View Full Version : Major Terrorist Plot Disrupted by Brtish Police
thrashaholic
08-10-2006, 08:35
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4778575.stm
Aside from the disruption to flights this, naturally, can only be a good thing. What is worrying is that the plotters appear to have been born in Britain.
I wonder how long it will be until the media start criticising the police YET AGAIN, and start doing interviews with horrendously ill-spoken ill-educated Muslims saying how unfair the police are being and how "if you have a beard you're a target" (or words to that effect).
Oh the religion of pieces all over the place does it's thing again huh. Good thing they have wives to channel all that negative energy. Let's have some more dialogue for whatever sake.
Frightening... 20 airplanes it's alot of people. I think Brittain shall deport every singel muslim that tend to have a extreme view on Islam.
I think Brittain shall deport every singel muslim that tend to have a extreme view on Islam.
Ya right, do you see it happening? Too many usefull idiots that love muslims for some reason. I expect an increase in multicultural festivals, and I am sure there must be a moderate imam somewhere to explain us that the quran isn't about blowing up planes because they didn't exist back then.
Ya right, do you see it happening? Too many usefull idiots that love muslims for some reason. I expect an increase in multicultural festivals, and I am sure there must be a moderate imam somewhere to explain us that the quran isn't about blowing up planes because they didn't exist back then.
Of course it ain't going to happen. One can allways hope. We have extreme muslims in Sweden too but this year, 2006, has been announanced by the government as the "Year of multiculturalism", so hell, let the rascist Imams who spread hate against Jews here be and give the extremists hugs instead. ~:grouphug: .
Good work by the Brittish police, I might add.
We have extreme muslims in Sweden too but this year, 2006, has been announanced by the government as the "Year of multiculturalism"
Buahahaha Sweden is indeed a lot like Holland, why bother with national security if you can celebrate the 40 year anniversary of the introduction of kebab to the native cuisine instead? Multicultists and their pink sunglasses, maybe they just don't know, eat shoarma every week and have never been robbed :laugh4:
English assassin
08-10-2006, 09:30
Frag if we judged all muslims by the standards of the terrorists, by the same reasoning we'd have to assume all dutchies were raving right wing nutters wouldn't we?
Obviously crapping on all muslims is the best way to get them to dob in the extremists in their midst isn't it?
Personally, I do think a lot of muslims in the UK need a bit of a slap and to be told that no, you are not victims, yes, there is a lot that's good about living in the UK and BTW what goes on in the middle east is nothing to do with you, but that's a long way from tarring them all with the same terrorist brush.
Frag if we judged all muslims by the standards of the terrorists, by the same reasoning we'd have to assume all dutchies were raving right wing nutters wouldn't we?
Obviously crapping on all muslims is the best way to get them to dob in the extremists in their midst isn't it?
Personally, I do think a lot of muslims in the UK need a bit of a slap and to be told that no, you are not victims, yes, there is a lot that's good about living in the UK and BTW what goes on in the middle east is nothing to do with you, but that's a long way from tarring them all with the same terrorist brush.
What was it last time, over 60% understood, and 14% wished they had done it themselves? There is your majority of the muslims mia muca. There is no love, and it's kinda ironic progressive people arranged my marriage.
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 09:59
I wonder how long it will be until the media start criticising the police YET AGAIN,
It may even be as long as it takes till the police turn round and say they screwed up again , like the last 3 times .:idea2:
Frightening... 20 airplanes it's alot of people.
oooooooo...so frightening 20 planes.......whatever happened to the 3 planes they said earlier or the possibly 10 planes they said in the link , isn't that frightening enough for ya .
I think Brittain shall deport every singel muslim that tend to have a extreme view on Islam.
Nah just shoot them , oh but make sure you kill them a it saves the expense of having to put them up in hotels when you realise the intelligence was bollox .Oh and shoot the families as well so the don't sue the police for killing the wrong people .
What was it last time, over 60% understood, and 14% wished they had done it themselves? There is your majority of the muslims mia muca.
My my frag , was that a question or a statement . or just another fragadelic statistic :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Frag if we judged all muslims by the standards of the terrorists, by the same reasoning we'd have to assume all dutchies were raving right wing nutters wouldn't we?
:2thumbsup:
Tribesman, the largest internet newspaper in Sweden, Aftonbladet, said 20 planes. And what the hell is up with your cousy-cuddly view on muslim extremists?? :inquisitive: Shoot them, deport them, whatever. Neutralize the threat.
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 10:29
And what the hell is up with your cousy-cuddly view on muslim extremists?? :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
My view on extremists is the same no matter what their race , religeon or politics , and it is not cosy-cuddly .
My view on this particular episode is ......wait ......hold on ...what happened last time , and the time before and the time before that .......?
Oh yeah it all turned out to be rubbish didn't it , so forget all the panic attacks for now yeah .
But instead here we have to two chicken-littles whose views on muslims are extreme (and not limited to extreme muslims) having a hissy fit .
So Radier , what the hell is up with your view ?
Shoot them, deport them, whatever. Neutralize the threat.
Is that how you neutralise a threat ?
Better safe than sorry, what is the worse that can happen? People are late.
I am sure they would complain more if the police hadn't done it when there WAS a threat.
Though I don't believe in stereotyping Arabs as terrorists, most of them aren't. But you still get problems with people identifying Indians and other people as Arabs, if anyone has seen the movie Crash (watched it last week), there a Persian has his shop trashed and vandalised because they thought he was Arab.
Ironicaly I have a history teacher at school who looks like Saddam Hussein (from his days in power) but he is from Northern India. He is one of the funniest teachers but no Saddam Hussein or extremist by far. Just be considerate, it is like the people who think Germans are nazis, they really make me mad.
:wall:
My view on this particular episode is ......wait ......hold on ...what happened last time , and the time before and the time before that .......?
Oh yeah it all turned out to be rubbish didn't it , so forget all the panic attacks for now yeah .
Er...London bombings, 9/11? Are you saying there is no threat at all, and we should therefore take no precautions? Aren't you glad the police are taking steps to prevent the issue, rather than letting it escalate?
Is that how you neutralise a threat ?
So what do you suggest? Ask them politley to stop waving their detonator in the pilot's face? I can see no other alternative than to use force ,be it holding them (and by "them" I mean the terrorists; those who would seek to harm innocent civillians-just to clarify) in cells for longer, or deportation. I would like to hear your magical solution to the problem.
...whose views on muslims are extreme (and not limited to extreme muslims)
First, please don't tell me what views I have.
So Radier , what the hell is up with your view ?
:idea2: Extreme muslims = out of my country. Ordinary muslims = stay. What is extreme in my opinions Tribesman?? Deporting those who hate westerners, is that extreme?
and it's kinda ironic progressive people arranged my marriage.
Did I miss something?:inquisitive:
it is like the people who think Germans are nazis, they really make me mad.
A very good topic, we should throw all Neo-Nazis and Muslims out of Germany and make it a wasteland. Now who wants to welcome 80 million homeless people?:dizzy2: :2thumbsup:
Now, if all muslims are potential terrorists, are all christians potential crusaders and witch-burners? Are all atheists potential gays? Do ants think humans are terrorists because we kill so many of them? What is a straight curve?
The opposite of a gay curve.:inquisitive: :oops:
I think that´s enough for today.
InsaneApache
08-10-2006, 11:47
'Tommy' helps PC Plod.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2749659.stm
English assassin
08-10-2006, 11:51
Oh yes that's very reassuring all right, recon tanks at the airport. I wonder what their rules of engagement are ("Don't", I would guess). Still it all makes for good pictures on the telly doesn't it.
What a joke.
Very interesting hearing opinions expressed about mass deportations etc. Lots of historical parralells to.
Go back and look at the expulsions in the Balkans, and around the Ottoman empire in the begining of the 20th C. Take a look at the various Jewish pogroms/explusions. Expulsions in India/Pakistan in the 40s.
Throughout history there have been voices like Fragony and Radier who's response to internal threat or division was ethnic cleansing. History also shows that the cleansing not only becomes a murderous rout, but that is often the precursor to war.
However Fragony, Radier and their sort never have mush time for historical analysis. Just stimulous and response, without troubling the brain overly.
Throughout history there have been voices like Fragony and Radier who's response to internal threat or division was ethnic cleansing. History also shows that the cleansing not only becomes a murderous rout, but that is often the precursor to war.
However Fragony, Radier and their sort never have mush time for historical analysis. Just stimulous and response, without troubling the brain overly.
What The Hell! Ethnic cleansing?
Maybee there is something terribly wrong with me, I don't know, but I don't want muslim extremists in my country. Extremist. I have no problem at all with ordinary muslims. I have muslims in my class. My sister's boyfriend is muslim. The guys at the best restaurant in my city are muslims. Do I have a probem with that? No. However, this tiny minority of muslim extremists who hate us, who give out tapes from a mosqe in Stockholm saying all Jews are apes and must burn, they I have a problem with.
I see no logic in your opinion Idaho. :no:
English assassin
08-10-2006, 13:17
Ah, "some of my best friends are muslims"...
I'm sure YOU know who all the extremists are and would never make a mistake, but all the non-extreme muslims might not feel so confident?
I don't believe in thought crime. I didn't beleive in it when Blair was passing laws against being rude about religion, and I don't believe in it when the religious are being rude about me. If they think I am a barbarian pig who will choke on Allah's firey farts for all eternity that's their business.
Anyone actually advocating violence can be dealt with under existing incitement laws. No need to deport, just charge them the same as any other citizen.
UglyandHasty
08-10-2006, 13:30
Good job by the UK police !!~:cheers:
Posting from the islamic terror bunker. Wearing regulation foil hat and pink shades.
Well it's the old "tanks at the airport" fiasco again? Remember what happened last time?
Luckily I don't have much of a tan and had a shave 3 days ago so I'm reasonably safe from PC plod's "shoot first and make excuses later" division.
Kommodus
08-10-2006, 14:28
Way to go Brits! Hats off to you! ~:pat:
I'm sure YOU know who all the extremists are and would never make a mistake, but all the non-extreme muslims might not feel so confident?
I am sure the police of national security know who's a theat and who isn't.
Oh, and non of my best friends are muslim.
I am sure the police of national security know who's a theat and who isn't.
That's the problem...If your nat'l security is anything like it is here in America, its "ohh he's not white, so he's gotta be a terrorist." That's what happens when you have humans in charge of security, especially frightened dopes who can only tell the difference between blindingly white (me) and anything not so blinding. Those cops certainly can't tell the difference between a law-abiding Indian man on his way home from visiting familiy in Calcutta and an extremist Islamic nutter from New Jersey (!) with plans of using hairspray to blow up an airplane.
Pannonian
08-10-2006, 15:35
I'm sure YOU know who all the extremists are and would never make a mistake, but all the non-extreme muslims might not feel so confident?
I am sure the police of national security know who's a theat and who isn't.
I can tell you don't live in the UK.
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 15:36
I am sure the police of national security know who's a theat and who isn't.
Unfortunately Radier they have proven time and again that they do not .
But hey at least this time they have only detained people .
All we have to do now is wait and see if they actualy charge some of those people , and then wait and see if they convict some of those people .
Their record on that isn't very good either .
Seamus Fermanagh
08-10-2006, 16:08
Why the commentaries on Islam?
In my review of the initial link, no mention was made of these detainees' religious faith, only of links to Pakistan. While Pakistan is, certainly, largely peopled by muslims, do you not run the risk of disparaging one of the world's great religions without proof.....
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Gotta love "PC" reportage.
I don't believe in thought crime. I didn't beleive in it when Blair was passing laws against being rude about religion, and I don't believe in it when the religious are being rude about me. If they think I am a barbarian pig who will choke on Allah's firey farts for all eternity that's their business.
Anyone actually advocating violence can be dealt with under existing incitement laws. No need to deport, just charge them the same as any other citizen.
(Round of applause)
discovery1
08-10-2006, 16:32
Great just great. Now all liquids need to be checked and baggage is to be gone through. This utterly sucks.
meh, lock 'em for encouraging violence.
scooter_the_shooter
08-10-2006, 16:55
What The Hell! Ethnic cleansing?
Maybee there is something terribly wrong with me, I don't know, but I don't want muslim extremists in my country. Extremist. I have no problem at all with ordinary muslims. I have muslims in my class. My sister's boyfriend is muslim. The guys at the best restaurant in my city are muslims. Do I have a probem with that? No. However, this tiny minority of muslim extremists who hate us, who give out tapes from a mosqe in Stockholm saying all Jews are apes and must burn, they I have a problem with.
I see no logic in your opinion Idaho. :no:
I don't agree with your opinion but you are entitled to it. Things in your country may be different but in America I think extreme imams should be allowed to preach their hate....and I'm a Christian!
Neo nazis/kkk, black panthers, extreme imams....even the "god hates fags" man who goes to soldier's funerals should all be allowed, it's covered under free speech. Our constitution does not say only certain kinds of speech should be allowed.
Back on topic! I am sure they got the right guy this time...think about after shooting the wrong guy once they will probably be a bit more careful. (you'd hope:help:)
discovery1
08-10-2006, 16:58
If if they got a wrong person, it shouldn't matter nearly as much since no one is dead. Unless of course that allows to plot to go foward.
Silver Rusher
08-10-2006, 17:08
Ah, "some of my best friends are muslims"...
I'm sure YOU know who all the extremists are and would never make a mistake, but all the non-extreme muslims might not feel so confident?
I don't believe in thought crime. I didn't beleive in it when Blair was passing laws against being rude about religion, and I don't believe in it when the religious are being rude about me. If they think I am a barbarian pig who will choke on Allah's firey farts for all eternity that's their business.
Anyone actually advocating violence can be dealt with under existing incitement laws. No need to deport, just charge them the same as any other citizen.
Hits the nail on the head right here. I suggest you all read this if you have read any of Fragony or Radier's comments, and especially if you feel you align yourself with them.
On a more annoyed note:
Damn it! I'm flying to Croatia from Gatwick next week. No battery powered items are allowed in hand luggage, so I can't play games, use my laptop or listen to music on the plane. Guess I'll just have to read for four hours straight... :inquisitive:
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 17:34
Damn it! I'm flying to Croatia from Gatwick next week. No battery powered items are allowed in hand luggage, so I can't play games, use my laptop or listen to music on the plane. Guess I'll just have to read for four hours straight...
Sorry , books are not allowed .You may however read your passport and boarding card :2thumbsup:
Since we have already had bombs in shoes , and people impergnating clothing with chemicals , how long until it get to the stage where if you want to travel you must be naked , your passport must be a tatoo and all luggage is banned .
Now there is a solution for ya , if you want to get rid of all the extremists from your country ban clothes . :laugh4:
Devastatin Dave
08-10-2006, 17:44
Good job Brits on catching these bastards. Hopefully the legal system won't puss-out and throw the book at them (which in the UK is probably withholding sugar for their afternoon tea while in a plush prison cell for a couple of weeks).
Cowhead418
08-10-2006, 17:44
Well, it seems they'll only be allowing products such as toothpaste. How long before terrorists create toothpaste-shaped bombs (the container obviously, not the actual product itself)?:inquisitive: :idea2:
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 17:53
Well, it seems they'll only be allowing products such as toothpaste. How long before terrorists create toothpaste-shaped bombs (the container obviously, not the actually product itself)?
Nope , no toothpaste , its not allowed .
Devastatin Dave
08-10-2006, 18:08
Well, it seems they'll only be allowing products such as toothpaste. How long before terrorists create toothpaste-shaped bombs (the container obviously, not the actually product itself)?
Nope , no toothpaste , its not allowed .
Man Tribes I think you're right about the naked scenario you discribed earlier. I tell you, these Islomo-nuts are going to get the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy folks after them if they don't watch out. No KY or product for the hair, they will bring the wrath of the pink giant that's been sleeping!!! Go get em girls!!!:laugh4:
Tribes, you forgot that the stomach needs to be clean so prepare for some purge and some time on the toilet before departure.:2thumbsup:
English assassin
08-10-2006, 18:18
Ah well flying is hell anyway.
Mrs Assassin and the little assassins are supposed to be flying to Portgual on saturday. Mmm, nice, four hours in the airport and then a two hour flight without so much as a postman Pat book to distract them.
Suddenly I don't feel so bad about having to go to work next week...
Luggage will be shipped via trains or boats, while we travel in paper medical gowns and slippers. Emetics and enemas are your pre-flight "meal". Thank you for flying the friendly skies!
Silver Rusher
08-10-2006, 18:33
Everyone must have a surgical reconnaissance before departure, meaning that we will open up your body and search every square inch of it for weapons or narcotics.
What's the betting that this will all fizzle out into nothing with no clear evidence of anything and no charges brought - like the Ricin plot, the Heathrow missile plot, etc...
English assassin
08-10-2006, 19:56
What's the betting that this will all fizzle out into nothing with no clear evidence of anything and no charges brought - like the Ricin plot, the Heathrow missile plot, etc...
Sheesh, you and Tribes eh? Guilty until proven innocent when it comes to the police.
OK, they DO cock up. Quite a lot. But they do also arrest bad people and lock them up. Wait and see m8. What do you want them to do, let a few planes get blown up just so they can say I told you so?
ShadesWolf
08-10-2006, 20:02
I must admit when I first heard this I did think are things getting a little hot under the collar for the gov.
So what shall we do.
I know, lets let Tony fly off on his holidays and then the next day stick the alert rating upto as high as possible to take the heat off he gov for a bit.
Cowhead418
08-10-2006, 20:03
What will the terrorists come up with next? You've got to think that their sick, deranged minds could come up with another solution to beat the system...
Tribesman
08-10-2006, 20:41
Sheesh, you and Tribes eh? Guilty until proven innocent when it comes to the police.
Not at all , its just that some are jumping to conclusions , I mean seriously have you seen any of the British or American news today:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: BTW isn't that supposed to be innocent until proved guilty when it comes to suspects .:inquisitive:
OK, they DO cock up. Quite a lot.
Exactly .
But they do also arrest bad people and lock them up.
Yep , and of the 1500+ "terrorists" so far how many have actually been charged with anything at all , and how many of those eventually charged have been charged with anything relating to terrorism .
Now here's a thought for ya , that baldy bloke giving the press conference , police commisioner or something like that . Anyone find the abence of the involvement of armed units in many of the raids strange ?
I mean these people are alledgedly suicidal nutters intent on killing (the suspects not the police) .
Or was the big screw up last time an influencing factor . So instead of 250police , some with guns raiding one house , shooting someone who turned out may have had done nothing wrong , being replaced by 4 unarmed cops kicking a door down .
Now here's a thought for ya , that baldy bloke giving the press conference , police commisioner or something like that . Anyone find the abence of the involvement of armed units in many of the raids strange ?
I mean these people are alledgedly suicidal nutters intent on killing (the suspects not the police) .
Or was the big screw up last time an influencing factor . So instead of 250police , some with guns raiding one house , shooting someone who turned out may have had done nothing wrong , being replaced by 4 unarmed cops kicking a door down .
That´s easy, if the four guys get shot, the terrorists are proved guilty.:idea2:
edit: Wait...maybe they thought the terrorists might get hurt in the process if weapons are involved.
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2006, 00:45
Some people are so clouded by political correctness and the multicultural burka that they cannot see the forrest for the trees.
http://z.about.com/d/islam/1/0/h/starmoon_yellow.gif
At this point, the Western world deserves whatever horrible attacks muslims have planned. A society so weak that no government has the will to stand up and take the neccesary action against a hostile minority, and instead allows said minority to thrive and spread their hate, does not deserve to be safe and secure.
The enemy is in plain sight. The mosques where hatred is taught are well known, yet nothing is done. They might have stopped todays attacks, and they might stop the next ones as well, but until the root cause of the problem is dealt with, we will never be rid of islamic murderers. :no:
Papewaio
08-11-2006, 00:59
How should we deal with this root cause?
Get rid of free speech? Arrest people for having an opinion contrary to our own?
These extremists are against multiculturalism. They want only their culture and their way of life and will destroy others to gain that.
So I will not allow their hatred to be an oppourtunity for other extremists to get what they want. I will not allow muslim extremism to be used as a tool for leverage for other extremists to have only their culture and their way of life and destroy others.
It is the extremists at all ends of the spectrum that should be dealt with using our laws and standards of civilisation. That means freedom of speech, it means innocent until prove guilty, it means rights to a fair trial, it means that you do the crime you do the time, it means death for treason, it means the full force of the law no matter which extemist group you belong to.
So lets play by our rules, not theirs.
Every time we choose the high path we fragment their community powerbase.
Every time we play their game we force them together out of fear.
So I will not give up my civilisation to play into their hands. I am will not out of fear give up rights for security, to do so is not to deserve either.
Tribesman
08-11-2006, 02:20
Wow Panzer talking about peoples views being clouded , thats gotta be one of the funniest posts in a long time .
A society so weak that no government has the will to stand up and take the neccesary action against a hostile minority, and instead allows said minority to thrive and spread their hate, does not deserve to be safe and secure.
Thats Rohm isn't it .:balloon2:
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2006, 03:52
Wow Panzer talking about peoples views being clouded , thats gotta be one of the funniest posts in a long time .
Coming from a terrorist apologist such as yourself, I take that as a compliment. :2thumbsup:
Have you hugged a muslim today Tribs? :laugh4:
PanzerJaeger
08-11-2006, 04:44
How should we deal with this root cause?
Get rid of free speech? Arrest people for having an opinion contrary to our own?
These extremists are against multiculturalism. They want only their culture and their way of life and will destroy others to gain that.
So I will not allow their hatred to be an oppourtunity for other extremists to get what they want. I will not allow muslim extremism to be used as a tool for leverage for other extremists to have only their culture and their way of life and destroy others.
It is the extremists at all ends of the spectrum that should be dealt with using our laws and standards of civilisation. That means freedom of speech, it means innocent until prove guilty, it means rights to a fair trial, it means that you do the crime you do the time, it means death for treason, it means the full force of the law no matter which extemist group you belong to.
So lets play by our rules, not theirs.
Every time we choose the high path we fragment their community powerbase.
Every time we play their game we force them together out of fear.
So I will not give up my civilisation to play into their hands. I am will not out of fear give up rights for security, to do so is not to deserve either.
Good points. However, measures can be taken that do not go against Western values.
Measures such as limiting immigration into Europe and the USA/Canada from the Middle East would not go against these values. It is not anyone's right to move from their country into ours. It is a privilege, and it seems common sense that leaders would think letting a people in which 60% sympathize with muslim terror and 14% aspire to be terrorists, would be against the best interests of the nation.
Also, in many countries in Europe, being a nazi is not allowed. That barrier has already been crossed, so why not extend it to muslim extremists? It would be harder in countries like the US to prosecute people for preaching hate and destruction against the nation, but we have hate laws as well.
There are many common sense measures such as those that politicians, left and right, are just afraid to implement for fear of being called racist, right wing, ect. It is this atmosphere of political correctness that hampers our ability to fight these people, and will cost us big time if they ever get their hands on WMDs...
Measures such as limiting immigration into Europe and the USA/Canada from the Middle East would not go against these values. It is not anyone's right to move from their country into ours. It is a privilege, and it seems common sense that leaders would think letting a people in which 60% sympathize with muslim terror and 14% aspire to be terrorists, would be against the best interests of the nation.Legal immigration is well and good, and I'm all for free speech. But I don't understand why people should be allowed to immigrate to your country when their stated goal is to bring about it's downfall. If an immigrant stands on a streetcorner preeching to followers about how all Westerners need to die and that your government should be brought down, I dont really understand what good reasons their could be to allow them to stay.
Funny how everyone is this thread mostly has the idea of "Kill and/or silence all the Muslims".
Maybe it would be useful if it started occurring to people to stop provoking them in their own lands then they might stop planning so many attacks in your lands.
Oh, but then "our big corporations" would not get even more obscenely rich of off oil hoarding Muslims' oil, so I guess that won't be happening. :idea2:
Banquo's Ghost
08-11-2006, 08:57
Legal immigration is well and good, and I'm all for free speech. But I don't understand why people should be allowed to immigrate to your country when their stated goal is to bring about it's downfall. If an immigrant stands on a streetcorner preeching to followers about how all Westerners need to die and that your government should be brought down, I dont really understand what good reasons their could be to allow them to stay.
I tend to agree.
There are however, sometimes benefits to allowing such people (once in) to remain where the intelligence services can keep an eye on them. Many of the 'preachers' are self-obsessed chicken-hawks who actually do little more than rabble-rouse and strain the blood vessels of old colonels in Tunbridge Wells. Careful observation and infiltration can provide very valuable intelligence on those silent followers that might be planning or induced into actual attacks.
As EA noted, in the UK at least, existing laws against incitement are sufficient in most cases to prosecute anyone who advocates violent overthrow of the state. They would be subjected to due process.
Deportation is a more thorny issue. It seems to stand to reason that after their sentence, such people should then be deported (or beforehand, if you want to save the hospitality bills). However, many come from nasty places in the world where they may be tortured or killed on return. Current human rights legislation tends towards protecting them from deportation in these circumstances.
My own view is that if it is made clear to everyone who immigrates into a country that if they break the law in a serious manner (and what this means would be another thorny argument) they will be deported to their country of origin (after due process) regardless, then they have only themselves to blame if it then happens.
I don't see this as a breach of their human rights as they chose to discard those rights given to them by the country of refuge.
We have never had free speech so why are you all so eager to defend it now?
There are hundreds of things I can say to have the police driving me to jail.
And everyone hates freedome anyway. Government steal money - they call it taxes. Someone says something inappropriate - they call it racism.
So much freedome is taken away from the induvidual and despite that you scream for the liberty of (nazi)imams to have their rights. :no:
Soon sharia - then there will be even less freedome of speech. Who cares.
I would actually be glad if the English government said load and clear today "Try to bomb us one more time and we will blow Mekka in peices."
English assassin
08-11-2006, 09:42
Have you hugged a muslim today Tribs?
Is there any reason why he shouldn't?
I would actually be glad if the British government said load and clear today "Try to bomb us one more time and we will blow Mekka in peices."
Could we all just have a five minute time out to consider the answer to the question "This is exactly what the terrorists would like the UK to say- discuss".
That's before we discuss the morality of visiting nuclear destruction on people who are mostly minding their own business in the hope of affecting the behaviour of third parties. We have a word for people who carry out such actions. Its "terrorist"
Banquo's Ghost
08-11-2006, 10:02
Could we all just have a five minute time out to consider the answer to the question "This is exactly what the terrorists would like the UK to say- discuss".
That's before we discuss the morality of visiting nuclear destruction on people who are mostly minding their own business in the hope of affecting the behaviour of third parties. We have a word for people who carry out such actions. Its "terrorist"
I was finding it difficult to express my views on Radier's post without getting banned, so thank you for articulating the point so well.
:2thumbsup:
That's before we discuss the morality of visiting nuclear destruction on people who are mostly minding their own business in the hope of affecting the behaviour of third parties. We have a word for people who carry out such actions. Its "terrorist"
Sounds almost as if you're describing the USA invasion of Iraq in that post.
Radier has a good point. I'm sure the USA and UK would love to blow up Mecca if they could find a way to "justify" it politically. They might as well have some dignity and admit so rather than continue to fight the Muslims under false pretenses.
English assassin
08-11-2006, 11:08
Nav, as ever, many thanks for reminding us all that its not just Islam that produces fruitcake opinions.
I joined the National Secular Society yesterday btw. http://www.secularism.org.uk/
Tribesman
08-11-2006, 11:12
it seems common sense that leaders would think letting a people in which 60% sympathize with muslim terror and 14% aspire to be terrorists
Oh classic :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Whodathunk Panzer would use a fragadelic statistic , and not only use it but alter it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Also, in many countries in Europe, being a nazi is not allowed.
Is there a reason for your emigration ?:inquisitive:
Ja'chyra
08-11-2006, 12:04
Some points and some, err, not so good ones in this thread.
The way I see it there are two ways to deal with terrorists, we can either wipe them out along with their entire religions up to and including turning all of their countries into glass car parks or we can try and educate the populous that extremism in any form is a token for disaster.
Personally I would prefer to see what's behind door number 2, I don't even believe in God so why should I persecute muslims over christians? Eihter way I'm going to burn in the Big Bad Fire.
My own view is that if it is made clear to everyone who immigrates into a country that if they break the law in a serious manner (and what this means would be another thorny argument) they will be deported to their country of origin (after due process) regardless, then they have only themselves to blame if it then happens.
Sounds fair to me, action and consequence, if you can't live with the consequence don't do the action, even if it means deporting individuals to certain torture and death. My conscience would be clear as they made the choice.
As for this incident, I'm prepared to give the police the benefit of the doubt. I think the problem they have is that it's hard to prove someone was going to do something unless you catch them in the act, that and the fact the the ever so fickle press must have someone to crucify, so if there's no terrorist them the police will cop the blame (cop the blame, geddit)
DukeofSerbia
08-11-2006, 12:18
On Sky News yesterday was that terrorists planned to use mp3 players as triggers for bombs!
Don Corleone
08-11-2006, 13:55
So, back on topic... there seems to be a certain negative reaction taking place in certain corners of this thread to what I can only see as a positive event.
I've seen it postulated that the event was fabricated and there was no terrorist plot.
I've seen it hinted that if the terrorists cannot be charged, tried and convicted on an immediate basis, they must be innocent and should be released.
I've seen it said that British intelligence only screws things up, so the fact that they were succesful at breaking this up seems to indicate it's falsity....
So, to those posting these sentiments... what is your point? You seem to be saying in one breath that the the civil liberties of the terrorists should take priority over thousands of lives, in the second breath, that that there is no threat, and in the third, we're grossly inept and utterly incapable of stopping any terrorist threats (I thought there weren't any?)
How about, if instead of clever retorts and insults, we see an actual gameplan? How about some concrete ideas instead of simple witicsims that lead nowhere? If I didn't know any better, I'd swear that we've been infiltrated by anarchists that are actually disappointed that these flights didn't go according to plan.
Now, as for the other sub-topic, blaming Muslims at large for this and threatening Mecca (where did that come from?)... the British police have all but come out and said it was intelligence coming from moderate Imams that led them to suspects. This is precisely what I have been calling for from the Islamic community, and while I won't actually eat crow (this is new, as far as I know) I will certainly tip my hat to the Muslim community and say Thank you. We need you. Congratulations and job well done to British intelligence and law enforcement and the Muslim community of Britain for their invaluable assistance.
Tribesman
08-11-2006, 14:17
So, back on topic... there seems to be a certain negative reaction taking place in certain corners of this thread to what I can only see as a positive event.
No Don , what you have seen from certain corners on this thread is "wait and see" .
It comes with all the government and media hype last time about imminant threats using new and terrible chemical vests being thwarted, that turned out to be complete bollox .
Or the ricin plot that the then home secratary rolled out at every occasion to scare the public even after judges thretened him with jail for repetedly doing it , that also turned out to be bollox.
Or the police and "eye-witness" accounts of the dodgy arab in a big coat with wires , running to murder all those innocents on a train that turned out to be a latino walking to the train on his way to work and sitting reading a newspaper before some idiot blew his brains out .
Now, as for the other sub-topic, blaming Muslims at large for this and threatening Mecca (where did that come from?)... the British police have all but come out and said it was intelligence coming from moderate Imams that led them to suspects. This is precisely what I have been calling for from the Islamic community, and while I won't actually eat crow (this is new, as far as I know) I will certainly tip my hat to the Muslim community and say Thank you. We need you. Congratulations and job well done to British intelligence and law enforcement and the Muslim community of Britain for their invaluable assistance.
Agreed , so you can understand why some of the posts here have recieved clever retorts and insults , especially as the posters who have recieved them have a problem with Muslims and foriegners in general .
I would actually be glad if the English government said load and clear today "Try to bomb us one more time and we will blow Mekka in peices." "Curses upon you, you British terrorists. If you do it again we will bomb the Saudis!"
You should be in politics.
Agreed , so you can understand why some of the posts here have recieved clever retorts and insults , especially as the posters who have recieved them have a problem with Muslims and foriegners in general . Not true. They like the Muslims who can make good kebab. ~:wacko:
English assassin
08-11-2006, 16:40
"Curses upon you, you British terrorists. If you do it again we will bomb the Saudis!"
You should be in politics.
LoL, best retort for months.
Heh, Radier sounds like me when I was still young and stupid.
I also wanted to bomb Mekka to hell but the org and some other factors made me change my opinion.:2thumbsup:
Maybe this gives some hope.~:rolleyes:
Silver Rusher
08-11-2006, 20:36
I would actually be glad if the English government said load and clear today "Try to bomb us one more time and we will blow Mekka in peices."
:inquisitive:
edyzmedieval
08-11-2006, 21:48
What will the terrorists come up with next? You've got to think that their sick, deranged minds could come up with another solution to beat the system...
I come up with a sick idea, which I sort of copied from a sick doctor who was accused in 1995 for rape, in Dakota(I forgot the state...) or something....
The doctor used blood samples from other pacients, and he introduced bottled samples into his own body, and when the guy from the forensics took his blood, the DNA samples wouldn't match.
The next in terrorist hiding. :juggle2:
Hiding bombs in your body.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-11-2006, 23:05
The way I see it there are several different issues here.
Punishment: We can't deport them as they were all born here, some of them aren't even second generation, they're native converts. With that in mind current anti terror laws should be sufficiant to deal with them. Provided we have the evidence, early indications are that we do.
The Police: Yes they screw up but I'm willing to bet they've pulled off lots of raids and such which didn't make the news because they came off without a hitch. The Brazillian was a massive cock-up but irrc his visa was out, obviously someone equated "immigration violation" with "terrorist." As to the other guys, one of them has since been arrested for child pornography so they weren't saints.
The Security reaction: In something like this there's no such thing as over doing it, so long as no one gets trigger happy.
Pannonian
08-11-2006, 23:30
The way I see it there are several different issues here.
Punishment: We can't deport them as they were all born here, some of them aren't even second generation, they're native converts. With that in mind current anti terror laws should be sufficiant to deal with them. Provided we have the evidence, early indications are that we do.
Deal with them as we dealt with the IRA. And if the courts force their early release, follow them after and pick them up again for the least of offences. Until their organisation declares an end to hostilities let them know we'll have them in our view. If there is no organisation to declare an end to hostilities, that's their bad luck, they'll have to live with this jolly for the rest of their lives.
The Police: Yes they screw up but I'm willing to bet they've pulled off lots of raids and such which didn't make the news because they came off without a hitch. The Brazillian was a massive cock-up but irrc his visa was out, obviously someone equated "immigration violation" with "terrorist." As to the other guys, one of them has since been arrested for child pornography so they weren't saints.
The Security reaction: In something like this there's no such thing as over doing it, so long as no one gets trigger happy.
Precisely. You can't take back a bullet, but if people are upset from having their door knocked down, too bad. Most of us have probably been to the coppers either as arrestee or victim, so just going down to the station isn't much to complain about either.
I don't trust the police to get it right all the time, which is why I oppose arming them, but they try their best most of the time, despite the cock-ups. That's why I never want to see armed soldiers on our streets, and look at the sky in bewilderment whenever armoured vehicles are called in to protect Heathrow from terrorists. A policeman with a dog would be more useful.
Goofball
08-11-2006, 23:34
"Curses upon you, you British terrorists. If you do it again we will bomb the Saudis!"
You should be in politics.
No different than:
"Curses upon you, you damn Israeli soldiers! Because of you, we will gun down some Jews in Seattle."
Misplaced "tit for tat" seems to be a time honored tradition in the middle east.
Leet Eriksson
08-12-2006, 00:09
No different than:
"Curses upon you, you damn Israeli soldiers! Because of you, we will gun down some Jews in Seattle."
Misplaced "tit for tat" seems to be a time honored tradition in the middle east.
way to miss the point :sweatdrop:
Tribesman
08-12-2006, 00:38
Oh well , one down...........that was quick .
Now we wait and see what happens with the remaining 23 suspects .:juggle2:
Pannonian
08-12-2006, 09:33
Luckily I don't have much of a tan and had a shave 3 days ago so I'm reasonably safe from PC plod's "shoot first and make excuses later" division.
Not any more.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,,-6010745,00.html
One of the other suspects was Don Stewart-Whyte, 21, from High Wycombe, who changed his name to Abdul Waheed after converting to Islam.
Oh classic :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Whodathunk Panzer would use a fragadelic statistic , and not only use it but alter it :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Actually it was a Daily Telegraphic statistic, right after the subway boomski's did their thing. I'm sure it was the talk of the day, as it was here. If I remember correctly I started a thread about it, should be easy to find.
Duke of Gloucester
08-12-2006, 11:22
The figures quoted are still made up. If you look at the actual survey, the first three questions were about the attack:
On balance do you think the bombing attacks in London on July 7th were justified or not?
On balance justified 6%
On balance not justified 11%
Not justified at all 77%
Don't know 6%
Whether or not you think that the attacks were justified, do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out the attacks?
Yes, a lot 13%
Yes, a little 11
No, not much 16%
No, none at all 55%
Don't know 6%
Whether or not you have any sympathy with the feelings of those who carried out the attacks, do you think you understand why some people behaved that way?
Yes 56%
No 39%
Don't know 4%
The prime minister has described as "perverted and poisonous" the ideas that led the London suicide bombers to carry out their attacks. Do you agree or disagree that the their ideas must have been perverted and poisonous?
Yes 58%
No 26%
Don't know 16%
The other questions talk about loyalty to Britain, sincerity of politicians on integration, chances of a fair trial and what to do if someone you knew might be involved. Check the responses for yourself:
Daily Telegraph link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/23/npoll23.xml&page=1)
These figures do not back up a claim that 60% understood and 14% wish they had done it themselves. Neither do they support the idea that a majority of Moslems in Britain support terrorists. In fact they show what all reasonable people know to be true already: that the vast majority of Moslems in Britain abhor these attacks, although a worrying minority do support them. I am sure that the responses to by Moslems would compare favourably with responses to similar questions put to Irish Catholics in the Britain about IRA attacks.
So it is a bit lower,
Whether or not you think that the attacks were justified, do you personally have any sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried out the attacks?
Yes, a lot 13%
Yes, a little 11
No, not much 16%
No, none at all 55%
Don't know 6%
No reason for champagne, 24% openly sympathises, and 16% just a little. That is 40% of the muslim population, great.
Duke of Gloucester
08-12-2006, 11:38
Sympathises with feelings and motives, not the attacks themselves. BIG difference. In any case, no-one can call 40% a majority without being wrong.
The first question is crucial. Only 6% of Moslems think that the attacks were justified. Whilst we might be amazed and dismayed that 6% could feel that terrorism is acceptable, we can't claim that a majority of Moslems support terrorism. Maybe those 6% are the equivalent of those on this thread who look forward to the use of nuclear weapons on Mecca.
Sympathises with feelings and motives, not the attacks themselves. BIG difference. In any case, no-one can call 40% a majority without being wrong.
The first question is crucial. Only 6% of Moslems think that the attacks were justified. Whilst we might be amazed and dismayed that 6% could feel that terrorism is acceptable, we can't claim that a majority of Moslems support terrorism. Maybe those 6% are the equivalent of those on this thread who look forward to the use of nuclear weapons on Mecca.
If you want it to be a big difference fine with me, but frankly I don't see how. I wonder what we would be saying if only 6% of the brits thought the holocaust was the greatest thing ever, and 40% would only sympathise with the motives, everyone would be screaming bloody hell. It keeps amazing me how people will make excuses they wouldn't allow for themselves, what is it that they want to defend muslims, regardless.
lil edit, I wonder how many of those 55% who 'condemned' it lied, amazing how honest the rest was, they must feel pretty backed up.
Am I wrong or was that an online poll with 526 participants?
Duke of Gloucester
08-12-2006, 12:08
"YouGov interviewed 526 Muslim adults across Great Britain online between July 15 and yesterday. The data were weighted to reflect the composition of Britain's Muslim population by gender, age and country of birth."
So 526 is right, but it is more sophisticated than an online poll. However all the percentages quoted are fractions of the 526, not the whole population.
If you want it to be a big difference fine with me, but frankly I don't see how.
In my mind there is a clear difference between understanding how people feel about something and supporting them when they do something outrageous.
I wonder what we would be saying if only 6% of the brits thought the holocaust was the greatest thing ever, and 40% would only sympathise with the motives, everyone would be screaming bloody hell.
We would, and quite right too. However the two situations are not comparable.
It keeps amazing me how people will make excuses they wouldn't allow for themselves, what is it that they want to defend muslims, regardless.
No one is making excuses for anything. All I am doing is challenging some incorrectly quoted statistics.
Tribesman
08-12-2006, 12:10
Actually it was a Daily Telegraphic statistic, right after the subway boomski's did their thing. I'm sure it was the talk of the day, as it was here. If I remember correctly I started a thread about it, should be easy to find.
Oh you really are priceless Frag :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Your memory fails you , if you remember correctly your take on the statistics was shown to be bollox back then , just as it is now , what is it with you and dodgy use of statistics ?
Actually it was a Daily Telegraphic statistic, right after the subway boomski's did their thing. I'm sure it was the talk of the day, as it was here. If I remember correctly I started a thread about it, should be easy to find.
Oh you really are priceless Frag :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Your memory fails you , if you remember correctly your take on the statistics was shown to be bollox back then , just as it is now , what is it with you and dodgy use of statistics ?
Oh my bad with the 60%, was mixing up two articles (that sharia thingie). But what is there to interpete at 40% sympathising(ok to different extents) with terrorists? If they admit it themselves I have little reason not to believe them. I have more trouble believing the remaining 55.
Yes, a lot 13%
Yes, a little 11
No, not much 16%
No, none at all 55%
Don't know 6% (don't know? come to think of it, make that 46)
Duke of Gloucester
08-12-2006, 12:40
They sympathised with feelings and motives not the terrorists. Read the stats Frag. You are counting "No not much" as a "yes". You are counting sympathising with feelings and motives as the same as sympathising with terrorist actions. You want it to be true that the majority of Moslems in Britain to support terrorism, so much that you accuse those who said they had no sympathy of lying, but you can't make it true just by repeating it ad naseum. It isn't true and the survey you are quoting shows it isn't true.
They sympathised with feelings and motives not the terrorists.
How is it possible to sympathise with the feelings and motives without actually sympathising with the actual terrorists? Beats me, same thing.
We would, and quite right too. However the two situations are not comparable.
Nor do I understand this, why aren't they comparable?
Banquo's Ghost
08-12-2006, 13:15
How is it possible to sympathise with the feelings and motives without actually sympathising with the actual terrorists? Beats me, same thing.
It's very possible. As an Irish Catholic Republican, I sympathised with many of the feelings and motives of the Provisional IRA, but as a serving officer in the British Army in Ulster, I hunted the terrorists down with all my strength - and used my understanding of their motives to inform intelligence operations against them.
Does that help? :inquisitive:
Duke of Gloucester
08-12-2006, 13:17
How is it possible to sympathise with the feelings and motives without actually sympathising with the actual terrorists? Beats me, same thing.
So you've never said "I understand how you feel, but ........"
The holocaust was genocide on an industrial scale organised by a government and given at least tacit support by the population. The London bombings were organised by a small group of people, to the disgust of most (including Moslems and this what you refuse to accept) and whilst the death toll was horrendous, it was at least four orders of magnitude smaller than the holocaust.
Ser Clegane
08-12-2006, 13:28
Well, I sympathize with the motives of Palestinians (i.e. freedom for their and an independent country) as well as I sympathize with the motives of Israel (i.e. safety for their people).
That does not eman that I condone the violent actions of either side.
Well, I sympathize with the motives of Palestinians (i.e. freedom for their and an independent country) as well as I sympathize with the motives of Israel (i.e. safety for their people).
That does not eman that I condone the violent actions of either side.
50% of you is a terrorist.
Pannonian
08-12-2006, 20:19
Things in Iraq and Lebanon are going tits up while the Brits have stopped an attack with old-fashioned policework, so what does Bush do?
Bush links Hezbollah and 'plot'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4787207.stm
US President George W Bush says Hezbollah and alleged UK air plot suspects share a "totalitarian ideology" they are seeking to spread.
Linking their actions with insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, he said they all wanted to "establish safe havens from which to attack free nations".
Mr Bush said the UK terror plot was a "reminder that terrorists are still plotting attacks to kill our people".
He made the comments in his weekly radio address to the American people.
"The terrorists attempt to bring down airplanes full of innocent men, women, and children," Mr Bush said.
"They kill civilians and American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deliberately hide behind civilians in Lebanon. They are seeking to spread their totalitarian ideology."
Mr Bush said that the alleged terror plot, which UK intelligence services claim involved a plan to destroy US-bound passenger planes using liquid explosives smuggled in drinks bottles, was "further evidence that the terrorists we face are sophisticated, and constantly changing their tactics".
US officials say that if the plan had not been foiled, the subsequent attacks would have been the worst since those on Washington and New York on 11 September 2001.
Since the 2001 attacks, Mr Bush has said that the US is engaged in a global war on terror.
He says that as well as intelligence efforts to foil terror plots against US civilians, the ongoing military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq are part of that same battle, as is Israel's conflict with Lebanon.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-12-2006, 20:29
So you've never said "I understand how you feel, but ........"
The holocaust was genocide on an industrial scale organised by a government and given at least tacit support by the population. The London bombings were organised by a small group of people, to the disgust of most (including Moslems and this what you refuse to accept) and whilst the death toll was horrendous, it was at least four orders of magnitude smaller than the holocaust.
I'd just like to draw attention to something here, 52 people died, in four separate blasts in four separate places, thats an average of 13 per blast. Surely the IRA have pulled off attacks in which one bomb killed at least twice as many people.
It seems to me that for all their fervor these radical Muslims aren't very effective on the whole. If we count 7/7 then they've pulled off four attacks in the West in 5 1/2 years.
Don't get me wrong, I understand they're active in Iraq and 9/11 and the others would be horrendous if just 10 people died but the actual threat seems to be greatly exagerated in terms of their actual ability to pull it off. Added to which for every successful attack they lose the operatives.
Whats more worrying is the reaction from people like Fragony and the counter reaction from mainstream Muslims.
All that said Fragony does have a point, although he may not realise it. Understanding is only a step from tacit support and thats what a terrorist organization needs.
Duke of Gloucester
08-12-2006, 20:47
Surely the IRA have pulled off attacks in which one bomb killed at least twice as many people.
I think this is unlikely. According to this (http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/index.html) source, there were only seven years where more than 100 people were killed by republican groups. I don't remember an attack that killed more than 20 at one time, although I was very young at the start of the 70's. The IRA had a different approach, tending to give warnings which reduced the number of deaths and allowing them to pretend to their supporters that fatalaties were the fault of the British for not responding to the warnings correctly. They also liked to get their operatives out alive.
Understanding is only a step from tacit support
Interesting. Banquo's perspective (and he has direct experience of dealing with terrorists) is that understanding is only a step from effective attack on terrorists.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-13-2006, 21:51
I think this is unlikely. According to this (http://www.cain.ulst.ac.uk/sutton/book/index.html) source, there were only seven years where more than 100 people were killed by republican groups. I don't remember an attack that killed more than 20 at one time, although I was very young at the start of the 70's. The IRA had a different approach, tending to give warnings which reduced the number of deaths and allowing them to pretend to their supporters that fatalaties were the fault of the British for not responding to the warnings correctly. They also liked to get their operatives out alive.
Well I realize the IRA had a different approach but I expect they still caused bigger butcher's bills, and certainly they created greater fear and physical damage.
7/7 didn't seem to actually prevent people from using the tube the next day.
Interesting. Banquo's perspective (and he has direct experience of dealing with terrorists) is that understanding is only a step from effective attack on terrorists.
It seems to be a tightrope walk between the two, as far as I can tell.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.