Got the drivers in custody - hang them !!!!! Que the do gooders. Why dont these people hang on a few years and they will be in power and do what they want to do i.e muslim state.
[quote][cite]Posted By: pete_tong1[/cite]Got the drivers in custody - hang them !!!!! Que the do gooders. Why dont these people hang on a few years and they will be in power and do what they want to do i.e muslim state.[/quote]
Yeah that'll really stop the terrorist threat...in the process while you and your ilk are getting your kicks you'll have made a few more martyrs and therefore will likely sustain the problem for a few more years. Take a look at Northern Ireland and what happened to the IRA after Bloody Sunday, that gave them credibility and support in their community and kept them alive and gave them a cause which nearly 40 years later still motivates them.
sorry but you have to be ruthless, get what you can out of these people and then kill them behind closed doors - don't even bother glorifying or publicising it, same goes with any other proven/confessed terrorist in the UK - martyrdom or not this is effectively a war now and how can we pay thousands of pounds a year to sustain high security prisoners who are enemies with no regard to either our or their well-being
hardline... how many things like this need to happen for us to stop pussyfooting around?
sod the EU and their imposed human rights legislation, how many other countries do you see suffering this way in Europe? (Spain obviously did in the past but it's new regime seems to have absolved any further action)
[cite]Posted By: ISawLeaburnScore[/cite]sorry but you have to be ruthless, get what you can out of these people and then kill them behind closed doors - don't even bother glorifying or publicising it, same goes with any other proven/confessed terrorist in the UK - martyrdom or not this is effectively a war now and how can we pay thousands of pounds a year to sustain high security prisoners who are enemies with no regard to either our or their well-being
hardline... how many things like this need to happen for us to stop pussyfooting around?
sod the EU and their imposed human rights legislation, how many other countries do you see suffering this way in Europe? (Spain obviously did in the past but it's new regime seems to have absolved any further action)
no offence but i happen to know rather a lot about spain and its history as i have spent, and continue to do so, a lot of time studying it and i don't really appreciate your attitude
and my mention to them was not to do with ETA, but the Madrid bombings, i am very aware that their own problems have not disappeared, i made reference to the fading of their targetting by muslim extremism
i don't think your dismissive and misunderstood reply has made you look very informative to be honest
don't by any means not use your own personal knowledge and experience but in the same way it's a bit naive to believe that not one of the hundreds of users of this MB knows a bit about a certain issue
[quote][cite]Posted By: BlackForestReds[/cite][quote][cite]Posted By: pete_tong1[/cite]Got the drivers in custody - hang them !!!!! Que the do gooders. Why dont these people hang on a few years and they will be in power and do what they want to do i.e muslim state.
You cannot judge a whole religion by the actions of a minority of fundamentalist nutters.
The IRA were Roman Catholics. Does that make every Roman Catholic a terrorist? As a Roman Catholic myself I venture to suggest that the answer is no!
The same principle is applicable to Islam.
Iraq is a big factor in this. Whilst the USA may have had justification for invading because of ramifications from 9/11 we had none. Islamic terrorists had not attacked the UK prior to the Iraq War.
The Falklands War was justified because the UK responded to a direct act of aggression. (Whether our actions in the previous few years encouraged that act of aggression is a separate thread). The USA did not get directly involved in the Falklands like we have in Iraq.
My 'ilk' would like you like to expand on this statement BlackForest. Its not my religon that is preaching that everyone should be the same religon and thats from the non fundamentalists.
Do we really treat this people badly I see that these Glasgow terrorists live in a middle class nighbourhood and look at Abal Hamsa living and still owns a £250k house when he was on benefits.
Len - The whole reason Bin Laden started targeting the west was due to him seeing Western troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia during the 1st Gulf War as blasphemy toward Allah to let "Crusaders" onto their lands. It has nothing to do with our current obligations in Afghanistan or Iraq.
He was also obviously blind to the fact that a dictatorship that had already gassed and bombed 100ks of its own people, had invaded a sovereign country and the KSA was exceptionally nervous of Iraq becoming the major power in the area, because of Hussein's own track record of utter disregard for human life and civil liberties. Something he shares, or shared, with Bin Laden.
I also find it absurd that these Imams preaching death to the West because of these wars and the fact that Muslims are being killed and Muslim countries being blasphemed by Christian troops being stationed there, when they were more than happy for NATO and the West to get involved when Muslims were being slaughtered in the Balkans.
IMO Just like all religion its utter hypocrisy and certain people have seen it as an opportunity to power grab.
PS Why is this being sunk? As long as it can be done in an adult fashion its important to debate such matters. Smacks a little of "Nanny Messageboard".
Interesting article from a former radical British Muslim who argues that it is not Western Foreign Policy but of fundamentalist Islamic theology that drives terrorism
Article follows
My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
Sunday July 1, 2007 The Observer
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers. And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism
Comments
I was expecting something along the lines of "Chaos at Glasgow Airport - Tourist accidentally drops £5 note.."
And hang em high for all to see!
Yeah that'll really stop the terrorist threat...in the process while you and your ilk are getting your kicks you'll have made a few more martyrs and therefore will likely sustain the problem for a few more years. Take a look at Northern Ireland and what happened to the IRA after Bloody Sunday, that gave them credibility and support in their community and kept them alive and gave them a cause which nearly 40 years later still motivates them.
hardline... how many things like this need to happen for us to stop pussyfooting around?
sod the EU and their imposed human rights legislation, how many other countries do you see suffering this way in Europe? (Spain obviously did in the past but it's new regime seems to have absolved any further action)
and my mention to them was not to do with ETA, but the Madrid bombings, i am very aware that their own problems have not disappeared, i made reference to the fading of their targetting by muslim extremism
i don't think your dismissive and misunderstood reply has made you look very informative to be honest
don't by any means not use your own personal knowledge and experience but in the same way it's a bit naive to believe that not one of the hundreds of users of this MB knows a bit about a certain issue
The IRA were Roman Catholics. Does that make every Roman Catholic a terrorist? As a Roman Catholic myself I venture to suggest that the answer is no!
The same principle is applicable to Islam.
Iraq is a big factor in this. Whilst the USA may have had justification for invading because of ramifications from 9/11 we had none. Islamic terrorists had not attacked the UK prior to the Iraq War.
The Falklands War was justified because the UK responded to a direct act of aggression. (Whether our actions in the previous few years encouraged that act of aggression is a separate thread). The USA did not get directly involved in the Falklands like we have in Iraq.
Do we really treat this people badly I see that these Glasgow terrorists live in a middle class nighbourhood and look at Abal Hamsa living and still owns a £250k house when he was on benefits.
May I state that I dont have a religon.
He was also obviously blind to the fact that a dictatorship that had already gassed and bombed 100ks of its own people, had invaded a sovereign country and the KSA was exceptionally nervous of Iraq becoming the major power in the area, because of Hussein's own track record of utter disregard for human life and civil liberties. Something he shares, or shared, with Bin Laden.
I also find it absurd that these Imams preaching death to the West because of these wars and the fact that Muslims are being killed and Muslim countries being blasphemed by Christian troops being stationed there, when they were more than happy for NATO and the West to get involved when Muslims were being slaughtered in the Balkans.
IMO Just like all religion its utter hypocrisy and certain people have seen it as an opportunity to power grab.
PS Why is this being sunk? As long as it can be done in an adult fashion its important to debate such matters. Smacks a little of "Nanny Messageboard".
Article follows
My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror
As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong
Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'
He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.
I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.
How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory of ideas open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, every time mosque authorities banned us from their grounds, it felt like a moral and religious victory.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism. A handful of scholars from the Middle East has tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion. In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me and a number of other people who have recently left radical Islamic networks as a far more potent argument because it involves stepping out of this dogmatic paradigm and recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief. For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here. But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for Muslims to say that because they feel at home in Britain they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers. By refusing to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day. It may be difficult to swallow but the reason why Abu Qatada - the Islamic scholar whom Palestinian militants recently called to be released in exchange for the kidnapped BBC journalist Alan Johnston - has a following is because he is extremely learned and his religious rulings are well argued. His opinions, though I now thoroughly disagree with them, have validity within the broad canon of Islam.
Since leaving the BJN, many Muslims have accused me of being a traitor. If I knew of any impending attack, then I would have no hesitation in going to the police, but I have not gone to the authorities, as some reports have suggested, and become an informer.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism. (The Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from this state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.) However, demystification will not be achieved if the only bridges of engagement that are formed are between the BJN and the security services.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence. And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism
Based on that its gonna kick of whatever....