quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Your example is irrelevant because it was not committed by Islamists. You might as well have used an IRA bombing as an example of Islamic terrorism against the UK before the Iraq War and it would have been just as irrelevant... If they are becoming more segregated it's as much to do with brainwashing as it is to do with attitudes like yours towards them from the wider British community. Still, you seem to be paying lip service to the fact that the Iraq War provoked these terrorists into attacking us and you have still to offer me an explanation as to why the UK (a Western society) has not been attacked before the Iraq War, when modern Political Islam has been active in the world for nearly a century...

Irrelevant Libya is a Muslim country who supported Islamic militants worldwide. Ok more examples 1997 Luxor Egypt 58 people shot dead at a busy tourist site by Islamic terrorist majority of them were western tourists 6 of them British. 2002 Bali bomb 26 British dead a further 176 on that figure majority of them Westerners.

My attitude might seem ignorant towards the Muslim community, I don't understand why they group togther and do not mix with other people. Why the rioting in Bradford, why the rioting in Birmingham? There is going to be severe problems if stuff like this keep happening because the BNP will use it as a propaganda tool.

The Iraq war did piss of a number of young British Muslims, another can be linked to the amount of high unemployment in areas where there is a big Muslim population, but there will always be an excuse and a reason.

Laxed immigration laws, well we read about Hamza and co for about two years in various newspapers about him spouting hate at the West, it took the government ages to actually do something about them, they should of put him on the first plane back to Egypt.

I do agree with your view on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan do not have control over regions of their country, It wouldn't suprise me if people in their security services actually work for the Islamic extermists.

Saudi Arabia there is Western intrests over there *Cough* Oil! *Cough*. Quite a lot of Western workers in the country have become targets, yet the Saudi Security Services rescue attempts have being blunderous to say the least. It wouldn't suprise me if a load of the people pulling the strings for these groups are based there. Plus a country which chops of peoples hands for stealing and lashes people with whips isn't a civilised one IMO.

___________________

quote:

These are the names of 19 suspects reportedly being held by the police after the foiled plot and whose assets the Treasury has sought to have frozen. Umir Hussain, 24, London E14 Muhammed Usman Saddique, 24, London E17 Waheed Zaman, 22, London E17 Assan Abdullah Khan, 22, London E17 Waseem Kayani, 28, High Wycombe Waheed Arafat Khan, 24, London E17 Cossor Ali, 24, London E17 Tayib Rauf, 21, Birmingham Ibrahim Savant, 26, London E17 Osman Adam Khatib, 20, London E17 Shamin Mohammed Uddin, 36, Stoke Newington Amin Asmin Tariq, 23, London E17 Shazad Khuram Ali, 27, High Wycombe Tanvir Hussain, 24, London E10 Umar Islam, 28, (born Brian Young) High Wycombe Assad Sarwar, 25, High Wycombe Abdullah Ali, 26, London E17 Abdul Muneem Patel, 17, London E5 Nabeel Hussain, 21, Waltham Forest

quote:

Originally posted by Dj O'Callaghan Irrelevant Libya is a Muslim country who supported Islamic militants worldwide.

No Libya was a socialist pan-Arab nationalist state. The group that carried out the Lockerbie bombing were a socialist group. Nothing to do with Islam whatsoever.

quote:

Ok more examples 1997 Luxor Egypt 58 people shot dead at a busy tourist site by Islamic terrorist majority of them were western tourists 6 of them British. 2002 Bali bomb 26 British dead a further 176 on that figure majority of them Westerners.

None of them were against Britain. Try again...

quote:

My attitude might seem ignorant towards the Muslim community, I don't understand why they group togther and do not mix with other people. Why the rioting in Bradford, why the rioting in Birmingham? There is going to be severe problems if stuff like this keep happening because the BNP will use it as a propaganda tool.

They do mix! I live in an area full of Muslims and white people. Obviously your gonna get some that don't wanna blend in, but I'm not aure how you work out this is the norm? Maybe you should stop listening to what that idiot Griffin tells you?

quote:

The Iraq war did piss of a number of young British Muslims, another can be linked to the amount of high unemployment in areas where there is a big Muslim population, but there will always be an excuse and a reason.

Yet there was no Islamist threat before Iraq, so tell me how you can prove your point?

quote:

Laxed immigration laws, well we read about Hamza and co for about two years in various newspapers about him spouting hate at the West, it took the government ages to actually do something about them, they should of put him on the first plane back to Egypt.

There's a fine line between freedom of speech and promoting violence. For example, many socialists/anarchists believe in the overthrowing of the state by force - would you have them shipped off to Egypt? As for Hamza, there was direct evidence (imo) that he had had a hand (well it would only be one hand!!) in the deaths of people abroad. That makes him a criminal, not his beliefs.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I cannot answer this, and I don't think anyone but terrorist organizations themselves could (although you obviously think you know the answer) - my best guess would be lack of resources combined with even more attractive targets connected to the US and Israel. However, I can point to several reasons why Arabs *should* be upset with you, even if you had stayed out of the Iraq war (which, coincidentally, I agree with you, was a mistake - and a bad one at that). Hint: Who decided how to split up the Middle East into the countries that are there today, and who gave Israel to the Jews?

Yes well your best guess is an attempt to dodge the blindingly obvious

quote:

This is a damned lie, and you cannot even claim ignorance: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...goto=nextoldest My claim "nobody has done more for Muslims than the West" was never refuted.

Oh well if a bunch of TAs never refuted your point it must be true!

Kadafi didn't exactly do much to stop the growing number of terorists coming out of Libya during the 80s. Hell, Libya was notoriously known in the 80s for supporting terror even before Lockerbie. In one of the best movies ever made, Back To The Future (came out in 1985), Doctor Emmet Brown gets shot by a bunch of Libyans. They didn't just randomly pick that country

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Kadafi didn't exactly do much to stop the growing number of terorists coming out of Libya during the 80s. Hell, Libya was notoriously known in the 80s for supporting terror even before Lockerbie. In one of the best movies ever made, Back To The Future (came out in 1985), Doctor Emmet Brown gets shot by a bunch of Libyans. They didn't just randomly pick that country

They weren't Islamic terrorists tho! That's the whole point! JESUS!

International terrorism during the 80s was part of the Cold War (and against Israel). The PLO factions were secular socialists and performed many operations with the European Red terrorist groups. Islam had nothing to do with their operations.

(Hell, the PLO groups used to go around vadalising Mosques and assaulting Muslims praying in them!!!)

Okay, well I'll admit that I could be wrong about how to define the terror of the 1980s.

You mentioned earlier though that the countries the West should really be worried about are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq.
First, if the West would have dealt better with the aforementioned countries wouldn't there be just as much of a threat in the UK and elsewhere from radical Islamists? Wouldn't their excuse be the same just in the name of different countries?

Second, Sadam was never a great leader that all Moslims respected. Kuwaitis hate him, Iranians hate him, and many of the Iraquis hate him too. He was far from being a champion for the "humantarian cause". Therefore, radical Islamists could have been just as persistent to blow up planes over the UK regardless of the UK's involvement in the war in Iraq, wouldn't they?

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles You mentioned earlier though that the countries the West should really be worried about are Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. First, if the West would have dealt better with the aforementioned countries wouldn't there be just as much of a threat in the UK and elsewhere from radical Islamists? Wouldn't their excuse be the same just in the name of different countries?

It depends how you go about it. Firstly it does not have to be military action and if it does, it does not have to be the West that does it.

quote:

Second, Sadam was never a great leader that all Moslims respected. Kuwaitis hate him, Iranians hate him, and many of the Iraquis hate him too. He was far from being a champion for the "humantarian cause". Therefore, radical Islamists could have been just as persistent to blow up planes over the UK regardless of the UK's involvement in the war in Iraq, wouldn't they?

Therefore?! I have no idea what your point is?

My point is that Iraq or no Iraq there's at least a decent chance you'd still have these terrorists plotting against the UK. After all, 9/11 happened (obviously) before the situation in Iraq. While it happened it New York it could have also happened in Chicago, London, Paris, Berlin, etc.

And you're right - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't have to be dealt with militarily. I don't understand though who you're suggesting would use military force against those countries if not the West.
After all, the Saudi rulers have very close ties with America's political leaders (Republicans and Democrats). So any country that were to attack the Saudis might also be waging war with America.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, doesn't it? So who would go after it? India? Russia? Wouldn't they be just as afraid as the West to go there?

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles My point is that Iraq or no Iraq there's at least a decent chance you'd still have these terrorists plotting against the UK. After all, 9/11 happened (obviously) before the situation in Iraq. While it happened it New York it could have also happened in Chicago, London, Paris, Berlin, etc.

Sure it could have happened in Chicargo, but not London, Paris or Berlin (or even this Etc you talk of). You really have been affected by American TWAT (the war on terror) propaganda haven't you? America has a plan for the world, and if Americans thought that by carrying out that plan they got the 9/11 attacks, they might put pressure on their government to stop. And their government doesn't want that...

quote:

And you're right - Pakistan and Saudi Arabia don't have to be dealt with militarily. I don't understand though who you're suggesting would use military force against those countries if not the West.

Not against those countries! Against the Islamist elements in those countries (so those governments themselves should do it if anyone, take the heat off outside meddlers)

quote:

After all, the Saudi rulers have very close ties with America's political leaders (Republicans and Democrats). So any country that were to attack the Saudis might also be waging war with America.

Yes they would (hence the 1990 Gulf War). But that relationship with America is one of the causes of contention amongst Islamists (especially bin Laden)

quote:

Pakistan has nuclear weapons, doesn't it? So who would go after it? India? Russia? Wouldn't they be just as afraid as the West to go there?

Pakistan would "go after it"!!! It's just that their intelligence service used to run the Islamists in Afghanistan and therefore have stong links. Maybe we should be putting pressure on Pakistan to sort stuff like that out so they could really go after them?

Hey, I'm all for your ideas. If we can put enough pressure on Pakistan and Saudi Arabia to take care of the problems themselves great. But what if they can't and the problem gets bigger?