Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Good Example of what Went Wrong With The Brits
#1
Attacks on UK will continue, radical cleric says.

Quote:LONDON (Reuters) - Militant Islamists will continue to attack Britain until the government pulls its troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the country's most outspoken Islamic clerics said on Friday.

Speaking 15 days after bombers killed over 50 people in London and a day after a series of failed attacks on the city's transport network, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said the British capital should expect more violence.

the problem is that they allowed this sort of thing to go on too loudly for too long. Now they are paying the price.

I wonder if they will start deporting All these trouble makers, and when?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#2
I saw on FOX News that Canada evidently sees the danger and is going to put the smack down on a radical imam in Toronto. He could recieve around 5 years in prison for violating a "hate speech propaganda law" in which bans his style rhetoric, along with that of White Racist Groups, etc. His rants against the Jews, calling them sons of monkeys who must be eliminated has gotten him into hot water.

That isn't the end of it either. Two of his disiples were caught, and one killed in Chechnya, basically commiting overseas terrorism.

Its part of the list of reasons why they are also starting to arrest/deport these people since many of these militant Moslems that go overseas to raise cane (like the two fellows mentioned above), come back to Canada for asylum basically due to Canadian "tolerence" and avoid punishment. No more it seems. I wonder if Britian will take heed of the example set by its Commonwealth ally. If the Canadians are getting rough in dealing with these people, there is no excuse for a nation like Britain to do so as well.
Reply
#3
I'm glad to hear of this in Canada,that's extremely important. I am all into free speech and will tolerate public comments about anti semitism,all that stuff,BUT NOT from a Muslim.

We just need to face reality and stop the crap,they intend to destroy our culture,we are at war with sectors of Islam and even the "moderates" often agree with the causes and golas,just not the tactics.

We are at war with radicals within Islam,knowing this,I would not tolerate the first word out of an American Muslims mouth preaching ANY HATEFULNESS towards ANYONE. Arrest them immediately and if 1 is bold enough to say what Atta's dad did,SHOOT the son of a bit.ch on sight.

We used to win wars back when our parents understood the victor is the meanest SOB around.
Reply
#4
There is an interesting article (via the AMERICAN FUTURE) in The Guardian.
Quote:Mr Blair has attacked the idea of the caliphate - the equivalent of criticising the Pope. He has also remained silent in the face of a rightwing smear campaign against such eminent scholars as Sheikh al-Qaradawi - a man who has worked hard to reconcile Islam with modern democracy. Such actions and omissions fuel the suspicion that we are witnessing a war on Islam itself. If there is any thought that Muslims are fine but their religion can take a hike then Mr Blair should know that we will never be in the corner, in the spotlight, losing our religion.
Hmm… I wonder if such attitude might become a self-fulfilling prophecy….

Quote:Unfortunately, a handful of individuals have eschewed this to carry out the attacks in London. You can regard these acts as part of Islam, or as an irrational reaction to injustice taking place in the world. If it's the former you have to explain why this started only 12 years ago and not 1,400. To us it is evident that it is the latter, so we're batting the ball back in your court, Mr Blair.
Hello, ??? :roll: It did start 1400 years ago. In the place called Medina.
Reply
#5
Yep,sooner we wise up the better. This current terrorism is only the lastest installment of anti INFIDEL action.
Reply
#6
Quote:the problem is that they allowed this sort of thing to go on too loudly for too long. Now they are paying the price.

I wonder if they will start deporting All these trouble makers, and when?

This simply isnt the case. Firstly, most of the radical bombers identified after the attacks on 7/7 hadn't been influenced by local clerics, they had in fact received their indoctrination from charismatic clerics in Pakistan, not from the UK. Secondly there have been examples of clerics threatened with deportation, ie. Islamic cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed who said a day before his trial that deporting him would not stop terrorist attacks in Britain.

The case with Abu Hamza (another radical cleric) shows that deportation is possible and that citizenship in the UK can be stripped from you for inciting hatred of this nature.

But, this is another example of right-wing quick-fix solutions - fight the symptoms and ignore the roots of the problem. Do you think that deporting all the radical clerics will stop angry young men from getting access to hatred inciting material, or going to islamic schools in pakistan?

What is needed is for the west to train the Iraqi military asap and to stop funding/engaging military campaigns in the Middle East.
Reply
#7
Benjamin Wrote:But, this is another example of right-wing quick-fix solutions - fight the symptoms and ignore the roots of the problem. Do you think that deporting all the radical clerics will stop angry young men from getting access to hatred inciting material, or going to islamic schools in pakistan?

I can't speak for the rest, but I for one am not into the 'quick fix'. And I agree with you that Pakistan is the Real threat in the mid east, because it is simply loaded with malcontents and has nuclear weapons already. A quick assassination and overthrow of the government, and the west is in for a rough ride.

You Brits are especially vulnerable because Pakistan is a Commonwealth country and England has allowed the member citizens to enter the country for years and settle in. That is why so many of them are involved in the bombings there.

Quote:What is needed is for the west to train the Iraqi military asap and to stop funding/engaging military campaigns in the Middle East.

I agree with your former assertion here, but not necessarily the later. If we left the Middle East alone, we would not allow the problem to go away.

This entire situation is a direct result of the oppresive governments in the region who are not allowing their citizens to be franchised, AND allowing clerics and others to displace their aggressive tendencies on others, such as Israel and the West. Egypt and SA are great examples, and the violence is coming back to bite them.

Plus, turning our backs on the potential threat will not cause it to go away. The best solution is to Win in Iraq, and use it to influence the surrounding states as it has done so far in Lebanon. It is the seed of democratic ideals in Iraq that the terrorists fear the most, as it would eventually defeat their ideals.

Perhaps a lower profile after Iraq develops a better military is in order, but the US and allies have already stated this.

I view the idea of taking hands off the problem as exactly the same thing that was allowed to happen in Europe in the 30s as the NSDAP too over in Germany and got away with land grab after land grab. Turning one's back to the problem only allows the problem to grow larger until the butcher's bill is expontntially higher than an early payment.

Benjamin, what would you do if you knew that terrorists had set off a nuclear 'package' in Rome, or perhaps Paris? I honestly believe that Rome, the defacto seat of organized Christiandom, will be the first target as it is closer to the region, and represents the home of the hated Christians. Would your opinion change then with the death of thousands of Italians and destruction of countless heritage monuments?[/quote]
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#8
Quote:Benjamin, what would you do if you knew that terrorists had set off a nuclear 'package' in Rome, or perhaps Paris? I honestly believe that Rome, the defacto seat of organized Christiandom, will be the first target as it is closer to the region, and represents the home of the hated Christians. Would your opinion change then with the death of thousands of Italians and destruction of countless heritage monuments?

I simply do not think that terrorists can kill people on that scale anymore.

The world has become a lot smarter. Bombs on buses and trains are one thing, nuclear detonations in city centers are completely different. If it happened it would change my opinions about a lot of things regarding policing terrorists, but I would always assert that the state-sponsored terror in the Middle East and the hedious redrafting of borders (which the Brits and French are entirely responsible for) is the cause of many of the acts of desperatism we are seeing today.

Quote:This entire situation is a direct result of the oppressive governments in the region who are not allowing their citizens to be franchised, AND allowing clerics and others to displace their aggressive tendencies on others, such as Israel and the West. Egypt and SA are great examples, and the violence is coming back to bite them.

Iran is a perfect example of how an oppressive regime can swing towards democracy, not because it was imposed, but because people voted (over a period of 20 years) for less and less extremist muslims in government.

Admittedly the same ayatollah maintained sovereignty, but the methods of government shifted.

We should have let Saddam sit his final days out on the throne, lifted the sanctions after his death (though this could have been brought on prematurely by the CIA Wink1 ) and waited and hoped that his predecessors allow the country to have developed peacefully.

Ideally, the west should let countries in the Middle East sit out their own problems and provide only aid as support, if we bring trouble to their doorstep, it is only natural that they bring trouble to ours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4665133.stm
Reply
#9
Benjamin Wrote:I simply do not think that terrorists can kill people on that scale anymore.

The world has become a lot smarter. Bombs on buses and trains are one thing, nuclear detonations in city centers are completely different. If it happened it would change my opinions about a lot of things regarding policing terrorists, but I would always assert that the state-sponsored terror in the Middle East and the hedious redrafting of borders (which the Brits and French are entirely responsible for) is the cause of many of the acts of desperatism we are seeing today.

Then perhaps you might wish to get ready for a reeducation. I honestly believe that Rome will go up in a cloud somewhere in the unforseen future. It is simply too much of a high value target for Islamic terrorists. And note that the Pakistani Dr. Kahn was guilty of handing out nuclear secrets to g-d knows who. And what will happen if there is revolution in Pakistan and the fundamentalists take over. How many nuclear weapons do you think Pakistan has?

And too, the easiest means of mass killing would be chemical or biological agents. Try to imagine a couple of bombs filled with several pounds of VX nerve agent splattered in and around the London subway? Are you familiar with VX, which was initially developed by the Brits, BTY. That is some bad stuff, and experts are still convinced that Syria has ALL of Saadam's VX hidden away there. Suppose they hand out some of it to terrorists. I hate to think of the terror.

And you are right about the splitting up of countries by France and Britain. They did the same to Africa, and that is the main problem there as well.

Quote:Iran is a perfect example of how an oppressive regime can swing towards democracy, not because it was imposed, but because people voted (over a period of 20 years) for less and less extremist muslims in government.

Iran is not swinging toward democracy, unless of course you are willing to assume that a political "Hobson's choice" is preferable . In the mentioned case, the rulers simply chose several for each position and THEN gave the voters a choice, thus giving only a thin veneer of "so called" democracy to it.

BTY, do you know what a Hobson's Choice is?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#10
benjamin Wrote:We should have let Saddam sit his final days out on the throne, lifted the sanctions after his death (though this could have been brought on prematurely by the CIA Wink1 ) and waited and hoped that his predecessors allow the country to have developed peacefully.

Bad plan my friend. Saddam had no real successor (except for perhaps one of his sons and they were as bad as he was). Even if one of them did successfully take over, there was no guarantee that he'd have the loyalty of the army (which every dictator needs).

Just about every Western analyst feared Saddam's demise would create a power vacuum in the region. One which Iran would step into and fill. That's why coalition forces didn't continue into Baghdad in 1991. We didn't have the force strength in place to maintain security in the region if the Iranians decided to get froggy. Too, the Sovs were still the Sovs and we didn't have a real handle on what was happening there. The USSR was still an effective foil against aggressive American ambitions.

Quote:Ideally, the west should let countries in the Middle East sit out their own problems and provide only aid as support, if we bring trouble to their doorstep, it is only natural that they bring trouble to ours.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4665133.stm

That's what we've been trying with Iran, but they seem to have recently taken a couple of steps backward with the election of a new hardliner president.
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#11
And here is an example of what's wrong with the Germans.

Talk about ill-prepared. I seriously do not even think these people have woken up yet and smelt the roses.
Reply
#12
Sorry I cant respond to everything...

Quote:That's what we've been trying with Iran, but they seem to have recently taken a couple of steps backward with the election of a new hardliner president.

I would argue that a hardline president has been voted in due to the aggravation people are seeing in the Middle East. Iran does not associate itself with the Arab world, but they, like us, turn to the hardliners when they see trouble on the horizon.

Quote:Bad plan my friend. Saddam had no real successor (except for perhaps one of his sons and they were as bad as he was). Even if one of them did successfully take over, there was no guarantee that he'd have the loyalty of the army (which every dictator needs).

Saddam had a plan for succession that was to be Qusay Hussein (deceased) who would have stayed loyal to his fathers doctrine though would have been more likely to have been more reasonable when dealing with the west. The loyalty issue would not have been a problem with a blood dynasty. Arabs respect family bloodlines more than elected officials.

Quote:I honestly believe that Rome will go up in a cloud somewhere in the unforeseen future.

John, I see where you are coming from, the appeal of striking the heart of Christian HQ must be tempting to a prospective bomber looking to make the headlines, but am willing to bet you that Rome will not experience anything more drastic than London or Madrid, even though it may be the next on the list.

Also, Italy is making preparations to pull out its troops in the coming months which should see off its Iraq involvement. Holy See Vatican City (which is a separate country) is a heavily fortified area with intense security.
The Italian police are still fascist in their mentality and clamp down heavily when dealing with leftist militant groups like NIPR.

Quote:Are you familiar with VX, which was initially developed by the Brits, BTY

Yes, though we have never used any against any living soul and (i hope, never will).

The US however has the biggest stockpile of the stuff, though if the terrorists ever get hold of some we could always send Nic Cage in to retrieve it. (Again!)

Quote:BTY, do you know what a Hobson's Choice is?

Yes, but I looked it up.

http://www.hobsonschoice.com/hobstory.html

I would argue that all elections suffer from this. Except in the UK where it doesn't even feel as though we have a choice! S4
Reply
#13
Quote:John, I see where you are coming from, the appeal of striking the heart of Christian HQ must be tempting to a prospective bomber looking to make the headlines, but am willing to bet you that Rome will not experience anything more drastic than London or Madrid, even though it may be the next on the list

Are you certain of this? I seem to think that most of the stockpile was neutralized, ie incinerated.

I also know that the UN verified all those many tons of VX that Iraq had, and there was never any destruction of it on any records. Wonder where it went?

My bet is that the Russians who suddenly entered Iraq prior to the invasion collected it up and moved it via convoy to Syria. Here is what Bill Gertz, a well respected reporter has to say about this.

Here is more
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#14
Moving back to the subject matter, the only reason the Germans woke up to their security problem was that a near disaster occured, albeit an accidental event supposedly. So John is right, its going to take some massive or serious event before Europe wakes up.
Reply
#15
I thought we were on the subject. Aren't we talking about the Brits? Gottcha Tait. S6
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#16
John L Wrote:I thought we were on the subject. Aren't we talking about the Brits? Gottcha Tait. S6

I believe it was about security measures and concerns; Brits won't deal heavily with those who seem to compromise it and encourage the disruption and attacks on security. I am just making it known that this is a problem with the Germans as well, with their highly lax security and radical sect of their moslem and possibly turkish populations. This may well translate for the whole of "Yurup".

This has gone to Iraq and WMD.

Nice try. Wink1
Reply
#17
benjamin Wrote:Sorry I cant respond to everything...

Sorry - didn't mean to gang up on you.

Quote:I would argue that a hard line president has been voted in due to the aggravation people are seeing in the Middle East. Iran does not associate itself with the Arab world, but they, like us, turn to the hardliners when they see trouble on the horizon.
mmmmm... I think it has more to do with a corrupted electorate. I suspect that election wasn't exactly a fair one. Anyway, the point remains... You can't merely sit back and wait for things to happen.

Quote:Saddam had a plan for succession that was to be Qusay Hussein (deceased) who would have stayed loyal to his fathers doctrine though would have been more likely to have been more reasonable when dealing with the west. The loyalty issue would not have been a problem with a blood dynasty. Arabs respect family bloodlines more than elected officials.

Arabs respect power and fear more. Qusay had that in spades, no doubt, but I do think it would have been a seamless transition. Anyway, if we took out Saddam, I also don't think we would have let his son step in as a replacement.

What makes you think he would have dealt better with the West? Remember, Saddam enjoyed great support from the West during the Cold War. He was an opportunist. He got into hot water by invading Kuwait and threatening the international oil supply.

I don't see how a Qusay reign would have improved our relationship with Iraq. :?:
"Most people just want tomorrow to look pretty much like today." - Terry Pratchett
Reply
#18
Here is an interesting article on the very subject, We all just sat back and let Londonistan rise against us.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
All men are frauds. The only difference between them is that some admit it. I myself deny it.
H. L. Mencken
Reply
#19
Quote:Here is an interesting article on the very subject, We all just sat back and let Londonistan rise against us.

I do applaud Michael Portillo’s commentary; he is vivid and insightful when addressing British and international politics. He would have made a good Conservative party leader and it was unfortunate his peers held him back due to his sexual persuasion; however his recent articles in the Times have been complete tosh. Why he chooses to write for the Sunday Times (one of the most mangled and unfairly bias newspapers in the UK) when he has established links with decent publications like the Observer, Independent and Scotsman is a mystery. Being on the Murdock payroll is obviously an attractive option.

Quote:People are not as stupid as Pilger thinks.

His criticisms of John Pilger are completely unjustified, denouncing his article as patronising and irrelevant when he clearly marked out what has been happening in the Middle East and how sowing the seeds of violence tend to swing back full circle on the countries that thought they were impenetrable. As a liberal conservative, his proposals against terrorists have been far fetched and extreme. Again choosing - sorry to keep emphasising this point – to ignore the roots of the problem, to instead hack away at the symptoms.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)