Major Terror Plot to Blow Up Aircraft

[rory]

A plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from Britain to the US has been disrupted, UK police have said.

"It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage."

"This would have surpassed 9/11"

"Police have arrested about 18 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months. "

"Britain's Home Secretary John Reid said the alleged plot was significant and that terrorists aimed to bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life."

"Passengers will not be allowed to take any hand luggage on to any flights in the UK, the department said."

"Only the barest essentials - including passports and wallets - will be allowed to be carried on board in transparent plastic bags. "

"David Learmount from Flight International Magazine said he expected passengers to be searched much more carefully."

"He added: 'This is the first time this measure has actually been taken. Certainly I've never seen hand luggage banned.' "

SIDENOTE: The US is following suit on this and all hand luggage on US Flights will be banned for now. Also all arrested were British Muslims, and Police are still looking for 2 persons.

Terrorist Plots were planned for as much as 6 flights outgoing to the US from London, Glascow, Birmingham, and Machester. They involved Possible Liquid Explosives and British Persons of Pakistani Origin. 2 Terrorists are still at large hence the additional security measures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4778575.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/08/10/uk.terror/index.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14278216/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207682,00.html

[mendhak]

But what about people carrying laptops?

[rory]

no laptops /./.

only things that fit in a clear plastic bag ..

For the UK anyway .. the US .. not sure ..

21 people in custody now so its going to change.

[RobDog888]

Once this blows over they wll let people carry bags on board again but with much stricter searching.

They get all paranoid for a while and then they open the floodgates and things like this happen again.

[rory]

Yep thats true .. a night club here (most popular gangsta club in the country) where i handle the surveillance, searches people with metal detectors and also searches their shoes ... but recently one particular criminal managed to get through as the security failed to search one of the shoes and during a fight that he instigated he stabbed an off duty police and a security with a knife that had been smuggled in (the security fell down and had kidney failure as a result due to a puncture) .. there was also always the chance that the knife could have been thrown over the wall during the daytime but in this case with the video it was obvious, as one shoe was not searched.

The Messed up thing is they bought a walk through metal detector loaded with features, but had not installed it as yet!

[RobDog888]

They will probably wait until another stabbing happens before the y make a point to install it :lol:

[mendhak]

But if I put a laptop in my luggage, it'll get crushed. And I won't have any source of entertainment, the big smelly people that inadvertently sit next to me on flights will initiate a... *gasp* conversation!!!

[rory]

right .. though there hasnt been another stabbing since then (just a few weeks now), but there certainly have been alot of fights and other incidents which had to be passed onto the cops .. i've lost count of the fights i've had to burn on a CD for the cops now, but the stabbing murder video is still like yesterday.

[mendhak]

You people don't realize the gravity of the situation. MY laptop is in danger because of these terrorists!

The comfort of my flights are now gone.

Woe is me.

[rory]

But if I put a laptop in my luggage, it'll get crushed. And I won't have any source of entertainment, the big smelly people that inadvertently sit next to me on flights will initiate a... *gasp* conversation!!!

AIRLINE CONVO 101 W/ MENDHAK:

Hey buddy what's your name ..?

mendhak

Where yah from dude?

Ulaan Baator, GooGoo

What do you do for a living?

I'm a wine spitter

Cool

:afrog:

yep i tink we need the laptop .. :wave:

[rory]

The comfort of my flights are now gone.


flights and confort dont mix ..

[mendhak]

They do when you're as rich as me. :)

[rory]

oh well dont be shy and spread the wealth :thumb:
im tired of hotdogs and hot patties :D

[FishGuy]

Rory - I cant find anywhere in the British Press that says the flights to be targeted were bound for the US.

[rory]

Rory - I cant find anywhere in the British Press that says the flights to be targeted were bound for the US.

You serious ..?? See the links i posted .. its also all over the US news, as well as BBC International and Sky News (we get those here in the Bahamas), Scotland yard also gave a statement recently regarding all this which specifically mentioned they were US bound.. they are still searching for some 30 terrorists still at large now .. supposed to be somewhere in the area of 50 of them and maybe as much as 20 planes.

In fact BBC just said that it was American, Continental, and United Airlines that were targetted. They just also said it might have been like 3 planes now, 3 later, etc, parhaps 9 in total, will have to wait and see.

The brits said it is at the highest security level since WW2!

[FishGuy]

Yeah sorry I seen it now.

[yrwyddfa]

Story so far . . .

21 people, of British origin, have been arrested in connection with planning a terrorist operation involving 'waves' of simultaneous attacks on mutliple aircraft as they leave British airports bound for the US.

MI5 has put British readiness to 'critical' which, according to their website, means 'an attack is imminent' The length of time implied by imminent is undefined, but it is considered unlikely that today was meant to be the day.

Passengers are now no longer permitted to carry any hand luggage on any flights, and are not allowed to carry liquids of any kind unless of a proven medical need. This is consistent with the current alleged theory that multiple terrorists would have boarded plans and combine liquid materials to create a substance (currently unknown) that has effective explosive properties.

[FunkyDexter]

The bizzarre thing about the hand-luggage rule is that it only applies to outbound flights. I guess that's to do with with the fact that it can only be enforced at the point of boarding but it makes it pretty inneffective as a security measure.

[FishGuy]

Well it's because the threat is from within to the rest of the world (mainly to US targets) not from people coming in to England. i.e we are the country on Critical Alert, we cant really force every country in the world with outbound flights to UK to step up to the same state (at much cost and inconvinence).

Remember the more disruption they cause (particularly with economical consequences) the more they have succeeded even with a failed attempt.

[nemaroller]

Come on England - get control over your Muslim terrorists would ya?

[FunkyDexter]

@FishGuy. Yeah, I know we can't get other countries to enforce it but my my point was that as long as flights from the US aren't included, or more importantly you can't stop a guy hopping onto a plane to Paris, grabbing the kit he needs and then flying onto the US, then it's going to be pretty inneffective as a measure.

What's really worrying me is that the the extra measures are causing so much chaos at the airports that we're now talking about only applying them to people who like they might be Islamic terrorists. Since Islam is a religious rather than a racial group I take it that actually means 'looks a bit Arabic'. I don't think this would be a very good idea and it's exactly the sort of thinking that led to Menezes.

[mendhak]

What's Menezes?

[FishGuy]

Yes but a white woman with her husband and two kids going to Spain for two week really doesnt need to be searched and forced to drink here childs milk, it's a pointless over the top reaction. Where as Mr Mahmood with a one way ticket to New York is obviously a higher risk.

I see no reason why we shouldnt be able to discriminate in that way.

[sevenhalo]

Just because we don't make a formal policy out of it, doesn't mean we don't do it. It's all about PR.

[FunkyDexter]

What's Menezes?
The Brazilian guy who was shot in error.

The problem with discriminatory searching is two fold:-
1. It's bound to entrench the feelings of alienation that seem to be leading to muslims becoming radicalised in the first place. You're basically sending a message to anyone you do stop that 'You look like a terrorist'. While this may be logically acceptable to them it unlikely to be emotionally acceptable.

2. It won't work. As soon as you lay out the profile, any group intending to carry out an attack will simply make sure they don't meet it. What would the profile be? You can't base it on racial lines because Muslims come from just about every racial group: Arabian, Pakistani, African, White, even Oriental. And there are radicalised people amongst all races - it's just most prevalent amonst Arabs.

[rory]

The Brazilian guy who was shot in error.

The problem with discriminatory searching is two fold:-
1. It's bound to entrench the feelings of alienation that seem to be leading to muslims becoming radicalised in the first place. You're basically sending a message to anyone you do stop that 'You look like a terrorist'. While this may be logically acceptable to them it unlikely to be emotionally acceptable.

2. It won't work. As soon as you lay out the profile, any group intending to carry out an attack will simply make sure they don't meet it. What would the profile be? You can't base it on racial lines because Muslims come from just about every racial group: Arabian, Pakistani, African, White, even Oriental. And there are radicalised people amongst all races - it's just most prevalent amonst Arabs.

im caucasian and when i goto the US they pull me aside and search everything ... everything .. because i have a Bahamian Passport. But that doesnt make me angry, i just wish they'd do it to everyone else.. in other words those other 20 people going through without being searched might actually have something that could bring the plane down ..

[FishGuy]

im caucasian and when i goto the US they pull me aside and search everything ... everything ..
You mean you get the rubber glove treatment?

[capsulecorpjx]

But if I put a laptop in my luggage, it'll get crushed. And I won't have any source of entertainment, the big smelly people that inadvertently sit next to me on flights will initiate a... *gasp* conversation!!!

Its called a book. We'll have to get used to those on flights now.

[rory]

You mean you get the rubber glove treatment?

well yeah .. but they dont go near my butt /..

[zaza]

The Brazilian guy who was shot in error.

The problem with discriminatory searching is two fold:-
1. It's bound to entrench the feelings of alienation that seem to be leading to muslims becoming radicalised in the first place. You're basically sending a message to anyone you do stop that 'You look like a terrorist'. While this may be logically acceptable to them it unlikely to be emotionally acceptable.

2. It won't work. As soon as you lay out the profile, any group intending to carry out an attack will simply make sure they don't meet it. What would the profile be? You can't base it on racial lines because Muslims come from just about every racial group: Arabian, Pakistani, African, White, even Oriental. And there are radicalised people amongst all races - it's just most prevalent amonst Arabs.


But the trouble with indiscriminate searching is that a lot of those who are inconvenienced, even for a short length of time, might also start thinking "It's those Muslims who caused this" and that also leads to alienation. Ultimately, we need a bit more tolerance from all sides, a bit more acceptance from all sides that these people are not speaking for their fellows, despite what they would claim, and a bit less hyping up by the media in an attempt to generate some news.

It is a fact that it is less easy for these nuisances to use the white middle class as their suicide bombers. There can be no disputing this. I agree that they may try to change their tactics, but that's no reason not to force them to do it. It is not about finding Muslims, it is about finding terrorists or, as I prefer to call them because it is less important-sounding, criminals.
If terrorists are brown-skinned men travelling alone, then with finite time and resources why not concentrate your efforts there? If terrorists are white men with Irish passports and accents (remember the 1980s?) then why not concentrate your efforts there? It is high time people of all races, religions and nationalities remembered that these guys are a threat to all of us, and that we all pull together in trying to sort the problem out. Their attempts are based along the old lines of Divide and Conquer, and so far they are doing a good job of that.

[mendhak]

I believe it is now alright to bring snakes on a plane.

[visualAd]

I believe it is now alright to bring snakes on a plane.
:lol: :lol:

[Shaggy Hiker]

But the trouble with indiscriminate searching is that a lot of those who are inconvenienced, even for a short length of time, might also start thinking "It's those Muslims who caused this" and that also leads to alienation. Ultimately, we need a bit more tolerance from all sides, a bit more acceptance from all sides that these people are not speaking for their fellows, despite what they would claim, and a bit less hyping up by the media in an attempt to generate some news.

It is a fact that it is less easy for these nuisances to use the white middle class as their suicide bombers. There can be no disputing this. I agree that they may try to change their tactics, but that's no reason not to force them to do it. It is not about finding Muslims, it is about finding terrorists or, as I prefer to call them because it is less important-sounding, criminals.
If terrorists are brown-skinned men travelling alone, then with finite time and resources why not concentrate your efforts there? If terrorists are white men with Irish passports and accents (remember the 1980s?) then why not concentrate your efforts there? It is high time people of all races, religions and nationalities remembered that these guys are a threat to all of us, and that we all pull together in trying to sort the problem out. Their attempts are based along the old lines of Divide and Conquer, and so far they are doing a good job of that.

I think we need more advertising!!

After all, 9/11 put these folks on the map for us. White guys did the bombings over here before them, but do they get any credit? NO! Now, if you aren't arabic looking, you just can't make it as a credible threat. Forget McVeigh, forget Rudolph, forget Ted K. (not the Kennedys, they are a predictable threat), heck, you can even forget that badly washed shoe bomber. Oh, and forget those kids in Colorado, too, since they had bombs, but mostly used guns.

Islamic terrorists are simply the flavor of the day, sort of like PlayStation versus X box. Arari once ruled the TV's, but whatever happened to them? Then Nintendo owned the shop, and now they are an also ran. Islamic bombers aren't the only ones, they are just the chic sheiks of the moment, and everybodies gunning for them. Eventually we'll knock them off, and our own home grown fundamentalists/right wing nuts/ or even ecoterrorists will be able to dominate the American market once again. Then we will be able to search all the white folks bording the planes without this annoying argument about whether or not it is fair.

When it comes to terror, like other things, you should buy American. The lives you end could be your own. White guys managed to kill more Americans in America through bombing than any other group until those 9/11 turkeys pulled one big publicity stunt. Forget that folks, it was just one big showy event, they clearly can't deliver yearly like we can. They're just upstarts with no legs. Home grown terrorist nut jobs can be there for you year after year, but they don't have the budgets to add all the glitz of a 9/11. McVeigh couldn't even afford to fly, so he had to use a truck, and Ted had to resort to mailing his bombs, but they got the job done, you can't deny it.

To sum it up with a serious note: The only characterization that is fairly safe is that the terrorists that have hit this country have been male. The majority of them have been white guys, and the deadliest single attack has been arabic, but the next two or three were all undeniably caucasian.

[zaza]

I don't dispute that there have been a large number of home-grown bombers of varying shapes and sizes, but nevertheless there is a particular theme running through the various groups who are at present trying to blow up planes. Unwashed Richard Reid has been the only exception.

When a guy with a sniper rifle was driving around shooting at civilians (remember that?), did the police stop every pickup truck, every artic, every family saloon in an attempt to catch the guy? No, they got sightings and narrowed down their search. Perhaps this principle should be different when we're talking about human beings rather than models of car?

Perhaps if we try to avoid our misconceptions that religious hatred / racial hatred / gender-related hatred etc must be a part of it, and just accept that it's about police catching crooks, then we might start getting somewhere.

[Shaggy Hiker]

They narrowed down their search to a white van....which turned out to be wrong, and they ended up largely catching the guys by accident.

The underlying thread through both sets of terrorists is that they were male. That would be the direction to narrow. Planes do seem to be an arabic tool of choice, but that's only if you look at 9/11 and the recent plot. If you include the first WTC bombing, the Madrid bombing, and the London bombing, the picture is considerably more fuzzy. Two for planes, two for trains, (and if you include McVeigh), two for automobiles. Planes, Trains, and Automobiles!!! Why....you could almost make a movie out of it.

[FunkyDexter]

It seems like talking Arabic and having a beard is now a crime. If not in the eyes of the officials (yet) at least in the eyes of the public. This is a sad day.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5269106.stm)

No, they got sightings and narrowed down their search. Perhaps this principle should be different when we're talking about human beings rather than models of car? Don't know, but it should certainly be different when you are trying to narrow down to an entire ethnic group you think might be murderous rather than a specific individual who already has been.

[chocoloco]

It seems like talking Arabic and having a beard is now a crime. If not in the eyes of the officials (yet) at least in the eyes of the public. This is a sad day.
Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/5269106.stm)

I don't mean to be mean here, but can you really blame people for this behaviour when a large (almost all) part of terrorists involved in bombings come from that ethnicity/countries. Its sad but inevitable.

[demotivater]

I don't mean to be mean here, but can you really blame people for this behaviour when a large (almost all) part of terrorists involved in bombings come from that ethnicity/countries. Its sad but inevitable.
I agree. Time to pull your PC heads out of the sand. If some feelings are hurt, tough luck.

[chocoloco]

There really is no way to make airlines security fullproof (unless you start doing strip searches :D and allow almost nothing to carry in aircraft) ........ People are always going to look at these guys with suspicious eyes. Hell, even if I was there, I probably would not have reacted the way some people did, but I'd by lying if I said that a thought of insecurity did not cross my mind by just looking at those fellas.

[Valleysboy1978]

At the end of the day they will likely be muslim/islamic. They will undoubtedly be male (as they deem females as inferior). Therefore the likely threat is from muslim males. As already mentioned, if a few peoples feelings are hurt they can run home and cry to mommy, the police are just doing their job.

In the 1980s the threat was from unmarked white vans (IRA) and anyone driving said vehicle would be searched. The intelligence services just respond to the current threat. And the current threat are male muslim/islamic extremists.

Simple as...

[grilkip]

Hmm, the words "star of David" come to mind, perhaps it's a useful idea.

[Valleysboy1978]

Good god man! We're not going to go rounding people up and start culling them for no reason, but like it or not there is currently a threat from islamic extremists. What would you suggest? We just wait for them to kill 5000 innocent people, then arrest them and put them away.

At that rate we should catch them after about 100,000 or so people are killed in terrorist attacks

[grilkip]

I don't really know how to solve it, perhaps it cannot be solved because the people out there who hate us will keep finding new ways. I am not saying that we should rest on our laurels, just that we should be carefull in what measures we choose to take.

1st They should not confine the liberties of citizens.
2nd They shoudn't be discriminating in any way.

I am not a dove, but no matter how much whipped cream you put on it, I am not willing to swallow the idea that racial profiling is OK. It's hard to explain really, it's an emotional thing, perhaps it's just my upbringing (/indoctrination).

It's the slipperly slope that I fear, what will be the next step? That's why I posted that.

[chocoloco]

Nobody is suggesting Racial Profiling is ok, however, how do you not allow that scary thought to come to your mind everytime you see one of these guys boarding an airplane (just an example) with you? We're only human. I for one, not willing to believe that you can be totally "disconnected" and not think on similar grounds when in similar situation.

[NotLKH]

If an unknown number of Hard Core Red-Shirted Vulcan Eared Trekies got together with a single purpose, and a portion were caught red handed in the preliminary stages of blowing up several Babylon5 conventions, then I'm afraid that, due to their display of being organized, we would have to assume there probably are more of them out their involved with this terror plot, and unfortunately until the authorities could be convinced that the unknowns have either abandoned this course of action, or are truly non-existant, then the whole freaky trekie population would have to be a profile of who should be considered as a potential threat, until proven otherwise.

[demotivater]

Set phasers to fun! http://images.penagate.spiralmindsinc.com/smileys/gayfight.gif

Racial profiling is real and happens all the time. Just because it's not policy, it exists - including at the airport. Making it official would just eliminate the charade of "randomly" selecting the 2 1/2 year old and her 85 year old grandma for extra screening, which does nothing but cause delays.

If I go to a black neighborhood, I'll likely get pulled over just as a black guy will likely get pulled over in a white neighborhood. If middle eastern looking men go to the airport with a one way ticket to New York, extra screening. I have no problem with that, and if people would be honest about their real feelings, I think you'd find nobody really has a problem with that. But, we must maintain our politically correct appearence and pretend it offends us, happily ignoring the ongoing global war because it makes us feel yucky.

[chocoloco]

Nicely put, racial profiling happens all the time.
How can you not be suspicious of muslims when always the muslims are behind every non sense that goes on around the world???

[rory]

Set phasers to fun! http://images.penagate.spiralmindsinc.com/smileys/gayfight.gif

Racial profiling is real and happens all the time. Just because it's not policy, it exists - including at the airport. Making it official would just eliminate the charade of "randomly" selecting the 2 1/2 year old and her 85 year old grandma for extra screening, which does nothing but cause delays.

If I go to a black neighborhood, I'll likely get pulled over just as a black guy will likely get pulled over in a white neighborhood. If middle eastern looking men go to the airport with a one way ticket to New York, extra screening. I have no problem with that, and if people would be honest about their real feelings, I think you'd find nobody really has a problem with that. But, we must maintain our politically correct appearence and pretend it offends us, happily ignoring the ongoing global war because it makes us feel yucky.

Except you cant get a 1 way ticket to the US unless you are a US Resident ... :wave:

[Shaggy Hiker]

I don't mean to be mean here, but can you really blame people for this behaviour when a large (almost all) part of terrorists involved in bombings come from that ethnicity/countries. Its sad but inevitable.


I don't believe this...unless you have me on ignore ;) ....you can list all the terrorist attacks committed in the US, and three posts later some guy comes on and says something that is utterly wrong.

KEEP THIS IN MIND: ALMOST ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS COMMITTED ON AMERICAN SOIL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY WHITE AMERICAN MALES!!!

Only TWO have been by foreign Islamic terrorists.

[rory]

ill say this ... if i see someone that looks like a joneser (bum) i walkin the other way .. cause i aint got no change buddy ... just cause he looks like a bum doesnt mean he is ... but im just fed up with them jonesin for my change is all ... :wave:

[demotivater]

KEEP THIS IN MIND: ALMOST ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS COMMITTED ON AMERICAN SOIL HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY WHITE AMERICAN MALES!!!

Only TWO have been by foreign Islamic terrorists.
What's your point? Should we wait for Islamic terrorists to catch up before challenging them?

By the way, US embassies abroad are classified as US soil

[Valleysboy1978]

I don't really know how to solve it, perhaps it cannot be solved because the people out there who hate us will keep finding new ways. I am not saying that we should rest on our laurels, just that we should be carefull in what measures we choose to take.

1st They should not confine the liberties of citizens.
2nd They shoudn't be discriminating in any way.

I am not a dove, but no matter how much whipped cream you put on it, I am not willing to swallow the idea that racial profiling is OK. It's hard to explain really, it's an emotional thing, perhaps it's just my upbringing (/indoctrination).

It's the slipperly slope that I fear, what will be the next step? That's why I posted that."It cannot be solved"? So perhaps we should just let them bomb who they wish and just say, "well we couldn't have stopped them anyway"? - yeah right

Racial profiling has existed for centuries, mostly as a threat that came from one place. As I mentioned before in the 80s the IRA was suspect and as such any unmarked white van (especially originating from Ireland) would instantly be searched.

I would have no problems in extra security being in place anywhere if it meant I was safer and the chances of stopping an attack was increased.

Ask yourself this. Would the passengers on the planes of the 9/11 attacks have minded extra security checks if it had meant catching those responsible? Or perhaps extra checks at train stations to catch those responsible for the Madrid/London bombings thus?

The greatest hindrance is political correctness. What a waste of time that is! We can no longer ask for black coffee as it's degrading to the ethinc minority groups!?! :ehh:

They must be stopped, and if that means that at airports asian passengers are more scrutinised so be it. I wouldn't mind if it were me as I have nothing to hide from them!

[Wally Pipp]

If they were to do extra security checks on American white males or, to remain in spirit of things, welsh people flying to american (for whatever reason) you'd all be up in arms, waving the Bill of Rights and all that frantically about.

I do not deny that there's a lot of muslim extremism, I do not deny that there's hatred towards the west and I do not deny that there are terror plots but either check everyone thorougly or no-one at all. This is no reason for discrimination. Everyone is a potential terrorists.

But you would never agree with that, would you?

[grilkip]

I didn't say we shouldn't do anything. I just happen to have an opinion as to what should limit a state in its actions. Singling out ethnic groups is something I believe is wrong.Ask yourself this. Would the passengers on the planes of the 9/11 attacks have minded extra security checks if it had meant catching those responsible? Or perhaps extra checks at train stations to catch those responsible for the Madrid/London bombings thus?That's a cheap shot, you don't know how, when and where the next attack will be so what shall we do? Stay at home? It also implies that I don't care for those lives lost, which I resent.The greatest hindrance is political correctness. What a waste of time that is! We can no longer ask for black coffee as it's degrading to the ethinc minority groups!?!I agree that there are examples where political correctness has gone too far, your example is one. Actually since 9/11 much of it has fallen away, at least where I live. Believe me, the results aren't always pretty.

[rory]

If they were to do extra security checks on American white males or, to remain in spirit of things, welsh people flying to american (for whatever reason) you'd all be up in arms, waving the Bill of Rights and all that frantically about.


they do, at least us white bahamians ,.. i got no problem with it, better safe then sorry, and if we dont like it, there's always the boat.

[FunkyDexter]

I agree that we all have emotional responses to certain situations and that might include being on a plane with a bearded man of dark complexion speaking a language we don't recognise. However, when you choose to act on that emotional response instead of considering it logically you become a bigot in my opinion. These men had passed through exactly the same security checks and were carrying exactly the same limited hand luggage as every other person on the plane - anyone in their right mind and who wasn't allowing themselves to be swept up in the general panic and fear that's currently pervading our society would have been able to conclude that these men simply didn't represent a threat.

Further, the result of this was not that the people who chose to get up and walk off the plane were inconvenienced and had to take a later flight. Instead monarch airlines decided that the two men being victimised had to take a later flight. The only possible reason I can think of for that is financial. The airline could limit their losses by removing two innocent men from the plane instead of removing those that didn''t like the fact they spoke arabic.

The argument that because racial profiling exists we should therefore consider it acceptable, not mention legal, does not hold water. The point of morality is that we, as human beings, can rise above our baser instincts. If we fail to do so, and even go so far as to justify that failure, we might as well give up on any concept of humanity as being separate from beasts.

On 9/10 Islamists weren't considered a threat so no amount of racial profiling would have made a jot of difference on 9/11. It would have missed the perpetrators entirely so frankly any argument that racial profiling will stop terrorist attacks to be laughable

I don't mean to be mean here, but can you really blame people for this behaviour when a large (almost all) part of terrorists involved in bombings come from that ethnicity/countries. Its sad but inevitable....and this is the most dangerous attitude of all. To say that almost all terrorists are muslims is incorrect. Up until Iraq the most prolific use of suicide bombs was by the Tamil Tigers - who are Hindu (I'm actually not sure that the situation in Iraq has changed that fact but it's probably close by so I'll hedge my bets.) As Shaggy points out, more attackes have been carried out on American soil by Whites than Muslims. To add to that, more attacks on British soild have been carried out by Irishmen than by Muslims.

Should we ignore the terrorist threat - YES, that's exactly what we (as the public) should do. The most effective measure against terrorism will not be for us to start ostracising large parts of our community - it will be for our authorities and domestic police forces to gather good intelligence and act on it (it's only a shame that they seem to have bee nso inept at this recently). Will some terrorist attacks get through? Yes. Will the deathtoll as a result of those attacks outstrip that caused by accidents in the home, railway crashes, cancer, smoking, or just about any other category you care to mention? No. Stop allowing irrational fear to inform your thinking

[chocoloco]

Should we ignore the terrorist threat - YES, that's exactly what we (as the public) should do. The most effective measure against terrorism will not be for us to start ostracising large parts of our community - it will be for our authorities and domestic police forces to gather good intelligence and act on it (it's only a shame that they seem to have bee nso inept at this recently). Will some terrorist attacks get through? Yes. Will the deathtoll as a result of those attacks outstrip that caused by accidents in the home, railway crashes, cancer, smoking, or just about any other category you care to mention? No. Stop allowing irrational fear to inform your thinking

Can you be anymore stupid and ignorant?? Comparing deathtoll caused by terrorism to the one caused by smoking??? :)

[MasterBlaster]

The greatest hindrance is political correctness. What a waste of time that is! We can no longer ask for black coffee as it's degrading to the ethinc minority groups!?! :ehh:

Your kidding, right? :confused: Is this really considered politically incorrect now?

[FunkyDexter]

Can you be anymore stupid and ignorant??
Yes I can. I can have a world view like this:-
How can you not be suspicious of muslims when always the muslims are behind every non sense that goes on around the world???

[chocoloco]

What part of that do you find not being true??

How many times have you heard Tamil Tigers driving Planes into WTC??

[Wally Pipp]

So one act of terrorism on American soil links all muslims to all of the terror acts in the world?

Never knew the IRA, ETA and all the rest of the terrorists were muslim but hey, you live an learn.

[Valleysboy1978]

Your kidding, right? :confused: Is this really considered politically incorrect now?I'm not kidding.

That's a cheap shot, you don't know how, when and where the next attack will be so what shall we do? Stay at home? It also implies that I don't care for those lives lost, which I resent.No, we don't know when and where the next attack will be so we have to check everyone deemed a risk to security. If that were white males I would have no issue with extra checks as I have nothing to hide.
So what would you suggest? So that we don't offend anyone (god forbid) we should refrain from doing anything but the most basic of security checks (like metal detectors, and x-ray scanners - neither of which could pick up a nitro-glycerine explosive) and risk letting a bomber through? No, everyone should be checked thoroughly.

Going into a night-club I am asked to empty my pockets before they check my person for offensive weapons. If I do not comply, I do not get in. Why can this not be normal practice at airport security checks for EVERYONE?

[chocoloco]

So one act of terrorism on American soil links all muslims to all of the terror acts in the world?

Never knew the IRA, ETA and all the rest of the terrorists were muslim but hey, you live an learn.
No, but see which terrorism acts have caused most damage/lives/havoc and you will see what I'm getting at. Take india for example, kashmere issue. Its not white males from New york coming here and killing innocent civilians. Its terrorists funded by pakistan and middle eastern countries .... They must have lost at least 70, 80000 people in last two decades to terrorism and I am not even exaggerating right now.

[demotivater]

"I said to myself, 'If this guy doesn't look like an Arab terrorist, then nothing does.' Then I gave myself a mental slap, because in this day and age, it's not nice to say things like this," he said. "You've checked in hundreds of Arabs and Hindus and Sikhs, and you've never done that. I felt kind of embarrassed."

That quote is from Michael Tuohey, the ticket agent who gave boarding passes to Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz Alomari. Three hours later, they flew a jet into the WTC.
Had this guy gone with his instincts, who knows what would have happened. Well, we do know the ACLU would have eaten him alive.

[Shaggy Hiker]

That quote is from Michael Tuohey, the ticket agent who gave boarding passes to Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz Alomari. Three hours later, they flew a jet into the WTC.
Had this guy gone with his instincts, who knows what would have happened. Well, we do know the ACLU would have eaten him alive.

Actually, I would say that it is views like these that lead to views like these. Human brains are very good at one thing and only one thing: Pattern recognition. Nothing else we do is particularly spectacular, but we can pick patterns out of almost any kind of data stream. This has obvious biological importance, but it leads to bad mistakes in civilization. Once the pattern is established "terrorists look like X", then our brains will remind us of evidence that supports the pattern, and suppresses evidence that contradicts the pattern. Thus racism. Once you believe it, your brain will strongly filter out contradictory evidence. There are plenty of interesting studies on this. It doesn't just work with one type of pattern such as race.

The news out here is all buzzing over a guy who was arrested with the intent of out doing McVeigh using the same general plan. He intended to use a follow-up bomb to get the first responders. He got caught, though.

Now, had he succeeded, what would people do? If the next major (hundreds killed and wounded) terrorist attack in the US was perpetrated by a white guy, would we simply start fearing all men, or would we discount that attack, and continue to focus on a different race?

The pattern of focusing on middle eastern men would leave us exposed to attacks by the groups who have committed the vast majority of terrorist attacks on US soil. By the arguments made here, we should focus on white, male, US citizens, because they are the group most likely to attack us based on the last twenty years of history. If you want to concentrate your efforts on the demographic that poses the greatest threat of committing a terrorist attack, it is THAT group.

Are there any members of this discussion that are not members of that demographic (white males, that is, not necessarily US citizens)?

[rory]

The difference is simple .. one is an american, the other is a visitor ... they have every right to discriminate against everyone coming into their country that isnt a born and raised american. It happens to me when i visit the US, and i dont have a problem with it, so why should other people ..

[Valleysboy1978]

That quote is from Michael Tuohey, the ticket agent who gave boarding passes to Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz Alomari. Three hours later, they flew a jet into the WTC.
Had this guy gone with his instincts, who knows what would have happened. Well, we do know the ACLU would have eaten him alive.Good argument :thumb:

I also have to agree with rory. If you come into a country that country has every right to put you through whatever restrictions they deem necessary, it is their right as it is their country. I had to go through very strict security procedures when going to Orlando for two weeks holiday and I did not mind it one bit

[FunkyDexter]

I don't particularly see a moral problem with separating visitors from residents in the same way that I do with separating them by ethnicity but I do see a practical one. The guys they arrested recently for the failed plot that started this discussion were all British. So we'd have let them on the plane with no extra checks.

Also it's slightly confusing to discuss separating visitors from residents because that implies you'll be checking people as they arrive but actually you're checking them as they leave. "Should British security be relaxing measures against American residents boarding an American flight?" is a more difficult question than "Should American Security be relaxing measures against American residents exiting an American flight?"

I think Valleys Boy is about right when he says why aren't we applying these check to EVERYONE. To me the only arguments aganst that are ones of pragmatism (it's a lot of upheaval) and that it won't be particularly effective unless all countries adopt the same level of stringency. Neither of those is insurmountable though.

[crptcblade]

If everyone listened to my idea and travelled by catapult, we wouldn't have these problems.

[rory]

I don't particularly see a moral problem with separating visitors from residents in the same way that I do with separating them by ethnicity but I do see a practical one. The guys they arrested recently for the failed plot that started this discussion were all British. So we'd have let them on the plane with no extra checks.

Also it's slightly confusing to discuss separating visitors from residents because that implies you'll be checking people as they arrive but actually you're checking them as they leave. "Should British security be relaxing measures against American residents boarding an American flight?" is a more difficult question than "Should American Security be relaxing measures against American residents exiting an American flight?"

I think Valleys Boy is about right when he says why aren't we applying these check to EVERYONE. To me the only arguments aganst that are ones of pragmatism (it's a lot of upheaval) and that it won't be particularly effective unless all countries adopt the same level of stringency. Neither of those is insurmountable though.


We have Pre Clearence here in the Bahamas for US Immigration .. so they get us before we even get on the plane .. ;)

[demotivater]

Domestic terrorism is a completely different entity to international terrorism. And white guys who park a van or truck near a federal building are scrutinized, or profiled. Since Oklahoma, all kinds of steps have been taken to make federal buildings more secure. Try parking near one. Should we spot check 5 year olds visiting a federal building to give the appearence we're not just picking on white guys in vans? That's what's going on at the airport, and that's what I think is a waste of time and resources.

Airline workers have been trained for years to spot suspicious behavior or potential risks. Liberal conditioning preventing that ticket agent from acting on something his gut told him, correctly, was a problem. The oppresive blanket of political correctness needs to go back in the closet. It's ridiculous to the point of being a threat to the country. Profiling already exists, my point is that it wouldn't hurt a bit to make it policy and end the BS that it doesn't exist.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I agreed with most of what people said until that last one. Suicide terrorists have a rather unique point of view, as the end of their life is included in their actions. I would have to agree with the TSA official who pointed out that if we start not searching kids, then that would make a baby the ideal place to conceal a bomb. After all, why would we expect a person who intends to kill hundreds to be suddenly concerned about the life of a baby? The point of random searches is that they must truly be random. A child below the age of speech is actually an ideal medium for a person who desires to kill people.

In this case, profiling would more effectively close one door, but it will do so by lighting a flashing sign pointing to another door. You are saying to anybody watching: "If you want to get away with something, do this, because we are INTENTIONALLY not looking!"

As for blaming it on political correctness, or any liberal conditioning, that may well be the case. Of course, this country has a very strong history of violence towards various groups within it. It doesn't get talked about much, and plenty of it still exists. I feel that promoting tolerance of others is worthwhile, and if it gets some folks undies in a knot, tough. The Arryan Nation just got sued out of existence in this state, but we have plenty more like them up here. Some of them hate me because I work for the government, even though I'm just a fish biologist. I'm not thrilled with political correctness, I think it is silly, and can easily be taken too far, but I'm not so thrilled with the groups around me that are the antithesis.

[moeur]

It seems there is a bit of an over reaction to this plot.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

[Shaggy Hiker]

An interesting article, but I'm not sure that it was entirely accurate. They list the Hawaii flight where the roof came off as an example of how hard it is to bring down a plane. However, there are plenty of examples where a plane crashed because of a fairly minor amount of damage to a very critical area. I forget the name of the crash in Florida (was it valujet?). There was no explosion, just a fire or something like that, and the plane hit the ground so hard it was hard to recover any pieces of it (they burrowed into the Everglades mud after a near vertical impact). Do you really need an explosive to crash a plane, or just a targeted fire? If so, there are plenty of simple and potent binary solutions to that.

The article is probably correct that the listed explosive would be exceedingly difficult to manufacture on the spot in such a quantity that it could create an explosion of sufficient force to bring down a plane if it were detonated in the cabin. However, is this indicative of the inadequacy of the terrorists, or is this indicative of the lack of imagination of the writer of the article. Has anybody specifically said that the terrorists intended to simply detonate the chemicals wherever convenient? Is there no possible way they could use a limitted explosion to do terminal damage?

[Valleysboy1978]

It seems there is a bit of an over reaction to this plot.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/I wonder if you'd think we were over reacting if they had actually succeeeded? Doubt it

[moeur]

I wonder if you'd think we were over reacting if they had actually succeeeded?The point of the article is that they wouldn't have succeeded to the extent that the media is portraying.

[Valleysboy1978]

Nevertheless, I woudl prefer the security services overreact than under-react.

[yrwyddfa]

It seems there is a bit of an over reaction to this plot.

http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/I don't recall any mention of the final chemical to go was TATP that was issued from a reliable source. This article clearly assumes that's what was mentioned. If you ever believed that TATP could be made in-situ in an aircraft then, I'm afraid, you are an idiot.

If you believe the security services would reveal which two substances can make binary explosives to the public at large then, I'm afraid, you are much further down the line than an idiot.

Furthermore the process of creating, and handling dimethylmercury, as the article suggests as an even worse weapon, is likely to kill the person trying to do it.

I presume that you have some fashion of intelligence. I am confused by your decision to post this article, Moeur; especially with your kick-line.

[Valleysboy1978]

hey hey! Our number one debater on the World Events forum is back! Welcome Back Yrywddfa :thumb: :D

[FunkyDexter]

white guys who park a van or truck near a federal building are scrutinized, or profiled.No they're not. ANYONE parking a van or truck near a federal building will be scrutinized. I don't imagine the security services look at the driver and say "Hey, it's OK, he's black. If he was White we'd nab him" which is exactly what we're advocating doing to Arabs and Pakistani's in this thread.

I'm also pretty sure that a five year old parking a van near a federal building would recieve the same scrutiny - but that's admittedly unlikely :ehh:

[Xanith]

No they're not. ANYONE parking a van or truck near a federal building will be scrutinized. I don't imagine the security services look at the driver and say "Hey, it's OK, he's black. If he was White we'd nab him" which is exactly what we're advocating doing to Arabs and Pakistani's in this thread.

I'm also pretty sure that a five year old parking a van near a federal building would recieve the same scrutiny - but that's admittedly unlikely :ehh:

There really is no precedent save the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal building (in other words there hasn’t been some large movement by some group to blow up government buildings) so I would imagine they would scrutinize all vans or trucks parked in front of any government building, as they should. Had say multiple federal buildings all been blown up by say militant white male extremists I would want the government to develop a terrorist profile that included the fact they were white male extremists.

That way if you happened to see a white male parked outside a government building in a van or a large truck that was acting suspicious that might set off a few alarm bells.

As far as security for planes go I think given the past 30 years of hijacking and terrorist activities in regards to planes I think it is safe to assume you can also develop a profile that includes Muslim, male, 18-45. I honestly don’t think you can simply develop a profile just on race or religion, but leaving those out of a terrorist profile is just plain stupid. We shouldn’t be beholden to political correctness at the expense of security.

In other words stop shaking down the 90-year-old grandma’s and use the limited resources that we do have on those that truly deserve our scrutiny.

X

[demotivater]

No they're not. ANYONE parking a van or truck near a federal building will be scrutinized.
I'm aware of that. I was responding to a post regarding white males and terrorist acts.

[yrwyddfa]

There really is no precedent save the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal building (in other words there hasn’t been some large movement by some group to blow up government buildings) so I would imagine they would scrutinize all vans or trucks parked in front of any government building, as they should. Had say multiple federal buildings all been blown up by say militant white male extremists I would want the government to develop a terrorist profile that included the fact they were white male extremists.

That way if you happened to see a white male parked outside a government building in a van or a large truck that was acting suspicious that might set off a few alarm bells.

As far as security for planes go I think given the past 30 years of hijacking and terrorist activities in regards to planes I think it is safe to assume you can also develop a profile that includes Muslim, male, 18-45. I honestly don’t think you can simply develop a profile just on race or religion, but leaving those out of a terrorist profile is just plain stupid. We shouldn’t be beholden to political correctness at the expense of security.

In other words stop shaking down the 90-year-old grandma’s and use the limited resources that we do have on those that truly deserve our scrutiny.

XIn case you've missed the facts of the matter; all of the most recent attacks on US infrastructure, and/or US civilians have originated from the UK.

To blame anyone else is simply an act of bigotry

[demotivater]

As much as we'd all like to prove eachother wrong, and feel like we're morally superior, there comes a time when you really have to ask yourself if you actually believe what you're preaching. Do some of you guys really think we're not facing a threat from islamo fascists, the great majority of which are middle eastern males? Are you that naive? I hope not for the sake of your futures.

[visualAd]

As much as we'd all like to prove eachother wrong, and feel like we're morally superior, there comes a time when you really have to ask yourself if you actually believe what you're preaching. Do some of you guys really think we're not facing a threat from islamo fascists, the great majority of which are middle eastern males? Are you that naive? I hope not for the sake of your futures.
They are the least of our worries.

[demotivater]

They are the least of our worries.
Keeping up appearences are the greatest? Good luck with that.

[Shaggy Hiker]

As much as we'd all like to prove eachother wrong, and feel like we're morally superior, there comes a time when you really have to ask yourself if you actually believe what you're preaching. Do some of you guys really think we're not facing a threat from islamo fascists, the great majority of which are middle eastern males? Are you that naive? I hope not for the sake of your futures.

I'm not sure where you live, but I have much more to fear from groups other than middle eastern males where I am. We do get the militant right wing groups out here, and they are more likely to be a threat than islamo fascists. For that matter, run of the mill criminals are more dangerous than either group, but that's not a homeland security issue.

Based on the area I live in, and the politics around here, I would expect that if I were to be killed or injured in a terrorist attack, it would most likely be perpetrated by a right-wing white male. Of course, the demographics are different in other areas.

That's not to say that islamic terrorists aren't out there, they certainly are, and we're making more every day. However, I'd not want to see a focus on them at the exclusion of the other groups that have managed more attacks on US soil over the last ten years.

As for Xaniths comments, I think he's mostly correct, except for the profile of airline hijackers. If you do go back 30 years, I'd want to see statistics supporting the claim that the majority was muslim. If you only look 10 years back, I think he's right, but not 30. We had a rash of hijackings from other groups and individuals, back in the 70's and 80's.

The point being, we shouldn't be complacent in thinking that one group is responsible now and will be tomorrow. It's not true. In the last fifteen years, there were two truck bomb attacks on federal buildings (by white right wingers, one foiled, one not), one against the WTC (islamic), several satchel bombings (most notably be white right-wingers), one mail bomber (white left-winger), one bio-terrorist attack (source unknown), and a few firearm attacks that could be classified as terrorist actions (virtually every source except the Quakers). The fight is against terrorism, not Islamic terrorism. It's convenient to target an ethnic group, but it isn't valid if the threat is broader than that, as the case currently is.

[moeur]

It is clear that one group is responsible for the vast majority of "terrorist" attacks in the U.S.
Here is a list of terrorist attacks by Muslims
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/AmericanAttacks.htm

Here is the 911 commision report that points out how big of a problem the muslim community is
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

Still looking for a list of terrorist attack on U.S. soil by non-Muslims

Of course there are many other ways you could die with a much higher probablity.

[visualAd]

Here is the 911 commision report that points out how big of a problem the muslim community is
Should I shoot you now? :wave: There is nothing wrong with the muslim community.

I am not sure why but some americans think they are special because there country has been attacked by teerrorists. Fact is most countries in the modern world have issues with terrorism and in some parts of the world teorrist bombings are part of everyday life. Terrorists come in all shapes and forms, fighting for different causes, whether they be political, religous, animal rights, health campagners, GM food activists.

Terrorists feed off corruption, uncertainty and suffering. They recruit people who a vulnerable and who have lost something which can be attributed as a direct result of the cause that the terrorists are fighting for. The way in which the western world lives and the attitudes held creates the foundations that terrorist groups feed off of.

Cause and effect ... its not rocket science.

[rory]

Comments?


http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

The Religion of Peace has been bombing, shooting, stabbing and blasting peace all over the globe in prolific fashion; killing and maiming tens of thousands in at least sixty different countries in the four years that TheReligionofPeace.com (TROP) has been keeping track. We can now say that more than a thousand deadly Islamic terror attacks are reported in the media each year – although the true extent of the violence is certainly much higher.

Imagine what isn’t caught in the dark corners of the planet, particularly those countries in the Muslim world that keep the press from shedding light on the sort of atrocities that would be front-page news in the West. More than one million dhimmis have been killed in the Islamic Republic of Sudan over the last twenty years, for example, but they are no more remembered than are the many millions of other victims who began accumulating under the Prophet’s own sword fourteen centuries earlier.

Despite the carnage that Islam dishes out around the world each year, many make the mistake of trivializing the violence, since the number of casualties is measured “only” in tens of thousands these days. They forget the enormous amount of resources that are committed to contain the threat. Yet, in spite of the many billions of dollars spent and the hundreds of security personnel that pay with their lives in places like Kashmir and Iraq, Muslim terrorists still manage to kill more innocent people every 12 months than the Spanish Inquisition did in 350 years.

What would the casualty toll look like if we weren’t spending so much in money, technology and blood to protect ourselves from the ‘Holy Warriors’ of Islam - those dedicated fanatics who spend their time memorizing the Qur’an and dreaming of ways to circumvent security and amass piles of dead bodies. While our politicians debate the legal niceties of wiretapping terror suspects, our enemy is actively seeking chemical poisons and nuclear material to maximize our suffering and death according to their interpretation of Islam.

How would you feel if these architects of misery were acting in the name of your religion? Would you brush off the violence with a casual dismissal and turn your attention to petty complaints of personal slight? Amazingly, this is the sort of moral disconnect that we find in the Muslim world. While people of other faiths would be horrified by such terror and resolved to ending it before raising issues that are trivial by comparison, the Islamic community distinguishes itself with a near absence of moral objectivity.

When Muslim snipers rampage across America and children are blown to bits in India (and dozens of other countries) Muslim-American groups like CAIR and MPAC are far more concerned with a handful of dead fish that appear in a mosque parking lot, and exhibit more outrage over terror financiers being denied entry into the United States.

While the elderly are having their throats slashed by Jihadis in Thailand and women in Europe are raped by Muslim immigrants, these self-absorbed groups are rallying in support of admitted terror suspects like Sami al-Arian.

What’s wrong with these people? What’s wrong with this religion?

Islam seems to dull the moral senses and exaggerate the perception of self-importance. Muslims in the West dress their cooption of culture and Christian heritage in the language of ethics and equality, yet they display not the slightest concern for the rights of religious minorities in Muslim countries, many of whom live in horrific conditions under third-class status imposed by Islamic law. At each opportunity Muslims implicitly stress that the rights and lives of non-believers are largely inconsequential to the spread of their own religion.

Many Westerners were shocked by the lack of genuine outrage in the wake of 9/11, as the reaction of the Islamic world was mostly apathetic – save notable pockets of expressed elation. When offered, the stale disclaimers had a flat ring to them, unlike, say, the engaged zealotry over a Qur’an desecration or a public remark deemed to be slanderous to Muslims. The lives of 3,000 Americans are of less importance to CAIR, for example, than the delicate sensibilities of Muslim-Americans in the aftermath of 9/11.

Thanks to 12 Danish cartoonists, the world now knows what Muslim outrage looks like - and it is absolutely nowhere to be found when Islamic terrorists cut throats in the name of Allah.

But there is a juvenile naivety to those claiming to “denounce” terror, as if mere verbiage should be enough to convince the rest of us that Islam has “nothing to do” with the terrorists themselves, who plainly state their motives in religious terms, often with language lifted straight from the Qur’an. Indeed, religious clerics are quite active in the Jihad recruitment process, and mosques are often used for planning and staging attacks. Yet, rather than addressing the problem head-on and cleaning house, Muslims find ways to shirk responsibility.

This year’s Hajj is a case in point. Traditionally, the journey to Mecca, at the heart of the Islamic world, is one of the holiest events in a mainstream believer’s life. Yet, at the Grand Mosque this year, a top cleric told 2.5 million pilgrims that the only connection Islam has with terror is that it is a plot by the West to discredit the religion. Another cleric (who apparently has a very poor grasp of reflexive logic) told the same crowd that the West’s war on terror was actually a war on Islam.

The Qur’an, of course, is quite clear about how believers should respond to such aggression (and it isn’t along the lines of “Bless them that curse you”). With Hajj sermons using Jihad as an excuse for more Jihad, is there any reason to expect an end to the violence?

This selfish immaturity and disregard for human suffering is almost universally characteristic of Islam. On their site, CAIR disingenuously asks visitors to sign an online petition called Not in Our Name, which serves a public relations function while their real interest is in publicizing perceived insults and obscure rumors that impassion hatred against the U.S. overseas, fueling the violence and disorientation. Is it any great mystery why Islamic terror continues year after year with no end in sight?

While Western religion strives to make the world a better place, the goal of Islam is nothing more than Islam. In its history, there have been no contributions of significance toward science and knowledge. Its greatest cultural achievements have been to arbitrarily preserve what is borrowed from conquered peoples, be it African coffee or Hindu mathematics. Every technology that Muslims use today was developed in the West, including the cell phones and airplanes that their most devoted followers periodically turn into instruments of destruction.

Neither is there a legacy of hospitals or missions from a religion that is based on an archaic code of ethics providing rules for beating women and waging war, but none for helping those outside the faith. Certainly there was no abolition movement in the Islamic world, where slavery persists to this day.

The most impressive humanitarian accomplishment that Muslims can boast of is that not every infidel was put to death when the Jihad swept through the Middle East, Asia, Africa and Europe in earlier centuries. At least some of those who agreed to live in humiliation and complete subjugation were spared the sword. Some were even required to hand over their children to military service and forced conversion.

Clearly Islam isn’t like other religions. It doesn’t have the same history, the same goals, or the same morality. It does not inspire compassion and it shuns introspection. It is the most susceptible to violence and the least open to dialogue. It demands the very respect from others that it is unwilling to allow those over whom it has power.

(This isn't to say that there aren’t decent people who are Muslim, indeed there are plenty, but it is more in spite of Islam rather than because of it – an allegiance to a higher standard of ethics that transcends Muhammad’s harsh rules for 7th century survival).

Unfortunately, the nature of Western religion and the gods of multiculturalism seduce us into believing that all religions have the same ethical regard (or disregard) for human life and respect for liberal values. In our minds – and only in our minds – we contrive moral equivalence between cultures, religions and events that are in fact very distinct from one another, merely because doing so provides a sense of personal superiority.

Islam will never be a religion of peace until Muslims decide to make it so by taking responsibility. Until this happens, we must ensure the physical security and intellectual freedom of our children and grandchildren by having the courage to think critically and independently, seeing Islam for what it really is – rather than what we wish it would be.

[rory]

From www.amilimani.com

We, the non-Muslims—the infidels, heathens, unbelievers, apostates, enemies of Allah, najis (soiled), as you prefer to call us—would like to know what is it that you don’t understand and what is it that makes you behave so badly toward us? You blame us for your problems and believe if we embrace Islam and help establish the Islamic ummah, the earth would be cleansed of us, transformed to paradise, and all your problems disappear?

Respectfully, we disagree. We believe that you and your system of belief are at the core of your problems; that you need to critically examine the facts, rather than conveniently blame others for your ills. Keep in mind that beliefs and ideas make people human, that beliefs are roadmaps of life. To the extent that the roadmap is rational and enlightened, the path of life is illumined, pitfalls are avoided and obstacles are removed. The terrain of life has greatly changed since the roadmap of Islam was given to the wondering primitives of Arabian Peninsula.
The twenty first century presents great challenges and opportunities that demand new ways of thinking and behaving. The doctrine of Islam may have been appropriate for the desert dwellers of some 1400 years ago, the people you yourselves stigmatize as “The Ignorant.” It is dysfunctional today to say the least. As a matter of fact, Islam went astray from the very beginning and inflicted a great deal of suffering on both its followers as well as those who resisted its advance.

Early on, Prophet Muhammad explicitly said, “There is no compulsion in religion.” He further confirmed that admonition, “For you, your religion; and for me, my religion.” Why is it that as soon as you gathered enough power, you violated those exhortations and set out to force your belief and way of life on others at the point of the sword? You further conveniently ignored your own teaching by unsheathing your sword at “the people of the book”—Jews and Christians. You spared them death only if they converted or consented to pay you backbreaking religious taxes of jizya.

Your cruel successful subjugation of the people of the Arabian Peninsula whetted your appetite for further conquests. You ventured into the civilized world—to Persia, the Levant, Spain, and eventually to the gates of Vienna. Cruelty and terror were your instruments of policy—weapons you liberally use today whenever and wherever you are able.

Contempt and hostility toward non-Muslims living under your rule as well as those outside of your domain have characterized your attitude and behavior throughout the history. Isn’t it enough? Is it not now the time to stand back and take a good look at what is the root cause of this pathological state of affairs?

Life is precious. It is to be protected, nurtured and celebrated. Mankind is moving, perhaps at a glacier pace, toward reconciliation, ever-expanding inclusiveness without any group or ideology imposing itself on others. Any attempt against this trend of unity in diversity is doomed to failure, as exemplified by the demise of fascism and communism.

Your charter, the Quran, in some parts, preaches discrimination, death and imposition of its dogma on everyone. The political system of Islam, just like fascism and communism, is a dysfunctional ideology that needs to be abandoned. Humanity has matured considerably since the time of Muhammad. In order to continue its forward march, mankind must follow a roadmap appropriate for its age and state of development. It is foolish to insist that a book written over 1400 years ago must serve as the one and only guide for humanity.

Progress thrives in a marketplace of free ideas, where beliefs and viewpoints, not people, clash. It is through the unimpeded clash of ideas that the best decisions and actions are reached. Political Islam is anathema to this invaluable principle. By forcing itself on any and all people it could, Islam violated this vital principle and it aims to continue to do so to this day. Islam’s inflexible and intolerant dogmatism is at the heart of Islamic world’s stagnation and backwardness. It is evident that staying put, so to speak, does not allow going forward. It is not the non-Muslim world, the convenient scapegoat, but Islam itself which is the culprit for your chronic ills.

The non-Muslims of the twenty first century treasure freedom in all its forms and are not going to lend their necks passively to the yoke of blind obedience and imitation.

Is the present argument too difficult to understand? Is it too threatening to the security of your mindset to concede its validity? Please have the courage and take that fateful step. Inhale the life-nurturing fragrance of freedom. Islam is a slaveholder. It feels that it owns you; it condemns you as apostate to be beheaded if you dare to leave its chains. The non-Muslims, by contrast, respect you as a free human and support your inalienable right to believe whatever you want to believe—even if it is a non-belief. If you still wish to wrap yourself in your suffocating security blanket—Islam—please keep it to yourself and refrain from forcing it on others.

[rory]

Many British Muslims Put Islam First

The recent homegrown plot in Britain to blow up transatlantic flights will intensify the fear that the country's 1.6 million Muslims are rejecting political tolerance and free speech for a violent, radicalized version of Islam. There is a real concern that British Muslims do pose a threat to that country and its traditional values. So how prevalent are such radical views among British Muslims?

Some answers are provided by the most comprehensive survey to date of Muslim opinion in Britain. The results from NOP Research, broadcast by Channel 4-TV on August 7, are startling.

Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy. Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is. Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, "Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws."

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state. This comports with last year's Daily Telegraph newspaper survey that found one-third of British Muslims believe that Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to end it.

The news is no less alarming on the question of freedom of speech. Seventy-eight percent support punishment for the people who earlier this year published cartoons featuring the Prophet Mohammed. Sixty-eight percent support the arrest and prosecution of those British people who "insult Islam." When asked if free speech should be protected, even if it offends religious groups, 62 percent of British Muslims say No, it should not.

Also concerning freedom of speech, as the NOP Research survey reports, "hardcore Islamists" constitute nine percent of the British Muslim population. A slightly more moderate group is composed of "staunch defenders of Islam." This second group comprises 29 percent of the British Muslim population. Individuals in this group aggressively defend their religion from internal and external threats, real or imagined.

The scary reality is that only three percent of British Muslims "took a consistently pro-freedom of speech line on these questions." The Muslim threat to British security is so severe that the assistant London police commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur, has called for an inquiry into the radicalization of young Muslims. Ghaffur sadly describes "a generation of angry young people vulnerable to exploitation."

Before the London bombings, British intelligence services estimated that one percent of British Muslims either support or are involved in terrorism. While this is mainly a peaceful and productive immigrant population, a significant number are prepared to act against their own country.

The British government believes that, in recent years, 3,000 British Muslims have returned home from al Qaeda training camps. Intelligence experts estimate that 1,200 Muslim radicals (80 percent of Pakistani origin) are currently pursuing a terrorist rather than a democratic option to vent their disgust at Tony Blair's support for America's invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and opposition to Hezbollah.

This terrorist weed that is choking the U.K. is especially hard to eradicate because it is growing in British soil. America's fastest-growing religion is Islam, but here in the States the numbers are not a security concern, as a commitment to Islam has not overwhelmed a strong attachment to America itself — another victory for the cultural melting pot.

By contrast, the U.K. embraced taxpayer-subsidized multiculturalism and has paid a very dear price, indeed. The result — cultural apartheid — has encouraged a significant number of Muslims to exhibit more loyalty to fellow Muslims outside of the U.K. than to their fellow Britons.

This column was written by Patrick Basham

[visualAd]

Can you give use a summary in two sentances? One if possible :sick:

[rory]

1 sentence ..??

Firefox has been "hacked" and is no longer safe to browse sites that may contain malware. :D

Otherwise you would have to read those posts, or not, its up to you, is da free wurld dread .. :wave:

PS. I didnt write them so dont shoot the messenger,
but they seem pretty self explanatory //

[moeur]

Should I shoot you now?Why are you a Muslim?
There is nothing wrong with the muslim community.There is something seriously wrong with the Muslim community. A community that condones strapping bombs onto their childeren to promote their politcal and religious viewpoints.

[visualAd]

I think I should shoot you now. Do you have a gun I can borrow?

[zaza]

There is something seriously wrong with the Muslim community. A community that condones strapping bombs onto their childeren to promote their politcal and religious viewpoints.


Just to add to this point - most Muslims that I know, and I know a fair few, are vehement that these "extremist" sorts are no Muslims at all, and that Islam is an inherently peaceful religion. Some are undoubtedly misguided, some do not believe in the religion at all - but let's not go tarring hundreds of millions of people with a particular brush because there are a bunch of lunatics who claim to speak for the lot of them. By doing so, we give these guys far too much power and credibility.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Fundamentalists of any religion are scary. Currently, christian fundamentalists are only killing specific groups, and not all that often, but that has changed in the past, and will probably chage again in the future. Right now, the muslim fundamentalists are killing people wholesale, but that's mostly because they don't have a more effective option. Then there are the mormon fundamentalists...hoo boy, good thing they aren't very numerous.

[Wally Pipp]

let's look at it from the other side: what if I were to lump the lot of you together with Christian fundamentalists and say that there's something seriously wrong with Christians all over the world?

You wouldn't agree for one second. Yet you do the same with muslims all over. I believe it's called bigotry, isn't it?

[rory]

let's look at it from the other side: what if I were to lump the lot of you together with Christian fundamentalists and say that there's something seriously wrong with Christians all over the world?

not everyone that isnt muslim is a christian yah know ..alot of us just dont believe in religion that much ...

[Wally Pipp]

You've just proven my point.

[rory]

You've just proven my point.
If I did, then that means you were also lumping Muslims, Budhists, etc, into the mix also .. so really there was no point to be made. :confused:

The fact is a group or groups known as "Islamic Terrorists" are waging something they call a "Holy war" against non Muslims (if not them someone gotta let them know since they keep telling us they are)... so I just have one question, do regular Muslim's [in general] think Christians are waging a war on Muslims, and who do they think these Christians are, or do they think it is just a war against Arabs? Also, Do they want to see the destruction of Israel and all of its citizens, and if so why? If not, why do not more regular Muslims speak up against and denounce the views and actions of the prominent Islamic Leaders who ARE voicing these views in the name of their Religion?

Just want some clarification .. they say they want to kill me, then someone else says they dont, they say it again, once again someone else says they dont ... :ehh:

[moeur]

Again I would point you to the Overview of “The Rampant Allure of Jihad in the Muslim World”. From the 911 commission’s reports.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing3/witness_emerson.htm

It is clear that the vast majority of Muslims around the world are peaceful people. There should be made a distinction between the violent extremists and the peaceful majority, but It is the militants who are trying to erase these distinctions; by claiming there is no such thing as Islamic extremism, the militants have tried to hide under the protection of the mainstream majority.This radicalism is pervasive throughout the Islamic world communities One need only read translations of the Muslim media in many parts of the world, including the West, to see the resentment, hatred and anger, even in countries that are our strategic "allies." The persistent denial that radical Muslims were responsible for the September 11 attacks, with the belief that Israel or the United States had secretly launched the attacks, is further evidence of the rampant radicalismSuch a belief system, in which anti-Western animus is so entrenched, cannot be remedied by a public relations program launched by outsiders. Rather, any hope for change must come from within the Muslim world itself.the roots of Arab and Islamic belligerency towards the US are found in the failure of those regimes to adequately meet the needs of their people. A democratic modernization of the Islamic world, mounted from within, is the only way to defuse these murderous emotions.

The overview is much longer and very informative.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I heard an interview with an islamic multi-faith organization leader. He mentioned that somebody had praised him as leading an exciting faith-based organization for 16-year old muslims. He pointed out that there was another one: Al Queda. The point being, that they are doing a very good job of connecting with the youth in the islamic regions of the world, which other religions are not doing such a good job with. If you get the youth on your side, you will last for some time. It's a cause for concern. When your enemies have an effective farm team, and yours is neglected....well, it's not a good thing.

[rory]

Right, they brainwash them .. but religion has nothing to do with it anyway .. the Terrorists just dont get that part ... we just arent as dumb as they are :D (the terrorists that is)

[Valleysboy1978]

Some excellent points here lads! :thumb:
I have to say that all this radicalism is worrying, but it is not new. What is new is the form it has taken. Facism was radical but they took a full-frontal approach by invading neighbouring countries (except for France which just gave up) and initiating a full scale war against Russia and Britain. The modern war is more secretive but I wonder if the casualty rate is anywhere near that of WW2?

[rory]

Anyway. back on topic, so now they are sayng 2008 before they try these guys ... do they actually have any evidence??

[Shaggy Hiker]

Some excellent points here lads! :thumb:
I have to say that all this radicalism is worrying, but it is not new. What is new is the form it has taken. Facism was radical but they took a full-frontal approach by invading neighbouring countries (except for France which just gave up) and initiating a full scale war against Russia and Britain. The modern war is more secretive but I wonder if the casualty rate is anywhere near that of WW2?

Now now, they invaded France right and proper. Remember Dunkirk? 'Twasn't just a big summer picnic.

The casualty rate isn't anywhere near WW2, in any terms, but the impact could be more far reaching. If you start packing rats into a cage, they breed...like rats, until the population reaches a certain height, at which point it levels off. They become fraticidal. When you look around the world these days, it appears that there are more groups out there attempting to divide up into camps. Some are militant right now, some have militant fringe groups, and some are not yet militant, but all are divisive. People have long speculated that at some population level, a disease will knock down the human population, much like the black plague in the fourteenth century. Perhaps we won't need a plague. Perhaps we are just rats. Under stress, we circle the wagons and wage war on those who don't agree with us. Perhaps this has always happened.

Rory: I had to look back up to the top of the page to see what the actual topic was. Quit trying to confuse us.

[rory]

If you start packing rats into a cage, they breed...like rats, until the population reaches a certain height, at which point it levels off. They become fraticidal.

but the ones in the UK etc, arent exactly living in squaller .

[JPnyc]

The problem with NOT shaking down any person belonging to any particular profile is, sooner or later terrorists will start recruiting from outside the profile that you expect.

[Shaggy Hiker]

The problem with NOT shaking down any person belonging to any particular profile is, sooner or later terrorists will start recruiting from outside the profile that you expect.

Wittingly or unwittingly. Hence the reason for searching babies. They make ideal bomb delivery devices simply because of the attitude that nobody would do that and it is silly to search them.

[Shaggy Hiker]

but the ones in the UK etc, arent exactly living in squaller .

Squalor is a matter of opinion. You don't really know how far you have sunk until you have sunk lower. Before that time, you don't have a yardstick to measure squalor. The lowest you have ever reached is the lowest you can imagine unless you are particularly able to empathize with others. Relativistic squalor is good enough to cause people to act. Look at all the Americans complaining about the gas prices, even on this forum, where a bunch of europeans can laugh at our whining as they spend twice as much on gas.

[rory]

Squalor is a matter of opinion. You don't really know how far you have sunk until you have sunk lower. Before that time, you don't have a yardstick to measure squalor. The lowest you have ever reached is the lowest you can imagine unless you are particularly able to empathize with others. Relativistic squalor is good enough to cause people to act. Look at all the Americans complaining about the gas prices, even on this forum, where a bunch of europeans can laugh at our whining as they spend twice as much on gas.
yah need to visit the bahamas dread ... we aint got no welfare or dole like you guys,. when you poe, you poe .. noone there to help... yah juz starve to death .. man they living in concrete homes and get government assistance ... try a family of 20 living in a 15x15 wooden shack, no running water, kids gat no shoes or shirts, and thats just a block from where i livin. ..

they dont know the meaning of squaller, they living it up big time compared to the 3rd world ... they just dont realise how good they got it compared to the rest of the world ...

And oh yeah, the cost of living here is higher than the UK ... Average wage is much lower ... forget public transportation .. and no need to mention the condition of our only prison, lets say its on amnesty's list as one of the worst in the world ... course the outislands are much nicer, cost of living there is even higher though. :bigyello:

So no i definately Dont empathize with them ... ive had no work for months, living off hot dogs and no money to put gas in my jeep, but yah dont see me blaming everyone else for my own demise ...

[Shaggy Hiker]

But that's what I mean. They DON'T know how good they've got it.

[Valleysboy1978]

The Middle East has had a violent history for as long as I have been alive. It is no wonder it continues as they are stuck in a vicious circle of hate.
e.g.
Person 1 kills Person 2
Person 2's two sons then hate Person 1
The two sons kill Person 1
Person 1's sons hate Person 2's sons
Person 1's sons kill Person 2's sons
Person 2's sons family hate Person 1's sons.
.
.
.
such is the escalation of hatred.

[yrwyddfa]

At the risk of being a simpleton (quite true, if you ask me) . . .

How does radicalisation actually happen? It's a great word, just surfacing to the forefront of the debate (go back five years just after 911, and I think you'll find the term extremist and it's subsequent forms the term of choice) but what do you actually think that it means?

I'm sure that those being radicalised would not even beleive they were; I'm fairly sure it has nothing at all to with the 1960's being radical, either.

One thing's for sure, in this context, if these people who are being radicalised or to perhaps I should say being made to be extreme beleive that if someone tells them to strap a bomb to themselves and they will get whatever, it's a good thing. Surely someone would say "If you believe that's the case - you go and do it. I know you haven't because you're telling me to do it"

As I said. I'm a simpleton.

[visualAd]

Did anyone see the program on BBC 2 on Monday about alQueda(sp?).

One of the contributors made an interesting point. His house mate (a British Citizen), chose to go to Iraq and fight the Americans, he was killed after attempting to blow himself up at a US checkpoint. He had no reservations in expressing his opinion that the war in Iraq was illegal and that his househate, though chose to go to Iraq and fight for what he believed and that he supported his cause. Does that make him a terrorist? I think not. A criminal? - in the eyes of the US soldiers about to be blown up, Yes! I am also quite sure that there is a law in the UK which would make it illegal for a British citizen to go a fight for the oppisite side during a war too.

People fight for their country, they fight for their religion they fight for their families. Personally, i would refuse to fight for my country and wouldn't fight in the name of religion either. But should we really be classing those who do as radicalised extremists?

The issue with many terrorist organisations is their targetting of people who have chosen not to fight for their cause. I disagree with the war in Iraq and think it was toally uncalled for, serving as platform for recruiting more terrorists. But I don't wish to go to Iraq and fight in the war for either side and as such would not expect to be killed for that cause either.

The vast majoriy of people, no matter what their religion, colour or social background just want to get on with their lives.

[rory]

Did anyone see the program on BBC 2 on Monday about alQueda(sp?).

One of the contributors made an interesting point. His house mate (a British Citizen), chose to go to Iraq and fight the Americans, he was killed after attempting to blow himself up at a US checkpoint. He had no reservations in expressing his opinion that the war in Iraq was illegal and that his househate, though chose to go to Iraq and fight for what he believed and that he supported his cause. Does that make him a terrorist? I think not. A criminal? - in the eyes of the US soldiers about to be blown up, Yes! I am also quite sure that there is a law in the UK which would make it illegal for a British citizen to go a fight for the oppisite side during a war too.

People fight for their country, they fight for their religion they fight for their families. Personally, i would refuse to fight for my country and wouldn't fight in the name of religion either. But should we really be classing those who do as radicalised extremists?

The issue with many terrorist organisations is their targetting of people who have chosen not to fight for their cause. I disagree with the war in Iraq and think it was toally uncalled for, serving as platform for recruiting more terrorists. But I don't wish to go to Iraq and fight in the war for either side and as such would not expect to be killed for that cause either.

The vast majoriy of people, no matter what their religion, colour or social background just want to get on with their lives.

To fight for religion, is the dumbest thing ive ever heard of. And yes that person was not only a criminal but a nutcase also.

[yrwyddfa]

To fight for religion, is the dumbest thing ive ever heard of. And yes that person was not only a criminal but a nutcase also.Religion can be defined as the set of beliefs that comprise to make the moral fortitude of a collection of individuals. If you accept that definition, then all things secular fall under the religous banner as well. Religous activities need not have anything to with deity or deities.

Would you fight to defend your way of life and, more importantly, what you feel is right?

[rory]

Religion can be defined as the set of beliefs that comprise to make the moral fortitude of a collection of individuals. If you accept that definition, then all things secular fall under the religous banner as well. Religous activities need not have anything to with deity or deities.

Would you fight to defend your way of life and, more importantly, what you feel is right?
If someone is attacking my country to take away my freedoms, sure, but thats not the case with these islamic terrorists, they just getting in other peoples business who dont even want them there to start with.

[zaza]

Some have said the same about Iraq... :rolleyes:

[rory]

Some have said the same about Iraq... :rolleyes:
Thats why I mentioned it, Iraqis wanted freedom, they dont want the Islamic Terroirists that are there now.

Besides that has nothing to do with this topic anyway, and I did ask do the authorities have any evidence on these guys .. since they now say they wont until 2008?

[zaza]

Thats why I mentioned it, Iraqis wanted freedom, they dont want the Islamic Terroirists that are there now.


Yeah, you go George.




Besides that has nothing to do with this topic anyway, and I did ask do the authorities have any evidence on these guys .. since they now say they wont until 2008?


Some say that it has everything to do with this topic... :rolleyes:

[Shaggy Hiker]

What's the topic again? Rory, quit confusing me!!!

The Iraqis want freedom, but there are at least three groups currently in that country with three different concepts of what freedom is. The Kurds have long wanted their own country, and independent Kurdistan. That vision is strongly opposed by both Turkey and Iran (just to make for odd bed fellows). The Shiites have long wanted an islamic state more similar to Iran. When Britain created modern Iraq following WWII, the Sunnis were give the majority of the power because it was believed that the Shiites would create a religios state opposed to the intrests of GB. The Sunnis probably define freedom more closely as having what they had pre-Gulf War (I or II, you pick).

With three mutually opposing concepts of freedom, civil war seems to be the most likely result.

[rory]

What's the topic again? Rory, quit confusing me!!!


Hmmmm ... anyway i dont take the plane, i use the boat, so yall gat more invested in this than I do ... :wave:

[rory]

Some say that it has everything to do with this topic..

:afrog:

[yrwyddfa]

If someone is attacking my country to take away my freedoms, sure, but thats not the case with these islamic terrorists, they just getting in other peoples business who dont even want them there to start with.So, at this point in time, you do not believe there is cause to believe that Western secular nations are (at the very least) interfering with islamic states?

[rory]

So, at this point in time, you do not believe there is cause to believe that Western secular nations are (at the very least) interfering with islamic states?

Define "islamic states" and "interfering".

I dont believe in their religion (nor many others) so you need to cross that bridge with one of those so called believers.

I only recognise a country and its "legitimate" leaders which have been voted into leadership by the people, and who have the best interest of its people at heart; I dont recognise races, religions, or regimes.

So, do you live in one of these "Western secular nations"?
Dont need to answer if you dont want to, as this is a Free world. ..

[yrwyddfa]

Define "islamic states" and "interfering".Those with Islamic leadership. Interfering can be defined as (i)invading, (ii) political bullying etc etc

I dont believe in their religion (nor many others) so you need to cross that bridge with one of those so called believers.That's just fine. But you do believe in something . . .

I only recognise a country and its "legitimate" leaders which have been voted into leadership by the people, and who have the best interest of its people at heart; I dont recognise races, religions, or regimes.Not true. You've already stated a 'moral' obligation to recognise leadership of a country; one which I presume is democracy. What you say here is an oxymoron.

So, do you live in one of these "Western secular nations"? I live 30 miles SE of London, England.

Dont need to answer if you dont want to, as this is a Free world. ..This is not a free world, and if you believe that then, I'm afraid, you are deluded.

[rory]

I live 30 miles SE of London, England.

Perhaps a vacation to a 3rd world country will enlighten you ...
nuff said for now, have fun in Jolly Old England .. :wave:

[yrwyddfa]

Perhaps a vacation to a 3rd world country will enlighten you ...
nuff said for now, have fun in Jolly Old England .. :wave:What are you talking about? I've been to Wales ;)

[rory]

What are you talking about? I've been to Wales ;)
i actually know what yah mean .. been there too when i lived in England..
:D :D

[Valleysboy1978]

What are you talking about? I've been to Wales ;)It's interesting how the British preach about multi-culturalism, tolerance and integration. Yet the Welsh nation has been ruled with an iron fist, or simply ignorance, not worth the effort of the current ruling regime (whether it be monarchistic or republic) for the best part of two millennia. It is un-politically correct to refer to another as an Arab, Jew, Black etc..yet it is acceptable to call someone Welsh in a derogatory manner? Seems ironic.

I wonder also if Iraq is soon to go the way of Wales and be ruled by a foreign nation? I truly hope not for Wales has always been, and will always be, ignored by those who rule in Westminster.

*rant over*

[yrwyddfa]

It's interesting how the British preach about multi-culturalism, tolerance and integration. Yet the Welsh nation has been ruled with an iron fist, or simply ignorance, not worth the effort of the current ruling regime (whether it be monarchistic or republic) for the best part of two millennia. It is un-politically correct to refer to another as an Arab, Jew, Black etc..yet it is acceptable to call someone Welsh in a derogatory manner? Seems ironic.

I wonder also if Iraq is soon to go the way of Wales and be ruled by a foreign nation? I truly hope not for Wales has always been, and will always be, ignored by those who rule in Westminster.

*rant over*Of course, that's the case. Hasn't it always been thus?

Messing around aside; it was a joke, with no intent. Nothing more, nothing less. My parents live in Wales, and I take many short-breaks in Wales, primarily because of the environment that you Welsh guys enjoy.

I think you'll find that the inverse situation is also true! I've experienced, myself the same ribbing from the more Gaelic locations around the UK. Did you known even Cornwall has a liberation movement?

BTW you are presupposing that the Welsh consitute a 'race' Of course they don't. Americans get a whole heat of abuse, these days, so do the French, Scottish, Irish etc etc. The term, perhaps, that you are looking for is countricism?

[Valleysboy1978]

You have to admit though that Great Britain is quickly losing it's identity. Ask someone from any of the Home Nations and they would likely say they are English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish before saying they were Brittish. Previous generations however would be the opposite.

Race nowadays (thanks to the PC movement) would probably constitute many different things, and likely anything derogatory regarding where you come from or what you believe in.

I just find it interesting how these protestors continue to argue that we shouldn't interfere with a foreign nation, yet this practice has been going on for thousands of years. Most especially in Europe. The strong will always intefere with the weak as the weak are a potential future threats. That is why the Romans defeated the relatively peaceful nations of the time....to protect Rome

[FunkyDexter]

ValleysBoy, as an Irishman I feel you pain :(

An interesting thing about the Welsh/English/British situation is that King John actually merged Wales into England so you could argue that Wales is part of England rather than Britain. Of course, the average Welshman would stab your eyes out for even suggesting such a thing.

It's also possible to argue that the Welsh and the Cornish are racially different from the English. When the Angles and Saxons invaded they drove the Romano-British (themselves a mix of Briton natives and Roman settlers) into Wales and the West Country. Modern English are descended from these Germanic peoples rather than the original native Britons. In fact if Aurther existed, he was probably Welsh.

I knew about the KLF (Kernow Liberation Front) - they have a big hit with 'Last train to Tintagel' :bigyello:

And we're now truly off topic - unless the KLF were planning on blowing up the plane.

[Valleysboy1978]

Indeed we would :D

Arthur would have indeed been Welsh, and Guinevere was said to be an Irish warrior princess, intended to unite the tribes of the Britons :thumb:

Not really off topic as it is all about percieved invasion, and indeed when Wales was being invaded in those days the peoples often revolted and resisted so it does sort of echo to what's happening now

[yrwyddfa]

Look we're all British. I am certainly English although from Spanish-Canadian descent.

Who cares? It was a bit of rib-tickling fun for me. If it makes you feel better than I apologise. I understand that the Irish make the best beer. I understand that the Welsh landscape is second to none in the world. I understand that Scotland make the best whiskey.

If you want to take away humour then do so; but remember you're doing the world a huge injustive by doing so.

To differentiate Welsh from English, for example, is a huge compliment . . . think about it.

[FunkyDexter]

My tongues certainly in my cheek and I've taken no offense at all. Though for the record the Irish make the best Whiskey too :D . (Actually I'm only 1/2 irish, my Dads a Londoner)

And the Spanish Canadians make the best... ermm.... nope, can't think of a thing. Actually I've never heard of Spanish Canadians :ehh:

BTW There's a freind of mine who's a member of the KLF. He keeps going on about fundamentalist pasties. I think, on the whole, they don't take independence very seriously. :rolleyes:

[Valleysboy1978]

No need to apologise mate, knew you were jesting :thumb:
Just I find it curious how people make the current Iraq war to be this huge crisis, yet human history is filled with such events, and all wars end at some time.But as they say "history is written by the victors"

[FunkyDexter]

Before we all start being horribly nice to each other (which'll get terribly boring) allow me to stir some righteous patriotic fury back up:

Q. Why are all the jokes about an Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman going into a bar? Where's the Welshman?
A. He's still in there from the night before.

Q. How do you confuse an Irishman?
A. Show him three shovels and tell him to take his pick.

Q. Why are 50 pence pieces the shape they are?
A. So you can pry them from a Scotsmans hand with a spanner.

Sadly I don't know any Englishman jokes.

[Wally Pipp]

they are a joke in any case.

[Valleysboy1978]

they are a joke in any case.:D: :thumb:

Dexter, there's no need to feel bad about not being able to keep up with the Welshmen in drinking games. We're expert pi$$heads :D