For those of us living under a rock, yesterday two cars packed with chemicals were discovered by London police:

Police hunting London car bombers



And this morning, news broke of a flaming car crashing into Glasgow Airport although it is not confirmed if this was a terrorist attack or an accident which is why I will not quote the story as of yet.

Questions for Debate:

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?

EDITED TO ADD:

Airport incident 'was terrorism'

The UK gets attacked more largely because it has more hardline Islamist either living here or moving back and forth to hardline Muslim States than you have in the US.

The UK's neutered laws on immigration and terrorism also make the UK an ideal ground for hardline Islam to prosper, because once they get into the country it is almost impossible to remove them.

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

It's chilling that George Bush and his cronies would almost kill scores of Londoners just to keep the sheeple paranoid and make Halliburton richer.

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

As you note, it's the UK, not just London. The cell working on these bombs has connections to Birmingham and the Mercedes was stolen and tracked to Scotland. Their homegrown Muslim problem is bigger than ours, but ours is unfortunately growing thanks to the Saudis funding mosques and CAIR for us. Oh, and prison recruiting is going to be even better once we bring the Gitmo guys back here and throw them in the pen.

As for the timing, last July 7 was the opening of the G8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland. The Glasgow attack took place while the Queen was traveling to Scotland to open their Parliament. The London attacks were no doubt a "welcome Gordon Brown" gift.

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

No, I'd rather that the military prevent stuff and I never know about it than watch unarmed policemen wrestle with flaming jihadis, thanks! Here is an interesting account of what happened in Scotland today. I used to go to that airport almost every week. Yikes.

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?[/b]

A bit of luck and a lot of good law-enforcement and intelligence activity, yes. This is what really scares me. I'd rather have our government over-reach just a bit and catch more guys, because if we don't catch them, and we have muslims trying this stuff here, it could get really ugly fast.

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

My first reaction to this news was the awful feeling that "the terrorists" were practicing for an immediate assault against the USA, given the fact that the 4th of July is just around the corner.

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?
Opportunity probably is the operative word here. Many of the Islamist hard ball players make their home in London!


3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?
My feeling is that the Brits' law enforcement agencies, Scotland Yard, MI-5 etc, just have a supremely more effective communication with all arms of their intelligence agencies, and the power to immediately act. As far as immediate air response(NORAD), I certainly wish that we have our act together six years later, but how can we know for sure?

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?
IMO it has just been luck that we've not been hit again by now. Additionally, I don't believe that communication among the various intelligence agencies in the USA is free flowing as was promised following 9/11. We have too many EGOS involved here. We all know that it's just a question of time until another big assault is carried out in the USA. I give no credit to the Bush Administration for the luck we've had thus far. Our borders are still not secure, and all our Congress seems to accomplish is continual bickering. LUCK is all it has been thus far and I'm sad to say, another attack is undoubtedly in our near future.

That's just a wee bit America-centric of you I think. See my comments on timing - these are aimed at the UK for sure. As someone once said "they don't have a 4th of July over there." I doubt that they were planning to drive a stolen Mercedes from Scotland to NY, but it would have been great if they tried.

I definitely hope I'm wrong about this! I admit that I'm VERY "America-centric". I'm just one of many who feels that our intelligence agencies are not on par with those of the UK's.

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

Besides the obvious reactions of horror at the violence that human beings do against each other, and relief that the plot was foiled, the thing that came to my mind was how low-tech this attack really was. I mean, people are going to have access to automobiles, gasoline, cylinders of propane gas, and nails. It doesn't take a huge, extremely rich organization to murder hundreds or thousands of people. A small group of fanatics can do it. The fact that the plot was foiled also shows that we are not dealing with criminal masterminds, but with people who make mistakes.

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

The real struggle with Islamic fanatacism is not happening in the USA; it is happening in Europe. The European experience seems to be quite different from the American experience, when it comes to their Muslim immigrants. Besides sheer numbers, the failure of these immigrants to be integrated into the mainstream of the culture of their new homeland would seem to be the primary reason.

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

Yes. It's difficult for me to see how even the most successful military action against an identifiable foreign enemy could have much effect on terrorists who are living in one's own nation. Perhaps some financial support would be cut off; but as I indicated above, it doesn't really take much money to make a car bomb and kill people. Acts of terrorism are primarily a matter of domestic security (which could easily include military intelligence) rather than a matter of warfare.

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?

This is difficult to say for certain. One factor to consider might be that the crimes of 9/11 nearly drained the resources of those determined to attack the United States. (It might just be easier and cheaper for them to attack Europe in smaller, although still horrible, crimes.) Another might be increased security at airports and the like. The invasion of Afghanistan may have weakened their ability to attack the United States. The effect of the invasion of Iraq seems more problematical.

Well as usual I'll be the skeptic here. Once again I'm seeing no direct link between Muslims immigration, integration, and terrorism.

I mean did the UK have an "Irishman Problem" when Sinn Fein was at its worst?

Did the US have a "white people" problem when Bombingham and Dynamite Hill were earning their nicknames?

Complicated situations like this defy the simplistic diagnosis "well its all these Muslims we're having"

Muslims have been in the UK for decades, something more is at work.

I agree there is an "extremism" problem....but that's not the same thing.

Having lived in the UK, I have to say that you come off as quite naive, turnea. Comparing the jihadists to the IRA or the KKK may make you feel better, but in the end you may still end up dead. It's a muslim problem. Avoiding it just makes it worse.

Naivety applies when experience can edify, friend.

Enlighten me.

If we have evidence it's a "Muslim problem" rather than a problem of political extremists who happen to be Muslim well this is a debate site....

Questions for Debate:

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

Here we go again. Its time for the usual round of excuses to be made. Once more we are witness to the truth about the religious mind and how human beings, gripped by religious fervour will not hesitate to murder other people for nothing more substantial than their own religious convictions. Again we'll hear about the bravery of Londoners, the innocence of the Muslim community, and about the dire threat of backlash suffered by Muslims. As usaul the actual motives of these would be murderers will be glossed over to make way for a trite multicultural explanation that seeks to maintain the illusion of British national unity whilst pushing the blame further and further towards the victims. It won't matter if any one confesses, or if a video is found explainig their motives by virtue of their religious motivations. They'll be branded as 'extremists' in order to prevent the rest of the Muslims from having to confront the respsonibility they bear and the truth of their religious obligations. No doubt in six months time when the veil of amnesia has again descended upon the UK, I shall once again be reading how a large pecentage of British Muslims do not believe these attacks were carried out by Muslims at all.


2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

Because it is an easier target already well populated by eager jihadi's. As Victoria said these people are not great terrorist experts. They make mistakes. They are common folk who have been pushed over the edge by their own warped sense of reality, proof for any one not blinded by a preconceived political bias that Islam creates extremism like the rain creates rust.


3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

No, this is a political situation and must be dealt with accordingly. The Police can only clean up after the mess is made, likewise with the military. The problem of Islam in Europe and its avaricious grasping for social power needs to be confronted by our politicians. Unfortunately, like the socialist mayor of London, 'Red Ken', our politicians are beholden to the same preconceived political bias that allowed Islam to gain its foot hold in our countries in the first place.

It may/probably is already to late and the only course of action left to us now is wait for the Muslims to reach the point where they throw off the pretense of being beholden to our laws. Many 'Muslim leaders' in Europe have made no secret of their goals and once they start to demand indpendence and autonomy, the remaining Europeans will be forced to either accept the end of secular Europe or go to war to save it.

The lessons of the past, of the thirty years war, of the Balkans, of the reconquista, the fall of Byzantium, the Holocaust, have all been forgotten and pushed aside by a proud and vainglorious attempt at creating The United States Of Europe. There is nothing the police or the timid militaries of Europe can do to change that now. We are on a course which will lead us to either defeat or disaster. These bombings are but the opening movements in a sympthony of horrors.


4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?

Yes. If you can count prudence as luck.




Being born Irish is not the same as being a Muslim. I know that people love to try and pretend there is an element of racism in Islamophobia, but the bottom line, there is no racial, or ethnic element to being a Muslim. Islam is an IDEOLOGY. Its subscribers, whether or not they were born into a Muslim family or not, are only Muslims, only follow Islam BY CHOICE.

This is the profound and all important difference, and yet it is the detail which gets over looked again and again by people like you who'se arguments appear to rest the assumption that a religion is somehow akin to race, or ethnic identity.


Al Qaeda killed more people on 9-11 than the IRA did in the whole thirty year stretch of 'the troubles'.


This answer, like the naked emporer in his 'new clothes' gets trotted out every single time there is an attack but for once I wish some one would at least try to explain to me just what is the difference that justifies this answer rather than expect me to simply accept the emporer is wearing anything at all.

Just where is this apparent difference between Islam and extremism turnea? You make the distinction often enough but you never define it. The entire Islamic world seems so at odds with your simplistic explanation that I suspect you are either deluding yourself or you are a Muslim, which from my perspective is much the same thing.

I suppose my problem with your arguments stems from my own percpetion of religion as extremism. All organized religion or doctrine/ ideology is a form of extremism and the only reason why people do not think of it as such is because religion has so spread into every single aspect of human society that it dictates much of the way human beings think.

Islam is the worst of the lot as far as I can see. Not only is it a religion, but itis also a political control ideology which puts serious demands on those whom are described as Muslims. It offes no freedoms, quite the opposite in fact. Demands total submission, qwells any and all free thinking and advocates violence. You don't have to be a terrorist to be extremist.

Christian, which is why I know to dismiss statment like.

as so much hot air.

Generalize, simplify, eliminate all critical thinking and accuse any who engage in thought with naivety or, more likely, complicity.

This is the Modus Operandi of the fearful, so yes "Here we go again" applies beautifully.

I respond the way I do simply because I am not afraid. Concerned sure, but not at all afraid.

So since my critical thinking is still active I realize that the "entire Islamic world" is not at all at odds with my explanation. I realize further that in my short life I known many Muslims and that its a safe bet that when I return to classes I shall associate with a few more.

I realize further that I have studied the "Islamic world" from many perspectives. Central Asian, Middle Eastern, and African most closely. As usual facts temper the imagination.

Turns out they are just normal people each nation with its own regional politics. Like many religious people they see these politics in religious terms, but politics is a key problem

Following closely behind, economics.

That's going to be a key factor, especially since it is so divorced from reality.

One difference is that we have seen how your examples turn out.

Eire is a prosperous member of the EU. Northern Ireland has its problems yet has found peace. Both are now peace-loving western democracies.

"White" America, the South, if it were on its own, would be one of the most racially harmonious countries in the world, a beacon of freedom, a powerful, growing economy and thriving culture.

"Bombingham" has a black mayor and a burgeoning hispanic population.

These things are possible because of Western civilization - a shared history and culture that allows for the freedom of man. Not submission to one's religion.

Islam has always been at war with the West, whether Muhammad raiding caravans, Saracens at the gates of Vienna, or Pakistanis attempting to bomb nighclubs in London. If you want to see the end-state of Islam go to Saudi Arabia or Yemen. There is no need to imagine it moderating, or ask me about some past problems of Western civilization. Islam is not part of Western civilization.

Just what I was getting at we haven't given this situation time to develop either.

Well, that's because it's the poster city of White Flight, but point taken. Its better now than when the police were helping the Klan murder its black citizens in their sleep fifty years ago.

Seriously?

Friend there are plenty of Westerners who are plenty submitted to their religion. It doesn't mean they are dangerous, just religious.

Western civilization, especially in the US is barely two generations, if that, from a time when mob violence, murder and government complicity where the order of the day.

A simplification, just like much of what is said about Muslims here, but talking to a guy from Birmingham about "peaceful Western civilization" can be a learning experience.


Trying to slide this by a history buff, eh?

Nothin doin'.

Mohammad fought the east a lot more than the west, and the West did its own own share of invading before and after the Turks turned the tables on them.

The modern Middle East is a place created more by cold war politics than religion. Most of its rulers aren't even very religious.

This is the land of the generalissimo.

Yes, you can dismiss it if you so wish, but as you've just said, this is a debate site, so why not rather answer the question instead of side stepping it with faux indignation?

Where is this apparent difference between Islam and extremism turnea? Whats the big difference between them?

Trying to peddle me off with the notion that since you've not encountered any dangerous Muslims then Islam must not be responsible for what is done in its name is a self fulfilling fantasy. You might just as well argue the sun orbits the Earth for all the logic you've just displayed.

Equally so the notion that fear is something negative or irrational. So you're not scared. Bully for you! your not exactly in the line of fire either so its easy to be so brave and look down your nose at those who are. Try living for a day in this womans shoes, or spend a day in this man's reality and then talk to me about being 'divorced from reality'.


I have also studied Islam from various perspectives and I have not come to the same conclusion that you have. What I see is a pattern of behaviour that has remained unchanged form the beginning. You say Muslims are just normal people and each nation has its own regional politics and I say, yes, of course they are, but that doesn't mean anything at all. The vast majority of Nazi's were normal people too. So were the Soviets. To be 'normal' whilst your comrades are going about committing atrocities is not an excuse.


Who's making generalizations and simplifications now then?

I was aiming for ennui, guess I missed.

I was unaware your statement was a question.

Now here's one.

The same as the difference between German nationalism and Nazism I suppose. No injunction is laid upon a Muslim to terrorize those who do not share their beliefs and most intend to do no such thing.

Extremists are different in that way.

Another key difference is that extremists believe that violence is the only way to solve political issues, whether it be Pakistan's spat with India, the Palestinians and the Israelis, etc.


Rather it often encourages negative and irrational actions.


Well I've been challenged to comment on the "Muslim World" so I gave it a shot. There are, of course, exceptions.

However the issue of Cold War politics is indeed pretty much universal in the region.

If a few amateurs can bring England under siege it's a miracle they survived Irish terrorists.

What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?
I came downstairs late this morning to see Face the Nation. A London police or intelligence agent speaking with Schieffer gave me the impression that the men they caught were young, inexperienced, and their mentors got to practice in Iraq.

Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?
Um, how do you know the U.K. is a bigger target? I think it's an easier target, but if British authorities keep discovering bombs and amateurs keep burning themselves alive AQ is going to have to step up its presence or look to the Far East.

Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?
For the U.S. I think this is true.

Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?
I'm not sure. I don't have the combination to Cheney's safe, but I'm sure he'd disagree with this statement and blather on about domestic spying.

Perhaps if you weren't so bored, you might care to actually read what is directed towards you, the question was clearly posed in my first post. Boredom indicates you've already made up your mind though, so perhaps there isn't so much to debate at all....?


Really?

Link.

The bold text is my high light. It seems pretty straight forward to me. Islam not only condones warfare, it actually obliges it against 'injustice and oppression' and/ or non Islamic nations depending on which Islamic scholar you care to ask.

...and asking an imam is how you establish just what and just what is not 'injustice or oppression' which leads you to all manner of highly personal and dubious interpretations of what is allowed. Or in other words, if an Imam claims jihad against the kuffar is a just cause, then for a Muslim, it is, which is why you don't see a great uproar amongst Britains Muslims when ever Muslims carry out, or try to carry out terrorist attacks against kuffar. Simply put, Osama Bin laden and his would be allies are being good Muslims and no right thinking Muslim is ging to take the side of an unbeliever against him.

Thise pitiful few who do, those whom we in the west like to label as 'moderate' or 'secular' Muslims are more often than not outsiders to the vast majority of their co-religionists.


Does it? I would say fear is simply fear. It might just as equally encourage caution or prudence.


As opposed to which other region on planet Earth?

You are referring to individuals. I'm referring to society. I point to Arabia as the endpoint of Islamic society, and you indicate exceptions in the Western world. Our society allows for submission to religion at the level one chooses. Islam governs by religion, for example barring non-Mulsims from mecca or executing Christian converts as a matter of policy.


Ditto a Spaniard or Greek. Actually, we still occasionally have mob violence, murder and government complicity today. Even so, it's the best thing going, is it not?


Your examples don't exactly negate the statement "Islam has always been at war with the West" though.

Also, I specifically did not include all of "the modern middle east" in my statement. I specifically named Saudi Arabia and (probably mistakenly) Yemen. Whether you believe the Saudi leaders are *really* religious or not, they are the official, recognized Islamic state, no? Keeper of the holy places, much like the Ottomans before them. So, I look at the Islamic state who loudly proclaims that they are the end-state of political Islam, and say - that's not what I want. Muslims, here and elsewhere, they say that it is what they want. Disagree?

I am aware that there are those who claim such an injunction against non-believers. I am also aware they are not a majority and indeed never have been.

Christian and Muslims have lived together in the Arab world for centuries. Sepahardi Jews actually sought shelter there from Christian oppression. The fact that the 69 percent of British Muslims are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism in their country indicates their is a difference between most Muslims and the extremists.

The Middle East was interfered with more than most regions because of its oil wealth.


That's where you're wrong. Though life in the Bible Belt may temper this view. I go to job interviews aware that my own active Christian beliefs will come up and will likely give me an advantage over other applicants.

I had a (very pleasant) conversation just last month with an interviewer about prayer and its affect of workplace and school performance.

I'm talking about society too.


This is true in some majority Muslim countries and not true in others. It is its the "endpoint" assertion that is most problematic. We in the west often forget that the developing world is well.... developing.


Not entirely it merely takes the sting out of it when we realize that for the vast majority of that time the West has been at war with Islam.


As a person who has read on the region I notice a lot of mistakes in these kind of debates which generally tips me off that things like...

...are mistaken extrapolations of mistaken premises.

Not many Muslims want a worldwide Saudi Arabia.

Given that we are discussing terror attacks, I am focusing on the 31%, not the 69%. I have heard the "tiny minority of extremists" argument for too long. Speaking of the UK...

link


That survey was taken a year ago. The bombings this week are a product of that part of British society. OK, it's not "most," it's only one-third. How do I square this with "Not many Muslims want a worldwide Saudi Arabia." They seem to want the sharia bit if not the corrupt royal family that rule it.

From what I've read the relationship between Western Muslims and sharia is complicated. When we think of Sharia we think of dhimmi and oppression of women, which is odd because most Muslims see the quality of life for women as better in the West that in the Middle East. Taken from the same Pew poll.

I suspect when Muslims ask for sharia they have something else in mind than non-Muslims.

Oh, and the concern for terrorism rate in Britain is less than 10% higher for non-Muslims so that tempers concern about the loyalty 39%, perhaps they like 13% or so of Britons in general feel other issues are more pressing.

Yes, I keep hearing that too. I've yet to see anything that proves it though. Perhaps you are in possesion of such evidence, if so, please share it because I'm very interested in reading it. So far what I've encountered is a lot of westerners, such as yourself, making claims on behalf of Muslims, whilst Muslim leaders and scholars repeatedly contradict this ardent appraisal... Mohammad Sayyed Tantawi for example is described on Wikipedia as "perhaps the foremost Sunni Arab authority",[1] "acknowledged as the highest spiritual authority for nearly a billion Sunni Muslims",[2] and "a supreme authority."[3]. According to the BBC he 'condemns suicide bombings', and yet according to MEMRI:

But lets not rest it all on poor old Tantawi's shoulders. Sure he's an important Islamic scholar, considered a 'moderate' by many, but lets hear what a former sunni jihadi himself has to say about the matter of motivation! Tawfik Hamid is a former jihadi who put aside violence and can probably thus be described as a genuine moderate as opposed to a silver tongued cleric spouting ambiguities:
Link.

And finally, for your viewing pleasure. Sultan doesn't really support my arguments much, but I agree with all she says. I merely disagree that the problem can be isolated from Islam. None of what we're seeing today would happen without the unifying influence of Islam. It is the motivation quoted by the terrorists, time and time again.

Already did. Do you care to comment on the poll data?

I'd love to see a mainstream source on Tantawi's speech including full context if possible.

Mohamed Sayed Tantawi: An abstract contention

..and you're right the rest of that post didn't support your argument much.

You obviously do not have very many Muslim, especially Pakistani Muslims in Alabama do you?

Islam is not just a faith it is a decreed way of life, a way of life that is not designed to accept our Western values, but who is to say our values are correct. Certainly we here in the UK see a different value to the way of life than you do in the US.

Yes Muslims have been in Britain (England) since the time of the Crusades, may be before and the North African Muslims raided England's Southern coastline over several centuries, but now we have very large numbers who have come in over a very short space of time. This has inevitable caused a great deal of stress not only on British, but mostly English society and it has produced great strains on the infrastructure. The large majority are Muslims from Pakistan and Bangladesh many of whom have a very hardline view of Islam and their homeland culture and as such they see the rest of us as not correct in a great many ways.

These attackers carry out their deeds in the cause of an ideology and faith l based on a book of fiction, the IRA took their actions for what they saw as the cause of their homeland long ago stolen by we English/Normans.

Whilst no terrorist bombing can be justified, doing so in the name of some very dodgy and doubtful faith has no justification and if you can not see that Islam is the root and sole cause of these actions then I feel very sorry for you.

Active hardline Islam is not openly seen in the US, for several reasons, but in the sub culture of American Islam it is steadily boiling away and eventually the lid may well get blown off.

You should see these events as your possible potential future.

This one? Certainly. Having read through the article, I conclude that it does not really support your point of view. Rather it paints a very ambiguous picture, Lets look at some other examples from the UK, as quoted by your source:



Far from supporting your contention that the majority of Muslims do not support extremism, I feel the Pew report strongly emphasises the argument that Islam is growing at the cost of national cohesion and identity, that an extremist religious view is prefered by the vast majority of Muslims over a secular national identity and the real reason why most Muslims (and their western supporters) consider themselves to be moderate lies in the fact that they do not consider Islam to be extremist. The poll indicates however that they are since they are willing to put their religious identity, and all that it requires, before any other considerations.

That is extremism.

many people keep commenting on how primitive the bombs were but actually they were quite dangerous as well as brilliant. Ultimately the bombers were looking to make gas aerosol bombs. These, had they gone off, would have made Oklahoma look like fire crackers. I think the discounting of this as "amateur stuff" is a really bad idea. Let's face it excellent Police work didn't catch these guys, Hell, they towed one of the bomb laden cars away because it was illegally parked!
The UK is simply easier to hit. They could, if they had to, walk there to do their worst.
No. These acts need to be answered with grotesque responses of might. The leaders of the Islamic world need to understand that the West is not a peaceful, loving group. They need to understand the West is more than willing to inflict horrifying death upon them, even if the West doesn't. At the moment the Islamic world (extreme and otherwise) are literally using our laws against us or trying very hard to.
Yes we have been lucky. We have also showed a willingness to return harm to those that would harm us. There is something to that.

This is grasping at straws. Rather than confront the fact that most Muslims are themselves afraid of Islamic extremism you ignore it and simply redefine extremism.


Putting religious considerations first is not at all extremism. It's really common sense considering religion is a philosophical concern.

People of conscience typically put their core philosophical beliefs before anything else. The only time a person with value their philosophy less than nationality is when they don't believe strongly in it.

Heck, I put my belief in Human Rights higher than my American nationality.

If it came to one or the other, I choose the former.


Depends on what you mean. I certainly know a few.

I went to school with Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims. If they were extremist it didn't show.

The only grudge I have is that one (very nice) Bangladeshi, consistently beat me at ping-pong.

I am aggrieved sorely.

Then you are also an extremist.

I do not think I am redefining anything at all. A quick check with an online dictionary page confirms this: Extremism means 'one who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics'. By that measure, any one who places their personal convictions before the norm, is an extremist. In the matter we are debating, I would say the norm is the law rather than nationality or customs, but it all amounts to much the same thing.

I am unmoved by the absurd argument that putting religious considerations first is really common sense. A sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like, has nothing what so ever to do with personal religious beliefs and even less to do with ideological doctrine, which is what we are really debating here.

The notion that Islamic teaching should be put before national loyalty is bordering on treason and we need look no further then for reasons why Muslim doctors in the UK are trying to explode car bombs in London. The answer is staring us in the face and it has nothing what so ever to do with 'common sense'.


edited to add missing link

There are times when my argument is pretty much made for me.
I mean if you believe that holding any value higher than your nationality is bordering on treason ("The crime of betraying one's government.")

Well then Swift's adage applies.


If you choose to believe that anything outside of the ordinary is extreme by all means go ahead.

..but we well know that isn't the type of extremism we are discussing here.

ANY value? Where did I say ANY value turnea? In point of fact I made a very specific point regarding the notion that putting Islamic teaching before national loyalty is bordering on treason so I advise you apply your Swifts adage to yourself.

...As for what I 'choose to believe', I think its pretty hard to argue that a word has a definition that contradicts its defined meaning. There is only one form of extremism turnea and I just quoted the dictionary definition of what it is. I don't know what definition you have in mind, but I can assure you that what ever it is, if it contradicts the definition in the dictionary, then you are most probably using the wrong word. Please feel free to elaborate on what you think extremism is and what we are debating here. For my part I am quite clear that what I am debating is the actions and attitudes of Muslims in the UK.

As for the point I just made, let me repeat myself for the hard of hearing: I would say the norm is the law

Let's start at the end:

Which would negate your own criticism of the response to the poll question on Islamic identity. It was a question on nationality.

There is a such thing as inductive reasoning. Anyone who believes I applied it poorly is welcome to their opinion.

Most dictionaries make a point of saying an extremist must be far outside the norm, an outlier.


Clearly the fact that a majority of British Muslims are concerned about the rise of Islamic extremism much give one a mighty good reason to say that they themselves are not extremists.

We are discussing terrorism that is what I mean by the "kind" of extremism being addressed in this thread.

That is extremism. Nothing could play into their hands more than to react in this manner, and frankly, if that's who we become, we would deserve to be attacked. "Grotesqe responses of might" are, quite simply put, the indiscriminate murder of innocents.

There is no place for a response such as this.



Obviously, I am always sad to hear of acts of violence. I am also sad to know that these random acts are going to be viewed as another reason to ratchet the fear-mongering back up, and for millions of people, worldwide to have an excuse to stop using their brains.

QUOTE

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

Has it? It doesn't appear that way to me at all. As soon as an Al Qaeda attack costs the lives of 3,000 Londoners, we can have this discussion.

QUOTE

3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

To this day, no one has been able to explain to me what a military solution would be to a loosely banded group of terrorists that are spread worldwide, among populations, and whose members could spring into existence literally overnight. Any so called "military solutions" I have seen so far have been less than ineffective; they have been absolutely futile. they have had the effect, so far, of pouring gasoline on a fire.

QUOTE

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attacks carried out?

That is a largely meaningless question, as I couldn't possibly have the type of knowledge required to answer it.

So if the bombs worked and say only 200 people were killed what's the proper response? What do you do to people who are killing YOUR innocents or are the West inherently not innocent as some have suggested after 9/11? (I'm not linking 9/11 and these failed attempts, I'm linking a line of reasoning that states the West deserves to be attacked and that civilians are as legitimate targets as military targets.)

That argument boils down to "You got a better idea?"

To which he will obviously respond.

"Yeah, go after the people who actually did this and stop terrorizing the general population"

But the people who actually did this are dead. They blew up with the bomb they set off. (Perhaps not in this specific case but often.) Now what? Shrug your shoulders and hope it doesn't happen again? The ultimate goal is to get the local population to be more than willing to turn in/apprehend the "people who actually did this". Reasonling with them doesn't seem to be catching on.

...and killing them will make them much nicer I'm sure. The problem with targeting civilians to terrify them, is that it make you a terrorist.

..and it won't work.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here! What do I do to people who are killing "my" innocents? You haven't made any kind of point that anyone we would be "answering with a grotesque response of might" have killed anybody! A "gross response of might" is simply terrorism; murder.

I hate to break the news, pal, but terrorism and murder are ALWAYS WRONG. No circumstances can make them right. The very idea that they can is absurd, and barbaric; bordering on psychopathic!










If they people who did the act were dead, then you would have to link someone alive to planning or funding those who did the act, and you would have to arrest and prosecute those people. That's how law and order works. Your logic behind "reasoning with them doesn't seem to be catching on" is flawed, because no one has pointed out where anyone has ever tried this. Here in the US, we don't "reason" with criminals. We arrest them, and prosecute them, and then we punish them according to our laws.

You seem to be laboring under some silly notion that you can intimidate people who are willing to die in order to attack others. If someone doesn't fear death, then what DO they fear?

Again, you appear to be advocating the insane military tactic of fighting fires by pouring gasoline on them. No sound strategist has ever advocated this.

Ok let me make this clearer for you.

You live Anycity, NY and one day two Islamic Extremists take a car loaded with bombs and plows it into the Financial Center on Main Street in Anycity, NY. This bomb is pretty strong and the Financial Center on Main Street is the hub for all the banking in Anycity. At the end of the attack 200+ citizens of Anycity, NY are dead and you can't get to any of your money besides what's in your pocket. Oh and your neighbor is dead. The Islamic Extremists are from Anywherestan and they are dead, both of them. They blew up with the car.

What is the proper response for the US Government in this scenario? What should they do?

I know! I know!

Let's do what Bin Laden would do!

The argument against terrorism is an ethical one it doesn't change with the circumstances.

What's the plan Turnea? What does the US do? What is the proper response to having civilians killed? What do you propose? What has been done in the past that has made this sort of activity stop? Whose lead should we follow? Should we follow the Russians? Yemen's? The Netherlands? Thailand? Israel? The UK?

How so?

Yes, there is also such a thing as barking up the wrong tree.


Yes. And I say putting your religion before the law is about as extreme as you can get.


There is nothing 'clear' about it at all. That is your highly personal interpretation. As I have already said, the poll is ambiguous. If, as I suggest, the majority of Muslims do not consider themselves to be extremists, even when another poll indicates they are, then it should not be a surprise to see them describe 'extremists' as dangerous.

One should also bare in mind that a poll can be misleading in that people may not always chose to be honest about their opinions with regards to sensitive topics. I asked you for evidence that the majority of Muslims do not accept the connection between Islam and violence against non believers and you provided an ambiguous poll regarding the attitudes of Muslims with regards to extremism. I can't see that you have proven anything beyond your own need for reassurance.

You certainly have not addressed the request or proven that the majority of Muslims are opposed to using 'justified violence' against non Muslims and the bulk of evidence, as far as I can see weighs heavily against your argument that those Muslims who are prepared to accept violence in defence of Islam are not a majority. The onslaught of Islamic terrorism in recent years is happening regardless of this contention and if the majority of Muslims were as innocent as you appear to believe then I doubt I would be seeing such an upsurge of hatred and anger in the Muslim world. I doubt I would see millions turning out in Turkey demonstrating against the threat of Islam taking over. I doubt I would see so many honour killings, beheadings and suicide bombings in all parts of the globe where Muslims are to be found.

In short, I do not accept your argument because you have not provided any real evidence at all to support it whilst all over the globe I see Muslim scholars, leaders and law makers justifying violence against kuffar. If as you contend the majority of Muslims were opposed to this, I feel sure there would then be a great many more Muslim scholars and leaders attempting to redress the balance by arguing against violence. As of now, I have not seen much evidence of this at all.

What I have seen is secular Muslims being attacked as apostates.


I see. Well, for my part, I make no difference between the 'kind' of extremism that turns to terrorism and the 'kind' that merely allows it to do so.

The law is the norm for the common people of Britain. It supercedes all and any personal convictions or ideologies because the law is the sum total of the people's democratic will. It is, for wont of a better description, the morality of the majority. It represents the people and all they hold to be right.

Any one who attempts to subvert or break the law is a criminal. Any one who puts their own ideological convictions before the law is an extremist. Whether or not they actually act on their personal morality decides whether or not they are also criminals, but has no bearing on their personal beliefs. You are an extremist if you place your own morality before the laws of your nation, but you are not a criminal until you violate those laws.

I don't get what you're trying to say here. Two people, extremists, killed innocents by killing themselves. If the only information I have is where they are from, then there will never be anything I can do! The attackers are dead. Now, if I know Osama Bin Anybody funded the attack, I can find him, and bring him in, dead or alive. If Osama Bin Anybody was head of a specific terror group, called Al Anybody, I would get international cooperation in finding the members of this group, and holding them responsible.

Let's turn this around, shall we?

You live Anycity, Anywherestan and one day two attackers take a car loaded with bombs and plows it into the Financial Center on Main Street in Anycity, Anywherestan. This bomb is pretty strong and the Financial Center on Main Street is the hub for all the banking in Anycity. At the end of the attack 200+ citizens of Anycity, Anywherestan are dead and you can't get to any of your money besides what's in your pocket. Oh and your neighbor is dead. The attackers are from the United States of America, and they are dead, both of them. They blew up with the car.

What is the proper response for the Anywherestan Government in this scenario? What should they do?

And if they decide bombing the living heck out of some United States city is the answer, how would you now feel about Anywherestan, and its citizens? I would think if you saw an Anwherestanian, you would want to hurt or kill them on sight, but that's just me, I guess.

1) What are your impressions of the news that car bombs were found on London's streets?

Well, one is that, in comparing the number of successfully-foiled plots versus death tolls (e.g. the July 7 bombings in London a few years ago to the Madrid bombings and 9-11), while there might be more of them, Muslim terrorists active in Britain are more incompetent than those active in Spain, Bali and the USA. That, or (or rather and) British police and security services' long years of practice on Irish republican terrorism mean that they are much better at foiling such plots.

2) Why do you think it appears that London has become a bigger target for groups like Al Qaeda than the United States?

It isn't just London - Glasgow was the other target this weekend.

There are a number of factors as to why Britain has become a bigger target - some of which moif has pointed to repeatedly, both here and in his Londonistan thread (sorry I haven't got around to posting there, moif).

First off, radicalism-in-exile has always found a home here, especially in London. Not just in Islam - Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital while living here, based in part on his observations of the British class system (one reason I think communism was always doomed - the only place it ever stood a chance of working was in Britain, and we never really went for it); Ezra Pound came here; many of the blacklisted "communists" of the McCarthy era found safe haven in the UK; going back further, the Hugenots that were hounded out of Europe mostly came to the British Isles; and so on.

But radical Islam did find a haven too, when regimes such as Baathist Iraq, Shah-led Iran, Kurd-bombing Turkey and the like were not freindly places for such voices. The attitude of successive British governments was that the Islamic world benefited from such pluralism. No doubt there was some post-colonial guilt over the general mess the British made in their stewardship of the former Ottoman Empire. And no doubt, also, that some underlying establishment anti-Semitism found having people saying some quite eye-watering things about Israel and the Jews from London was more tolerable than it really ought to have been (the Jews are about the only persecuted minority who have historically been as unsafe from persecution here as anywhere else - until after WW2, at any rate).

Like many other aspects of foreign & domestic policy the world over, this may have seemed like a good idea at the time - when militant Islam's greatest fight was against the communist Soviet army in Afghanistan, or against the Ottoman Empire in World War 1 (Lawrence of Arabia, anyone? Those tribesmen he organised were Wahabi Muslims - who are now traceable to pretty much every incident of Muslim terrorism but who are "officially" our friends because they are in power in Saudi Arabia and we need their oil.), but has turned out to be a problem in it's own right.

But a few radical imams on their own could not have caused such problems as Britain now faces - during the same post-war period, and especially during the 1960s and 1970s, there was a large influx of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis into the UK, both countries being former colonies. Unlike similar migrations from the same areas into the USA, these people were not drawn from the educated middle classes and joining to become doctors, lawyers or engineers. Instead, most of the influx was drawn from semi-literate or illiterate working class Pakistanis, who were coming to the UK to work at low levels as bus drivers, cleaners, and especially in heavy industry and textile mills in the Midlands and the North. They were not, at that time, "benefit tourists"; they were coming to do a job of work that the native British could not do, or would not for the wages that were on offer.

That first generation was mostly on the receiving end of (racially motivated) trouble, rather than being the cause of any - they were almost all in work, with the sense of purpose that comes from voluntarily making a new start in a new country. Ghettoisation took place almost immediately, as it has always done with new immigrant groups, and the lack of integration that happened - reinforced by native racism and the cultural isolationism of working class Pakistani Muslim culture (the "working class" and "Pakistani" aspects being at least as important as the "Muslim" one) - didn't immediately matter, since there was a strong bond within the community, and there was lots of work available which minimised the need to access state resources - it lessened the perception among natives that these migrants were a burden. (Though it didn't remove it.)

Being in work also lessened the resentment of the natives. Until, that is, the heavy industries started to close up shop and unemployment rose. This had two effects among the native British - resentment against immigrants IN work that "they" had stolen "our" jobs, and resentment towards those out of work that "they" were "scrounging" "our" benefits.

And on the immigrants, it demoralised them and fractured their communities (the same way mass unemployment does among any population), producing a generation of young men that felt alienated and unwanted, and who - because of beliefs and prejudice in their own community AND in the wider white community* - also felt unable to to what their white counterparts did and either move somewhere else to find work or retreat into a nihilistic fug of drinking, doping and the dole.

This fracturing of community - they felt they had little in common with their parents' generation and little in common with the wider nation - is pretty much common to all immigrant communities. But, with the radical Muslims already in country, and with an oil-rich, proselytising Muslim sect enriched by Westen oil money willing to spend money on radicalising home-grown and foreign-born imams - a generation of already-disaffected people was open to be turned to the Dark Side represented by al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Mujihiroon, etc.

None of this has happened in the USA because the history and pattern of Muslim immigration there has been very different.

That's all just a long-winded way of saying I think that Britain's Muslim "problem" is not really a direct result of any direct policy (not the "celebration of diversity" type of multiculturalism adopted by Labour in their first two terms, and now more or less abondoned at the national level), but more the unintended consequence of a whole host of smaller decisions.

*moif[/b[ is technically correct that Islam is not a racially-based religion. But, in the UK at least, the number of white adherents is vanishingly small; the vast bulk are from the Indian subcontinent (Pakistan, Bangladesh and India itself), with smaller groups from Africa (Sudanese & Somali in particular) and Europe/Central Asia (mainly Turkish Cypriot, with smaller Turkish, Persian, Arab and Afghan populations - mostly in London). Outside London, we're mainly talking about Pakistanis/Bangladeshis.

[b]3) Do the actions of law enforcement in this case and others make you more inclined to view this (terrorism) as a police action rather than a military one?

Yes. I've always thought terrorism is best dealt with as an act of criminality than an act of war. As with most crimes, the best way to deal with them is not only to detect (not usually a problem with terrorism - you know when someone's been bombed), prosecute and convict, but also to take away the reasons people feel the need to resort to terrorism.

Here I disagree with moif - Islam isn't the reason that disaffected young men who feel isolation from and hatred towards the Western societies go out and bomb them. It's the excuse they give for the method of venting their frustration that they choose to use (and it's why the movers and shakers of terrorism find it so easy to recruit them).

And yes, the Quran contains exhortations to kill enemies, and too many imams bang on about these passages. But those facts don't represent the entirety of Islam as a force for ill any more than similar exhortations to violence and bloodshed in the Bible do. Most Muslims choose to ignore them in practice, and apply the bits that they feel the most sympathy for anyway.

Just as a Bible thumper who rails about the abomination of homosexuality then goes home to tuck into a bowl of shrimp gumbo or clam chowder or what-have-you applies the homophobic bit that fits his or her prejudices, while ignoring the Biblical fact that eating shellfish is described as similarly abominable in the same chapter of Leviticus. (I'm not scholar of the Bible, so please take the general thrust rather than getting fixated on my lack of precision on this matter.)

Most Muslims don't ever kill anyone. Even those who say that they support those that do never get around to doing it themselves. Personally, I worry a great deal more about what people DO than what they say they agree with in response to an opinion poll. And even here, context is everything. I don't believe for a second that Western Muslims who express a preference for adopting some or all of sharia law in the West are thinking about chopping off heads or hands when they are expressing it (though some of them might be). I bet they ARE thinking about drunken Brits vomiting in the streets they live in, or the use of sexuality to sell things that have nothing to do with sex, or the women walking past wearing very little, or the reality television programmes that seem expressly designed to entice people to have sex on live TV. (Don't get me wrong - I have no objection to nudity and sexuality, but I can see how people might object to their ubiquity. I do, however, object to Big Brother because it elevates idleness and stupidity as things to aspire to, but mainly because it stops Channel 4 airing the final season of The Sopranos until September.)

The root cause of this rash of Muslim disaffection is the same as the things that isolate them and make them feel that hatred - unemployment, lack of education, cultural isolation (and some out-and-out cultural backwardness - the twisted sense of family honour that causes fathers to kill their daughters*), and - yes - racism (in both directions, mind you).

* in a perverse way, increases in "honour killings" (or "premeditated murder", as I like to call them) are a sign of increasing integration - Asian women who tow the cultural line are not at risk, are they? And it is an Asian - specifically, South Asian - phenomenon - Sikhs and Hindus do it too from time to time. African Muslims very rarely do it, to my knowledge. Similarly "female circumcision" (or genital mutilation) is almost exclusively African, but not exclusively Muslim.

Terrorism has been largely solved as an issue in Ireland not because the British Army "won" a pitched battle, but because of a process of law enforcement, intelligence gathering and infiltration, AND simpler stuff like removing the prejudicial barriers that prevented the Catholic republican community from getting jobs, taking part in policing, getting their voices heard, living wherever they wanted to, etc. Both the Catholic minorty and the Protestant majority had to face some realities, and change some of their most cherised opinions, and the British, Irish and Northern Irish political establishments had to change their policies. And, of course, it was necessary to get a third party involved in the shape of Bill Clinton - something the hagiographers of Tony Blair seem to have conveniently forgotten (including TB himself).

4) Has the United States been lucky since 9/11 to have no more successful attac