UK Thwarts air bomb threat

[vixen]

have you all hear about this, 21 arrested in the UK as they break up a plot to bomb flights from the UK to Boston....now all liquids are ban, hair gel, hair spray, lotoions, no laptops, no cell phones, no carry on....


discuss

[Alf uckem]

yeah i just seen this on the news, some scary shit once agaign. What a shithole of a world we live in with these sick fucks trying to blow up i think they said as many as 10 flights. shit that coulda been 5-6000 dead all in the name of some messed up religion. And i aint callin the islamic religion in particular as i think all rreligion is fucked up lies
\end rant

[Uganja]

The world would be better without religion, its pathetic.

God doesn't exist you niave, insecure people.

Makes me sick to my fucking stomach.


And only being able to take bare minimum onto flights is just a temporary measure

News link here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm

[Nickything]

If it's a plot by al quaeda then its less about religion and more about Israel existing and US and UK presence in the middle east...

No flights in or out of Heathrow other than those that were already in the air, most flights out of Gatwick suspended all other UK airports experiencing significant delays. Advice is unless its essential do not go to Heathrow.

[RobCheadle]

Glad I'm not travelling through or near an airport today... chaos reigns!!

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/1081/125444af4f94e820a1qu9.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[Kat]

Yeah, scary stuff - but don't forget innocent until proven guilty - that's still in place here just about, although it's getting pretty flimsy.

The danger is that the panic over this will stir up predujice that will further isolate the 1.6 million Muslims in Britain, most of whom are moderate, but many of whom are gaining sympathy for extremist groups due to a government they feel isn't listening.

[Uganja]

They are isolating themselves.

The religion itself is completely seperate from British culture.

[RobCheadle]

They are isolating themselves.

The religion itself is completely seperate from British culture.

Quoted for truth.

[Kat]

They are isolating themselves.

The religion itself is completely seperate from British culture.

There are 1.6 million of them - that means that their culture is part of British culture. It may be at odds with your particular culture, but that's not analogous to British culture.

[Uganja]

Their values and beliefs are negative to british culture, bar those that work, they provide nothing but criticism to the way we live.

Our culture is by no means perfect, our way of life is wrong at times, but i'll be damned if I'll follow a religion, that teaches hatred of values that a country lives by.

If your opinion is you dont like the way we live in britain, fuck off to a muslim majority country where you can live happily together in your small minded idiolistic warped view on what is... the real world

I wont miss a single one.

[tca]

Jay, Your now my hero :D

Kat you try and see the best in everyone, But those people are guilty, Plain and simple, Muslims are pricks too, Plain and simple

The world is itself a fucked up place, I'd get used to it, Cos unless world war 3 happens, This shit will continue for years

[JaiJai]

Dayum, 2000 q'ued in customs, I remember when I was in london and thought 300 q'ued in customs was a long line :|

I Just hope this is all under control before mofo flies out in 2 weeks , damn terrorists, I agree that it's more about the Us/Uk presence in the middle east than simply religious beliefs, although they are so intertwined it's a mixture of both really. What's the answer? who knows *sigh*

Should the allies give up their position in the middle east? The question should be are we serving enough of a purpose by being there to make all of this worth the sacrafice... and are we accomplishing more than the damage its causing > in the middle east And in our homelands.

edit: I say take our troops out, and leave them to it... because it doesn't seem to matter what we do there, they are on a mission to have war with each other and will continue doing so, with or without our "peacekeeping" efforts in place. They have fought since the beginning of time and will always fight, in my opinion. Look at israel and lebanon lately, doesn't matter how hard we try to stop them, they always find a way for more murder and mayhem.

[RobCheadle]

I think the problem is much more historical and much more serious.

The real issue here is that Muslims are on a mission to convert everyone else to their way of thinking. If they cannot convert us they call us infidels and say death to all infidels.

Historically muslims want to create muslim states accross the world and take over everywhere. Whilst I accept that not all muslims have this view it has top be said that some do. It is not acceptable to force your view onto someone else in the UK. Something they cannot seem to get used to.

[Kat]

Their values and beliefs are negative to british culture, bar those that work, they provide nothing but criticism to the way we live.

Our culture is by no means perfect, our way of life is wrong at times, but i'll be damned if I'll follow a religion, that teaches hatred of values that a country lives by.

If your opinion is you dont like the way we live in britain, fuck off to a muslim majority country where you can live happily together in your small minded idiolistic warped view on what is... the real world

I wont miss a single one.
Jay - how are you defining 'British Culture'? I think that the crux of this argument.

I wouldn't want to live under a Muslim government either - if it looked like it was going to happen then I'd do my best to fight it (non-violently). That doesn't mean that they don't, as British citizens, have a right to their say too.

I'd argue that most Muslims don't have a 'small minded idiolistic warped view' of the world, any more than most people do.

edit: I say take our troops out, and leave them to it... because it doesn't seem to matter what we do there, they are on a mission to have war with each other and will continue doing so, with or without our "peacekeeping" efforts in place. They have fought since the beginning of time and will always fight, in my opinion. Look at israel and lebanon lately, doesn't matter how hard we try to stop them, they always find a way for more murder and mayhem.

JaiJai, I don't have any answers either, but I'd question who 'they' are in this paragraph. The people suffering (the people that the UN and others are trying to help) aren't generally the people with the extremist ideals. Also, I think very few people are actually on a mission to have a war; most people are just people trying to do their jobs well and live a reasonably happy life.

Kat you try and see the best in everyone, But those people are guilty, Plain and simple, Muslims are pricks too, Plain and simple

Yes, some Muslims are pricks, probably many Muslims are pricks, but I'd argue in no higher percentage than the human average. My point I suppose is that by acting like a prick towards someone who's being a prick you don't normally persuade them to stop. I think the Western governments need to ask themselves what we are trying to do: are we trying to win by killing every terrorist, or are we trying to actually do things that might help resolve the issue?

[Uganja]

Jay - how are you defining 'British Culture'? I think that the crux of this argument.

I wouldn't want to live under a Muslim government either - if it looked like it was going to happen then I'd do my best to fight it (non-violently). That doesn't mean that they don't, as British citizens, have a right to their say too.

I'd argue that most Muslims don't have a 'small minded idiolistic warped view' of the world, any more than most people do.

Ok then, argue that their beliefs aren't ridiculously outdated.... The fact that any type of sex before marriage is punishable by being stoned to death.

Argue that they criticise our binge drinking culture, but yet the koran states that they are not allowed to drink whatsover. So how can they judge on a subject they cant even understand?

Your arguement states that they are a part of british culture. How, with a base of 1.6 million? Thats an incredible minority.

They are simply a culture of their own that live in Britain, They are no more part of British culture than someone on holiday. You said yourself that they are isolated - This is true, but only because they isolate themselves, they judge others who aren't believers, because the Koran tells them that if you dont believe in their god, then you are an infidel. What sort of religion requires you to isolate yourself from the modern world? Its absurd.

I'll agree some of the ideas & beliefs they live by are a much better way to live, but if you don't your punished by death? Or never reaching the afterlife? Whatever happened to forgiveness?

Its almost like a schoolyard bully mentality on religion. You believe & follow my rules, or you die.


Please. :rolleyes:

[the squid of despair]

So when are the conspiracies coming out saying the US and UK goverment were really behind this to fuel their greed for oil and war?

[Phuquit]

£5 says no charges are brought against any of the 21 suspects.

Their values and beliefs are negative to british culture, bar those that work, they provide nothing but criticism to the way we live.

Our culture is by no means perfect, our way of life is wrong at times, but i'll be damned if I'll follow a religion, that teaches hatred of values that a country lives by.

If your opinion is you dont like the way we live in britain, fuck off to a muslim majority country where you can live happily together in your small minded idiolistic warped view on what is... the real world

I wont miss a single one.
Quoted for hypocrisy...

[Nazkyn]

They are isolating themselves.

The religion itself is completely seperate from British culture.

Best part of this thread so far.

Well said Jay.

Todays modern culture is bullshit, culture should be about tradition and Britan has basically fuck all tradition left.

[vixen]

FYI

http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/08/10/tip_from_pakistan_helped_crack_terror_plot_in_brit ain_pakistani_officials_say/

[Jacx]

, 12:45 AM


kat said

http://forum.oddthought.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: UK Thwarts air bomb threat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uganja
They are isolating themselves.

The religion itself is completely seperate from British culture.


There are 1.6 million of them - that means that their culture is part of British culture. It may be at odds with your particular culture, but that's not analogous to British culture.


uganga said:


http://forum.oddthought.com/images/icons/icon1.gif Re: UK Thwarts air bomb threat


Their values and beliefs are negative to british culture, bar those that work, they provide nothing but criticism to the way we live.



Our culture is by no means perfect, our way of life is wrong at times, but i'll be damned if I'll follow a religion, that teaches hatred of values that a country lives by.



If your opinion is you dont like the way we live in britain, fuck off to a muslim majority country where you can live happily together in your small minded idiolistic warped view on what is... the real world












and thats the main crux of it all.

Muslims want to live via the rules of their religion, and they find that hard to do. Dont mean that they cannot do it, in fact many do it and do it well and live peaceful lives...some cannot and use the world for war.

Kat u said they are part of british culture, ur right to a point, they are, so are africans, west indians etc etc.

But no matter who comes over, they MUST adapt to british rule and british life. if you go to one of their countrys, you do the same, if the law says everyone is banned from alcohol thats fine and dandy, dont matter...thats their rules! You obey them, if you cannot live by that rule, you move to another country that suits your needs, what you DO NOT DO IS DEMAND CHANGE just becuase you and your comrades want it. You got no right to do that, its disrespecting the country you have come to!

These muslims of whatever race come to england and have to choose to stay and adapt to UK rules! see the turks...they are muslim, they adapted fine, look at most the sikhs...again fine no problems..

But we got this lot that DEMAND change, and thats what makes people like uganja mad. It makes me VERY MAD too. Now im christian, and im proud, i got no issues with muslims or sikhs or buddas or whatever. As long as people stick to the rules of this land, and show simple manners same as i should to them, there should never be issues.

Demand change becuase of your race or religion and you get no respect!

[Calienta]

I have been trying to formulate a response for this thread that would not come across racist or any other way that would get me compared to Hitler as poor Jay received... Jacx, you summed my point of view up perfectly, I completely agree with everything you said.

[JaiJai]

*Applause* Jacx :orign:

It's about them coming to OUR countries, descriminating against US, for the rules we already have established before they ever stepped foot on our lands. They are guests first of all, and our countries welcome them, either by asylum or regular immigration, and they need to blend into our societies and respect the laws of our lands.

They have a right to believe in their own religion etc.. they can practice their own laws iniside their homes, (if they dont' want to drink, then they dont' have to) etc.. But to demand we change our laws to suit their agendas is what enrages people.

[Quaker]

*Applause* Jacx :orign:

It's about them coming to OUR countries, descriminating against US, for the rules we already have established before they ever stepped foot on our lands. They are guests first of all, and our countries welcome them, either by asylum or regular immigration, and they need to blend into our societies and respect the laws of our lands.

They have a right to believe in their own religion etc.. they can practice their own laws iniside their homes, (if they dont' want to drink, then they dont' have to) etc.. But to demand we change our laws to suit their agendas is what enrages people.

Democracy or Dictatorship???

Amusing how you and others critizise Muslim countries for doing essentialy what it is you wish to do.... eh go figure :|

[Nazkyn]

Quaker, I doubt the US public wants the same as the US government in that regard, so that was a pathetic example.... eh go figure :|

[JaiJai]

Democracy or Dictatorship???

Amusing how you and others critizise Muslim countries for doing essentialy what it is you wish to do.... eh go figure :|


What exactly are you saying? I honestly can't tell so I dont' know how to reply to you :$

[Kat]

What exactly are you saying? I honestly can't tell so I dont' know how to reply to you :$
I don't know if it's what Quaker meant, but I noticed a bit of a contradiction in what you said: you argue that Muslims who are citizens of your country should not try and change your laws, and yet the US are changing the laws (even regimes) of other countries when they're not even citizens, which is surely worse.

Another thing is that you say they shouldn't 'demand we change our laws to suit their agendas', but isn't democracy all about different groups of people trying to change laws to suit their own agendas? Now, I entirely agree it's wrong to use violent means to do this, but I think a lot of Muslims (in this country at least), feel that democracy is failing them in this aspect (ie. they aren't being listened to) and they're getting frustrated.


Todays modern culture is bullshit, culture should be about tradition and Britan has basically fuck all tradition left.

I think that if people who complain about having no culture worried more about preserving their own and less about restricting others' they'd be a lot happier. When was the last time you went Morris Dancing? ;)


Ok then, argue that their beliefs aren't ridiculously outdated.... The fact that any type of sex before marriage is punishable by being stoned to death.

Argue that they criticise our binge drinking culture, but yet the koran states that they are not allowed to drink whatsover. So how can they judge on a subject they cant even understand?


I think you can probably understand a certain amount about drinking alcohol without having tried it, but in general I agree with you on this point. However, just because you don't agree with their beliefs it doesn't mean they're not entitled to them; I don't think you'd argue that so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


Your arguement states that they are a part of british culture. How, with a base of 1.6 million? Thats an incredible minority.

What is the majority that you consider yourself to be part of? Is there a large group that shares most of your values, traditions, beliefs and customs? You're talking about Britain as if on the one hand we have Muslims, with their strange, apparently brand new, ideas that they're bringing to our country, and on the other hand everyone else, with a shared culture and tradition, who've been here since the dawn of time. I know that's a bit over the top, but d'you get my point? Britain isn't like that, it's a melting pot - it always has been. If we have any continous culture, then paradoxically it's a culture of change, or absorbing other traditions, beliefs, languages and peoples. That's the part of my culture that I want to preserve, what part of it are you worried about?


But no matter who comes over, they MUST adapt to british rule and british life. if you go to one of their countrys, you do the same, if the law says everyone is banned from alcohol thats fine and dandy, dont matter...thats their rules! You obey them, if you cannot live by that rule, you move to another country that suits your needs, what you DO NOT DO IS DEMAND CHANGE just becuase you and your comrades want it. You got no right to do that, its disrespecting the country you have come to!

What if those laws start changing so you feel victimised and isolated. Muslim integration has gone backwards in the last 10 years (another one of those C4 documentaries, I'll find a link if anyone's interested). Whatever you think about this supposed cultural invasion, from a purely practical point of view what our government is doing just isn't working. It's the Muslim community that are best placed to give us intelligence about Islamic terrorist threats, and normal Muslims are feeling less and less like they can trust the government or the police. If this trend continues lives will be lost because of it. Personally I think it's time for a bit of pragmatism from our government.


Found that link; please read it if you're interested in British Muslims, it's very interesting:
http://www.channel4.com/news/microsites/D/dispatches2006/muslim_survey/muslims.html

[JaiJai]

I don't know if it's what Quaker meant, but I noticed a bit of a contradiction in what you said: you argue that Muslims who are citizens of your country should not try and change your laws, and yet the US are changing the laws (even regimes) of other countries when they're not even citizens, which is surely worse.

Another thing is that you say they shouldn't 'demand we change our laws to suit their agendas', but isn't democracy all about different groups of people trying to change laws to suit their own agendas? Now, I entirely agree it's wrong to use violent means to do this, but I think a lot of Muslims (in this country at least), feel that democracy is failing them in this aspect (ie. they aren't being listened to) and they're getting frustrated.

First of all we need to keep straight when we are referring to (They, Them, and We) , making sure we know it's meant as (Individual, common folks, or Gov'ts/powerful entities), makes all the difference in the world and changes meanings alot. : )

We (allies) were there to help those people (Iraqi ppl), at least our men and women who are in that sess pool dying everyday are. IDK what the true intentions of the Gov'ts may be, but to everyday americans and brits, it was a humane effort to save them from the wicked tyrant (saddam), not to change their beliefs or convictions. That's a Whole different ballgame than if little by little we trickle into iraq, seeking asylum, or becoming legal aliens on the premise we need saved, and then build up a posse in backyard garages in order to scheme against laws that have existed for centuries (or blow up planes) either one, Not saying all Muslims do this, but it's an overall aire that comes from them, Again NOT all of them, let's keep that straight please.


And I say we pull out of the middle east for completely selfish reasons, to save ours and our allies people's lives, our soldiers, our reporters who have been savagely abuducted and beheaded, our victims of terrorism.... Not to pull out to "let them have peace" but on the contrary, let them have at it and fight their wars they seem to persist to have. It appears useless at this point, to try to help them have peace and flourish as nations (maybe that's just a temporary sigh, because of the continuing uprising) IDK.

I dont' see jacx or anyone saying they don't like muslims being in england, they are saying "BE HERE, just stfu and stop complaining and trying to change us" He explained that in great detail, that he has no problem with them being part of his world, just stop judging him and trying to change him and his countries laws and that he has no right to go live there and try to change their laws, or treat them as if they're doing something wrong by Not changing, or just plotting to blow them up rather than accept them for who they are. That's what ppl are saying here.

(We're not talking about governments doing this such as the allies in iraq now patrolling their lands, we are talking about general people)

I'd like to see us(individuals) go to iraq and change the laws regarding things they feel strongly about. ex: such as laws regarding the humility of women or fornication...I doubt you'd stand a snowball's chance in hell. March in protest against anything their leaders set as law (god's or otherwise) and you'll end up stoned or with your head on a plate, that may sound harsh but we all know its how they handle resistance there.

I think the bottom line is , people are fed up with this whole middle east situation and the terrorism plot yesterday has caused emotions to boil over. Some irrational thinking is bound to occur, that's normal. In reality, the poor desperate people who are suffereing, OF course we welcome them and want to help them... but the price our kindness is coming with has become quite high, even for the most meek and fair minded.

(f) for Kat :Friends:

[Kat]

I dont' see jacx or anyone saying they don't like muslims being in england, they are saying "BE HERE, just stfu and stop complaining and trying to change us" He explained that in great detail, that he has no problem with them being part of his world, just stop judging him and trying to change him and his countries laws and that he has no right to go live there and try to change their laws, or treat them as if they're doing something wrong by Not changing, or just plotting to blow them up rather than accept them for who they are. That's what ppl are saying here.

I think this is the main point I disagree with you on. IMO Jacx (sorry Jacx, not trying to single you out - just makes it easier to clarify what I mean) has no more right to call the country his than the Muslims do - however short or long a time either of them, or their ancestors, have lived in the country.

Those who break the law, by whatever means, should be treated equally, whether they're Muslim or otherwise, and Muslims who break the law should not be taken as representational or the Muslim population.


(We're not talking about governments doing this such as the allies in iraq now patrolling their lands, we are talking about general people)

I'd like to see us(individuals) go to iraq and change the laws regarding things they feel strongly about. ex: such as laws regarding the humility of women or fornication...I doubt you'd stand a snowball's chance in hell. March in protest against anything their leaders set as law (god's or otherwise) and you'll end up stoned or with your head on a plate, that may sound harsh but we all know its how they handle resistance there.

I agree, but again, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

I think the bottom line is , people are fed up with this whole middle east situation and the terrorism plot yesterday has caused emotions to boil over. Some irrational thinking is bound to occur, that's normal. In reality, the poor desperate people who are suffereing, OF course we welcome them and want to help them... but the price our kindness is coming with has become quite high, even for the most meek and fair minded.
D'you think it's ok, or morally sound, or acceptable, or inevitable that this price has become high? I don't.

(f) for Kat :Friends:

:bananapowerslide: :hugs:

[CrayZii-InDiaN]

'Air plot' suspects: Names released
The assets of 19 people held on suspicion of plotting to blow up passenger planes have been frozen. Their details appeared on the Bank of England's website as:


ALI, Abdula, Ahmed Date of birth (DOB): 10/10/1980
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17


ALI, Cossor
DOB: 04/12/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17



ALI, Shazad, Khuram
DOB: 11/06/1979
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


HUSSAIN, Nabeel
DOB: 10/03/1984
Address: London, E4


HUSSAIN, Tanvir
DOB: 21/02/1981
Address: Leyton, London, E10


HUSSAIN, Umair
DOB: 09/10/1981
Address: London, E14


ISLAM, Umar
DOB: 23/04/1978
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


KAYANI, Waseem
DOB: 28/04/1977
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


KHAN, Assan, Abdullah
DOB: 24/10/1984
Address: London, E17


KHAN, Waheed, Arafat
DOB: 18/05/1981
Address: London, E17


KHATIB, Osman, Adam
DOB: 07/12/1986
Address: London, E17


PATEL, Abdul, Muneem :confused: Are there Patel’s in Pakistan?
DOB: 17/04/1989
Address: London, E5


RAUF, Tayib
DOB: 26/04/1984
Address: Birmingham


SADDIQUE, Muhammed, Usman
DOB: 23/04/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17


SARWAR, Assad
DOB: 24/05/1980
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


SAVANT, Ibrahim
DOB: 19/12/1980
Address: London, E17


TARIQ, Amin, Asmin
DOB: 07/06/1983
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17


UDDIN, Shamin, Mohammed
DOB: 22/11/1970
Address: Stoke Newington, London


ZAMAN, Waheed
DOB: 27/05/1984
Address: London, E17

[Nazkyn]

I think that if people who complain about having no culture worried more about preserving their own and less about restricting others' they'd be a lot happier. When was the last time you went Morris Dancing? ;)

You seem to change the argument everytime Kat :S I was referring to a traditional ruleset, not way of life, way of life is upto the individual. Not changing our laws to suit foreign cultures isn't exactly restricting them... I think that changing our ruleset to accompany others is a blatent pisstake to be honest... ;)

I don't know if it's what Quaker meant, but I noticed a bit of a contradiction in what you said: you argue that Muslims who are citizens of your country should not try and change your laws, and yet the US are changing the laws (even regimes) of other countries when they're not even citizens, which is surely worse.

I basically replied to Quaker regarding this in my last reply, not sure many people got it though because I didn't put it very clearly... more sarcastic, people need to learn to differentiate between the governments interest and the public interest, so I don't think it is a contradiction atall.

[CrayZii-InDiaN]

fuck... i had resepcts for musilms now they have lost it all very recently.. anywhere you hear something abbout terriorst its some one from them.. i donno thats there problem? what do they get out of it? from destroying places and destroying so many lives?


they are sick.. and we we have a grung againist they do the same thing over and over again.. they will never learn.. because of few of them.. the whole culture is getting an bad name and in the society when we walk and when we see someone from that country all we think about is.. september 11 and etc...

i hope there is an ending for this..

they have targeted.. USA and AUS by the looks of it..

and in India there might be possible attack might accur durning next week since.. its our Independence Day celebrations next week.



for more info on this..

US issues terror warning in India

NEW DELHI (Reuters) - The U.S. embassy in India warned American citizens on Friday of possible attacks by al Qaeda in or around New Delhi and Mumbai in the run-up to the country's Independence Day celebrations next week.
The warning came a day after British police said they foiled a major plot to attack trans-atlantic airliners, and exactly a month after the Mumbai Blasts..
Sources :
http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/international/ticker/detail/U_S_embassy_warns_of_terrorist_attacks_in_India.ht ml?siteSect=143&sid=6964983&cKey=1155283671000
http://www.newsone.ca/westfallweeklynews/ViewArticle.aspx?id=209950&source=2

[RobCheadle]

'Air plot' suspects: Names released
The assets of 19 people held on suspicion of plotting to blow up passenger planes have been frozen. Their details appeared on the Bank of England's website as:


ALI, Abdula, Ahmed Date of birth (DOB): 10/10/1980
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17


ALI, Cossor
DOB: 04/12/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17



ALI, Shazad, Khuram
DOB: 11/06/1979
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


HUSSAIN, Nabeel
DOB: 10/03/1984
Address: London, E4


HUSSAIN, Tanvir
DOB: 21/02/1981
Address: Leyton, London, E10


HUSSAIN, Umair
DOB: 09/10/1981
Address: London, E14


ISLAM, Umar
DOB: 23/04/1978
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


KAYANI, Waseem
DOB: 28/04/1977
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


KHAN, Assan, Abdullah
DOB: 24/10/1984
Address: London, E17


KHAN, Waheed, Arafat
DOB: 18/05/1981
Address: London, E17


KHATIB, Osman, Adam
DOB: 07/12/1986
Address: London, E17


PATEL, Abdul, Muneem :confused: Are there Patel’s in Pakistan?
DOB: 17/04/1989
Address: London, E5


RAUF, Tayib
DOB: 26/04/1984
Address: Birmingham


SADDIQUE, Muhammed, Usman
DOB: 23/04/1982
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17


SARWAR, Assad
DOB: 24/05/1980
Address: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire


SAVANT, Ibrahim
DOB: 19/12/1980
Address: London, E17


TARIQ, Amin, Asmin
DOB: 07/06/1983
Address: Walthamstow, London, E17


UDDIN, Shamin, Mohammed
DOB: 22/11/1970
Address: Stoke Newington, London


ZAMAN, Waheed
DOB: 27/05/1984
Address: London, E17


All good strong British names ey Kat... embedded in good old British culture??...

yeah right!!

These people are about as British as Hitler.

[Kat]

You seem to change the argument everytime Kat :S I was referring to a traditional ruleset, not way of life, way of life is upto the individual. Not changing our laws to suit foreign cultures isn't exactly restricting them... I think that changing our ruleset to accompany others is a blatent pisstake to be honest.
Sorry Naz, that comment wasn't very well explained - I didn't mean to sound dismissive.

In a democracy shouldn't our ruleset reflect the wishes of the people though. I'm getting confused about what we're talking about too. In terms of culture I don't think anyone has any right to inflict theirs on others, neither does anyone have the right to expect other people to conform or adapt to, or help preserve, their culture, because said other people have reolcated to their country.

In terms of laws these should be open to influence from all members of society, in equal measures, regardless of how long they've been in that society.

Could you define what you mean by ruleset? I've taken it above to mean laws, but I'm not sure if that's right.



I basically replied to Quaker regarding this in my last reply, not sure many people got it though because I didn't put it very clearly... more sarcastic, people need to learn to differentiate between the governments interest and the public interest, so I don't think it is a contradiction atall.
Yeah, I missed that. It's a fair point.


All good strong British names ey Kat... embedded in good old British culture??...

yeah right!!

These people are about as British as Hitler.

Rob, I think you've missed my point (or maybe I've missed yours?). There is no 'good old British culture', there are no 'good strong British names' and Hitler didn't have documentation to show he was British; If these people do then they are just as British as you.

[Nazkyn]

Laws and other rules that aint exactly laws but have been in place for ages (like Rachels example of a muslim joining the mounties and expecting a rule change).

[Calienta]

Kat, I'm gonna throw out a huge IF... What if the Muslims in Canada or Britain for example became the majority, and they voted in somebody who changed all the rules and turned Canada or Britain into a Muslim country with all the laws changed as well? That would conform with your reflecting the wishes of the people wouldn't it? Because majority always rules in the democratic society (let's not turn this into that thread though, lol)... So you think that any culture that wishes to move to another country has the right to change the face of that country?

I think that anybody moving anywhere should make an effort to keep their own culture, yet be aware and respect the cultures of everyone else there and not expect any special treatment, just fairness.

In terms of culture I don't think anyone has any right to inflict theirs on others, neither does anyone have the right to expect other people to conform or adapt to, or help preserve, their culture, because said other people have reolcated to their country

No they don't ;)

[Kat]

Laws and other rules that aint exactly laws but have been in place for ages (like Rachels example of a muslim joining the mounties and expecting a rule change).
Why do you think these shouldn't be changed? Not trying to be obtuse; I've looked back and I can't see any reason other than that you think 'it's a blatent pisstake'.

[RobCheadle]

Rob, I think you've missed my point (or maybe I've missed yours?). There is no 'good old British culture', there are no 'good strong British names' and Hitler didn't have documentation to show he was British; If these people do then they are just as British as you.


Of course there are good strong british names Kat....

What about James, John, Michael, Steven, Kathryn, Caroline, Susan?

When you have kids are you gonna call em Olga, Mohammed, Tanweer, Arafat or some other obviously non British name.... have you lost the plot?

Hitler was German... what do you mean he didnt have any documentation to prove he was British, he didnt cus he wasnt....and just because the shit head Blair has taken pity on these lowlife arseholes and given them a British passport it doesnt mean they are British. Being british means a lot more to me than just my passport... it's about everything ELSE that actually MAKES me British, all the stuff that mohammed and his terrorsit brothers dont want to take part in.

Have you completely and utterly lost all respect for your country or what?

Denounce these motherfuckers as being foreigners that we are war with now!!!

:@

[Nazkyn]

Sorry, my cockney side coming through lol :$

It's about national pride I suppose, something so little as a mountie hat is something that is strongly linked with that particular country (Canada in this case), something like that is as solid as law in my book.

I'll give another example -

Not long ago (can't remember exactly when) there was a muslim all girls football tournament, the British all girls muslim football team had to appeal to be invited to this tournament, was that them saying that they're not proper muslims because they're British??

I'm gonna find a link and update this :)

Well said Rob!!

[Kat]

Of course there are good strong british names Kat....

What about James, John, Michael, Steven, Kathryn, Caroline, Susan?

When you have kids are you gonna call em Olga, Mohammed, Tanweer, Arafat or some other obviously non British name.... have you lost the plot?

Hitler was German... what do you mean he didnt have any documentation to prove he was British, he didnt cus he wasnt....and just because the shit head Blair has taken pity on these lowlife arseholes and given them a British passport it doesnt mean they are British. Being british means a lot more to me than just my passport... it's about everything ELSE that actually MAKES me British, all the stuff that mohammed and his terrorsit brothers dont want to take part in.

Have you completely and utterly lost all respect for your country or what?

Denounce these motherfuckers as being foreigners that we are war with now!!!

:@

If you looked into the origins of those names, none of them would originally come from the Island we live on. What's your cut-off for being British? Is it a number of years? 50? 100? 1000?
Most of us originate from invaders/colonisers/immigrants from one time period or another.

I'd like to know what being British means to you; I think that might progress this discussion because you haven't actually said.

And no, I haven't lost all respect for my country. I didn't have that much to start with to be honest.



Not long ago (can't remember exactly when) there was a muslim all girls football tournament, the British all girls muslim football team had to appeal to be invited to this tournament, was that them saying that they're not proper muslims because they're British??

That's interesting, but isn't it more a comment on inter-Muslim relations, rather than a comment on relations between British Muslims and non-Muslims, which is what I thought we were discussing? I'll be interested to read the update.

Rob, Naz, I think you're both dudes and I hope I haven't offended you and that you're not taking this argument personally :)

[RobCheadle]

Kat. I want you to take a long hard look at this website please. In fact I want you to read it all. It's been put together by a Junior school. It will teach you something about your country.

Foreword
Britain is full of culture and traditions which have been around for hundreds of years. British customs and traditions are famous all over the world. When people think of Britain they often think of people drinking tea, eating fish and chips and wearing bowler hats, but there is more to Britain than just those things. We have English and British traditions of sport, music, food and many royal occasions. There are also songs, sayings and superstitions. Who was Guy Fawkes? Why does the Queen have two birthdays? You can find the answers here in our pages on life in Britain.

We are the staff and pupils of a junior school in England, who have put together several pages to help you learn more about our culture.

The best page to check out first, is a page full of questions sent in by people from around the world. Enjoy!

Link: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/


EDIT... of course you havent offended me Kat. I praise you for the fact you want to debate this. I also enjoy a good debate with you more than pretty much anyone else here. I think in the current climate I probably feel stronger about this than I usually would. What I want is for you toaccept that we are British and we are steeped in Culture and respect for each other. The muslims that are trying to kill us are not.

[Calienta]

Kat:) I think you missed my post up there...

[Nazkyn]

Rob, Naz, I think you're both dudes and I hope I haven't offended you and that you're not taking this argument personally :)

I hope I havn't offended you either :)

Fancy becoming my 10th wife and having an arranged marriage in Bognor Regis next week??

[RobCheadle]

lmao @ Naz!!


Quote from the Guardian:

Shockingly, one in three British Muslims aged between 18 and 24 said they would rather live under Sharia law than under British law. In a Pew poll of Muslims worldwide, a gob-smacking 81% of British Muslims said they thought of themselves as a Muslim first and a citizen of their country only second.

[JaiJai]

I hope I havn't offended you either :)

Fancy becoming my 10th wife and having an arranged marriage in Bognor Regis next week??



Lmfao!!! *rep'd for that*


Rob, I totally agree with what you are saying here: emotions and convictions regarding this subject are running high, and people are being forced to choose "sides" more than ever now.

[Kat]

Kat, I'm gonna throw out a huge IF... What if the Muslims in Canada or Britain for example became the majority, and they voted in somebody who changed all the rules and turned Canada or Britain into a Muslim country with all the laws changed as well?

Sorry Cali, I think you posted while I was posting - this is a great way to waste a Friday afternoon :D

Then I'd become part of a minority fighting for my rights. I'd think that just because I was in a minority it wouldn't mean that my wishes, concerns etc shouldn't be considered by my government. I have certain instrinsic beliefs that wouldn't mesh with Islamic rule (for instance the belief that consenting adults should be able to do what they like as long as they don't hurt anyone), and I'd try to make these heard and seek compromise. If the political system that was operating didn't allow for this I'd try and change it. How far I'd go to change it (eg. would I advocate violence), I really couldn't say.

I'm arguing that people have a right to a say in the laws and the system that governs the area they live in, but they do not have a right to change (by force, change will happen naturally by other means) the culture of groups of people who may be living near them. Obviously in the example you give a change in the law and political system may lead to an enforced change in culture. I wouldn't like this, and I don't think that it should be allowed, but I know of no way to stop the possibility other than preventing certain members of society from being allowed a vote - and that would be even worse.


That would conform with your reflecting the wishes of the people wouldn't it? Because majority always rules in the democratic society (let's not turn this into that thread though, lol)...

Minorities in a democracy should have rights, and be protected. I don't want to turn this into that thread either so I'll stop there...


So you think that any culture that wishes to move to another country has the right to change the face of that country?

I think they have a right to try, and I think they have a right to be listened to and have their opinions taken into account.


I think that anybody moving anywhere should make an effort to keep their own culture, yet be aware and respect the cultures of everyone else there and not expect any special treatment, just fairness.

I agree with everything except the bolded bit. I think questions of special treatment should be considered on an individual basis, with an analysis of how much it will benefit the person getting the special treatment versus how much it will affect/harm/inconvenience others. These decisions aren't easy, but I believe it's the only way to do it.
[/QUOTE]


Rob, I'd really like to hear what being British means to you in your own words (because otherwise how am I going to argue against it :P), but I'll have a look.

Naz - Of course, can we get an icecream on the pier? :ice: (this is the only situation in which this smiley is acceptable!!8o| )


EDIT:

Quote from the Guardian:

Shockingly, one in three British Muslims aged between 18 and 24 said they would rather live under Sharia law than under British law. In a Pew poll of Muslims worldwide, a gob-smacking 81% of British Muslims said they thought of themselves as a Muslim first and a citizen of their country only second.

Yeah, I brought this up somewhere, but I think I got the statistics wrong. It's very worrying, and the only practical solution to reverse this trend is for British Muslims to feel like they are being listened to, and that they can trust the police and the government. Another statistic I heard was about how many British Muslims would report terrorist activity if they heard about it - the percentage is high, but it's dropping. To combat domestic Muslim terrorism the British government needs the trust and the sympathy of moderate British Muslims. At the moment all it's doing is encouraging them to become more fundamental.
__________________

[Nazkyn]

Ooooooo, I just found out that you can adopt an orangutan at Argos.co.uk!!

[RobCheadle]

Kat.... You used the ice cream smiley!!!!!!! shame on you!!!!

I havent got long as I'm about to leave the office... but I'm surprised you dont know as your British too right? It's about all the obvious stuff, sharing the fact that our grandparents fought wars for our freedom and lived thourgh the blitz, all that stuff added to how we were brought up by our parents and the values they taught us.. I'm gonna post all the reasons that make me Bristish another time as I'm stuck for time at the moment, but you should know... in fact I know you do!

[Kat]

Kat.... You used the ice cream smiley!!!!!!! shame on you!!!!

I havent got long as I'm about to leave the office... but I'm surprised you dont know as your British too right? It's about all the obvious stuff, sharing the fact that our grandparents fought wars for our freedom and lived thourgh the blitz, all that stuff added to how we were brought up by our parents and the values they taught us.. I'm gonna post all the reasons that make me Bristish another time as I'm stuck for time at the moment, but you should know... in fact I know you do!
No actually, I really didn't know what sort of thing you were talking about, there could have been a lot of things.
From what you've written there it's about:
a) Recent ancestral history
and
b) Values


So are you saying that anyone who doesn't share your recent ancestral history and your values isn't British?

What if another person has a different definition of Britishness that you don't fit into - why do you have more right to define it than they do?

[Mikey:)]

Lets not forget that this is an "Alledged" plot and the suspects are being held under the terrorism act which requires no proof whatsoever. The last intelligence acted upon turned out to be wrong after shooting some guy and dismanteling his house, the suspected terrorist shot dead on the underground turned out to be a Brazilian electrician and the intelligence of WMD's in Iraq was a complete fabrication... Id be very suprised if this time the people who protect us have got it right.

[Kat]

Lets not forget that this is an "Alledged" plot and the suspects are being held under the terrorism act which requires no proof whatsoever. The last intelligence acted upon turned out to be wrong after shooting some guy and dismanteling his house, the suspected terrorist shot dead on the underground turned out to be a Brazilian electrician and the intelligence of WMD's in Iraq was a complete fabrication... Id be very suprised if this time the people who protect us have got it right.
Well said! It's hard to know what's going on when the people we rely on for information are the same people who have a vested interest in keeping us afraid so they can pass more 'anti-terrorism' laws...

[Phuquit]

An outstanding article on Terrorism (http://www.sangam.org/ANALYSIS/Ahmad.htm)

Although it was written several years before 9/11, it's still as meaningful today as it was then.

Terrorism is a political problem. Seek political solutions. Diplomacy works.

[Jacx]

kat said:

Minorities in a democracy should have rights, and be protected

I agree, and in the same sentence, do you not believe they need to show the same respect to the rights of the natives of the country that is hosting them?

Quote:
So you think that any culture that wishes to move to another country has the right to change the face of that country?

kat said
I think they have a right to try, and I think they have a right to be listened to and have their opinions taken into account.

So you are saying i have the right to go to germany and demand the right to worship nazis? You are saying i have the right to go to saudi and demand that being a outsider i should have the right to be able to drink alcohol?
See its comments like the above that cause much of the trouble of the world. I personaly believe that you have to A: respect the rights and cultures of a country and B: earn the right for change. Without A and B, its a false ecconomy and you will not be welcome. Kat u seem to think that these are not important, i think you should really go and look at these communitys and see the difference between people who do A and B and those that dont!

olso please dont take this as a personal attack, but, u have stong views and i need to try for my sake and counter ballance them becuase some of those views cause offence!
Quote:
I think that anybody moving anywhere should make an effort to keep their own culture, yet be aware and respect the cultures of everyone else there and not expect any special treatment, just fairness.

kat said

I agree with everything except the bolded bit. I think questions of special treatment should be considered on an individual basis, with an analysis of how much it will benefit the person getting the special treatment versus how much it will affect/harm/inconvenience others. These decisions aren't easy, but I believe it's the only way to do it.


special treatment...humm on a individual basis? how? We have so much in terms of immergration going on, we are the number 1 destination in the world, we offer free health care unlike most of the world....my sis is cramped in a 1 bedroom flat with a 2 year old and a 6 month old and her partner...can she get a place...no..everything costs too much...what about council flat...nope, the one bedroomed 11th floor flat is all she can have.

I see so much about others, yet nothing about our own british born. Come to this country yes, contribute yes, follow your own religion yes, and be part of the community yes. get special treatment? No we cannot do it for our own british born, yet we try and do it for others...sorry cat...it makes me sick!

oh and one more thing...someone said something about british traditions and customs...something that we dont have any...bollocks to ya, come down the pubs in london with me and i will show u traditions, come to bow, and hear the bells and see some people react to them, go to the coasts and see the communitys do their thing. Whoever said it...get out, and explore your country, you got no idea what you are missing.

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/topics/index.htm#A

http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikey:)
Lets not forget that this is an "Alledged" plot and the suspects are being held under the terrorism act which requires no proof whatsoever. The last intelligence acted upon turned out to be wrong after shooting some guy and dismanteling his house, the suspected terrorist shot dead on the underground turned out to be a Brazilian electrician and the intelligence of WMD's in Iraq was a complete fabrication... Id be very suprised if this time the people who protect us have got it right.





Well said! It's hard to know what's going on when the people we rely on for information are the same people who have a vested interest in keeping us afraid so they can pass more 'anti-terrorism' laws...


they been watching this lot since december, be bloody thankful they DO THIS TO PROTECT YOU ALL.

jusus i hate this shit that we are int he wrong, when we try to make this country safer for ALL the people from ALL the nations who live on these lands. If some of you actually supported the police and intellegence, and if some of these communitys bothered to work harder witht he police, the place would be safer and stronger...dont just blame the police and the intellegence!

[Treadon]

Anyone who wants to attack their own country should be imprisoned for life for treason

[Ridgeback]

Muslims want to live via the rules of their religion, and they find that hard to do. Dont mean that they cannot do it, in fact many do it and do it well and live peaceful lives...some cannot and use the world for war.

Kat u said they are part of british culture, ur right to a point, they are, so are africans, west indians etc etc.

But no matter who comes over, they MUST adapt to british rule and british life. if you go to one of their countrys, you do the same, if the law says everyone is banned from alcohol thats fine and dandy, dont matter...thats their rules! You obey them, if you cannot live by that rule, you move to another country that suits your needs, what you DO NOT DO IS DEMAND CHANGE just becuase you and your comrades want it. You got no right to do that, its disrespecting the country you have come to!

These muslims of whatever race come to england and have to choose to stay and adapt to UK rules! see the turks...they are muslim, they adapted fine, look at most the sikhs...again fine no problems..

But we got this lot that DEMAND change, and thats what makes people like uganja mad. It makes me VERY MAD too. Now im christian, and im proud, i got no issues with muslims or sikhs or buddas or whatever. As long as people stick to the rules of this land, and show simple manners same as i should to them, there should never be issues.


Demand change becuase of your race or religion and you get no respect!

All I can say is... WELL FUCKING SAID!

I find this saying quite apt... "when in Rome, do as the Romans do"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_in_Rome

[Quaker]

We (allies) were there to help those people (Iraqi ppl), at least our men and women who are in that sess pool dying everyday are. BullShit.... what were the reasons given for going to war? IDK what the true intentions of the Gov'ts may be, It doesn't matter what the people there think they're doing because ultimatly whether they want to or not they will be doing what the governments that sent them there want them to do! but to everyday americans and brits, it was a humane effort to save them from the wicked tyrant (saddam), LMFAO again what were the reasons given to go to war in Iraq? were they to "free the Iraqies for Saddam"? or because Saddam had "WMD'S"? not to change their beliefs or convictions. Is forcing people to accept and undertake a certain goverment that another deems "acceptable" and "right" not forcing others to "change their beliefs or convictions"??

And I say we pull out of the middle east for completely selfish reasons, to save ours and our allies people's lives, our soldiers, our reporters who have been savagely abuducted and beheaded, our victims of terrorism.... ahhhh while conviently forgetting all of the thousands of Iraqie people that have been slaughterd as a result of this invasion into Iraq.... and please don't forget about all of the thousands of people that will be slaughterd as a result of the civil war which it seems like lies ahead. Not to pull out to "let them have peace" but on the contrary, let them have at it and fight their wars they seem to persist to have. LMFAO I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT!!!! America (the entire coalition) goes in starts a fire... declares its going to "put out the fire" (which IT started) and expects everyone to kiss its feet.... then it fails and expects ZERO responsiblity in the matter because after all it was only "being helpful" and putting out a fire. It appears useless at this point, to try to help them have peace and flourish as nations ahhhh but wait i thought you were never trying to force your views on to them? and again for the 3rd time was "bringing peace to Iraq" the reason given for invading Iraq? As i recall there weren't daily suicide bombings under Saddam's rule & MOST importantly the country wasn't headed towards a full fledged civil war under Saddam's rule... So once again don't start a fire if you don't want to be responsible for putting it out!.

I dont' see jacx or anyone saying they don't like muslims being in england, they are saying "BE HERE, just stfu and stop complaining and trying to change us" You may view it as trying to change you and thats an issue you have to deal with with yourself, trying to change laws to better serve a group is what democracys are about... are they not?
If not then take the label of democracy off and call it a dictatorship (the same kind Bush and the gang went to war in Iraq to dismantle ;) ). ust stop judging him and trying to change him and his countries laws ahhhh once again even in this day in age do we not have the religious wacko's here in the states judging and changing laws (passing amendments) based on thier view of "right and wrong"?? Its a part of being in a democratic country so get used to it... or again take off that label! and that he has no right to go live there and try to change their laws, or treat them as if they're doing something wrong by Not changing... And once again for the 3rd time... THATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DICTATORSHIP AND A DEMOCRACY.... IF YOU WANT THE STYLE OF GOVERMENT AND THE VIEWS YOU'VE POINTED OUT ABOVE THEN PLEASE STOP USING THE LABEL OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND CHANGE IT TO A DICTATORSHIP!!

[JaiJai]

First of all Quacker, try to calm down please and since I'm the only one you're quoting, I'll gladly oblige in answering you, but stop being so pissy about it sheesh!

Now then:

BullShit.... what were the reasons given for going to war?

The belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was indeed the main reason for the invasion of Iraq. (are u saying this isn't a good reason if it was a legitimate one?) You've gotta remember, America had just been attacked by Osama (surely you remember 9/11?) , That was still fresh on the minds of the world, plus the fact Sadam wouldn't cooperate with the weapons inspectors. But the official reason not only was the WMD threat and Iraq's links with terrorist organizations.. but also the human rights violations in Iraq by sadam and his regime, which included torture, rape, molestations, murder, chemical experiment on people, kidnapping, etc..(And yes Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions, acts of torture, and rape for decades since Sadam came to power back in the late 70's.)

<<< So when our soldiers went to Iraq, do you not think these things were part of their psyche as well?? To help these people was what the SOLDIERS wanted, and that's the point I keep arguing with you. I don't care what you believe our government's motives were... I'M saying, Our people ie: (our soldiers and support staff such as red cross etc..) had the intention of freeing a repressed and tortured country from the hands of this monster, SO DON'T YOU FORGET that these people, who you say are being slaughtered by US in this war were ALREADY BEING SLAUGHTERED BY THEIR OWN RULER! and WE were trying to help them and at the same time trying to protect the world from his WMD threat.
(eh hem, scuse me... I thought i'd type in all bold caps too) :orign:

Phew, lemme take a break before i go to the 2nd of your 10 questions :heat:

[Quaker]

I'll gladly oblige in answering you, but stop being so pissy about it sheesh! eh i'll try just for you... but only if you promise to think just a tad bit before you type.

Phew, lemme take a break before i go to the 2nd of your 10 questions :heat: Ok.... i'll be back later tomorrow to reply to all of em at once.

Have a nice night :)

[JaiJai]

*Resa skips questions 2 and 3 since those are covered in question 1* ;)

Moving right along to question 4:

Is forcing people to accept and undertake a certain goverment that another deems "acceptable" and "right" not forcing others to "change their beliefs or convictions"??

I assume you're talking again about us being in Iraq, so I'll answer based on this premise.

You say "forcing them to undertake a certain gov't that we deemed right" etc.. Uhm.. The coalition had the IRAQI people ELECT their own leader... and we forced them to change their beliefs how??? THEY elected who THEY wanted to lead them, If those leaders changed their rules and customs, that's our fault how? (oooh a question back atcha) :YES2:

Now You'll say but we forced a democracy on them, well when weighed against the other options given at the time, dont' you think it's best to let the people who have been abused and repressed for their whole lives, be part of choosing their new leaders? That's not changing their beliefs, as a matter of fact, it's giving them the freedom to practice their religions and customs without fear any longer. They can now flourish in their OWN beliefs.

..ahhhh while conviently forgetting all of the thousands of Iraqie people that have been slaughterd as a result of this invasion into Iraq....

Ah geez, will you make up your mind, Do you want us there or not? :|


and again for the 3rd time was "bringing peace to Iraq" the reason given for invading Iraq?

aaaaahhh haahhh already answered that one na na nana na :ice:


As i recall there weren't daily suicide bombings under Saddam's rule & MOST importantly the country wasn't headed towards a full fledged civil war under Saddam's rule... So once again don't start a fire if you don't want to be responsible for putting it out!.

Yep you're right.. rape, torture, murder, excutions, crimes against his country's women and children were so much better. And MOST LIKELY just as Important.... There's no way they would have been headed towards a full fledged civil war, because the iraqi people were TOO SCARED to flinch, let alone have a war among themselves or try to overthrow this monster's regime.

We started a fire how? because we dropped the bombs to get rid of Sadam and his evil companions? So basically what you're saying is that you condone the treatement Sadam inflicted upon his people and we should have left him to it. Do you also think we should have left Hitler alone? Even if you took WMD out of the equation, you still had a tyrant who supported terrorist organizations and who was committing human rights violations of mass proportion against a nation of people.
trying to change laws to better serve a group is what democracys are about... are they not?
If not then take the label of democracy off and call it a dictatorship

I didn't say "stop going through democratic processes to change laws" that better serve THEIR GROUP... I said for them to "stfu and stop trying to change us". If the muslims are going to england and trying to change things for ALL british citizens, Its wrong. Plain and simple. Its different than what you are saying when u say "better serve a group" << that would mean only for themselves.. and that's not what they're doing. I duno where you live, but I'd venture to bet that you wouldn't want people from another country coming into your town and trying to change the laws of YOUR town to fit what they had in the country they LEFT.

Hypothetically: A group of "quakers" :giggle: comes into your town, and they don't believe in electricity so they protest and address the town council and finally get the laws changed so you cannot use electricity anymore, now you cannot watch tv, listen to music or use internet, like you always have been able to do.. Would u really stand for that? Yea it's an extreme example, but to those brits who are proud of their own customs and ways of life, it's just as extreme what the muslims are trying to do.

ahhhh once again even in this day in age do we not have the religious wacko's here in the states judging and changing laws (passing amendments) based on thier view of "right and wrong"?? Its a part of being in a democratic country so get used to it... or again take off that label!

Not necessarily true, because the the general principle of a democratic government is that of majority rule, So a small miniority of "religious wackos" shouldn't actually be able to change laws that govern the majority ;)

And once again for the 3rd time... THATS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A DICTATORSHIP AND A DEMOCRACY.... IF YOU WANT THE STYLE OF GOVERMENT AND THE VIEWS YOU'VE POINTED OUT ABOVE THEN PLEASE STOP USING THE LABEL OF A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT AND CHANGE IT TO A DICTATORSHIP!!

Your shouting scares me :$

Neways..

A Dictatorship is ABSOLUTE rule, therefore, the PEOPLE do NOT have any say so...

So If the MAJORITY of British citizens are saying "We dont' want muslims coming to our country trying to change OUR customs and laws, then that would NOT be a Dictatorship because for the 2nd Time(a) , When laws are voted on and decided by the MAJORITY of the people, it is by definition... A DEMOCRACY!

Can I go out and play now? :smartass: :ice:

[Furyous]

*Well Said Jai Jai*
.....
Hmmmm, that's wierd, I don't see a SINGLE Jim Smith in that list of names!?! WIERD!!!

[Phuquit]

I must say I'm a little disappointed by the strength of conviction of the majority view in this thread, especially since they are mostly from people for whom I have a great deal of respect.
Although I'm reluctant to single anyone out, the following quote will be very useful for the purpose of making my point:
1. The belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was indeed the main reason for the invasion of Iraq. (are u saying this isn't a good reason if it was a legitimate one?) 2. You've gotta remember, America had just been attacked by Osama (surely you remember 9/11?) , That was still fresh on the minds of the world, 3. plus the fact Sadam wouldn't cooperate with the weapons inspectors. But the official reason not only was the WMD threat and Iraq's links with terrorist organizations.. 4. but also the human rights violations in Iraq by sadam and his regime, which included torture, rape, molestations, murder, chemical experiment on people, kidnapping, etc..(And yes Human rights organizations have documented government approved executions, acts of torture, and rape for decades since Sadam came to power back in the late 70's.)
1. It's well-known that the "evidence" about Saddam's WMDs was falsified in order to curry international support.
During the first 6 months of Bush's tenure, Bush, Rice, Powell, and others had all gone on the record declaring that Saddam had no WMDs and did not pose a threat to the world, to the US, or even to their own neighbours. Also, when interviewed prior to 9/11, Bush, when asked if he intended to pursue Saddam, replied with surprising candour, "Of course. After all, he tried to kill my dad" (referring to a failed assassination plot against Bush Sr. during the Clinton administration, which was alleged to have been sponsored by Iraq).
2. Yes, America had recently suffered the 9/11 attacks. The US intelligence agencies searched desperately for an Iraqi connection, but found none. Osama bin Laden is still at large, and Bush seems perfectly happy with that. Why isn't Osama the focus of the "War on Terror"? Apparently, the statute of limitations for masterminding a terrorist attack resulting in around 3000 deaths, is 5 to 6 months...
3. Saddam had been cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors. Don't forget, it was President Clinton who advised the UN team to leave Iraq in late 1998, because he had just given the order for the "Desert Fox" bombing campaign against Iraq. Shortly before this, the US-appointed chief UN weapons inspector in Iraq, Scott Ritter, had gone on record saying that in his opinion Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed. In other words, not only did Iraq posess no WMDs, they also lacked the capacity to produce them.
4. Ah yes, the human rights abuse... The American and British Governments were well aware of Saddam's barbarity long before they started supplying him with weapons - including WMDs. They were also well aware of the infamous usage of chemical weapons in Halabja - David Mellor, a British cabinet minister, was a guest at Saddam's royal palace at the very moment the incident occurred. The very fact that Saddam had shown he was willing to go to such extremes in the war against America's enemy (Iran), led both the British and the US Governments to increase the supply of arms to Iraq. In the case of Britain, £300 million of taxpayers' was given as a gift to Saddam in the form of arms credit.

All of the above is easily verifiable, and I am not prepared to debate it.

The point I'm trying to make is this:
The condemnation which has been almost unanimous in this topic, is almost verbatim what can be read in any mainstream British or American op. ed. column.
The paragraph I quoted by Jaijai could have been written by virtually any journalist in North America - and that's what really worries me...

John Pilger, an independant journalist who is probably best known for his tireless campaigning to end the US-sponsored genocide in East Timor, tells an anecdote which makes my point far better than I can...
During the Cold War, a group of Russian journalists toured the United States. On the final day of their visit, they were asked by their hosts for their impressions. “I have to tell you,” said their spokesman, “that we were astonished to find, after reading all the newspapers and watching TV, that all the opinions on all the vital issues were, by and large, the same. To get that result in our country, we imprison people, we tear out their fingernails. Here, you don't have that. What's the secret? How do you do it?” ~ "War by Media", by John Pilger (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13629.htm)

There has been much debate in this topic about the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy.
A democracy is supposed to encourage dissent, not to stifle it...

[JaiJai]

Phuquit, while I understand and agree with most of what you're saying

AGAIN.... You are not getting what I'm Saying

I am Not saying Iraq had wmd, Im saying the soldiers who went there from all over the world, were of the mindset they were helping the rest of us be safe because It was being told that they had wmd, AND that they were rescuing the iraqi people from the Inhumane way they were treated.

Our Soldiers, Red Cross, Salvation army, etc.... The ones who were SENT THERE... These people, same as the british soldiers, and all other's in the coalition (NOT TALKING ABOUT THE LEADERS) But the ones who are on the front lines etc.. , had Intentions to help these people.

And be it based on Propaganda or not, That's not my point. It's what people believed AT the time it started.

Btw..how do you know your resources are any more reliable than the next person's resources.... It's all brought to us via Media.

Of course, I do agree with you, I realize there were no WMD, I never said there was, but still any of us could be and often are misled by the press (which gov'ts can use as their tool and do), it happens every single day.

"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"

--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98

"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."

--John King, CNN, 8/18/02


Also David, Are u saying you dont' believe Sadam and his sons and their posse' commited human rights violations on the people there?? And if you do, wouldn't that be good enough reason alone to go in and remove him from power? Afterall, isn't that why the world eliminated Hitler, because of his treatment of the jews.

[Phuquit]

To clarify the 1998 situation...
Saddam had given the UN the authority to inspect whatever facility they wanted.
What Saddam had not authorised, was giving CIA and Mossad unlimited access to these locations. They were accompanying (and in some cases, outnumbering) the UN and IAEA inspection teams - which was never a part of any UN resolution passed between 1991, and 1998.
Specifically, they were trying to gain entry to Saddam's own residences, and the Ba'ath Party headquarters. It was the secret service entourage who were told they could not enter the sites, and not the UN inspectors.
Check the UN's own documentation about Iraq's compliance...

What's ironic, is that my criticism of US foreign policy, is so frequently misinterpreted as me being an advocate of Saddam's regime.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
I was a fiercely vocal opponent of Saddam all throughout the period while America and Britain were arming him, and still am to this day.
I have campaigned for the end to sanctions against the Iraqi people, because they had only augmented their suffering.

The sooner you realize that Saddam was never anything more than a puppet in the cold war, a Frankenstein's monster if you will, the sooner you will understand who the real puppetmasters are...

I speak out against tyranny wherever I see it. The greatest threat to global security in the 21st century is the US, and its agressive foreign policy.

[JaiJai]

One case in point from From Wikipedia:

In 1988, the Hussein regime began a campaign of extermination against the Kurdish people living in Northern Iraq. The attacks resulted in the death of at least 50,000 (some reports estimate as many as 100,000 people), many of them women and children.

A team of Human Rights Watch investigators determined, after analyzing eighteen tons of captured Iraqi documents, testing soil samples and carrying out interviews with more than 350 witnesses, that the attacks on the Kurdish people were characterized by gross violations of human rights, including mass executions and disappearances of many tens of thousands of noncombatants, widespread use of chemical weapons including Sarin, mustard gas and nerve agents that killed thousands, the arbitrary imprisoning of tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people for months in conditions of extreme deprivation, forced displacement of hundreds of thousands of villagers after the demolition of their homes, and the wholesale destruction of nearly two thousand villages along with their schools, mosques, farms, and power stations.

Who was going to stop him? Afterall he "owned" his people through terror and fear.
Removing Sadam from power, in my opinion, was a war worth fighting, for the sakes of the innocent iraqi people.

To paraphrase John S. Mill: "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The degraded state of patriotic feeling, which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who cares about nothing more than himself is a selfish figure who has no chance at being free, unless provided by others better than himself."

[JaiJai]

So then what are we debating about Phuquit??

You and I agree Sadam was a Tyrant that murdered and tortured his people

You and I agree people were misled about WMD by controlled media propaganda

You and I agree the USA's strict foreign policy makes it a well oiled aggressive machine that pushes other's around at times.

You and I agree Sadam needed to be taken out of power (and punished for his crimes against humanity)

So let's go have an ice cream cone together :ice:

[Phuquit]

So then what are we debating about Phuquit??

You and I agree Sadam was a Tyrant that murdered and tortured his people

You and I agree people were misled about WMD by controlled media propaganda

You and I agree the USA's strict foreign policy makes it a well oiled aggressive machine that pushes other's around at times.

You and I agree Sadam needed to be taken out of power (and punished for his crimes against humanity)

So let's go have an ice cream cone together :ice:
Can we egg the White House afterwards?

[JaiJai]

Can we egg the White House afterwards?

You supplying the eggs? I hear you got lots of chickens over there :run:


:Friends:

[Mikey:)]

20 Years of US/Iraq foriegn policy:

Iraq's 1982 removal from Washington's official list of states that support terrorism meant that the Hussein regime was now eligible for US economic and military aid, and was able to purchase advanced US technology that could also be used for military purposes.

On December 19-20, 1983, Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy — none other than Donald Rumsfeld — to Baghdad with a hand-written offer of a resumption of diplomatic relations, which had been severed during the 1967 Arab-Israel war.

On March 24, 1984, Rumsfeld was again in Baghdad.

On that same day, the UPI wire service reported from the UN: “Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers … a team of UN experts has concluded … Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, US presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with foreign minister Tariq Aziz.”

The day before, Iran had accused Iraq of poisoning 600 of its soldiers with mustard gas and Tabun nerve gas.

There is no doubt that the US government knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. On March 5, 1984, the State Department had stated that “available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons”

As a result of the openings created by Donald Rumsfeld's diplomatic triumphs, U.S. companies were recruited and encouraged, both covertly and overtly, to ship poisonous chemicals and biological agents to Iraq, by the administrations of both Reagan and George Bush Sr.. Care packages to Saddam included sample strains of anthrax and bubonic plague, and components which would be used to develop nerve poisons like sarin gas and ricin.

On March 16, 1988, Iraqi forces launched a poison gas attack on the Iraqi Kurdish village of Halabja, killing 5000 people. While that attack is today being touted by senior US officials as one of the main reasons why Hussein must now be “taken out”, at the time Washington's response to the atrocity was much more relaxed.

Just four months later, Washington stood by as the US giant Bechtel corporation won the contract to build a huge petrochemical plant that would give the Hussein regime the capacity to generate chemical weapons.

On September 8, 1988, the US Senate passed the Prevention of Genocide Act, which would have imposed sanctions on the Hussein regime. Immediately, the Reagan administration announced its opposition to the bill, calling it “premature”. The White House used its influence to stall the bill in the House of Representatives. When Congress did eventually pass the bill, the White House did not implement it.

19 Sep 2002 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells the Senate Armed Services Commitee: "There are a number of terrorist states pursuing weapons of mass destruction - Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, just to name a few - but no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein and Iraq."

I wonder what changed Donalds mind?

These people feed us with shit, whatever suits their agenda is what they tell us and it doesnt take much looking to see straight through them. No WMD's in Iraq... pretty obvious seeing as in order to launch a missile from Iraq to the UK they would need to launch it into space which they just dont have the capability to do. So now they tell us its all in the name of democracy... history tells us that democracy tends to come about after civil war so how they didnt see that coming Ill never know.

Bottom line is that they created Saddam, supplied him with funding & weapons and now another 50,000 civilians are dead from trying to get rid of him... all in the name of creating peace in the middle east! No wonder some people are pissed off!

[JaiJai]

No WMD's in Iraq... pretty obvious seeing as in order to launch a missile from Iraq to the UK they would need to launch it into space which they just dont have the capability to do.


It doesn't take a missile to be considered WMD, 9/11 proved that, the planned use of liquid bomb material in pop bottles that had the potential to blow up 10 planes 2 days ago, the sarin gas, the biological warfare that can be used in a city's water supply, etc.. are all possible WMD

Just because Iraq didn't have the capability to launch a missile to the UK doesn't mean they were any less of a threat to their neighboring countries and to the world, Not to mention the iraqi people themselves.


I do agree with alot of what you said too Mikey (f)

[Quaker]

I assume you're talking again about us being in Iraq, so I'll answer based on this premise.

You say "forcing them to undertake a certain gov't [notice i (quaker) didn't say 'leader' rather government ;)] that we deemed right" etc.. Uhm.. The coalition had the IRAQI people ELECT their own leader... and we forced them to change their beliefs how??? THEY elected who THEY wanted to lead them, If those leaders changed their rules and customs, that's our fault how? (oooh a question back atcha) Was one form of government overthrown for another one... yes or no?

Now You'll say but we forced a democracy on them, well when weighed against the other options given at the time, dont' you think it's best to let the people who have been abused and repressed for their whole lives, be part of choosing their new leaders? Not your or my call to make because remember were not forcing what we think is right (good or bad decision) or wrong on others right? ;). That's not changing their beliefs, as a matter of fact, it's giving them the freedom to practice their religions and customs without fear any longer. They can now flourish in their OWN beliefs. Once again this belief that others are lying around just waiting for the US and its coalition to come "save them"??

So its okay to force your views of right and wrong / good and bad on others... but if others want to do the same (ie british muslim citizens) within thier own country... they need to as you put it STFU... eh go figure :|

Ah geez, will you make up your mind, Do you want us there or not? :| When did i state either one? I don't recall saying i was on either "side"... please quote me, TIA.

Yep you're right.. rape torture, murder, excutions, crimes against his country's women and children were so much better. Who said either one is better? I don't understand why America and its Coalition are singling out Iraq if their reason for this war is humanitarian (since ALL other reasons have been proven false)... If this is your reason for war then why Iraq? and not Sudan? or North Korea? or the dozens of other places?

And I find it quite ironic that all of the things you've pointed out above... rape, toruture, murder & crimes against women and childern have been repeated by the current coalition occupying Iraq... unless ofcourse killing in the name of "democracy" is excluded from the whole human rights "clause" then again... **cough cough** Abu Ghraib prison **cough cough**, http://news.google.com/news?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&tab=in&ie=UTF-8&q=Iraq+rape&btnG=Search+News , etc... And MOST LIKELY just as Important.... There's no way they would have been headed towards a full fledged civil war, because the iraqi people were TOO SCARED to flinch, let alone have a war among themselves or try to overthrow this monster's regime. I'd have to disagree.... I don't think there is a need for a civil war and find it disgusting that you'd be proud of the fact that its possible now due to the wonderful work of this coalition. :O

If and when people are ready to rule themselves and want it bad enough they'll take things into their own hands and get it done... when others get involved all hell breaks loose just as it has now... causing people that used to get along just fine with each other to fight against one another etc....


We started a fire how? because we dropped the bombs to get rid of Sadam and his evil companions? No the fire was started when the US worked with Saddam to kill its "enemies" (ie: Iran), When the US gave Saddam WMD's and other such chemicle weapons to gas the Kurds and Iranians... Then the US and its coalition steps in and says "were here to save the day" ie: put out the fire that mind you they started.... eh go figure :| So basically what you're saying is that you condone the treatement Sadam inflicted upon his people and we should have left him to it. I love the "your with us or against us" mentality.... can't i be against the slaughter of Saddam against his own people and also the slaughter of the US (and coalition) against Iraqies?

Also by your line of thinking... by the US not stepping up in any other country with a humanitarian chrisis or tyrants leading the country does it mean the US upports the deaths??? so i guess your in support of all the killing in Sudan?

I thought we agreed to think before we type? :smartass:

Even if you took WMD out of the equation, you still had a tyrant who supported terrorist organizations and who was committing human rights violations of mass proportion against a nation of people. Just as dozens of other nations have and will continue to do..... Do we invade them all aswell since its so obvious that causing more death and destruction will end death and destruction??? :S

Oh and about the "Saddam suported terrorists" -----> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

I didn't say "stop going through democratic processes to change laws" that better serve THEIR GROUP... I said for them to "stfu and stop trying to change us". If the muslims are going to england and trying to change things for ALL british citizens, Its wrong. Plain and simple. Nope, I have to disagree.... In a democracy everyone should have the RIGHT to voice their opinion and how they think things should be and how they wish things to be.... your forgeting the fact that these Muslims are also British citizens and hold just as much right to the country as any other British citizen. Its different than what you are saying when u say "better serve a group" << that would mean only for themselves.. Not at all... there are special interest groups everywhere lobbying for universal laws that will affect everyone and most importantly thier "cause". Thats whats done in a democracy... people have the RIGHT to voice thier opinions. I duno where you live, but I'd venture to bet that you wouldn't want people from another country coming into your town and trying to change the laws of YOUR town to fit what they had in the country they LEFT. If their citizens of the same country as me then first off i wouldn't make the distinction between them and me as you keep doing. And secondly your right i'd try my damnest to campaign against them and try and get MY best interests served... but by the same token i wouldn't tell em they have no RIGHT to even suggest things change.

Not necessarily true, because the the general principle of a democratic government is that of majority rule, So a small miniority of "religious wackos" shouldn't actually be able to change laws that govern the majority ;) Sorry you missed the point of the above comment that i had made.... and i guess it was kind of my fault since this whole thing has been swayed towards democracy vs. dictatorship etc....

Your previous comment said something to the extent of "others are judging and telling us what to do" or something to that extent... and i was just merely pointing out that that isn't something new and its just a part of "democracy"... Your making it sound like British Muslim Citizens judging others is something new and singular to British Muslims when everyone judges others and the such.

And as a side note... I don't like to think of a democratic government as just a thing where "im bigger and stronger so i can tell you what to do" kind of thing..... I think your missing the whole "don't walk over the rights of the minorities" part thats also an essential part.

Oh and as a second side note: i don't think "religious wackos" are in the minority :(.... but i was leading towards the whole gay thread and decided not to make this anymore off topic then it may already be so just ignore me :)...

Your shouting scares me :$ Sorry (f)

A Dictatorship is ABSOLUTE rule, therefore, the PEOPLE do NOT have any say so... and in your form of a democracy.... a bunch of people say what everyone else does.... so a "super dictatorship"? Don't go and forget about the minority clause :-"

So If the MAJORITY of British citizens are saying "We dont' want muslims coming to our country trying to change OUR customs and laws, then that would NOT be a Dictatorship because for the 2nd Time(a) , When laws are voted on and decided by the MAJORITY of the people, it is by definition... A DEMOCRACY! Your right.... BUT my problem with you was your (and other people's) disappointment that British Muslims even have the RIGHT to voice their "opinion" as to how things should be.

Can I go out and play now? :smartass: :ice:

Sure you can, BUT since i know whats best for you you can only jump rope.... but since its your life to rule and all you can play any jump roping game :).

After re-reading all this gibberish (skimming it since its too long) i re-noticed that were really only discussing two things and a bunch of smaller unrelated things that came up.... so no need to reply to it all if you even want to reply .... I wouldn't have posted this and shrunk it, but i had already wasted the time in typing it so what the hay.

oooo time for a smoke break :ice:

[Jacx]

Im ammused..this has become a world vs usa thing again, when the subject was about british muslims and british plane attacks...well off subject guys sorry. Yes there are relations, but we need to be talking about the whys of the subject.

I notice comments about usa supplying iraq etc... well so did the french, germans, british etc. Ammusing note im sure. I also noticed the comments of NO weapons of mass distruction..yet over 500 chemical filled rockets been found. I notice the world was in a rage about what the turks and iraqis did the to kirds yet when people interfear they moan is usa doing their thing again...

Stop looking at the small picture and look at the large, this stuff has been going on for 100's years. Someone mentioned about there is no need for civil war...ahem please look at the WHOLE of the middle east. This civil war has raged for as long as islam has been in exsistance.

To quote part of a bbc story today:

"

Some scholars now argue that the real power-brokers in the region are no longer the great Arab players - Egypt, Syria or Iraq - but increasingly the three non-Arab powers, Israel, Iran and Turkey.
This brings us back to the Lebanon crisis, for it is ironic that it is Shia Iran - through its proxy Hezbollah - that is now seen by many in the region as being the standard-bearer for Arab resistance against Israel. Indeed, the rise of the Shia, amplified by Washington's democratic experiment in Iraq, is deeply troubling the regions traditional Sunni Arab powers. "


the major part here is this: Indeed, the rise of the Shia, amplified by Washington's democratic experiment in Iraq, is deeply troubling the regions traditional Sunni Arab powers.

Why becuase with the rise comes terror, and not just agaist the westen world, but against the sunnis.

Its not about chooseing civil war to them...its about religious war, and it will come to ahead with or without the west being involved!

But hey lets blame the west...easy that way!

[Phuquit]

Nobody is trying to deny that tension has existed between Sunni and Shia dating back for a very long time. You could make the same claim about Catholics and Protestants...
But assuming the alleged terrorists were planning to destroy those planes as has been repeated in the Western media ad nauseum, are you trying to suggest that the intended victims were other Muslims?

Before I continue, I want to make one thing perfectly clear - I do not condone terrorism, be it an act of terrorism by an oppressed minority (retail terrorism), or an act of state terrorism (wholesale terrorism).

It's very important when discussing matters such as this, to try to put them into some sort of context. Terrorism and terrorists are not created in a vacuum. There are always reasons for their actions, however misguided they may be.
Retail terrorism is almost always a direct reaction against an act of wholesale terrorism, and the full record of written human history will bear witness to this simple axiom.
The retail terrorist does what he does out of a sense of idealism, and you cannot kill an idea with a tank or a missile...
The only way to end retail terrorism, is to stop wholesale terrorism.

Now do you see why "this has become a world vs usa thing again"?

[Jacx]

no.. i dont...this thread was about why british muslims would bomb the fuck out of people flying on planes..my last post was off topic too, but the whole topic had got far too anti yank for my liking and i wanted to point some stuff out.

But this is about britian...and why brit muslims do such things. Keep the whole world vs yank stuff to another thread and look at the points we are making!

edit if im coming accross as defencive its becuase im watching a american give their view, and everyone jump on them...see i get told often that there is one thing people like about me...i look at all sides, and all views, so much onesidedness in here...i truly wonder if people make a decision and stick to it, WITHOUT really looking at all the views.

I.e the yanks...lets have a go at them for what their troups did in that prison...what u think all troups do that? u think people in the states and people in the states armed forces are not there to help protect and help people in need? or do u all really think the view of one accounts for the view of all?

stop with ur quoting of news sources, stop with websites of facts, try looking in ur hearts...thats what i try to do, i might grab a source somewhere but most comes from what i see in the street and in my heart!

so thanks to the GOOD yank troups and brit troups...the ones that really went there to help people, who really did save lives, yes u get let down by people, but we know there are good ones there, with good in their hearts...respect.

resa...go girl..i hope some of these guys can put their books down and comment from the heart like u can

[Phuquit]

If you believe the stories in the press (ie. that they were going to blow up transatlantic flights), then the intended targets were British and American citizens.
I'm glad you ask "why brit muslims do such things", because it's only after you attempt to analyse their reasons behind their (alleged) actions that you can begin to understand the all-important why.

The western media are failing to address this very issue, or at best, saying that it is fuelled by anti-westernism, without ever trying to expose the root of their grievances.
Bush, at a press conference shortly after 9/11, attempted to address the issue of "why?".
He said "They hate us for our freedom", which was a partial truth.
The American "freedom" that motivates young men to kill themselves and others, is not the freedom to choose 31 flavours of ice cream, or the freedom to buy a Humvee.
It's America's freedom to impose its will on other nations with absolute impunity.

There is always cause and effect.
Don't be content to let your media and your Governments do your thinking for you.

[Beli]

it is not America's "fault" that we have what they want. you know if they had the power to impose their will on the word they certainly would. all women would have to cover themselves cept their eyes. and the list goes on and on from there. the issues with these terrorist is they don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves and their own selfish beliefs. i think of how many innocent children would have been on those flights. what did they ever do to the terrorists? nothing. when a religion calls for killing children, then it is going to far. (and by not excluding children they are calling for children to be killed)
i doubt there are very many people, Americans or others that think sticking your nose all over the worlds business is a great idea. personally i think the USA should stay out of it. but the terrorist issue does deserve attention.

[Quaker]

you know if they had the power to impose their will on the word they certainly would. all women would have to cover themselves cept their eyes. and the list goes on and on from there. the issues with these terrorist is they don't give a fuck about anyone but themselves and their own selfish beliefs. i think of how many innocent children would have been on those ot flights. what did they ever do to the terrorists? nothing. when a religion calls for killing children, then it is going to far. (and by not excluding children they are calling for children to be killed)
i doubt there are very many people, Americans or others that think sticking your nose all over the worlds business is a great idea. personally i think the USA should stay out of it. but the terrorist issue does deserve attention.

Can we please limit the amount of stupidity / ignorance shown in one post?? purty please??

it is not America's "fault" that we have what they want. LMFAO do you honestly believe ANY of the attacks on American or non-american soil has been because people "want" what Americans have?

Even take 9/11.... it didn't really have much to do with Islam other than the fact that the people that committed the act considered themselves Muslims. The reasons that OBL gave for the action were quite simply the presence of western armies in Saudi Arabia and so on... Not because he / they were "jealous" of what the Americans have...

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_07_18/article.html
Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life....

The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people—three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia—with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are nfrom some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

[Beli]

"LMFAO do you honestly believe ANY of the attacks on American or non-american soil has been because people "want" what Americans have?"

so world leaders are not motivated by power? please! get a clue. the entire world is motivated by power. current situation in Iraq motivated by oil power. i could go on....
so you know the true reason behind 9/11? oh do tell. because i think there is so much more going on than any of us will ever know. we are stupid to surmise that we know what is really going on behind closed doors.
Quaker, unless you are some goverment spy, you know nothing more than the rest of us. so stop with the know it all routine.

[Quaker]

so world leaders are not motivated by power? please! get a clue. the entire world is motivated by power. current situation in Iraq motivated by oil power. i could go on.... hmmm look up at your original post.... you went from talking about how "'they' want what america has" to talking about terrorists such as OBL etc... so i (maybe wrongfuly) assumed you were talking purely about 'terrorist' organizations, and i don't know about you but OBL is certainly not a "world leader" in my book.
so you know the true reason behind 9/11? oh do tell. because i think there is so much more going on than any of us will ever know. we are stupid to surmise that we know what is really going on behind closed doors. Nope no one will no the "true" reasons as you pointed out but by looking at the policy of the organizations that are suspected of the act and their past actions and statements reasonable 'guesses' can certainly be made.

[Kat]

kat said:

Minorities in a democracy should have rights, and be protected

I agree, and in the same sentence, do you not believe they need to show the same respect to the rights of the natives of the country that is hosting them?
They are not being hosted here by natives (who would you consider 'native' btw?), they live here. They have just as much right to this country as anyone else. And yes, people should all respect each others rights, whether they're a minorioty or a majority, as I've said previously.


Quote:
So you think that any culture that wishes to move to another country has the right to change the face of that country?

kat said
I think they have a right to try, and I think they have a right to be listened to and have their opinions taken into account.

So you are saying i have the right to go to germany and demand the right to worship nazis? You are saying i have the right to go to saudi and demand that being a outsider i should have the right to be able to drink alcohol?
That would be against the law in either case, but in Germany you'd have a right to try and change that law through the democratic process. In Saudi you'd have a right (moral, rather than legally in this case) to try and change the political process. Assuming you're a citizen that is.


See its comments like the above that cause much of the trouble of the world. I personaly believe that you have to A: respect the rights and cultures of a country and B: earn the right for change. Without A and B, its a false ecconomy and you will not be welcome. Kat u seem to think that these are not important, i think you should really go and look at these communitys and see the difference between people who do A and B and those that dont!
I agree with you on A - you should respect all the cultures of a country, which means all the cultures of all the groups living within that country (I believe you should respect the cultures of people outside that country too...)

On B - what d'you think you have to do to earn the right for change? If it's about having paid taxes I have an argument against that which I can copy and paste from another thread...

Quote:
I think that anybody moving anywhere should make an effort to keep their own culture, yet be aware and respect the cultures of everyone else there and not expect any special treatment, just fairness.
kat said

I agree with everything except the bolded bit. I think questions of special treatment should be considered on an individual basis, with an analysis of how much it will benefit the person getting the special treatment versus how much it will affect/harm/inconvenience others. These decisions aren't easy, but I believe it's the only way to do it.


special treatment...humm on a individual basis? how? We have so much in terms of immergration going on, we are the number 1 destination in the world, we offer free health care unlike most of the world....my sis is cramped in a 1 bedroom flat with a 2 year old and a 6 month old and her partner...can she get a place...no..everything costs too much...what about council flat...nope, the one bedroomed 11th floor flat is all she can have.

[quote]
I don't quite know what your point is here. What special treatment would help your sister to have more freedom to practice her culture? You seem to be turning this into an argument about immigration as well, which I didn't think was the point of this thread. We're talking about different groups of BRITISH CITIZENS. When or how they or their ancestors moved to this country seem to me to be irrelvant.

[quote="Jacx"]
I see so much about others, yet nothing about our own british born. Come to this country yes, contribute yes, follow your own religion yes, and be part of the community yes. get special treatment? No we cannot do it for our own british born, yet we try and do it for others...sorry cat...it makes me sick!

So it's about where you were born? Sorry, but unless you can come up with an argument justifying discriminating against people on this basis, then I won't engage in that argument.

Where did I say that i only thought one group of people should be entitled to special treatment? I think that if anyone feels they need a law/regulation etc changing to accomodate their culture then it should be considered. This applies to people in minorities as well as majorities, and yes, that include British born.


oh and one more thing...someone said something about british traditions and customs...something that we dont have any...bollocks to ya, come down the pubs in london with me and i will show u traditions, come to bow, and hear the bells and see some people react to them, go to the coasts and see the communitys do their thing. Whoever said it...get out, and explore your country, you got no idea what you are missing.
Ahh, that's a little more specific than Rob, thanks.

British traditions and customs:

1. Drinking in pubs in london
2. Listening and reacting to the bow bells
3. Go to the cost and see the communities do their thing

Ok - first could you clarify 'do their thing'? Then could you tell me what you're angry about? Yes, many Muslims don't drink, but there hasn't been anything in Paliament about them trying to get the laws changed. On an individual basis I've never been told to stop drinking my a Muslim, have you? As for the other 2 points, I really can't see any way in which Muslims are trying to change, or disrespect these parts of your culture.

On a side point, rather than 'British Culture' I'd be more likely to define the above list as 'stuff Jacx likes doing' - we don't have a singular British culture - we have many (I don't think most Welsh people would identify with you reactions to the Bow bells for instance) and the culture of British Muslims if one of them. Personally, I think this diversity is a wonderful thing.

they been watching this lot since december, be bloody thankful they DO THIS TO PROTECT YOU ALL.

My point was that we don't know that they are - how do you know that? I think it's prudent to assume that they're telling the truth and co-operate as fully as possible though.

jusus i hate this shit that we are int he wrong, when we try to make this country safer for ALL the people from ALL the nations who live on these lands. If some of you actually supported the police and intellegence, and if some of these communitys bothered to work harder witht he police, the place would be safer and stronger...dont just blame the police and the intellegence!
I don't think widespread and increasing Islamophobia is making this country, or any others, safer. I do agree that everyone should support and help the police as much as possible though. However, it's very easy to say that, what needs to happen is a pragmatic attempt to encourage all sections of the community to feel more inclined to do so.


i hope some of these guys can put their books down and comment from the heart

If this comment was aimed partly at me then I strongly resent it. There are few things I feel more passionately about, to the point were I have gone round and round in circles in this thread trying to point out the bigotry demonstated by so many people here, without (I hope) resorting to insults or offensive comments. All too often in the serious discussion section people argue without reference or logic, making blanket unsupported statements and wild generalisations. I wasn't aware that that was what we were going for in this section, but if we are then I'll bow out.

[Beli]

"hmmm look up at your original post.... you went from talking about how "'they' want what america has" to talking about terrorists such as OBL etc... so i (maybe wrongfuly) assumed you were talking purely about 'terrorist' organizations, and i don't know about you but OBL is certainly not a "world leader" in my book."
they=terrorist---happy?
it really doesn't matter if they are a world leader in your eyes or thier own. the damge they can inflict has been made obivous. my point was/is that terrorists need to be dealt with. no matter what they claim as their motive.

(also when leaving more neg rep for me, know this-bollocks is a clothing store that went out of business so your insult is lost on me)

[Kat]

lol know what makes me laugh about this thread?


People saying, "You cant judge all muslims by he terrorist attacks of a few"

Followed a few pages later by things along the lines of

"The US isnt helping in iraq, look what theyve dont to natives, rape, the prison beatings, blah blah blah"

isnt that the same?

4 US soldiers commit an offence, sudenly the allied force is evil and bad

12 muslims try to blow planes out of the british skies and muslims arnt all bad

and even if you wont take that as being "real" (what nobs....) we shall just point an 9/11 or the madrid train bombings, or the london bombings or... etc etc
I agree that all US soldiers shouldn't be judged on the actions of a few. However, there is a difference between the two situations you are contrasting:

Muslim terrorists claim to commit their acts in the name of Islam (and therefore I suppose in the name of all Muslims), however they do this will no endorsement from other Muslims. Their action is completely unofficial; there is no reason to believe (and in fact many reasons to disbelieve) that they represent all Muslims in any way whatsoever.

The US army, in contrast, can be seen as an official and ratified representation of US people - to the extent that it operates under an elected governement (well, near enough, and you see my point).

[Kat]

Yes but its still a case of a few tainting the many, its the same thing, people should try some continuity with thier veiws in this thread.. It dosent matter That they are seen as a representation of the people of america, Those 4 dont represent the rest of them
I'd argue that the US government has a responsibility for the US army, and the conduct of all soldiers (the soldiers have a personal responsibility too). I'd also argue that the US people have a responsibility for the conduct of its elected government (the politicians have a personal responsibility too). However, practically I agree with you, ordinary US people shouldn't be held to account for the actions of individual soldiers.


Otherwise i could say, the terrorists are representing the rules of their religon (i.e killing infidels) and all muslims follow these teachings, therefore they are an official representation of muslims.
Here's where I disagree - there is no logical progression in your argument, because there has been no link accepted with the terrorists by the vast Majority of Muslims (in the case of the US people by participating in the democratic process they accept a link with the US government).

Another way of arguing it is that terrorist are not representing the rules of their religion, they are representing a very specific interpretation of those rules, which the majority don't follow.

To be an official representative of a group of people, doesn't that group have to agree to be represented by you?

[JaiJai]

I have gone round and round in circles in this thread trying to point out the bigotry demonstated by so many people here, without (I hope) resorting to insults or offensive comments


That in itself... Is insulting and offensive "to so many people" ;)

[Kat]

That in itself... Is insulting and offensive "to so many people" ;)
Totally fair point. That comment came from sincere and extreme frustration; it was unhelpful and I shouldn't have posted it.

[Kat]

do muslims not agree to follow that bloodthirsty religon? many times it has been argued about here and many times it has been proven that the koran beleieves the blood of non-believers (infidels) should be spilt.
The Koran doesn't have the capacity to believe anything; the Koran is a book. What matters is what people believe, in this case Muslims. I haven't seen any proof that any disproportionate number of Muslims want the blood of non-believers spilt.

Come to that, I haven't seen any proof that the Koran emphatically states this (although as I've said above I don't think this is the point anyway). As I understand it the Koran is a very complex book that has spawned many different and contradictory interpretations (as any good book will). I very much doubt that we're come to any conclusive and unarguable interpretation here. Saying that, I haven't read it - have you?

I'd still like to draw the argument back to the point that, whatever someone does or doesn't belief, they can't be said to be being 'officially represented' unless they agree to this representation.

[Phuquit]

The Bible says "...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..."
Applying Asshole's logic, Christians are also mandated to kill by a direct command of their God...
Bush (a fundamentalist Christian) certainly seems to believe in this principle.
How many times has he said that God is on America's side in "the war on terror"?

[VikesWookie]

The Bible says "...an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth..."
Applying Asshole's logic, Christians are also mandated to kill by a direct command of their God...
Bush (a fundamentalist Christian) certainly seems to believe in this principle.
How many times has he said that God is on America's side in "the war on terror"?

The first book isn't where Christians derive their faith. Of course, all acts of violence aren't condoned by the Lord (as to the new book). Christians are supposed to have faith, not act in retaliation. I think God looks at both sides with some disdane in regards to war and such.
I think Bush needs to go to Sunday school or something... lol. He does appear to have a bit of that "eye for an eye" mentality.

[the squid of despair]

I'd argue that the US government has a responsibility for the US army, and the conduct of all soldiers (the soldiers have a personal responsibility too). I'd also argue that the US people have a responsibility for the conduct of its elected government (the politicians have a personal responsibility too). However, practically I agree with you, ordinary US people shouldn't be held to account for the actions of individual soldiers.



I agree. So we should hold not just Muslims accountable, but the entire UK and it's government for harboring these terrorists. In my opinion all people from the UK are terrorists, not just the Muslims.

[Kat]

I agree. So we should hold not just Muslims accountable, but the entire UK and it's government for harboring these terrorists. In my opinion all people from the UK are terrorists, not just the Muslims.
I don't think that the UK and it's government can be held responsible, although they could be doing more to help stem Islamic extremism. I can't see how my argument about the US army supports this argument, could you explain it?

Are you talking about just holding us morally accountable, or are there any practical steps you think should be taken?

[the squid of despair]

I don't think that the UK and it's government can be held responsible, although they could be doing more to help stem Islamic extremism. I can't see how my argument about the US army supports this argument, could you explain it?

Are you talking about just holding us morally accountable, or are there any practical steps you think should be taken?

I just think that that your citizens reflect your people. Anything they do, all Britons should be held accountable for. I accuse all people in the UK of being terrorists, based on the actions of a few, just like you hold the US accountable.

[Kat]

I just think that that your citizens reflect your people. Anything they do, all Britons should be held accountable for. I accuse all people in the UK of being terrorists, based on the actions of a few, just like you hold the US accountable.
I explained the logic behind US citizens being held accountable for the US army:
1. The US army works under the US government (the President is the commander in chief isn't he?), therefore, fairly straightfowardly, the US Government has some responsibility for the US army.
2. The US people elected the US government, so they are responsible for the actions of the US Government, and hence (from 1) the US Army.

While I think this works logically (to some extent), I also said that practically I didn't think the US people should be held responsible for the US army.

Now, what I'm asking you to do, is to give me a logical basis for your argument, which you haven't yet done.

[the squid of despair]

I don't need a logical basis, I'm protected by the constitution.

[Q80Thug]

do muslims not agree to follow that bloodthirsty religon? many times it has been argued about here and many times it has been proven that the koran beleieves the blood of non-believers (infidels) should be spilt.


the non-believers who are mentioned in the quran are specific to the people who believe in multiple gods and/or idolators. these verses are specific to an era 1500 years ago when there was idol worship in the middle east. meaning that its not just old commands that have nothing to do with the present century it also means that the extremests bastards have twisted these verses to their own agenda to include christians and jews, i.e, westerners.

[Todd]

I agree. So we should hold not just Muslims accountable, but the entire UK and it's government for harboring these terrorists. In my opinion all people from the UK are terrorists, not just the Muslims.

sorry killaho but that statment is pathetic, in my opinion instead of usa an uk trying to pass blame back and forth we need to work together as we did to stop these attacks, britain stopped this attack on you, saving many innocent lifes and you call us terrorists? i think theres too much bickering between usa and uk, after all were both over there together