British Troops Fighting Britons in Afghanistan?

[BPSCG]

Link (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/70883/4-000-Muslim-Brits-join-Taliban/)

THOUSANDS of British-born Muslims have joined the Taliban in Afghanistan.

UK troops say they are facing a mini civil war as more Brits head out to fight for the enemy.

Senior officers said British-born Muslims from the West Midlands and Yorkshire have travelled to Helmand province and other parts of southern Afghanistan.

Interception of Taliban communications has revealed the sound of jihadists speaking with West Midlands accents.

One senior military source said: “It is the Punjabi and Kashmiri Urdu speakers who fall back into English in, for example, Brummie accents.

“You get the impression they have been told not to talk in English but sometimes can’t help it.”

Brigadier Ed Butler, the former commander of the British forces in Afghan-istan, said: “There are British passport holders who live in the UK who are being found in places such as Kandahar.”

Robert Emerson, a security analyst, added: “There is ample evidence British Muslims trained in camps in Pakistan.

“What is emerging now is a picture of them being more active in Afghanistan, either providing support and logistics or in active service.”

The US has stepped up surveillance inside Pakistan.

They believe the UK is not doing enough to curb radical Muslims.

Tory MP Patrick Mercer, chairman of the Commons’ sub-committee on anti-terrorism, which has been examining the activities of British Muslim extremists, said: “We know the problem we have with UK-based jihadists.

And (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4736032/British-Muslims-providing-Taliban-with-electronic-devices-for-roadside-bombs.html):British Muslims are providing the Taliban with electronic devices to make roadside bombs for use in attacks against British forces serving in southern Afghanistan, The Telegraph can disclose.

The devices, which enable Taliban fighters to detonate roadside bombs by remote control, are either sent to sympathizers in the region, or carried by volunteers who fly to Pakistan and then make their way across the border.
Details of how British electronic components have been found in roadside bombs were given to David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, when he visited British troops at their military compound at Lashkagar, in Helmand province, earlier this week.

[gumboot]

Apparently they're also becoming a major feature in Somalia - British-Somalis and British-Pakistanis appear to be getting radicalised in increasing numbers. At least they're heading off and blowing themselves up in Afghanistan-Pakistan and Somalia, instead of in London.

ETA.

Somalia is also becoming a destination for British Muslims of Somali extraction who have started fighting alongside al Qaeda-backed Islamist forces.

A 21-year-old Briton of Somali extraction, brought up in Ealing, west London, recently blew himself up in the town of Baidoa, killing 20 people.

MI5 head Jonathan Evans has raised the worrying issue of British citizens being indoctrinated in Somalia and Michael Hayden, the outgoing head of the CIA, said the conflict in the Horn of Africa had "catalysed" expatriate Somalis in the West.

...

RAF Nimrod aircraft flying over Afghanistan at up to 12,000m have been picking up Taleban electronic "chatter" in which voices can be heard in West Midlands and Yorkshire accents.

This has risen in the past few months, with ground and air surveillance picking up the presence of more British voices in the Taleban front line. The numbers are shown to be dozens rather than hundreds, but the pattern of involvement is described as a cause for concern.

Insurgency
Pits Brits Against Brits (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10558758)

[Dr Adequate]

Link (http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/70883/4-000-Muslim-Brits-join-Taliban/)

And (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/4736032/British-Muslims-providing-Taliban-with-electronic-devices-for-roadside-bombs.html): Fighting them? But ... but I thought we were all a bunch of weak-kneed cowards who only had to look at these people to wave the white flag.

I'm sure I remember you explaining it to me.

[Soapy Sam]

British troops have a long history of shooting British citizens.
Glencoe, Culloden, Massachusetts, Belfast...

[dudalb]

British troops have a long history of shooting British citizens.
Glencoe, Culloden, Massachusetts, Belfast...

Although in this case I can't blame the British...

[Dr Adequate]

I should still like to hear BPSGC's point, assuming that he has one.

[uk_dave]

RAF Nimrod aircraft flying over Afghanistan at up to 12,000m have been picking up Taleban electronic "chatter" in which voices can be heard in West Midlands and Yorkshire accents.

as predicted.....

Youtube - Monkey Dust - Terror Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhxQT1d1AvE&feature=related)

[Skeptic]

We're lucky Islam is the religion of peace. If that's how they act now, can you imagine how they would be if Islam was a religion of war?

[lionking]

I should still like to hear BPSGC's point, assuming that he has one.
You mean apart from British citizens committing treason by taking up arms against British soldiers? Deserves condemnation by everyone I would have thought.

[Dr Adequate]

You mean apart from British citizens committing treason by taking up arms against British soldiers? Deserves condemnation by everyone I would have thought. Then my longstanding efforts to communicate the rudiments of the bleedin' obvious have not been in vain. Let me congratulate you on understanding something so blatantly evident that it would be readily comprehensible by prokaryotes.

Nonetheless, I suspect that BPSGC may wish to communicate some point so subtle that it can only be understood by higher life-forms, such as yeast, and I am all agog for him to tell us what it is.

[JihadJane]

What is the British army doing in Afghanistan anyway? Securing heroin production? They shouldn't be there. Brits go home!

[twinstead]

What is the British army doing in Afghanistan anyway? Securing heroin production? They shouldn't be there. Brits go home!

Well, I guess the world is more complicated than you wish it was, isn't it?

[Professor Yaffle]

as predicted.....

Youtube - Monkey Dust - Terror Training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhxQT1d1AvE&feature=related)

At last - another Monkey Dust fan!
:D

[Skeptic]

Brits go home!

Only the ones who are fighting terrorism and are serving their country, you mean.

Those Brits who combine terrorism with teason by fighting for the Taliban are freedom fighters who are welcome to stay and help establish the Taliban again.

Then, free of evil British imperialism, they would be free to forbid girls from learning to read and write, shoot anyone that moves which isn't Muslim, send women to jail for being raped, blow up statues, and so on.

[geni]

We're lucky Islam is the religion of peace. If that's how they act now, can you imagine how they would be if Islam was a religion of war?

See the sikhs.

[BPSCG]

Nonetheless, I suspect that BPSGC may wish to communicate some point so subtle that it can only be understood by higher life-forms, such as yeast, and I am all agog for him to tell us what it is.Please, DA, I have more respect for your intelligence than that. I've always been convinced you are much more intelligent than yeast, and I'll fight any man who says says otherwise. I'm sure if we did a poll ("Is Dr Adequate smarter than yeast? (Yes/No/On Planet X, yeast evolved from DA"), a large majority of responders would answer resoundingly in the affirmative.

Nevertheless, I'll acknowledge I might have been a little too subtle. You'll notice I phrased the title of the thread as a question. That was genuine, for two reasons. First, I'm not familiar with the newspaper that was the source of the first article; it looked pretty trashy, so I was wondering how well-sourced it was.

And second, I was surprised by the number of Brits alleged to be fighting for the Taliban. Thousands? WTF? :eek:

You may recall that in the aftermath of the US invasion of Afghanistan, an American was captured on the battlefield, who'd been fighting for the Taliban. It was such an unusual occurrence that it made the papers for quite a while there, much as a story of a three-headed goat might - it was considered to be something really freakish.

We regarded a single American fighting for the Taliban to be something of a freak show. Even today, with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan enjoying much less popularity than they did five years ago, you don't hear of anything of the kind happening.

But today we hear that thousands of British subjects are leaving the UK to take up arms against the British army.

Why are they doing this?

Seriously.

[Professor Yaffle]

Its the Daily Star - take it with a pinch of salt.

Telegraph is more reliable.

[geni]

Apparently they're also becoming a major feature in Somalia - British-Somalis and British-Pakistanis appear to be getting radicalised in increasing numbers.

Somalia is more likely to be tribal. It's also in keeping with the long tradition of hopeless romantics/wanna be men of adventure going off to fight in civil wars in random countries.

[JihadJane]

Well, I guess the world is more complicated than you wish it was, isn't it?

Do you know what the British army is doing in Afghanistan, Mr/Ms Sophisticated?


Only the ones who are fighting terrorism and are serving their country, you mean.

Those Brits who combine terrorism with teason by fighting for the Taliban are freedom fighters who are welcome to stay and help establish the Taliban again.

Then, free of evil British imperialism, they would be free to forbid girls from learning to read and write, shoot anyone that moves which isn't Muslim, send women to jail for being raped, blow up statues, and so on.

Step out of your propaganda-induced coma for a second, Skeptic. The Taliban are already well established again.

The imperialist occupation has not benefitted women. The UK/US forces are so hated that even Afghan women prefer the Taliban.

Get foreign fighters out of Afghanistan!

"For This I Blame America"

Afghanistan: Chaos Central

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22104.htm

[Dr Adequate]

Why are they doing this?

Seriously. Well, I've always assumed that it was something to do with their religious beliefs

But maybe you're one of those "root-causers".

Really, what do you mean, "why"? 'Cos they're islamofascist fruitloops, that's why.

[BPSCG]

Well, I've always assumed that it was something to do with their religious beliefs

But maybe you're one of those "root-causers".

Really, what do you mean, "why"? 'Cos they're islamofascist fruitloops, that's why.Granted. But why so many of them?

[geni]

Granted. But why so many of them?

Do you have any solid evidence that there are?

[Professor Yaffle]

There was a pretty good drama on TV in the UK a year or two ago about muslim siblings - one of whom becomes involved in terrorism. I don't know if there's anywhere you can download it from.

The stuff on the website might be of interest:

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/britz/

[BPSCG]

Do you have any solid evidence that there are?Look, I cited two different newspapers. The Star, which I said I had some doubts about, but which no one has yet actually refuted, and the Telegraph, which Professor Yaffle assures me is a better paper.

So what's the story? Are there really thousands of Brits fighting for the Taliban? And if so, why are there so many, when, as I pointed out, for an American to do the same would be a headline-grabbing rarity?

Please - if the newspaper accounts are inaccurate, just say so, and provide evidence.

[JihadJane]

Well, I've always assumed that it was something to do with their religious beliefs

But maybe you're one of those "root-causers".

Really, what do you mean, "why"? 'Cos they're islamofascist fruitloops, that's why.


If Britain was invaded and occupied by Islamic armies would be surprising if some US "fruitloops" felt moved to go and help kick them out?

[Beerina]

If Britain was invaded and occupied by Islamic armies totalitarian dictators, would be surprising if some US "fruitloops" felt moved to go and help kick them out?

Fixed it for you.


You are "grouping by nonessentials", one of our many flawed logic friends. The important part of rulership is the freedom vs. dictatorship, not what religion or nationality they are.

If a bunch of angry Christians from the 1200s came through a time machine and took over Britain, I would be just as against it, [I]and for exactly the same reason.

[Beerina]

Actually, first I'd probably try to steal the time machine and go back to ancient Rome and insinuate myself into one of the higher, idle social groups that have group [knitting circles] every evening.

[Undesired Walrus]

Granted. But why so many of them?

You ever been to Yorkshire?

[geni]

Look, I cited two different newspapers. The Star, which I said I had some doubts about, but which no one has yet actually refuted, and the Telegraph, which Professor Yaffle assures me is a better paper.

The Telegraph doesn't make the thousands claim.


So what's the story? Are there really thousands of Brits fighting for the Taliban? And if so, why are there so many, when, as I pointed out, for an American to do the same would be a headline-grabbing rarity?

Please - if the newspaper accounts are inaccurate, just say so, and provide evidence.

Thousands would make up a fairly noticable chunk of the taliban forces. If there were than many british involved we would expect some very solid evidence and more than scattered intelligence reports.

British subjects stand out somewhat (US forces had little problem identifying the ones who ended up in Guantanamo Bay). They don't generaly speak speak Pashto which can make passing for a local rather difficult.

So thousands is unlikely.

The telegraph version is likely pretty much correct. There are plently of pakistani imigrants who keep fairly close ties with their families back in pakistan (which creates all sorts of problems) some of which are in tribal regions and some of which is likely to result in the flow of equipement and in some cases people. There are likely to be a small number of british subjects or long term residents involved but I would be very suprised if it was more than a few hundred at most.

[gumboot]

According to MI5 an estimated 4,000 Britons have gone through terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan, however not all of these 4,000 are actively fighting on the Taliban front line, or fighting at all.

According to field intelligence (as per the article I linked) you're currently looking at dozens of Britons in the Taliban front lines, not thousands. However there are believed to be many more actively plotting terrorist activities or fighting in Pakistan. And the primary point, I suppose, is that the presence of British insurgents is increasing. (Obviously they're only picking up the ones who fall back into their British accents, and only those who get to use the radio - you can assume more than they're actually hearing).

[Comsat Angel]

I have some cracking free dance CDs that the Star gave away, donated from folk at work. The paper itself is only high-grade litter-tray liner. Note that none of the quoted persons or institutions give numbers for these supposed traitors - it's the Star's writer who added "thousands" to make a better headline.

IIRC, when a journalist's strike hit the Star, the editor alone was able to publish it; he wrote all the articles and simply added more photos of topless women to fill in the gaps. Readers were unable to tell the difference.

[WildCat]

Actually, first I'd probably try to steal the time machine and go back to ancient Rome and insinuate myself into one of the higher, idle social groups that have group [knitting circles] every evening.
Just don't overdo it, and leave the Viagra in the 21st century: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,25113643-13762,00.html

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by JihadJane
If Britain was invaded and occupied by Islamic armies totalitarian dictators, would be surprising if some US "fruitloops" felt moved to go and help kick them out?

Fixed it for you.

How clever of you.


You are "grouping by nonessentials", one of our many flawed logic friends. The important part of rulership is the freedom vs. dictatorship, not what religion or nationality they are.

If a bunch of angry Christians from the 1200s came through a time machine and took over Britain, I would be just as against it, [I]and for exactly the same reason.

What are you talking about? The US and the UK have a long history of defending dictatorships

[Skeptic]

If the report is true, then it is hardly "root causing" to point out the reason for their actions is their radicalization by Islam. However, I am willing to believe that, without further evidence, just "The Star says so" is hardly evidence.

[JihadJane]

If the report is true, then it is hardly "root causing" to point out the reason for their actions is their radicalization by Islam. However, I am willing to believe that, without further evidence, just "The Star says so" is hardly evidence.

You write as if there's something intrinsically wrong with radicalization. Often it is just a process of waking up.

[Tailgater]

You write as if there's something intrinsically wrong with radicalization. Often it is just a process of waking up.

I think Charles Manson said something similar.

[JihadJane]

I think Charles Manson said something similar.

Have you read any other books on politics?

[Skeptic]

You write as if there's something intrinsically wrong with radicalization. Often it is just a process of waking up.

Indeed so. For example, ever since I became a radical Muslim, I woke up to the truth about women being inferior creatures which were created solely for men's pleasure.

[JihadJane]

Indeed so. For example, ever since I became a radical Muslim, I woke up to the truth about women being inferior creatures which were created solely for men's pleasure.

You are a man/woman of unexpected variety.

[hodgy]

You write as if there's something intrinsically wrong with radicalization. Often it is just a process of waking up.

You realise that your ability and freedom to post here depends on an essentially liberal world view don't you?

If you would prefer to be treated like chattel then I could arrange that - I wouldn't feel morally comfortable with it but if that's what you want...

[Tailgater]

Indeed so. For example, ever since I became a radical Muslim, I woke up to the truth about women being inferior creatures which were created solely for men's pleasure.

That's nothing. When I became a radical Christian, I woke up to the truth that hurricanes were punishment for allowing gays in this country.

[hodgy]

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

Absolutely - if we had not then somebody else would have - can you think about it for a few seconds?

Abuse, dictatorship, slavery, power, exploitation, misogynism - are these the monopoly of the 'west'. Ask another question - what other culture has done anything to reduce these things in the world?

[Tailgater]

Have you read any other books on politics?

Other than what?:confused:

[J. Wellington Wimpy]

That's nothing. When I became a radical Christian, I woke up to the truth that hurricanes were punishment for allowing gays in this country.

That's nothing. I became a radical Lutheran; gorged myself silly on lutefisk potluck; and promptly napped for the better part of the afternoon.;)

[Dr Adequate]

We Are Unitarian Jihad (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/04/08/DDG27BCFLG1.DTL).

[Tailgater]

Absolutely - if we had not then somebody else would have - can you think about it for a few seconds?

Abuse, dictatorship, slavery, power, exploitation, misogynism - are these the monopoly of the 'west'. Ask another question - what other culture has done anything to reduce these things in the world?

I find that quote hilarious. It's like a pseudo intellectual answer to a question that doesn't matter or that anyone is even asking. I can see Bottomtooth from Family Guy saying it. I don't care why the West won. Things could be alot worse in a parallel universe right now.

Last I checked, organized violence using greater technology is a "superior idea". Most people know religion and values don't win wars. That's moronic. Is that part of the statement directed at the minority of bible thumpers who think that or what? (God doesn't score touchdowns to fix his favorite football games either).

[Tailgater]

...and the same guy said this....

"Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power "

[JihadJane]

You realise that your ability and freedom to post here depends on an essentially liberal world view don't you?

If you would prefer to be treated like chattel then I could arrange that - I wouldn't feel morally comfortable with it but if that's what you want...


How would you go about arranging that, hodgy?

It is believed that the first people to use the word "radical" as a political term were forerunners of the British Liberal Party.


"According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the first use of the word radical in a political sense is generally ascribed to the English Whig parliamentarian Charles James Fox, who in 1797 declared for a "radical reform" of the electoral system, drastically expanding the franchise to provide universal manhood suffrage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization



Other than what?:confused:

“Magnetic Me” by Charles Manson

[hodgy]

How would you go about arranging that, hodgy?

Jane, I would not, I would find such a thing disgusting. I conceive of women as my equals in intellectual and any other endeavour. That's the point. Where do you live, by the way?

It is believed that the first people to use the word "radical" as a political term were forerunners of the British Liberal Party.

And your point is...

[hodgy]

How would you go about arranging that, hodgy?

Jane, I would not, I would find such a thing disgusting. I conceive of women as my equals in intellectual and any other endeavour. That's the point. Where do you live, by the way?

It is believed that the first people to use the word "radical" as a political term were forerunners of the British Liberal Party.

And your point is...

[JihadJane]

And your point is...

Reactions to and understanding of the word "radicalization" vary according to one's political beliefs.

When I hear it, it makes me think of throwing off oppression.

[portlandatheist]

When I hear it, it makes me think of throwing off oppression.
I guess that makes the coalition fighting in Afghanistan "radical"

[MarkCorrigan]

Reactions to and understanding of the word "radicalization" vary according to one's political beliefs.

When I hear it, it makes me think of throwing off oppression.

Which is fine and dandy.

Is that what you think these individuals are doing?

[hodgy]

Reactions to and understanding of the word "radicalization" vary according to one's political beliefs.

When I hear it, it makes me think of throwing off oppression.

So you are glad that the west prevailed in the cold war then? The opressed of eastern Europe were liberated from the Soviet yoke - agreed?

[gumboot]

How would you go about arranging that, hodgy?

It is believed that the first people to use the word "radical" as a political term were forerunners of the British Liberal Party.


"According to Encyclopedia Britannica, the first use of the word radical in a political sense is generally ascribed to the English Whig parliamentarian Charles James Fox, who in 1797 declared for a "radical reform" of the electoral system, drastically expanding the franchise to provide universal manhood suffrage."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radicalization



The modern usage of the word "radical" really has little resemblance to the original political application of it.

Originally the word meant "having roots" from the Latin "radix" (root), and in the political sense it was first this way - a "radical reformist" (dating back to 1786) was someone who wished to "reform the roots". By 1802 this had shortened simply to "radical" as someone who wished to "change the roots". The modern context, however, of someone who was unconventional or extreme, dates back only as far as 1921.

Thus, in the context of the original meaning, "radical" is most suitable for Islamists as they wish to return to "the roots" of Islam.

[Skeptic]

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.

Of course, the main reason the west's organized violence is so succesful is because tanks and drones and smart bombs are not possible without science and technology, which are western developments only possible when the western ideas of free thinking, objective inquiry not limited by religious or cultural taboos, free speech and commerce, education, etc., etc., is by and large accepted.

But hey, nobody FORCES you to live in the west. You want to be stoned for having sex outside of marriage, or put in prison for being raped, or having your throat cut by your own brother for going out in the street without a veil, be my guest, emigrate to somewhere ruled by Islamists. Go right ahead -- if you think it's all really much of a muchness, and the western ideas of freedom of thought and equality of the sexes are no different than the Islamic ideas of submission to religious authority and women as second-class (more like fourth-class).

We certainly won't miss you here in the west -- where you insist on living despite claiming it is in no way better than life in the Islamic world. If nothing else, being a woman, you'll be forced to shut up in public once in the Islamic world, which would be a good thing for all of us: you might have to think before speaking, while we will have some peace and quiet.

[Skeptic]

Which is fine and dandy.

Is that what you think these individuals are doing?

Indeed so. They feel deeply opressed and otraged that their sisters, wives, and daughters are no longer chattel, and that therefore their precious self-esteem and sense of self-importance as Allah's superior sex had been hurt.

It's all fine and dandy for the infidels to have such crazy ideas in England, but to bring the preposterous ideas of democracy, elections, women's rights, freedom of speech, etc. to pure Muslim lands???

Outrageous! Opression! Kill them all! -- not that the Islamists need any particular reason to kill people. Heck, writing a book or drawing cartoons which they don't like was enough for millions of them to swear they're going to kill the authors.

[JihadJane]

I guess that makes the coalition fighting in Afghanistan "radical"


In what sense is the "coalition" "throwing off oppression" in Afghanistan?


Which is fine and dandy.

Is that what you think these individuals are doing?

They are seeking to reject a violent, colonial occupation.


So you are glad that the west prevailed in the cold war then? The opressed of eastern Europe were liberated from the Soviet yoke - agreed?


It is far from clear whether or not the "Free Market" corporate yoke is any better.

Many Eastern European countries are now on the verge of economic collapse and their people are very angry.

The modern usage of the word "radical" really has little resemblance to the original political application of it.



The modern usage of the word varies according to one's political persuasion.




The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence

Of course, the main reason the west's organized violence is so succesful is because tanks and drones and smart bombs are not possible without science and technology, which are western developments only possible when the western ideas of free thinking, objective inquiry not limited by religious or cultural taboos, free speech and commerce, education, etc., etc., is by and large accepted.

But hey, nobody FORCES you to live in the west. You want to be stoned for having sex outside of marriage, or put in prison for being raped, or having your throat cut by your own brother for going out in the street without a veil, be my guest, emigrate to somewhere ruled by Islamists. Go right ahead -- if you think it's all really much of a muchness, and the western ideas of freedom of thought and equality of the sexes are no different than the Islamic ideas of submission to religious authority and women as second-class (more like fourth-class).

We certainly won't miss you here in the west -- where you insist on living despite claiming it is in no way better than life in the Islamic world. If nothing else, being a woman, you'll be forced to shut up in public once in the Islamic world, which would be a good thing for all of us: you might have to think before speaking, while we will have some peace and quiet.


Your comment and some of those above illustrate the relevance of Samuel P. Huntington words. You flip straight from talking about the West’s superiority in applying organized violence to talking about oppression in Islamic countries as if this somehow justifies or is even related the West’s violence.


The West mobilizes its extreme violence where it sees strategic benefit in doing so. It didn’t invade Afghanistan or Iraq to improve the lot of the women living there. In both cases the lot of women has radically worsened since the arrival of Western forces.

It also interesting that you celebrate silencing a woman’s voice.

[BPSCG]

Does the fact that there ar significant numbers of British Muslims actively supporting the Taliban demonstrate a failure on the part of the UK to assimilate its Muslim population?

[Professor Yaffle]

Does the fact that there ar significant numbers of British Muslims actively supporting the Taliban demonstrate a failure on the part of the UK to assimilate its Muslim population?

From the website I linked to earlier:

According to the Director General of the Security Service MI5, The 7/7 suicide bombers were motivated by a sense of injustice faced by Muslims in Britain and throughout the world.

Eliza Manningham-Buller, the Director General of MI5 said in a speech at Queen Mary and Westfield College on 9 November 2006: "The video wills of British suicide bombers make it clear that they are motivated by perceived worldwide and long-standing injustices against Muslims; an extreme and minority interpretation of Islam promoted by some preachers and people of influence; and their interpretation as anti-Muslim of UK foreign police, in particular the UK's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq."
http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/B/britz/facts.html

[gumboot]

In what sense is the "coalition" "throwing off oppression" in Afghanistan?

Well, the Taliban instituted one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.


They are seeking to reject a violent, colonial occupation.

Most of these people, of course, became radicalised well before any so-called "colonial occupation".


In both cases the lot of women has radically worsened since the arrival of Western forces.

Well that's just outright nonsense.

[gumboot]

Does the fact that there ar significant numbers of British Muslims actively supporting the Taliban demonstrate a failure on the part of the UK to assimilate its Muslim population?


You could probably argue that. Unfortunately the British Government can't compete with Saudi Arabia when it comes to fronting money for propaganda. Apparantly the Saudi government has sunk something like $70 billion into Madrassahs teaching Wahhabism over the years.

[JihadJane]

Well, the Taliban instituted one of the most oppressive regimes in the world.

Yes, and they are former US friends. What makes you think that the US cares about whether or not its friends are oppressors?

Despite hating them, a lot of Afghans prefer the Taleban to the invaders. Why do you think that is?

Most of these people, of course, became radicalised well before any so-called "colonial occupation".

Imperial occupation wasn't invented on 9/11/01.

Well that's just outright nonsense.

It is the unfortunate truth. As long as you kept out of politics in pre-invasion Iraq it was one of the best places to be a woman in the Middle East. Now the majority of women are afraid to leave their homes. The invasion and occupation has empowered religious fundamentalists.

In Afghanistan the occupation has also produced treacherous chaos and fear for women.

[gumboot]

Yes, and they are former US friends.

No they're not.


What makes you think that the US cares about whether or not its friends are oppressors?

I don't think they care much about oppressors at all unless they need a moral reason to justify a military action.


Despite hating them, a lot of Afghans prefer the Taleban to the invaders. Why do you think that is?

I don't think it is at all. I think you just pulled that out of your nether regions, like the contents of most of your posts.


Imperial occupation wasn't invented on 9/11/01.

And neither were these people alive last time their county was occupied by an imperial power.


It is the unfortunate truth. As long as you kept out of politics in pre-invasion Iraq it was one of the best places to be a woman in the Middle East.

Unless you were a Kurd or a Shiite.


Now the majority of women are afraid to leave their homes.

Another baseless claim you've invented. The simple fact is, despite the media's incessantly negative portrayal of Iraq, countless surveys have found that Iraqis are quite optimistic about their future, and consider their lives better now than under Saddam.


In Afghanistan the occupation has also produced treacherous chaos and fear for women.

Yeah the treacherous chaos and fear of not being beaten for stepping outside the house! :rolleyes: With the above statement you have officially become totally detached from reality.

[Skeptic]

According to the Director General of the Security Service MI5, The 7/7 suicide bombers were motivated by a sense of injustice faced by Muslims in Britain and throughout the world.

No, they were motivated by Islam.

Virtually every nation on earth suffered or still suffers injustice -- or at least what it sees as injustice. Some of them suffered actual genocide.

But you don't see Jews blowing themselves up in shopping malls in Berlin, or Armenians doing the same in Istambul -- to give two obvious examples out of hundreds (literally) of nationalities, races, or religions that suffered (or still suffer) injustice, but do NOT blow themselves up in the street with the goal of killing as many civilians as possible.

Only Muslims do that, since only Muslims are taught by their religious leaders that such behavior is good and holy and what Allah wants.

[funk de fino]

No, they were motivated by Islam.

Virtually every nation on earth suffered or still suffers injustice -- or at least what it sees as injustice. Some of them suffered actual genocide.

But you don't see Jews blowing themselves up in shopping malls in Berlin, or Armenians doing the same in Istambul -- to give two obvious examples out of hundreds (literally) of nationalities, races, or religions that suffered (or still suffer) injustice, but do NOT blow themselves up in the street with the goal of killing as many civilians as possible.

Only Muslims do that, since only Muslims are taught by their religious leaders that such behavior is good and holy and what Allah wants.

Thats another huge **** stick you are painting with again.

So you dont believe their own words?

[Skeptic]

In Afghanistan the occupation has also produced treacherous chaos and fear for women.

That was to be expected: learning to read does make your worldview chaotic and full of fear, once you can decipher the newspapers. Much better to just have your husband tell you the news he thinks you need to know. There's less chaos in the cooking section.

But heck, what the hell am I speaking to a woman about politics anyway? Just ask the Taliban -- it's none of their business, since they don't have the brains to undestand it, anyway.

[Skeptic]

Thats another huge **** stick you are painting with again.

So you dont believe their own words?

You haven't read what I wrote, have you?

Of course I believe their own words. Of course they were motivated by a sense of injustice.

The problem is, only Muslims are motivate to blow themselves up in subways and buses due to this sense of injustice. That is Islam's "contribution" to the fight for justice in this world.

Ah, the religion of peace. Except that "Islam" does not mean peace, of course, but rather "submission" -- that is, submission to the will of God. Since, alas, God is AWOL, what it means in practice is "submission to the religious teachers".

So Islam is quite honest here: its name actually means "submission" (absolutely literally "surrender", as in war), which is what Islam (political Islam anyway) is trying to get the world to do. I blame Islam for many things, but not for false advertisement: it's not their fault that some namby-pamby western eunuchs decided to translate "Islam" as "peace" for some reason.

What that reason is, I wonder. Perhas it's ignorance: not knowing Arabic, they confused the similarly-sounding "Islam" and "Salam". But perhaps it's simply denial, thinking that if they call Islam "peaceful" it will become peaceful.

[funk de fino]

You haven't read what I wrote, have you?

Of course I believe their own words. Of course they were motivated by a sense of injustice.

The problem is, only Muslims are motivate to blow themselves up in subways and buses due to this sense of injustice. That is Islam's "contribution" to the fight for justice in this world.

Ah, the religion of peace. Except that "Islam" does not mean peace, of course, but rather "submission" -- that is, submission to the will of God. Since, alas, God is AWOL, what it means in practice is "submission to the religious teachers".

So Islam is quite honest here: its name actually means "submission" (absolutely literally "surrender", as in war), which is what Islam (political Islam anyway) is trying to get the world to do. I blame Islam for many things, but not for false advertisement: it's not their fault that some namby-pamby western eunuchs decided to translate "Islam" as "peace" for some reason.

What that reason is, I wonder. Perhas it's ignorance: not knowing Arabic, they confused the similarly-sounding "Islam" and "Salam". But perhaps it's simply denial, thinking that if they call Islam "peaceful" it will become peaceful.

Only muslims kill themselves to protest?

Most of the respected muslim scholars I see, say you are talking tripe. Only a few teach the islam you see everywhere.

ETA - Tell me again who Bush said told him to go to war?

[geni]

Virtually every nation on earth suffered or still suffers injustice -- or at least what it sees as injustice. Some of them suffered actual genocide.

But you don't see Jews blowing themselves up in shopping malls in Berlin, or Armenians doing the same in Istambul -- to give two obvious examples out of hundreds (literally) of nationalities, races, or religions that suffered (or still suffer) injustice, but do NOT blow themselves up in the street with the goal of killing as many civilians as possible.

No but quite a few of those groups have blow up bits of london from time to time.

[Professor Yaffle]

Not to mention the catholics and protestants.

[WildCat]

Yes, and they are former US friends. What makes you think that the US cares about whether or not its friends are oppressors?
Yeah, so friendly the US didn't even recognize them as the government of Afghanistan. :rolleyes:

[MarkCorrigan]

Actually Skeptic, the group that uses suicide bombing the most are not Muslims.

It's the Tamils, I believe.

[Skeptic]

Actually Skeptic, the group that uses suicide bombing the most are not Muslims.

It's the Tamils, I believe.

First, there are a lot more Muslim suicide bombers than Tamil Tigers suicide bombers.

Second, whatever you think about the Tamil Tigers, they don't -- and never had -- an ideology which says the Tamils must rule the world, or that "the West" in general is their enemy and everybody everywhere who is a non-Tamil "infidel" is a potential target.

Third, the Tamil Tigers have officially been defeated recently. As a result, I am afraid the "Tamil Tigers" fig leaf is no longer operational (drat!): Random suicide bombing of civilians is now officially an Islam-only thing, instead of being merely a 99%-Islam thing.

[gumboot]

Actually Skeptic, the group that uses suicide bombing the most are not Muslims.

It's the Tamils, I believe.


I think you may have misheard something. The Black Tigers have committed more suicide bombing attacks than Hamas, Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad combined. They've committed, to date ~330 attacks. Hamas, for example, has only committed about 70.

However Muslims, as a whole, have committed vastly more suicide attacks. In 2008 alone, according to religionofpeace.org, there were 235 reported suicide attacks by Muslims. This is derived from searching just for instances that specifically cite suicide attacks in their database, and does not include potential suicide attacks such as:

1 July 2008 - Baghdad, Iraq
A Jihad car bombing kills three people and injures sixteen others.

In 2007 I found 276 using the same methods, and in 2006; 168. 2005; 161. 2004; 97.

So in a mere five years, Muslims committed almost three times as many suicide attacks as the Tamil Tigers committed in 28 years.

[Professor Yaffle]

Some Tamils (and presumably some Tamil Tigers) ARE muslim. It's not really comparing like for like to compare all muslim suicide bombings with a single terrorist group.

ETA - re my first point, I checked and the Tigers seem to discriminate against muslim Tamils, so ignore that bit.

[portlandatheist]

The suicide attacks of the Black Tigers have also been much more limited in scope compared to Muslim suicide attacks which is much more geographically widespread (Africa, Europe, Asia, South America) and more ideologically widespread with many more named enemies and potential victims.

[funk de fino]

Most muslim suicide attacks are not because islam tells them they have to rule the world. They are to get rid of occupation forces or aggressors from home lands.

Most here would like to ignore why they were attacked and foucs on how they are attacked.

[gumboot]

Most muslim suicide attacks are not because islam tells them they have to rule the world. They are to get rid of occupation forces or aggressors from home lands.


No they're not. Most Muslim suicide attacks are against their fellow Muslims, for not being Muslim enough.

[lionking]

Most muslim suicide attacks are not because islam tells them they have to rule the world.

You have evidence of this assertion? A few facts and figures please.

[gumboot]

You have evidence of this assertion? A few facts and figures please.

I was bored so I thought I'd do some number crunching for 2008 attacks.

Notes:
-Includes only suicide attacks where the word "suicide" or "suicidal" is specifically included in description. Does not include explicit suicide attacks that do not include these words in description, nor probable suicide attacks, nor potential suicide attacks.

-Where there were multiple targets/victims I have allocated a single target/victim based on the following hierarchy:
-Occupier
-Local Authority
-Civilian

This will produce statistics in favour of the claim that most suicide attacks are by freedom-fighter Muslims against occupiers.

SUMMARY
Total Attacks: 237
Countries: 11
Cities: 100
Killed: 2325
Injured: 5110

NATIONALITY
Top event countries:
Iraq: 113 (47%)
Afghanistan: 65 (27%)
Pakistan: 43 (18%)
Algeria: 7 (3%)

Other countries (1 attack each)
Chechnya
China
Ingushetia
Israel
Russia
Somalia
Syria

TARGET/VICTIMS
Attacks primarily against foreign/occupation entities: 7 (3%)
Attacks primarily against local authority entities: 30 (12%)
Attacks primarily against local civilians: 200 (84%)

TARGETTED EVENTS
Occupation:
US Military - 3
Civilian Construction/Road Workers - 2
US Embassy - 1
Spanish Military - 1

Local Authority:
Police - 15
Military - 9
Checkpoint (type unknown) - 4
Prison Guards - 1
Border Guards - 1

Civilian:
Shoppers/Market - 21
Religious - 18
Street - 11
Workers - 7
Funeral - 6
Political Rally/Office - 5
Celebratory Event - 4
Private Home - 4
Hotel - 2
Bus - 2
Sports Event - 2
Council/Meeting - 2
Airport - 1
Students at Arts School - 1
Children going to School - 1
Bus full of Medical Personnel - 1
Wedding - 1
Unknown/Generic Civilian - 113

The seven attacks against occupier/foreign entities occurred in two countries; Iraq (2 - 1.5% of Iraq attacks) and Afghanistan (5 - 7.5% of Afghanistan attacks).

These broke down as follows:

Iraq:
US Military (2)

Afghanistan:
Indian Road Workers (2)
US Military (1)
Street outside US Embassy (1)
Spanish Military (1)

[MarkCorrigan]

I think you may have misheard something. The Black Tigers have committed more suicide bombing attacks than Hamas, Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad combined. They've committed, to date ~330 attacks. Hamas, for example, has only committed about 70.

However Muslims, as a whole, have committed vastly more suicide attacks. In 2008 alone, according to religionofpeace.org, there were 235 reported suicide attacks by Muslims. This is derived from searching just for instances that specifically cite suicide attacks in their database, and does not include potential suicide attacks such as:



In 2007 I found 276 using the same methods, and in 2006; 168. 2005; 161. 2004; 97.

So in a mere five years, Muslims committed almost three times as many suicide attacks as the Tamil Tigers committed in 28 years.
Ahhh, I stand corrected.

[Undesired Walrus]

Does the fact that there ar significant numbers of British Muslims actively supporting the Taliban demonstrate a failure on the part of the UK to assimilate its Muslim population?

Cut the obfuscation. Clearly the answer for you is 'Yes', yet because of your cowardice on this occasion, you prefer to frame this in a phony 'Just asking questions' manner.

Who do you mean when you talk about 'the UK'? The people in the cities? The Government? The residents in villages and the towns of Northern Ireland? Or is a broad brush good enough?

I don't want to 'assimilate' anyone. Having the rule of law upheld is good enough for me.

Need I remind you of the active American support for the IRA? The millions of dollars sent to the IRA to support their cause?

[BPSCG]

Cut the obfuscation. Clearly the answer for you is 'Yes', yet because of your cowardice on this occasion, you prefer to frame this in a phony 'Just asking questions' manner. Obfuscation? I thought the question was clear enough.

Nobody seems to be comfortable discussing this. Ad hom as substitute for argumentation (in your case), and argument by distraction. "How about those Tamil Tigers? And what about the IRA? Look, a squirrel!"

Who do you mean when you talk about 'the UK'? The people in the cities? The Government? The residents in villages and the towns of Northern Ireland? Or is a broad brush good enough? How about the country as a whole?

Or if you prefer, you can demonstrate for me that "the people in the cities" or "the Government" or "the residents in villages and the towns of Northern Ireland," or any other subdivision of the country as a whole have assimilated the UK's Muslim population.

I don't want to 'assimilate' anyone. Is that a de facto admission that you believe the UK's Muslim population has not been assimilated?

Having the rule of law upheld is good enough for me.When a Briton goes overseas to fight against the British army, is he upholding the rule of law? Does British law permit that?

Need I remind you of the active American support for the IRA? The millions of dollars sent to the IRA to support their cause?Look! A squirrel!

Were Americans enlisting in the IRA so they could kill American soldiers? I must have missed that, because if they did, I also missed the treason trials.

[funk de fino]

I was bored so I thought I'd do some number crunching for 2008 attacks.

Notes:
-Includes only suicide attacks where the word "suicide" or "suicidal" is specifically included in description. Does not include explicit suicide attacks that do not include these words in description, nor probable suicide attacks, nor potential suicide attacks.

-Where there were multiple targets/victims I have allocated a single target/victim based on the following hierarchy:
-Occupier
-Local Authority
-Civilian

This will produce statistics in favour of the claim that most suicide attacks are by freedom-fighter Muslims against occupiers.

SUMMARY
Total Attacks: 237
Countries: 11
Cities: 100
Killed: 2325
Injured: 5110

NATIONALITY
Top event countries:
Iraq: 113 (47%)
Afghanistan: 65 (27%)
Pakistan: 43 (18%)
Algeria: 7 (3%)

Other countries (1 attack each)
Chechnya
China
Ingushetia
Israel
Russia
Somalia
Syria

TARGET/VICTIMS
Attacks primarily against foreign/occupation entities: 7 (3%)
Attacks primarily against local authority entities: 30 (12%)
Attacks primarily against local civilians: 200 (84%)

TARGETTED EVENTS
Occupation:
US Military - 3
Civilian Construction/Road Workers - 2
US Embassy - 1
Spanish Military - 1

Local Authority:
Police - 15
Military - 9
Checkpoint (type unknown) - 4
Prison Guards - 1
Border Guards - 1

Civilian:
Shoppers/Market - 21
Religious - 18
Street - 11
Workers - 7
Funeral - 6
Political Rally/Office - 5
Celebratory Event - 4
Private Home - 4
Hotel - 2
Bus - 2
Sports Event - 2
Council/Meeting - 2
Airport - 1
Students at Arts School - 1
Children going to School - 1
Bus full of Medical Personnel - 1
Wedding - 1
Unknown/Generic Civilian - 113

The seven attacks against occupier/foreign entities occurred in two countries; Iraq (2 - 1.5% of Iraq attacks) and Afghanistan (5 - 7.5% of Afghanistan attacks).

These broke down as follows:

Iraq:
US Military (2)

Afghanistan:
Indian Road Workers (2)
US Military (1)
Street outside US Embassy (1)
Spanish Military (1)

Why dont you look pre Gulf war, post Gulf war, pre afghanistan invasion, post afghanistan invasion, pre Iraq invasion and post Iraq invasion and see if there is a theme?

Or even if it is linked to the Bush years?

[JihadJane]

Is that a de facto admission that you believe the UK's Muslim population has not been assimilated?



Has planet Earth assimilated the human race?

[BPSCG]

Has planet Earth assimilated the human race?I'm sorry, but the woo forum is that way ----->

[Undesired Walrus]

Obfuscation? I thought the question was clear enough.

Nobody seems to be comfortable discussing this. Ad hom as substitute for argumentation (in your case), and argument by distraction. "How about those Tamil Tigers? And what about the IRA?

BPSCG, I don't deny that there is a signifigant problem in the United Kingdom with the growth of Islamism amongst young Muslims. I also am consistently critical of the Government sheltering Islam from criticism, especially when they shelter Islamism from criticism. I also don't accept to idea that they do this solely because they are oppressed (The last words in the cockpit of UA93 is enough to cast signifigant doubt on that theory).

Or if you prefer, you can demonstrate for me that "the people in the cities" or "the Government" or "the residents in villages and the towns of Northern Ireland," or any other subdivision of the country as a whole have assimilated the UK's Muslim population.

I'm telling you that most people in the UK are not responsible for the surge in British Islamism. If you wish to blame anyone, first blame the Conservative party for allowing Omar Bakri to remain in the country for as long as he did. His organisation gave birth to some of Britain's most notorious Islamists, including Anjem Choudary and Abu Izzadeen. It was only when the Labour Government came in that Bakri was kicked out.

When a Briton goes overseas to fight against the British army, is he upholding the rule of law?

It doesn't. I never said it did.

Were Americans enlisting in the IRA so they could kill American soldiers? I must have missed that, because if they did, I also missed the treason trials.

Fair enough.

[WildCat]

Most muslim suicide attacks are not because islam tells them they have to rule the world. They are to get rid of occupation forces or aggressors from home lands.

Most here would like to ignore why they were attacked and foucs on how they are attacked.
What a load of hogwash.

I suppose the suicide car bomb at an Iraqi livestock market the other day was aimed at "occupation forces"? I'm hard-pressed to find many suicide attackes aimed at foreign soldiers, lots and lots of them aimed at fellow Muslim countrymen though.

[rwguinn]

Obfuscation? I thought the question was clear enough.

Nobody seems to be comfortable discussing this. Ad hom as substitute for argumentation (in your case), and argument by distraction. "How about those Tamil Tigers? And what about the IRA? Look, a squirrel!"

How about the country as a whole?

Or if you prefer, you can demonstrate for me that "the people in the cities" or "the Government" or "the residents in villages and the towns of Northern Ireland," or any other subdivision of the country as a whole have assimilated the UK's Muslim population.

Is that a de facto admission that you believe the UK's Muslim population has not been assimilated?

When a Briton goes overseas to fight against the British army, is he upholding the rule of law? Does British law permit that?

Look! A squirrel!

Were Americans enlisting in the IRA so they could kill American soldiers? I must have missed that, because if they did, I also missed the treason trials.
I am not a UK'er, or a Briton. I don't ever sleep at Holiday Inn Express, either.
But I would submit to you as a possible source of the trouble is that to many of the Islamic persuasion, "Assimilation" means "You Change to fit me" rather than the more usual Western definition of "Welcome to this place. Here are the ways we do things. Follow the rules and we'll get along just fine"
Instead, we get "we do it MY way or else you are islamaphobic".

[gumboot]

Why dont you look pre Gulf war, post Gulf war, pre afghanistan invasion, post afghanistan invasion, pre Iraq invasion and post Iraq invasion and see if there is a theme?

Or even if it is linked to the Bush years?


What would be the relevance? You claimed most Muslim suicide bombers targeted occupation forces in an effort to liberate their country. This appears to be entirely false.

By far the largest victim of Muslim suicide bombers is other Muslims, civilian ones at that, and not occupiers, but fellow citizens.

[Skeptic]

What would be the relevance? You claimed most Muslim suicide bombers targeted occupation forces in an effort to liberate their country. This appears to be entirely false.

By far the largest victim of Muslim suicide bombers is other Muslims, civilian ones at that, and not occupiers, but fellow citizens.

Yes, but those Muslims disagree or at least don't care about the suicide bombers' theology, so if they're not infidels, exactly, they are at least apostates.

To say that the Taliban are for "freedom" and "against occupation" makes about as much sense as the old claim that the South seceded because of "state rights". The only right that really mattered was the "right" of the southerners to keep slaves.

Similarly, the only "right" the Taliban care about is the "right" to oppress others by expelling them from "Muslim land" (if they're not Muslims) or forcing them to accept Sharia (if they are).

It's because the USA and the west make, or made, it harder to do that that they are hated by the Taliban.

[geni]

Similarly, the only "right" the Taliban care about is the "right" to oppress others by expelling them from "Muslim land" (if they're not Muslims) or forcing them to accept Sharia (if they are).

Classic Sharia law would actualy be an improvement on what the Taliban want. Fun game. Spot the difference between the taliban and a traditionalist Pashtun.

[Sunstealer]

Why dont you look pre Gulf war, post Gulf war, pre afghanistan invasion, post afghanistan invasion, pre Iraq invasion and post Iraq invasion and see if there is a theme?

Or even if it is linked to the Bush years?Why don't you look at Pakistan?

[JihadJane]

What would be the relevance? You claimed most Muslim suicide bombers targeted occupation forces in an effort to liberate their country. This appears to be entirely false.

By far the largest victim of Muslim suicide bombers is other Muslims, civilian ones at that, and not occupiers, but fellow citizens.

One of the main reasons for letting off bombs is to make the country ungovernable. Whoever gets killed is "collateral damage", not meant personally. The target is the Occupation. That's war, gumboot.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

'UK ex-commander says Afghanistan mission "worthless"'

http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKTRE52618020090307

[JihadJane]

I'm sorry, but the woo forum is that way ----->

"Woo" is JREF's food. It is the "woo" forum.

[funk de fino]

What a load of hogwash.

I suppose the suicide car bomb at an Iraqi livestock market the other day was aimed at "occupation forces"? I'm hard-pressed to find many suicide attackes aimed at foreign soldiers, lots and lots of them aimed at fellow Muslim countrymen though.

Maybe I should have said attacks. What kind of attacks were the 911 attacks BTW?

[funk de fino]

What would be the relevance? You claimed most Muslim suicide bombers targeted occupation forces in an effort to liberate their country. This appears to be entirely false.

By far the largest victim of Muslim suicide bombers is other Muslims, civilian ones at that, and not occupiers, but fellow citizens.

Mostly in countries that are occupied though eh?

[Undesired Walrus]

Mostly in countries that are occupied though eh?

Not really. See Pakistan for examples.

Incidently, what is your definition of occupation? For instance, Do you regard the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing as a response to a 'occupation', or a massive overreaction?

Is South Koreans consistently bombed American troops on the North/South border, would that be understandable?

[Skeptic]

Mostly in countries that are occupied though eh?

Not really -- see Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

By the way, I believe that in the late 50s and early 60s most KKK bombings of Blacks were in areas where the US federal government tried to force integration.

If only the evil federal government hadn't messed with the South, there would be no violence.

[hodgy]

One of the main reasons for letting off bombs is to make the country ungovernable. Whoever gets killed is "collateral damage", not meant personally. The target is the Occupation. That's war, gumboot.

There is no reasoning with Jane - just sit back and enjoy a good dose of extremism :)

[JihadJane]

There is no reasoning with Jane - just sit back and enjoy a good dose of extremism :)

Dream on.

What is called "terrorist" violence has strategic logic just as State violence does. States exist because they have a monopoly on violence. Sometimes successful terrorists take over the State by undermining the State's former controllers' monopoly. Then their violence becomes respectable.

[Skeptic]

Dream on.

What is called "terrorist" violence has strategic logic just as State violence does.

(Shrug) Of course it has strategic logic. So does the Mafia's killing of those who dare to speak against them. It's just brutal and evil, that's all. Besides, do you mind shutting up and ironing my shirts already?! That's what women are for, after all, in all places where Jihad had achieved it's strategic goals.

[Sunstealer]

You'll see the same thing happening in Southern Thailand. No US/UK forces occupying that piece of land yet islamic terrorists kill Thais.

Political factors

The insurgency is probably not caused by the lack of political representation among the Muslim population. By the late 1990s, Muslims were holding unprecedentedly senior posts in Thai politics, for example with Wan Muhammad Nor Matha (a Malay Muslim from Yala) serving as Chairman of Parliament from 1996 to 2001 and later Interior Minister during the first Thaksin government. Thaksin’s first government (2001–2005) also saw 14 Muslim MPs and several Muslim senators. Muslims dominated provincial legislative assemblies in the border provinces, and several southern municipalities had Muslim mayors. Muslims were able to voice their political grievances more openly and enjoy a much greater degree of religious freedom. However, in the face of growing violence during 2004 and 2005, Muslim politicians and leaders remained silent, thus eroding their political legitimacy and support. This cost them dearly. In the 2005 general election, all but one of the eleven incumbent Muslim MPs who stood for election were voted out of office.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/thailand2.htm

Same is true of Aceh province in Nothern Sumatra. Muslims killing muslims.

[gumboot]

You'll see the same thing happening in Southern Thailand. No US/UK forces occupying that piece of land yet islamic terrorists kill Thais.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Thailand_insurgency
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/thailand2.htm

Same is true of Aceh province in Nothern Sumatra. Muslims killing muslims.


Here's some stats; top ten countries for Islamic terrorism:

Iraq - 3,450 - Islamic democratic republic - significant western military presence
India - 1,531 - secular Federal republic - no western military presence
Thailand - 1,332 - Constitutional monarchy with democratic parliament - no western military presence
Pakistan - 1,164 - Islamic democratic republic - no western military presence
Afghanistan - 1,091 - Islamic democratic republic - significant western military presence
Somalia - 461 - Civil War - no western military presence
Algeria - 314 - Presidential Republic - no western military presence
Israel - 306 - Parliamentary Democracy - no western military presence
Chechnya - 213 - Federal subject of Russia - Russian military presence
Philippines - 209 - Presidential Republic - no western military presence

It would appear that the argument that western occupation causes Islamic terrorism is false.

[Skeptic]

Oh, that's all right.

The Islamic countries are divided into three -- countries occupied by the USA, countries not occupied by the USA which are unfriendly to the USA, countries not ocuppied by the USA which are friendly with the USA.

If the country is occupied by the USA, that is the "root cause" of the Islamic terroism.

If the country is not occupied but has bad realtions with the USA, it is "US Imperialism agression" of "USA support of its enemies" that is the "root cause" of Islamic terrorism.

If the country is not occupied and has good relations with the USA, then it is "US propping up of a puppet regime" that is the "root cause" of Islamic terrorism.

Obvious, isn't it?

[JihadJane]

“Taliban was created in the early 1990's during the chaos and civil war that engulfed Afghanistan after the Soviet invaders were driven out. Drawn from Pashtun tribes of southern Afghanistan, who make up half that nation's population, Taliban was a religious movement that took up arms to battle the Afghan Communists, stop the wide-scale rape of Afghan women, and halt banditry and the drug trade. Both Pakistan and the U.S. secretly aided Taliban.

The ranks of Taliban were filled with young religious students -- "talibs" -- and veteran mujahidin fighters whom the U.S. had armed and hailed as "freedom fighters." By 1996, Taliban took Kabul, driving out the Northern Alliance, the old rump of the Afghan Communist Party and its Russian-backed Tajik and Uzbek tribal supporters. Taliban, most of whom were mountaineers, imposed a draconian medievalist culture that followed traditional Pashtun tribal customs and Islamic law.

The U.S. quietly backed Taliban for possible use in Central Asia, against China in the event of war, and against Iran, a bitter foe of the Sunni Taliban. U.S. energy giants Chevron and Unocal negotiated gas and oil pipeline deals with Taliban. In 2001, Washington gave $40 million in aid to Taliban until four months before 9/11. The U.S. only turned against Taliban when, at Osama bin Laden's advice, it gave a major pipeline deal to an Argentine consortium rather than an American one.”

(my bolding)


‘Let's Speak the Truth About Afghanistan'

by Eric Margolis

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-margolis/lets-speak-the-truth-abou_b_115591.html

[DC]

Oh, that's all right.

The Islamic countries are divided into three -- countries occupied by the USA, countries not occupied by the USA which are unfriendly to the USA, countries not ocuppied by the USA which are friendly with the USA.

If the country is occupied by the USA, that is the "root cause" of the Islamic terroism.

If the country is not occupied but has bad realtions with the USA, it is "US Imperialism agression" of "USA support of its enemies" that is the "root cause" of Islamic terrorism.

If the country is not occupied and has good relations with the USA, then it is "US propping up of a puppet regime" that is the "root cause" of Islamic terrorism.

Obvious, isn't it?

no its because they are moslems, would they be jews, they would be extremly peacefull......

[funk de fino]

Maybe I should have said attacks. What kind of attacks were the 911 attacks BTW?

I note no-one cared to answer the question about the biggest attacks ever.

Not really. See Pakistan for examples.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan for examples.

Incidently, what is your definition of occupation? For instance, Do you regard the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing as a response to a 'occupation', or a massive overreaction?

Iraq and Afghanistan could be classed as such. The Khobar bombings were a disgusting shameful cowardly attack. Unfortunately the US failed to take heed of what they were attempting to prove. Do not confuse me with someone who thinks terrosrism is acceptable, I just do not look at them as religious terrorists. Just terrorists.

Is South Koreans consistently bombed American troops on the North/South border, would that be understandable?

What?? Not for the first time you are trying to misrepresent my position, lets see if you have the courage to try and defend this one rather than run away like the other one.

Not really -- see Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.

See Iraq and Afghanistan.

By the way, I believe that in the late 50s and early 60s most KKK bombings of Blacks were in areas where the US federal government tried to force integration.

If only the evil federal government hadn't messed with the South, there would be no violence.

Right then.................

It would appear that the argument that western occupation causes Islamic terrorism is false.

Take the largest known "group" of terrorist of a muslim persuasion and their self styled "leader"

Why did they start attacking the US, Spain and the UK? What reasons have been given for a lot of the attacks outside muslim countries? Remember, the quote was "take over the world"

Why have the Taliban been forced to move further in to Pakistan and try and exert more influence? Why was there a huge upsurge in Iraq of insurgent activity by non Iraqis?

And before anyone else gets their arse and their elbow mixed up. I am not aplogosing for, or defending, or justifying any terrorist attacks. I just notice the hypocrisy shown in this sub forum when it comes to Islam. People are quick enough to jump on the anti semite bandwagon here but there seems to be quite a strong islamophobia apparent also.