More terrorist plans foiled

[LordChaverly 10]

Don't get me wrong, I am not without some sympathy for how young Muslims are feeling. I think it is outragous that the US and UK invaded Iraq. I'm angry about it and I'm sure that if I were a Muslim then I'd be a lot angrier still. However, they should seek address through protest, debate and argument. Radical Islam is not the solution and, regardless of the hypocracy of us invading Iraq to impose our "foreign ways", it will not be tollorated in this country.

 

But why should you be angrier still, if you were a muslim?

 

The US and the UK did not invade Iraq because it was muslim state (in fact Saddam's Iraq was probably the most secular state in the muslim world). The same applies to muslim 'grievances' over Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo. In all three cases, these were largely ethnic conflicts in which religion was a marginal rather than a central issue.

 

The real problem is with the Manichean world view of extremist muslims, which automatically divides people into two basic categories, muslim and non-muslim and which requires muslims to support their 'brothers' in world conflicts, regardless of the real issues at stake. In short, these are utterly bogus and manufactured grievances, however strongly felt.

[Zamo 10]

But why should you be angrier still, if you were a muslim?

 

The US and the UK did not invade Iraq because it was muslim state (in fact Saddam's Iraq was probably the most secular state in the muslim world).

 

No, but it is mostly Muslims being killed.

 

The same applies to muslim 'grievances' over Chechnya, Bosnia and Kosovo. In all three cases, these were largely ethnic conflicts in which religion was a marginal rather than a central issue.

I don't think the likes of Kosovo or Bosnia come close to the impact that Iraq has had towards drving yound Muslims (in this country anyway) towards more radical thinking.

 

The real problem is with the Manichean world view of extremist muslims, which automatically divides people into two basic categories, muslim and non-muslim and which requires muslims to support their 'brothers' in world conflicts, regardless of the real issues at stake. In short, these are utterly bogus and manufactured grievances, however strongly felt.

 

You said it yourself - Muslims are brought up to feel an affinity towards their fellow Muslim. Whether or not you (or I) agree or understand that, makes no odds. It doesn't make what they feel/believe any less real. As such, I appreciate that Muslims have more to be angry about regarding the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent slaughter of countless Muslims, than non Muslims like myself.

[LordChaverly 10]

No, but it is mostly Muslims being killed.

 

 

I don't think the likes of Kosovo or Bosnia come close to the impact that Iraq has had towards drving yound Muslims (in this country anyway) towards more radical thinking.

 

 

 

You said it yourself - Muslims are brought up to feel an affinity towards their fellow Muslim. Whether or not you (or I) agree or understand that, makes no odds. It doesn't make what they feel/believe any less real. As such, I appreciate that Muslims have more to be angry about regarding the invasion of Iraq, and subsequent slaughter of countless Muslims, than non Muslims like myself.

 

But they are not being killed because they are muslims (except if they are 'the wrong kind of muslim', by other muslims in Iraq).

 

As for Bosnia and Kosovo, the 'West' strongly supported the 'muslim' side in these conflicts, so there was no reason for muslims in this country to feel so aggrieved. However, in spite of Western support in these conflicts, muslim zealots such as Moazzem Begg and many others were already very active in seeking to turn these conflicts into 'religious wars' in the minds of other muslims.

 

I agree that deluded perceptions can cause just as strong emotions as any other kind. But there is no reason why we should take these delusions (for example that the 'West' has launched a 'crusade' against muslims and that muslims are being 'persecuted' at home and abroad) at their face value and not point out how absurd they are.

[artisan 10]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6344967.stm

 

How can they say we are a police state where muslims are concerned.

 

If anyone was plotting this kind of vile thing, they would be arrested also.

 

Surely they must realise that their silly ideas will never come to fruition.

Did these people honestly believe that murder and torture would cause English people to run away crying.

 

The rest of the Muslim community should be out today thanking every copper they see.

If these maniacs had suceeded in their aims, the Muslim community would have been finished in the UK.

[LibertyBell 10]

If these maniacs had suceeded in their aims

 

shurely shome mishtake?

 

...alleged aims...?

[Zamo 10]

I agree that deluded perceptions can cause just as strong emotions as any other kind. But there is no reason why we should take these delusions (for example that the 'West' has launched a 'crusade' against muslims and that muslims are being 'persecuted' at home and abroad) at their face value and not point out how absurd they are.

 

Pointing our how absurd you find someone elses position doesn't help to resolve a difference. You need to put yourself in the other mans shoes and find common ground.

 

I believe that people in thr UK following a foreign religion and culture should be mindful and respectful of where they live. They need to either embrace our culture or at least find a way to practice what they believe without imposing on, or trying to change, our way of life. I certainly don't expect them to plot against the society they live in or resort to terror tactics to voice protest. Having said all that, there is a certain amount of hypocracy in telling Muslims here to "When in Rome..." whilst we have our troops in a Muslim country, using bombs and bullets to impose the will of a Western Administration!

 

Our foreign policy is alienating British Muslims and steering many towards more radical forms of Islam because they do take it personally. You can try and argue that there is no justification for this but what's the point? It doesn't make the invasion any more right does it? Let's stick to arguing against the excuses that have no legitimacy and not those that do.

[Halibut 12]

Pointing our how absurd you find someone elses position doesn't help to resolve a difference. You need to put yourself in the other mans shoes and find common ground.

 

I believe that people in thr UK following a foreign religion and culture should be mindful and respectful of where they live. They need to either embrace our culture or at least find a way to practice what they believe without imposing on, or trying to change, our way of life. I certainly don't expect them to plot against the society they live in or resort to terror tactics to voice protest. Having said all that, there is a certain amount of hypocracy in telling Muslims here to "When in Rome..." whilst we have our troops in a Muslim country, using bombs and bullets to impose the will of a Western Administration!

 

Our foreign policy is alienating British Muslims and steering many towards more radical forms of Islam because they do take it personally. You can try and argue that there is no justification for this but what's the point? It doesn't make the invasion any more right does it? Let's stick to arguing against the excuses that have no legitimacy and not those that do.

 

Zamo, that's about the most balanced, sensible and reasonable post I've seen on the forum in a long time and covers a great deal of what I believe. Particularly like your first paragraph -

 

''Pointing our how absurd you find someone elses position doesn't help to resolve a difference. You need to put yourself in the other mans shoes and find common ground.''

 

Very wise words.

[LordChaverly 10]

Pointing our how absurd you find someone elses position doesn't help to resolve a difference. You need to put yourself in the other mans shoes and find common ground.

 

 

This is about the most succinct example of appeasement that I have yet come across. Should we have sought to put ourselves in Hitler's or Lenin's shoes? Unfortunately, too many people did at the time, and we all know the results. For example, a quite common view in the 1930s was that, although Hitler was perhaps too extreme, he nevertheless had legitimate grievances which would be dealt with in a rational way.

 

By accepting the 'grievances' of muslims about UK foreign policy at their face value, rather than pointing out the weakness of the case upon which these supposed grievances are based, you are legitimising and validating them. In so doing, you are not doing the muslim community any favours, any more than Chamberlain did the German population any favours in the 1930s.

[LordChaverly 10]

You need to put yourself in the other mans shoes and find common ground.''[/b]

 

Very wise words.

 

This is a bit rich coming from you halibut. I am scratching my head to remember any post of yours in which you have sought to find any common ground at all with those who disagree with the pc conventional wisdoms you espouse on this forum.

[CockneyMafia 10]

Zamo, that's about the most balanced, sensible and reasonable post I've seen on the forum in a long time and covers a great deal of what I believe. Particularly like your first paragraph -

 

''Pointing our how absurd you find someone elses position doesn't help to resolve a difference. You need to put yourself in the other mans shoes and find common ground.''

 

Very wise words.

 

Would putting myself in the shoes of a God fearing person living further in the past than Marty McFly actually solve anything? The quid pro quo might make him more enlightened, but I fear it would do bugger all for me.

[Halibut 12]

This is a bit rich coming from you halibut. I am scratching my head to remember any post of yours in which you have sought to find any common ground at all with those who disagree with the pc conventional wisdoms you espouse on this forum.

 

Capital H for Halibut if you please, LordC. Ta.

[Zamo 10]

This is about the most succinct example of appeasement that I have yet come across. Should we have sought to put ourselves in Hitler's or Lenin's shoes? Unfortunately, too many people did at the time, and we all know the results. For example, a quite common view in the 1930s was that, although Hitler was perhaps too extreme, he nevertheless had legitimate grievances which would be dealt with in a rational way.

LordC, what I am suggesting is far from appeasment!

 

I'm not arguing that we should tollorate, or even negotiate with, people who harbour extreme Islamic views or do deals with those that threaten us. All I've said is we should be big enough to admit it when we have done something wrong and try and put it right... especially when doing so will prevent division within our society and stop people from going down the extremist path.

 

By accepting the 'grievances' of muslims about UK foreign policy at their face value, rather than pointing out the weakness of the case upon which these supposed grievances are based, you are legitimising and validating them. In so doing, you are not doing the muslim community any favours, any more than Chamberlain did the German population any favours in the 1930s.

 

The war in Iraq is illegal and morally wrong - a point that should be accepted at face value. The complaint is valid and the complaint is not only being made by Muslims.

 

You are arguing that we cannot accept having done something wrong because, even though we did, to do so would be surrendering to people who threaten us because of that wrong doing! I'm sorry but you cannot refuse to acknowledge a legitimate complaint simply because 0.001% of the people making the complaint have made a threat.

 

Your "no surrender" argument reminds me of an incident with my kids the other day. I went to investigate a disagreement between my little girl and her younger brother and it transpired that she had taken a toy off him whilst he was playing with it. She was refusing to give it back because he had threatened to hit her if she didn't. She argued it was wrong for him to threaten her and she wouldn't give in to his bullying. Apparently, he needed to be nice to her for a while and she would then consider returning the toy. I took a leaf out of the rugby rule book and decided to go back and punish the first offence. He got his toy back and she got 10 minutes sitting on the stairs to think about it.

 

LordC, go do 10 minutes on the stairs and think about it!