TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Huge bomb found in London
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

So you disagree with me and I'm 'ranting' and I'm a bigot?
Alright, end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, come back when you grow up a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by hardcore trancer George Lazfx is an idiot(you probably realized that by now),so please ignore him and don't let him get into you. According to him we are all terrorist supporters if we disagree with him.

@ softcore prancer: I don't think you are a terrorist supporter softcore, I don't think George is either.... He has class, you are a free loading welfare recipient that hates the very society that accepted you into its country with open arms......




maybe my def of apologist is incorrect. Instead of always asking.. "why do these people hate us, why do they attack us in our own country?" ; we should be doing something about it before this gets out of hand.... But no matter what is suggested; the apologist will say its not enough, or its not how the immigrant is use to. Its both sides fault, the west for not understanding and the Muslim immigrant, for looking at their new home as evil, wasteful and wanting to turn into the very thing they fled from......

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith So you disagree with me and I'm 'ranting' and I'm a bigot? Alright, end of discussion as far as I'm concerned, come back when you grow up a bit.

I think I said I agreed with your last post didn't I? The impression your a bigot however, comes from the fact that you direct your attack against the entire UK Muslim population, instead of against the minority that committ these crimes. Firestarter has done exactly the same a few posts up when he asks at what point do "they" accept responsibility (referring to all UK Muslims). You seem to be hinting at some collective guilt from the UK Muslim community for these attacks, and the only reason that can be is that they happen to be Muslim. In our society we are supposed to be individuals. Just because a white person or a black person or an Asian person committs some horrible crime does not mean everybody else from that ethnic (or religious) group should be forced to take responsibility. But if you think like that, then you have more in common with the terrorists than you think. They blame ALL British people for Iraq and that's who they target. You're doing the same against ALL Muslims.

And yes, your posts have been rants because you have never offered a solution to the problem you are venting anger about, so unless you want to give me your opinions on what the UK Muslims should do, and what the UK government should do, then I shall continue to think you are just ranting without having a clue what you are ranting about. I look forward to you correcting my opinion of you...

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX maybe my def of apologist is incorrect. Instead of always asking.. "why do these people hate us, why do they attack us in our own country?" ; we should be doing something about it before this gets out of hand.... But no matter what is suggested; the apologist will say its not enough, or its not how the immigrant is use to. Its both sides fault, the west for not understanding and the Muslim immigrant, for looking at their new home as evil, wasteful and wanting to turn into the very thing they fled from......

But the issue has never been over immigrants! The issue has always been over home-grown British terrorists - they were born here and therefore different rules apply to how they can be treated!

The solution to radical immigrants is pretty simple - deport them or send them to jail (but there are different laws that can apply to foreigners, but not to British nationals)

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I think I said I agreed with your last post didn't I? The impression your a bigot however, comes from the fact that you direct your attack against the entire UK Muslim population, instead of against the minority that committ these crimes.

Learn to damn read already!

quote:

And currently, they aren't helping the cause by doing nothing as members, however marginal they may be wage a war in their own backyards over nothing more than a petty desire to kill.

Your solution is the people themselves to stand up to the people in their own religion or risk being tarred with the same brush*. It needs to be a very visible and clearly intolerant example from the UK's islamic community that they DO NOT support the actions of this.
People see it happening, they aren't blind, they're not stupid and they're not completely ignorant to it, however they do choose to do very little to help this cause.

*Note, this is NOT MY PERSONAL opinion, it is merely what will become made an example of when agitators from other parts of the UK portray it as being.

And lastly, come to terms with the fact it's simply religion doing it and not politics.
If it was just politics, say some communist, independence or fascist movement in the world which was militarily active.
Even I could walk in there, sign up as an atheist and no one would give a damn, wander into a muslim activist group and ask to sign up?

Not going to happen is it?
No.

quote:

I look forward to you correcting my opinion of you...

I honestly do not give one damn what you think of me as a human being, I'm certainly not asking for anyone to like me and I'm certainly not asking the muslims to like me. (Hell, I'm an anathema to them as it is...)
But I do draw the line at being told I'm stupid bigot for simply voicing a non-personal opinion because you couldn't be bothered reading or misreading a handful of paragraphs in what's otherwise a hands off debate about a situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You started off well enough and then drove straight into the Islamiphobia / It's the West's fault / foreign policy crater. (I was actually enjoying the suggestions up to that point just so you know). At what point do they actually take some responsibility? Or should the rest of the world just turn the other cheek every time an Islamic extremist bombs and maims innocent people in the name of 'Allah'? The extremists will NEVER be appeased which is why there has been so much turmoil. There's no negotiating with them so what do we do? Just sit back and wait until the next car bomb so we can 'talk'? Discuss their feelings and emotions over afternoon tea?

But responsibility works both ways. The UK has had sizable Muslim populations since the 1950s, and Political Islam has been in existance throughout the 20th C. So why are we seeing these attacks now 50 years later? I think in large part it is Jihadist (often foreign) Imams preying on impressionable and diseffected UK Muslim youths. The solution to these radical Imams is via our intelligence agencies. When they are caught they can be deported (if foreign) or jailed (if British/foreign). And obviously, if any member of the public (ie UK Muslim leaders) have any information to help our police, then they should give it up (tho we have no right to demand that of them, as we have no right to demand information about criminals from any other ethnic group just because a criminal comes from that background*)

BUT...

It is a war of ideology first and foremost. The reason the UK was not bombed before is because the Muslim community had no reason to. IIRC the only military forays into the Middle East (the Muslim holy lands) have been Suez in 1956 and Iraq 90/91. Suez was too early (and lets face it, was against Political Islam's greatest ever enemy) and the 90/91 Gulf War had the backing of the international community including the Arab states (the war was also to protect the Arabian oil fields so indirectly to protect against Islam's hold city of Mecca). There were some protests against the Afghanistan war but nothing more than the usual anti-war crowd, but things started to change as it began to appear as if America were persuing a war against Islam and that the UK was supporting it.

Then we went to war with Iraq.

I do think Western governments need to take responsibility for their foreign policy, especially when it is seen as having ulterior motives (and this point of view is by no means a view confined to the Muslim population fo the UK).

I said earlier that this is an ideological war, and the way to win these "wars" is by making your ideology more attractive than that you oppose. That means not giving the Jihadists reasons and justifications to pass use on the impressionable youths. We have obviously managed in the past and I see no reason why we cannot do it in the future, but not as long as we are seen to be going along with American policy of supporting Israel no matter what or exploiting the economic wealth of the Middle East.

You say the extremists will "never be appeased" well that suggests there has always been extremists attacking the UK and that is incorrect. You have to look at the time there was no Muslim threat to the UK and ask why - what has changed? The Muslim community or British policy? Or both? And how have they changed?

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I said earlier that this is an ideological war, and the way to win these "wars" is by making your ideology more attractive than that you oppose. That means not giving the Jihadists reasons and justifications to pass use on the impressionable youths. We have obviously managed in the past and I see no reason why we cannot do it in the future, but not as long as we are seen to be going along with American policy of supporting Israel no matter what or exploiting the economic wealth of the Middle East. You say the extremists will "never be appeased" well that suggests there has always been extremists attacking the UK and that is incorrect. You have to look at the time there was no Muslim threat to the UK and ask why - what has changed? The Muslim community or British policy? Or both? And how have they changed?

I thought about what you stated when I read this,,,,,

quote:

I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist By HASSAN BUTT - More by this author � Last updated at 07:38am on 2nd July 2007 When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology. The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers. And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq." I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice. If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel. Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same. For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war. But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief). Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians. The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state - typically by starting debate with the question: "Are you British or Muslim?" But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away. This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds. Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism. Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam. But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more. The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law. However, it isn't enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists. If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism. >>SOURCE<<

I don't doubt there are individuals who think like this. But it still does not answer the question: Why now?

I have already said that to combat radical Imams the intelligence agencies/police should deport/jail any promoting terrorism. But there is plenty of evidence to suggest that current British foreign policy is being used to recruit and brainwash potential terrorists, can you honestly say you don't think that's true?

As for the Walter Mitty you quoted above, perhaps you should read this from 2002...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1746454.stm

quote:

But his claims to speak for al-Muhajiroun have already been denied by the organisation's leader, Tottenham-based cleric Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed. And both Downing Street and the Home Office said Mr Butt's claims should be treated with caution, while Muslim groups accused him of being a fantasist.

Either way, I am not trying to doubt that there are people motivated by establishing some kind of global Islamic state, but at the same time, I don't you can deny that something must have changed in the world to make this ideology so popular now when it never was in this country prior to 2001...

Oh and let us for a momment suggest that what Hassan Butt claims is true and represents every radical in the UK - same question that has as yet gone unanswered - what is the solution?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Learn to damn read already!

quote:

Originally posted by you! For what its worth... Why can't they just integrate with the rest of the UK without fuss? It's not like the place isn't entirely un-accepting of outsiders, the Indian's, Italians, Greeks and many others who come from non-english speaking backgrounds are very much a part of the society and have enriched it with their presence. So why haven't those from Islamic backgrounds done the same?

quote:

Your solution is the people themselves to stand up to the people in their own religion or risk being tarred with the same brush*. It needs to be a very visible and clearly intolerant example from the UK's islamic community that they DO NOT support the actions of this. People see it happening, they aren't blind, they're not stupid and they're not completely ignorant to it, however they do choose to do very little to help this cause. *Note, this is NOT MY PERSONAL opinion, it is merely what will become made an example of when agitators from other parts of the UK portray it as being.

quote:

And lastly, come to terms with the fact it's simply religion doing it and not politics. If it was just politics, say some communist, independence or fascist movement in the world which was militarily active. Even I could walk in there, sign up as an atheist and no one would give a damn, wander into a muslim activist group and ask to sign up? Not going to happen is it? No.

If it's not political (eg nothing to do with UK foreign policy) then why has the UK only come under attack since the Iraq war was well under way (in the post-9/11 era)? We've had a large Muslim population for nearly 60 years, and if there is somthing inherent in the religion, then why has it only just emerged now?

(I do find it highly amusing how you can say that the overthrowing of a sovereign government by revolutionary means is NOT political!!!)

quote:

I honestly do not give one damn what you think of me as a human being, I'm certainly not asking for anyone to like me and I'm certainly not asking the muslims to like me. (Hell, I'm an anathema to them as it is...) But I do draw the line at being told I'm stupid bigot for simply voicing a non-personal opinion because you couldn't be bothered reading or misreading a handful of paragraphs in what's otherwise a hands off debate about a situation.

Ok lets just forget all that for the moment...

Here's how a debate works: There is an issue that requires a solution and/or explanation. Two or more people have an opinion on what that solution should be. They exchange their ideas and assess the other's ideas. They may or may not come to an agreement.

The issue in this "debate" is that there is a home grown terrorist threat to the UK that needs to be stopped. We have spent 7 pages arguing over an explanation (which to be fair does effect what the solution should be). We disagree. Fair enough. But that is not what the debate is about. The debate is how this threat can be stopped. And so far I seem to be the only person here to give his opinion on how that should happen.

So if you want to continue this debate, and you want me to remain civilised and keep my opinions of you to myself, then please help us both out (this is also aimed at Firestarter and LazFX) and tell me what your solution to stop this threat is? I don't even care if you assume your explanation that radical Islamists are not motivated by anything politcal and just act out of pure hatred. I just want you to tell me what you think should be done by the UK Muslim community and the UK government (then we'll take the debate from there...)

You may find the following critique of Melanie Phillips of interest to you (in fact, I see elements of Melanie Phillips in some posters in here)

http://www.newstatesman.com/200606120052

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley (I do find it highly amusing how you can say that the overthrowing of a sovereign government by revolutionary means is NOT political!!!)

Be thankful you've not lived my life where such things where a reality of simple survival.

quote:

I just want you to tell me what you think should be done by the UK Muslim community and the UK government (then we'll take the debate from there...)

Spare me the sarcastic vitriol.
Better yet, quit going on about the 90's looking for reasons, hindsight hasn't provided anything definitely conclusive and I simply will not be sidelined from the main argument which centres around the problem in the 00's.
Do not press that issue again, you keep doing it, I keep ignoring it for that reason.
Here's the synopsis of what I've written in abbreviated form so far, I don't even pretend for a minute that this is a solution, because for starters I doubt the widespread adoption of this simply because people don't like to be manipulated away from traditional activity, even if it's for their own good. That and change comes in generations.
The only people who talk about 'solutions' are mathematicians and politicians, only mathematicians will give you a definite solution, politicians only do it to get re-elected on the vain hope people believe it.


1: Learn to share your country with a variety of different lifestyles different to your own. No one is asking you to give up yours, but you are required to accept others for being different and not force yours on them, just like they're not allowed to force theirs on you.

2: People will be different to your own religious/secular lifestyle choice, they as are you are allowed to pursue it, just as you are, within the bounds of the countries legal system.

3: Actively pursue and eliminate those elements of your culture, religion and background who seek to harm and murder others in the name of Jihad or Fatwa's issued to do so. It will not be tolerated by the majority of the community and it will do irreparable harm to the Islamic minority in the country in the long term and runs the risk of civil liberties being curtailed in self defence.

4: Religious law is not above a states constitutional law, provided you do not breach constitutional law you are free to practice those elements of religious law.


You're really trying my patience here with irrelevant arguments, attacks and sarcasm. I find it much more expedient to put people on ignore when they get that irritating, once they are on ignore, they do not ever get removed.
I forewarn you on that at this point.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Spare me the sarcastic vitriol.

The reason I keep asking is because I can't see the point in complaining about something, and demanding that something change, if you don't even offer an alternative

quote:

Better yet, quit going on about the 90's looking for reasons, hindsight hasn't provided anything definitely conclusive and I simply will not be sidelined from the main argument which centres around the problem in the 00's. Do not press that issue again, you keep doing it, I keep ignoring it for that reason.

Again I'll explain my reason for the comparison - Political Islam has been around throughout the twentieth century, and the UK has had a sizeable Muslim community since the 50s. Yet only in the 00's has the problem of Political Islam emerged. There must be a reason why now and not then. If you don't want to think about that then fine, I won't ask you again, but imo it is a very important factor we have to think about when having the debate we're having right now

quote:

1: Learn to share your country with a variety of different lifestyles different to your own. No one is asking you to give up yours, but you are required to accept others for being different and not force yours on them, just like they're not allowed to force theirs on you. 2: People will be different to your own religious/secular lifestyle choice, they as are you are allowed to pursue it, just as you are, within the bounds of the countries legal system. 3: Actively pursue and eliminate those elements of your culture, religion and background who seek to harm and murder others in the name of Jihad or Fatwa's issued to do so. It will not be tolerated by the majority of the community and it will do irreparable harm to the Islamic minority in the country in the long term and runs the risk of civil liberties being curtailed in self defence. 4: Religious law is not above a states constitutional law, provided you do not breach constitutional law you are free to practice those elements of religious law.

Ok so I guess now we are getting somewhere and have something to debate. My problem with the 4 points you raise is that they are either already happening or are not something that can be enforced (by the government for example). I want Islamist terrorism against my country to stop, and I don't think there is anyway what you write above will work (because it's either currently not working or it is something that we have no power over)

quote:

You're really trying my patience here with irrelevant arguments, attacks and sarcasm. I find it much more expedient to put people on ignore when they get that irritating, once they are on ignore, they do not ever get removed. I forewarn you on that at this point.

Well I don't think any of my arguments are irrelevant (otherwise I would not have made them). I admit I have made personal attacks against you but that is because you seem to be heaping all the blame on the entire Muslim population of the UK (see your 4 points above - they place the onus entirely on the Muslim population) and I just don't think that is a fair analysis. I have lived for the last three years in an area that is mainly Muslim communities (on the outskirts of Leeds) and students. I have never seen (or heard of) any problems because of the large Muslim majority that live there. They are all fully integrated into British society and that is true for the vast majority of UK Muslims. They all fulfil points 1,2 and 4 above and for number 3, well they can only do that if they know any Jihadists in their midst (which seeing as the majority have nothing to do with terrorism is unlikely)

Whoa, lets chill out a bit. Think we need a group hug lol.

But really have to ask is there really anything we can do against it? At the end of the day if you have 1,579,229 muslims in your country (like Britain) and there is a 1 in every 100,000 chance of someone who is a nut case(like having one person in say a city the size of Aberdeen) and chooses to use his religion rather than say... race as a reason to kill can you really stop that?

At that ratio there would be 16 willing suicide bombers in the UK. Ok there are probably more. But as it is there are plenty more nutters in Aberdeen than 1!

I recon a strong border, and tight ties with India and Pakistan are the way to go. Linked with greater social vigilance. To be honest though climate change has me far more scared than terrorism, lets keep perspective.

I say zero tolerance.

If someone has concrete ties to an unwanted element in the country, you get your ass deported without any chance of reprieve or rebuke.

This should go without saying however the current laws obviously don't seem to be cutting it, or the funding isn't enough to sniff those out that are questionable (regardless of country of origin).

The laws coveting this will need to be clearly defined however less people cry fowl regarding civil liberties and invasion of privacy.
A country-wide vote should probably be held regarding this very issue so there is no questioning what was agreed upon by the people.

That's just my 2�

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r If someone has concrete ties to an unwanted element in the country, you get your ass deported without any chance of reprieve or rebuke.

You can't deport a British national from Britain!!!

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You can't deport a British national from Britain!!!

True, I haven't really thought about the nationals but then you really can't put them in this category either.

The nationals?
Lock em up, boot camp, community service, there are lots of options that currently exist.
The law of the land still exists for them doesn't it?
On the fringe side, there's always the death penalty...

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r True, I haven't really thought about the nationals but then you really can't put them in this category either. The nationals? Lock em up, boot camp, community service, there are lots of options that currently exist. The law of the land still exists for them doesn't it? On the fringe side, there's always the death penalty...

Well no, there's not the death penalty. And we have introduced new Anti-Terrorism laws where nationals/aliens can be jailed/deported for links to terrorism (including inciting killing others). The laws you want are already in place (along with the predicted protests from the civil liberty groups) yet we still face this threat.

I guess it's like crime - the politicians and public can argue and complain as much as they want about how we don't have enough policemen or jails to deal with crime, but at the end of the day, unless you can identify and eliminate the causes of crime no number of new laws, restrictions of civil liberties, numbers of policemen of jails will ever make it go away...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley I want Islamist terrorism against my country to stop, and I don't think there is anyway what you write above will work (because it's either currently not working or it is something that we have no power over)

Muslim anti-terror campaign
Hope to see more of this, it's going to be greatly needed if any sense of social harmony is to be maintained.

quote:

Originally posted by Dervish I recon a strong border, and tight ties with India and Pakistan are the way to go. Linked with greater social vigilance. To be honest though climate change has me far more scared than terrorism, lets keep perspective.

I don't know about tighter ties with India and Pakistan, I think if anything the UK needs is it's own identity which embraces multiculturalism past the token lip service and by-laws as a result which are taken advantage of by individuals for their own personal gain and profit.
But like I said before, things like heart disease and being mashed by a bus crossing the road are a far more critical health concern than being immolated in an airport by an Islamist extremist. And they're all preventable or able to be reduced in terms of personal danger, I still find it ironic though noting in the past in the actual topics I've made about health here in the PDD, that they receive very little attention. People seem to find the subject of death by violence and chance however remote they may be affected by it a far more interesting topic than what will actually statistically kill them.

Think I'm done for now, I've chucked in a 14hr day at work and too tired.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Muslim anti-terror campaign Hope to see more of this, it's going to be greatly needed if any sense of social harmony is to be maintained.

Yep very encouraging (tho I've never heard of Muslims United or have been able to find anything out about them but if they are putting those adverts in the national press then great). Still, this message has been preached by moderate Muslims since 9/11 and we've still been bombed so there is obviously still other things we need to do to further protect the UK...

quote:

About 1,500 people have gathered in Glasgow for a rally against terrorism, organised by Mosques and Islamic groups.

quote:

'Community cohesion' Meanwhile, the "Scotland United Against Terror" event was held in George Square. Organisers said the day was doubly significant as it was the second anniversary of the London Tube bombings and one week after the Glasgow attack. Faith leaders, churches and trade unionists were among those at the event, and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon spoke to the crowd.

>BBC NEWS<

All progress really, maybe in a strange way the attacks will lead to better links? Well at least at a certain level of society. We all know the 'lower' end are hard to convince.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.