NationStates Jolt Archive

It kinda scared me how ready some people here were to defend the British plane plotters. "It's the IRA! It's C18!" Come on, people.

Especially when it says right at the beginning of the article: "strong links to Al Queada"

And keeping an open mind is wrong... why?

And keeping an open mind is wrong... why?
I'm sure they'll take that into consideration when they blow up the plane you're riding on.

"Look, Abdul, this one, Cabra, has an open mind. Let's give her a parachute before we blow up the plane."

"Ibrahim, for the last time, we don't have any parachutes, and we don't make any exceptions - it's called a suicide mission for a reason."

And keeping an open mind is wrong... why?

Come on. If it was 1941 and we were told than an army had invaded the Baltic, what would you assume? It's the same kind of situation. If a major terrorist attack is attempted in the West, it's probable that it's muslims.

I'm sure they'll take that into consideration when they blow up the plane you're riding on.

*lol
When they do, do you honestly think it'll make a difference if it was the IRA, Al-Qaeda or the Red Army Fraction that planted the bomb?

*lol
When they do, do you honestly think it'll make a difference if it was the IRA, Al-Qaeda or the Red Army Fraction that planted the bomb?
Do you honestly think any of them give a hoot whether or not you have an open mind?

*lol
When they do, do you honestly think it'll make a difference if it was the IRA, Al-Qaeda or the Red Army Fraction that planted the bomb?

Yes! Out of those, the only ones who want to take over the world is Al-Qaeda. And the other two don't exist/have disarmed.

Come on. If it was 1941 and we were told than an army had invaded the Baltic, what would you assume? It's the same kind of situation. If a major terrorist attack is attempted in the West, it's probable that it's muslims.

I'd say either Hitler or Stalin. Japan's to far away geographically, and so's Italy.
Your point?

Anyone find it sad how ready people are to accuse Muslims of terrorist activities because something "suspicious" happened and because they are Muslims.
Oh yeah, because they are racists and bigots.

I'd say either Hitler or Stalin. Japan's to far away geographically, and so's Italy.
Your point?

My point is that we have, or will soon have, a clear, open view of the enemy.

Yes! Out of those, the only ones who want to take over the world is Al-Qaeda.

You know very little about the Red Army Fraction, do you?

Again, if I die on a plane that's been blown up by someone, what difference does that make to me who blew it up?

Anyone find it sad how ready people are to accuse Muslims of terrorist activities because something "suspicious" happened and because they are Muslims.

No. They commit the most terrorist attacks, plain and simple.

My point is that we have, or will soon have, a clear, open view of the enemy.

Yep. We focus on Hitler and forget that Stalin and Mussolini exist. That's going to really make us safe in the future. :rolleyes:

Anyone find it sad how ready people are to accuse Muslims of terrorist activities because something "suspicious" happened and because they are Muslims.

So, you see some Muslims trying to blow up a dozen planes by sneaking explosives on board. That isn't terrorism.... how?

You know very little about the Red Army Fraction, do you?

Again, if I die on a plane that's been blown up by someone, what difference does that make to me who blew it up?
It matters to the cowardly racists who have to cling to terrorist attacks so they can ration out their racism in the public eye.

So, you see some Muslims trying to blow up a dozen planes by sneaking explosives on board. That isn't terrorism.... how?
Apparently there is a link in MI5 because skippy here knows more than everyone else.

You know very little about the Red Army Fraction, do you?

AFAIK, they only wanted a socialist Germany.

Anyone find it sad how ready people are to accuse Muslims of terrorist activities because something "suspicious" happened and because they are Muslims.
Oh yeah, because they are racists and bigots.

I'm not a racist or a bigot if I point out that the common thread in the rationale behind the 21 men who were planning the attack was fundamentalist militant Islam.

It's just a fact.

When pointing out facts is bigotry, let me know.

Well, I think we should wait first. Most chances are that they were islamic, muslim terrorists.

Yet, Remember Aznar?, he had pretty good reasons to think that the Atocha bombings were responsability of ETA, and he failed. the mistake costed him the seat, too.

Waiting a few hours to know the complete truth is not going to harm somebody. If you think THAT is "defending" terrorists....

Yep. We focus on Hitler and forget that Stalin and Mussolini exist. That's going to really make us safe in the future. :rolleyes:

Mussolini was a wuss, and Stalin was on the defence.

I'm not a racist or a bigot
Liar.

Well, I think we should wait first. Most chances are that they were islamic, muslim terrorists.

Yet, Remember Aznar?, he had pretty good reasons to think that the Atocha bombings were responsability of ETA, and he failed. the mistake costed him the seat, too.

Waiting a few hours to know the complete truth is not going to harm somebody. If you think THAT is "defending" terrorists....


What's the point in waiting?
Were the shotcallers right, or were they wrong?

Aznar didn't have good reasons.
Aznar was a cover-up artist.

AFAIK, they only wanted a socialist Germany.

As a first step, yes. They weren't going to stop there, though.

Liar.
Want to place a bet on whether they were Muslims or not?

Tell you what, if you're wrong, you quit NS General forever.

If I'm wrong, I quit NS General forever.

Willing to take the bet?

I bet they were Muslims.

As a first step, yes. They weren't going to stop there, though.

Somehow, I think their leadership was slightly more realistic about it. Bush wants to spread democracy and freedom around the world, but he knows it ain't gonna happen.

It kinda scared me how ready some people here were to defend the British plane plotters. "It's the IRA! It's C18!" Come on, people.


Maybe its someone else trying to make muslims look bad. :rolleyes:

If the US is the target, some people really arent too troubled by it-they figure we brought it on ourselves, or we deserve it.

The plotters should be tried asap and then hung in public.

Mussolini was a wuss, and Stalin was on the defence.

Yes. And a certain "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" and "if you're not with us, you're against us" thinking made sure that no steps were taken to make sure Stalin couldn't commit the same crimes the Nazis had committed before.

Liar.

Denial is a river in Egypt. OMG. I can't say Egypt, that's bigotry.

WEEHEE! Time to gang up on the pantyless one!

And keeping an open mind is wrong... why?
Well, it would be erroneous to claim with certainty that plots to blow up places were made by Muslim terrorists. But empirical evidence suggests that groups like al-Qaeda would be responsible.

Keeping an open mind is good, but when you lose all sense of logic and reason I question whether it is an open mind, or simply fear that some right-wing nutjob will try to pin this upon all Muslims.

*lol
When they do, do you honestly think it'll make a difference if it was the IRA, Al-Qaeda or the Red Army Fraction that planted the bomb?
To you, no, but to us and the people in the future, it will be of crucial importance.

What's the point in waiting?
Were the shotcallers right, or were they wrong?

Do you know it? I dont. I have just written the news for it, using BBC and EFE as resources, yet I still use the word "supposed" when I refer to muslims, and the handy phrase "according to..." before any kind of information. It is called "Prudence", and some people call it a virtue.

I have the same suspicions as you, yet I prefer to wait for a complete confirmation of the data to strongly side with any assumption.

Want to place a bet on whether they were Muslims or not?

Doesn't make you not a bigot or racist Captain Genocide by Attrition.

Anyone find it sad how ready people are to accuse Muslims of terrorist activities because something "suspicious" happened and because they are Muslims.
Oh yeah, because they are racists and bigots.

Anyone find it sad how you can have 1 and + 1 to it and come up with a 2?
Oh yea, because they are mathmaticians and this is a logical thing to do.

Doesn't make you not a bigot or racist Captain Genocide by Attrition.

Who do you think did it then pantless?

Yes. And a certain "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" and "if you're not with us, you're against us" thinking made sure that no steps were taken to make sure Stalin couldn't commit the same crimes the Nazis had committed before.


Those who did try to take those steps ( Churchill etc ) got denounced as imperialist warmongers.... and blimey - it was AGAIN the Left who denounced the warmongers.
Around 1937, Winnie called for increasing the RAF in preparation for what would be the Blitz. And blimey - he got denounced as a warmonger. By... thre Left!

Yes. And a certain "the enemy of my enemy must be my friend" and "if you're not with us, you're against us" thinking made sure that no steps were taken to make sure Stalin couldn't commit the same crimes the Nazis had committed before.

Yeah, that's pretty much it.

Doesn't make you not a bigot or racist Captain Genocide by Attrition.

I see. Anyone who identifies the reason behind the attacks is a bigot.

Especially when it says right at the beginning of the article: "strong links to Al Queada"
When the article was first posted, it did not have reference to any organization whatsoever. The article was updated to include the suggestion that it is Al Queda, and as yet, I still don't believe that it has been confirmed?

You know very little about the Red Army Fraction, do you?


This is just a wild guess but is it 3/11ths?

Do you know it? I dont. I have just written the news for it, using BBC and EFE as resources, yet I still use the word "supposed" when I refer to muslims, and the handy phrase "according to..." before any kind of information. It is called "Prudence", and some people call it a virtue.

I have the same suspicions as you, yet I prefer to wait for a complete confirmation of the data to strongly side with any assumption.


In that case, I sincerely hope you never get to exercise Command, anywhere.
For a leader who waits for all the info is a leader who pees away the lives in his command.
You take the info you have, and do your best.

I see. Anyone who identifies the reason behind the attacks is a bigot.
They are if they have always been a bigot and racist (and proved it before this) and are identifying the people behind it to justify and ration out their bigotry and racism.

Aznar didn't have good reasons.
Aznar was a cover-up artist.

Nice lightning edit, by the way, you can join teh_pantless_coward in his club

A train bombing in the middle of Madrid was a good reason to suspect of the ETA, basically the same reason you are assuming the today's criminals were muslims. "Terrorist attack in London. Planes, airport, it's the muslims"

Back then, for Aznar was. "Terrorist attack in Madrid. Trains, bombs, it's the ETA". Sad, I really liked the guy.

They are if they have always been a bigot and racist (and proved it before this) and are identifying the people behind it to justify and ration out their bigotry and racism.
Tell me once again, how I, as a brown person, am a racist.

Or how "Muslim" is a race.

I'm more than happy to condemn a sector of society based on their beliefs (such as "kill all the infidels"). Is that bigotry? Racism?

Hardly.

Nice lightning edit, by the way, you can join teh_pantless_coward in his club
And you can go hang out with BogMarsh and the other bigots for being a jackass.

Those who did try to take those steps ( Churchill etc ) got denounced as imperialist warmongers.... and blimey - it was AGAIN the Left who denounced the warmongers.
Around 1937, Winnie called for increasing the RAF in preparation for what would be the Blitz. And blimey - he got denounced as a warmonger. By... thre Left!
I'm all for preparation, Boggie, but this kind of rhetoric is just pointless.

I'm not a racist or a bigot if I point out that the common thread in the rationale behind the 21 men who were planning the attack was fundamentalist militant Islam.

It's just a fact.

When pointing out facts is bigotry, let me know.
It is a fact that "the 21 men who were planning the attack was fundamentalist militant Islam"? Where are those facts?

You may be right, but where is the article that verifies your statement as fact.

I assume it is in the MI5 classified information leak memo that all Muslim bashers get.

In that case, I sincerely hope you never get to exercise Command, anywhere.
For a leader who waits for all the info is a leader who pees away the lives in his command.
You take the info you have, and do your best.

I'm in command, petty lad. Not in military command, but in command, and I fare pretty well at it, actually.

You take the info you have, and do your best, and make mistakes too.

"I didn't know that was a minefield" is not a worthy excuse in my book, just to give a small example against your position on this matter.

Hey, DK, since you are in this thread, care to shed some light on that other topic:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=495422

as for the muslim allegation: they are allegation. I firmly believe in the innocent until proven guilty doctrine so when I hear "terrorist plan", I wait for all the info before jumping the gun.

Besides, a terrorist is a scum of the earth, whether he is arab, irish, spanish, hindu, vietcong, american, canadian, british or israeli. Whether it's an artisanal bomb or state-sanctionned. Everybody should emphasise more the terror part and less the nationality.

It was supposed to be a global war on terror. So far the global has been extremely limited in scope.

And you can go hang out with BogMarsh and the other bigots for being a jackass.

Janeass, please, do not be rude.

I don't really "hang out" with them, actually I am arguing against them, I believe.

You still edit posts at light speed and claim you never edited in the first place. That, lad, is a fact.

I'm in command, petty lad. Not in military command, but in command, and I fare pretty well at it, actually.

You take the info you have, and do your best, and make mistakes too.

"I didn't know that was a minefield" is not a worthy excuse in my book, just to give a small example against your position on this matter.

And you live or die with your gut-instinct, petty lass.

The one that tells you: 'gee, if I were a jaweedist, that's where I stack up my mines'.

Whereupon you order a SOSR.

You still edit posts at light speed and claim you never edited in the first place. That, lad, is a fact.
Apparently you have been toking up down the rabbit hole with the Caterpillar and the guy from the Lieberman thread with the hard to remember name if you believe that is a fact. I never assert my edits are not edits.

It is a fact that "the 21 men who were planning the attack was fundamentalist militant Islam"? Where are those facts?

You may be right, but where is the article that verifies your statement as fact.

Just heard on the radio that they were all of Pakistani descent.

Give you a link in just a little bit.

And you live or die with your gut-instinct, petty lass.

The one that tells you: 'gee, if I were a jaweedist, that's where I stack up my mines'.

Whereupon you order a SOSR.

Centurion argument?

Care to take me out of my ignorance cesspool and explain to me what the frig is a SOSR?

Apparently you have been toking up down the rabbit hole with the Caterpillar and the guy from the Lieberman thread with the hard to remember name if you believe that is a fact. I never assert my edits are not edits.

I'll give you that. At least you don't do what OceanDrive does - say something like "Jew-lover" and then edit it out 30 seconds later.

I usually give your posts time to ripen, since you don't usually make up your mind on a post's finality for a minute or two.

Nice lightning edit, by the way, you can join teh_pantless_coward in his club

A train bombing in the middle of Madrid was a good reason to suspect of the ETA, basically the same reason you are assuming the today's criminals were muslims. "Terrorist attack in London. Planes, airport, it's the muslims"

Back then, for Aznar was. "Terrorist attack in Madrid. Trains, bombs, it's the ETA". Sad, I really liked the guy.


That a fact? I call anyone who starts to blag about ETA post-911 as either soft in the head, a traitor, or a Deviationist.

This whole arguement is silly. Racism isnt even remotely the issue here. The issue is a crime has been committed, and a very serious one. If indeed there are a large number of Muslims involved, the FBI CIA NSA and anyone and everyone else would all logically suspect islamic militants as a PRIMARY suspicion. If they didnt they would all be fired for not doing thier job properly. If the evidence doesnt end up pointing to that then so be it and in the comming weeks and months that will become clear. But if you wanted to sit down and think, lets see 50 Muslims are suspected in a plot to blow up 6-10 planes. Lets see, Islamic terrorists have made recent reprisal threats against airlines. Now can anyone in the room be allowed to add things together without being called bigoted?

No. They commit the most terrorist attacks, plain and simple.

If you speak to a Chenchen I am sure they would say that Putin and the Russian Army were terrorists and committed the largest atrocities in their country.

This whole arguement is silly. Racism isnt even remotely the issue here. The issue is a crime has been committed, and a very serious one. If indeed there are a large number of Muslims involved, the FBI CIA NSA and anyone and everyone else would all logically suspect islamic militants as a PRIMARY suspicion. If they didnt they would all be fired for not doing thier job properly. If the evidence doesnt end up pointing to that then so be it and in the comming weeks and months that will become clear. But if you wanted to sit down and think, lets see 50 Muslims are suspected in a plot to blow up 6-10 planes. Lets see, Islamic terrorists have made recent reprisal threats against airlines. Now can anyone in the room be allowed to add things together without being called bigoted?
People without previous bias against Muslims.
It is like defending the KKK for saying "a black guy did it!" whenever a crime comes up. Even if the crime is committed 99% of the time by black people, the KKK is not an objective source to ask to put 2 and 2 together.

Centurion argument?

Care to take me out of my ignorance cesspool and explain to me what the frig is a SOSR?

Centurion argument indeed. National Security is after all a matter under the jurisdiction of centurions + their superiors.

If you don't know SOSR, you got no business talking mines.

That a fact? I call anyone who starts to blag about ETA post-911 as either soft in the head, a traitor, or a Deviationist.

Back then, it wasn't. I guess you take 9/11 as the declaration of war of the islam against the rest of the world, no?

If you speak to a Chenchen I am sure they would say that Putin and the Russian Army were terrorists and committed the largest atrocities in their country.

*yawn* Whereupon I would stay that ANY Chechen who doesn't do unwavering allegiance to Holy Mother Orthodox Russia, the beloved Rodina, is a traitor who does not merit living.

Back then, it wasn't. I guess you take 9/11 as the declaration of war of the islam against the rest of the world, no?


More like Fort Sumter.

Back then, it wasn't. I guess you take 9/11 as the declaration of war of the islam against the rest of the world, no?
Actually, I take the first WTC attack in 1993, along with the literature they put out at the time, as the declaration of war of Islam against the West.

They put it in writing. And everyone gave them the "benefit of the doubt" so they thought, "we have to convince them we are serious" so they did the WTC again, and finished the job.

Even after that, almost everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Just heard on the radio that they were all of Pakistani descent.
So, in reality they were British then? Not Asian.

So, in reality they were British then? Not Asian.
British Muslims. Asian descent (Pakistan).

People without previous bias against Muslims.
It is like defending the KKK for saying "a black guy did it!" whenever a crime comes up. Even if the crime is committed 99% of the time by black people, the KKK is not an objective source to ask to put 2 and 2 together.

Unless of course the % of times attacks have been islamic extremists is 100% and not 99%. In that case its accurate and reasonable regardless if its the KKK or the Boy Scouts making the assertion.

Especially when it says right at the beginning of the article: "strong links to Al Queada"


Yes in deed. Accept it! Terrorist acts are nearly always made by MUSLIMS!

This whole arguement is silly. Racism isnt even remotely the issue here. The issue is a crime has been committed, and a very serious one. If indeed there are a large number of Muslims involved, the FBI CIA NSA and anyone and everyone else would all logically suspect islamic militants as a PRIMARY suspicion. If they didnt they would all be fired for not doing thier job properly. If the evidence doesnt end up pointing to that then so be it and in the comming weeks and months that will become clear. But if you wanted to sit down and think, lets see 50 Muslims are suspected in a plot to blow up 6-10 planes. Lets see, Islamic terrorists have made recent reprisal threats against airlines. Now can anyone in the room be allowed to add things together without being called bigoted?
And when this argument started, we didn't know they were muslim. All we had to go was "terrorist plan foiled. Persons arrested. Planes grounded."

So pointing to muslim was premature at beast, racist at worst.

British Muslims. Asian descent (Pakistan).
Grand so. They're British.

If I go back far enough (8 generations) I'm of French descent. (Go back 15, Norse)

Its irrelevant. The men were British and they were also Muslim.

So, in reality they were British then? Not Asian.
A dog in a stable isn't a horse.

WEEHEE! Time to gang up on the pantyless one!
That line made me think B-grade porn.

Grand so. They're British.

If I go back far enough (8 generations) I'm of French descent. (Go back 15, Norse)

Its irrelevant. The men were British and they were also Muslim.
It's the same one generation removed that were involved in the tube bombings.

British Muslims of Pakistani descent (one generation removed from Pakistan).

Those who did try to take those steps ( Churchill etc ) got denounced as imperialist warmongers.... and blimey - it was AGAIN the Left who denounced the warmongers.
Around 1937, Winnie called for increasing the RAF in preparation for what would be the Blitz. And blimey - he got denounced as a warmonger. By... thre Left!

Shame you don't mention that the right did nothing as well.....

Grand so. They're British.

If I go back far enough (8 generations) I'm of French descent. (Go back 15, Norse)

Its irrelevant. The men were British and they were also Muslim.

Yet we are unlikely to find that these were British of, say, Chinese descent...

Centurion argument indeed. National Security is after all a matter under the jurisdiction of centurions + their superiors.

If you don't know SOSR, you got no business talking mines.

I didn't serve on the US marines or army, sorry.

I know what a land mine is, also a minefield, and what can happen to an infantry platoon when they enter one. I think it is all what someone can need to know to speak about an hypothetical situation on mines, not what four capital letters together means, or what is the used military code in your armed forces. I'll google it, no problem. Thanks for your uncooperation, kid.

Actually, I take the first WTC attack in 1993, along with the literature they put out at the time, as the declaration of war of Islam against the West.

They put it in writing. And everyone gave them the "benefit of the doubt" so they thought, "we have to convince them we are serious" so they did the WTC again, and finished the job.

Even after that, almost everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Maybe because the extremists that committed the attacks don't speak for all of Islam?

Shame you don't mention that the right did nothing as well.....


You mean Winston was NOT Right-Wing?

Maybe because the extremists that committed the attacks don't speak for all of Islam?
I'm not saying they speak for all of Islam.

I'm saying that all of their motivations are justified by their religious beliefs. They openly cite and admit that they are driven solely by their belief in a radical form of Islam.

You're going to call them liars? Disrespect the reason that they're doing all of this?

Unless of course the % of times attacks have been islamic extremists is 100% and not 99%. In that case its accurate and reasonable regardless if its the KKK or the Boy Scouts making the assertion.
That would be fine and dandy if the % was indeed 100%. It's not even close to 90% when you look at the global picture.

It's the same one generation removed that were involved in the tube bombings.

British Muslims of Pakistani descent (one generation removed from Pakistan).

and the link to AQ there was......?

It's the same one generation removed that were involved in the tube bombings.

British Muslims of Pakistani descent (one generation removed from Pakistan).

So, they were born in Britain. Educated in Britain. Socialised in Britain amongst others Britons.

But because their parents were from Pakistan, they can't be considered British?

Its more important to highlight whether or not they had made any recent trips to Pakistan (an ally of the US and UK in the War on Terror) as opposed to their descent.

Actually, I take the first WTC attack in 1993, along with the literature they put out at the time, as the declaration of war of Islam against the West.

They put it in writing. And everyone gave them the "benefit of the doubt" so they thought, "we have to convince them we are serious" so they did the WTC again, and finished the job.

Even after that, almost everyone is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Islam or Al Quaeda?

I'm not saying they speak for all of Islam.

I'm saying that all of their motivations are justified by their religious beliefs. They openly cite and admit that they are driven solely by their belief in a radical form of Islam.

You're going to call them liars? Disrespect the reason that they're doing all of this?

Yes because they have corrupted a faith that is as peacefull as Christianity.

Why would it be racist to assume (seemingly correctly) and then highlight the fact that people planning terrorist acts in Britain are Muslim? Given that the IRA are rather quiet at the moment, and that the majority of recent terrorist attacks in Western countries have been carried out by Islamic extremists isn't this logical:confused:. Its fine to say most terrorists are Muslim (and in Britain the majority of Muslims are Asian, so I guess most terrorists are also Asians). So obviously they're gonna be under greater suspiscion. Its only racist when someone changes the statement from "most terrorists are Muslims" to "most Muslims/Asians are terrorists" because that is evidently untrue.

So, they were born in Britain. Educated in Britain. Socialised in Britain amongst others Britons.

But because their parents were from Pakistan, they can't be considered British?

Its more important to highlight whether or not they had made any recent trips to Pakistan (an ally of the US and UK in the War on Terror) as opposed to their descent.

While I was in London, I spent a lot of time hanging around the Finsbury Park mosque.

If those people I met there (mostly British Muslims of Pakistani descent) are "socialized among Britons" and have truly assimilated their beliefs with common British culture, I'll expose my colon on the Internet.

Islam or Al Quaeda?

I'd say 'Arab High Command'

With thanks to Irshad Manji.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312327005/104-9409642-4167924?v=glance&n=283155

That would be fine and dandy if the % was indeed 100%. It's not even close to 90% when you look at the global picture.

Well i was thinking of the US perspective and i cant even remember one Muslim in modern US history that committed real terrorism vs the United States and it wasnt for religious reasons. So from my own perspective, these planes were headed to the United States, so im looking at US history. So to assume that Muslims that are attacking us are religious zealots is a rational and reasonable conclusion to draw. Its not biggoted nor racist.

Yes because they have corrupted a faith that is as peacefull as Christianity.
If you truly believe that, go down to the Finsbury Park mosque, tap a few of the people there on the shoulder (make sure they're Muslim), and tell them you're a Jew from Israel.

You'll find out how peaceful the religion is.

While I was in London, I spent a lot of time hanging around the Finsbury Park mosque.

If those people I met there (mostly British Muslims of Pakistani descent) are "socialized among Britons" and have truly assimilated their beliefs with common British culture, I'll expose my colon on the Internet.
Are you saying that the perpetrators of this are linked to the Finsbury Park mosque? If so, link/source?

Less important is their religion. More important are their activities leading up to this.

People without previous bias against Muslims.
It is like defending the KKK for saying "a black guy did it!" whenever a crime comes up. Even if the crime is committed 99% of the time by black people, the KKK is not an objective source to ask to put 2 and 2 together.
If 99% of crime is committed by black people, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this crime was probably committed by a black person. Even if the KKK are saying it as well.

If you speak to a Chenchen I am sure they would say that Putin and the Russian Army were terrorists and committed the largest atrocities in their country.
Terrorists can't be government agencies, by definition.

Back then, it wasn't. I guess you take 9/11 as the declaration of war of the islam against the rest of the world, no?
"war of the islam", wtf? Islam isn't engaged in a war. A few terrorist groups think they are.

*yawn* Whereupon I would stay that ANY Chechen who doesn't do unwavering allegiance to Holy Mother Orthodox Russia, the beloved Rodina, is a traitor who does not merit living.
The Chechens have a right to self-determination. Russia is and always has been an imperialist country.

So, in reality they were British then? Not Asian.
British ciizenship, Asian ethnicity.

If 99% of crime is committed by black people, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that this crime was probably committed by a black person. Even if the KKK are saying it as well.
Entirely irrelevant. The KKK saying it doesn't make it untrue, but the KKK should not be approached to make the assesment because they are pre-biased.

"war of the islam", wtf? Islam isn't engaged in a war. A few terrorist groups think they are.


another dull knife in the NSG drawer, no?

Entirely irrelevant. SNIP

2 words that descibe whatever you post.

*gets ready for more potshots at pantyless*

If you truly believe that, go down to the Finsbury Park mosque, tap a few of the people there on the shoulder (make sure they're Muslim), and tell them you're a Jew from Israel.

You'll find out how peaceful the religion is.
You could probably go to some fundie Baptist church in the US South, say the same thing and get the same reaction. It doesn't mean Christianity isn't a peaceful religion, it just means that those Christians are not.

Entirely irrelevant. The KKK saying it doesn't make it untrue, but the KKK should not be approached to make the assesment because they are pre-biased.
I haven't seen that many blacks who, when reminded of the continued existence of the KKK, are willing to give too many white people the "benefit of the doubt".

In fact, part and parcel of black politics in America is to solely concentrate on how they are being subjugated by whites, even if it's not happenning.

British citizenship, Asian ethnicity.
I don't see how ethnicity should be a deciding factor in this.

Looking at where they went, who they met with, who they talked to, who supplied them etc etc is all highly more relevant to their ethnic background.

I don't see how ethnicity should be a deciding factor in this.

Looking at where they went, where they go, who they talked to, who supplied them etc etc is all highly more relevant to their ethnic background.

Actually thier ethnic background has a HUGE influence on exactly that. Who they meet with, who they talk to, who supplies them etc...

I don't see how ethnicity should be a deciding factor in this.

Looking at where they went, who they met with, who they talked to, who supplied them etc etc is all highly more relevant to their ethnic background.

Which mosque they went to is pretty important.

*yawn* Whereupon I would stay that ANY Chechen who doesn't do unwavering allegiance to Holy Mother Orthodox Russia, the beloved Rodina, is a traitor who does not merit living.

Run that by me again please?

My use of the Chechen example is to highlight that terror is an imotive term and can be used to discribe (or even proscribe) many activities.

I haven't seen that many blacks who, when reminded of the continued existence of the KKK, are willing to give too many white people the "benefit of the doubt".

In fact, part and parcel of black politics in America is to solely concentrate on how they are being subjugated by whites, even if it's not happenning.
Way off-topic.

Actually thier ethnic background has a HUGE influence on exactly that. Who they meet with, who they talk to, who supplies them etc...
Why? Why does being the descendant of a Pakistani have anything to do with the fact they (probably) went for schooling in the heartland of modern Islamic Extremism and also a key US/UK ally in the War on Terror. Egyptians, Yemeni's, Qatari's, Saudi's all went to Pakistan but they weren't descended from Pakistani's.


Which mosque they went to is pretty important.
Yes it does. That doesn't have anything to do with them being descended from Pakistani's though.

Run that by me again please?

My use of the Chechen example is to highlight that terror is an imotive term and can be used to discribe (or even proscribe) many activities.


Sedition against central authority?

I don't care if it is klukkers, tamil tigers, chechens, PIRAs, Booby Lee's or non-aligners.
I don't care what rights you argue till you're blue in the face.

Sedition must be rooted out.

Yes it does. That doesn't have anything to do with them being descended from Pakistani's though.

I usually assume that if you're from Iran, that you're a Shia, but I'll be sure to ask. And if you're from Pakistan, I assume you're a Sunni, but I'll be sure to ask.

Even if you've lived in Britain for 40 years, I'll be assuming that you're a Muslim if your parents were from Pakistan, and I'll be sure to verify it.

Then I'll want to know what mosque you went to.

How that is racist or bigoted is beyond me.

Unequivocally so. I dislike apologists as a matter of course, however Islamic apologists are insipid. What physical transgressions has the west committed to incite such terrorism? The crusades? In which case Russia, as the inheritor of the Byzantine orthodoxy, in entitled to seize the holy land. Purchase their oil? How very nasty people we truly are. Dare to have a culture that contravenes their anachronistic bilge?

It may not be completely confirmed, but there is about a 99% chance that they are radical Islamists.

Even if you've lived in Britain for 40 years, I'll be assuming that you're a Muslim if your parents were from Pakistan, and I'll be sure to verify it.
Yes, but I don't see how their ethnicity is relevant to their actions. Their actions are relevant to their actions...if you get me.

For instance, Andre Shoukri and his brother Ihab sound like perfect Egyptian terrorists. And they are.

Except they now head the Loyalist terrorist group the UFF in Northern Ireland. The fact they are from Egypt is irrelevant, their ethnicity is irrelevant, their actions are.

Then I'll want to know what mosque you went to.
Grand. I have no problem with that.


How that is racist or bigoted is beyond me.
:confused: I never said it was.

Why? Why does being the descendant of a Pakistani have anything to do with the fact they (probably) went for schooling in the heartland of modern Islamic Extremism and also a key US/UK ally in the War on Terror. Egyptians, Yemeni's, Qatari's, Saudi's all went to Pakistan but they weren't descended from Pakistani's.


Yes it does. That doesn't have anything to do with them being descended from Pakistani's though.

Your ethnicity probably determines your neighborhood and your neighboors and subsequently your friends, your religion and probably an entire set of beliefs. Immigrants from poorer countries tend to stay in communities with thier similar ethnicity as a support system. Following where people go may answer your question of Whos , deternmining thier ethnicity MAY help the Western authorities answer the Whys.

Also remember Pakistan doesnt really have broad support from its people regarding alliance with the US and Britian, so what Pakistani religious positions are as a whole id guess were VERY different from the official Pakistani government position on things.

Your ethnicity probably determines your neighborhood and your neighboors and subsequently your friends, your religion and probably an entire set of beliefs. Immigrants from poorer countries tend to stay in communities with thier similar ethnicity as a support system. Following where people go may answer your question of Whos , deternmining thier ethnicity MAY help the Western authorities answer the Whys.

Also remember Pakistan doesnt really have broad support from its people regarding alliance with the US and Britian, so what Pakistani religious positions are as a whole id guess were VERY different from the official Pakistani government position on things.
Not to mention that what the Pakistani government says is often very different from what it does. It has no problem with allowing the Taliban to operate in the tribal areas and supports terrorist organisations like LeT.

Yes, but I don't see how their ethnicity is relevant to their actions. Their actions are relevant to their actions...if you get me.

For instance, Andre Shoukri and his brother Ihab sound like perfect Egyptian terrorists. And they are.

Except they now head the Loyalist terrorist group the UFF in Northern Ireland. The fact they are from Egypt is irrelevant, their ethnicity is irrelevant, their actions are.


Grand. I have no problem with that.


:confused: I never said it was.

The ethnicity and religion is a starting point, and a valid one to start with. Sure, it requires verification that it's relevant. But you can't dismiss it at the beginning without verification.

Pantless thinks that any examination of someone's religion or ethnicity is bigoted and racist, and should never be done.

Sedition against central authority?

I don't care if it is klukkers, tamil tigers, chechens, PIRAs, Booby Lee's or non-aligners.
I don't care what rights you argue till you're blue in the face.

Sedition must be rooted out.

OK...but you do realise that Chechenya had declared its independence in 91 and in 92 the Russians granted independence to Ingushetia (western Chechenya I think)... so the idea of sedition is moot...otherwise you would have to say the same to every other country that broke from the CIS...

Sedition (if you live in the UK) is what gave us our democracy...or would you rather live in a pre-fudal state?

OK...but you do realise that Chechenya had declared its independence in 91 and in 92 the Russians granted independence to Ingushetia (western Chechenya I think)... so the idea of sedition is moot...otherwise you would have to say the same to every other country that broke from the CIS...

Sedition (if you live in the UK) is what gave us our democracy...or would you rather live in a pre-fudal state?


Sedition is ok if you accept the violence that will come, and the very real possibility that you will lose.

You also have to figure that if you lose, the winner will be fucking pissed, and ream you out. And you'll have to accept that.

Sedition is great when you win, and it is worse than anything if you lose.

OK...but you do realise that Chechenya had declared its independence in 91 and in 92 the Russians granted independence to Ingushetia (western Chechenya I think)... so the idea of sedition is moot...otherwise you would have to say the same to every other country that broke from the CIS...

Sedition (if you live in the UK) is what gave us our democracy...or would you rather live in a pre-fudal state?


Sedition exists whenever you fail to kowtow to the center.

Is the success of a crime its justification?

Sedition exists whenever you fail to kowtow to the center.

Is the success of a crime its justification?

Ask Cromwell....

Sedition against central authority?

I don't care if it is klukkers, tamil tigers, chechens, PIRAs, Booby Lee's or non-aligners.
I don't care what rights you argue till you're blue in the face.

Sedition must be rooted out.
White Rose?

Come on, not all governments are right. Some of them deserve to be attacked and overthrown.

Ask Cromwell....


Or Ieyasu Tokugawa.

There is no excuse fo rebellion - UNLESS you become the new overlord.

White Rose?

Come on, not all governments are right. Some of them deserve to be attacked and overthrown.

By their peers.
See, that's what happened in Iraq.
Bush did to Saddam what the Academy does to fossils about to retire: hand 'em a life-time-achievement-award.

By their peers.
See, that's what happened in Iraq.
Bush did to Saddam what the Academy does to fossils about to retire: hand 'em a life-time-achievement-award.

Hang on, do you not believe that the citizens of a democracy are equal to its leaders?

Or Ieyasu Tokugawa.

There is no excuse fo rebellion - UNLESS you become the new overlord.

Or if you are suicidal...or think that your progeny will continue the struggle...

By their peers.
Not at all. If the majority of people don't like their tyrannical government they have every right to overthrow it, because the purpose of government is to serve the majority of the people.

Hang on, do you not believe that the citizens of a democracy are equal to its leaders?

The nice thing about Democracy is that we can remove tiresome leaders without committing the detestable crime of sedition. I love Democracy.

The nice thing about Democracy is that we can remove tiresome leaders without committing the detestable crime of sedition. I love Democracy.

Can we? There is a 5 year election cycle in the UK, a government could get up to alot of nonsense in that time and we may need to remove them. Democracies don't always remain so.

Can we? There is a 5 year election cycle in the UK, a government could get up to alot of nonsense in that time and we may need to remove them. Democracies don't always remain so.

In the times between, we write letters to editors.
We don't massacre a couple of hundred schoolchildren as the Chechens did.

Or if you are suicidal...or think that your progeny will continue the struggle...

Suicide appears to be an Al Qaeda thingy. Even spineless Bak lost the faith in that..

Not at all. If the majority of people don't like their tyrannical government they have every right to overthrow it, because the purpose of government is to serve the majority of the people.

No it is not. The mandate of government is to serve the interests of the state. Serving the interests of the majority is tantamount to demagoguery, and assuming you have actually read Athenian democracy, a precedent to political collapse.

In the times between, we write letters to editors.
We don't massacre a couple of hundred schoolchildren as the Chechens did.

Depends on the nonsense. Iraq was technically a democracy under Saddam but I wouldn't argue that those civilians had no right to rebel.

Not at all. If the majority of people don't like their tyrannical government they have every right to overthrow it, because the purpose of government is to serve the majority of the people.

Lt. Col. Fremantle merely hummed without affirming this.
I go further, and raise an eyebrow in disaproval of that theory.
I don't like it, therefore I overthrow this principle that you would have govern me.

Depends on the nonsense. Iraq was technically a democracy under Saddam but I wouldn't argue that those civilians had no right to rebel.

To make matters technical, we sent in a Coalition of the Willing, and handed Saddam a Life Time Achievement Award for Nonsense.

To make matters technical, we sent in a Coalition of the Willing, and handed Saddam a Life Time Achievement Award for Nonsense.

You were/are being bullied as a child weren't you?

You were/are being bullied as a child weren't you?

Is that another fartsniffing irrelevancy?

Is that another fartsniffing irrelevancy?

Yes, it's up there with handing out lifetime achievement awards.