Is this possibly the wrong video? Given that it’s the EDL

EDL were also there.

Good on you Sunny, sadly on ITV London news last night they showed the EDL and MAC but not this counter demo.

Typical MediaNonsense

you did well Sunny, most of the web news sources I read gave your group a mention:

A small group of Muslims staged a counter-demonstration nearby, holding up placards reading “Muslims Against Extremism” and “If You Want Sharia, Move To Saudi”.

But a theological question – are there Islamic scholars who say that Sharia law is optional?

Isn’t Sharia just the code of conduct of Islam? The 10 commandments of islam if you like… but longer…:” if you want Saudi’s flavour of Sharia – got to Saudi: if you want a British Sharia – stay here”

And ctually Sunny, if you don’t mind me retaining my critical faculties;

Why did you want to get on the 10 o’clock news?

Presumably your target audience is mass-market: ie non-Muslims? You want to show the British public that there are some Muslims, some, who oppose 911.

That’s a PR exercise I guess. Not a bad aim in itself. But irrelevant against the real problem.

The REAL challenge – is making a difference within the Islamic community.

Because most weeks we read of those within Islamic communities in the west, planning Terrorist acts:

Like these 4 guys in Sweden at the weekend:

http://news.yahoo.com/sweden-terror-suspects-tied-shebab-islamists-144110942.html

And whether those 4 guys are understanding or mis-understanding Islam does not matter: it is within the islamic community that they come: and therefore the islamic community has the greatest responsibilty to address this problem in their midst.

Has your friend who organised the protest – also organised any campaigna within islamic communities, to talk about, and plan and put projects together to address the extremists in their midst?

Why is there no major, concerted campaign across many islamic groups about countering extremisim in their midst.

Was this run by a group with an official site? It would be good to have more publicity in advance if further events are planned.

yeah give us a shout next time

is there any more video? what happened next?

Well done. It’s vitally important that the peaceful majority of Muslims who oppose extremism, terrorism, and violence, who hold the same basic values as every other Briton, get seen and heard by the public.

So much coverage is given to the tiny minority of extremists.

Those who take the time to look realise this, but sadly many don’t take the time to look, they simply read the sensationalist stories churned out day after day and allow their minds to be poisoned. Thats why it’s so important that the peaceful majority of Muslims really make themselves heard, and make it blindingly obvious to everyone – especially those who may be tempted into the EDL – that Muslim does equal terrorist.

*EDIT Muslim DOESN’T equal terrorist.

… bad typo…

And how did the ”good muslims” get on with the EDL?
Did the EDL really look like ”Nazis” when seen close up?
Where was UAF?

Adam McNeill

> Thats why it’s so important that the peaceful majority of Muslims really make themselves heard, and make it blindingly obvious to everyone … – that Muslim does not equal terrorist.

But you’re missing the point.
Only stupid extremists suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The British public don’t think that.

So why do you want PR for that message?

The real issue is that the majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand) claim Islamic inspiration.

So the real problem is within the Islamic community, not outside of it.

So what’s needed is for a load of Islamic groups to get together around a program within their communities against violence and extremism done in the name of Islam.

Can anyone point to this happening?

All I see is victimhood and PR pitches and like the Islamic Awareness Week website: along the lines of ‘Islam is a religion of peace – If only there were no islamophobes everything would be fine’ . !!

When the reality is – if only there were no Islamic guys plotting and doing violence, Islam would be looked at favourably by the public.

Only stupid extremists suggest that all Muslims are terrorists. The British public don’t think that.

Um, the British tabloid press suggest exactly this, all the time, retaining just enough vagueness to generate quasi-plausible deniability. The British Government suggest this all the time; look at stats on the uses of S44 in London 2003-2007.

If you have government and newspapers agreeing for five years that ‘terrorist’ == bearded dude in shemagh, at least some of the population will end up agreeing. that’s why propaganda is the primary art of modern government.

@ just visiting

There’s this

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ofMqSrPC3q8J:www.facebook.com/pages/911-Statement-by-Coalition-of-British-Muslim-Organisations/244523282249495+coalition+british+muslims+statement&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk

and also this further statement from the same group

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/09/12/response-to-the-911-statement-by-isb/

@12 just visiting:

Yup. I can point to that

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/10/200910319443725976.html

this guy has just retired and was working for the Police with the Finsbury park community. He says a lot of interesting things about behind the scenes work in this article. He has fallen out of favour with the government over what he has been doing. He seems to think Quilliam is a huge waste of money for some reason too.

John Q Publican.

>> Only stupid extremists suggest that all Muslims are terrorists
> the British tabloid press suggest exactly this, all the time,

John – evidence please. With the phrase ‘all Muslims’ please.

–
Don’t get confused – it IS true to say that most terrorism is committed by those claiming to be Muslims.

Just like in the 1970′s it was true to say that most terrorists were Irish republicans.

The elephant in the room – that we really should be able to discuss on LC:

The vast majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand it) claim Islamic inspiration.

Until we admit that’s the problem….. we’ll never be able to discuss possible solutions.

Dave Bones

Which guy is your ‘this guy’ in that Al ja Zeera piece?

That whole article is about what the UK government has been doing, (for good or bad) to try to reduce extremism among Muslims (or however they phrased it)

So you are makign my point for me!
UK govt campaigns are NOT grass root campaigns by Muslim groups!

I dont see widespread campaign by Muslim groups, to address the problem of the extremists in their midst.

If there were terrorist’s being produced among the UK Jewish community or UK Orthodox Christian community – we would all be wanting to see a joined-up campaign by those groups.

We don’t see it from the Islamic groups.

My view is that they are in denial – they realise that the extremists are like a parallel to the reformation christians in the 15th (?16th?) century who went ‘back to the Jesus of the Bible’ and threw out lots of church activities that were corrupt, because they were not biblical practices and could be shown so.

The christian reformation went well (ish) – because Jesus was not a military leader or fighter – so was not a bad role model in he violence stakes.

But the parallel with extremists in Islam, they too reject the ‘soft’ modern religious groups and want to go back to the ‘original’ Mohammed of the Quran and Hadith. They are the ‘reformers’ of Islam.
They reject the ‘modern corrupt’ Islam of say the government (former) of Egypt.

But unlike the Christian reformation, this will not end well – because Mohammed WAS a military leader – he WAS a fighter – he DID behead prisoners himself.

So the ‘Islamic reformation’ we are in now, means increasing violence not less.

Knowing what Mohammed did – it leaves moderate (read modern, secularised) Muslims in a corner – can they condemn much of what the extremists says and the scholars they quote…. ? Would that result in the secular Muslims themselves being lablled (rightly) as apostates…. and Islamic law is clear that that is punishable by death….

If you follow that case – it’s easy to see that the Islamic community is stuck in denial – it daren’t let an open debate about what is true or untrue, Quranic Islam: because the answer is not modern, secular Islam for sure!

Yeah, brow-beating, finger-wagging and alienating Muslims left, right and centre is certainly going to reduce the number who find Islamic extremism more attractive than bowing and scraping to an increasingly belligerent nation that would much rather they fuck off “back where they came from”.

Next up, why bombing the fuck out of Iraq for no good reason might have played a part in motivating the 7/7 bombers. And why constantly giving Anjem Choudary lots of shrieking newspaper headlines when he were doing his shoe-string budget protests on A4 pages might have significantly contributed to him becoming a national fucking brand.
You reap what you sow, as they say.

Just Visiting – look how many groups signed up to that declaration I linked to. *Lots* of groups speak out against terrorism, including some one might want to term ‘Islamist’ – but also including many others across a spectrum of views.

EDL and MAC clashed later in Edgware Road and two EDL got stabbed.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23985907-two-men-stabbed-as-protesters-clash-at-911-memorial-services.do

Pictures here:

http://www.demotix.com/news/826955/mac-clash-edl-route-us-embassy-london-central-mosque

18. Just Visiting

Read it again. Its is the guy wrote wrote the article. It was his job. He is speaking up for unsung Muslims working within the community.

http://youtu.be/d54PdWJV-Yg

More video from the day. Very interesting. Who knocked the kid down? Allah?

As far as what is really happening in Islam I have visited Mr Choudharry’s posse a few times over the years. It hasn’t grown larger or smaller. At any one meeting there are maybe 150-300? I am bad at judging crowds. They are a small group of Muslims with inordinate amount of media coverage because they make a good story.

Sarah AB

> look how many groups signed up to that declaration I linked to. *Lots* of groups speak out against terrorism, including some one might want to term ‘Islamist’ – but also including many others across a spectrum of views.

I guess there’s a questions as whether statements are enough.
(Especially statements that are aimed it seems at non-Muslims – as they contain no references to Islamic scholars or religious-reasons that would gain respect from Muslims).

I would expect to see a much more active campaign, not just PR statements.

Cylux

You think that asking for more action than mere PR sound bites from the Muslim community is “brow-beating, finger-wagging and alienating Muslims left, right and centre” ?

I guess that would make sense if you disagree with what I wrote earlier:

“The real issue is that the majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand) claim Islamic inspiration.”

What is your view on that?

Dave Bones

> More video from the day. Very interesting. Who knocked the kid down? Allah?

It looked like maybe it was the guy in the black teeshirt walking away after the kid had hit the deck.

Or did you mean something else ?

“”why bombing the fuck out of Iraq for no good reason might have played a part in motivating the 7/7 bombers”"

Oh really? So an Islamic response to an attack is understandable. But a non-Muslim one is wrong!?

And I thought it was (non- word time) ‘Islamophobic’ to say “all Muslims are the same”?
And yet supposedly an attack on an Arab/Iraqi regime (who routinely killed and raped muslims I might add…to NO outcry from other Muslims) ‘makes’ a bunch of British Muslims blow up their own country, the UK?

Quite bizarre how this ‘Muslims’ are not all one group’ only works when Muslims and Lefty idiots want to defend Islam.

Why would a war with Arab/Afghan Muslims bother Asian/British Muslims in the UK???
Why do British Muslims go to Somalia to blow themselves up (and blow up Black Africans by the way!!!!)?
Why do Muslims from India and Muslims from Saudi 9etc etc) both blow up people in other countries?

Seems to me the obvious is indeed obvious! Muslims are one global block.
And they attack as such!

And I like how OUR actions caused 7/7. Not basic, in the Quran/Hadiths Jihad of their religion!

You apologist fools.

“Seems to me the obvious is indeed obvious! Muslims are one global block.
And they attack as such!”

Doesn’t even know the difference between Islam and Islamism. How pathetic.

“Doesn’t even know the difference between Islam and Islamism. How pathetic.”

LMAO!!

yeah. Big difference.
So what religion do ‘Islamist’ terrorists devoutly follow (and indeed mention in pre/post attack videos/statements) again?

Pathetic indeed.

@25

“The real issue is that the majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand) claim Islamic inspiration.”

What is your view on that?

Well earlier you said

Just like in the 1970?s it was true to say that most terrorists were Irish republicans.

So the question is, what was so special about the 1970′s that resulted in Irish republicans being “most terrorists”, and far more importantly what caused the drop-off? Was it fellow Irish republican groups addressing the problem of extremists in their midst perhaps?

Just visiting @ 25

I think that is FAR too simplistic and more than a bit naïve, to be honest.

To be fair, we are merely seeing around the World is just terrorism based on simple concepts, the same concepts that terrorism is always based on. Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are basically ‘terrorism’ aimed at removing invaders from those lands or in the case of Chechnya, people attempting to gain independence (as the terrorists would see it). Nothing unusual about that, surely? Is that any different from the IRA or ETA, or indeed the French Resistance or even, if we want to be frank about it the Boston Tea Party? George Washington was every bit a terrorist as Bin Laden was if we were looking at things dispassionately. Now I am not saying that Washington was perhaps as brutal as Bin Laden, but who knows? If Washington had access to Airlines, what would he have done? Washington gets a good press now and with good reason, but he was a terrorist, even if the name hadn’t been invented then. For that matter, was Sitting Bull a terrorist?

If we had bulldozed Yorkshire, moved the Yorkshire people to refugee camps into neighbouring Lancaster, Cheshire and Northumberland, no doubt we would have seen terrorism there too. Given that we have directed our military might at Muslims, is it any wonder that terrorism happens to occur in Muslim areas?

Is it any wonder that the people we in the West persecute the hardest happen to result in terrorism? Terrorism occurs whenever American troops go. From Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Why is that where ever Western troops go their actions cause terrorism is the real question.

30. Cylux

So the question is, what was so special about the 1970?s that resulted in Irish republicans being “most terrorists”, and far more importantly what caused the drop-off? Was it fellow Irish republican groups addressing the problem of extremists in their midst perhaps?

Well I am not sure what this larger argument you are involved in is about, but I think we can all agree with roughly 100% certainty that no, it was not. The Irish Republicans did a little in the way of fratricide, but not that much. The PIRA took on the INLA for instance. But the numbers were small and it did not cause any major drop off of violence.

31. Jim

Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are basically ‘terrorism’ aimed at removing invaders from those lands or in the case of Chechnya, people attempting to gain independence (as the terrorists would see it).

Except they are not. Al-Qaeda is not indigenous to Afghanistan. It is true that in other places you can find disputes over territory, but oddly enough those disputes tend to be disproportionately from Muslim countries. It is almost as if there is something in the local culture that shapes the response.

George Washington was every bit a terrorist as Bin Laden was if we were looking at things dispassionately.

I forgot when George Washington fly some planes into some buildings in London. Perhaps you can refresh my memory and remind me of when Georgie killed 3000 innocent civilians in one go? And it is worth pointing out here that your pathetic little strawman justification for al-Qaeda breaks down because the Americans were not occupying Bin Laden’s homeland at the time, nor was Saudi Arabia struggling for independence.

If we had bulldozed Yorkshire, moved the Yorkshire people to refugee camps into neighbouring Lancaster, Cheshire and Northumberland, no doubt we would have seen terrorism there too. Given that we have directed our military might at Muslims, is it any wonder that terrorism happens to occur in Muslim areas?

Actually I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Terrorism is only found associated with specific ideologies – Communism and Islamism in the main. Others may flirt with it. If you really want I’ll throw Zionism in as well. But only these two political ideologies produce sustained terrorism. Unless the people of Yorkshire turn to Communism or Islamism ….. oh wait, you’re right. We would.

We have not directed our military might to Muslim areas. In fact we have been highly *uninvolved* in Muslim areas. We still get Islamist terrorism. Again your apologetics are pathetic.

Is it any wonder that the people we in the West persecute the hardest happen to result in terrorism? Terrorism occurs whenever American troops go. From Korea, Vietnam and now Iraq. Why is that where ever Western troops go their actions cause terrorism is the real question.

I forgot the last time a Korean blew up a train. Could you please remind me? For that matter I can’t remember the last time a member of the large Vietnamese community in America became a suicide bomber. Islamist terrorism occurred in America before they went into Iraq. Otherwise they would not have gone into Iraq. We do not persecute people. But the Muslim world, and Communists, still produce terrorism. It comes with the ideology, not with the West’s actions.

but I think we can all agree with roughly 100% certainty that no, it was not. The Irish Republicans did a little in the way of fratricide, but not that much. The PIRA took on the INLA for instance. But the numbers were small and it did not cause any major drop off of violence.

Which is exactly the point I was making. Just Visiting has been hammering this point –

it is within the islamic community that they come: and therefore the islamic community has the greatest responsibilty to address this problem in their midst.

Since comment 5. Given that he had the good graces to mention the troubles I thought it only fair to compare his proposed solution to Islamist inspired terrorism to how things progressed in Northern Ireland.

Cylux 31

A transparent attempt to avoid answering what is a fundamental question!

Try again, here’s the question:

“The real issue is that the majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand) claim Islamic inspiration.”

What is your view on that?

SMFS @ 33

but oddly enough those disputes tend to be disproportionately from Muslim countries.

Yeah, I am guessing that is because Muslim countries are disproportionately under foreign occupation.

I forgot when George Washington fly some planes into some buildings in London.

Whee, look at that, can you think of a fucking reason George Washington (1732-1799) didn’t fly planes into two massive sky scrappers? No, difficult to see past that one. You are correct of course, because George Washington never used jets during any of campaigns. Perhaps the War of independence would have been over a lot quicker if he managed to get his stealth bombers into the air.

And it is worth pointing out here that your pathetic little strawman justification for al-Qaeda breaks down because the Americans were not occupying Bin Laden’s homeland at the time, nor was Saudi Arabia struggling for independence

Sticking my neck out a bit here, I do not think that Bin Laden regarded occupation of Suadi as the driving force here, I am betting he saw occupation a bit more subtlely than you do.

Actually I doubt it. I doubt it very much. Terrorism is only found associated with specific ideologies – Communism and Islamism in the main

That is because when Western Imperialism kills people, by shooting down a plane or bombing a city it is not called terrorism, it is called collateral damage or merely ‘shock and awe’. What you are talking about is condemning actions that ‘we’ disagree with we call it terrorism. You want to talk about terrorism? Look at the genocide carried out by Europeans on the Native Americans, now that WAS terrorism and pretty comprehensive it was too.

Calling something a name like ‘terrorism’ does not make it worse than any other action.

I forgot the last time a Korean blew up a train. Could you please remind me? For that matter I can’t remember the last time a member of the large Vietnamese community in America became a suicide bomber

So, when Americans invaded these Countries the locals did not attack American soldiers in terrorist attacks?

No, not for the Tory fuckwits that infest this board. You have managed to make a complete arse of yourself AGAIN.

Jim

> I think that is FAR too simplistic and more than a bit naïve, to be honest.

No, I think YOU are being to simplistic.

> To be fair, we are merely seeing around the World is just terrorism based on simple concepts, the same concepts that terrorism is always based on.

Right there is your simpleton approach – you want to believe that all terrorism is based on the same concepts!
Why are your so reluctant to do what ay 6th-former would do – and do a ‘compare and contrast’.

> Is that any different from the IRA or ETA, or indeed the French Resistance or …. Boston Tea Party? George Washington was every bit a terrorist as Bin Laden

You see how stupid it ends up sounding, with the ”they are all the same approach’ !

It’s easy to show you are wrong – just compare the level of suicide terrorism between groups – there’s one substantial difference right off !

That needs calm discussion and understanding.

Likewise the repeated claims by Islamic terrorists across many groups and countries – that the aim of their Jihad is to bring the whole world under Islam.

36. Jim

Yeah, I am guessing that is because Muslim countries are disproportionately under foreign occupation.

That would be interesting but of course it is not true. The largest (and longest) deployments outside the US are in Germany, Japan and South Korea. It has been so long since any terrorism has come from those three countries it would take me a while to think of it. Lod Airport for Japan presumably. A Baader Meinhoff attack for Germany. Korea?

Indonesia has a problem with Islamist terrorism. A massive 27 US soldiers are stationed there. Presumably the Marine Guard on the embassy. Neighbouring Australia has 140. It does not have a problem with terrorism. Egypt has 52 US soldiers stationed there. And a terrorist problem. Norway has more. But no problem pre-Brevik.

I could go on but it is pointless. The one region of the world with the least American military presence has been the Muslim world.

Whee, look at that, can you think of a fucking reason George Washington (1732-1799) didn’t fly planes into two massive sky scrappers?

Sure. He was basically a decent human being. Simple.

No, difficult to see past that one. You are correct of course, because George Washington never used jets during any of campaigns. Perhaps the War of independence would have been over a lot quicker if he managed to get his stealth bombers into the air.

But he could have murdered 3000 civilians if he had wanted to. I notice you ignored me asking when he did that. Didn’t you?

Sticking my neck out a bit here, I do not think that Bin Laden regarded occupation of Suadi as the driving force here, I am betting he saw occupation a bit more subtlely than you do.

Sure. He made it up. Like you do. Like the sociopathic do. They don’t need a genuine reason. They can pull any old bullsh!t justification from their arses.

That is because when Western Imperialism kills people, by shooting down a plane or bombing a city it is not called terrorism, it is called collateral damage or merely ‘shock and awe’.

We don’t call it terrorism because it isn’t. But we aren’t the world, son. They certainly do call it terrorism. Which it isn’t. So your non-point is much less of a non-point than you think.

What you are talking about is condemning actions that ‘we’ disagree with we call it terrorism. You want to talk about terrorism? Look at the genocide carried out by Europeans on the Native Americans, now that WAS terrorism and pretty comprehensive it was too.

Part of Sheridan’s campaign might have been called terrorism. I suppose. But there was no genocide of Native Americans in the Anglo-speaking Americas. Nor does you pathetic excuses for genuine terrorists amount to anything unless you care to justify NA terrorism. Of which there is very little. Certainly it cannot be used to justify Bin Laden’s terrorism.

Calling something a name like ‘terrorism’ does not make it worse than any other action.

Sure, but terrorism is worse than non-terrorism.

So, when Americans invaded these Countries the locals did not attack American soldiers in terrorist attacks?

The US did invade Japan. That is true. But there were few terrorist attacks – unless you want to go back to Perry? The US did not invade either Korea or Vietnam so the question is irrelevant.

So all in all a pretty pathetic excuse for an apologetics. Must try harder JimBob.

@35

“The real issue is that the majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand) claim Islamic inspiration.”

What is your view on that?

My view is that it is an unimportant question, asymmetrical warfare has existed for as long as there are groups with grievances without the power of an army behind them.

Just visiting @ 37

Oh, come on try a bit harder. The actual M.O. of the terrorists have changed to be sure, but the underlying justifications have not changed that much. So, during the War of independence and American civil war, farmsteads of sympathisers, and whole villages would be razed to the ground. Okay, I admit that no jets were flown into skyscrappers in those days, but is that because the terrorists tactics have changed, or is there are more obvious eason that never happened? During the IRAs tenure groups of soldiers would be targeted and later on pubs with innocent people would be blown up. Fair enough, we do not march in single file and face the enemy and blast each other with rifles in war time, either. The underlying issues are exactly the same, land grabs.

Israel has put the cat among the pigeons post War and has been the focus of terrorist atrocities. That is the result of a straightforward land grab by the West. Iraq and Afghanistan are basically insurgencies that we would recognise today and so is Chechnya. Of course people like Al Queda are more interest in removing Western Influences in the region, but it still holds true. We could draw parallels with what we see in the Middle East, with similar movements in the West. The IRA, ETA, Mau Mau et al have all had the same board goal. To remove what they see as a foreign power from their land.

SMFS @ 38

That would be interesting but of course it is not true. The largest (and longest) deployments outside the US are in Germany, Japan and South Korea. It has been so long since any terrorism has come from those three countries it would take me a while to think of it. Lod Airport for Japan presumably. A Baader Meinhoff attack for Germany. Korea?

Jesus Christ, you are not comparing The US deployments in Germany & Korea protecting them from an alleged invasion with a full scale invasion of Iraq? Christ almighty!!!! Is that serious? You don’t think the Berlin airlift may have something to do with that?

Get a grip man, get a fucking book and then a grip.

It’s funny to watch a troll losing it and going into a meltdown. Poor Jim.

This “Jihad” OR “resistance” is a false dichotomy. They’re both influential. Muslim terrorists draw inspiration from theology – yeah. The notions of defensive and offensive jihad have been endorsed throughout the centuries and theocrats like Qutb and Maudidi have popularised them in the last century. Nonetheless, Western adventurism in the Middle East has been a great propaganda tool for these nutbags. When Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and the like see bombers flatten villages it makes ‘em think, “Well, gee, these kafir types are everything the Mullahs say they are. I’d better listen to ‘em!”

40. Jim

The actual M.O. of the terrorists have changed to be sure, but the underlying justifications have not changed that much. So, during the War of independence and American civil war, farmsteads of sympathisers, and whole villages would be razed to the ground.

Even cities in the case of the Civil War. But you will notice that those atrocities were ordered by governments, or people with a good claim to be a government, and carried out by people in uniform. The parallel you want is with the Ku Klux Klan which was likewise a group of concerned citizens who, wrongly, thought it was their right to impose their politics on others through violence and terror. Is this what you are justifying Jim?

During the IRAs tenure groups of soldiers would be targeted and later on pubs with innocent people would be blown up. Fair enough, we do not march in single file and face the enemy and blast each other with rifles in war time, either. The underlying issues are exactly the same, land grabs.

What land grab was going on in Ireland in 1968? Do tell Jim. In reality, you know, you may have heard of it, part of the problem was an unfair sharing of resources taken from mainland Britain and spent on things like council houses.

Of course groups of soldiers would be blown up by the IRA. Pubs too. They were and are terrorists. What do you expect? What precisely is fair about it Jim? How does that differ from the KKK? The fact is we did march in the open, in uniform and we did blast each other with rifles. We did not send suicide bombers to Dublin in retaliation. We did not even bomb Dublin from the air. We fought a legal and clean struggle. They did not.

Israel has put the cat among the pigeons post War and has been the focus of terrorist atrocities. That is the result of a straightforward land grab by the West.

That may be true except Turkey also carried out a land grab – they illegally occupied northern Cyprus, not to mention driving out the Greeks, and yet there has been no Greek Cypriot terrorism of note recently. The Kurds have suffered even more. You don’t see them blowing up airliners. The Tibetans have suffered more again. The fact is huge numbers of people have suffered these sorts of problems and yet their response is not terrorism. The Communists and the Islamists who do carry out terrorism find friends in the Muslim world. They do not elsewhere by and large. Why is that Jim?

Iraq and Afghanistan are basically insurgencies that we would recognise today and so is Chechnya.

Chechnya was right up to the point they took their terrorism into Russia once Yeltsin had given them their de facto independence. Iraq and Afghanistan are not insurgencies given the violence comes from foreigners. You may wish it was so but that does not make it so.

Of course people like Al Queda are more interest in removing Western Influences in the region, but it still holds true.

Except al-Qaida also wants southern Spain back. Bin Laden specifically objected to the independence of East Timor. Can you explain that to us Jim?

To remove what they see as a foreign power from their land.

Sure – what they see. That is, they are delusional. That drives their atrocities. Why are you justifying it?

41. Jim

Jesus Christ, you are not comparing The US deployments in Germany & Korea protecting them from an alleged invasion with a full scale invasion of Iraq? Christ almighty!!!! Is that serious? You don’t think the Berlin airlift may have something to do with that?

You said occupation caused terrorism. Japan and Germany were or are literally occupied. Can you please explain why this is not causing terrorism? Protecting Germany and Japan from invasion by whom precisely? The Cold War is over. The Soviet Army has withdrawn. Who are they being protected against now?

It just shows the hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity of your argument. We both know that you will squirm and duck and weave to avoid admitting the truth. But humour me.

43. BenSix

Nonetheless, Western adventurism in the Middle East has been a great propaganda tool for these nutbags. When Afghans, Iraqis, Pakistanis and the like see bombers flatten villages it makes ‘em think, “Well, gee, these kafir types are everything the Mullahs say they are. I’d better listen to ‘em!”

And yet it is funny that British people who make this argument never stop to think why it is that bombers that flatten villages on behalf of Muslim governments don’t have the same effect. The majority of people killed in the Middle East were and are being killed by Middle Eastern governments. Why is it that Egyptian use of chemical weapons in Yemen does not seem to have caused any lasting resentment? Why are there no Mullahs telling Yemenis to kill Egyptians? So too with Saddam’s use of chemical weapons on the Kurds – both Nasser and Saddam have been huge heroes on the Arab Street. The Algerians have lost some 100,000 lives to Islamist terrorism. Those Islamists murdered entire villages. Why has that not caused the slightest revulsion in the Middle East?

The fact is it has nothing to do with atrocities by the West at all. Of which there have been conspicuously few. You are just projecting your obsessions on to them. It comes down to an irrational and deep hatred of the West. A hatred that is taught straight from the Quran even by moderate Muslims. A hatred that has existed since Muhammed’s time and so has meant that there has always been warfare by Muslims against the West whenever they are strong enough to do so. It is sad, but there it is. It is not going to go away because you pretend it does not exist or that it is Bush’s fault.

Cylux 39

This is astonishing.

So you think it is an “an unimportant question” whether the majority of grass roots terrorism world wide, is by those (whether they understand or misunderstand) claim Islamic inspiration !!

You don’t even want to think about the most basic question on global terrorism?

You actively want to stay ignorant!

Certainly explains why your posts on terrorism and Islam are such red herrings – you want to stop anyone else here discussing those questions too -you want to keep us in ignorance too.

@45 – Because there IS a lot of hatred in the middle east…between countries, and often Ethnic groups. The Iraqi Kurds have their own mini-state these days, but ask Turkey how well they get on with the PKK…

And you fail to separate Islam and Islamist yet again.

Moreover, you have little to no knowledge of who commits terrorist actions. Ignoring Iraq and Afghanistan, since the violence there is atypical, in 2010 there were…lessie…

30 Islamist, 3 Non-Islamist Islam, 1 anti-Islamic, 19 Political, 7 Nationalist (including anti-seperatist), 4 Anarchist, 32 Separatist (including NI), 7 unknown

And that’s just incidents which have reached the Western press.

And yet it is funny that British people who make this argument never stop to think why it is that bombers that flatten villages on behalf of Muslim governments don’t have the same effect.

Er, Muslim fighting with Muslims does inspire radicalism. The Houthis in Yemen; the Jundallah in Iran; the Islamic Movement on Uzbekistan. (I don’t mean these groups have legitimate agendas, by the way; it’s just that the behaviour of their opponents is clearly great for recruitment.)

As I’ve said, the West is liable to be a target of aggression because such angry young men will , among others, be attracted to clerics and their teachings of defensive/offensive jihad. I find it baffling that you accuse me of denying these exist when they’re precisely what I wrote of in my first comment.

Actually – no I don’t. I find it understandable. You’re being dogmatic.

@46 It’s unimportant because sure, there’s an Islamic component now underlying most of the world’s would be terrorists/freedom fighters/martyrs, but as Ander Brevik recently demonstrated, Islam is not the sole cause of terrorism. Given all we know about groups like the IRA the Tamil Tigers and various lone paranoid ideologues like the Oklahoma bomber and Brevik you would think that that doesn’t need explaining.

So by focusing on Islam what have you learned? What secret useful information have you gleaned? What plans of action have you formed by focusing on a religion that varies wildly between its sects as much as the various strands of Christianity does?

Cylux

“It’s unimportant because sure, there’s an Islamic component now underlying most of the world’s would be terrorists/freedom fighters/martyrs,”

Arrrr, so you did have a view on this – even you thought it an un-important question.

” but as Ander Brevik recently demonstrated, Islam is not the sole cause of terrorism. ”

Strawman – no one suggest Islam was the sole cause!

“So by focusing on Islam what have you learned? ”

No – we have not ‘focused’ on anything.

We have simple added a piece of truth to our understanding.

We know now that we need to understand more about why there is so much violence coming from the Islamic community.

We know that it is the Islamic community that must address the extremism that is nursed within it’s midst.

We now realise that such violence won’t be reduced without a widespread campaign within the Islamic communities – a campaign that is couched in meaningful language to Muslims: so it must quote Islamic scholars and show the theological case against Islamic violence.

And after searching and not finding such a campaign?
We now realise, the fact that we don’t see a campaign anything like that – that maybe there is no such case to be made. (Surely moderate Islam would have such a case by now if it could – to help stop violence and stop the rest of the world seeing Islam as violent)

So the it helps us get to the next question:
That violence is perhaps inextricably woven into Islam?

And we are no longer surprised to hear that Mohammed himself was a man of violence – a military leader, and a man who beheaded prisoners.

No wonder Muslims mostly don’t make a theological case in public against Islamic violence: as that would expose them to the accusation of being apostates, in criticism of Mohammed.

“No wonder Muslims mostly don’t make a theological case in public against Islamic violence”

Most of them do, you’re not paying attention again.

Leon

‘Most do’ you say?

So there must be loads of examples you can point to?

These must be campaigns aimed at Muslims – theological made cases.

Therefore we’d expect them to be Campaigns that specifically address some of the tricky Quran and Haidth verses that mention violence – and are quoted by terrorists?

Can you point to some URLs of such campaigns?

I’ve never found any -and I’ve looked pretty hard.

49. Cylux

It’s unimportant because sure, there’s an Islamic component now underlying most of the world’s would be terrorists/freedom fighters/martyrs, but as Ander Brevik recently demonstrated, Islam is not the sole cause of terrorism.

Smoking is not the sole cause of lung cancer either. Does it matter?

51. Leon Wolfson

Most of them do, you’re not paying attention again.

Apart from a tiny number of mainly non-practising liberals, would you mind pointing me in the direction of, say, half a dozen such arguments?

@50

We know now that we need to understand more about why there is so much violence coming from the Islamic community.

Er yes, quite. The problem is you focus yourself on internal theological debates and are attempting to exclude external factors that would also significantly contribute.
The Christian right in America often expresses lament that Christians there don’t rise up “like Muslims do” against the Liberals etc, ie the desire for violence lies simmering, unfulfilled. (aside from the odd abortion clinic bombing) The reason why is because despite their rhetoric and the pictures they paint of the world – most of their ‘persecution’ exists only within their head. As Bensix said @43 about western adventurism though, the same cannot be said about the mad mullahs, some truth has been provided to their rhetoric.
Plus I would mention Tunisia and Egypt as demonstrations that perhaps you are painting an overly simplistic picture of Islam.

Cylux

Your desire to talk about anything other then the matter on the table is astonishing!

You agree that the majority of terrorism worldwide is Islamic inspired.

And then you jump to whataboutery:

> The Christian right in America often expresses lament that Christians there don’t rise up “like Muslims do”

You are so transparent in your desire NOT to talk about the issue at hand!

> Plus I would mention Tunisia and Egypt as demonstrations that perhaps you are painting an overly simplistic picture of Islam.

This is more poor logic.

Sure you can find a few Muslim countries that are less violent than others.
Sure you can find some lifelong smokers who lived to 90! (using So Much for Subtleties metaphor)

So what!

Actually Cylux, you are doing LC a favour in this thread.

Your postings are a text-book example of how you and some other LC folk) are desperate to prevent discussing the issue of Islamic Terrorism.

I make it 2 Whataboutery’s , 2 strawmen, 1 emotive accusation not based on fact, and 1 attempt to pretend the question is un-important!

A psychologist would say you’re in denial !

> …Yeah, brow-beating, finger-wagging and alienating Muslims left, right and centre…

> …what was so special about the 1970?s that resulted in Irish republicans being “most terrorists”….

> …My view is that it is an unimportant question…

> …Islam is not the sole cause of terrorism. …

> … The Christian right in America often expresses ….

> …you are painting an overly simplistic picture of Islam…

@56 I AM talking about what is on the table, I just disagree with you on its major root causes and how it might be resolved. I’m not sure why you think this is avoiding the topic.

55. Cylux

The Christian right in America often expresses lament that Christians there don’t rise up “like Muslims do” against the Liberals etc, ie the desire for violence lies simmering, unfulfilled. (aside from the odd abortion clinic bombing)

I am sorry but could you please quote me two or three members of the Christian Right regretting the refusal of Christians to behave as murderously as some Muslims?

@59 Can’t do that at the minute since on my phone, but the phenomenon is prevalent enough to have spawned it’s own term: Fatwa Envy. Look it up.

Cylux

> I AM talking about what is on the table,

Well I already showed, that ain’t true… but anyway…

> I just disagree with you on its major root causes

What have I said so far on this thread, that you disagree with?

Well I already showed, that ain’t true… but anyway…

Where exactly? Please point to precisely where you actually do this, you know, without the whole ignoring large chunks of what I actually say throughout the thread.
You see back @50 where you said

We have simple added a piece of truth to our understanding.

We know now that we need to understand more about why there is so much violence coming from the Islamic community.

We know that it is the Islamic community that must address the extremism that is nursed within it’s midst.

I and indeed So much for Subtlety had already debunked your preferred conclusion way back up @33 & 34. Call it whataboutery if you want, I prefer to call it learning from history.

What have I said so far on this thread, that you disagree with?

Well most of the ass end of your comment @50 where you make wild conclusions based on little other than your prejudices mixed with a little conjecture and a little deliberate ignorance. Also you strange desire for Muslims to NOT reach out to the wider community and instead focus on internal squabbles is fairly disagreeable in and of itself – hence this entire bleeding comments thread.

SMFS @ 44

But you will notice that those atrocities were ordered by governments, or people with a good claim to be a government, and carried out by people in uniform.

And? That is the point I was making, burning a city like Atlanta is still terrorism by any reasonable definition of the word and still is a pretty big atrocity at the time. Surely the Nineteenth Centaury equivalent of burning down two skyscrapers or carpet bombing a Capital city, given the technology avialable. The fact is burning down a city like Atlanta is never called ‘terrorism’, terrorism is a pejorative term used against people who ‘we’ dislike intently. You side say ‘Muslims cause terrorism, but Americans cause collateral damage’, but in each case, you are describing indiscriminate acts of violence towards civilians.

The parallel you want is with the Ku Klux Klan which was likewise a group of concerned citizens who, wrongly, thought it was their right to impose their politics on others through violence and terror.

Again you miss the point, most people recognise what drives the Klu Klux Klan. No one suggests that the KKK represent Christianity and that we need to understand why Christians are so racist and so full of hate, w accept that the KKK do what they do out of a sense of supremacy.

That may be true except Turkey also carried out a land grab – they illegally occupied northern Cyprus, not to mention driving out the Greeks, and yet there has been no Greek Cypriot terrorism of note recently. The Kurds have suffered even more

What kind of position are these groups in to be able to cause international terrorism? Cypriots? Really? Have they got the kind of multi millionaires that AQ have to fund a terrorist attack on… Turkey?

You said occupation caused terrorism. Japan and Germany were or are literally occupied. Can you please explain why this is not causing terrorism?

Yeah, I am going to stick my neck out here and suggest most readers here will manage to distinguish between the kinds of post war, relatively benign ‘occupation’ by allied troops in West Germany and American troops in Japan with the brutal War of occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt many decent people will look at the prosperity that both these Countries achieved during that time with the brutal regimes imposed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Cylux

It’s common in any discussion, that if one party does not want to debate the issue in hand, they will find it uncomfortable when the issue keeps coming up.

Your last comment is a shining example of that – you don’t really talk about Islam or Islamic terrorism at all, if you read it! Apart from beign vague:

You throw in yet another straw man: (your count is now 3)
> your strange desire for Muslims to NOT reach out to the wider community.

Anyway Cylux -the ball is now in your court.

It’s no point contining to debate with you, unless you’ll be ready to drop the strawman, drop the emotion.

If you’re willing to enter rationally into this debate:

Then you need to support the claim you made earlier:

>> I just disagree with you on its major root causes

So I’ll ask, as I did above:
“What have I said so far on this thread, that you disagree with?”

I suggest you take just 1 of my comments – the one you think is most easy to debunk. The weakest 1 point.

Quote it word for word in a post – and then explain why you think it is wrong. And quote 3rd party sources if needed to support any statements you yourself make, or say that you think they are self-evident.

Look forward to discussing it!

As this thread peters out – it is another one proving that most LCers don’t want (yet) to even dissuss the ‘Islam’ factor in ‘Islamic terrorism’.

Cylux’s 49 is the clearest proof – in one post he admits the scale of the terrorism and then shows his unwillingness to discuss it:

> there’s an Islamic component now underlying most of the world’s would be terrorists/freedom fighters/martyrs
…
> So by focusing on Islam what have you learned?