The Tories in this country aren’t any better- http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/01/70-of-tory-members-back-ethnic-screening-of-air-travellers.html

Don’t worry, it’s not racial profiling. Islam isn’t a race! It’s just normal profiling…

Don’t be daft. Its fine to oppose profiling (on balance I don’t but can see a good argument to do so) but arguing that it will somehow increase terrorism because of the sense of injustice (unjustified surely!) it would cause just completely undermines any credibility you may have had. Presumably you want to convince others of your position? If so, you may want to not appear as some sort of swivel-eyed left-wing ideologue unable to recognise real risk and tryig to pull the wool over peoples eyes. Alternatively, you may not care about convincing others in which case you just like the sound of your own voice and should be ignored.

but arguing that it will somehow increase terrorism because of the sense of injustice (unjustified surely!) it would cause just completely undermines any credibility you may have had

Yeah, like bombing people doesn’t increase terrorism either.

“Yeah, like bombing people doesn’t increase terrorism either.”

Groan…. What a cliche.

9/11 (and countless other AQ terrorist atrocities) happened BEFORE the Afghan/Iraq invasions. AQ would (and did) terrorise us even if neither had happened. Come on…keep up….

Commenter 1: (a) increases (b).

Commenter 2: Yeah, but here’s an example of (b)!

Commenter 1: ??

Hate to burst your bubble, Biffy, but the US bombed Iraq under Clinton if you want just one incident of the West attacking Muslim countries before 9/11. The “terrorist attacks happened before acts of war on Muslim countries” argument doesn’t work either.

It’s a lot more complicated than that.

Groan…. What a cliche.

9/11 (and countless other AQ terrorist atrocities) happened BEFORE the Afghan/Iraq invasions. .

That’s the cliche.

The Gulf War was in 1991, for example..

AQ would (and did) terrorise us even if neither had happened. Come on…keep up…

I’m sure it would. But it’s conceivable that our activities in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have increased the inclination of people to become terrorists.

It’s even more complicated than that.
Islam’s hatred of Jews and the west, is based on theological grounds and not any specific act of the West.

Back in the 1930s, before modern Israel was set up, the Chief Imam in Jerusalem travelled to Germany, met senior Nazi figures, helped set up a Muslim SS group.
The deal was, that after Germany won against the allies, they would then apply the ‘final solution’ to the Jews in Jerusalem.

His name was Mohammad Amin al-Husayni

The headline of the OP is wrong, I think. The host objected to the Lt. Gen (ret)’s suggestion…

So they picked a random retired crackpot. And this is worth reporting why?

Whoops, sorted out the headline.

Groan…. What a cliche.

yeah – you should tell that to the intelligence services in the US and here who agree with that sentiment.

Action clearly does NOT lead to reaction.

Latest news – tomorrow’s Telegraph says:

“The suspect in the attempted Detroit plane bomb had links with a London campaign group that has championed Anwar al-Awlaki, the al-Qaeda cleric.”

let me guess. They’re going to say that he had links with Cage prisoners, which had a few link-ups with Awlaki.

I don’t really care for any of them. My point is about UCL and the implication that unis have to clamp down or spy on Muslim students.

Sunny I don’t thinkl you should give Fox any publicity at all.

Fox is what the news would look like if Hitler had won the war.

Sally @ 16,

Excellent!

“The Gulf War was in 1991, for example..”

91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01 and 02.

We never stopped bombing them, it just so happened that bodies weren’t much coming back the other way so nobody of any relevance gave a shit, bit like south Vietnam in reverse; they were bombing that place for years, only when US lives were at risk in north Vietnam did the ‘Vietnam war’ actually start.

This is quite bizarre, I can’t believe that I just watched that or am reading some of these comments.

This neocon crap on a typically grand scale.

The whole point of liberty and justice as pillars in your foundation is that you don’t have a ‘special solution’ to young Muslim males in order to prevent bombings.

Anyway, yeh let’s have profiling, but tell me, was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim? Was Howard Unruh a Muslim? What about Seung-Hui Cho or Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold?

If the US continues to behave like we did over a hundred years ago, they should expect some resistance – the British Empire was fiercely resisted, come with the territory I’m afraid. Just ask Russia and China.

‘Yeah, like bombing people doesn’t increase terrorism either.’

So you are against the invasion of Afganistan this week?

Now they want to march through Wootten Bassett, 500 of these terrorist arseoles.

I suppose more grist for the BNP at the election.

‘Now they want to march through Wootten Bassett, 500 of these terrorist arseoles.’

They’re not terrorists, just arseholes.

Jeering at troops doesn’t make you a terrorist any more than being on Fox makes you a Nazi.

Is this ridiculous hyperbole – from both sides – getting anyone anywhere?

Yeah, like bombing people doesn’t increase terrorism either.

Hey, Sunny. You finally got there. If the humiliation of a strip search could lead an individual to terrorism, what about seeing their family blown up in their own home?

We have been bombing the Afghans for the last decade and still we have not managed to persuade any citizen of that country to commit a terrorist outrage but we can hardly complain if other young Muslims have begun to see us as the enemy.

So. No more obfuscation or “we are where we are” cop outs. I want to hear you say that we were wrong to invade Afghanistan and that we should get our troops out of there.

UK LIberty

….it’s conceivable that our activities in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have increased the inclination of people to become terrorists.

I see no evidence of this. People in the middle east have been employing terror as a political weapon for many hundreds….. indeed, more than a thousand…years. Whether we were there or not.

In any case, we can hardly give in to the kind of blackmail that goes: “adopt the foreign policy we want or we’ll become terrorists’, can we?”

Besides, Muslim terrorists attack plenty of folk who never bombed them. Who did the Spanish ever bomb? Or the Balinese? Or the Kenyans? Or the citizens of Mumbai?

Paulo,

ukliberty: ….it’s conceivable that our activities in the Middle East (and elsewhere) have increased the inclination of people to become terrorists.

I see no evidence of this.

What about the tapes suicide bombers have made (“we’re fed up with the oppression of Muslims etc”), or the various fatwas and declarations calling for terrorist acts because of something or other? Or that MI5 has said it of the recent war in Iraq?

People in the middle east have been employing terror as a political weapon for many hundreds….. indeed, more than a thousand…years. Whether we were there or not.

I’m not sure why you think that refutes my suggestion.

In any case, we can hardly give in to the kind of blackmail that goes: “adopt the foreign policy we want or we’ll become terrorists’, can we?”

It seems sensible to include an estimated risk of terrorism in the cost-benefit analysis of a foreign or domestic policy proposal. I’m not saying any risk would by default outweigh everything else, but surely it’s something to consider?

I suggest, for example, that if there was a risk that a particular activity would lead to thousands of deaths domestically from terrorism, you might think again about how important that activity is.

@ Paulo

Who did the Spanish ever bomb? Or the Balinese? Or the Kenyans? Or the citizens of Mumbai?

Or the Afghans?

UK Liberty

What about the tapes suicide bombers have made … or the various fatwas and declarations

Mere smoke.

Check out the Islamists’ foundational texts and you’ll see they encourage the faithful to kill the kufr whether he’s waging war or not.

It seems sensible to include an estimated risk of terrorism in the cost-benefit analysis of a foreign or domestic policy proposal.

But one of the reasons I voted Labour in 97 was because Robin Cook promised an end to foreign policy based on cost-benefit analysis. Foreign policy would be ‘ethical’. That is, HMG would do what was right, not what was expedient.

I don’t want my foreign policy decided by dessicated calculating machines.

Would Sierra Leone ever have got past the cost benefit analysts? Or Kosovo?

Pagar @ 26

Or the Afghans?

Re-phrase that as “or the Taliban” or as “or Al Qaeda operatives based or trained in Afganistan” and you’ll see how weak a point you’re making here.

Paulo @28

OK Give me the name of a Taliban terrorist bomber?

It would makes as much sense to bomb Leeds because terrorists were trained there.

Paolo, and MI5? Or when the JIC reported its view that the invasion of Iraq exacerbated the risk of terrorism, was that smoke?

“It has reinforced the determination of terrorists who were already committed to attacking the West and motivated others who were not.”

“Iraq is likely to be an important motivating factor for some time to come in the radicalisation of British Muslims and for those extremists who view attacks against the UK as legitimate.”

I have no proof either way, but the claim seems pretty reasonable to me.

And surely if “Islamists’ foundational texts” can persuade someone to take up arms, bombing people would get them riled up?!

one of the reasons I voted Labour in 97 was because Robin Cook promised an end to foreign policy based on cost-benefit analysis. Foreign policy would be ‘ethical’. That is, HMG would do what was right, not what was expedient.

I don’t want my foreign policy decided by dessicated calculating machines.

Would Sierra Leone ever have got past the cost benefit analysts? Or Kosovo?

I may have a broader view of cost-benefit analysis than you.I think costs include monetary costs, costs in terms of human life, risks from terrorism, risks to civil liberties… benefits include “getting rid of this dictator”. I don’t know much if anything about Sierra Leone or Kosovo, so I have no idea whether they would pass such an analysis.

It would makes as much sense to bomb Leeds because terrorists were trained there.

If Leeds city council had knowingly allowed them to train and organise within their jurisdiction and then refused to hand their collaborators over to the law, then this might be a valid comparison.

pagar @ 29

OK Give me the name of a Taliban terrorist bomber?

Jalaluddin Haqqani.

If Hitler had won the war the news would look just like Fox. I am sorry you are too stupid to understand that.

Goebbels could not have done a better job than Murdoch in putting out a right wing propaganda station broadcasting lies and distortion 24 hours a day, with panels of biased right wingers bullshitting and never being called on their bullshit.

To watch Fox cover Bush for 8 years where they covered up everything he did, and elevated him to a status of almost quasi religious hero worship was revealingly fascist.

It is you who needs to read history bucko.

Paolo

From what I can read Jalaluddin Haqqani is a tribal leader who has bravely defended his homeland, first against the Soviet Union and latterly against the USA.

The only terrorist act I can find that he is linked to is an attack on Dandi Darpa Khail in North Waziristan that resulted in the death of 23 people, including eight children.

This attack was carried out by an American drone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daande_Darpkhel_airstrike

@ pagar

Nice one with the facts.

@ Paolo

Oh dear. You’re argument is so flawed. You do know it was the British and the Americans who trained ‘enemy numero uno’ Osama Bin Laden? You DO know that?

And no, before the UK and the US decided to meddle into middle eastern affairs from the 40′s due to freemarket greed, the only people the Arab nations messed around with was the slave trade that they (still) created in Africa.

Arab nations opress the people enough-women, darker skinned people-than to mess around and try and bomb the greedy West.

Why did they Taliban take countrol Paolo? Hmm…heard of those poppy fields that were bombed by 2 certain English speaking countries……

The mind bogles!

The poor West! All they wanted was oil and superiority!

The only reason the British colonised Africa, India and the rest was tough love. They cared.

Imperialism, slavery…it’s because they care.

@ Paolo

Furthermore you will see in my post that I’ve also called out the Arab nations on their sh*t.

ALL as bad as each other but lets be realistic here with facts and what has happened.

I know people have selective memories to suit their own purposes…..it’s human need.

Pagar @ 33

The only terrorist act I can find that he is linked to is an attack on Dandi Darpa Khail

How about the bombing of the Indian Embassy in Kabul on 7 July 2008, in which 58 people were killed and 140 wounded?

I suppose you think the murder of 96 people the other day at Shah Hassan Khel was the work of a Talib “bravely defending his homeland” too?

In the past 12 months Haqqani has hanged, shot or beheaded more than 30 tribal elders in Waziristan. Believe me, he’s a creep.

rantersparadise @34 – 35

You do know it was the British and the Americans who trained ‘enemy numero uno’ Osama Bin Laden? You DO know that?

No – because it is simply untrue.

Neither the UK nor the US ever funded or trained Bin Laden.

This has been verified by Bill Peikney and Milt Bearden, who oversaw US support to the Mujahiddin. But if that’s not good enough for you – it was twice confirmed by Bin Laden himself to Robert Fisk in ’93 and ’96.

The rest of your history is pretty dodgy too.

@ Paolo

Can you please link to the evidence that Haqqani was involved in carrying out the atrocities you claim. I cannot find it.

But my general point is that the invasion of Afghanistan makes no sense- morally or strategically. Most of the terrorists involved in 9.11 were from Saudi Arabia so why retaliate against Iraq and Afghanistan? Al Qaeda were not involved in Iraq at all prior to the invasion.

Let me ask you some questions.

If the UK were invaded by armies from foreign countries determined to overturn our liberal democracy and impose an Islamic theocracy would you join the resistance?

Yes?

So by invading Afghanistan, do we not strengthen and legitimise the stance of the Taliban?

Yes, of course we do and the effect is to radicalise more Muslims.

Just stupid.

If the UK were invaded by armies from foreign countries determined to overturn our liberal democracy and impose an Islamic theocracy would you join the resistance?

That’s it, is it? Liberal democracy/Islamic theocracy: horses for courses, different strokes…

Good grief.

The bit at the bottom of email notifications reading “To manage your subscriptions or to block all notifications from this site, click the link below” turns out to be very useful.

Maybe time to move on people.

Just got back from US, I quickly learnt not to watch anything on FAUX NEWS, getting all upset about ANYTHING on that vile little channel is a terrible waste of life.

The likely use of profiling in the UK is not helped by comments from Lord Carey recently.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, may well have told the News of the World that the BNP’s claims to represent Christian Britain on the BBC’s Question Time were “chilling” and have commented that “This squalid racist must not be allowed to hijack one of the world’s great religions.”; but now we have the disgusting spectacle of Lord Carey calling for a bias in favour of Christian immigrants.

(see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6234542.stm).

As ‘race’ is a cultural concept that has no scientific validity inasmuch as genetic variation within ‘races’ is as great (and sometimes greater) than as between ‘races’, Carey’s preferred bias is as idiotic and pernicious as the biases and bigotry expressed by Griffin and his crew.
While race identification can be self-defined, or thrust upon individuals by others, it is clear that such signifiers are as likely to be explained by religion as by skin colour, nationality or other signifiers of otherness: from such a perspective, Carey’s opinions are as racist as the BNP’s. And with many so-called Christians calling for the support of the BNP via Christian web-sites and blogs, it seems that the fear and denigration of otherness progresses apace.

Any bias in favour of Christains is, of course, a bias against non-Christians.

Let us be clear, there should be no room for racism of any kind in UK political policy whether concerning immigration or anything else. Carey should be utterly ashamed of himself but, as an atheist, I must say I’m not in the least surprised at such hypocrisy.

best wishes all,

Nick