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.

 

2,000,000 Terrorists in Britain

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Check the documentary. I actually HAVE given you some evidence that this is in some measure a government deception. You have still given me no hard evidence for dirty bombs being anywhere near the terrorists, despite raising it as a concern.


SOME evidence in SOME measure…..hardly what you’d call hard core and no where near approaching proof. Re evidence for dirty bombs see my previous post, I explained myself quiet clearly on that issue.


You're defending your right to be hysterical. Go ahead, knock yourself out, but don't expect people not to try and point out the Daily-Mail-disgusted-of-Sevenoaks aspect to the whole thing.


Oh dear!!!! Hysterical, daily mail reader, Sevenoaks….we’re not falling back on prejudicial stereotyping now are we St Gaurdianista of Hampstead?



If you think there's any parallel between proving there are no cats in a box and proving there are no terrorists in the UK, I have utter respect for your powers of self delusion. This is the real world. Prove to me that there are no aliens. Prove that the royal family are not David Icke-style shapeshifting aliens. Try proving those negatives and you'll have rather more difficulty.


So basically what your saying is your main assertion is pretty much un-provable, so we just have to take your word on it.
Would that happen in the real world you speak of. I don’t think I’m the only one who’s self delusional.



But NOT if these dirty bombs don't exist. If they don't - and you have yet to give any evidence whatsoever that they do, and that radical Muslims have their hands on them - then this is just a chimeral. This format is about debate, and occasionally it's nice to call in some external sources that bolster your point.


Again I dealt with that in the previous post.


Again, sloppy thinking.

I'm not portraying him as a martyr. I'm saying there's little or no hard evidence that he's done anything, which is different. I'm also saying that moderate Muslims are going to feel demonised, which is only what the radical cleric at the top of the thread was saying. Just because he's wrong on some things doesn't mean he's wrong on everything.


Moderate muslims presumably dont go around speculating about dropping bombs on parliament and in an age when the aforementioned mosque/gaybar bomb speculator can be prosecuted under the umbrella of hate crime or hate speech why do you feel this man is being particularly demonised. As for Bari his words sounded more like the veiled threats of some shady loan shark. ‘Of course I understand your financial difficulties but my friends Gnasher and Knuckles might take great exception to any late payments you know.’




posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the demonisation of the daily mail ploy does not wash .




Definitions of ploy on the Web:

a way of achieving something, especially a clever or dishonest way
encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861604230/device.html

Source.


Hard historical fact: Not a "ploy".

[edit on 16/9/06 by Implosion]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Ubermunche... interesting name. Is it a mis-spelling of "ubermensch"?

Anyway, what we have here is a dispute over the nature of evidence and proof.

It's generally accepted in law that if you're going to accuse somebody of something, then you are expected to shoulder the burden of proof, which can be, for example "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "balance of probabilities".

There's also the idea, which is generally accepted as the hallmark of a civilised society, that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Because you're not quite clear on these issues, you're inclined to throw around ideas like the "dirty bomb" notion willy nilly. I return to this because I think it's important. You think it's just an illustration of how radical Muslims could cause problems. I have asked you repeatedly to come up with some kind of evidence to back up this idea, and you've brushed it off as "just an illustration". Well... can you give another, more realistic illustration, of how they could cause real problems, because actually, Bari had several good points to make. Because you said


Originally posted by ubermunche
...his words sounded more like the veiled threats of some shady loan shark. ‘Of course I understand your financial difficulties but my friends Gnasher and Knuckles might take great exception to any late payments you know.’


I actually went and re-read what he had to say. Please supply a quotation that illustrates your thesis that the guy sounds menacing. You see, the most threatening part I could find is actually rather ambiguous, but the Mail has framed it in a context that makes it seem more threatening than I think it actually is:

Dr Bari declared: "Some police officers and sections of the media are demonising Muslims, treating them as if they are all terrorists, and that encourages other people to do the same.

"If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists, 700,000 of them in London. "If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive," he added.


Is he saying that the demonisation will turn two million people into actual terrorists? In fact, I don't think this is the case. What he's saying is that if the demonisation continues - which means that the police are treating them all as terrorists, and this becomes a prevalent attitude among non-Muslims in the UK - then there are a lot of Muslims and therefore a lot of "terrorists". If you notice, the quotation marks in the passage I've cited above don't match up. I rather think there's been some editorialising going on here, and his words might have been twisted to make them seem more threatening than he intended.

And there's a big difference between people being "despondent and aggressive" and being hard-core suicide terrorists. You might not think so, but then you seem prepared to accept the flimsiest of evidence to back your assertions.

But as I say, please feel free to post anything from that article that supports your image of Bari as "some shady loan shark".


SOME evidence in SOME measure…..hardly what you’d call hard core and no where near approaching proof.


The point is that the Government has not proved its case against the suicide bombers, and we are expected to take on trust their assertions about the evidence they have without them having to produce it. You might not remember the Guildford four (or what was left of them, as far as I can remember one of them died in jail) coming out of prison after having served many years for crimes they did not commit, but I do. It was the closing of a shameful episode of British "justice" - but only one of many.

If their evidence is that solid, why haven't they released it? Why has there been no public inquiry? Why was the fact that exercises simulating terrorist attacks at precisely the times and places they actually occurred been hushed up in the media?... There are so many questions coming out of the July bombings that need to be addressed, and this is not the place. But it stinks. And none of the recent "terror plots" seem to have had any evidence behind them worth a damn.


Re evidence for dirty bombs see my previous post, I explained myself quiet clearly on that issue.


Well, you've refused again and again to actually confront it, or to give another example of how terrorists could cause a real problem.

Here's another thing that Bari had to say that's quite a sensible point:


"When the IRA was blowing people up, the entire Catholic population of Britain was not demonised, so why is it happening to the Muslim community?" he asked.


But then we see what the Mail's spin is on this issue. You see, Bari is the bad Muslim, not because he advocates violence (he doesn't, as can be clearly seen in the quotation below) but because he's against profiling and the demonisation of an entire community.


"We want to isolate that (sic) bad people and put them in the dock," he said. "But we all have to work together to do that: police, politicians, the media and the Muslim community."

Security profiling at airports "reinforces a negative stereotype", he added.


I took the liberty of emphasising the part of his sentence that suggests that he accepts that terrorism is a bad thing, and that terrorists should be put on trial for their misdeeds. He even wants to work with the police on this issue. BUT he objects to the demonisation of Muslims and racial profiling, and this he has every right to do.

But the article contrasts the evil Bari with a nice, cuddly Muslim:

But Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament said the responsibility lay on Muslim communities to expose and end the threat.

Dr Siddiqui said: "Muslim failure to act robustly against extremist ideology provides ammunition to those who wish to pursue the Neo-con agenda by demonising Muslims and creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred within society."


Nice, cuddly Muslim... except that he too seems to accept that there's an agenda to demonise Muslims and creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred... which you seem to have fallen right in step with, I have to say. But he's nice and cuddly because he thinks that Muslims have to deal with the problem, which means we don't. We don't have to look at the idea that young Muslims might watch the news and see Blair's uncritical support of Israel and his craven rushing into the Iraq war behind Bush, and feel angry that the government of this country is doing these things. I'm not condoning any terrorism here (just thought I'd make that crystal clear) but I am saying that the policies of this government make terrorism inevitable. The nice Muslim cleric wants to clear up this mess for us; the nasty one wants us to take at least some of the responsibility and not demonise Muslims as we deal with the mess our foreign policy has caused.


So basically what your saying is your main assertion is pretty much un-provable, so we just have to take your word on it.


No. I'm simply saying that the burden of proof is actually on you; and it's one you keep trying to dodge. I actually haven't seen decent proof of the existence of real terror plots in the UK with the possible exception of Richard Reid... I haven't looked into that one (there are, after all, only so many hours in the day) but that, too, looked fishy. All you can do is say "this guy sounds like a loan shark" without posting any supporting evidence: when I went back and actually looked at what was said, I couldn't find any.

As I said, I think you're being a bit hysterical about it. Perspective: in 2002, just under 43,000 people died in road traffic accidents in the US. That means that every month, more people die on the roads than on September 11. And yet we continue to support this senseless slaughter of human beings: there is no War on Road Traffic Accidents, no countries have been invaded... you get the picture.

Or: since the privatisation of the rail network, more people have died in rail crashes than have been killed by terrorism. Despite the fact that a simple amendment of company law to allow the directors of the rail companies to be prosecuted for corporate manslaughter would ensure they put safety before profits, the situation continues to deteriorate.

And for the record I've never taken the Guardian. Poor subbing (although the Mail's out to catch them, by the look of that article) and they're up New Labour's arse most of the time.

But I have lived in Hampstead.

And I'd just like to return to the "rivers of blood" thing. You seem unaware that there was a speech by Enoch Powell which used this phrase, and it was used specifically about West Indians, which, if you go back and look, was the context I used it in. To date, there have been no "rivers of blood". There have been occasional riots, it is true... but then if you look back through history, there have been rather a lot of riots in this country at one time or another. It is also true that recent rioting has invariably followed a campaign of heavy-handed policing. This is another consequence of demonising a visible minority. Are rioters terrorists? How can you tell the difference? Gosh, so much to worry about...

At any rate, to connect the July bombings with Powell's speech is historically inappropriate.

More to follow

[edit on 16-9-2006 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 16 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
Moderate muslims presumably dont go around speculating about dropping bombs on parliament and in an age when the aforementioned mosque/gaybar bomb speculator can be prosecuted under the umbrella of hate crime or hate speech why do you feel this man is being particularly demonised.


Oh dear. More sloppy thinking. The central issue about this man is not that he is being demonised: he's on trial for terrorist offences and I'm concerned at the quality of evidence against him.

If everyone who idly mentioned dropping bombs into Parliament were locked up the prisons would be full overnight. And it's not "hate speech", because he's not specifying a race or religion.

So far, all that has emerged against this guy is that, in conversation with his mates, he's advanced a hypothetical about bombing Parliament. If you think he should be locked up just for that, you are hysterical, no doubt of it.

If, on the other hand, he has actually gone as far as genuinely conspiring to build a bomb and put it into Parliament, then of course he should go to jail. My contention is that it was just idle talk, and under that rather inconvenient old rubbish about people being presumed innocent until proven guilty (in this instance, beyond reasonable doubt, I think), I have yet to see ANY evidence that it was more than that.

But in fact, his case is being used to demonise Muslims, because his idle talk is being held up for more than it really is, and it's being used to reinforce the "Muslim terrorist" stereotype.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan


The riots in France and the decisions in Belgium are awakening calls.

Indeed. You can see from that situation that the muslims were pushed to the edges of society, made to live in slums, and prevented from assimilating with French society, the results were riots. Do the same in England, see how it works for ya.


Obviously written by someone who has either never visited the UK or France or who was driven at very great speed through them both with his eyes and ears closed.

What arrant nonsense.

The largest single factor in this issue is the refusal of vast numbers of the Muslim community to integrate. Nobody 'pushed them to the edges of society'
or prevented them from assimilating, they just don't want to in general. Naturally there are a few small exceptions, who are welcomed into British society with open arms, but when they instal themselves in their own areas amd make it quite clear they have no intention of ever integrating or even learning to speak English, that is when the resentment begins amongst the indigenous population.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain

Originally posted by Nygdan


The riots in France and the decisions in Belgium are awakening calls.

Indeed. You can see from that situation that the muslims were pushed to the edges of society, made to live in slums, and prevented from assimilating with French society, the results were riots. Do the same in England, see how it works for ya.


Obviously written by someone who has either never visited the UK or France or who was driven at very great speed through them both with his eyes and ears closed.

What arrant nonsense.

The largest single factor in this issue is the refusal of vast numbers of the Muslim community to integrate. Nobody 'pushed them to the edges of society'
or prevented them from assimilating, they just don't want to in general. Naturally there are a few small exceptions, who are welcomed into British society with open arms, but when they instal themselves in their own areas amd make it quite clear they have no intention of ever integrating or even learning to speak English, that is when the resentment begins amongst the indigenous population.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]


Fair comment Englishman.

But I must add in fairness that as someone who spends time living in a foreign country its clear that many Brits overseas could be accused of exactly the same thing.

I agree, you should integrate if you move / live in another country, it certainly isnt acceptable to ask for your own "laws" etc to be applied - now THAT causes resentment.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by radoult

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain

Originally posted by Nygdan


The riots in France and the decisions in Belgium are awakening calls.

Indeed. You can see from that situation that the muslims were pushed to the edges of society, made to live in slums, and prevented from assimilating with French society, the results were riots. Do the same in England, see how it works for ya.


Obviously written by someone who has either never visited the UK or France or who was driven at very great speed through them both with his eyes and ears closed.

What arrant nonsense.

The largest single factor in this issue is the refusal of vast numbers of the Muslim community to integrate. Nobody 'pushed them to the edges of society'
or prevented them from assimilating, they just don't want to in general. Naturally there are a few small exceptions, who are welcomed into British society with open arms, but when they instal themselves in their own areas amd make it quite clear they have no intention of ever integrating or even learning to speak English, that is when the resentment begins amongst the indigenous population.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]


Fair comment Englishman.

But I must add in fairness that as someone who spends time living in a foreign country its clear that many Brits overseas could be accused of exactly the same thing.

I agree, you should integrate if you move / live in another country, it certainly isnt acceptable to ask for your own "laws" etc to be applied - now THAT causes resentment.


"As someone who lives in a foreign country...???" What is it you are trying to say exactly?

I speak fluent Spanish, pay more tax than most here, take an active part in my local Spanish community, my daughter attends a state school and speaks fluent Spanish too.

I am acutely aware of the importance of integration, I do not flaunt my 'Britishness', indeed most Brits here cause me so much embarrassment I try my best to avoid anywhere they are likely to gather, so what exactly IS your point?



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain

Originally posted by radoult

Originally posted by Englishman_in_Spain

Originally posted by Nygdan


The riots in France and the decisions in Belgium are awakening calls.

Indeed. You can see from that situation that the muslims were pushed to the edges of society, made to live in slums, and prevented from assimilating with French society, the results were riots. Do the same in England, see how it works for ya.


Obviously written by someone who has either never visited the UK or France or who was driven at very great speed through them both with his eyes and ears closed.

What arrant nonsense.

The largest single factor in this issue is the refusal of vast numbers of the Muslim community to integrate. Nobody 'pushed them to the edges of society'
or prevented them from assimilating, they just don't want to in general. Naturally there are a few small exceptions, who are welcomed into British society with open arms, but when they instal themselves in their own areas amd make it quite clear they have no intention of ever integrating or even learning to speak English, that is when the resentment begins amongst the indigenous population.

[edit on 17-9-2006 by Englishman_in_Spain]


Fair comment Englishman.

But I must add in fairness that as someone who spends time living in a foreign country its clear that many Brits overseas could be accused of exactly the same thing.

I agree, you should integrate if you move / live in another country, it certainly isnt acceptable to ask for your own "laws" etc to be applied - now THAT causes resentment.


"As someone who lives in a foreign country...???" What is it you are trying to say exactly?

I speak fluent Spanish, pay more tax than most here, take an active part in my local Spanish community, my daughter attends a state school and speaks fluent Spanish too.

I am acutely aware of the importance of integration, I do not flaunt my 'Britishness', indeed most Brits here cause me so much embarrassment I try my best to avoid anywhere they are likely to gather, so what exactly IS your point?


It would help if you read my post rather than jumping to conclusions

I live overseas part time (soon to be full time)... you now see that my comment not aimed at you? - So in other words my words meant exactly what they say, no hidden digs

You and I seem to share similar views of certain sections of the expat community.

So maybe expat communities tend to act in similar ways, irrespective of whether they are Brit or Bangladeshi....

I think my comments re laws are self expanatory, but if it helps think Sharia.........



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
Radoult, please accept my unreserved apology for the misunderstanding.


Thank you.



posted on Sep, 17 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
1. Can I just say has anybody fought that the 4 Muslim terrorists of 7/7 could have patsies? That day there was a major terrorist excercise on the London underground and these 4 men could have been part of that to add authenticity to the excerise, is that not plausible and maybe the poor sods did not realise bombs were going to go off but they were unaware.
It would be the perfect cover would it not to carry out such an attack and lay the blame on the Muslim community.
2. How many people on this thread who have talked about Muslims and there attitudes, intergration etc. have Muslim friends or have befriended Muslims?
Not all muslims are Asian their is plenty of white people who follow the Muslim faith or is all this bigotry and racism directed at none whites in general?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 06:59 AM
link   

Ubermunche... interesting name. Is it a mis-spelling of "ubermensch"?


Yes!


Anyway, what we have here is a dispute over the nature of evidence and proof.

It's generally accepted in law that if you're going to accuse somebody of something, then you are expected to shoulder the burden of proof, which can be, for example "beyond a reasonable doubt", or "balance of probabilities".

There's also the idea, which is generally accepted as the hallmark of a civilised society, that people are innocent until proven guilty.

Because you're not quite clear on these issues, you're inclined to throw around ideas like the "dirty bomb" notion willy nilly. I return to this because I think it's important. You think it's just an illustration of how radical Muslims could cause problems. I have asked you repeatedly to come up with some kind of evidence to back up this idea, and you've brushed it off as "just an illustration". Well... can you give another, more realistic illustration, of how they could cause real problems, because actually, Bari had several good points to make.


Ok I’ll start from the beginning. My reference to dirty bombs was in answer to the observation that radical muslims are only a small minority, my counter observation being that it does not need to be a majority to have a major impact re dirty bombs, I never claimed there were dirty bombs, I used it as an example, it could just as easily be crashing/blowing up aircraft, letting off bombs, fomenting inter racial/cultural strife etc etc, it was used to illustrate the point. I’m sorry that my clarity of thought does not come up to your rigorous standards.


I actually went and re-read what he had to say. Please supply a quotation that illustrates your thesis that the guy sounds menacing. You see, the most threatening part I could find is actually rather ambiguous, but the Mail has framed it in a context that makes it seem more threatening than I think it actually is:
External Source

Dr Bari declared: "Some police officers and sections of the media are demonising Muslims, treating them as if they are all terrorists, and that encourages other people to do the same.

"If that demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists, 700,000 of them in London. "If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive," he added.

Is he saying that the demonisation will turn two million people into actual terrorists? In fact, I don't think this is the case. What he's saying is that if the demonisation continues - which means that the police are treating them all as terrorists, and this becomes a prevalent attitude among non-Muslims in the UK - then there are a lot of Muslims and therefore a lot of "terrorists". If you notice, the quotation marks in the passage I've cited above don't match up. I rather think there's been some editorialising going on here, and his words might have been twisted to make them seem more threatening than he intended.

And there's a big difference between people being "despondent and aggressive" and being hard-core suicide terrorists. You might not think so, but then you seem prepared to accept the flimsiest of evidence to back your assertions.

But as I say, please feel free to post anything from that article that supports your image of Bari as "some shady loan shark".


A quotation that illustrates my thesis….please, this isn’t a science lecture. If we need to provide absolute proofs for every opinion or observation this wouldn’t really be a discussion board would it. I think you’re problem is you are too literal, you’re simply plodding through the article word for word and failing to catch the subtlties and nuance. It’s ambiguous as you yourself pointed out, it could very easily be construed as threatening in tone and even if it’s not he shouldn’t be speaking out on behalf of the muslim community as he has a very poor way of expressing himself responsibly.

As for my ’assertions’ the only assertion I made at the beginning of this thread was that fear mongering was being encouraged on both sides. You responded, the overly pedantic approach you’ve been displaying for most of this thread completely absent, and cherry pick words and sentences and twist them out of context to bolster your own need to see anyone who doesn’t follow your world view as a hysterical daily mail reader (from Sevenoaks I presume) wrong on most of those counts I have to say although I do read the Daily Mail amongst other papers.





If their evidence is that solid, why haven't they released it? Why has there been no public inquiry? Why was the fact that exercises simulating terrorist attacks at precisely the times and places they actually occurred been hushed up in the media?... There are so many questions coming out of the July bombings that need to be addressed, and this is not the place. But it stinks. And none of the recent "terror plots" seem to have had any evidence behind them worth a damn.


Once again I think I made this clear that I am more than willing to believe you when you have provided adequate evidence or proof, not speculation.



Well, you've refused again and again to actually confront it, or to give another example of how terrorists could cause a real problem.


How a terrorist could cause real problems…..Hmmmm got me there guv simply can’t imagine.


Here's another thing that Bari had to say that's quite a sensible point:

External Source

"When the IRA was blowing people up, the entire Catholic population of Britain was not demonised, so why is it happening to the Muslim community?" he asked.

But then we see what the Mail's spin is on this issue. You see, Bari is the bad Muslim, not because he advocates violence (he doesn't, as can be clearly seen in the quotation below) but because he's against profiling and the demonisation of an entire community.


Really in what way are they trying to demonise an ENTIRE community, you need to clarify what you mean by demonise because I would sure hate to see people misusing that word to try and suppress any ones right to challenge or raise questions that may or may not be pertinent to said community and the wider community. That smacks of oppression to me.

When the IRA were blowing people up the Irish community came in for quiet a bit of stick on a day to day level. I remember because I’m second generation, born to an Irish father and had more than a few comments thrown my way, granted there were no extreme acts carried out although I do remember an Irish guy getting beaten up locally which put the fear of God into my mother.



Security profiling at airports "reinforces a negative stereotype", he added.


So do radicals chanting ‘death to all infidels’ or ‘the UK will be a Muslim state.’ You can’t place the entire burden of responsibility on the non muslim community for that.



But Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui of the Muslim Parliament said the responsibility lay on Muslim communities to expose and end the threat.

Dr Siddiqui said: "Muslim failure to act robustly against extremist ideology provides ammunition to those who wish to pursue the Neo-con agenda by demonising Muslims and creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred within society."

Nice, cuddly Muslim... except that he too seems to accept that there's an agenda to demonise Muslims and creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred... which you seem to have fallen right in step with, I have to say. But he's nice and cuddly because he thinks that Muslims have to deal with the problem, which means we don't. We don't have to look at the idea that young Muslims might watch the news and see Blair's uncritical support of Israel and his craven rushing into the Iraq war behind Bush, and feel angry that the government of this country is doing these things. I'm not condoning any terrorism here (just thought I'd make that crystal clear) but I am saying that the policies of this government make terrorism inevitable. The nice Muslim cleric wants to clear up this mess for us; the nasty one wants us to take at least some of the responsibility and not demonise Muslims as we deal with the mess our foreign policy has caused.


So this nice cuddly Muslim, or uncle Tom as you clearly see him, has actually made the point that, in the real world terms, everyone has to work together and share some responsibility towards resolving this problem or else extremists will make much profit from it. Sensible bloke. How I’ve fallen in step with ‘demonising muslims’ I don’t know, your mind seems to travel some very convoluted paths.


No. I'm simply saying that the burden of proof is actually on you; and it's one you keep trying to dodge. I actually haven't seen decent proof of the existence of real terror plots in the UK with the possible exception of Richard Reid... I haven't looked into that one (there are, after all, only so many hours in the day) but that, too, looked fishy.


The accepted consensus is we have a a home grown terrorist problem, you refute that and say different. The burden of proof is on you. What can I say to this yet again, Convince me!


All you can do is say "this guy sounds like a loan shark" without posting any supporting evidence: when I went back and actually looked at what was said, I couldn't find any.


Difficult, as it’s a subjective observation about a person (and the comments he made) not a lab rat. I think he does, you don’t, I suspect that’s as good as it gets otherwise the argument starts getting a little too circular.
You seem to demand ever more stringent levels of evidence for anything that challenges your world view while happily waving through any piece of flimsy supposition that supports it, ie ‘it looks to me that the Mail MAY have twisted Bari‘s words‘ therefore by inference, I and anyone who doesn’t agree with you or Bari (Daily Mail readers included obviously) are guilty of DEMONISING the ENTIRE muslim community.
And you accuse me of sloppy thinking.


And I'd just like to return to the "rivers of blood" thing. You seem unaware that there was a speech by Enoch Powell which used this phrase, and it was used specifically about West Indians, which, if you go back and look, was the context I used it in. To date, there have been no "rivers of blood". There have been occasional riots, it is true... but then if you look back through history, there have been rather a lot of riots in this country at one time or another. It is also true that recent rioting has invariably followed a campaign of heavy-handed policing. This is another consequence of demonising a visible minority. Are rioters terrorists? How can you tell the difference? Gosh, so much to worry about...

At any rate, to connect the July bombings with Powell's speech is historically inappropriate.


Yes I am familiar with it and yes it is inappropriate and rather disingenuous of you to connect race mongering inflammatory speeches with expressing (justifiable) concerns about the current situation. In fact you seem to have missed the irony that Enoch and Bari have far more in common than not and gosh the conspiracy minded may fret their little heads off, I sleep easy.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ubermunche
I never claimed there were dirty bombs, I used it as an example...


If you use it as an example, you are therefore claiming it as a possibility. Let it go. There are no dirty bombs and you persist in sticking to your prejudices rather than looking carefully at the evidence.



But as I say, please feel free to post anything from that article that supports your image of Bari as "some shady loan shark".


A quotation that illustrates my thesis….please, this isn’t a science lecture.


No, but it's a discussion board in which people are supposed to fulfil a reasonable expectation of support for their ideas. You raise the spectre of dirty bombs but when challenged cannot provide any evidence for their existence (note that I didn't use the word "proof") and their possession by terrorists. Here I'm simply asking you to go back and pick out quotations that illustrate your point about Bari being like a loan shark. No, you're not going to do that either.


If we need to provide absolute proofs for every opinion or observation this wouldn’t really be a discussion board would it.


But I'm not demanding "absolute proofs". I'm asking you to cite something "that supports your image of Bari", no more. Again, you run away from looking at the evidence for your opinion of him, probably because you actually don't want to see that there really isn't anything that stands up to scrutiny.


I think you’re problem is you are too literal, you’re simply plodding through the article word for word and failing to catch the subtlties and nuance.


I disagree. Others who read this thread will be able to make up their own minds. I would argue that I looked very carefully at the piece and teased out nuances within the Mail's reporting that might otherwise have gone un-noticed.


It’s ambiguous as you yourself pointed out, it could very easily be construed as threatening in tone and even if it’s not he shouldn’t be speaking out on behalf of the muslim community as he has a very poor way of expressing himself responsibly.


Perhaps English is not his first language, to start with: and it's also more than likely that the Mail went to him for a racy quote or two... and ensured that he fulfilled this function by wrapping what may have been forthright but reasonable assertions within a careful cocoon of spin.


As for my ’assertions’ the only assertion I made at the beginning of this thread was that fear mongering was being encouraged on both sides.


That was one assertion you made: you also asserted that it only took a handful of terrorists plus some dirty bombs to cause quite a problem. So on the one hand, you decry fear-mongering, and on the other hand, you perpetuate it, because you bring the fictitious dirty bombs into the mix.


Once again I think I made this clear that I am more than willing to believe you when you have provided adequate evidence or proof, not speculation.


The July bombings aspect of this is not one I want to delve into too deeply here, because it would hijack the thread. But once again, it is not speculation that the government have not proved their case. We have no credible CCTV footage to support the government narrative: merely one suspiciously cropped photo and one (very likely) photoshopped image that is too blurry to be of any use. The "narrative" that the government has issued (which I have read rather carefully) is merely a story with very little published evidence to back it up. A public inquiry has been refused, and the "narrative" refuses to look at the emergency response to the situation that day, because that would open a whole other can of worms.

My point is, the government have not proven their case, and most of the terrorist plots they uncover have nothing behind them as far as I can see. If you want to demonstrate that they HAVE proven their case, or that there is any genuine evidence that there are terrorists running around in the UK, please feel free.


Really in what way are they trying to demonise an ENTIRE community, you need to clarify what you mean by demonise


Propaganda works by simple repetition, and by the insidious juxtaposition of two items to relate them to each other by association rather than through a chain of evidence. At the moment, the meme "Muslim extremist terrorists" is being spread. And of course "Iranian nuclear threat", there's another one. A while ago it was "Saddam's weapons of mass destruction" and we can see how real those were, can't we?

Just like "terrorists with dirty bombs". No actual evidence... just a few little words from the security services, picked up by the press and recirculated without the merest shred of evidence that they exist.


because I would sure hate to see people misusing that word to try and suppress any ones right to challenge or raise questions that may or may not be pertinent to said community and the wider community. That smacks of oppression to me.


Being asked to supply actual evidence for your accusations must be a real bind.

Funnily enough, I'm also second generation Irish, and I don't remember any hassle through the seventies, although I did pick up the 'phone once and heard some really weird clicking sounds. However, I should have thought that the experiences you describe would give you sympathy with the majority of peaceable Muslims and the effects of demonising them.


So do radicals chanting ‘death to all infidels’ or ‘the UK will be a Muslim state.’ You can’t place the entire burden of responsibility on the non muslim community for that.


Agreed.


So this nice cuddly Muslim, or uncle Tom as you clearly see him, has actually made the point that, in the real world terms, everyone has to work together and share some responsibility towards resolving this problem or else extremists will make much profit from it.


No. I don't really think you read very carefully. If you were more pedantic, like me, you might notice that it was the evil Bari, who said that


"But we all have to work together to do that: police, politicians, the media and the Muslim community."


Whereas Siddiqui said,


the responsibility lay on Muslim communities to expose and end the threat.


How very amusing that you should put the words of one in the mouth of the other, and align yourself with the "reasonable" one while continuing to see the other as a menacing loan shark figure!

It's no more surprising, and no less amusing, that you should think I see Siddiqui as an "Uncle Tom". Had you read my post more carefully you would see that I'm talking about the Mail's spin on this, which you have completely missed. The Mail likes him because he absolves the broader UK society from any need to "work together".


The accepted consensus is we have a a home grown terrorist problem, you refute that and say different. The burden of proof is on you. What can I say to this yet again, Convince me!


In view of your above-demonstrated inability to read and think carefully, I doubt very much that I could convince you. It's not a surprise that the "accepted consensus" is as it is... but a while ago, the "accepted consensus" was that Saddam had WMD and was a threat to uncle Tom Cobbley and all... and we saw how that turned out. The fact that you are unwilling to question the accepted consensus is your problem not mine. The fact that you cannot see that the government has simply not proved its case is unsurprising as you are clearly not capable of reading things carefully - otherwise you wouldn't have confused Bari's comments with those of Siddiqui.

I ask you for evidence that there is a dirty bomb, that there are terrorists - which, whether you like it or not, is not by any means proven, it's merely repetitive propaganda which has attained the level of truth for those who don't understand the mechanisms by which propaganda works - and you fail to provide any. I ask for even a little quotation from one already linked article that demonstrates why you think Bari's threatening, and you manage to quote his remarks approvingly and put them in the mouth of the other guy.


You seem to demand ever more stringent levels of evidence for anything that challenges your world view


I'm just asking for ANY evidence. So far you have given me none, but waved away any of the thorny questions raised by the July Bombings and their "narrative", while demonstrating that you can't keep Bari and Siddiqui straight in your own mind. Decry my pedantry if you like, but it does rather prove my points about your sloppy thinking.


...it is inappropriate and rather disingenuous of you to connect race mongering inflammatory speeches with expressing (justifiable) concerns about the current situation. In fact you seem to have missed the irony that Enoch and Bari have far more in common than not


If you were familiar with the "rivers of blood" speech and caught the reference I made, why did you yourself connect it with the July bombings? As for your concerns being justifiable, you still haven't justified the use of the "dirty bomb" idea, which is fearmongering. As for the irony about Enoch and Bari having a lot in common, I find it more ironical that you quoted Bari approvingly without realising it.

(edited to fix quote boxes)

[edit on 18-9-2006 by rich23]



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroom
1. Can I just say has anybody fought that the 4 Muslim terrorists of 7/7 could have patsies? That day there was a major terrorist excercise on the London underground and these 4 men could have been part of that to add authenticity to the excerise, is that not plausible and maybe the poor sods did not realise bombs were going to go off but they were unaware.


No, totally implausible.

There's probably a similar exercise been helf today. And another company may run theres tomorrow .....

These exercises are routine 'paper' exercises, carried out by most companies in the UK, especially those with offices in the City, usually on an annual basis. They simply involve a scenario being invented and then members of staff sitting around a desk and ensuring that were that scenario to occur for real, their crises managment proceedures would work.



btw I fully agree with rich23 on one thing: the original quotes from the Daily Mail are likely to have been edited and /or taken out of context. Having seen people I know quoted in the media as saying the opposite to what they actually said,, I would personally take every quote - however legitimate it my seem - with a degree of caution.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
The only thing about that is that it's one hell of a coincidence that London Transport should have been running an exercise based on the very stations that got hit. Andy, did you have a look at that documentary, Ludicrous Diversion? Any thoughts on that?

I was a skeptic on the official story of 9/11 right from the moment it happened. When I saw the towers fall I was suspicous, and those suspicions have only grown since then.

However, I was pretty sold on the official story of the July bombings until pertinent questions were raised and I saw the Channel 4 interview with a spokesman of the company that was running the exercise. Then, when I found out that London Transport's chairman at the time was ex-CIA and Council on Foreign Relations, I did a real double-take. Why would someone like that be running LT? And he left pretty soon afterwards... I remember checking out the LT website, finding his photo and a brief resume, and then a month or so later... gone, no trace. Rum.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
If the london bombings where a tool of fear then they backfired, it showed the government was unable to predict and defend the citizens therefore inciting failures in the government.
True this could be seen as a view to get the government more powers and money but do you think that those in power would sacrifice face?



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
Andy you have answered my question, as you have said these excercise's happen all the time but the LT was masisive involving over a thousand people and would have provided an oppertunity to good to be missed by those who seek to remove our freedoms.
What kind of terrorists do we have, the current lot arrested by the police must be stupid. Even if they are proven to be terrorists why go to all the trouble to try and get bombs on a plane knowing of all the security checks when all you have to do is go to any airport in the country look like a tourist, bags and all leave them walk out and set the bomb off. Its that easy, you would close all the airports and ground all aircraft and kill and maime hundreds.

This was a Police orchestrated action and they brought the country to a standstill and for what, so they can turn this country into a police state to deny you and I our rights to freedom and liberty, to control us to keep us in a state of fear.
We are told how dangerous AQ is and they are a global terrorist network well where are they ,where are there terrorist activites, on the UK/USA two attacks 9/11 and 7/7 in five years yes they realy sound dangerous. On the the other hand 30 years of IRA terrorism in the UK every day every week for all those years, no draconian legislation introduced to control the masses then was there so why now.

And just what has happened to all the other terrorist groups we had before 9/11 not much heard about them is there. Goverments should fear the people not the other way round. Our relatives fought the Germans so you and I could live freely and I for one am not about to give that up.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   
Making people afraid is the first step to controlling them. And control is the name of the game, you betcha.



posted on Sep, 18 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
The only thing about that is that it's one hell of a coincidence that London Transport should have been running an exercise based on the very stations that got hit. Andy, did you have a look at that documentary, Ludicrous Diversion? Any thoughts on that?


I've not seen the documentary.

However, it's not so big a coincidence. London tube stations, especially in the vicinity of the City, would be an obvious target. And I believe the exercise - which to my knowledge was not for London Transport - also involved attacks on mainline stations.

This is the firm that was organising the exercise:
www.visorconsultants.com...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join