It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Bombings Were The Fault of the British Government States Clerics

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Tuesday many prominent extreme Imam's in Britain claimed that it was the fault of the British Government with their "Anti-Terror" policy that led to the London Bombings. Campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq fuel the fire within the hearts of Muslims around the world, they claim.
 



news.telegraph.co.uk
Radical Muslims who did not take part in the talks said they would not be silenced by warnings of new legislation making it a crime to glorify or condone terrorism.

Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed said that support for America over Afghanistan and Iraq and the re-election of Mr Blair had all contributed to the attacks.

"I blame the British Government, the British public and the Muslim community in the UK because they failed to make the extra effort to put an end to the cycle of bloodshed which started before 9/11 and on July 7 was devastating for everybody," he told the Evening Standard. Anjem Choudary, the British leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, said that Muslim leaders should not meet Mr Blair for talks while Muslims were being "murdered" in Iraq.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


This war is being misinterpeted on both sides. Many people on our side still think we are over there for WMD's which no longer exist (if they ever did). On the other side they feel that the War On Terror is a world-wide genocide of Muslims. There needs to be refocus and rethinking on both sides. Too much blood has been spilled for things to revert to the way they were. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have to end but not the way that Vietnam and Korea ended (A total loss and a 50 year armistace) However this does not mean that the Brits deserved the bombings. These acts are of murder and not for political change.




posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Well ostensibly, Afghanistan and Iraq were primarily invaded because they were Islamic countries that harboured Islamic terrorists. Therefore because muslims were in the majority and their government were muslims they were held responsible for the Islamic terrorists in their midst.

There was obviously Islamic terrorists in Germany and Britain yet you dont see us getting invaded do you?

And in these invasions thousands of innocent muslims are being killed (collateral damage - the most heinous euphemism known to man) merely because they live in an Islamic country.

So yeah it could easily be construed that the War on Terror is targeting muslims and that they are being murdered because they are such.

But please note, these are radical imams. They dont speak for the majority of muslims so treat what they say proportionately.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   
the problem is when the end of the day comes and all is said and done, the ones who shout and scream are the ones who get their way. However childish it may seems sometimes this is the way of the world



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Well, I guess that critic will be in jail soon...

one big problem with how we are fighting the war against idiocy right now is that The west is trying to get islam to split (again)...
those that think they have a right to kill people of other faiths, and those that will respect others rights to religious freedoms...

In turn, we are supporting the radical government of SA, while we condem the moderate political government of Iran...
so what we get is more presidential hand holding with enemy #1 while we influence a conservative changeover with Iran...

We are doing ourselves no favors here...

I feel sorry for our administration
knowing that we are such slaves to the main transgressors against us (SA)
while we are forced to fight marginally successful battles in other areas to try to shrug off the yolk of the saudis...

the best thing to do is let the extremeists marginilize themselves to the point that mainstream muslims universally reject them... instead of embrace them...



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:49 AM
link   
two words

al-Muhajiroun

_____________________________________________________________________

an extreme islamic group in the UK, which MI5 label "all mouth and no trousers"

[edit on 20-7-2005 by infinite]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   
``

sheeze, i'm having trouble putting this link out to yall

~~~~~~~~~~

here's something to consider,
these 4 accused bombers, or some of them were frequenting this
dvd shop which also had a section that centered on the bloody
carnage in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc etc

sure, the religious Imams, may have preached firebrand and inciteful
sermons?....
but, sane, rational, level headed, community minded young men,
like these 4 have been portrayed to have been...should not have been
swayed only by the emotions & passions of such words
to become involved in such a fatalistic enterprise as bombings...
(as Shahid/Martyr/Ghazis, or whatever status they might achieve...)

Link: www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Click: (July 19, 2005)..."PROPAGANDA SHOP..Funded By LOTTO Cash"
[the 5th item listed]

this might just be disinfo, to blame the violence in media as a start?
i think the Official Conspiracy Theory operation is in full mode right now
with about 5 or 6 'deflections,' counter-theories, and double-speaks
being shoveled onto the public



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   
The Muslim community will not be satisfied until every last Christian and Jew is eradicated from the planet.

Everything is everyone elses fault for their backward thinking.

One day they'll wish they'd never heard of the Koran or Muhammed.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I do not understand what position you are taking inter...the Koran is a book of peace. He follows the Abrahamic law and therefore is part of the the Judeo-Christian brotherhood. There are extremists in christianity just as there are in Islam and any other religion. The moderates are those which can live together peacefully and show the respect for each other that all religions asks of us.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
I do not understand what position you are taking inter...the Koran is a book of peace.


That is inaccurate. The Qu'ran is a book compiled from various sayings, guidances and teachings according to those who knew the prophet Mohammed. It is not a book of peace or meant to preach peace but it is a long guidance to ancient laws and teachings of the Arabic interpretation of the Abrahamic laws. Mohammed never wrote the Qu'ran or even instructed anyone to write one, it was made long after Mohammed's death.

Muslims tried to pass off the Qu'ran as the book of peace but how it can be a book of peace when such suggestions like Jews and Christians are infidels and are to be killed and so on?


Originally posted by CAConrad0825The moderates are those which can live together peacefully and show the respect for each other that all religions asks of us.


Every religion has its extreme side. It is all depends on how dedicated and serious the faithful is with their religion, as if they believe its faith is superior over other religions. It's all about competition.



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Anjem Choudary, the British leader of the militant Islamist group al-Muhajiroun, said that Muslim leaders should not meet Mr Blair for talks while Muslims were being "murdered" in Iraq.

How is a "militant Islamist group" allowed to exist in Britian? Any militants in general should be outlawed. whether irish, protestant, sikh, or muslim especially when militants are carrying out terrorist military operations within the country. Isn't this obvious? I mean, wouldn't the UK be far within its rights to round up and deport everyone who is a member of these groups? At least members who are also immigrants, asylum seekers, and non-citizens?



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
I do not understand what position you are taking inter...the Koran is a book of peace.


That is inaccurate. The Qu'ran is a book compiled from various sayings, guidances and teachings according to those who knew the prophet Mohammed. It is not a book of peace or meant to preach peace but it is a long guidance to ancient laws and teachings of the Arabic interpretation of the Abrahamic laws. Mohammed never wrote the Qu'ran or even instructed anyone to write one, it was made long after Mohammed's death.

Muslims tried to pass off the Qu'ran as the book of peace but how it can be a book of peace when such suggestions like Jews and Christians are infidels and are to be killed and so on?


Originally posted by CAConrad0825The moderates are those which can live together peacefully and show the respect for each other that all religions asks of us.


Every religion has its extreme side. It is all depends on how dedicated and serious the faithful is with their religion, as if they believe its faith is superior over other religions. It's all about competition.



I beg to differ...if you read the quran, you will understand that Mohammad wished only for peace, and if anything Christianity and Western Civilization have done more wrong to Islam than they have to us. If we stopped meddling in their business and let them run their countries their way, things would be a lot different. I am not condoning terror. However our actions led them to it. Two wrongs do not make a right but the first action still is wrong



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
The Muslim community will not be satisfied until every last Christian and Jew is eradicated from the planet.

Everything is everyone elses fault for their backward thinking.

One day they'll wish they'd never heard of the Koran or Muhammed.

Thats your opinion and its not based on anything other than conjecture from yourself. I find your comments racist and innappropriate. Generalisations are the ROOT of religious and racial tensions, do us a favour and dont be a patsy in the hate cycle



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I’m no expert in these matters and will not pretend to be. My opinion is simply “my opinion” and should be taken only as that. I think the same is true of most posters here. Unfortunately, in the case of Don Vito Corleone and his son Michael, AKA George Dubya and Tony Blaire, their opinions are a little more than “their opinions”; their opinions are policy, and backed up by big guns and disposable young lives.

IMHO, their refusal to stop meddling in the affairs and ways of other cultures will continue to bring upon our nations the wrath of the rest of the world and will resolve nothing. It will only serve to further stir up the pot. Violence begets violence, you know. Their arrogant displays of “superiority” and self-righteous indignation will lead to nothing but isolationism, fear, violence and our eventual and mutual downfalls. As the clock ticks, and technology advances, the individual has at his/her disposal more and more easily produced, and exceedingly powerful, WMD’s to deploy in order to vent their anger and frustration with us. A Doomsday Virus would work. And it’s only a matter of time before it happens.

We have allowed misinformed, misguided sub-intellects (George Dubya, Tony Blaire, et al.) to lead us down a dangerous, booby-trapped, mine-filled road toward our own demise. We, as a civilization, will be quite lucky to even be here to bring in the next century, by following the lead of the numb-skulls we’ve chosen to scout the way.

I wish George Dubya would remember that even John Wayne lost his last gunfight in “the Shootist”, and so will we, as a nation, if we’re not very careful and thoughtful about how we proceed in this century. I think George Dubya's cowboy hat has gotten a little too tight and could stand a refit.

As I said, the above is simply IMHO …



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Well ostensibly, Afghanistan and Iraq were primarily invaded because they were Islamic countries that harboured Islamic terrorists. Therefore because muslims were in the majority and their government were muslims they were held responsible for the Islamic terrorists in their midst.


Afganistan was invaded because the govt. refused to round up and punish or handover the responsible terrorist parties. The fact the govt. was Islamic had nothing to do with it. Iraq was invaded ostensibly because of WMD's and for aiding & abetting terrorists and for firing on U.S. forces in the area repeatedly and for not abiding by the 1991 ceasefire they signed--and probably because President Bush just damned well wanted to. Being weak & defensless made the decision easier, but being Islamic didn't have anything to do with it.


There was obviously Islamic terrorists in Germany and Britain yet you dont see us getting invaded do you?


Germany & Britain were and still are trying to do something about terrorists while the two countries above were not. Further, Pakistan also is a breeding ground for terrorists and we didn't invade them either because they agreed to do something about it and are doing so.


And in these invasions thousands of innocent muslims are being killed (collateral damage - the most heinous euphemism known to man) merely because they live in an Islamic country.


Again, the fact they reside in an Islamic country is totally secondary to anything, they merely reside in the countries we attacked. While I deplore collateral damage as much as anyone else, most of the so-called collateral damage is being inflicted by their own countrymen or by radical, extremist insurgents from nearby countries easily swayed by idiots from within & outside of Iraq & Afganistan.

I normally see your logic Subz, but this time it totally escapes me.

Personally, I wish the two countries had been more capable of defending themselves. That may sound heartless simply because it would have led to a greater number of casulties on both sides; however, it would have forced President Bush to do a lot more diplomacy beforehand and gotten the U.S. many more allies for the fight on terror.

While I'm on the subject, the amount of collateral damage actually inflicted by the U.S. is very small. The U.S. goes out of it's way to prevent collateral damage--sometimes to a fault. If the two countries had been invaded by France, or Russia, or China, or just abount anyone else the amount of collateral damage would be staggering. Futhermore, if the terrorists had been penguins instead of Islamic extremists then you would see a lot of penguins being killed by "collateral damage". The simple fact is that when people try to hide they usually attempt to do so within groups of other people at least superficially similar to themselves.


[edit on 20-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Afganistan was invaded because the govt. refused to round up and punish or handover the responsible terrorist parties.

I did say that they "harboured Islamic terrorists", that implies the above. I admit I could of worded my whole post a helluva lot better than I did.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
The fact the govt. was Islamic had nothing to do with it.

Yeah it did, both governments (Taliban & Hussein) were painted as backward afronts to our Western sensibilities. This has only fostered the popular misconception that Islam is an extreme religion with no middle ground. Hussein's Iraq was a secular muslim state, the Taliban's Afghanistan was a theocratic muslim state. Both were said to be completely incapable of governing by our own governments. The fact that they both supposedly harboured terrorists merely reinforced the notion in voters minds that every thing that Islam touches turns to evil.

The support for the two invasions played on these misconceptions and inate mistrust the West has for muslims. I happen to believe that these invasions used terrorism as a pretext to secure our nations strategic oil reserves in the Middle East, but assume for the moment that we insanely accused Russia of harbouring terrorists. Ignoring the fact that they have nukes for a moment, would we be so willing to invade a "white christian" nation EVEN IF they were indignant and unwilling to hand over "terrorists"? Some might, lots wouldnt.

Its how humans are. I think the popular uneducated rationale for Western invasionists was that they were evil muslim terrorists that attacked us. The government of Afghanistan was the same bunch of evil muslims, and their people must also support them. Lets bomb them!

Common undertone? Muslims are evil

It wasnt the justification for the invasions but it helped a great deal in smoothing the invasions over with the people.

Once again I admit I havent done a great job of conveying my opinion here. I dont know what it is, its got my head all messed up



Originally posted by Astronomer68
Germany & Britain were and still are trying to do something about terrorists while the two countries above were not. Further, Pakistan also is a breeding ground for terrorists and we didn't invade them either because they agreed to do something about it and are doing so.

I know that. The reasons for attacking a nation over its terrorist sponsorship/involvement is separate from the abetting stereotypes used to help justify it. Iraq didnt have anything to do with the Al Qaeda, Bin Laden regarded him as an apostate. But that didnt really matter because the fact that he is a muslim carries so much connotations of evil and complicity that we fell for it. The fact that he was a muslim did matter or else we wouldnt of been so willing to invade.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
I normally see your logic Subz, but this time it totally escapes me.

It seems to be escaping me too at the minute.

[edit on 20/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz

Yeah it did, both governments (Taliban & Hussein) were painted as backward afronts to our Western sensibilities.


The U.S. government seems to try to demonize every person or group or country they dislike or intend to fight. So, to the extent that the govt. unintentionally, or not, demonized muslims along with the terrorists and Saddam Hussein & sons--even though they made a great show of showing solidarity with & tolerance for Muslims--I'll concede to your view on this point. As I remember, at the time, everyone was on about Arabs in general, not Muslims.


Ignoring the fact that they have nukes for a moment, would we be so willing to invade a "white christian" nation EVEN IF they were indignant and unwilling to hand over "terrorists"? Some might, lots wouldnt.


Given the mood of the country right after the 9/11 attacks, yeah, I think we probably would have. We are not a "turn the other cheek" nation and being young, tend to react rather emotionally many times.

If I came on a little strong Subz, I apologize. I respect your opinions and highly value the postings you make. (What's his name ?Muaddib? would probably disown me for that last comment.)

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Astronomer68]

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
The U.S. government seems to try to demonize every person or group or country they dislike or intend to fight. So, to the extent that the govt. unintentionally, or not, demonized muslims along with the terrorists and Saddam Hussein & sons--even though they made a great show of showing solidarity with & tolerance for Muslims--I'll concede to your view on this point.

That "demonization" is what I was getting at, good term
Its why its so easy for me to see why muslims call the War on Terror a war on muslims. Both invasions in the WOT have demonized muslims to grease them through public opinion. I think its highly intentional that our governments foster this stereotype of "islamic extremists" (how many thousand times would you say you've heard that utterance on the TV?).


Originally posted by Astronomer68
Given the mood of the country right after the 9/11 attacks, yeah, I think we probably would have. We are not a "turn the other cheek" nation and being young, tend to react rather emotionally many times.

Ok fair comment. What about the next invasion? Would it be easier for the public to "agree" to invade yet another muslim country over Islamic terrorism or Russia? If it was harbouring terrorists as in my hypothetical? I think our governments would choose an islamic country.


Originally posted by Astronomer68
If I came on a little strong Subz, I apologize. I respect your opinions and highly value the postings you make.

No youre fine, I actually didnt think I did a good job in getting my point across. That someone like you picked up on it was a inevitable and I thank you for making me clarify my shoddy post. For the record I think your posts are spot on too


[edit on 20/7/05 by subz]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I've probably heard that utterance several thousand times since 9/11.

Well, given the way you've phrased your question and further given the previous "demonization" of SH & OBL, a Muslim country. I don't know exactly where you're headed with this, but Syria & Iran had better walk on eggshells for awhile (especially Syria).

[edit on 20-7-2005 by Astronomer68]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by CAConrad0825
I beg to differ...if you read the quran, you will understand that Mohammad wished only for peace, and if anything Christianity and Western Civilization have done more wrong to Islam than they have to us. If we stopped meddling in their business and let them run their countries their way, things would be a lot different. I am not condoning terror. However our actions led them to it. Two wrongs do not make a right but the first action still is wrong.


Um, not quite. Christianity and Western Civilization haven't done anything to Islam in the beginning.
Pagans, Zoroastrians, Jews and Christians were living in the Arabian Peninsula along with the Bedouin Arabs for as long since the days of Gaius Julius Caesar or Augustus. Islam is rooted in Arabic pagan origins along with Judeo-Christian teachings interpreted in Arabic. There were Arabs who practiced the Judaic faith or the Christian faith (Catholic or Orthodox) as well as Arabs practicing the pagan faith of their ancestors, even Mithraic and Zoroastrian faiths were practiced. The Eastern Roman Empire have struggled against the Persian Empire for the control of the Arabian Peninsula since the early 4th century (for the reason of trade routes, manpower, resources).

Rather it was the collapse of the Sasanian Persian Empire that gave the opportunity for Mohammed's successor, Omar to lead the Arabs to conquer the old Persian Empire, freeing the Arabian Peninsula forever from the Persians and eventually "fast-tracked" the growth of Islam throughout the Middle East.

Unfortunately, there were some bloody successions among Mohammed's successors that continued for almost 120 years after Mohammed's death. The faith of Islam was spread in blood, murder, assassination and conquest in those tumultuous years of its formation throughout the Middle East. Jews, Christians, pagans, Zoroastrians, non-Muslim Arabs, Syrians, Persians and Egyptians were put to death (for refusing to convert to Islam), forcibly converted to Islam or sold to slavery under the new Muslim masters. The Qu'ran was shaped by mere memories of Mohammed's sayings by men who remembered them by heart or hastily written in parchments or stones with few details memorized. Remember, the large majority of these Arabs were illiterate and only those who can read and write were considered as privileged ones afforded by wealthy merchants or powerful leaders in the Arabian Peninsula.

Slavery was (and still is, yes, still is to this day) generally tolerated under Islam. Having several wives and concubines were acceptable only to Muslim leaderships or wealthy Muslims.

It is a general mistaken belief that Western civilization or Christianity have done something so terrible to the Muslims, though some factors associating with theological or political power struggles between the rulers of Christianity and the rulers of Islam contributed to the terrible problems and bad memories that still lingering to this day. However, you shouldn't ignore the tumultuous and bloody history of Islam in its formative years caused by its own leaders and followers of various backgrounds and races in the Middle East.

Islam isn't all about peace. It is about you submitting (or surrendering) yourself absolutely to Allah and Allah's will, do Allah's bidding as expressed in the Qu'ran (which mean "reading" or "discourse" of words, sayings and laws) and expected yourself to be rewarded. That's it.

[edit on 7/20/2005 by the_oleneo]



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Very nice post the_oleneo, it seems that Islam followed pretty much the same path as Christianity. Not surprising given the times. The Dark Ages were practically the same and this lovely era also gave us the Crusades.

BTW, where did you come by the knowledge for your post?



new topics




 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join