NationStates Jolt Archive

UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5045104.stm)
Canada (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5044560.stm)

Yesterday police forces in both Canada and the UK made arrests under there anti-terrorism laws. However they seem to have been viewed very differently. The vast majority of Canada seems to have supported the actions of the Mounties. Whereas, in the UK, there seems to be suspiscion, anger and the involvement of top human rights lawyers.

Now is this a difference in how the citizens of these countries view their government, or is just that the Mounties got the right people and the Met didn't?

UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5045104.stm)
Canada (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5044560.stm)

Yesterday police forces in both Canada and the UK made arrests under there anti-terrorism laws. However they seem to have been viewed very differently. The vast majority of Canada seems to have supported the actions of the Mounties. Whereas, in the UK, there seems to be suspiscion, anger and the involvement of top human rights lawyers.

Now is this a difference in how the citizens of these countries view their government, or is just that the Mounties got the right people and the Met didn't?


After that Brazillian lad, and Blairs mouthing, I'd imagine trust is thin on the ground.

After that Brazillian lad, and Blairs mouthing, I'd imagine trust is thin on the ground.

True. As a British citizen, I find it very very hard to trust my government in this day and age.

UK (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5045104.stm)
Canada (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5044560.stm)

Yesterday police forces in both Canada and the UK made arrests under there anti-terrorism laws. However they seem to have been viewed very differently. The vast majority of Canada seems to have supported the actions of the Mounties. Whereas, in the UK, there seems to be suspiscion, anger and the involvement of top human rights lawyers.

Now is this a difference in how the citizens of these countries view their government, or is just that the Mounties got the right people and the Met didn't?

The difference is that the British raid took place in the kingdom of Londonistan, where every anti-terrorist measure or raid is an attack on the Islamic Ummah and reflective of deeply held islamaphobia and institutional racism.

After that Brazillian lad, and Blairs mouthing, I'd imagine trust is thin on the ground.Yeah, sounds like Blair (Ian) might get charged over that.

But anyway, yay for cynical citizens.

The difference is that the British raid took place in the kingdom of Londonistan, where every anti-terrorist measure or raid is an attack on the Islamic Ummah and reflective of deeply held islamaphobia and institutional racism.Care to justify that assertation with any stats?

The difference is that the British raid took place in the kingdom of Londonistan, where every anti-terrorist measure or raid is an attack on the Islamic Ummah and reflective of deeply held islamaphobia and institutional racism.

Or possibly it could be that we don't trust our government as much, and want more proof after the bungling of the Mendez case?

Care to justify that assertation with any stats?

I haven't got time right now to trawl through websites looking for facts but here's a good article that summarises a few of my views:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735

Now is this a difference in how the citizens of these countries view their government, or is just that the Mounties got the right people and the Met didn't?

How could anyone distrust the Mounties? The Mounties always get the right people. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dudleydoright.gif

Or possibly it could be that we don't trust our government as much, and want more proof after the bungling of the Mendez case?

So what, the police are now expected to make public all evidence prior to any possible trial (thus potentially jeopoardising it) for islamic extremists? Should we apply this new custom to all aspects of police activity or just this one?

So what, the police are now expected to make public all evidence prior to any possible trial (thus potentially jeopoardising it) for islamic extremists? Should we apply this new custom to all aspects of police activity or just this one?No, just this one, as it's only area that Operation Kratos really applies.

Now is this a difference in how the citizens of these countries view their government, or is just that the Mounties got the right people and the Met didn't?
Everyone knows the Mounties are nice whereas the Met like to use innocent Brazilians for target practice. Or something like that...

Seriously though, the Mounties found bomb making equipment whereas the Met apparently just shot someone.

Everyone knows the Mounties are nice whereas the Met like to use innocent Brazilians for target practice. Or something like that...

Seriously though, the Mounties found bomb making equipment whereas the Met apparently just shot someone.

He probably looked suspicious. Middle eastern in london= terrorist, apparently.

Everyone knows the Mounties are nice whereas the Met like to use innocent Brazilians for target practice. Or something like that...

Seriously though, the Mounties found bomb making equipment whereas the Met apparently just shot someone.

That's about my view as well.

Liasia']He probably looked suspicious. Middle eastern in london= terrorist, apparently.

So the culture of victimhood rears its ugly head again.

Maybe a few more bombings will have to take place before people wake up.

So the culture of victimhood rears its ugly head again.

What.. are you saying middle eastern people are getting a victimisation complex? If you are, you can't argue it isn't justified.

So the culture of victimhood rears its ugly head again.

What are you going on about?

Y'know what, sometimes the Police need to shoot people, there's no need to make it seem as if we live in a some kind of police-state or anything.

The guy might've been making some kind of agressive movement, or looked suspicious or something, and I'm sure at the very least the officers felt safer with a man on the floor with a bullet wound than if he was running around, and a safer policeman does a better job than an anxious one.

I don't think its indicative of anything serious, but I think it is a good job that Human Rights lawyers stay vigilant, we do need to keep an eye on our police afterall. But this seems to me like a reasonable use of force, and I believe our police force has done a good job.

Liasia']What.. are you saying middle eastern people are getting a victimisation complex? If you are, you can't argue it isn't justified.

Actually I can, Islamophobia confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of "Islamophobia" is frequently used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.

But either way, the onus isn't on me to produce proof that Muslims aren't being unfairly targeted since you can't prove a negative.

Actually I can, Islamophobia confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of "Islamophobia" is frequently used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.

But either way, the onus isn't on me to produce proof that Muslims aren't being unfairly targeted since you can't prove a negative.

Well, the various examples of people who look muslim having trouble on transport, the fact that the news networks tend to bring on an 'Ayatollah' who is not particularily reasonable to discuss the views of every Muslim. I mean.. isn't it a wee bit ignorant to just dismiss the problem as 'the culture of victimhood rearing its ugly head'?

Y'know what, sometimes the Police need to shoot people, there's no need to make it seem as if we live in a some kind of police-state or anything.

The guy might've been making some kind of agressive movement, or looked suspicious or something, and I'm sure at the very least the officers felt safer with a man on the floor with a bullet wound than if he was running around, and a safer policeman does a better job than an anxious one.

I don't think its indicative of anything serious, but I think it is a good job that Human Rights lawyers stay vigilant, we do need to keep an eye on our police afterall. But this seems to me like a reasonable use of force, and I believe our police force has done a good job.And most of the time the police do not need to shoot someone.

I'll give the story that guy's lawyer has already issued. The guy was woken up by some loud shouts downstairs early in the morning. He hopped out of bed and rushed down the stairs to see what was happening. Most people in such a situation would presume they were being robbed or something. Only as the guy was halfway down the stairs, a policeman popped round the corner of the bottom of the stairs and shot him without warning.

There is only one instance in which a police officer is allowed to shoot someone without an oral warning, and that is if they suspect that the person has a bomb on their person. And then the policy (Operation Kratos) is that they should be aiming at the head, not the body.

So unless the Met can show there was very strong evidence that these men were attempting to engage in terrorism then it probably time for Ian Blair to go. As it is fast becoming apparent that his policies are not working and that he cannot control his force.

I haven't got time right now to trawl through websites looking for facts but here's a good article that summarises a few of my views:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735
You know it really isn't hard to find the raw statistics. www.statistics.gov.uk , oddly enough, is a great place to find infomation. The 2001 Census on London showed that; over 70% of people were born in the UK; over 70% were White; and over 70% of people were Christian or professed no religion. In addition Muslims or people from the Indian sub-continent made up less than 10% of the population. Hence, the term 'Londonistan' hardly seems justified.

And that article seems to be doing a lot of statistical manipulation hoping from way of comparing figures to suit its needs. For instance, the author states that only 1,500 out of 1.6 muslims were stopped and searched ounder the prevention of terrorism act. That's roughly 0.1%. Using his figure that 14,429 white people were stopped and searched and the 2001 Census infomation that there were 54.1 million White people in UK we find that this comes to 0.03% of Whites were stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act. Hence, we can see that Muslims are 3 times more likely to stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act 2001.

The author also seems to be flip-flopping between defintions. One minute he is using Muslim and the next he is using Asian. Muslim and Asian are not the same term in any way, shape or form.

The article does make a lot of valid points, but it seeks to dismiss the idea that Islamophobia even exists. Which, reflection does not seem to be the case, but nor does it seem to be as widespread as the Media make it out to be. I think the point about Muslims leaders using 'Islamphobia' to maintain politcal power is quite true, much in the same way that Blair has attempted to use 'terrorism' to maintain political power. That is - 'These people want to hurt you. Follow us and we will protect you.'

Unfortunately, you seem to be taking a fairly rational article and manipulating it for racist ends.Liasia']He probably looked suspicious. Middle eastern in london= terrorist, apparently.
So the culture of victimhood rears its ugly head again.

Maybe a few more bombings will have to take place before people wake up.

On a side note it would be nice if you did not plagiarise the author's work. I have noticed that you have ripped one sentence from out of the article in another post and did not reference it.The charge of "Islamophobia" is frequently used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.You've copied the sentence chracter for character.

The difference is simple.

UK law enforcement has already fucked up.

Canadian law enforcement has not yet fucked up.

The difference is simple.

UK law enforcement has already fucked up.

Canadian law enforcement has not yet fucked up.



Give it time..... it's bound to happen at some point. All I hope is that the inevitable fuckup doesn't cost lives.

So the culture of victimhood rears its ugly head again.

Maybe a few more bombings will have to take place before people wake up.
So you are saying all Middle Easterners are terrorists?

The difference is simple.

UK law enforcement has already fucked up.

Canadian law enforcement has not yet fucked up.

Too true. I don't trust the police or the government. Or MI5 for that matter.

So what, the police are now expected to make public all evidence prior to any possible trial (thus potentially jeopoardising it) for islamic extremists? Should we apply this new custom to all aspects of police activity or just this one?

No, actually, for most non-US types, before you even get a search warrant, the suspects must have a fair trial where they always win, and the whole trial should be played on international television, so that everyone gets to see how fair it is, before they can get a warrant to go even investigate anyone.

Obviously terrorists are always right, and never really terrorists.

Well, from a Canadian perspective. I think Canadians in general trust their government, and also trust the local police authorities, in this case the RCMP. There have been RCMP corruptions in the past, but for the most part, Mounties have a good reputation from the citizens.

Well, from a Canadian perspective. I think Canadians in general trust their government, and also trust the local police authorities, in this case the RCMP. There have been RCMP corruptions in the past, but for the most part, Mounties have a good reputation from the citizens.
Just wait until a guy is publicly executed by police because a special forces surveilance guy was taking a piss and said they should tag him just in case, and then have the three big cheeses in law enforcement appear live on TV, lying about the chain of events.

The difference is that the British raid took place in the kingdom of Londonistan, where every anti-terrorist measure or raid is an attack on the Islamic Ummah and reflective of deeply held islamaphobia and institutional racism.
That's a pretty accurate description of the way things are in this country. People have instinctively jumped on the the "OH NO TEH POLICE SHOT AN INNOCENT MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!111" bandwagon, even before the facts of the case have been properley ascertained (And it's a possible that brother shot brother (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5045104.stm)). But never mind about things like this, these are nice peace loving muslims, we must treat them with kid gloves and any bombings are obviously our fault because we haven't sufficiently bent over backwards to ensure they feel at home.

Better yet, why don't the police just sit back and say, "well, we didn't have enough evidence to convince the court of public opinion without blowing the whole investigation, so we decided to close the investigation and wait for something to happen."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-03T125413Z_01_L03352884_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-SHOT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Like this case. Maybe instead of arresting those guys and shooting one, and ransacking the apartment, they should have waited until the terrorists unleashed a chemical attack on a major UK city, killing thousands of people.

Then I'm sure the public would go along with draconian police sweeps, the roundup of every Muslim in the UK, etc.

Better yet, why don't the police just sit back and say, "well, we didn't have enough evidence to convince the court of public opinion without blowing the whole investigation, so we decided to close the investigation and wait for something to happen."
I'm not advocating the reverse at all.

I'm just saying, they can carry on with their job, in the understanding that it will never again be appreciated by the public. Too bad, sux 2 b them, etc. If they have a problem with that, they can go retrain to become a courier. :)

Liasia']Well, the various examples of people who look muslim having trouble on transport, the fact that the news networks tend to bring on an 'Ayatollah' who is not particularily reasonable to discuss the views of every Muslim. I mean.. isn't it a wee bit ignorant to just dismiss the problem as 'the culture of victimhood rearing its ugly head'?

According to home office figures approximately 1,500 Muslims out of a population of 1.6 million have been stopped under the anti-terrorist laws

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735

(so about 0.1%), yet the overwhelmingy majority of Muslims including Sir Iqbal Sacraine, the head of the Muslim council of Britain argue that police harassment is common. It simply is untrue. Furthermore, even if a slightly higher number of Arab males between the ages of 18-30 were stopped I would have no problem with this since I do not feel the best way to prevent terrorist attacks is for the police to target white, 70 year old grannies.

There is very little evidence for there being a "conspiracy against Muslims" in the UK. If somebody has any evidence whatsoever other than rumour, heresay and quotes by George Galloway I would love to see them.

Well, from a Canadian perspective. I think Canadians in general trust their government, and also trust the local police authorities, in this case the RCMP. There have been RCMP corruptions in the past, but for the most part, Mounties have a good reputation from the citizens.

Not to mention that we seem to actually be able, as a people, to control our government. The last election was a testament to this. People didn't trust the current parts of the Liberal machine and said no thanks to them, but still we were a bit leery of Harper's origins and let him try with a minority government, to see what he's all about before we give him more confidence. From the looks of things lately, though, he'll be packing his bags if the Liberals can turn the corner.

Not to mention that we seem to actually be able, as a people, to control our government. The last election was a testament to this. People didn't trust the current parts of the Liberal machine and said no thanks to them, but still we were a bit leery of Harper's origins and let him try with a minority government, to see what he's all about before we give him more confidence. From the looks of things lately, though, he'll be packing his bags if the Liberals can turn the corner.

So I guess you don't give Harper's adminstration any credit for bagging these terrorists.

So I guess you don't give Harper's adminstration any credit for bagging these terrorists.

No, not really. CSIS and the Mounties get my credit.

Better yet, why don't the police just sit back and say, "well, we didn't have enough evidence to convince the court of public opinion without blowing the whole investigation, so we decided to close the investigation and wait for something to happen."

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-03T125413Z_01_L03352884_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-SHOT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Like this case. Maybe instead of arresting those guys and shooting one, and ransacking the apartment, they should have waited until the terrorists unleashed a chemical attack on a major UK city, killing thousands of people.

Then I'm sure the public would go along with draconian police sweeps, the roundup of every Muslim in the UK, etc.
That's the problem, all the time we have the chattering classes constantly sniping at the police, whining about every little anomaly and trying to make their jobs as difficult as possible. Then as soon as a bombing happens, these people will be running around like headless chickens, wanting the police to do something about it, while still telling the them that they're evil for not taking into account 'cultural sensitivities' and all that kind of bollocks in their investigations. As much as I hate seeing all these people dying in bombings, at least it has the effect of shaking ordinary people out of their complacency and waking them up to the danger that islam is to Britain. Though people still have very short memories, as July 7 has proved.

No, not really. CSIS and the Mounties get my credit.
Ah, I see. If CSIS and the Mounties had missed these terrorists, and Canadians had died, you would have blamed Harper. I see.

Ah, I see. If CSIS and the Mounties had missed these terrorists, and Canadians had died, you would have blamed Harper. I see.

Don't put words in my mouth. I do think Harper may be asking for trouble by committing Canadian troops to Afghanistan, but I'm not going to blame a man in a suit if someone at the computer screws up. I'm glad the RCMP and intelligence were on the ball and caught this before it turned bad. Some of us do try to think about recovery and the well-being of others before we start slinging blame.

You know it really isn't hard to find the raw statistics. www.statistics.gov.uk , oddly enough, is a great place to find infomation. The 2001 Census on London showed that; over 70% of people were born in the UK; over 70% were White; and over 70% of people were Christian or professed no religion. In addition Muslims or people from the Indian sub-continent made up less than 10% of the population. Hence, the term 'Londonistan' hardly seems justified.

And that article seems to be doing a lot of statistical manipulation hoping from way of comparing figures to suit its needs. For instance, the author states that only 1,500 out of 1.6 muslims were stopped and searched ounder the prevention of terrorism act. That's roughly 0.1%. Using his figure that 14,429 white people were stopped and searched and the 2001 Census infomation that there were 54.1 million White people in UK we find that this comes to 0.03% of Whites were stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act. Hence, we can see that Muslims are 3 times more likely to stopped and searched under the Terrorism Act 2001.

The author also seems to be flip-flopping between defintions. One minute he is using Muslim and the next he is using Asian. Muslim and Asian are not the same term in any way, shape or form.

The article does make a lot of valid points, but it seeks to dismiss the idea that Islamophobia even exists. Which, reflection does not seem to be the case, but nor does it seem to be as widespread as the Media make it out to be. I think the point about Muslims leaders using 'Islamphobia' to maintain politcal power is quite true, much in the same way that Blair has attempted to use 'terrorism' to maintain political power. That is - 'These people want to hurt you. Follow us and we will protect you.'

Unfortunately, you seem to be taking a fairly rational article and manipulating it for racist ends.

On a side note it would be nice if you did not plagiarise the author's work. I have noticed that you have ripped one sentence from out of the article in another post and did not reference it.You've copied the sentence chracter for character.

Lol - I did indeed copy and paste that particular chunk, I was feeling particularly lazy and did not feel that Prospect Magazine would take issue with my having done so. I'll admit that this was bad form.

The fact that you would qualify me as a racist for offering very legitimate criticism of mainstream Islam is quite pathetic. Too many people these days seem all too willing to use words like "racist" in order to dismiss or silence legitimate criticism. Many moderate muslims would share my criticisms that contemporary Islam is far too insular and perpetrates an ideology of victimhood. People like Irshad Manji (herself a Muslim) have written at considerable length criticising aspects of contemporary Islam and are frequently shouted down as blasphemers and islamophobics whilst so called liberals look on in silence. Your characterisation of me as a racist is not only particularly offensive but particularly stupid.

The word "Londonistan" is actually a common nickname used to denote the fact that London has become a centre for extremist Islamic groups and individuals who have been exiled from their home countries and who operated with some degree of impunity in our capital for over a decade - financing and planning terrorist attacks and spreading extremist literature concerning the establishment of a global Caliphate. It has nothing to do with the overall % of those living there.

Do you feel then that the stopping of 3 times as many muslims as whites under the terrorist attack is a gross injustice? Perhaps rather than opening up to the fact that Islamic males between the ages of 18-30 are overwhelmingly more likely to pose a terrorist threat to our society we should make it the duty of the poice force to target all groups equally, including say white 70-year old grannies and 12-year olds on their paper round. Would you rather have a police force that operated on the basis of fulfilling quotas set by central government and the commission for racial equality than on the basis of common sense?

So you are saying all Middle Easterners are terrorists?

No, hence why I didn't say anything like that.

Don't put words in my mouth. I do think Harper may be asking for trouble by committing Canadian troops to Afghanistan, but I'm not going to blame a man in a suit if someone at the computer screws up. I'm glad the RCMP and intelligence were on the ball and caught this before it turned bad. Some of us do try to think about recovery and the well-being of others before we start slinging blame.

Looks like it was the FBI and others as well on this case.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849

Not just your mounties (although hats off to those mounties).

The Toronto busts are linked to arrests that began last August at a Canadian border post near Niagara Falls and continued in October in Sarajevo, London and Scandinavia, and earlier this year in New York and Georgia.

The FBI confirmed Saturday the arrests were related to the recent indictments in the U.S. of Ehsanul Sadequee and Syed Ahmed, who are accused of meeting with extremists in Toronto last March to discuss terrorist training and plots.

“There is preliminary indication that some of the Canadian subjects may have had limited contact with the two people recently arrested from Georgia,” Special Agent Richard Kolko, the FBI spokesman, said in an e-mail to the National Post.

The intricate web of connections between Toronto, London, Atlanta, Sarajevo, Dhaka, and elsewhere illustrates the challenge confronting counter-terrorism investigators almost five years after 9/11.

Linking the international probes are online communications, phone calls and in particular videotapes that authorities allege show some of the targets the young extremists considered blowing up.

Hmm - must have been intercepting online communications and listening to phone calls, and data mining phone records to look for patterns...

Maybe, in order to be on the ball to catch people, you have to do a lot of surveillance that some people don't want the government to do.

And such a joyous little group of guys in Toronto!


The group “took steps to acquire components necessary to create explosive devices” including three tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertilizer, commonly used in terrorist bombs, police said.

By comparison, the truck bomb used to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people, contained a single tonne of ammonium nitrate.

“It was their intent to use it for a terrorist attack,” RCMP assistant commissioner Mike McDonell said.

“This group posed a real threat. It had the capacity and intent to carry out these attacks.”

How could anyone distrust the Mounties? The Mounties always get the right people. :)

i hate mounties with there weird horses and all... i just dont get them... why horses!?!?! if your going to chase someone get an elephant and not a horse ! gosh!

Looks like it was the FBI and others as well on this case.

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=de3f8e90-982a-47af-8e5e-a1366fd5d6cc&k=46849

Not just your mounties (although hats off to those mounties).



Hmm - must have been intercepting online communications and listening to phone calls, and data mining phone records to look for patterns...

Maybe, in order to be on the ball to catch people, you have to do a lot of surveillance that some people don't want the government to do.

Surveillance issues don't really concern me very much. I'm not one of the paranoids who think that there are cameras in my bathroom monitoring my mundane life. I'm glad to see countries working together on security issues on the domestic front, I must say. My problems with the current state of things focus more on the presence of forces in the Middle East. The idea of a land war with terrorists is ridiculous and I pity the security and intelligence forces from the US, Canada, Britain and elsewhere because it's not making their lives any easier.

Then as soon as a bombing happens, these people will be running around like headless chickens, wanting the police to do something about it

Actually, the ones running around like headless chickens wanting a police state are usually the very ones who support it in the first place.

I don't know if DK did much running, but he certainly doesn't seem to mind living in a police state given what he's saying.

I haven't got time right now to trawl through websites looking for facts but here's a good article that summarises a few of my views:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16735

Rather unfortunately I haven't a link to a picture of my bollocks, so that you could go and ask it.

Ah, I see. If CSIS and the Mounties had missed these terrorists, and Canadians had died, you would have blamed Harper. I see.
That's a pretty fucking stupid assumption. If it had happened, then it happened, we would have perceived it as our police forces and government being unable to prevent it, to catch them before they caused their havoc. Harper hasn't done anything to impede police in such matters, but neither has he done anything to speed them along (indeed, what could he do, really?) his job is to run the country, not police it.

Good thing I'm no longer in the UK. Apparently, the police have arrested the terrorists, but didn't find the bomb.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-03T125413Z_01_L03352884_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-SHOT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Nice. Chemical weapons. What a lovely thought.

And, in the aftermath of this terrorist arrest, some Canadians vandalize a mosque...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149415322332&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

And, in the aftermath of this terrorist arrest, some Canadians vandalize a mosque...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149415322332&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home
Yeah, we have idiots here too, what's your point?

And, in the aftermath of this terrorist arrest, some Canadians vandalize a mosque...

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1149415322332&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Hopefully the idiot responsible will be so averse to subtlety that he'll be caught bragging about it.

Hopefully the idiot responsible will be so averse to subtlety that he'll be caught bragging about it.
Well, I'll give you credit. It's only one idiot apparently, and he was stupid enough to cut himself while vandalizing (not that vandalizing takes a lot of smarts...).

Just look around at the local hospitals - I'm sure he'll turn up for treatment.

Rather unfortunately I haven't a link to a picture of my bollocks, so that you could go and ask it.

Hmmm, even with a link I think those might take me a while to find.

LONDON (AFP) - British police shot and injured one man and arrested a second in a major anti-terrorist raid on a house in east London following suspicions that it was being used to make chemical weapons.

ADVERTISEMENT



Yes No
Yes No

Yes No



Police sources told Sky News they expected to find a chemical bomb of some kind at the house, while the Press Association news agency said the dawn swoop followed intelligence about a suspected plot on British soil.

BBC television named them as Abdul Jalal and Abdul Kahar, without giving sources. It said both men were of Bangladeshi origin. One worked for postal firm Royal Mail and was said to be religious.

London's Metropolitan Police refused to comment on the men's identities and reports about chemical weapons.

But Peter Clarke, the head of the force's anti-terrorist branch, said: "The intelligence was such that it demanded an intensive investigation and response."

He added: "We planned an operation that was designed to mitigate any threat to the public either from firearms or from any hazardous substances


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060602/wl_afp/britainpolicesecurity_060602173859


Police on both sides of the Atlantic this weekend launched anti-terror operations as fears of terror strikes focused on two groups believed to be planning imminent attacks.

On Saturday night London police were frantically searching for a chemical weapon they are convinced is located somewhere in the vicinity of the home of a pair of brothers they believe were planning to use it.

The device they are looking for has been reported by some media as a bomb with toxic properties and by others as a suicide vest that could be primed to release toxic gas in order to kill people near its wearer.




About 300 officers surrounded the house on Friday night and shot one of the brothers when they stormed the premises. Abul Kahar Kalam, 23, was wounded in the chest and is in hospital under guard. He has been arrested on terrorism charges. His brother Abul Koyair Kalam, 20, has also been arrested.


Seems the London police have a very good damm reason for arresting these poor misguided muslims .

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=vn20060604103656185C181794


Or will you only be happy when the bodies start to pile up ?
Will it be OK then for the police to do their jobs ?



Britain



The Times June 03, 2006


Police hunt for lethal chemical suicide vest
By Daniel McGrory, Stewart Tendler and Michael Evans

Man shot in dawn raid on suspected weapons factory
Officers believe World Cup fans could be target of attack







A DESPERATE search is under way for a “chemical vest” that a British suicide bomber was ready to deploy in a terror attack on London.
Police fear that the strike, using a home-made chemical device, was imminent after an informant told MI5 that he had seen the lethal garment at the home of two young men.

Last night detectives were at the hospital bedside of a 23-year-old postal worker shot during a pre-dawn raid on his parents’ home, while his younger brother, aged 20, was being questioned at Paddington Green high security police station






http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2208954,00.html

you are missing the point here UE. the english police have an appaling record when it comes to anti-terrorist actions. we saw the innocent brazilian riddled with bullets and the lies that followed. not to mention the amount of innocent irishmen who ended up in prison or the not so innocent unarmed irish men who ended up in bodybags.

they have a lot of previous for going in ott and 9 times out of 10, as here, there is no bomb.

Bump

i'm just gonna make a quick statement about the foiled terrorist in Canada:

if you cant take canada, you cant take anyone. that is some bad publicity for terrorists

i'm just gonna make a quick statement about the foiled terrorist in Canada:

if you cant take canada, you cant take anyone. that is some bad publicity for terrorists

That's what I was thinking.

That's the problem, all the time we have the chattering classes constantly sniping at the police, whining about every little anomaly and trying to make their jobs as difficult as possible. Then as soon as a bombing happens, these people will be running around like headless chickens, wanting the police to do something about it, while still telling the them that they're evil for not taking into account 'cultural sensitivities' and all that kind of bollocks in their investigations. As much as I hate seeing all these people dying in bombings, at least it has the effect of shaking ordinary people out of their complacency and waking them up to the danger that islam is to Britain. Though people still have very short memories, as July 7 has proved.

:rolleyes: is that all of Islam? Muslims or the religion itself? In what way is a religion a danger to Britain? Or are you referring to Islamist extremists? If so, then might I suggest that you choose your words more carefully.

If, however, you said exactly what you meant, I suggest you go out and get yourself an education.

Kudos to the RCMP for putting 17 terrorists out of business.

Jeers to Georgia Tech for graduating one of them.

Good thing I'm no longer in the UK. Apparently, the police have arrested the terrorists, but didn't find the bomb.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-06-03T125413Z_01_L03352884_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BRITAIN-SHOT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22

Nice. Chemical weapons. What a lovely thought.They haven't found anything. They searching the house, the men's workplaces and have found nothing as of yet. So unless they find any actual evidence then it's more likely that there was no bomb, and that the police were acting on faulty intelligence.

Also, even the police think that the device was capable of killing in the double figures or maybe triple figures, and not in the thousands as you suggested earlier. I'm going to assume this was ignorance on your part rather than anything else.

That's a pretty accurate description of the way things are in this country. People have instinctively jumped on the the "OH NO TEH POLICE SHOT AN INNOCENT MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!111" bandwagon, even before the facts of the case have been properley ascertained (And it's a possible that brother shot brother). But never mind about things like this, these are nice peace loving muslims, we must treat them with kid gloves and any bombings are obviously our fault because we haven't sufficiently bent over backwards to ensure they feel at home.Hmm... That was the News of the World that reported that... I think the reputation of that newspaper speaks for itself. This is also in addition to the IPCC, on friday, releasing a statement that the police firearm in question was fired. And you'll have to agree, it's pretty hard to miss someone if you're both on a staircase.

Lol - I did indeed copy and paste that particular chunk, I was feeling particularly lazy and did not feel that Prospect Magazine would take issue with my having done so. I'll admit that this was bad form.

The fact that you would qualify me as a racist for offering very legitimate criticism of mainstream Islam is quite pathetic. Too many people these days seem all too willing to use words like "racist" in order to dismiss or silence legitimate criticism. Many moderate muslims would share my criticisms that contemporary Islam is far too insular and perpetrates an ideology of victimhood. People like Irshad Manji (herself a Muslim) have written at considerable length criticising aspects of contemporary Islam and are frequently shouted down as blasphemers and islamophobics whilst so called liberals look on in silence. Your characterisation of me as a racist is not only particularly offensive but particularly stupid.I apoligise for calling you racist. Having looked back at what you have posted there is nothing there to explicitly suggest you are a racist. However, it was your use of absolute statements and posting an article without commentary that led me to believe you were a troll, and due to the circumstances - a racist troll. Though I appear to have got that wrong.

The word "Londonistan" is actually a common nickname used to denote the fact that London has become a centre for extremist Islamic groups and individuals who have been exiled from their home countries and who operated with some degree of impunity in our capital for over a decade - financing and planning terrorist attacks and spreading extremist literature concerning the establishment of a global Caliphate. It has nothing to do with the overall % of those living there.True, but London has a long history of harbouring alternative ideas that would be persecuted elsewhere. Such as Marx, who sent the latter half of his life in London. I may not agree with these ideologies, but I think that they should be given a proper airing. However, you are right in suggesting that London has never doen enough to stop any terrorist activities these groups may attempt to undertake.

Do you feel then that the stopping of 3 times as many muslims as whites under the terrorist attack is a gross injustice? Perhaps rather than opening up to the fact that Islamic males between the ages of 18-30 are overwhelmingly more likely to pose a terrorist threat to our society we should make it the duty of the poice force to target all groups equally, including say white 70-year old grannies and 12-year olds on their paper round. Would you rather have a police force that operated on the basis of fulfilling quotas set by central government and the commission for racial equality than on the basis of common sense?I feel that racial profiling is a gross injustice. It leads to assumptions that simply aren't true. Just because a group as a whole is more likely to possess a certain trait, does not mean this is true of the individual. I'd rather the police operated on hard facts, rather than stats. That is, checking out an individual because they bought 3 tons of ammonium nitrate, not because they're Muslim. (I mean if police feel it is necessary to drag an asian grannie out of a house in handcuffs, then why not a white grannie?)

i'm just gonna make a quick statement about the foiled terrorist in Canada:

if you cant take canada, you cant take anyone. that is some bad publicity for terrorists

Umm... Is that a shot at Canadian law enforcement?

Actually I can, Islamophobia confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of "Islamophobia" is frequently used not to highlight racism but to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities.

But either way, the onus isn't on me to produce proof that Muslims aren't being unfairly targeted since you can't prove a negative.

Nobody wants to hear a religious group attacked here unless its' Christians.

Hmm... That was the News of the World that reported that... I think the reputation of that newspaper speaks for itself. This is also in addition to the IPCC, on friday, releasing a statement that the police firearm in question was fired. And you'll have to agree, it's pretty hard to miss someone if you're both on a staircase.
Maybe, but by just looking at the picture of the guy who was shot, I'd still have supported police if they shot him a dozen times in the head when he was down. He's obviously some islamist nutjob even if he isn't a terrorist, so his death would hardly be a loss to this country.

True, but London has a long history of harbouring alternative ideas that would be persecuted elsewhere. Such as Marx, who sent the latter half of his life in London. I may not agree with these ideologies, but I think that they should be given a proper airing. However, you are right in suggesting that London has never doen enough to stop any terrorist activities these groups may attempt to undertake.
Why should we protect those who hold such vile views, preaching that we should be destroyed? We shouldn't be letting them air their views at all, the only thing that we should be doing is what the US does. By that I mean shove them onto a plane and render them to somewhere like Egypt or Jordan.

Maybe, but by just looking at the picture of the guy who was shot, I'd still have supported police if they shot him a dozen times in the head when he was down. He's obviously some islamist nutjob even if he isn't a terrorist, so his death would hardly be a loss to this country.


Why should we protect those who hold such vile views, preaching that we should be destroyed? We shouldn't be letting them air their views at all, the only thing that we should be doing is what the US does. By that I mean shove them onto a plane and render them to somewhere like Egypt or Jordan.

You can tell if someone is a terrorist by looking at their picture? Have you informed the police of this valuable skill?

You can tell if someone is a terrorist by looking at their picture? Have you informed the police of this valuable skill?
I didn't say I knew he was a terrorist by looking at him, I said he was an islamist nutjob (Not all islamists are terrorists, even if they are scum). He looks like a goat, so it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

I didn't say I knew he was a terrorist by looking at him, I said he was an islamist nutjob (Not all islamists are terrorists, even if they are scum). He looks like a goat, so it's not an unreasonable assumption to make.

So, let's get this straight:

A) All Islamic people are scum?

B) You saw one picture of this man and figured out he was 'An Islamist Nutjob', because he looks 'Like a Goat'?


How exactly do you rationalise those two statements? I'm honestly not understanding here. Can you explain, with evidence if possible?

So, let's get this straight:

A) All Islamic people are scum?

B) You saw one picture of this man and figured out he was 'An Islamist Nutjob', because he looks 'Like a Goat'?


How exactly do you rationalise those two statements? I'm honestly not understanding here. Can you explain, with evidence if possible?

The police seem to have caught these guys conspiring to do bad things. And caught them with three tons of ammonium nitrate.

Oh, I'm all for a fair trial. Follwed by a first class hanging.

So, let's get this straight:

A) All Islamic people are scum?
No, I said all islamists are scum. Islamist, as in supporter of political islam. Though I'm not going to pretend I like any muslims at all.

B) You saw one picture of this man and figured out he was 'An Islamist Nutjob', because he looks 'Like a Goat'?
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/story_pages/news/news1.shtml

Come on now, he couldn't be anything else!

No hangings in Canada ...and " innocent until proven guilty" is still the standard...as pointed out by the Imman they keep putting on TV..at any rate anybody find the " death " vest the Brits are looking for yet ?

Just because someone looks like a goat doesnt make them a terrorist ..I have an aunt that looks almost like a goat ..smells like one to at times...no one ever accused her of terrorism...except maybe on my eyes...and nose..
Come here you devil and give aunty a hug and a big kiss.....arggggggggggghhhhh.

And most of the time the police do not need to shoot someone.

I'll give the story that guy's lawyer has already issued. The guy was woken up by some loud shouts downstairs early in the morning. He hopped out of bed and rushed down the stairs to see what was happening. Most people in such a situation would presume they were being robbed or something. Only as the guy was halfway down the stairs, a policeman popped round the corner of the bottom of the stairs and shot him without warning.

There is only one instance in which a police officer is allowed to shoot someone without an oral warning, and that is if they suspect that the person has a bomb on their person. And then the policy (Operation Kratos) is that they should be aiming at the head, not the body.

So unless the Met can show there was very strong evidence that these men were attempting to engage in terrorism then it probably time for Ian Blair to go. As it is fast becoming apparent that his policies are not working and that he cannot control his force.

If you were an armed policeman raiding a suspected terrorists house and you saw a man running down the stairs towards you what would you do? I think the policeman in question had every right to shoot the guy. And do you know how hard it is to hit someone in the head when they are moving? Very.

If you were an armed policeman raiding a suspected terrorists house and you saw a man running down the stairs towards you what would you do? I think the policeman in question had every right to shoot the guy. And do you know how hard it is to hit someone in the head when they are moving? Very.

Under US policy for most police forces, police are authorized to shoot if any person can be construed to constitute either an immediate threat to life, OR (as in Virginia) is a fleeing felon.

Civilians cannot shoot fleeing felons in Virginia, but the police are authorized to do so.

In Washington State, if you're a civilian, and you see someone committing grand larceny (say, a man running away with a laptop you saw him steal), you can shoot them in the back as they run, and be perfectly legal.

The US is NOT a friendly place if you plan on doing something illegal. Most states now authorize concealed carry. Millions of civilians carry pistols. And the police have even greater leeway in blowing people away.

It's called benefit of the doubt. And it's not given to the felon.

The police seem to have caught these guys conspiring to do bad things. And caught them with three tons of ammonium nitrate.

Oh, I'm all for a fair trial. Follwed by a first class hanging.Lost the plot much? The Canadian suspects aren't the same people as the British suspects. The Met has found no evidence with regards to their suspects yet.

No hangings in Canada ...and " innocent until proven guilty" is still the standard...as pointed out by the Imman they keep putting on TV..at any rate anybody find the " death " vest the Brits are looking for yet ?Nope. Infact, no one even knows what their really looking for. Some papers have suggested their looking for a 'death' vest, and other papers say it is a

If you were an armed policeman raiding a suspected terrorists house and you saw a man running down the stairs towards you what would you do? I think the policeman in question had every right to shoot the guy. And do you know how hard it is to hit someone in the head when they are moving? Very.The law gives him no right to shoot the guy, unless he issues a verbal warning or a suspects he has bomb on his person. Neither of which appears to be the case. I can accept that the policeman shot the suspect by accident. I can imagine it can be quite shocking to turn into a staircase and only to find two men rushing down the stairs towards you, and in that split second the policeman could have instinctively fired the gun. If someone is to blame here then it is probably the policeman's superiors for not having a decent set of procedures in place to avoid such mistakes (or maybe the policeman's for not following them if they existed).

Under US policy for most police forces, police are authorized to shoot if any person can be construed to constitute either an immediate threat to life, OR (as in Virginia) is a fleeing felon.

Civilians cannot shoot fleeing felons in Virginia, but the police are authorized to do so.

In Washington State, if you're a civilian, and you see someone committing grand larceny (say, a man running away with a laptop you saw him steal), you can shoot them in the back as they run, and be perfectly legal.

The US is NOT a friendly place if you plan on doing something illegal. Most states now authorize concealed carry. Millions of civilians carry pistols. And the police have even greater leeway in blowing people away.

It's called benefit of the doubt. And it's not given to the felon. Thank God I don't live in the US. I'd hate to live in a country that possibly legitimises
murder to stop something as petty as the theft of a laptop.

Thank God I don't live in the US. I'd hate to live in a country that possibly legitimises
murder to stop something as petty as the theft of a laptop.

Why? So you can go and steal stuff from people without worry?

Why? So you can go and steal stuff from people without worry?Nope, because people are falible, and may not have full understanding a of situation that they have just come across. For all the observer knows the person running away could be the victim who has managed to escape with his laptop and is running away. So, no, I do not support the pubic or anyone else shooting other people on flimsy circumstantial evidence.

Thank God I don't live in the US. I'd hate to live in a country that possibly legitimises
murder to stop something as petty as the theft of a laptop.

Better yet, if I have reason to believe you're a suicide bomber, and you make a sudden move after I order you to freeze (this applies to civilians and police here in Virginia), you, by definition, constitute an immediate lethal threat, and I can pop rounds through your head until you die.

And, provided that the reason to believe that you're a suicide bomber is a valid one, I walk a free man.

Better yet, if I have reason to believe you're a suicide bomber, and you make a sudden move after I order you to freeze (this applies to civilians and police here in Virginia), you, by definition, constitute an immediate lethal threat, and I can pop rounds through your head until you die.

And, provided that the reason to believe that you're a suicide bomber is a valid one, I walk a free man.What counts as being valid though? That you're suspicion was correct, or that it was reasonable to suspect the person in that circumstance? And what counts as reasonable? It seems like for someone on this thread that being muslim having a long beard is pretty much enough.

Why? So you can go and steal stuff from people without worry?
Because someone's life is worth more than some junk?

Why? So you can go and steal stuff from people without worry?

why have a professional police force then if you allow vigilanteism?

What counts as being valid though? That you're suspicion was correct, or that it was reasonable to suspect the person in that circumstance? And what counts as reasonable? It seems like for someone on this thread that being muslim having a long beard is pretty much enough.

In the US, if a policeman shouts, "he's got a bomb!", that is considered valid enough for me to shoot him.

Now, if the policeman was wrong, then it's his fault, not mine.

The police are, by common assumption, supposed to be more on the ball with special information.

If the suspect announces he is wearing a bomb, that is considered enough evidence.

I may, at my option, choose to wait for more evidence (i.e., I see something that looks bomb-like - but most people aren't bomb experts).

A guy screaming, "I have a bomb and I'm going to blow everyone up!" while having wires hanging out of his jacket is good to go.

In the end, my decision will be reviewed by the local prosecuting attorney as to whether it was a "clean" shooting. And maybe he will turn it over to a jury. But case law in Virginia is pretty solid. I only need a reasonable expectation that the man constituted an immediate threat to life.

Hmmm, even with a link I think those might take me a while to find.

No, though lack of familarity with similar closer to home may result in recognition difficulties.

No, though lack of familarity with similar closer to home may result in recognition difficulties.

Why? Are they deformed as well as small?

I apoligise for calling you racist. Having looked back at what you have posted there is nothing there to explicitly suggest you are a racist. However, it was your use of absolute statements and posting an article without commentary that led me to believe you were a troll, and due to the circumstances - a racist troll. Though I appear to have got that wrong.

True, but London has a long history of harbouring alternative ideas that would be persecuted elsewhere. Such as Marx, who sent the latter half of his life in London. I may not agree with these ideologies, but I think that they should be given a proper airing. However, you are right in suggesting that London has never doen enough to stop any terrorist activities these groups may attempt to undertake.

I feel that racial profiling is a gross injustice. It leads to assumptions that simply aren't true. Just because a group as a whole is more likely to possess a certain trait, does not mean this is true of the individual. I'd rather the police operated on hard facts, rather than stats. That is, checking out an individual because they bought 3 tons of ammonium nitrate, not because they're Muslim. (I mean if police feel it is necessary to drag an asian grannie out of a house in handcuffs, then why not a white grannie?)

No worries, yours wasn't a massive leap of the imagination. I find that it's virtually impossible to offer any rational criticism of mainstream Islam on any internet forum without having it hijacked by the BNP.

I agree with you that our government should not be participatory in the suppression of genuine ideological debate, yet groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun do not fall into this category. Their sole purpose seems to be foster hatred of the UK and the west more generally, provide a dialogue which excuses and even commends the actions of terrorists, undermine time honoured principles of liberty and democracy and serve as a means through which radical muslims can come together.

What I find most concerning however is the fact that most Muslims including the Muslim chairman of the council of Britain seem to view their banning as an unjust infringement of the democratic system. Which of course is absurd - these groups are not political parties, they do not support the democratic system and they do not run for office. They are a halfway house to Al-Qaeda and whilst they have recently been banned it was long overdue.

It took the London bombings to snap us out of our complacent malaise and still not enough is being done. Foreigners deemed to pose a threat to this country should be deported whether or not they will face ill-treatment in their country of origin. The safety of the public is not a secondary consideration to the rights of the fanatic. The Mosques need to be better regulated and supervised since it is eveident from Abu Hamza and the Finsbury park fiasco that the Islamic community is unable or unwilling to do this themselves. More needs to be done to promote integration and a sense of national identity - the very idea of "multiculturalism" in this sense is basically flawed since it does not promote any sense of national cohesion that is fundamental to a stable and orderly society.

I support some degree of racial profiling for statistical reasons and I think in this field, providing there is no obvious signs of unwarranted discrimination or racism the police should be left to do their jobs and stop people they feel look suspicious without having to worry about whether they're fulfilling their quota of whites for the day. I take what you're saying about the police operating on facts and I'm not personally too fond of random stop searches since it establishes the precedent that a policeman is free to interrogate a person without just cause. Likewise you're grievance seems to be more to do with random stop-searches than who indeed is stopped and searched.

Ah, I see. If CSIS and the Mounties had missed these terrorists, and Canadians had died, you would have blamed Harper. I see.
Absolutely correct on both points.

The CSIS and RCMP's policies haven't changed under Harper yet.
As such, they get the credit for any successes under the old policies, and he gets the blame for any failures due to not enacting policies that would have prevented the failures.

Of course, this would apply equally to the NDPs or Liberals if they were in power.

Such is governance.

I Think the difference was about 248 heavily-armed policeman in full NBC kit with nary a sign of bomb or terrorrist

No worries, yours wasn't a massive leap of the imagination. I find that it's virtually impossible to offer any rational criticism of mainstream Islam on any internet forum without having it hijacked by the BNP.

I agree with you that our government should not be participatory in the suppression of genuine ideological debate, yet groups such as Hizb ut Tahrir and al-Muhajiroun do not fall into this category. Their sole purpose seems to be foster hatred of the UK and the west more generally, provide a dialogue which excuses and even commends the actions of terrorists, undermine time honoured principles of liberty and democracy and serve as a means through which radical muslims can come together.

What I find most concerning however is the fact that most Muslims including the Muslim chairman of the council of Britain seem to view their banning as an unjust infringement of the democratic system. Which of course is absurd - these groups are not political parties, they do not support the democratic system and they do not run for office. They are a halfway house to Al-Qaeda and whilst they have recently been banned it was long overdue.

It took the London bombings to snap us out of our complacent malaise and still not enough is being done. Foreigners deemed to pose a threat to this country should be deported whether or not they will face ill-treatment in their country of origin. The safety of the public is not a secondary consideration to the rights of the fanatic. The Mosques need to be better regulated and supervised since it is eveident from Abu Hamza and the Finsbury park fiasco that the Islamic community is unable or unwilling to do this themselves. More needs to be done to promote integration and a sense of national identity - the very idea of "multiculturalism" in this sense is basically flawed since it does not promote any sense of national cohesion that is fundamental to a stable and orderly society.

I support some degree of racial profiling for statistical reasons and I think in this field, providing there is no obvious signs of unwarranted discrimination or racism the police should be left to do their jobs and stop people they feel look suspicious without having to worry about whether they're fulfilling their quota of whites for the day. I take what you're saying about the police operating on facts and I'm not personally too fond of random stop searches since it establishes the precedent that a policeman is free to interrogate a person without just cause. Likewise you're grievance seems to be more to do with random stop-searches than who indeed is stopped and searched.I think this Newsnight transcript (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/3182271.stm) is quite interesting. It suggests that most Muslims are concerned by Hizb ut Tahrir, but are afraid to public speak out against other Muslims. There obviously needs to be something done about this. I think if British Muslims felt able to speak out against other Muslims without questioning their Muslim identity in the same way as they do about other Britons then I think many of the problems that British society faces would be considerably lessened, without having to resort to the measures you suggest.

Your comment on Multiculturalism seems quite apt, I do believe it has fallen from grace, with a new phrase being adopted by the politicians, though for the life of me I can't remember what it is.

Hmm... well random stop searches are pretty much the only thing to which racial profiling applies to. Racial profling just doesn't make sense. For instance, if your checking a garden centre's reciepts for ammonium nitrate you should be more concerned about how much they brought and how frequently as opposed to the customers' names. The only point when racial profiling makes any sense at all is when you have no other infomation to go on. To engage in racial profiling is to endanger the police force of letting people like David Copeland (the 1999 London nailbomber) slip through their fingers.

This post feels slightly disorganised, but I'm too tired to reorganise it. Hope you can make sense of it.