Problem with homegrown British Muslims

[Johnny Canuck3]

Actually no, not since 9/11, but even before then:

See section 59 of the Terrorism Act 2000
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/20000011.htm

..which came into force Feb 19, 2001.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

..which came into force Feb 19, 2001.

Ok, remind me how the months of the year go again?

I could have sworn that Febuary was before September, i know you Yanklites have a different date system but i didn't think it was that different...

But i'm sure you have a point, laid in a cunning trap for some poor intelecutal pedestrian to stumble over before plunging onto the punji stakes of cutting wit laid at the bottom, smeared with sarcasm and shame.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Ok, remind me how the months of the year go again?

I could have sworn that Febuary was before September, i know you Yanklites have a different date system but i didn't think it was that different...

But i'm sure you have a point, laid in a cunning trap for some poor intelecutal pedestrian to stumble over before plunging onto the punji stakes of cutting wit laid at the bottom, smeared with sarcasm and shame.

No, my punji sticks just have the standard shit smeared on them.

Fact is, it looks like the UK began tightening up a little before Sept 11, although the passage of an act isn't the same thing as the enforcement of it.

I was just pointing out to Teejay that although it's called '2000', that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

 

[hipipol]

Holy Moly!!!!

How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?
Which end of the boiled egg to break?
War, War, We NEED a War!!!!

 

[hipipol]

I repeat

The majority of Muslims in the UK are of Kashmiri or Bangladeshi descent.
Kasmir has been a point of arguement between Pakistan and India since Patition, for which the UK is held primarily responsible.
In Bradford, Leeds, Preston, Manchester, etc the majority are from a small area in what is known in Pakistan as Azad (Free) Kashmir, with a smaller admixture from Bangladesh, almost all of who are from Sylhet, a small border state where low level skirmishing has been going on since East Pakistan became Bangladesh.(Prior to that there have centuries of fighting betwwen Muslims moving north for farmland and the indigenous Khasi, Manipuri and Garos tribes - regharded by the bangla Govt as "Primitive and backward" - oh my!
Essentially you have a population of peoples who have left lands in conflict, where opinion was already polarised and radicalised attaching itself to the gereater "Conflict of Civilisations" bollocks. Also the majority were poor and uneducated, perhaps subsistance farmers, from remote and utterly rural areas who were decanted into shit housing estates, the ones the local Brits wouldn't touch - so there are class factors at work - most of the food and work rioting of the 19thC were the second generation of deisplaced farm workers driven from their land by the industrial revolution. This is a very similar situation as the marity of these immigrants came to work in factories, primarily textile in the North
Only Pakistans put religion first more consistalty than this country in the Islam or country first rating in that recent global poll of Muslim indentity, which, as the majority of Mullahs at Mosques in this country were drawn from Pakistan until recently, is hardly surprising.
(It may also be worth noting that it is Saudi money that is building all the new Madrasas in both Pakistan and Bangladesh)
As Pakistan itself saw the strength of the ISI grow when the CIa helped it set up "resistance" in Afghanistan - specifically religiously based, a deliberate ploy at the time - it tranferred those skills to the training of Lashkar-Y-Tayba et al who then started geurilla action against India in Kashmir -including the ethnic cleansing of at least 1 million Kashmiri Pandits.
These are peoples with a long histroy of militant activity
It is hardly surprising they are radicalised

very little effort has been made to get any of these clans - as that is what they are, at the start of the last century, many areas of Scotland were the same, closely related, small group of family names, etc - to merge into the greater admixture of cultures around them.
It is also true to say that Yorkshire in particular is rather clannish and insular - them nearly all be descended from Vikings and not keen on marrying outside their tribe, etc.
Kin 'ell, get out the woad chaps

 

[warren]

I dunno if this has been covered but those on this thread saying British Foreign policy is the motivation of the Insurgency happening in this country (and yes it is a low-level Insurgency) are deluded.

I'm going to have to google a few links but right now I'm too tired to look them up.

British foreign policy has 0% influence on pan-global Jihadists, its irrelavent to them. While it may be good entry level material for recruiters for Jihad they were digging up this kind of material centuries before Gulf War II of supposed introduction of Takfir to the Ummah.

The root cause according to a psychological report (Ill google this later) is being a young male. Most of us love the idea of violence and war, we get a kick out of it.

Those who think America, Israel or the UK foreign or domestic policy is the source of Jihad are nuts.

While someone may not agree with American, UK or Israeli foreign policy (I certainly dont), dont automatically believe the ultra-leftist/Islamist propoganda that it is the source of fundamentalism in Islam. Coz its crap.

The UK has a unique problem in the World that we will be facing in our lifetime there are going to many, many more bombings. Unless we adopt the French model of mass deporting/expelling anyone who the authorities believe makes threats against the country.

Using certain reactionary laws such as treason & sedition will probably be steps taken by governments 10-15 years down the line.

 

[warren]

You just want to argue about the semantics of various words. There is a problem in the Pakistani community in Britian, they are not a problem as a whole.It seems some of them are trying to kill civilians on planes and trains.

Just stating the obvious.

Wonder if that makes me a rascist

It doesnt make you a racist, it makes you correct. IMHO around 10% of UK British Pakistanis from the Tribal-Belt Pak-Kash region would happily blow themselves up on the tube given half a chance.

I think it has something to do with the immigrant experience in the various countries.

At least until fairly recently, immigrants to the US were 'americanized', and were usually happy to do so. That country promoted the concept that americans should leave old things in the old country, and become like everybody else. There are some famous exceptions to that, of course.

Its true the Americans are probably the least Zenophobic country in the World when it comes to foreign immigrants. That is why the US does not face an insurgency from Arabs, Pakistanis etc etc,

The US will be facing an insurgency from Black 'born again' Nation of Islam types though if you dont take action very soon against the vast amount of US Blacks in prison and the teaching of Islam there.

The US are a bunch of 'asylum seekers' looking to make a quick buck. That's why the World hates you, you make up the entity that people hate the most 'money grabbing immigrants' who are more successful than they are.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I dunno if this has been covered but those on this thread saying British Foreign policy is the motivation of the Insurgency happening in this country (and yes it is a low-level Insurgency) are deluded.

I'm going to have to google a few links but right now I'm too tired to look them up.

British foreign policy has 0% influence on pan-global Jihadists, its irrelavent to them. While it may be good entry level material for recruiters for Jihad they were digging up this kind of material centuries before Gulf War II of supposed introduction of Takfir to the Ummah.

The root cause according to a psychological report (Ill google this later) is being a young male. Most of us love the idea of violence and war, we get a kick out of it.

Those who think America, Israel or the UK foreign or domestic policy is the source of Jihad are nuts.

While someone may not agree with American, UK or Israeli foreign policy (I certainly dont), dont automatically believe the ultra-leftist/Islamist propoganda that it is the source of fundamentalism in Islam. Coz its crap.
<snip>

Are you arguing that US foreign policy had no role in the creation of the mujehadin who fought against the Soviets, some of whom became the groups who were running the AQ training camps in Afghanistan until the recent invasion?

Or are you talking about the apparently self-starting UK groups of wannabe AQ cells like the various dreamers and mental defectives that the UK police have so far tried to convict and the group who carried out the 7/7 bombs?

The relationship between these two groups and US foreign policy is different in each case, but I think it's a bit strong to claim it doesn't exist.

 

[warren]

Most of the young British people with Pakistani ancestry that I know or meet have a lot in common with other young British people. Even where there seem to be differences this doesn't seem to amount to not being 'British'.

That's because the missing jig-saw in this debate is that Islamic Extremism has little to do with poverty-class struggle.

Qutbism the form of Islamic doctrine followed by al-Qaeda is a Western-influenced philosophy it did not come from the slums of Egypt but from a rich-influencial man who lived & studied in America.

It was the freedom in America that helped him develop theories never really associated with previous Wahabbist (I use this word for simplicity, but strictly speaking Qutb nor Bin Laden are Wahabbis).

 

[mears]

Are you arguing that US foreign policy had no role in the creation of the mujehadin who fought against the Soviets, some of whom became the groups who were running the AQ training camps in Afghanistan until the recent invasion?

Or are you talking about the apparently self-starting UK groups of wannabe AQ cells like the various dreamers and mental defectives that the UK police have so far tried to convict and the group who carried out the 7/7 bombs?

The relationship between these two groups and US foreign policy is different in each case, but I think it's a bit strong to claim it doesn't exist.

But if the US supported mujehadin against the Soviets, how does that make America guilty for their current terrorist attacks? I would think they would be appreciative of the support received for their struggle.

But than they bite the hand that feeds them? I think it says more about them than us.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

But if the US supported mujehadin against the Soviets, how does that make America guilty for their current terrorist attacks? I would think they would be appreciative of the support received for their struggle.

But than they bite the hand that feeds them? I think it says more about them than us.

You are the proof that some people are not bright enough to deserve their own opinions.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You are the proof that some people are not bright enough to deserve their own opinions.

Explain what's wrong with what he said.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Explain what's wrong with what he said.

How exactly am i supposed to explain basic phsycology, ethics, politics and causal systems to him utilising the wonders of the world wide web?

Or more importantly: Why should i bother?

 

[DexterTCN]

But if the US supported mujehadin against the Soviets, how does that make America guilty for their current terrorist attacks? I would think they would be appreciative of the support received for their struggle.

But than they bite the hand that feeds them? I think it says more about them than us.

Because you funded them, encouraged them, trained them, supplied them with the means and reasons.....and then once they had done their job you left them to rot under nutcase religious leaders after promising them a part in the economies of the West?

A lot of them died fighting Russia, and most of the rest suffered. And after the Wall fell...you suddenly got amnesia and decided to start calling them IslamoFascists and evil-doers?

'Bite the hand that feeds them'....I don't see much food getting dropped from planes.

Go figure.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Because you funded them, encouraged them, trained them, supplied them with the means and reasons.....and then once they had done their job you left them to rot under nutcase religious leaders after promising them a part in the economies of the West?

If that's true, you have a valid point.

I'd be interested in any cites to articles etc that supports what you're saying.

 

[mears]

I still don't understand why our support for Islamic warriors in the 1980's means we are responsible for Islamic terrorism? It just doesn't make sense. Its strange that I have never heard any Islamic fundamentalists give thanks to the US for helping them in their struggle.

Do radical British Muslims credit the US for helping their bretheren in Afghanistan? Do they give thanks we provided surface to air missles in order to hit Soviet helicopters? Since its US and UK foreign policy than drives them to kill people going to places like their job, do they seem appreciative for this assistance?

What about the former Yugoslavia? While Europe stood still wetting their pants, Mr. Blair convinced Mr. Clinton to bomb Serbia in order to stop the slaughter of innocents. Many of these innocents were Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. America, at the prodding of Tony Blair, intervening to save Muslims. Do radical British Muslims give credit to the US and the UK for this? I have not heard their comments. Yes, we hate American support of Israel but at least they saved some of our Muslim bretheren.

Or do we just leave out what doesn't fit our thinking?

What about the millions of dollars American and Britian governments have given to Pakistan post earthquake disaster. Are British Pakistanis praising the US for this effort? Yes we hate US policy towards Israel but they are spending money, providing expertise to save our people in Pakistan.

Or do we just leave out what doesn fit our thinking?

I mean look at US foreign policy. What else can British Muslims do but blow up people on the train and try to blow planes out of the sky.

They are not responsible for their own actions. Its all the fault of someone, or something else.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I guess that's an interesting ethical question isn't it? If you help someone fight an invader who has taken control of their homeland using guerilla warfare, which you know is going to be hell on their civilians, are you helping e.g the Afghans or harming them? For example, if Iran is really supplying Hezbollah with arms, is it doing the people of Lebanon a favour or making things worse for them?

 

[nino_savatte]

Originally Posted by (s)mears
Or do we just leave out what doesn fit our thinking?

You're such a fucking hypocrite. You come out with lines like this while, at the same time, you constantly demonstrate an inability to think "outside the box". Your thoughts are exactly the same as the warmongering scum who sell dictators weapons to brutalise their populations. And you have the affrontery to ignore the root causes behind the trouble. No, it is much easier for you to come here and declare how 'pure' of thought you are.

You are an example of what is wrong with the US today. You are also a prime example of anti-intellectualism in action, as this paragraph shows

What about the former Yugoslavia? While Europe stood still wetting their pants, Mr. Blair convinced Mr. Clinton to bomb Serbia in order to stop the slaughter of innocents. Many of these innocents were Muslims in the former Yugoslavia. America, at the prodding of Tony Blair, intervening to save Muslims. Do radical British Muslims give credit to the US and the UK for this? I have not heard their comments. Yes, we hate American support of Israel but at least they saved some of our Muslim bretheren.

There are deficiencies in your knowledge of contemporary political events. Here your 'knowledge of the Balkans seems to lack something: the facts. Here, you assume that it was Serbia who was solely responsible for what toolk place in Yugoslavia. Indeed, you also overlook the fact that the US bombed targets that weer not associated with the conflict - like the Chinse Embassy, television stations and power plants (perhaps this is where Israel gotthe idea).

With narrative like that you should be in the movies.

 

[mears]

I guess that's an interesting ethical question isn't it? If you help someone fight an invader who has taken control of their homeland using guerilla warfare, which you know is going to be hell on their civilians, are you helping e.g the Afghans or harming them? For example, if Iran is really supplying Hezbollah with arms, is it doing the people of Lebanon a favour or making things worse for them?

Obviously Iran's supported for Hezbollah and Hezbollah subsequent war with Israel has made life worse for the Lebanese.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Obviously Iran's supported for Hezbollah and Hezbollah subsequent war with Israel has made life worse for the Lebanese.

What about US support for the mujehadin against the Soviets? That had pretty similar effects on the Afghan people.

Should they be grateful or angry at the US?

 

[mears]

Do Britsh Muslims comment on the former Yugoslavia? They sure talk a lot about Israel.

What about aid given to the Pakistanis after the earth quake? If they are driven to kill civilians because of US and UK foreign policy, how does this fit into their thinking?

Does anyone mention that the US didn't place another strongman into power in Iraq, but spent the effort for elections, elections verified by the UN as free and fair. Do Imans in Britian comment that the majority of civilian killings in Iraq on Iraqi killing Iraqi? Do they speak out against this? Well, maybe commenting on Israel takes up their time.

Is this stuff mentioned because, you know, supposedly they are killing people because of US and UK foreign policy.

 

[mears]

What about US support for the mujehadin against the Soviets? That had pretty similar effects on the Afghan people.

Should they be grateful or angry at the US?

I would think grateful for the US. The Soviets invaded. They carpet bombed, they sent millions of refugees to Iran.

The Soviets made a descision to behave in this manner. They took a ruthless approach.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Riiiight

 

[nino_savatte]

Obviously Iran's supported for Hezbollah and Hezbollah subsequent war with Israel has made life worse for the Lebanese.

Really? The US support for Israel has made life worse for the ordinary Lebanese people. The majority of Lebanese supported Hizb'allah...it was in the news. But you only see doctored news stories that are constructed to appease the American-Israeli lobby - don't you?

How anyone can refer to a person from Fox News as a "journalist" is a mystery to me. Especially when Fox isn't what one could really describe as a news channel.

 

[nino_savatte]

I would think grateful for the US. The Soviets invaded. They carpet bombed, they sent millions of refugees to Iran.

The Soviets made a descision to behave in this manner. They took a ruthless approach.

I speak your weight. Insert coin.

 

[mears]

No one wants to comment on places like the former yugoslavia and Pakistan post earth quake?

How does this fit into the feelings of British Muslims willing to kill civilians? No one wants to try it?

 

[ZAMB]

Obviously Iran's supported for Hezbollah and Hezbollah subsequent war with Israel has made life worse for the Lebanese.

Don't you mean that US support for the invading Israelis made life worse for the Lebanese?

 

[ZAMB]

No one wants to comment on places like the former yugoslavia and Pakistan post earth quake?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the US already had plans for the break-up of Yugoslavia - that it is generally agreed that their attack there was a war crime, and that the worst atrocities took place after they intervened - as a response to their attack. There are thousands of pages about this online, on history, legal and news sites - if you can be bothered to look. Here are a few to get you started. The bombing of civilians and infrastructure reminds one of Israel's equally criminal assault on Lebanon, doesn't it?

http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html

U.S. policymakers also want to abolish Yugoslavia's public sector services and social programs -- for the same reason they want to abolish our public sector services and social programs. The ultimate goal is the privatization and Third Worldization of Yugoslavia, as it is the Third Worldization of the United States and every other nation. In some respects, the fury of the West's destruction of Yugoslavia is a backhanded tribute to that nation's success as an alternative form of development, and to the pull it exerted on neighboring populations both East and West.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1467
Legitimate Targets?
How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/hayden.htm

There is literally no question but that NATO's attack on Yugoslavia violates the United Nations charter: the NATO attacks were never authorized by the Security Council and could not by any stretch of the imagination be considered to have been in self-defense.(15) Interestingly, some commentators who acknowledge this uncomfortable fact then argue that an exception to international law should perhaps be created for what Antonio Cassese calls "humanitarian countermeasures," when, according to Bruno Simma, "imperative political and moral considerations may appear to leave no choice but to act outside the law," or, as Vaclav Havel put it, to find a "higher law" to justify what international law defines, clearly, as aggression. This acknowledgement of NATO illegality even by those supporting NATO's actions is noteworthy.
A War Against Civilians

Every time NATO bombs a hospital, bus, market, town center, apartment building or refugee convoy, NATO spokesmen assert that NATO "never targets civilians" but that, while NATO's bombs are the most accurate in history, "collateral damage" is inevitable. However, NATO's attacks have been aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles.(16) Since then NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories, central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts, government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants. NATO's strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia's army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself, in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral damage," because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets.(17)

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I think there is a real problem with the US's 'effects based warfare' approach, i.e. 'precision bombing' the infrastructure of the state from a safe 50,000 ft.

It has virtually no direct impact on the sort of irregular forces they're usually trying to go after, and it indirectly acts as a recruiting sergeant for them, by degrading their host state and pushing the citizens into supporting the guerillas. We've just seen this stuff happening once again in Lebanon.

So every time they try it they end up with a bunch of dead kids, with bereaved and dispossessed innocents on the evening news, with guerillas gaining more legitimacy than the government that's just been proven impotent. Even if you accept the goals of the programme, this is a failure.

 

[nino_savatte]

No one wants to comment on places like the former yugoslavia and Pakistan post earth quake?

How does this fit into the feelings of British Muslims willing to kill civilians? No one wants to try it?

Only if you want to talk about Hurricane Katrina, the continued US support for Israeli atrocities...

Your last question presupposes that all British Muslims are thugs and quite what the Pakistan earthquake has to do with this, lord only knows.

You really aren't all there -are you?