« The Cameroons would need to invent Simon Heffer if he didn't exist | Main | Other blogs on the terror plot »

Comments

"Al Qaeda nutjobs profess to be Muslim"

So, Andrew. You know better than Osama Bin Laden what a "real" Muslim is.

Very interesting. Where did you get this amazing chutzpah, to tell a Muslim that he isn't a "real" Muslim?

You sound as brilliant as our glorious PM and our equally radiant Shadow PM.

Do you even know which type of "muslim" Bin Laden is: Sunni or Shiite. Which, of couse, he isn't.

Jack Bauer seems to be majoring in the kind of intolerance which gets the Conservative Party a bad name.

I would like to ask him whether he is in any way connected with the shadowy and influential CFI group

Jack Bauer seems to be majoring in the kind of intolerance which gets the Conservative Party a bad name.

I would like to ask him whether he is in any way connected with the shadowy and influential CFI group

Beware John G - Conservativehome is a known friend of the CFI.

"The Lord's Resistance Army is NOT Christian...."


They say they are. Similarly, Al Qaeda nutjobs profess to be Muslim, despite the Quran specifically outlawing the targetting of civilians.


Kony claims to be a spirit medium. The primary spirit said to be channeled during the early insurgency was Juma Oris, formerly a government minister under President Idi Amin who at the time was leading the rebel West Nile Bank Front in the northwestern Uganda. Another is the spirit of a Chinese general. Kony is a practising polygamist.

This is what one of the abductees that escaped from Kony observed:

"It was a strange religion Kony adhered to. He prayed to the God of the Christians on Sundays reciting the Rosary and quoting the bible; but he also did the Al-Jummah prayer on Fridays, like the Muslims. He celebrated Christmas, but he also fasted for 30 days during Ramadan and prohibited the consumption of pork."

nd Islam is in the process of understanding what such an accommodation means.

In the meantime how do you suggest the slow pace of assimilation coupled with rampant violence should be countered - so people in The Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Saudui Arabia, Sweden, Spain, Netherlands, Britain, USA, Norway, Belgium, France, Italy et al...........can live without fear of their Muslim neighbour doing something violent and bizarre ?

Fox News is carrying a story that Muslims inside the organisation helped bring down the terror groups - are these the Muslims Jack Bauer has been railing against?

The trouble is that while all the explicit Christian horrors were in the middle ages or earlier, the Muslim religion is stuck in a 7th century time warp with theologians dominating the laity. The Western world grew up the muslim world did not.

That's why at present ALL terrorists are muslim and therefore we have to treat all muslims as potential terrorists. This is especially so when there is a refusal to integrate with the native population as almost all other religious groups have done. They arrogantly claim a monopoly of the truth when it comes to secular behaviour [see Jon Snow C4]

What can one do but treat their community as alien and hostile. To do otherwise is to be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

Fox News is carrying a story that Muslims inside the organisation

the organisation ?

What organisation ?

What can one do but treat their community as alien and hostile. To do otherwise is to be like a turkey voting for Christmas.

It certainly is alien but not entirely hostile

"That's why at present ALL terrorists are muslim and therefore we have to treat all muslims as potential terrorists"

My doctor is a Muslim, should I regsiter with a good Christian doctor. The man in the corner shop is also a Muslim, should we boycott his shop. Hay, maybe we could get all the Muslims and put them in camps.

You are a bigger threat to liberty in this country than any Muslim.

Sorry TomTom, the terrorist cell.

As someone who is worried about the large minority of Islamic fundamentalists I do find Christina's comment to be somewhat excessive.

They arrogantly claim a monopoly of the truth

I think you'll find that's true of the Vatican as well Christina. But you'll choose to ignore that because it's inconvenient.

Faiths can't collectively 'grow up'. You, however, can.

That's why at present ALL terrorists are muslim
A lot of the Ba'athists aren't Muslim, and in fact although Saddam Hussein when it became convenient for him to do so suddenly in 1990 starting claiming he was Muslim it wasn't very convincing really, what about the Russian Army's actions in Chechnya, isn't North Korea a terrorist state? What about the Serbs and Bosnian Serbs really quite recently and various Lebanese groups with Catholic or Eastern Orthodox affiliations. Even if most terrorists currently are Muslim which I don't think could be established conclusively, certainly the majority are not and many other people are terrorists, in fact it's not that long ago that Anti-Terrorist actions had to be taken against a plot by the INLA. Terrorists have to be dealt with strongly wherever they appear from.

What may be an interesting issue arising from this is the debate over racial profiling. Many innocent people who are told they can't take hand luggage due to these events will understandably be angry and probably say something like "for goodness sakes, do I look like a terrorist?!" which is code for "we're a white middle class family with children going on holiday, since when have we blown up planes". The problem of course is that nobody wants a system whereby Asians (or whites who look funny like Richard Reid) are told they can't take luggage on board because they look more like stereotypical terrorists than a little old lady from the Home Counties. Is there a way round this dilemma? Should innocent people have to suffer such inconvenience as an alternative to discrimination? It's easy for me to sit here and pontificate about the greater good but I'm not the one in such an irritating situation. I for one would hate to have a 10 hour flight without my mindisc player!

Richard writes: "The problem of course is that nobody wants a system whereby Asians (or whites who look funny like Richard Reid) are told they can't take luggage on board because they look more like stereotypical terrorists than a little old lady from the Home Counties."

Sorry, but what precisely is wrong with such a system?

Goldie - firstly, not all Muslims are Asians. Equally, such targetting will stop the Asian community from helping the authorities with the fight against terrorism.

Goldie - firstly, not all Muslims are Asians. Equally, such targetting will stop the Asian community from helping the authorities with the fight against terrorism.
Not only that but other people of dark or foreign appearance including many of long standing British families including for example some on my father's side of the family will end up getting stopped on the grounds that they look darkish, and the terrorists will pick European recruits and people who are lighter and have more European features and because the Security and Intelligence Forces are looking for people of more Asian or Arab appearances they will be lulled into a false sense of security and wave the guy with the ipod and baseball cap and apparently Nordic looks who they think is a regular guy who turns out later to have spent some months in an Al Qaeda training camp somewhere, ultimately unless there is specific intelligence on someone they are looking for then they have to suspect everybody.

JB--you know what. I will just cite John Derbyshire and then stop discussing with you:

"Breeding Terrorism [John Derbyshire]
I can't resist pointing out (since Andy McCarthy is apparently too much of a gent to do so) that this latest plot illustrated an important point about terrorism: If you want to breed terrorists and give them the opportunity to mature their plans, there is no environment better than a free, open, "diversity"-whipped Western nation.

Rubble doesn't make trouble. Neither do complaisant amoral dictators, so long as you keep their Swiss bank accounts well stuffed. The trouble comes from neat English suburbs with herbaceous borders and privet hedges, with bobbies on the beat and milkmen making daily deliveries.

Nor do poverty, oppression, and madrassas make terrorists. Comfortable lower-middle-class surroundings, authorities terrified of being called "racist," and the British educational system, will accomplish the job perfectly well."
National Review.com

or whites who look funny like Richard Reid
He's Afro-Caribbean, there's the bloke in the USA in jail who joined the taleban, before he went to Afghanistan he was what I believe they refer to in the USA as an ordinary Joe.

Fine Goldie, but you know what Disraelim said about the drunk and the lamp post.

"wave the guy with the ipod and baseball cap and apparently Nordic looks who they think is a regular guy who turns out later to have spent some months in an Al Qaeda training camp somewhere, ultimately unless there is specific intelligence on someone they are looking for then they have to suspect everybody."

I'm sure theres a huge pool of such people Al Qaeda have been wating to call on in just such an circumstance - but we foxed 'em Mr Manwaring, by searching every 50 year old white woman from the green-welly brigade! Ha! And they think we stupid!

Yvonne Ridley's almost 50 you know, not that I'm suggesting anything but she went from someone who wasn't particularily religious, not Muslim, she was well educated and more recently she was urging Muslims not to co-operate with the police. For a terrorist group the person who seems unlikely is a perfect cover as far as they are concerned.

Sky News now tells us that two of the suspects are converts to Islam. That should help sweep aside the arguments on racial profiling!

Anon: "This is the Tory Party - a party completely dominated by a pressure group that would, possibly quite literally, have you shot for reminding anyone of how Israel was actually formed!"

C'mon. It's not that bad - William Hague felt able to write a piece for the Telegraph on 23 July headed: "We should not be afraid to criticise Israel"

Admittedly the piece was more restrained than I would have wished but then I'm more encouraged by Malcolm Rifkind in this week's Spectator. But perhaps the key insight into the motivation for today's terrorist threat is this from John Kampfner in the New Statesman:

"At a Downing Street reception not long ago, a guest had the temerity to ask Tony Blair: 'How do you sleep at night, knowing that you've been responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis?' The Prime Minister is said to have retorted: 'I think you'll find it's closer to 50,000.'"

http://www.newstatesman.com/200608070017

I suppose that's all right then?

Blair sleeps fine. He's got his position on the board of News International awaiting his retirement for being a good Pentagon Poodle.

Today's busting of a terror gang has been hammed up to make us feel first insecure, and then safe again. It's all good manipulation to keep us onside in the US strategic plan to fight a war against terrorists now before they acquire too many WMD.

The second world war polished off 50,000,000. Blair's a relative saint with only 50,000 lives on his hands.

The Islamic world doesn't understand what we could do to them if we wanted to.

They need to pray that they never find out.

"Blair sleeps fine. He's got his position on the board of News International awaiting his retirement for being a good Pentagon Poodle."

I'm not sure whether that job is fully fixed yet or contingent on Blair serving the Bush Neocons faithfully for another year yet as Britain's PM.

According to Rees-Mogg in The Times on Monday:

"WHEN JACK STRAW was replaced by Margaret Beckett as Foreign Secretary, it seemed an almost inexplicable event. Mr Straw had been very competent — experienced, serious, moderate and always well briefed. Margaret Beckett is embarrassingly inexperienced. I made inquiries in Washington and was told that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary, had taken exception to Mr Straw’s statement that it would be 'nuts' to bomb Iran. The United States, it was said, had put pressure on Tony Blair to change his Foreign Secretary. Mr Straw had been fired at the request of the Bush Administration, particularly at the Pentagon."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2301799,00.html

It's timely to discuss whether Britain should have its own choice of foreign secretary and its own foreign policy IMO.

I've been posting requests in various places about whether anyone is offering odds on Blair taking up US citizenship after he steps down as PM here? Strangely, no one has responded on that yet. Am I to take it that no one is up to offering odds on Blair taking US citizenship because that is regarded as a racing certainty???

The second world war polished off 50,000,000. Blair's a relative saint with only 50,000 lives on his hands.

64.000.000 actually with 38.000.000 in Europe alone; 500.000 German civilians killed at a loss of 75.000 Bomber Command crews and an unknown number of USAAF crews

Bob B - Straw was a useless Foreign Secretary and a useless Home Secretary who smeared all English people in a way he didn't like people to smear Muslims. The man's utterances were anti-English on a consistent basis, and his intellectual capacity is modest in the extreme

Where did you get the idea that Straw was a Competent Foreign Sec Bob?Read Peter Stothards book on the lead up to the Iraq war.He comes across as just a bag carrier and a complete cipher to Blair who excercised a ruthless control of foreign policy.He only started to pursue a slightly more independant line when he thought his seat might be in danger.Whether Beckett will be better or worse who knows?Most likely just as irrelevant.
Tom Tom Bomber command suffered 55473 fatalities (wikipedia) during WW2.Your ability to google not up to its usual standards today.

TomTom: "Bob B - Straw was a useless Foreign Secretary"

If you re-read my previous post you'll be able to confirm that I was quoting Rees-Mogg in The Times so you will need to take your issue up with him, not me.

As for Straw being just a bag-carrier for Blair on foreign affairs, as a point of fact, Straw was explicit in putting down the possibility of the Bush administration bombing Iran two years ago:

"UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said it is 'inconceivable' that America would try to bomb Iran. . ."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_politics/3981307.stm

By the account of Rees-Mogg, that comment from Straw offended Donald Rumsfeld who evidently looks for bombing opportunities:

"(CBS MarketWatch) -- A second former Bush administration official is set to accuse top presidential aides, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, of planning retaliatory strikes on Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, despite briefings from intelligence officials explaining that Iraq likely wasn't responsible."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/20/clarke.cbs/

That even intelligent Conservative Muslims like Nadim seem to fall into the trap of seeing concerns with the terrorist behaviour and sympathies of a significant minority of Muslims as some veiled threat to Islam or hatred/vilification of Muslims generally gives some credibility to the arguments of those who don't feel the need to distinguish between the majority of British Muslims and the ones who support of indulge in acts of terror.

Regarding whether religion and culture can be separated, it seems odd that people brought up in this country, whether Muslim or not, cannot see that even if they personally believe that their religion is a key part of their culture, that religion is not necessarily a key part of the culture of the society they live in.

Perhaps it is wrong to say that the secular liberal British culture should be the baseline from which we work and that everyone here should do well to remember that, but I don't think so. That same liberal, secular tradition means that we can accommodate those for whom religion, of whatever hue, is valuable or indeed intrinsic to their selves. But keep its values to your selves and enjoy your freedom to do that. If the rest of the public decline to agree that they should adopt or accommodate those values by binding themselves to them then that is the nature of the country.

There is a fine line here but I think that John Howard's recent rant about Australians needing to accept Australian culture and that if they wanted to change its culture to one founded on the principles of Sharia Law or whatever they should consider whether they would not be better going somewhere where that was in fact the culture, would have some attraction to the majority of British people of all backgrounds.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker