same thing,if they didnt get free benefits they would not come over here,admitted some people are making a nice living off these people ,solicitors,advisors,landlords etc,and we put up with it,but now the hand that feeds has been bitten,its time to take a step back and see what went wrong, i dont think id,s are the answer,if you make it you can fake it, repatriation is in my opinion the only way to protect our selves

how do you deport someone who doesn't tell you their country of origin or who's country of origin refuses to accept them back?

Cut down on the number of suspects, well i suppose it would.
But equally so would deporting every first born son between the ages of 18 - 25.

Originally posted by Cyclone
how do you deport someone who doesn't tell you their country of origin or who's country of origin refuses to accept them back?

Cut down on the number of suspects, well i suppose it would.
But equally so would deporting every first born son between the ages of 18 - 25. simple,send them back to their point of entry,or nearest one to it,let the countries that allow them to pass through put them up

Originally posted by royjames
I am not trying to defend them but you have to ask why they did it?
Bush and Blair are responsible for this attack,they have made our countries hated around the world for what they are doing in Iraq.

That's a dangerous argument because it could be used to cut both ways. If Bush & Blair are responsible for the London bombs, you could just as easily say that the London bombers were responsible for the attacks on ordinary Muslims that I hope won't happen/aren't happening.

If you seriously mean that Bush & Blair are responsible, you're really saying that the bombers were justified in what they did. At the very least you're saying that the bombers were not responsible.

I prefer to say that Bush & Blair were responsible for invading Iraq, the London bombers were responsible for the London bombs, and any bigots who attack ordinary Muslims because of last Thursday are responsible for what they do. Which, if any, of them were justified in what they did is a separate question.

Could also point out here that the current situation in Iraq (leaving aside how it got to be like this) is that the Shi'ite majority are trying to establish a majority government but are being attacked by people with the same aims as the people who (presumably) carried out the London bombings - i.e. the imposition of their version of ideological purity on their homelands, and possibly the world as a whole.

Finally, I agree with DanSumption that there is a fair amount of the Koran that's easy to interpret as inciting religious hatred and supporting holy massacres. A few other choice verses are 5:51, 9:5 and 9:30. See e.g.

http://www.quran.org.uk/out.php?LinkID=2

which is the most "sympathetic" translation I've been able to find. ['Uzair is the prophet Ezra, by the way, in case you look up 9:30.]

Again I agree with Dan - Muslims who are friendly towards non-Muslims have a selective blindness, or have allowed their humanity to get the better of their religion.

[Edit: Yes I know that the Old Testament also has some inflammatory passages, as I've noted elsewhere - but here we're talking about the presumed causes of last Thursday's atrocity.]

Originally posted by mojoworking
2001 is only 4 years ago. Are you forgetting that you were claiming I made the whole thing up and it never happened at all not too long ago?

Since then you've also revealed the startling news that your husband is of Italian ancestry, in which case I'd say there's very little chance of him becoming an IRA sympathiser as you earlier feared. I did NOT say you made the whole thing up! I said I knew the IRA received some funding from the US because they were posing as a charity and duped people into donating money to help irish people in distress. That is pretty much what the article you found says? Some of the article is an opinion offered by one man as to how the IRA wouldn't be able to cause as much damage without this funding.

Why not have Italian Catholics belonging to the Mafia, helping the IRA with their drug shipments and they could shelter each other when interpol came looking - it fits in beautifully with your earlier post that said muslim communities were sheltering the terrorists and they'd all stick together just because they were muslims!

Quote:

Originally posted by royjames
Some people will never accept the fact the koran does indeed tell its followers to fight the non beleivers and to kill them all,if you want me to show you the verses then let me know and I will glady show you.
Sharia law is there for all to see,some people need to wake up and stop hiding their heads in the sand,just how many bombs will it take for them to realise what is going on???
I despair sometimes at the english ,they deserve all they get.


Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Yeah, could you point me to the verses please.

Still waiting...........

Whilst on this topic... can people tell me what they think when Islam refers to 'Infidels'....

what is an infidel.... your views please.

5 mins of google found me this...

http://alhaqq.jeeran.com/


"The term infidel is a translation for the Arabic kaffir (plural Kuffar) which is usually taken to mean someone who does not believe in Allah (SWT) and the Message of the Prophet Muhammad (salla Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam)."

Thats me.

From the verse given earlier in this post by DamSumption, it seemed to me that an Infidel was somebody who did not believe in a book of God....

What do you think...

I have a notion that the crusaders used to refer to the muslims as "infidels". But I would say nowadays the term is pretty much used exclusively by muslims. Who else would use it?

Now this may be somewhat contraversial but I have looked through the Koiran and what I saw confirmed to me that the muslim faith is incompatable with the western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,
Men are superior to women(surah2.282
A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34
Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3
A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223
Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29
A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51
Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33
Does this not show the faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?

Ok so this is for BMW man,this shows you what we are up against.:thumbsup:
Oh and check out surah 9 :29.
That says it all I think.

Yeah, its an interesting point, since the word remains the same but the meaning have become different, that is Infidel.

So still awaiting a response to the post I put on??

Originally posted by royjames
Now this may be somewhat contraversial but I have looked through the Koiran and what I saw confirmed to me that the muslim faith is incompatable with the western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,
Men are superior to women(surah2.282
A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34
Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3
A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223
Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29
A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51
Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33
Does this not show the faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?

Ok so this is for BMW man,this shows you what we are up against.:thumbsup:
Oh and check out surah 9 :29.
That says it all I think.

Is this true or is this a way of interpreting the Koran?? Regardless i often feel that religion is often an evil thing in thsi world as well as the human being itself!!!

Originally posted by royjames
Now this may be somewhat contraversial but I have looked through the Koiran and what I saw confirmed to me that the muslim faith is incompatable with the western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,
Men are superior to women(surah2.282
A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34
Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3
A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223
Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29
A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51
Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33
Does this not show the faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?

Ok so this is for BMW man,this shows you what we are up against.:thumbsup:

Would you mind telling me where the quotations were from aswell, I would be interested to see if the site or publication where they were copied from is Wahabi or similar. Thanks.

Originally posted by youwhatref
Is this true or is this a way of interpreting the Koran?? Regardless i often feel that religion is often an evil thing in thsi world as well as the human being itself!!!

Well, I would say it is an interpretation to meet ones own political needs, since unless you read the Hadith aswell (I take it you have done that Mr James?) then its increasing difficult to translate correctly the terms of the Koran itself. Equally, the Wahabi's are a also guilty of meeting their own political means by using religion.

Originally posted by royjames
Now this may be somewhat contraversial but I have looked through the Koiran and what I saw confirmed to me that the muslim faith is incompatable with the western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,
Men are superior to women(surah2.282
A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34
Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3
A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223
Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29
A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51
Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33
Does this not show the faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?

Ok so this is for BMW man,this shows you what we are up against.:thumbsup:
Oh and check out surah 9 :29.
That says it all I think. Agreed. Things in any 'bible' when translated and taken literally can cause immense problems. I think there may be something in there that also says a wife is allowed to castrate her husband if he is unfaithful!

I think at the end of the day it is the governments of which ever country that cause the problems for the population of that country and we have to bear the brunt of their dubious dealings. At one point Osama Bin Laden was an ally of the American government, they helped each other out until they had a falling out about something and it all turned sour.

We only find out snippets of information which are no good to us. The governments always have a scape goat to blame, an agency that didn't do their job properly, a spin doctor, if all else fails kick out the leader of the party and let the rest of the party vote in a new leader - we have no say in that as voters.

The UN are also a dubious organization but are good at covering their tracks by always having a patsy to blame. They made a right mess in The Belgian Congo.

Muslims and Christians etc have been warring forever, this is different. It is politics not religion that is behind this. This world is crazy!

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Would you mind telling me where the quotations were from aswell, I would be interested to see if the site or publication where they were copied from is Wahabi or similar. Thanks.
They're not quotes, they're interpretations, and obviously ones that royjames has copied and pasted somewhat ineptly, but they're not far off what the Koran says:

Men are superior to women(surah2.282) = "get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women"

A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34) = "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);"

Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3) = "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;"

A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223) = "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand;"

Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29) = "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51) = "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33)= incorrect reference, this is actually from 5:34 "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

Admittedly these are all from an English translation of the Koran, so there may be differences from the Arabic, but I would say that the meanings are pretty clear on the whole.

Originally posted by tulip
Muslims and Christians etc have been warring forever, this is different. It is politics not religion that is behind this. This world is crazy!
Unfortunately it is politics and religion that are behind this. Politics plays a large part, and is the catalyst for unrest which prompts people to look to religion, but I still say that as long as there are people around who take literally every word of a book which was written way back when people still thought the wheelbarrow was a pretty neat gadget, we are in big trouble.

Actually, all of this has got me thinking... now that the government are introducing a law to make incitement to religious hatred a crime, could we get the Koran banned? And the Bible too? Both are riddled with passages like the ones quoted here.

I've always been against that particular bill until now, but I suddenly feel myself warming to it.

Originally posted by DanSumption
They're not quotes, they're interpretations, and obviously ones that royjames has copied and pasted somewhat ineptly, but they're not far off what the Koran says:

Men are superior to women(surah2.282) = "get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women"

A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34) = "As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly);"

Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3) = "If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four;"

A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223) = "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand;"

Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29) = "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51) = "O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust."

Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33)= incorrect reference, this is actually from 5:34 "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;"

Admittedly these are all from an English translation of the Koran, so there may be differences from the Arabic, but I would say that the meanings are pretty clear on the whole. They are translations too. Anything can be done with translations and interpretations, how simple is it to even put a different inflection on something? Look at the interpretations of Notradamus, his writings are interpreted to suit whoever is doing the interpretation. Bibles have been re-written over and over to suit whoever the ruler of the particular country has been. Just taking Christianity for instance how many different groups are based on Christianity? They all believe different things. The Simpsons has a better angle on religion than most people!

I'm sure you are aware Dan, that if these interpretations are to hold any water, their source is also very important.

Hi all,

First of all, I'm not a religious scholar, but I wanted to throw in my twopence-halfpenny on the issues raised by Roy and his quotes from the Koran.

To provide background, my Koran is a 1934 translation by Abdullah Yusuf Ali. I have no intention of going through everything posted, but here are a couple of alternative views :

Roy's Quotation :
Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29)

In my copy, the relevant section starts "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day...." and finishes with "...until they pay the jizyah with willing submission, and feel tehmselves subdued" The jizyah is a religious tax - this was how arrangements were made in the Middle Ages. Similar to the way in which Christian Princes and prelates had jews pay taxes in return for a degree of tolerance.

A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend
My copy says "Take not the Jews and Christians as your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other." This could be interpreted as a warning to Muslims not to trust Jews and Christians, as well as being an admonition to avoid their company. However, it does state that should a Muslim take a Christian or Jew as a friend, then the Muslim becomes "as them".

Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33)
My version states "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and maim for mischief throughtout the land is : " and then indeed the punishments above.
Again, waging war is rather different to resisting; and Christianity and Judaism are not known in their Holy Books for holding back against unbelievers, either in this life or the next.

A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223)
The language used in my copy is rather more archaic :
"Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when and how you will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him in the hereafter and give these good tidings to those who believe"
I would agree that this seems to put women into a submissive position to men, BUT there is also the hint here that you will have to answer to God for your actions; this might indicate that God expects self control in the relationships between man and wife.

Anyway.....what I'm trying to say is that there are a number of translations from the Arabic to English, some more biased than others. Also, part of Islam is the interpretation of suras where necessary. For example, many contemporary Islamic scholars state that jizyah need no longer be paid by non-Muslims in Muslim countries - the context has changed with time.

My understanding is that this does happen in more liberal Muslim thinking - there is, in fact, some interpretation applied to allow Islam to function in the modern world, provided that the central thrust of the faith is not diluted.

I may be totally wrong here and apologies to anyone who's beliefs I've stamped on.

Joe

Originally posted by DanSumption
Actually, all of this has got me thinking... now that the government are introducing a law to make incitement to religious hatred a crime, could we get the Koran banned? And the Bible too? Both are riddled with passages like the ones quoted here.

I've always been against that particular bill until now, but I suddenly feel myself warming to it. Well, over here religion is being banned, I'm sure the news of all the controversal stuff over 'a country under one god' which has been removed from the pledge of allegiance and no goverment buildings are allowed to allude to any religion, puplic schools are not allowed to teach religion etc, etc, etc But plenty of every day people have the Ten Commandments outside their houses!

Originally posted by tulip
Well, over here religion is being banned, I'm sure the news of all the controversal stuff over 'a country under one god' which has been removed from the pledge of allegiance and no goverment building are allowed to allude to any religion, puplic schools are not allowed to teach religion etc, etc, etc
Really? If that's true then it's wonderful news. Nothing new, of course, since the American Constitution explicitly separates church and state, but it's great that they're actually doing something about it at last.

Originally posted by DanSumption
Unfortunately it is politics and religion that are behind this. Politics plays a large part, and is the catalyst for unrest which prompts people to look to religion, but I still say that as long as there are people around who take literally every word of a book which was written way back when people still thought the wheelbarrow was a pretty neat gadget, we are in big trouble. Yes, I agree with that. Religion in my opinion has always been used to control people. Where I live now there is a large Mormon community and so much hypocrisy too!

Originally posted by venger
I am just gonna cut to the chase.

Religious fanatics for me is nonsense, although they exist, I think they are far from responsible for these attacks.

These are patsies.

A Governmental organised effort to injure as few people as possible while creating maximum terror.

This terror is manufactured, my opinions are based on evidence.

I hate to even think that our democracy would be capable, but this has only just happened and already there is a load of evidence to suggest my greatest fear.

Do I understand you correctly venger, that you are actually claiming that the London bombings were manufactured by the government? Our government? To create "maximum terror"?

Please share your evidence with us - you did clearly state that you have evidence for your opinons, in fact "a load of evidence".

I await you evidence with interest.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Do I understand you correctly venger, that you are actually claiming that the London bombings were manufactured by the government? Our government? To create "maximum terror"?

Please share your evidence with us - you did clearly state that you have evidence for your opinons, in fact "a load of evidence".

I await you evidence with interest. I have been DREADING anyone finding that kind of evidence. It is something that is almost too difficult to say that our governments could be responsible for this! I have discussed what would happen if ever this awful scenerio became reality with only one person and their response was 'nothing would happen because they'd find a scape goat' but I think the entire word would fall apart:|

Originally posted by venger
I am just gonna cut to the chase.

Religious fanatics for me is nonsense, although they exist, I think they are far from responsible for these attacks.

These are patsies.

A Governmental organised effort to injure as few people as possible while creating maximum terror.

This terror is manufactured, my opinions are based on evidence.

I hate to even think that our democracy would be capable, but this has only just happened and already there is a load of evidence to suggest my greatest fear. I think you need to share this evidence with us, now!

Well Venger,

Looks like it's 'put up or shut up' time.

I just hope the evidence is such that it meets the requirements for use in a criminal court, and not for use in the editorial conference of the National Enquirer.

I'm sorry, but lazy talk is so cheap - post us some links so we can share in your knowledge.

Joe

Originally posted by royjames
Now this may be somewhat contraversial but I have looked through the Koiran and what I saw confirmed to me that the muslim faith is incompatable with the western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,
Men are superior to women(surah2.282
A man may punish his wife by beating her(surah4.34
Aman may marry up to 4 wives at the same time(surah4:3
A wife is a sex object for her husband(surah2:223
Muslims must fight until their opponents submit to islam(surah9:29
A muslim must not take a jew or a christian for a friend(surah5:51
Resisting islam is punished by death,crucifixation or the cutting off of the hands and feet(surah5:33
Does this not show the faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?

Ok so this is for BMW man,this shows you what we are up against.:thumbsup:
Oh and check out surah 9 :29.
That says it all I think.

Now this may be somewhat controversial but I have looked through the bible and what I saw confirmed to me that the christian faith is incompatible with western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Can royjames advise me if that includes Wales and Scotland, or do I have to go across the Channel to make my purchases?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, can royjames tell me what he thinks would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). Can royjames tell me how do I know? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Can royjames advise me if I can smite them?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Can royjames tell me if I am obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Can royjames tell me if my vision has to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. Can royjames tell me if his party are running on a ticket to abolish barber shops? There might be some votes in it?

Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. Can royjames tell me if I can still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.

Can royjames tell me if it is really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - see Leviticus 24:10- 16. Or could we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws - see Lev. 20:14?

To paraphrase royjames, does this not show the christian faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?

Was hoping people were going to ignore venger's gibberish and concentrate on discussing reality.

personally i think its people from all over the uk as in sheffield alone there has bin 3 bombs in total that i have herd of i think its people who we see every day and it makes sence that they choose to bomb sheffield as its the main producer of steel now if a war breaks out we will be needing the steel to make weapons i will tell u summet im never going to medowhall again unless i have to
i also think its beca7use of america they got the wrong bloke bin laden sadamm they sahud have got both of em an strung em up by there toes

Two wrongs dont make a right red?
As it stands now the koran is not compatable with the liberal western world.







QUOTE]Originally posted by redrobbo
Now this may be somewhat controversial but I have looked through the bible and what I saw confirmed to me that the christian faith is incompatible with western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Can royjames advise me if that includes Wales and Scotland, or do I have to go across the Channel to make my purchases?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, can royjames tell me what he thinks would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). Can royjames tell me how do I know? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.


So two wrongs dont make a right do they red?
The muslim faith as told in the koran is not compatable with the liberal western world.



Your missing the point red,two wrongs dont make a right?
I dont think most muslims are terrorists but their holy book gives those who beleive it to be right the reasons to do what they do.
Maybe the best course of action is to get rid of all religeous connections then we might have lasting peace?
To Joe,yes you maybe can make some distinctions with the Koran,I did not put my take on the quotes I gave, they came from a simple google search of the koran.
I still hold to the view its not compatable with the liberal western world.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Can royjames advise me if I can smite them?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Can royjames tell me if I am obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Can royjames tell me if my vision has to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. Can royjames tell me if his party are running on a ticket to abolish barber shops? There might be some votes in it?

Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. Can royjames tell me if I can still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.

Can royjames tell me if it is really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - see Leviticus 24:10- 16. Or could we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws - see Lev. 20:14?

To paraphrase royjames, does this not show the christian faith to be at odds with our values and way of life? [/QUOTE]

Originally posted by sunshiner
personally i think its people from all over the uk as in sheffield alone there has bin 3 bombs in total that i have herd of i think its people who we see every day and it makes sence that they choose to bomb sheffield as its the main producer of steel now if a war breaks out we will be needing the steel to make weapons i will tell u summet im never going to medowhall again unless i have to
i also think its beca7use of america they got the wrong bloke bin laden sadamm they sahud have got both of em an strung em up by there toes

We don't make steel any more and the bomb warnings in Sheffield have been false alarms. Hell, they even forgot to evacuate my organisation and we were on the doorstep of the major scare. :)

Yes, I'm sure the US would love to get hold of Bin Laden. If you know how to, please let the CIA know 'cos they'd be really grateful.

The latest thoughts are that there is probably an extended team of maybe 20 people in or around London - logistics, spotters, safe houses, financiers as well as the bomb makers and planters. I doubt there are cells of terrorists all over teh UK.

Joe

Originally posted by sunshiner
i will tell u summet im never going to medowhall again unless i have to


Err... pardon. I'm trying to make sense of this sunshiner. Why aren't you ever going to Meadowhall again, and what would be the exceptions that constitute "unless I have to"? I'm puzzled. :confused:

Originally posted by redrobbo
Err... pardon. I'm trying to make sense of this sunshiner. Why aren't you ever going to Meadowhall again, and what would be the exceptions that constitute "unless I have to"? I'm puzzled. :confused:

Redrobbo,

Some people, not me, I should add, go to Meadowhell for pleasure to worship in the halls of Mammon.

As a man of taste and refinement this may be a shock to you. ;)

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Redrobbo,

Some people, not me, I should add, go to Meadowhell for pleasure to worship in the halls of Mammon.

As a man of taste and refinement this may be a shock to you. ;)

Joe

Thank you Joe for this helpful explanation. I was only hoping that sunshiner wasn't going to make an exception in not going to Meadowhall when the sales are on. Less competition for the bargains you see! :hihi:

Originally posted by JoePritchard
*big snip*We don't make steel any more. Joe

off topic - but when did we stop making steel?

Roy, as red just pointed out, OT fundamentalist christianity, is no longer compatible with the 21st century world either. In fact, can you show us a major world religion that IS? except possibly Buddhism?

Originally posted by rubydazzler
off topic - but when did we stop making steel?



when the world had enough spoons :)

Originally posted by rubydazzler
off topic - but when did we stop making steel?

Roy, as red just pointed out, OT fundamentalist christianity, is no longer compatible with the 21st century world either. In fact, can you show us a major world religion that IS? except possibly Buddhism?

Yes, but those facts don't fit in with Fuhrer Griffins misaligned view of the world.

It always amazes me how most people think that Muslims around the world are forced to be a Muslim...


One thing is certain, the dynamic growth of Islam cannot be dismissed.

One of the most common 'complaints' against islam seems to be the verses from the Quran relating to 'beating your wife'....

hmm, wonder what the end of week figures will be for domestic violence in the UK????????????? After a few jars.....

Originally posted by royjames
Two wrongs dont make a right red?
As it stands now the koran is not compatable with the liberal western world.


I quite agree with you that two wrongs don't make a right, but then I've never claimed they did Roy.

But, using your logic, I've demonstrated that, as it stands, the bible is not compatible with the liberal western world.

Of course both claims are nonsense. It is the literal interpretation of religious teachings, by fanatics and fundamentalists, that pose a threat to the well being of humanity.

Three examples.....

1. Jonestown, Guyana, (1978: mass murder and suicide of 913 followers of the People's Temple, new religious movement)
2. Aum Shinrikyo (1995: 12 dead, over 5,000 injured. Supreme Truth doomsday sect)
3. Bali bombings (2002: 202 dead, 300 injured. Born-again Islamists)

Originally posted by pinlock
It always amazes me how most people think that Muslims around the world are forced to be a Muslim...
I'm not sure what your point is here, but certainly anyone who is born a Moslem is forced to remain one for all of their life. The punishment for apostates given in the Hadith could not possibly be much clearer: "whoever changes his religion, kill him".

Originally posted by sunshiner
personally i think its people from all over the uk as in sheffield alone there has bin 3 bombs in total that i have herd of i think its people who we see every day and it makes sence that they choose to bomb sheffield as its the main producer of steel now if a war breaks out we will be needing the steel to make weapons i will tell u summet im never going to medowhall again unless i have to
i also think its beca7use of america they got the wrong bloke bin laden sadamm they sahud have got both of em an strung em up by there toes Firstly I would like to congratulate you on your user name, it's very original and suits you to a tee.

I doubt very much they would target sheffield because of it's steel - cutlery maybe?

I don't blame you for staying away from meadow hall, if anything happened people wouldn't be able to find their way out!

Originally posted by tulip


I don't blame you for staying away from meadow hall, if anything happened people wouldn't be able to find their way out!

You are missing the 'feel' on the street here in Britain tulip, probably because you live in Oregon. Londoners, and the rest of us in the country, will not be defeated by the terrorists. We are solidy going about our normal business.

We should not be advocating anyone changing their routines, including shopping at Meadowhall. You've already congratulated me for being determined to go to a birthday party in London and use the tube.

If sunshiner is considering staying away from Meadowhall because of a perceived terrorist theat, then he/she may as well stay indoors for the rest of their life and go nowhere - in case of a terrorist attack.

We will not be defeated. To change our lifestyles because of the fear of a terrorist attack quite simply means the terrorists will have won. We will be more vigilant, but we will not stop at home and cower!

Red

Originally posted by pinlock
It always amazes me how most people think that Muslims around the world are forced to be a Muslim...


One thing is certain, the dynamic growth of Islam cannot be dismissed.

One of the most common 'complaints' against islam seems to be the verses from the Quran relating to 'beating your wife'....

hmm, wonder what the end of week figures will be for domestic violence in the UK????????????? After a few jars.....

Inexcusable though they are, at least the latter beatings you refer to are random acts carried out by bullies and drunks.

Thankfully they are not institutionalised violence against women done in the name of religion and with the express blessing of Allah/Mohammed.

Originally posted by redrobbo
You are missing the 'feel' on the street here in Britain tulip, probably because you live in Oregon. Londoners, and the rest of us in the country, will not be defeated by the terrorists. We are solidy going about our normal business.

We should not be advocating anyone changing their routines, including shopping at Meadowhall. You've already congratulated me for being determined to go to a birthday party in London and use the tube.

If sunshiner is considering staying away from Meadowhall because of a perceived terrorist theat, then he/she may as well stay indoors for the rest of their life and go nowhere - in case of a terrorist attack.

We will not be defeated. To change our lifestyles because of the fear of a terrorist attack quite simply means the terrorists will have won. We will be more vigilant, but we will not stop at home and cower!

Red Oh dear, I'm sorry! :D I think Sunshiner lightened my mood a little too much. I went to Meadow Hall once and I couldn't find my way out, I felt helplessly lost. Of course I think people should carry on their lives as normally as possible and do whatever they like and not be afraid to live the way they want because of terrorist threats. I live in Idaho btw. It doesn't stop me worrying about where this is all going to end but I will carry on travelling by what ever means is necessary and feel free to go where I want:)

Originally posted by tulip
I don't blame you for staying away from meadow hall, if anything happened people wouldn't be able to find their way out!
I don't blame you for staying away from Meadowhall either, although not for the same reason as tulip :D

Originally posted by tulip
Oh dear, I'm sorry! :D I think Sunshiner lightened my mood a little too much. I went to Meadow Hall once and I couldn't find my way out, I felt helplessly lost.

This is like listening to my granny!

Originally posted by mojoworking
This is like listening to my granny! Well, that is hardly surprising deary, I think your granny might be insulted though because she is probably much younger than me! It was over 10 years ago when I was at Meadowhall we went by horse & cart in those days., not like now with that new-fangled supertram thing. God I even remember the days when Sheffield had a town centre :thumbsup:

Originally posted by tulip
I live in Idaho btw.

Oops! My geography (or is it my memory) is at fault.

However, having read your posts on the other London bombings thread, and now reading your posts here, I full accept that you are as one with the Brits back home - we will not be defeated!

Thanks for the links DanSumption. That's just the spirit we need to see and hear about. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by tulip
Well, that is hardly surprising deary, I think your granny might be insulted though because she is probably much younger than me! It was over 10 years ago when I was at Meadowhall we went by horse & cart in those days., not like now with that new-fangled supertram thing. God I even remember the days when Sheffield had a town centre :thumbsup:

But tulip, you're only 40 next year. For me to have a granny "much younger" than 40 would probably be a biological impossibility (cue chav jokes).

Originally posted by mojoworking
But tulip, you're only 40 next year. For me to have a granny "much younger" than 40 would probably be a biological impossibility (cue chav jokes). Crikey! You've been doing detective work on me now!

Originally posted by tulip
Crikey! You've been doing detective work on me now!

Better make sure you stick to the truth then. You never know who's watching ;)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Better make sure you stick to the truth then. You never know who's watching ;) oh, but we all know big brother is watching every move;) BTW I've just realised, you saying I'm 40 next year ........ that's true but I'm not 39 yet you bugger:D

Originally posted by mojoworking
Inexcusable though they are, at least the latter beatings you refer to are random acts carried out by bullies and drunks.

Thankfully they are not institutionalised violence against women done in the name of religion and with the express blessing of Allah/Mohammed.

Remember when the Koran was written that women were goods and chattles to be done with as the husband decided - beating them lightly with a stick no wider than your thumb was probably considerably better than the treatment they were used to recieving! Trying to apply the morals of the current age to a religious text hundreds of years old is foolish (at best).

Originally posted by evildrneil
Remember when the Koran was written that women were goods and chattles to be done with as the husband decided - beating them lightly with a stick no wider than your thumb was probably considerably better than the treatment they were used to recieving! Trying to apply the morals of the current age to a religious text hundreds of years old is foolish (at best).

Are you saying that Muslim women are treated fairly and equally in the 21st century?

I'm not religious at all and would hesitate to praise any form of dogma, but I've noticed that certain aspects of the Christian religious texts are revised or updated from time to time in accordance with shifting modern values (eg the wedding ceremony). This can only be a good thing.

Conversely, it's highly significant that this revision doesn't appear to happen in Islam and so the Koran still contains charmingly anachronistic passages such as "how to beat your wife the Muslim way" (and a lot more besides).

This intransigence is possibly one reason why so many people have such a negative view of Islam

Originally posted by redrobbo
Now this may be somewhat controversial but I have looked through the bible and what I saw confirmed to me that the christian faith is incompatible with western values.
Here are some quotes to digest,

Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Can royjames advise me if that includes Wales and Scotland, or do I have to go across the Channel to make my purchases?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, can royjames tell me what he thinks would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). Can royjames tell me how do I know? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Can royjames advise me if I can smite them?

I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states that he should be put to death. Can royjames tell me if I am obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Can royjames tell me if my vision has to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. Can royjames tell me if his party are running on a ticket to abolish barber shops? There might be some votes in it?

Lev. 11:6-8 says that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean. Can royjames tell me if I can still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot.

Can royjames tell me if it is really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - see Leviticus 24:10- 16. Or could we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws - see Lev. 20:14?

To paraphrase royjames, does this not show the christian faith to be at odds with our values and way of life?
I see that you have just taken a few passages from levicticus in the King James Version.
The whole bible is full of contradictions and is also...subject to interpretation.


What you have to realise though is that the first bible was only translated and put together in the 16th century, by scholars that inserted their own interperetations of their translations.

Since this book is about life around 2005 years ago..(excluding the old testament) the way of life has changed somewhat and the bible does state, that the people should obey the laws of the government of the day, which rectfies any of the passages that you have mentioned.

The koran however, Does not allow for the changes nor does it allow any government to dictate any other law.

We seem to go from the scriptwriting of "Desperate Housewives" of Wisteria Drive, to the rantings of desperate fanatics from all sides of the religious spectrum.
I once was informed by a Turkish Muslim, who incidentaly would eat a pork chop if the steak was a bit smaller, of a way to make the wife of a few years, and a few children more attractive - - sexually! I won't explain here, but it makes a good tale in the bar.

Originally posted by rubydazzler
off topic - but when did we stop making steel?

Roy, as red just pointed out, OT fundamentalist christianity, is no longer compatible with the 21st century world either. In fact, can you show us a major world religion that IS? except possibly Buddhism?

We no longer make structural steel in quantities to be a strategic resource. We process steel, and manufacture some specialist steels in small amounts, but we don't make it the way we used to. The Koreans, I believe, provided all the structural stuff for the Don Valley builds - though I may be wrong there.

Joe

Originally posted by mojoworking
Are you saying that Muslim women are treated fairly and equally in the 21st century?

I never made anything like that calim - however can you point out anywhere where people are all treated equally and faily?

I'm not religious at all and would hesitate to praise any form of dogma, but I've noticed that certain aspects of the Christian religious texts are revised or updated from time to time in accordance with shifting modern values (eg the wedding ceremony). This can only be a good thing.

Conversely, it's highly significant that this revision doesn't appear to happen in Islam and so the Koran still contains charmingly anachronistic passages such as "how to beat your wife the Muslim way" (and a lot more besides).

So how often has the bible been revised? Equating the marriage ceremony with the core religious tract shows a rather limited understanding of religion!

You will quite happily claim all the bad things for islam - have youtake a look for any good things? Try out these:

On the Treatment of Women
Narrated Mu'awiyah al-Qushayri: I went to the Apostle of Allah (pbuh) and asked him: "What do you say (command) about our wives?" He replied: "Give them food what you have for yourself, and clothe them by which you clothe yourself, and do not beat them, and do not revile them." (Sunan Abu Dawud: Book 11, Number 2139) "The best of you is one who is best towards his family and I am best towards the family". (At-Tirmithy). "None but a noble man treats women in an honourable manner. And none but an ignoble treats women disgracefully". (At-Tirmithy).

This intransigence is possibly one reason why so many people have such a negative view of Islam

Don't assume everyone share your Islamophobia - it is after all a very fast growing religion at the moment - and thats by conversion - so manypeople out there must see something positive to it...

Originally posted by sheffco
We seem to go from the scriptwriting of "Desperate Housewives" of Wisteria Drive, to the rantings of desperate fanatics from all sides of the religious spectrum.
I once was informed by a Turkish Muslim, who incidentaly would eat a pork chop if the steak was a bit smaller, of a way to make the wife of a few years, and a few children more attractive - - sexually! I won't explain here, but it makes a good tale in the bar.

I'd say it's more like the confused ramblings of a bored soccer mom, sheffco ;)

Originally posted by evildrneil
Don't assume everyone share your Islamophobia - it is after all a very fast growing religion at the moment - and thats by conversion - so manypeople out there must see something positive to it...

I bet not even Osama would claim that Islam has got a warm and fuzzy positive image right now. Don't assume everyone shares your blinkered armchair PC view of the world

Having worked for oil companies most of my life, I do have a bit of experience in the "doodlebuggers wives" situation.
Don't take them with you. The religious police are liable to cane them for wearing western style dress.
The indiginous population are likely to regard them as ladies of low morals, meanwhile lusting after blonde fair skinned maidens.
The traffic can be stopped in down town squares, while you are expected to watch the Amputations/Executions.
I have always had to go through a process of work permits and Identification, travel permits and visas. Usually shadowed by a local with the same job title, but none of the qualifications.
Religion? People from hot countries (Climate) tend to be indolent, Lie under the tree til the fruit falls off.
When they hear, Via - initially transistor radio's, then later films and TV, that there is a better way of existing, they flock to join. Welcome says the do-gooders and the bleeding hearts brigade - - - But why try and change it? says the people who were here in the first place.
Some of the post's here, filled with quotations from different scripts? A bit like "Torquemada" - - which century was that? About level with the Muslim Calendar
So, let's have laws that equate to the beliefs. A few beheadings and the odd amputation for those true believers would not go amiss.

The other side to conversion is of course apostacy. The tolerance of a religion, and of its adherents, can ultimately be judged by this - i.e. by attitudes to those who choose not to believe or who decide to believe in another faith. As far as I am aware, in most or all Muslim countries (with the possible exception of Turkey, which is partly secularised) apostacy carries condign punishment - even in some cases a death sentence. Even in Western countries, a muslim who declares his or her apostacy is likely to be ostracised by his or her family.

As far as the oft-repeated assertion that Islam is the fastest growing religion and that this is due to voluntary conversion, well, let us see the evidence. If it is growing relative to other religions, then it is more likely in my view due to higher fertility rates in muslim communities (in both Western countries and in muslim countries) and also due to declining belief in organised religion amongst peoples of Christian and other faiths - i.e. in tolerant socieites where apostacy is allowed.

Apostacy: although the Koran seems to offer some leeway, the Hadith says "he who changes his religion, kill him", and this forms the basis for Sharia law. This is the "crime" of which Salman Rushdie was found guilty (he was not, as most people seem to think, sentenced to death just because he wrote some bad stuff about Islam, but specifically because he himself had abandoned Islam).

The punishment differs for women, who are only sentenced to life imprisonment, and for those who converted to Islam at some point in their life, who are to be allowed a chance to repent (i.e. return to Islam) before killing them, as opposed to born-Moslems who are to be killed regardless.

More information here (http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostacy.htm).

Originally posted by mojoworking
I bet not even Osama would claim that Islam has got a warm and fuzzy positive image right now. Don't assume everyone shares your blinkered armchair PC view of the world

You do seem to have a very Manichaean view of the world - I didn't claim that Islam has a warm fuzzy image - merely that you are following the old fanatics line of showing only what backs up your own personal prejiduces...

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The other side to conversion is of course apostacy. The tolerance of a religion, and of its adherents,

Unfortunately, the Apostles of Muslimism seem to be trying to recruit converts by terrorism. - - - Believe or else!
Do they belong here? - - Should we have to listen to their protestations of the true faith?
What are they trying to change? I like my country, and am quite happy to leave their countries alone.
However, I would go along with the theorie of finding their leaders, and bombing them back to the desert location they seem to favour.
I don't envy their way of life, and don't wish to change it

Originally posted by evildrneil
You do seem to have a very Manichaean view of the world - I didn't claim that Islam has a warm fuzzy image - merely that you are following the old fanatics line of showing only what backs up your own personal prejiduces...


I assure you I have absolutely no prejudices against anyone on the grounds of colour or race.

But how come everytime anyone tries to discuss the faults or failings of Islam you seem unusually keen to obscure the truth?

Dan,

A similar case to that of Rushdie is that of Ibn Warraq (not his real name). He is an apostate and wrote a book entitled 'Why I am Not A Muslim'. He had to change his name and, like Rushdie, is in fear of his life. Details of Warraq's career, and also of a website with which he is associated, are given below. Judge for yourself.


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

More information here (http://www.al-islam.org/short/apostacy.htm). [/B][/QUOTE]

http://www.secularislam.org/Default.htm

Originally posted by mojoworking
I assure you I have absolutely no prejudices against anyone on the grounds of colour or race.

But how come everytime anyone tries to discuss the faults or failings of Islam you seem unusually keen to obscure the truth?

Where have I obscured the truth? I have merely pointed out the side of Islam that you continually ignore. I'm afraid your posts show a very high degree of prejiduce and intollerance of Islam.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I assure you I have absolutely no prejudices against anyone on the grounds of colour or race.

But how come everytime anyone tries to discuss the faults or failings of Islam you seem unusually keen to obscure the truth?

Can I just say it once again politely before I get really hacked off?

Islam is a religion and not a race.

Alastair

Originally posted by evildrneil
Where have I obscured the truth? I have merely pointed out the side of Islam that you continually ignore. I'm afraid your posts show a very high degree of prejiduce and intollerance of Islam.

If you say it's prejudiced and intolerant to point out how many aspects of Islam are incompatible with 21st century western values (especially the treatment of women), then I'm afraid you are obscuring the truth.

Conspiricies is the name.
This is England. "Ther'll Always Be and England" as the song goes. We were quite happy being England, and remained so throughout the war, the IRA troubles, and now the threat of Islam.
Seems clear to me - - if you are different - - you were imported - - if you don't like it - - go home to where your religion is indiginous.
This great endeavour to spread the word, is not far removed from the words of trotsky and lenin.
Do we really want to spend the rest of Our lives looking at the ceiling to show the way to bow - wow? (Green Arrow In Hotels). I used to find it amusing to turn it around, and picture them praying to Mammon

Originally posted by PottShrigley
Can I just say it once again politely before I get really hacked off?

Islam is a religion and not a race.

Alastair

I'm glad you agree. I've argued that very fact until I'm blue in the face (no pun intended).

Try telling the PC brigade.

Mod. Note

OK, enough.

This is about the London Bombinngs and comments, conspiracies and analysis on that topic.

We've tended to get bogged down in comparative religion.

Whilst a valid topic by itself, can we get back to teh subject and do the Islam vs Christianity stuff elsewhere?

Thanks,

Joe

If there really is a god then I'm sure he hates religion.

Why would any good, all-powerful "being" want others to worship him? Surely, if god really does exist, he isn't so vain or egotistical?

I'm sure that if there is a god who created us all, that he feels towards us as I feel towards my children. That he loves us unconditionally. He'd never threaten to burn us in hell for eternity because we hadn't given due "respect".

If god existed then he'd have great parenting skills. There is no way that he would try to teach us, his children, right from wrong by whispering cryptic messages in the ears of other kids and telling them to pass it on. That would be lazy, chav like, parenting and I'm sure that if god does exist that he wouldn't be a chav.

No, it makes no sense. If there was a god he'd be a nice guy and a responsible parent. The god that all mainstream religions teach us about just isn't nice enough if you ask me. I wouldn't go for a drink with him.

If god exists then he can be nothing like any of the mainstream religions say he is. I therefore conclude, as is the only logical conclusion, that religions have made up a god for people to fear because you can control people through fear.

For gods sake people... give up religion!

Very sorry - - - But Islam doe's appear to be mentioned more in the latest reports - - If not, nationalities in fact. (West Yorks).
It is not a matter of religion, more a matter of belief in how to spread that religion.
To think that there are little cells of fanatics living amongst us?
Tighten things up folks.
These people are insular, tend to wear grey or dark clothing, do not socialise, are olive complexioned, and speak furtively with a non-english accent.

Originally posted by Zamo
If there really is a god then I'm sure he hates religion.

Why would any good, all-powerful "being" want others to worship him? Surely, if god really does exist, he isn't so vain or egotistical?

I'm sure that if there is a god who created us all, that he feels towards us as I feel towards my children. That he loves us unconditionally. He'd never threaten to burn us in hell for eternity because we hadn't given due "respect".

If god existed then he'd have great parenting skills. There is no way that he would try to teach us, his children, right from wrong by whispering cryptic messages in the ears of other kids and telling them to pass it on. That would be lazy, chav like, parenting and I'm sure that if god does exist that he wouldn't be a chav.

No, it makes no sense. If there was a god he'd be a nice guy and a responsible parent. The god that all mainstream religions teach us about just isn't nice enough if you ask me. I wouldn't go for a drink with him.

If god exists then he can be nothing like any of the mainstream religions say he is. I therefore conclude, as is the only logical conclusion, that religions have made up a god for people to fear because you can control people through fear.

For gods sake people... give up religion!

I see you have taken Joe's stricture above to heart.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
I see you have taken Joe's stricture above to heart.


Of course... that's why I didn't compare religions but tarred them all with the same dirty brush! ;)

I'm sorry....

Do I have to add 'and if we don't get back on track I'll pull posts and ban folks?'

Joe

OK, I've started a new thread (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48861) where we can all discuss the pros and cons of religion like civilised human beings, without further polluting this one.

Now, back to the topic - anyone got any juicy conspiracy theories.

It has just been announced on the news that houses are being raided in Leeds in connection with the bombing. It said (and this is still of course speculation) that the bombers may have travelled from Leeds to Kings Cross.

Time will tell if this is a major breakthrough or a wild goose chase.

Originally posted by JoePritchard

I'm sorry....

Do I have to add 'and if we don't get back on track I'll pull posts and ban folks?'

Joe



I think you need some homework on the work of a moderator

This is not the first time I have felt obliged to comment on your moderating.

Last night at 9pm you were happily contributing long posts on the subject of Islam and quoting from holy books.

Now you are objecting.

What is the matter Joe? Did it get too boring for you?

When are you going to let people's conversations range where they want?

You took us out of the last thread and brought us into this new one because we wanted to talk about ramifications. Now you want to move us again.

(Before you ask, I of course believe that you are free to pull anything genuinely offensive or likely to break the law - particularly the new law proposed which will outlaw incitement to hatred. I think you should remove far more posts than you actually do as a matter of fact.)

I cannot think this is the kind of moderating Geoff had in mind.

Originally posted by Zamo
And you are happy for governments and secret squirrel organisations to decide who is human and who is not?

You are happy for MI5 to pick you up, detain you indefinantly without access to lawers or appeal and to torture you just because you fit the profile of the sort of person drawn to extremist groups (sad loner, misfit, never had a girlfriend, doesn't know how to interact, has no friends, low IQ etc, etc.)?

I'd have to say yes, it is achance I am prepared to take if such methods are necessary to prevent future attacks. However, I feel that I am in more danger from future terrorism than from the security services.