IMPORTANT - Don't go into London today if you don't have to

RE: But there is also an incredible danger in this line of action... if we are agreed that we are making this threat to deal with the actions of a minority of Muslims - don't we then run the risk of transforming the peaceloving majority into the same kind of extremeist warmongers that we have in the minority...

Uh, the "peaceloving majority" isn't exactly going out of its way to say "er, you might want to keep tabs on ibn Muhammad ibn Fatwa over there, he's buying a LOT of fertiliser and asking for maps of synagogues..." Instead it's trying to do PR about how they are just the religion of peace, but actions speak louder than words. If "the religion of peace" was REALLY about peace, and if you read the Koran you know it isn't, regardless of what actions or opinions individual Moslems might have -- then right now, there would be phones buzzing through the roof at MI-5 saying "you know what? We know who did this, and we know where they plan on striking next" but instead, they're giving Zakah to Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Look at Peace Loving Man of Peace Religion of Peace Cat Stevens, oh, sorry, Yusuf Islam. Didn't he call for Rushdie's head on a pole? Not welcome in the US anymore for sponsoring terrorism. So much for the Peace Train.

RE: Islam may not be a race, but it is an ethnicity as much as judaism is an ethnicity ... and suggesting that we wipe out a whole ethnicity for the wrongdoings of a small group is bordering on Nazism.

No, it's a belief system. I have no qualms about stamping out Naziism either.

By your definitions, we should protect and preserve the Nazis to try and redress the wrongs done to Germany or some such crap.

Nonsense.

A terrorist is a terrorist and a mad mullah is a mad mullah. They should be told "what do you love more - your faith or your hate? If you want to worship Makkah give up the bastards who do this stuff and tell us where Bin Laden is." That solves everything.

It's like blokes in prison - there's some people who understand only violence. You CANNOT deal rationally with a drug user, a fetal alcohol patient in the slammer, or a religionist of any stripe. And the day Christians start terror-bombing entire cities and DO NOT bring up a justified war as terrorism - the soldiers wear uniforms and fight face to face- I will start advocating clipping their enthusiasm, too.

Christ said beat your swords into ploughshares. Mohammed committed armed robbery of a caravan and put everyone to swordpoint as the first act of his ministry. Hmmmmmmmmmm.......

 

Irongoth I've got a job for you

 

Ha ha, class.

 

Are you still going on about war on muslims? What would your next course of action be then? i'd be interested to know what you would do if you had the power to govern our next move, be specific.

oh and by the way, just because you've used capitals doesnt make it a big word .

 

Not war on Muslims, no.

 

Well, alright then. What do others propose?

"They will not stop us" while simultaneously ignoring them isn't gonna do much. I mean, we didn't say "you know, the Nazis really have done wonderful things for their economy and they love Wagner so they must be cultured."

 

sorry man, I completely misunderstand you. What is it you're saying exactly? It sounds to me like you think every koran reading Muslim has some deep belligerent hatred and overwhelming drive to kill or decieve all those who do not abide by allah. Can you elaborate your points for me please? Without using terms like mad mullahs, actually, could you explain in detail exactly what a mad mullah is. I apologise for any comments that i've made while not fully understanding you.

 

i'm not ignoring it, i'm fully aware of the threats we're facing. I'm just being vigilant at the moment, that's all i propose we do at the moment.

 

RE: sorry man, I completely misunderstand you. What is it you're saying exactly? It sounds to me like you think every koran reading Muslim has some deep belligerent hatred

And that is absolutely NOT the case.

Here's what we have.

The vast majority of Muslims are decent, educated, normal people.
There are some who are aware of violence and death but do nothing about it *cat stevens cough*
There are those who absolutely want to bomb and kill.

Now, which one is which? Can't tell can you? Therein lies the problem in guerilla warfare. You either shoot the odd innocent child or you get shot in the back. Both situations suck.

What I am saying is that we must be aware that there are people who wish to kill, and we must figure out why. People have proposed any of a number of suggestions - "we're in their country" "they are poor and desperate" etc. All are false. The Canadian Prime Minister Jean Cretin said that America deserved to be bombed for disregarding the poor people. Well, the 9/11 bombers were rich Saudis, oops, there goes that theory.

What might be a bigger factor is this huge drive towards a literal reading of the Koran that says "kill them, don't befriend them, crucify them, cut their limbs off" etc. There are similar injunctions in the Old Testament, but I've never seen a Jewish person here set a bomb nor have I seen them actually follow through with killing Sabbath breakers and wayward children. Whereas I can show you pics of amputations and eye gougings carried out in the name of Allah.

RE: and overwhelming drive to kill or decieve all those who do not abide by allah. Can you elaborate your points for me please?

Do yourself a favor first. Familiarize yourself with the following concepts in Islam.

1) The Koran is supposed to have been written by God. Not by people. There's no wiggle room. It is supposed to be the literal unchanging Word to be obeyed to the letter.

2) The concept of Dar-As-Islam and Dar-As-Harb. The former is the "good guys" - people who bow five times a day to a big rock, don't eat pork, worship Allah etc. and the latter is, well, the rest of us. And they are told to conquer us or kill us or convert us. No shirking from that duty. The term for this is Jihad, or holy war. And the Koran is clear that the religion must be advanced, by force if necessary.

3) The concept of The principle of Al-Takeyya. The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.

Al Takeyya was used in the war between Egypt and Israel, where Egypt's leaders LIED about the timing of the war to mislead Israel. It can also be technically used by Moslems to advance Jihad e.g. "no, I am not planning to attack you and I will swear fealty to the laws of this land on the Koran".

RE: Without using terms like mad mullahs, actually, could you explain in detail exactly what a mad mullah is.

Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) is not one. The bloke who flew a plane into the Twin Towers IS one. The key here is that the person is a homicidal religious maniac, of the Islamic faith. All must be present. A guy who is murderous is not one, be he Muslim or not. It must be one of those guys who charges naked into the fray screaming "ALLAHU AKBAR!!!!" as he blows up scores of schoolchildren.

Now having read all this you see the problem.

We cannot ask them if they intend to kill us. They are permitted to lie to do so.
We cannot round them up and deport them all by force. Then we become something hateful.
We cannot say "well OK we're gonna treat everyone like 1984" that's like the latter, but worse.
And it would be a horrible mistake to have some PR trip with us shaking hands with some Imam saying "this is a religion of peace and we are all friends and nobody of this culture is to be considered as evil and malevolent". That is as bad as demonising all of them.

Truth of the matter is, we must be vigilant, but we must understand what we're up against and why. We are up against people who believe, rightly or wrongly, their religion to be a directive to kill. Period.

We cannot quote their book to say "thou shalt not kill" or whatever because they can just as easily come back with "but in this verse it says slay the unbeliever."

We must have the courage to find out which Imams are saying "KILL KILL KILL" and we know of several in London, and toss em out of the country. And say to the rest, "I don't care if you do anything untoward or not. But if you are harboring a terrorist knowingly, you're gone, too." And IGNORE every call of "RACIALIST! RACIALIST!" that will be bleated from every rooftop the moment these steps are taken.

 

So you just think we should be vigilant, and hard on the people responsible? Why didn't you just say that?

 

Raskalization : because being vigilant involves tossing out knee-jerk liberalism and potentially putting some non-WASP bloke up against the wall. You can guarantee that if we'd gone and grabbed Johnny Jihad and said "oi you, yer nicked" it would have been "racialist racialist racialist racialist" etc. etc. etc. from everyone.

Did you know that according to Islam Moslems aren't allowed to be friends with you... unless they're preparing and plotting against you? That they are required to kill you if you don't become Muslim?

The fact that most of em don't doesn't change the highly disquieting fact that those verses are there, and that there are people who believe them to the point of WANTING to die for them.

 

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/Perfanalyst/creating_an_islamic_state.htm

there is also the political aspect of Islam that is being applied not just in the uk but in "liberal " countrys like turkey trying to take them back to the 7th century

 

I just find it sad that there are people on a left wing forum who think we should nuke people

 

Paul - yeah, well the choice is between that or BEING nuked. And lastly, mate, my suggestion was to nuke monuments not people.

 

quote: And lastly, mate, my suggestion was to nuke monuments not people.


Nuking monuments will kill people as well, it would contaminate a large area of land and bring about retaliation....stupid idea.

 

RE: Nuking monuments will kill people as well, it would contaminate a large area of land and bring about retaliation....stupid idea.

Makkah is a rock in the middle of nowhere. If they chose to stick around, that's their loss. Some people didn't get out of the way of the lava of Mount St. Helens, either.

As for retaliation, that'd be hard, when the raison d'etre of going there is proven wrong.

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/oradica...GhvaA8F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl


its a tricky situation with world war two you had a pretty clear situation but lets say you start getting nukes being put off in western citys , what do you do and no government declares war .

the people involved dont care about dieing in fact they choose to die, the wider islamic community hide them , you would have differculty deporting all the 1.6 million muslims that now live in the uk which is doubling every 10 years .

I could well see a balkan like civil war kicking off, but on a much larger scale yugoslavia was the most multi faith multi ethnic country in europe remember so the future may not be all happy .

its a pretty nasty situation

It is permissible to set fire to the lands of the enemy, his stores of grain, his beasts of burden – if it is not possible for the Muslims to take possession of them – as well as to cut down his trees, to raze his cities, in a word, to do everything that might ruin and discourage him, provided that the imam (i.e. the religious “guide” of the community of believers) deems these measures appropriate, suited to hastening the Islamization of that enemy or to weakening him. Indeed, all this contributes to a military triumph over him or to forcing him to capitulate. [1]


omar bakris http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/105/22.0.html

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/AndrewBostom50708.htm

 

there was a suggestion by I think the only muslim lord of having a vetting procedure for islamic clerics allowed to teach here, that sounds a good idea .

but we need to give some thought to how we use peaceful means to get people to avoid becoming islamists, and support liberalisation in what we think of as the islamic world .

 

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13386011,00.html

discribed as being very nice boys and good muslims fond of sports they chatted on cctv cameras before the attack while wearing military style rucksacks

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13385127,00.html

I think they must have got the right people... anytime neighbours describe you as being as a nice lad who kept himself to himself .....your a crazy serial cannibal or in this case suicide bomber

 

Maybe they've got it wrong.

I find this very odd ... Surely there must have been some sort of stess involved.

I also find this very odd ...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050707/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_britain_explosions_1