Major Terror Plot to Blow Up Aircraft

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xanith

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

---

In 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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

They are the least of our worries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by visualAd

They are the least of our worries.

---

Keeping up appearences are the greatest? Good luck with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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/Pa...canAttacks.htm

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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 //

Quote:

---

Should I shoot you now?

---

Why are you a Muslim?

Quote:

---

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moeur

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

You've just proven my point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wally Pipp

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:

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/hearin...ss_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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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 radicalism

---

Quote:

---

Such 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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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)

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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 .

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

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 ...

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

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yrwyddfa

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.