British muslims protest Bin ladens death

[human151]

right outside the US embassy. Burning the US flag and chanting "USA you will pay".


THis is insulting as an American and as a human being, that these people would protest because a Mass murderer was killed.

Wow, muslims are nice.

Its also really insulting that these protests would come form the U.K., the closest friend of the USA. The country we are most culturally similar with. Simply amazing the british people would do something like this.

So....you are all probably going to sauy that there is nothing wrong with these muslims protesting this issue, huh?

[human151]

The bin Laden supporters waved banners reading "US govt are the real terrorists" and US leaders were branded "murderers" by the radicals, who warned revenge attacks were "guaranteed".




"It is only a matter of time before another atrocity -- the West is the enemy," Abu Muaz, 28, from east London, said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is brilliant.

[stimpee]

These people are idiots. there have been interviews with a lot of British muslims on UK TV over the past week and they are distancing themselves from brainless morons like these.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Tell me about it. Don't these people have something more productive to do with their time?? I mean, have you heard of the SLUT PRIDE PARADES?? Now THAT'S a parade I could get into . . .

[Deckard]

Tthere have been interviews with a lot of British muslims on UK TV over the past week and they are distancing themselves from brainless morons like these.
You do realise he's not listening, right?

[Sean]

So....you are all probably going to sauy that there is nothing wrong with these muslims protesting this issue, huh?

Nope. What I'll say is that...


Wow, muslims are nice.

...labeling Muslims as a whole because of the actions of some is unfounded.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Yeah, I mean, the same could said about White Conservatives. That just ain't right.

[human151]

Yeah, I mean, the same could said about White Conservatives. That just ain't right.

yeah, because white conservative hijack passenger jets and fly them into buildings, they also kidnap journalists and film themselves cutting their heads off, oh and white conservatives yell "god is great" before they blow themselves up while in the middle of a crowd. Oh, I'm sorry, did I mean to say muslims did all those things? Yeah.

I find it hysterical that most who browse this board will go out of their way to be try to PC.

SOme, like the poster above me even equates MUSLIMS terrorists with "white conservatives" lol. How can you even take an opinion like that seriously.

I find it hilarious that sometimes religious christians are mocked by liberals and made fun of generally, but generally, the muslim religion in 10x as strict on most things religion bleeds into the everyday life of most muslims, but liberals give them a pass. Its as if liberals will be on the side of whomever is perceived to be the victim.

Its pretty sad that even the of the biggest liberals even talks about muslims

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ipp-l_32M8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13_QBC63UFk&feature=related

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

They ARE quite famous with putting words in peoples mouths, that's fer shuuuure.

I never said any of those words you just typed right there. ???? Allow me to try to spell it out to ya, yeah?

This part hear in Sean's posting(sorry about the non-craftyness in the internets labeling thingys here((((LONG STORY))))):

***labeling Muslims as a whole because of the actions of some is unfounded.***

Hope that worked, I CAN'T BELIEVE I'M HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH HUMAN151!!!! ALL Y'ALL SUUUUUUCK, 151 TALKED TO MEEEEEE!!! LOLOLOL

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I just thought of a better comparison. Not ALL White Conservatives suck dong in bathrooms or crystal meth. orgy type sexual encounters.

Seeee?

But they do still live in comfort even if they do. So it's all good. *THUMBS UP!*

[Professor]

If I may....

The one thing that stands out to me is that "hate" protesting was allowed. In the US, hate crimes...that is to say, those that are crimes of pure hatred and disrespect toward a particular group of people, (black, white, gay, straight, Christian, Muslim..you get the point) are not tolerated. Neither are gatherings of hate. For example... you can't gather publicly and start chanting about how much hate _______ people, and that they should all be killed or hurt. You can air your grievances, but you can't incite people to go out and do harm. You do have the freedom to complain, but you can't yell "fire" in a movie theater and cause a panic and then defend yourself with the free speech argument.
In my opinion, protesting the killing of Bin Laden is an agreeable protest... I mean, how could it not be.. it's a very touchy subject with many sides. Did he deserve to die? Probably. Is it our government's responsibility to actually seek out and kill him... gray area. Will we all be safer because he's dead.... probably not. The point is, that many people will have many different opinions about it, and they all have the right to gather and holler about it.... but what they can't, or should I say, shouldn't do, is start saying things like "the West will pay" and "kill americans" and so on. Those are threats, and rooted in hate, and in this country that sort of thing wouldn't be tolerated.

I quote Dave Chapelle "If you've got hate in your heart... LET IT OUT"

Carry on...

Side note. If you are under the age of 18, what the hell do you know?

[bryantm3]

Side note. If you are under the age of 18, what the hell do you know?


how'd you find out he was under 18?

it seems his sub-title says 'deletion'. i hope he made it that versus someone banning him or deleting him— i don't agree with banning anyone that i don't agree with.

back to the main subject— those people are jerks and should probably go back home where they'll be happier being certifiably insane.

i think the reason people disagree with you, human151, is that you seem to stereotype the entire religion as having the same views as the extremists, saying "muslims" as a whole. we don't disagree with you that the people carrying out these protests are motherfuckers. but we do disagree with lumping them in with a group of 1.2 billion people and calling them all the same thing— many of us have muslim friends that carry out some degree of observance, and we can guarantee you that none of them are terrorists or would go to a protest against osama's being killed.

are you familiar with fred phelps, the G-d hates fags guy? it would be like me saying that all christians are like him, homophobic, anti-america, hate-mongering, etc., when obviously that isn't the case. but put yourself into the shoes of someone in, say, indonesia, where there is a low christian population. who's going to make the news over there, the christian who minds his own business and performs acts of love, or fred phelps? the opposite is true about muslims— you hear about this group of muslims overseas who are completely evil, and you associate all muslims with that group because you aren't famiiar with that group.

let's phrase this a different way. you order pizza from domino's all the time, and don't get sick. tonight you order a pizza from domino's, with your favourite toppings on it, pepperoni, onions and red pepper. but tonight, you decide to try something different— tonight you decide to add anchovies to your pizza. the pizza arrives, you eat it, and go to sleep. at 4 AM you wake up and puke all over the floor.

now here's the question: what made you sick?

your gut reaction is the anchovies, right? because you weren't familiar with them and you figured they were the thing that made you sick.

well, it turns out the pepperoni was what made you sick because they left it out all night and it got gooey and gross.

but i promise you won't think of that first. that's basically how you're interpreting the actions of these muslims overseas— you aren't familiar with the group so you lump them all into one big group.

here's a final question for you. there are 1.2 billion muslims in the world, the largest religious group second only to christians at around 2.1 billion. if all muslims are terrorists, or associated with terrorists, why aren't we all fucking dead?

[Deckard]

Prof and Bryant - well said, chaps.

Its also really insulting that these protests would come form the U.K., the closest friend of the USA. The country we are most culturally similar with. Simply amazing the british people would do something like this.
^^ This one's a classic even by your standards!

So....you are all probably going to sauy that there is nothing wrong with these muslims protesting this issue, huh?
Protest = fine.

Incitement to violence = not fine.

These protestors overstepped the mark into incitement ("USA you will pay") so yes, I see plenty wrong with what they were doing.

If however you're asking whether we agree with the object of the protest - do we agree that the killing of OBL was wrong... well it's true that I'm not entirely comfortable with state-sponsored assassination per se - but try as I might, I'm struggling to shed any tears about this one. Nope. Nothing but dry eyes here. In fact, how do I feel about bin Laden no longer being around? Pretty damn good. If we're to believe what we've been told by the US, then I think the way it was carried out was brave and appropriate. I give far more of a shit about the hundreds of innocent Pakistani and Afghan civilians who have been killed by US drone attacks than I do about the death of OBL. The world is better off without him.

SOme, like the poster above me even equates MUSLIMS terrorists with "white conservatives" lol.
I think the point jOHN was trying to make was that generalizing about over a billion Muslims is as daft as generalizing about white conservatives. I don't believe there was any serious attempt by jOHN to suggest that flying planes into skyscrapers, killing thousands of people, and beheading innocent tourists is no worse than a Republican congressman preaching family values while secretly sucking the saucy sausage in an airport bathroom. Seriously. But then you already knew that, didn't you? You were just pretending he was making a more direct moral equivalence so that you could attack him for that instead. Which is pretty weak of you.

[Professor]

For the record, I didn't know anything about 151's age... it just seemed like a childish way of approaching this particular topic.

I think there are some great debates here if people are willing to get into the conversation thoughtfully... think about it before you go off. My quip about being under 18 applies to many here on these forums who are just kids being stupid not h151 in particular. If I had to guess, I'd say there's a troll in the basement.

[Professor]

and to be honest... I'm kinda feeling the same thing, Deckard--not sure about state sponsored assassination, but not really upset that he's dead. I think that I'd just rather not know. Sorry to say, that when it comes to killing the bad guy... ding dong the witch is dead works for me.. and when they ask how.... I'd just rather believe a house fell on him.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Everybody just ignore all the angles, diatribe, ethos, etc. in all the above and refer to my example. It's quick and to the point. And if you still don't get it, you're stupid or something. Get tutoring.


. . . But then you already knew that, didn't you? You were just pretending he was making a more direct moral equivalence so that you could attack him for that instead. Which is pretty weak of you.

Wait, for reals? What an a-hole, I thought there was something special about me.

[Professor]

hey john... cmnd/B dude.

[bryantm3]

For the record, I didn't know anything about 151's age... it just seemed like a childish way of approaching this particular topic.

I think there are some great debates here if people are willing to get into the conversation thoughtfully... think about it before you go off. My quip about being under 18 applies to many here on these forums who are just kids being stupid not h151 in particular. If I had to guess, I'd say there's a troll in the basement.

i'm not too eager to jump on someone because of their age— i'm 21, and so many times i have been put aside in debates by people older than me simply by "you're not even drinking age yet, what do you know?", which typically happened when i made a good point and they could no longer defend their position. it's an ad-persona argument which i try to avoid at all costs— they aren't really relevant and detract from the issue at hand.


and for the record i don't get the two posts above me.

[Future Proof]

The people that protested and burnt US flags, as well as those that committed acts of terror on 9/11 aren't fit to be called Muslims. They're practicing from an extremist's point of view, an interpretation that unfortunately spawned the idea that killing in the name of Allah was acceptable.

It's like insinuating that the wonderful folk of Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians. The WBC folk happen to pray to the same God, but from there it gets all convoluted and everyone seems to calmly recognize this.

Come on Arab Spring!

[Professor]

cmnd/b = toggle bold type face.

Future Proof... I agree.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

The people that protested and burnt US flags, as well as those that committed acts of terror on 9/11 aren't fit to be called Muslims. They're practicing from an extremist's point of view, an interpretation that unfortunately spawned the idea that killing in the name of Allah was acceptable.

It's like insinuating that the wonderful folk of Westboro Baptist Church speak for all Christians. The WBC folk happen to pray to the same God, but from there it gets all convoluted and everyone seems to calmly recognize this.

Come on Arab Spring!


Yeah, I shoulda used this example as it doesn't bring in all the extra ??? that go along with gay people. Or something I guess.

I just wanted to get a jab into gay people I hate, and their hypocrite political butt buddies that apparently love them for lying too if it means being all "Straight Ahead". (wink, wink, - I don't WANT your kind to like me).

[//\/\/]

(I notice tit-for-brains left the discussion...)

[Sean]

I find it hysterical that most who browse this board will go out of their way to be try to PC. It's not being PC to acknowledge the simple truth that the worst members of any group do not inherently represent that group as a whole. For instance, you frequent the Dirty forums, and yet you are clearly not representative of the group as a whole.

[//\/\/]

I find it hysterical that a bigotted, racist twat drops in with streams of drivel.

potatoes/potatos etc...

[Deckard]

I find it hysterical that a bigotted, racist twat drops in with streams of drivel.
I don't think he's bigoted or racist. Just strangely dim for a grown man. It's half capitalism-gone-right, and half evolution-gone-wrong. One of the key things that usually makes more evolved humans stand apart from beasts is their ability (and desire) to move beyond such simplistic tribal views. But there is a percentage of the human population who, for whatever reason, seem to struggle with anything that isn't a stark black and white view of the world - hence the oversimplistic-to-the-point-of-inaccurate generalisations. I don't think it's malice as such, it's just his brain wired up a different way to most grown-ups. All the Homer Simpson-isms ("So I guess you all think.... huh???) are just his unending frustration with himself.

Or maybe he really does have a tit for a brain...

[bryantm3]

okay, y'all this is not appropriate. he has a different view from us— it's not right to insult him on a personal level and cite evolutionary theory as to why you think he's an idiot. my mother has an IQ of 156 and she believes this shite. just because someone is misguided does not give us carte blanche to insult him. let's stick to the issues, okay?

[//\/\/]

bollocks to that - he wants straight talking. my view of him isn't just from this crap, but also from previous 'discussions'. I stand by every word. anyway - seems like he's trolled off.

[Deckard]

I'm willing to forgive ignorance, I'm just less forgiving of wilful ignorance.

I'm also willing to overlook the odd lapse in judgment, the odd uncalled-for sarcasm or inappropriateness. We all sink to it from time to time. But not nearly all the time. And not directed at everyone else in the very first post of a thread, as with this one. And not in direct response to polite and thoughtful posts from your opponents, as in other threads. Where's the basic courtesy there? Where's the engagement? People here have shown unbending patience with the guy over the years - certainly at the outset of a thread, when he's always had the benefit of the doubt. And it doesn't change a thing.

How many times has he come out with not just an ignorant comment but an offensively ignorant one - absolutely stupid inflammatory remarks that usually begin with "So you're happy for...."? And then one of us will type a careful response, whether brief or at length - and he just proceeds to make a new point or posts a new link, without acknowledging what's been said? It's like he doesn't WANT to engage. You can only treat your opponents like that so many times before people stop taking you seriously.

IQ is irrelevant. This isn't just about his ignorance, and it's certainly not about someone having a different point of view. It's about a more general attitude.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I remember the Sarc-B calling the 151 guy out a while back on the same thing. Honestly, I don't really remember much of what he's said before. But, I mean, I'm not hear as much as it may appear. This is the only fun place to talk trash on political topics that's actually FUN. For me at least.

[bryantm3]

over the years??? this guy (almost typed goy lol) has only made posts of this type for the past few months. he's only got 30 posts total, most of which are just replies to other posts about video games, movies, etc. your patience is awfully short! if we reduce ourselves to that kind of level so quickly we are pretty much taking our "open-mindedness" argument, lighting it on fire, stomping on it, and then running over it with a ford taurus. i can understand offering explanations, arguments, and good debate, but i don't see the point in running someone down because they have made a couple of posts wherein his misguided opinions are honestly not uncommon in this time period, and generally supported by the mainstream media. if he doesn't reply to our posts, fine, but why turn this into a bashing thread? just let it go, jeez!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

over the years??? this guy (almost typed goy lol) has only made posts of this type for the past few months. he's only got 30 posts total, most of which are just replies to other posts about video games, movies, etc. your patience is awfully short! if we reduce ourselves to that kind of level so quickly we are pretty much taking our "open-mindedness" argument, lighting it on fire, stomping on it, and then running over it with a ford taurus. i can understand offering explanations, arguments, and good debate, but i don't see the point in running someone down because they have made a couple of posts wherein his misguided opinions are honestly not uncommon in this time period, and generally supported by the mainstream media. if he doesn't reply to our posts, fine, but why turn this into a bashing thread? just let it go, jeez!



HEY! "Goy" should be the internet word for when you don't know if a person is male or female!!

However much I've always "trusted" B's opinion, I'm kinda in agreement with bryantm3. Do I REALLY need to go all stalker and read all his past posts? tf? I'll just hold my opinion for now. I mean it's not like you guys were never c.s.rs to me. Maybe he's all sensitive though.

[bryantm3]

goy is already a word! good suggestion, though.

[Deckard]

your patience is awfully short!
Na, your memory is awfully short! He goes back way before the post counter was reset.

// EDIT: I am deleting the rest of what I wrote. Explaining it to you is unavoidably continuing a critique of the guy, and I don't want to go over the top with him ;)

[stimpee]

human151 does get everyone going tho :)

[Sean]

over the years??? this guy (almost typed goy lol) has only made posts of this type for the past few months. he's only got 30 posts total, most of which are just replies to other posts about video games, movies, etc. your patience is awfully short! if we reduce ourselves to that kind of level so quickly we are pretty much taking our "open-mindedness" argument, lighting it on fire, stomping on it, and then running over it with a ford taurus. i can understand offering explanations, arguments, and good debate, but i don't see the point in running someone down because they have made a couple of posts wherein his misguided opinions are honestly not uncommon in this time period, and generally supported by the mainstream media. if he doesn't reply to our posts, fine, but why turn this into a bashing thread? just let it go, jeez!
Human has indeed been around for a few years. Maybe his account was re-set at some point or something, but it's been a slow and steady flow of inanity from the start.

[//\/\/]

bryantm3 - like deckard and sean say; this isn't new... anyway - OOOH LOOK - A GOAT!

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

goy is already a word! good suggestion, though.


Oh, I did not know that. My bad.

[human151]

human151 does get everyone going tho :)

which is 50% of my purpose here. You all are pretty much on the same page, politically. I just try to stir things up a bit, form time to time. The other 50% of my purpose is to play devils advocate in a way. You all want to believe that most people are great and everyone loves everyone else, and that the specific groups of people that are causing issues around the world are just a small amount and its really no big deal.

Well, yes it is statistically a small amount of people, I am not ignorant enough to believe that all muslims are horrible people. I am not ignorant enough to believe that half of all muslims are bad. I am not ignoratn enough to believe that even 15% percent are bad. But I am intelligent enough to believe (and admit) that even though the number of muslims which act in a ill manner are statistically minute, it still equals a significant amount of people. Also, even if the amount of muslims which actually kidnap people and cut their heads off is small, there are much more people that support their ideology. If that were not so, then tehy would have been marginalized a long time ago. Instead, they are popular enough, and are able to get the funding, to continue to drag out two wars against the most powerful Nations on earth. Obviously, are marginalized group would not be able to do that.

Imagine some crack pot group of christian zealots waging war for 10 years against the combined power of the United States and England, et al....that would not happen, because these morons could neither get the finding nor popular support to do it. They'd be wiped out in days, if not hours. But, the muslims you people hold so dear and say have only minimal support, are able to wage war against the most powerful nations on earth, for what, 10 years now? Be honest, could a group of religious zealots do this if they did not have widespread support, politically and financially.

As for "british people Protesting" yes, it was inflammatory. I knew that when I started the thread. Be honest, who, besides me gets good threadds going which are good arguments? NO one, everyone usually agrees with each other (you people know that is true). Yes, I am also a bit angry at The UK. Your society allows unimpeded immigration to your country by people who would get angry about my country killing a mass murderer. How much blood was on the hands of Bin Laden? And your citizens are protesting against my country for killing a man like that? Did these same british citizens protest on 7/7? Did they protest when the horrors of innocent brits bleeding to death because thy had their legs blown off then bled to death? No, your citizens did not. But they did protest when the man responsible for inspiring the attacks was killed. That is grotesque. Do you think The morons who carried out the attacks would have carried it out if they did were not inspired by al qaeda?

But im the one getting called out when I bring it to the spotlight. Instead of hating on me, you people should be calling up your MP's to get these idiots deported. But no...theyre not the problem, I am. lulz.

Hte all you want, Ive been here a long time and unless stimpee or som administrator bans me again, I'll continue to pop up from time to time.

And if I were under 18 the I would have to have been what, 9 when I started posting?

Some of you only see things through your world view.

[Sean]

You all want to believe that most people are great and everyone loves everyone else, and that the specific groups of people that are causing issues around the world are just a small amount and its really no big deal. Who said anything of the sort?

Well, yes it is statistically a small amount of people, I am not ignorant enough to believe that all muslims are horrible people. I am not ignorant enough to believe that half of all muslims are bad. I am not ignoratn enough to believe that even 15% percent are bad. But I am intelligent enough to believe (and admit) that even though the number of muslims which act in a ill manner are statistically minute, it still equals a significant amount of people. THAT'S what we've all been saying. CONSISTANTLY!

But im the one getting called out when I bring it to the spotlight. Instead of hating on me, you people should be calling up your MP's to get these idiots deported. But no...theyre not the problem, I am. lulz.No,you get called out for misrepresenting everyone here's words (see beginning of my reply) and NOT showing the subtlety of thought that you've finally shown a brief glimmer of just above.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

yeah, yeah, yeah, but.......am I special?

K, have fun guys you won't hear from me for a while. I'll be back to wreck havoc on your intellects in a few weeks.

[bryantm3]

Well, yes it is statistically a small amount of people, I am not ignorant enough to believe that all muslims are horrible people. I am not ignorant enough to believe that half of all muslims are bad. I am not ignoratn enough to believe that even 15% percent are bad. But I am intelligent enough to believe (and admit) that even though the number of muslims which act in a ill manner are statistically minute, it still equals a significant amount of people. Also, even if the amount of muslims which actually kidnap people and cut their heads off is small, there are much more people that support their ideology. If that were not so, then tehy would have been marginalized a long time ago. Instead, they are popular enough, and are able to get the funding, to continue to drag out two wars against the most powerful Nations on earth. Obviously, are marginalized group would not be able to do that.

Imagine some crack pot group of christian zealots waging war for 10 years against the combined power of the United States and England, et al....that would not happen, because these morons could neither get the finding nor popular support to do it. They'd be wiped out in days, if not hours. But, the muslims you people hold so dear and say have only minimal support, are able to wage war against the most powerful nations on earth, for what, 10 years now? Be honest, could a group of religious zealots do this if they did not have widespread support, politically and financially.

actually you make a good point, here. this is actually what i thought before i went to a convention a couple of years ago in dunwoody georgia of political scientists and economists that study terror groups and gangs across the globe.

i was under the impression that al qaeda is an expensive organization to run, but it turns out that's not really true: they only need (and i'm ballparking here, i don't remember the exact number but it was surprisingly low) $15,000 USD to keep their organization running. and once you think about it, it actually becomes quite obvious that they would not need a lot of money. although you state that they are waging war, that isn't really accurate— we aren't in constant combat with them, which would make them continuously need weapons and ammunition to the degree that a country would. the only time they come out of their rathole in pakistan/afghanistan is to commit a terrorist attack on a foreign country— they maybe do this 1-2 times a year and it takes a lot of planning for them to carry this out, because they bypass the rules of war and sneak in to kill innocent people. how much do you think it costs to have a few guys fly in planes around the US to examine existing security protocol? the price of a plane ticket.

that's what was so fucked up, we were going about our daily lives and relying on the golden rule for the airlines, for the most part. there wasn't any need to strip search everyone. they took our leniency and kindness and exploited it. it didn't cost them much at all— all they had to do was get the guys on the planes. that's what's so scary about them— they don't need any money at all to commit such terrorist attacks. the london, madrid bombings, weren't committed with complex machinery or nuclear material, they were things like pipe bombs and hand made explosives that you can make fairly inexpensively.

and then afterwards, they go back into another country with tons of caves and hideouts and it's impossible to find them *because* there are so few of them and *because* they don't exchange a lot of money.

the thing that got them so enabled to operate was the internet in the late 1990s. completely anonymous, cheap communication through e-mail accounts and non-ip-based file sharing for more heinous materials. it instantly connected them so they were able to carry out acts like this and communicate quickly with each other while the attacks were being carried out.

this is versus a gang, such as the triads or the yakuza who make their living off of crime— their goal is a lot of money and they make it any way they can. al qaeda doesn't operate like this— they don't want money, they just want you dead. the fact that they have that kind of motivation makes them an extremely dangerous and effective organization, because unlike an economic venture, where you can always get out, they have their "religion" (or so they believe) at stake, which gives them the kind of commitment that you don't even find with political movements. it's not money or funding that makes them dangerous— it's their mindset.

[//\/\/]

...which is why efforts get focussed at cutting off their supply of willing cannon-fodder. It takes an awful lot for somebody to be willing to give up their life - but a short life of constant propaganda and indoctrination can sway people of any argument. If all you've ever hear *ever* is that X hates you, Y is the correct way to act and Z will be your eternal reward, then matrydom suddenly becomes a viable life-choice.

This is applicable globally. Unless people get to see more sides, those who control the information flow will always be able to exploit it. From a radical mullah through to Glen Beck...

[Deckard]

But I am intelligent enough to believe (and admit) that even though the number of muslims which act in a ill manner are statistically minute, it still equals a significant amount of people.
A statistically minute yet significant amount of people?

Define 'significant'.

Let's say the security services uncovered a terror group of 500 British Muslims actively plotting to attack the UK. Would 500 such people count as a significant number to you?

[human151]

A statistically minute yet significant amount of people?

Define 'significant'.

Let's say the security services uncovered a terror group of 500 British Muslims actively plotting to attack the UK. Would 500 such people count as a significant number to you?

"in Lebanon, just 34 percent of Muslims surveyed said that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified, compared to 74 percent who expressed the same view in 2002. Only eight percent of those polled in Egypt believed suicide bombing was justified, as did 11 percent in Morocco.

In contrast, 41 percent of Palestinians said such attacks are often justified while another 29 percent said it can sometimes be justified. The poll was conducted between April and May, before Hamas took over the Gaza Strip following violent clashes with Fatah.

The survey also reflected declining support - identified as "Muslim confidence" - for Osama bin Laden. The percentage of Jordanian Muslims who support bin Laden dropped from 56 percent in 2003 to just 20 percent in 2007. "

this does not exactly answer the question, but is the only stats I could easily find.

There are over a billion muslims world wide. If only %5 are extremist or share their views, then that is 50,000,000 muslims who are extremists or sympathize with their views.

[Deckard]

"in Lebanon, just 34 percent of Muslims surveyed said that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified, compared to 74 percent who expressed the same view in 2002. Only eight percent of those polled in Egypt believed suicide bombing was justified, as did 11 percent in Morocco.

In contrast, 41 percent of Palestinians said such attacks are often justified while another 29 percent said it can sometimes be justified. The poll was conducted between April and May, before Hamas took over the Gaza Strip following violent clashes with Fatah.

The survey also reflected declining support - identified as "Muslim confidence" - for Osama bin Laden. The percentage of Jordanian Muslims who support bin Laden dropped from 56 percent in 2003 to just 20 percent in 2007. "

this does not exactly answer the question, but is the only stats I could easily find.[

There are over a billion muslims world wide. If only %5 are extremist or share their views, then that is 50,000,000 muslims who are extremists or sympathize with their views.
5% of ANY big number can be classed a significant amount. So assuming there are 1.5 billion people in the world who would identify as Muslim, that would mean 75 million feeling suicide bombing is sometimes justified - which is a significant and worrying amount to me too... until we look at the much larger figure presumably thinking it's not justified.

Do you know how large that figure would be?

1,425,000,000.

That's close enough to be an approximation of the original sample size of 1.5 billion!! Such is the misleading power of big numbers, and such is the way our difficulty to envisage them can be exploited for propagandist purposes.

My point to all this being that coming out with remarks like 'wow muslims are nice' is pretty damn ignorant. There's enough tribal hate in the world without you contributing to it.

[Deckard]

But, the muslims you people hold so dear and say have only minimal support, are able to wage war against the most powerful nations on earth
Who of us here holds dear those particular Muslims?

Oh I see... at this point, you're back to talking about all Muslims in a very general sense, are you?

Tell me, what use is that?

I guess this falls into the 50% of your purpose here that's classed as "getting everyone going", right?

(I wonder if that's what the BNP, the tea party and all the far right groups are doing when they do the same and casually switch the focus between Muslims in general and extremist Muslims in particular without making an explicit distinction? Maybe they're all just injecting a bit of life into the debate too, eh?)

[human151]

i don't remember the exact number but it was surprisingly low) $15,000 USD to keep their organization running. and once you think about it, it actually becomes quite obvious that they would not need a lot of money. although you state that they are waging war...

while your assessment may hold true for some small group, this is a global terrorist organization were talking about here.

Just the cost in weapons alone has to run in the millions of dollars each year. Just one AK-47 cost about $800, on the cheap side of the scale. But, for uses in this example, lets say that they can get an AK-47 for $200. Do you actually believe that the entire organization (including the al qaeda affiliate groups) only need 30 AK-47's each year? Not to mention all the RPG's and bomb making material, as well as ammunition.

Then there is travel. This organization is world wide. Im sure they have some agents that travel for meetings. Then there is the pay, as im sure terrorists need money too. I am sure many of them have families to support. I am also sure that Al Qaeda has sleep agents in many countries and I am sure the upkeep on these agents is not cheap either. For example, alqaeda put all of the 9/11 terrorists through flight training. So on top of the expense of housing while they were in the united states, each person went though flight training at the cost of thousands of dollars per person. They have also proven that the 9/11 terrorists also flew between states in the US, and even went to las vegas. So, as you can see, to run an operation such as al qaeda is not cheap.

Also, just FYI, while it is true that most of the time the opposing forces fight by remotely detonated bombs and through the use of suicide bombers, there have been many instances there they do attack forward operating bases, and also try to defend strategic locations.

Here is on example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_Fallujah#Insurgent_forces

Also,

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/iraqi_rebels_attack_us_base_in_ramadi/

"Leaflets were distributed and posted on walls, saying al Qaeda in Iraq, the group led by Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was taking over the city. “Its followers will burn the Americans and will drive them back to their homes by force. Iraq will be a graveyard for the Americans and its allies,” one of the leaflets read."

while these examples are a few years old, this still goes on (not so much in Iraq anymore) . These are the only specific examples I can recall at the moment.

[human151]

5% of ANY big number can be classed a significant amount. So assuming there are 1.5 billion people in the world who would identify as Muslim, that would mean 75 million feeling suicide bombing is sometimes justified - which is a significant and worrying amount to me too... until we look at the much larger figure presumably thinking it's not justified.

Do you know how large that figure would be?

1,425,000,000.

That's close enough to be an approximation of the original sample size of 1.5 billion!! Such is the misleading power of big numbers, and such is the way our difficulty to envisage them can be exploited for propagandist purposes.

My point to all this being that coming out with remarks like 'wow muslims are nice' is pretty damn ignorant. There's enough tribal hate in the world without you contributing to it.


Yes I agree that the number which is not part of that %5 is a large number.

That said, why does the small percentage basically control the perception of the muslim world? Why havent they been marginalized? In the united states there are a small percentage of people who are skin heads/rascists. But these people are such a small amount and are so marginalized, no one in their right mond takes them seriously.

could you imagine some skin head group waging war against the unites states? Of course not because no one takes them seriously, they are ridiculed and have virtually no support. now, compare these skin head groups with their muslim equivalent, al qaeda. WHich group has more support? The answer is obvious, more muslims support hate groups such as Al qaeda and taliban than christians/non muslims do.

It is an undeniable fact. What is more telling is the fact that main stream muslims have not marginalized their hate groups, as non muslims have.

[human151]

Who of us here holds dear those particular Muslims?

Oh I see... at this point, you're back to talking about all Muslims in a very general sense, are you?

Tell me, what use is that?

I guess this falls into the 50% of your purpose here that's classed as "getting everyone going", right?

(I wonder if that's what the BNP, the tea party and all the far right groups are doing when they do the same and casually switch the focus between Muslims in general and extremist Muslims in particular without making an explicit distinction? Maybe they're all just injecting a bit of life into the debate too, eh?)

yeah, I admit I chose the wrong wording there, no one here has openly been supportive of "those" particular muslims. Just supportive to muslims in general.

[Deckard]

this is a global terrorist organization were talking about here.
I've heard a number of senior police and military officers dispute that - quite senior figures such as Sir Ian Blair who was Met Police Commissioner at the time of the 7/7 London bombings ("Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working") Most intelligence analysts seem to agree that the typical structure of al-Qaeda is more one of networks than of formal terrorist organisation. In that sense, it's closer to the post 1960s feminist movement than it is to the IRA (and no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists. I'm talking from a purely structural point of view - ie. the shared lack of a common organisational structure or code of conduct.)

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

All this might seem somewhat academic - at the end of the day, they're a terror group of some sort. But it's important in the debate about support and funding and what we're up against. Certainly there IS funding and there IS support. But it's not remotely necessary that there need be a steady stream of money continually flowing into it, like a political party, in order for terrorists to carry out atrocities. If you're a single extremist Muslim in Britain looking to cause a devastating amount of carnage, you can do so using simple household products as home-made explosives. At the very least, you can cause an enormous amount of disruption by planning it in a thoughtful way. That requires virtually zero support or funding. It doesn't even require other Muslims to know about it or agree with it.

That's obviously on a different order of magnitude to the Taleban, which is receiving enormous funding and support from -somewhere- in order to keep "the most powerful Nations on earth" on their toes. And the same with a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, which I believe would have not only required OBL's personal funding, but also funding from other Muslims sympathetic to the cause. *cough*ISI*cough*

But when it comes to car bombs and suicide attacks, it's quite scary to reflect how easy it would be to carry something like that out, at least if you have the will to do it. I've often been astounded that there haven't been many more terrorist attacks in this country. Think about it. That should be the real story you take home about the 1.5 million Muslims living in Britain - the sheer scarcity of such events, given the huge population of Muslims. Yes there are bound to be many attempts - some that we never hear about. But the security services can only thwart so many of them.

[//\/\/]

Why shouldn't one be supportive of, or tolerant towards 'muslims in general'?

[Deckard]

Speak of the devil.

US charges six with aiding Pakistani Taliban (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13401116)

What with that and other recent events, I fear this is all going to end very badly for Pakistan. A shame, because no country's civilians have suffered so much at the hands of al-Qaeda attacks as Pakistan - more than all other countries combined, I recently read.

Oh joy. It's a good job they're not a nuclear power, isn't it?

[human151]

Speak of the devil.

US charges six with aiding Pakistani Taliban (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13401116)

What with that and other recent events, I fear this is all going to end very badly for Pakistan. A shame, because no country's civilians have suffered so much at the hands of al-Qaeda attacks as Pakistan - more than all other countries combined, I recently read.

Oh joy. It's a good job they're not a nuclear power, isn't it?


that story illustrates exactly why I am distrustful of muslims. How do you know who is honorable and who is not? Its difficult to give them all a pass when they have enemies hiding amongst them.

[//\/\/]

(you just lock yourself up away from all the scary people - the only person you can really trust is yourself, eh?)

[Deckard]

6 Muslims. Out of approx 2 MILLION living in America. LOL

Wait... TWO MILLION Muslims living in America?

oooooOOOOOOOOOooooooo!!!!

Incidentally, it was rather more than 6 of your countrymen providing financial support to the IRA not so long ago, some of whose contributions will have been used to kill and maim my countrymen.

Which illustrates exactly why I am distrustful of..... oh hold on..... I'm not.

But let's get back to the important point here... 2 millions MUSLIMS living in America, Chris... TWO MILLION!!!

[//\/\/]

I've had a pub I used to frequent regularly blown up by the IRA, with 1 person killed. I've had my workplace targetted twice by the IRA.

Did I go round holding all Irish people responsible? No. Though plenty of people did. This happened throughout 'the Troubles', where people and the police would mistreat innoccent people. It was a MASSIVE propaganda and recruitment tool for the terrorists.

You, Mr Human, are being played by the extremists. You are their dream candidate acting precisely as they'd predict and wish. Think on...

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

I've heard a number of senior police and military officers dispute that - quite senior figures such as Sir Ian Blair who was Met Police Commissioner at the time of the 7/7 London bombings ("Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working") Most intelligence analysts seem to agree that the typical structure of al-Qaeda is more one of networks than of formal terrorist organisation. In that sense, it's closer to the post 1960s feminist movement than it is to the IRA (and no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists. I'm talking from a purely structural point of view - ie. the shared lack of a common organisational structure or code of conduct.)

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

All this might seem somewhat academic - at the end of the day, they're a terror group of some sort. But it's important in the debate about support and funding and what we're up against. Certainly there IS funding and there IS support. But it's not remotely necessary that there need be a steady stream of money continually flowing into it, like a political party, in order for terrorists to carry out atrocities. If you're a single extremist Muslim in Britain looking to cause a devastating amount of carnage, you can do so using simple household products as home-made explosives. At the very least, you can cause an enormous amount of disruption by planning it in a thoughtful way. That requires virtually zero support or funding. It doesn't even require other Muslims to know about it or agree with it.

That's obviously on a different order of magnitude to the Taleban, which is receiving enormous funding and support from -somewhere- in order to keep "the most powerful Nations on earth" on their toes. And the same with a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, which I believe would have not only required OBL's personal funding, but also funding from other Muslims sympathetic to the cause. *cough*ISI*cough*

But when it comes to car bombs and suicide attacks, it's quite scary to reflect how easy it would be to carry something like that out, at least if you have the will to do it. I've often been astounded that there haven't been many more terrorist attacks in this country. Think about it. That should be the real story you take home about the 1.5 million Muslims living in Britain - the sheer scarcity of such events, given the huge population of Muslims. Yes there are bound to be many attempts - some that we never hear about. But the security services can only thwart so many of them.


Had to chime in here: What I'd pay to hear Queen E. say "WTF?", like, out loud.

[myrrh]

that story illustrates exactly why I am distrustful of muslims. How do you know who is honorable and who is not? Its difficult to give them all a pass when they have enemies hiding amongst them.

You can tell the honorable ones because they are going about their everyday business not really caring about the likes of you. Such as it says in the Qur'an:

"Say: Oh you who disbelieve! I worship not that which you worship. Nor will you worship that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which you are worshipping. Nor will you worship that which I worship. To you be your religion, and to me my religion." 108:1-6

With regards to Muslims not condemning terrorists, this is a complete misnomer, propagated by Western Conservatives in general. Shaykh Bin Baz, who died 12 years ago, and was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia - who allowed the US to come into the Kingdom to fight against Saddam Hussien warned against Bin Laden back then. In fact, it was he who refused Bin Laden entry into Saudi Arabia to fight against Saddam when Saddam invaded Kuwait. This action was the tipping point of Bin Laden's life, when he turned to terrorism.

So, Bin Laden and all the other groups out there, are known and have been known, and are advised against, and have been advised against by the Muslim leaders for the past 60 years. However, you never hear about it because you probably don't speak Arabic, nor do you probably read Arab newspapers, nor do you probably follow Muslim Scholars, or the like.

Such things are not put out there on US news because then the masses would see that the actions of our government are uncalled for, and we don't have to live in a state of terror 24/7, nor do we have to distrust our neighbors because they look different etc.

If you made the smallest amount of effort to search out how terrorism is condemned by Muslim leaders, you would find out that it is constantly done so. However, you probably have not, nor would you probably believe it anyway.

[bryantm3]

+1

[BeautifulBurnout]

no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists.

That was close.... :p

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

Reminds me of the article Robin Cook (RIP) wrote for the Guardian the day after the 7th July bombings. I will post it here in full as I think he had it bang on the nail. And - getting my tinfoil hat out - I am still suspicious about the way he died of a heart attack while out hillwalking on his own.....:eek::o

I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead. The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.

It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?

But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?

At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.

Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.

In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.

But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.
In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.

And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.

[Rog]

you people should be calling up your MP's to get these idiots deported.
.

hmmm, i don't think we can deport british citizens from britain........