Public awareness foiled UK bomb plot: PM

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Public-awareness-foiled-UK-bomb-plot-PM/2007/06/30/1182624219074.html

A foiled car bombing plot in London proves that anti-terrorism public awareness campaigns work, Prime Minister John Howard says.

London ambulance officers alerted police after they thought they saw smoke inside a green Mercedes parked outside a London nightclub.

Mr Howard said the discovery proves that community awareness programs, like his government's heavily criticised "be alert, not alarmed" campaign, are worthwhile.

"It's a great tribute to the vigilance of those ambulance officers. That sends a very strong message that these community awareness programs work."

Mr Howard said there is no reason for concern in Australia, but the discovery should be a reminder to continue guarding against potential terrorist threats.

I second Mr Howards praises.

terrorism exists where muslims exist.
The more muslims, the more terrorism.
Nil muslims = minimal terrorism.

How about just ignoring them?

Wouldn't that stop them?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/UK-bombing-victim-tells-of-hate-mail/2007/07/01/1183228933692.html

Australian Gill Hicks has revealed she receives hate mail for her refusal to direct anger at the suicide bombers who took her legs.

Hicks, 39, lost both her legs in the July 7, 2005, terrorist bombings in London which killed 52 commuters.

Now an ambassador for Peace Direct, Hicks has told ABC TV's Enough Rope hosted by Andrew Denton that she is regularly sent hate mail from people angry that she doesn't seek retribution for her injury.

"I think overall it's been a sense of, um, how could I be so liberal? How could I be so tolerant?" Hicks says on Monday's series return of Enough Rope with Andrew Denton.

She said there were groups who were furious that she hadn't demanded some form of retaliation, such as military action against countries which are deemed to be the source of terrorism.

"Which for us would mean blowing up the UK, because these were, you know, British-born terrorists," she said.

Hicks said the most hurtful comment came from a person asking if she'd feel the same if her child was killed by a terrorist act.

"That was the most horrible comment we had, actually, yeah," she said.

"There are ordinary people who, in their own way, are as intolerant of our society as the terrorists that did these acts."

I will keep saying this..... if you want to remove terrorism from your country, remove ISLAM.

Sure, discriminating against a religion never caused any problems, right?

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2007 at 6:06pm:

Sure, discriminating against a religion never caused any problems, right?

Discriminating against a religion will only cause problems if they are there to be discriminated against.
Think about that 8-)

So you have away to get rid of a religion that would not cause any problems?

Any belief that states it will not accept any other belief should be banned.

Isn't that a contradiction sprint?

no

I thought you were a fan of freedom of thought? And anyway, how would you enforce this ban on thinking inappropriate thoughts? How would the Liberal and Labor party juggle accepting each other's beliefs on an issue while at the same time opposing them? What if a belief stated that it accepted one other belief, which differed from itself in a trivial manner, but would not accept any other beliefs? Should that be banned too? What if a belief thought that all other beliefs, bar one, were acceptable. Should it be banned? Suppose a NAMBLA member joined up to OzPolitic. If you did not accept his beliefs, should I ban you?

Liberals and labours do accept each others beliefs. They debate against each other.

yes, you should ban me if I did not accept you.
If my belief was such that I could not live in peace and tolerance with you, so be it.
If my belief said catagorically that I should hunt you down and kill you. You should ban me.
At the least.

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2007 at 6:12pm:

So you have away to get rid of a religion that would not cause any problems?

Yep. thorough deportation.

You don't honestly believe that you could deport Australian citizens without causing any problems do you?

yes, you should ban me if I did not accept you

Sprint, what if you didn't accept the beliefs of a NAMBLA supporter? Do you accept NAMBLA's beliefs?

yes, you should ban me if I did not accept you.
If my belief was such that I could not live in peace and tolerance with you, so be it.  
If my belief said catagorically that I should hunt you down and kill you. You should ban me.
At the least.


I have no idea who/what the NAMBLA are. I don't care.
Can they accept me being who I am, and leave me be ?
Will they drive me into the sea and/or kill me whereever I am ?

NAMBLA are the North American Man Boy Love Association (not to be confused with the Marlin Brando Lookalike group). They believe that love between old men and young boys is a beautiful thing that all males should be able to experience. They do not want to drive you into the sea, they want to have sex with you. Do you accept their beliefs?

freediver wrote on Jul 1^st, 2007 at 9:04pm:

NAMBLA are the North American Man Boy Love Association (not to be confused with the Marlin Brando Lookalike group). They believe that love between old men and young boys is a beautiful thing that all males should be able to experience. They do not want to drive you into the sea, they want to have sex with you. Do you accept their beliefs?

MY GOD EXECUTE THESE MONGRELS    >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Careful AN, or sprint will try to get you banned for not accepting other people's beliefs.

If anybody agrees with what these creeps do then they should be hung too.

will nambla force all older men to love (i assume youo mean have sex with) youonger men ?
Or will they accept I am a hetrosexual guy ?
ie, can they accept me ?

Probably, if you can accept their beliefs. Can you?

With young boys, no, it is illegal and immoral.
They are not of consenting age.

Should I ban you for not accepting their beliefs?

the point being, they will not force everyone else to be like them. either that or lop off various parts of their anatomy if they refuse.

therefore, aside from it being illegal and iimmoral, they are not saying they cannot live with us

Sprint, our entire legal system is designed to force everyone to be 'like us'. You are trying to make it even stricter, but on the grounds that you oppose people trying to force others to be like them. The only time you come close to sounding reasonable is when you drop the whole 'belief' angle and focus instead on what people actually do.

No, our legal system is based on justice.
Noone has to be like anyone else at all. But they have to be able to let other people be as they are.

I'm happy to sound unreasonable.

Islamic legal systems are also based on justice.

We do not have to be happy to leave people as they are. That is the whole idea behind our intervention in remote aboriginal communities. All legal systems involve people imposing their ideas of what is acceptable behaviour on others.

Are you happy to set a precedent whereby the government dictates what sets of beliefs are acceptable?

non muslims don't think that of islam.  it is highly discriminatory

we are protecting children in the communities.

the govt tries to govern for a peaceful society. well, our one does anyway.

it is highly discriminatory

So are your ideas about banning belief systems.

we are protecting children in the communities

Muslims are just trying to protect your soul.

Quote:

Muslims are just trying to protect your soul.

Which is an imaginary thing.  They intend to RULE your life.

A short list of muslim terrorist doctors  ...

* Dr. Ayman Al-Zawahiri--Al-Qaeda mastermind and number two man, reportedly a surgeon and/or psychiatrist;

* Dr. Mohammad Rabi Al-Zawahiri--Ayman's father and a Muslim Brotherhood enthusiast, pharmacologist and professor at Ain Shams Medical School;

* Dr. "Abu Hafiza"--Al-Qaeda master planner who was the brains and commander of the Moroccan cell that provided logistics for the 9/11 attacks, and he recruited Qaeda insurgents for battles in Fallujah, Moroccan psychiatrist;

* Dr. Abdel Aziz Al-Rantisi--Late HAMAS leader, pediatrician;

* Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar--HAMAS co-founder and leader, surgeon and lecturer at the Islamic University in Gaza;

* Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi--Late founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah, physician;

* Dr. George Habash--Founder and chief of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), pediatrician (which is interesting since he rocketed a school bus full of children in Avivim, Israel;

* Dr. Bashar Assad--President of Terror-sponsor state Syria, welcoming home to every Islamic terrorist group imaginable, ophthalmologist;

* Dr. Rafiq Sabir--Boca Raton emergency room physician convicted in Al-Qaeda terrorist plot, pledging to treat and train terrorists, along with a New York martial arts expert;

* Drs. Laila Al-Marayati and Riad Abdelkarim--Both work with and/or are top officials of KinderUSA (son of the Holy Land Foundation), which Al-Marayati voluntarily shutdown before the FBI did, as it was openly funding HAMAS "martyrs." Abdelkarim went to "Palestine" in May or so of 2002 with Dr. Dallel Mohammed (not an MD). They took monies collected at an April 2002 fundraiser and were caught by Israeli security handing over the funds to a HAMAS operative. They were detained in an Israeli jail, and a large orgy of publicity ensued. The two came back to the U.S. as Muslim "martyrs" used it to raise money for more.

* Dr. Mohammed Jamil Abdelqader Asha--a 26-year-old neurologist who was arrested and is in custody as a suspect in the attempted London bombings, foiled Friday. He was born in Saudi Arabia, is of Palestinian origin, and has a Jordanian passport. His 27-year-old wife, a medical assistant, was also arrested for the foiled bombings;

* Dr. Bilal Talal Abdul Samad Abdulla--an Iraqi from Baghdad who was also arrested and is in custody as a suspect in the attempted Glasgow International Airport bombing, foiled Saturday. He was reportedly in the Jeep that drove into the airport, and is suffering from third-degree burns;

* Dr. Mohammed Haneef--an Indian Muslim arrested in Australia on Monday night in custody as a suspect in the attempted British terrorist bombing plots of last week;and

* The rest of the EIGHT Muslim Doctor(s) arrested as suspects in the British bombing plots of last week.

Dr  Osama Ahmed Ibrahim, MD, who deliberately let Jewish patient Joseph Applebaum die, by neglecting to ever see him in over 12 hours under his care in an emergency room at a Chicago hospital, Rush North Shore Medical Center.


Just for our perusal

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/arrests-have-weakened-us-ji-head-admits/2007/07/29/1185647728257.html

The captured head of Jemaah Islamiah's military wing denies an attack is imminent, and admits the terror network has been weakened by a recent string of high-profile arrests.

But Abu Dujana, captured last month in a series of raids by Indonesia's elite anti-terror squad, said the South East Asian network remained a force to be reckoned with, albeit a smaller one, and was continuing to recruit members.

Anyone who attacked Islam was a potential target.

---

Jihad Jack control order ruled valid

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Jihad-Jack-control-order-ruled-valid/2007/08/02/1185648021094.html

The High Court of Australia has ruled it is constitutionally valid for the federal government to impose a control order on a man, Jack Thomas - known as Jihad Jack - who was cleared of terror charges but judged to still pose a potential terrorist threat.

hi all, i found this really interesting report from the European Union on terrorist attacks committed in Europe during 2006. Refer to the following link:

http://www.europol.europa.eu/publications/TESAT/TESAT2007.pdf

the interesting part in on page 13 of the report, which states that a total of 498 terrorist attacks were committed in Europe during 2006. Those 498 attacks are broken up as follows:
* Separatist - 424 attacks
* Left Wing - 55 attacks
* Right Wing - 1 attack
* Islamic - 1 attack
* Other/Non-Specified - 17 attacks

it's interesting because some people have the impression that all terrorists are Islamic. Based on this report, that's clearly not the case.

Thanks skeptic, that really says it all. Some people like to blow certain issues way out of proportion.

freediver wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 9:46am:

Thanks skeptic, that really says it all. Some people like to blow certain issues way out of proportion.

no worries, yeah that's why i posted it since alot of people assume that all terrorist attacks are caused by muslims.

but do u know what's the weird part? i never heard anything in the news about the separtist, or left/right wing terrorist attacks. why weren't they mentioned?

Maybe because they are smaller, plus some of these issues have been going on for so long they are no longer newsworthy. When the Catholics and Protestants were bombing each other in Northern Ireland you never even heard about it, even when they let of bombs in London.

Afghanistan attacks kill 15Article from: Agence France-PresseFont size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print From correspondents in Kabul
July 19, 2007 07:20am

TALIBAN suicide bombings and attacks left more than 15 people dead in Afghanistan, officials said today as Britain urged its NATO allies to commit more troops to avoid the country failing.

One of the suicide blasts targeted Turkish NATO soldiers in the capital Kabul, wounding a member of the Turkish special forces and an Afghan civilian, Afghan officials and the foreign ministry in Ankara said.

The ministry said the bomber "apparently tried to enter an armoured vehicle in the Turkish convoy, but failed since the doors were locked and blew himself up next to the vehicle".

The remains and torn-off limbs of the attacker lay scattered at the blast site in western Kabul, an AFP reporter witnessed.

Another suicide bomber, wearing a police uniform, blew himself up at a provincial police headquarters in southeastern Afghanistan's Khost city, killing three policemen and a civilian and wounding eight others, police said.

The bomber and another militant in the same disguise approached the gates of the building and one opened fire at police guards.

Officers returned fire, killing one attacker, and the second blew himself up, they said.

Separately, a police convoy on the Kandahar-Kabul road was hit by gunfire and rocket propelled grenades from insurgents in the southern province of Zabul, killing six police, provincial police chief General Mohammad Yaqub said.

Gen Yaqub blamed the killings on the "enemies of Afghanistan", a term often used by authorities to refer to the Taliban militants who were forced from power in late 2001 by the US-led invasion that followed the September 11 attacks.

Another policeman was killed overnight in a clash in eastern Nuristan province, governor Tamim Nuristani said, denying Taliban claims that the rebels had captured the two districts.

Taliban rebels also attacked a private road construction company today in southeastern Paktia province, killing an Afghan and a Philippines national and wounding four others, police said.

Also gunmen on a motorcycle shot dead an Afghan working for a local nongovernmental organisation and his driver were gunned down today morning in the southeastern province of Logar, officials said.

In a separate incident four militants were killed, several wounded and two captured following a gun-battle in the southern province of Kandahar, police said.

Taliban militants fighting national, NATO and US led foreign troops also frequently attack construction crews, aid agencies, United Nations officials and Afghan government employees.

The NATO-led International Security Assistance Force has about 37,000 troops from 37 nations in Afghanistan, while the separate US-led coalition is about 14,000-strong.

But British Defence Secretary Des Browne today backed a parliamentary committee report which said a far larger force and increased development aid was needed to stabilise the troubled country.

"I agree with the report's recommendation that NATO countries need to do more," Mr Browne told the BBC.

The committee said ISAF was two battalions short of the requirement set by NATO commanders while some countries continued to impose restrictions on their troops' operations.

NATO's civilian spokesman in Afghanistan, Nicholas Lunt, said the focus should be on strengthening Afghanistan's nascent security forces.

"If part of the solution to the problems that Afghanistan is facing is about the additional troops, then we believe the long-term solution is going to be coming from more and better Afghan troops and more and better Afghan police," he said.



Skeptic - I found this article today.  Is a common islamic attack. many of the "terrorist" attacks in eurpope like this ??
This really says it all, some people like to blow other people up entirely.
How did you know about the irish bombing london if we never heard about it ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 11:14am:

Skeptic - I found this article today.  Is a common islamic attack. many of the "terrorist" attacks in eurpope like this ?? This really says it all, some people like to blow other people up entirely. How did you know about the irish bombing london if we never heard about it ?

sprintcyclist, the point i was making was that in Europe during 2006 the number of non-muslim terrorist attacks were far greater than muslim terrorist attacks.

so for people to say that all terrorists are muslim is clearly false.

I'ld like to see a breakdown of the figures .
Guessing most are from criminals, some from nutters.

How many are from a prolonged sustained single source that are a threat to freedom ?
How many openly celelbrate their actions and receive support from clerics worldwide ?
How many cause death ?

How many are from a prolonged sustained single source that are a threat to freedom ?

Obviously all forms of terrorism are a threat to freedom. The separatist attacks are also from a prolonged issue, though I'm not sure what you mean by a single source. Most of the others are also from long term issues.

How many openly celelbrate their actions and receive support from clerics worldwide ?

Assuming you mean muslims when you say clerics, it would be one at most.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 1:37pm:

I'ld like to see a breakdown of the figures . Guessing most are from criminals, some from nutters. How many are from a prolonged sustained single source that are a threat to freedom ? How many openly celelbrate their actions and receive support from clerics worldwide ? How many cause death ?

read the report in the link i provided and find out.

Some quotes from the report



"Altogether 498 attacks were carried out in the EU in 2006.
The vast majority of them resulted in limited material damage and were not intended to kill. However, the failed attack in Germany and the foiled London plot demonstrate that Islamist terrorists also aim at mass casualties.
A total of 706 individuals suspected of terrorism offences were arrested in 15 Member States in
2006. Investigations into Islamist terrorism are clearly a priority for Member States’ law enforcement
as demonstrated by the number of arrested suspects reported by Member States.

Half of all the terrorism arrests were related to Islamist terrorism. France, Spain, Italy and the
Netherlands had the highest number of arrests of Islamist terrorist suspects. The majority of the
arrested suspects were born in Algeria,Morocco and Tunisia and had loose affiliations to North
African terrorist groups, such as the Moroccan Islamic Combatant Group and the Salafist Group
for Preaching and Combat. However, the suspects involved in the


Islamist terrorism is motivated either in whole or in part by an extreme interpretation of Islam
and the use of violence is regarded by its practitioners as a divine duty or sacramental duty."


Member State Islamist Separatist Left-Wing Right-Wing Total
Austria 0 1 0 0 1
Belgium 1 0 1 12 14
Denmark 9 0 0 0 6
France 139 188 15 0 342
Germany 11 4 5 0 20
Ireland 0 4 0 0 4
Italy 34 0 25 0 59
Luxembourg 0 1 0 0 1
The Netherlands 6 0 0 0 6
Poland 0 0 0 3 3
Slovakia 3 0 0 0 3
Spain 51 28 6 0 85
Sweden 3 0 0 0 3
UK _ _ _ _ 156
Total 257 226 52 15 706



Other details show most nonlethal non islam attacks are seperatist ones in France, where islam has a hold.
I assume if the muslims were not thee, nor would be the other attacks.

Look inot thge figures please. Interperet them yourslef using your own intelligence.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 1:48pm:

Other details show most nonlethal non islam attacks are seperatist ones in France, where islam has a hold. I assume if the muslims were not thee, nor would be the other attacks.

sprintcyclist, look at the facts and don't make assumptions.

the report clearly states that the attacks in France were done by separtist terrorists, not Islamic ones.
there is no evidence to suggest that the separtist terrorists are muslims or that they are motivated by religion, so u can't reasonably make that assumption that less attacks would occur if France had less muslims.  

Islamist terrorism is motivated either in whole or in part by an extreme interpretation of Islam

Do you agree with this Sprint?

also, since u mentioned separtist attacks in France, i just wanted to ask whether you heard of ETA?

if not, ETA is a terrorist organisation that has launched several attacks in France and Spain, and they aren't muslim either. they aim is to set up an independent state in the Basque region. here's a good summary:

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

that would be an example of separtist terrorists listed in France & Spain.

skeptic - in france there were 139 attacks by islam.   188 by seperatists.
In the notes, those by islam are intended to murder as many as possible.
My contention is if there were no attacks by muslins, there would be few if any by seperatists.
The seperatist one woud prob be in retaliation to , or prompted bny muslims killing french people.

the indicator to this is , in countries where there are no islam attacks, there are no attacks by anyone.
That makes it a reasonable assumption.

I have heard of ETA, are they politically inclined ??
How many people do they murder ?  Do they want to take over the world ?



freediver -  I believe islam terrorism is done by muslims who correctly interperet the koran.
That is in agreeance to what hilali stated and what hamas have done for decades and what mohammads actions were during his lifetime.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 2:55pm:

skeptic - in france there were 139 attacks by islam.   188 by seperatists.

actually no, based on that report there was no attacks by muslims in France, only 1 in Germany.
there were 283 attacks by separatists in France.

the figures ur referring to are people who were suspected of terrorism, that doesn't mean an attack occurred or that they were actually charged with anything (just suspected).


Quote:

My contention is if there were no attacks by muslins, there would be few if any by seperatists. The seperatist one woud prob be in retaliation to , or prompted bny muslims killing french people.

no, separatists want their own country, hence they are called "separatists". attacks by separtists are not in response to Islamic attacks, and even if that were true, what Islamic attacks happened in France?

none, based on the EU report.


Quote:

the indicator to this is , in countries where there are no islam attacks, there are no attacks by anyone. That makes it a reasonable assumption.

all countries in the EU had terrorist attacks of some sort in 2006, there was not a single country that had no attacks and only Germany was hit by an Islamic one.


Quote:

I have heard of ETA, are they politically inclined ?? How many people do they murder ?  Do they want to take over the world ?

look at the link i gave above about ETA.

My contention is if there were no attacks by muslins, there would be few if any by seperatists.

Where on earth did you get that idea from? Islamic terrorism is fairly new in the west. The separatist stuff has been going on for ages - pretty much for as long as there have been empires and nation states in Europe. The separatist stuff is at the opposite end of it's life, with most movements engaged in peace movements with significant potential.

The seperatist one woud prob be in retaliation to , or prompted bny muslims killing french people.

Do you know what separatist means in this context?

freediver -  I believe islam terrorism is done by muslims who correctly interperet the koran.

Despite claims to the contrary from people with far more experience in dealing with terrorism?

That is in agreeance to what hilali stated

Hilali has been rejected by his own peers.

You are right skeptic, I misread the title of the table.  it was for suspects arrested.
Which means there are a lot is islam terrorists.


seperatists want their own country cause theirs is being taken over by islam .
Same as the mass marches elsewhere in europe

yes, my reasonable assumption was based on my misreading the table.
I still stand by my assumption.
Not interested in looking up ETA, start a thread if you wish. They are not a threat to me.



freediver - islam has always been violent. ever sinvce it begun. aboout 1500 years ago.
It is getting more violent. unlike seperatist movements.
hilali had studied it for decades, he was their elected spokesman for all of aussie.
Same as the pope, he has a pretty good idea.
he go the flick cause he was saying the truth out aloud.

those dealing with terrorists are trying to placate everyone.
How do you know what they really think ?  
Why don't the "moderates" just chat with the "extremists" and show them where they have misinterpreeted it ?
Would the hamas not have discovered their error in the past 30 years ??

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 3:34pm:

You are right skeptic, I misread the title of the table.  it was for suspects arrested. Which means there are a lot is islam terrorists.

there were more non-muslim terrorist attacks than muslim ones in Europe during 2006.
but, there were also more non-muslim terrorist suspects arrested in 2006 than muslim ones.


Quote:

seperatists want their own country cause theirs is being taken over by islam . Same as the mass marches elsewhere in europe

no, look up ETA as an example, they want to sent up a state in the Basque region of France & Spain. Their movement started in the 1950's, when muslim populations in France were quite low.

edit - muslim population in France is still low anyway, only 6 million out of 61 million or just under 10%. refer below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

u sure ur not exaggerating sprintcyclist? i think u are.

seperatists want their own country cause theirs is being taken over by islam

No. Not everything is about Islam sprint, even if you try to make it so. Islamic terrorists want their own country because the west is interfering in the middle east. The separatists mentioned in the report would be non-muslim groups in Europe rebelling against the expansionist Christian empires.

freediver - islam has always been violent.

Not to any greater extent than other religions.

It is getting more violent.

Hence it is not soemthing inherent to the religion - as is usually the case there are other factors.

hilali had studied it for decades, he was their elected spokesman for all of aussie.

Until he started sprouting crap.

those dealing with terrorists are trying to placate everyone.  

The people who you quoted above who disagree with you are the ones locking them up. And besides, it's a far better idea than winding people up for no good reason.

How do you know what they really think ?

How do you? There is more than enough in human nature to make people violent. There is no need to recourse to religion and to do so usually oversimplifies the problem in way that make it worse.

Why don't the "moderates" just chat with the "extremists" and show them where they have misinterpreeted it ?
Would the hamas not have discovered their error in the past 30 years ??

Talk about oversimplification.... You think differences in interpretations and people using religion to back political goals is something that can just be ended over a cup of tea? FYI, Muslims have been trying to 'chat' with the west about the US getting out of the middle east for a long time. Do you think the US listened? You yourself sprout all this nonsense about your interpretation of Islam. How many Muslims have you spoken to about it?

skeptic - yes, the islam threat is totally more serious than any seperatist threat.
hence the more arrests.
it is only once meuslim populaton reach about 10% that they make their weight felt.
france is now offering money for "immigrants" (muslims) to leave.
I dont thingk I am exaggerating.  From my research, I feel quite confidant.


freediver - do you have proof about the seperationists rebelling agains the expanding christians ??
christians are not expanding in europe, quite the opposite, it is not the christian ideal to politically lead a country anyway.
read bits of the koran yourself, don't rely on me.
what made hilali suddenly "change" ? maybe he was just being reported accurately ?

No point winding people up. just educate them is my idea.

What's the oversimplification about that ?
the moderates reckon the extremists have misinterpereted it. they should correct them

I am trying to organise a meeting with a muslim. have FINALLY managed to get it in a neutral ground. (ie not his house).
Next hurdle will be to get it just him and I. ie not me outnumbered as he wants and has told me.
I know more about the koran than he thinks.
I am also confidant to hear anything about the Bible
What about you ?? any chats recently with muslims ??

Skeptic - so I have been incorrect in saying every terrorist is a muslim. Sorry
Is it correct to say every murdering terrorist is a muslim ?
And every religious terrorist is a muslim ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 19^th, 2007 at 10:12pm:

skeptic - yes, the islam threat is totally more serious than any seperatist threat. hence the more arrests.

it's obvious u didn't bother reading the whole report i posted. go further down, u would notice the following parts:

on page 19 - islamic terrorism arrests:
"During the period between October 2005 and December 2006, a total of 340 persons were
reported as having been arrested on Islamist terrorism related offences. Two hundred and sixty arrests were carried out in 2006. Less than ten percent of the arrested individuals were suspected of preparation, planning or execution of terrorist attacks."

10% * 340 = 34, so 34 muslim suspects arrested were suspected of preparing terrorist attacks.

on page 29 - separtist terrorism arrests:
"Two hundred and twenty-six persons were arrested in six Member States in relation to ethno-nationalist and separatist terrorism in 2006 (see figure 10)........More than half of the arrested individuals arrested in France and Spain were suspected of involvement in a terrorist attack or the preparation of an attack."

50% * 226 = 113, so 113 separtist suspects arrested were suspected of preparing terrorist attacks.

it's quite obvious the separatists represent a bigger threat.
look at the facts and read the whole report.  

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 9:00am:

Skeptic - so I have been incorrect in saying every terrorist is a muslim. Sorry Is it correct to say every murdering terrorist is a muslim ? And every religious terrorist is a muslim ?

first of all, u distinguish between terrorist & murdering terrorist, which is weird because terrorists usually kill and separtist groups such as ETA have killed alot of people. if u referred to the link i posted about ETA above u would notice that they have been responsible for the deaths of over 900 people. so no, not every murdering terrorist is muslim.

also, whether u want to deny it or not, there are fanatical, murderous groups in all religions. some examples include such christian terrorists like the Army of God in the US who are responsible for the bombing of several abortion clinics and the National Liberation Front of Tripura who are a christian fundamentalist group in India that want an independent christian state.

so no, not every religious terrorist is muslim either.

freediver - do you have proof about the seperationists rebelling agains the expanding christians ??

It is common knowledge. They are called separatists, not separationists. They want to break of from the larger European countries into smaller ones.

Is it correct to say every murdering terrorist is a muslim ?
And every religious terrorist is a muslim ?

No and no.

I would love to be a fly on the wall when you try to tell a Muslim what Islam is all about.

Hi skeptic,
given that islams idea of terrorism is to murder as many as possible and the seperatists idea is not that way, I would say islam terrorism presents a bigger threat by far.
That fact was in the report.


ETA has killed 900 over the 50 years ? islam must do that in 50 days

the right wing antiabortionists were reported to the authorities by christians.  Unlike the islam terrorists.  What was their misguided goal ?

yes, I am aware there is one area in india where hindus and christians occassionally murder each other.
Is that all you can come up with "against" christians ?
Makes us look pretty darned good, doesn;t it ?? thanks   :)
Want to do a list of the islam terrorists over the globe ??

Numerically essentially every religious terrorst is a muslim
Is that a correct statement

Essentially being to the point there is only one other group in India, where hindus and christians occassionally murder each other, the anti abortionists now being ,locked up ?

I feel quite justified in saying every religious terrorist is a muslim

It is not strictly so, but there is only one exception.
Numerically much less than 1% of the terrorist attacks and limited in location

Numerically essentially every religious terrorst is a muslim

Are you familiar with northern Ireland? Every apparently religious terrorism movement has a political agenda or issue behind it. That is part of the complexity that you exclude with your oversimplifications.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 20^th, 2007 at 11:30am:

Hi skeptic, given that islams idea of terrorism is to murder as many as possible and the seperatists idea is not that way, I would say islam terrorism presents a bigger threat by far. That fact was in the report.

like i said, separatist terrorists kill as well, and given that there were more separatist attacks and more arrrests of separatists that were planning attacks then the separatists would represent a bigger threat.

did u read the whole report? why are u debating that muslim terrorists represent a bigger threat when the report itself states that there were more non-muslim terrorist attacks and more non-muslim terrorist suspects arrested?

the report only stated that intelligence agencies are focusing more on muslim terrorists, not that they are a bigger threat. maybe these countries governments should look at the facts and focus more attention on those that launch more attacks.


Quote:

the right wing antiabortionists were reported to the authorities by christians.

u previously stated all terrorists are muslim, i gave u an example of ones that are not. whether they were reported, or whether are not following christian teachings is irrelevant.

bottom line, they committed violent acts in the name of religion and that religion was not islam and therefore u cannot say "all muslims are terrorists".

Daniel Pearl's widow sues al-Qaeda
Email Print Normal font Large font July 19, 2007 - 7:32AM


Daniel Pearl
Photo: Reuters

Advertisement
AdvertisementThe widow of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl filed a lawsuit on Wednesday against 23 individuals and organisations over the abduction and murder of her husband in 2002.

The lawsuit notably names al-Qaeda, alleged al-Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - who claimed responsibility for beheading Pearl and is now in US custody-- and Pakistan's Habib Bank among the defendants.

"I am looking for the truth of what happened to Daniel, for our family, our friends, and the public record," Mariane Pearl said in a statement.

"This process allows us to delve deeper into the investigation, and to bring accountability and punishment to those involved with his kidnapping, torture and murder," she said.

Pearl worked as the South Asia bureau chief for the Wall Street Journal when he was taken hostage in early 2002. A videotape showing his beheading was later distributed on the internet.

The lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating laws including the Anti-Terrorism Act and Torture Victim Protection Act.

It says they were involved in Pearl's abduction and killing by providing financial or logistical support in the form of training, shelter, weapons, transportation, food, communications, equipment or financial services.

The complaint names extremist groups Harakat ul-Mujahedeen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and al-Qaeda as being implicated and accuses Islamic charities Al Rashid Trust and Al Akhtar Trust International of financing the defendants through accounts held at Habib Bank.

Among other defendants named in the 49-page complaint are Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, accused of abducting Pearl, and the heirs of Saud Memon, who owned the property where Pearl's dismembered body was found. Memon died this year.

Another named defendant is Fazal Karim, who, according to the complaint, told Pakistani authorities he bt Pearl after the reporter tried to escape and helped hold Pearl while his throat was cut.

"This action seeks to expose and hold accountable the perpetrators and financiers of Daniel Pearl's kidnapping and death," Pearl's lawyer, Michael Elsner, said in the statement.

The lawsuit does not specify the amount of damages being sought.

AFP

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/daniel-pearls-widow-sues-alqaeda/2007/07/19/1184559902723.html

I could see this responsibility spreading well.

Aussies fight Taliban in safe havens
Email Print Normal font Large font July 19, 2007 - 8:35PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementIn just over a month of operations in Afghanistan, Australian special forces have fought the Taliban, inflicting unknown casualties.

No Australians have been hurt.

In a rare interview, the commander of Australian special forces, Major-General Mike Hindmarsh, said the priority job of the 300-member task group was to create a secure environment for the Australian reconstruction task force to operate in Oruzgan province in south-central Afghanistan.

Their job is also to take the fight directly to the Taliban.

This is a region which formed the heartland of the former Taliban regime and the insurgents have long used the rugged and remote country as a sanctuary.

Major General Hindmarsh confirmed that the Australian troops patrolling in the Oruzgan hinterland had been in contact with Taliban forces.

"There have been a number of smallish contacts which have been successful from our point of view," he said.

Asked about Taliban casualties, Major General Hindmarsh declined to go into detail.

"But it has gone well," he said.

The Australian special forces task group comprise members of the Special Air Service Regiment, army commando battalion, plus support units.

Major General Hindmarsh said their mode of operation was not to wait for the Taliban to come to them.

"It is actually to go to them," he said.

"It's to go to their areas that they traditionally have regarded as their sanctuaries, their safe-havens, where they have felt safe, where they can regenerate, recuperate and prepare for future operations in places such as Kandahar or Tarin Khowt.

"We want to take the battle to them and make them uncomfortable in the areas where ordinarily they have been very comfortable.

"This is what disruption is all about and we do that for long periods of time."

Major General Hindmarsh said this was a characteristic of the way Australian special forces did business.

"We get out there and spend a long time in their areas, which is not something they are used to."

During the last deployment of special forces to Afghanistan, which ended a year ago, Australian troops faced some of their toughest fighting since Vietnam.

This time around, many of the same troops are again operating on familiar terrain.

Major General Hindmarsh said the troops strongly believed what they were doing was worthwhile.

"Generally speaking, the Afghans are very courageous, stoic people who want to get on with their lives.

"The Taliban on the other side are totally the bloody opposite - they are a nasty piece of work.

"And so the soldiers feel that what they are doing is improving the livelihood of the general population and that is a good thing.

"If they are going to put their lives in harms way, we want to do it for a meaningful purpose and they feel they are."

© 2007 AAP



That's the way to win a war. Take it to them. The best defense is offense.

I believe that the Virginia Tech massacre shooter,a 23 yr old Korean student, and people like David Hicks are victims of the inequalities that exist in Society.

We know basically society has its class structure- those who have it much easier by virtue of being born onto the right family, or born into money,the well connected and the wealthy.


But what happens if you are one of the huge number of Australians or Americans who fall outside this demographic?
You come from a home where it is a struggle to get food on the table. Daily worries over money devoted to if we can have enough  to pay food and rent this week. Forget anything else. - Feeling outcast and isolated as a child because you feel different. these homes more often than not have parents who fight and or drink and its a vicious circle. Children become isolated from mainstream and disturbed by the destructive environment that is 'home'.

These kids have no identity-in socities eyes they are nobodies, they are invisible. Society and goverments have let these kids down.

Then one day onto our Tv Screens we hear of some young angry man who become a bloodthirsty killer  and massacred a bunch of rich priveledged kids.

Another guy goes to join a group who wants to bring down America- a rich arrogant nation!

Is it any wonder-?

So who do we blame? These isolated, angry forgotten kids are everywhere in Western Society. In every society.
There will certainly be many More David Hicks' and killers like Cho Seung-Hui in the future.

Its a matter of time.


When we know theyre story its not hard to understand why it happened.

---

Australians are given plenty of opportunity to break that cycle, with government support, at significant cost to society. If they fail to take advantage of it then it is their fault. The situation is slightly more difficult in America, but the opportunities are still there. There comes a time when you have to put the blame back on the individual, and this Cho guy is a good example.

Not that blaming actually solves the problem, but trying to excuse Cho's actions or blame anyone else for what he did is a step in the wrong direction. To blame anyone else is to suggest that his actions were justified or somehow reasonable.

Well said Freediver :)

Prison also is full of rich kids but normally they don't go to prison because money can buy freedom in the right places.

No excuses for someone as evil as this kid, whatever his nationality.

freediver wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 4:49pm:

Australians are given plenty of opportunity to break that cycle, with government support, at significant cost to society. If they fail to take advantage of it then it is their fault. The situation is slightly more difficult in America, but the opportunities are still there. There comes a time when you have to put the blame back on the individual, and this Cho guy is a good example. Not that blaming actually solves the problem, but trying to excuse Cho's actions or blame anyone else for what he did is a step in the wrong direction. To blame anyone else is to suggest that his actions were justified or somehow reasonable.

This equals that in your eyes freediver-and none has tried to justify anything ,but it is ,what it is.

Why is there an underclass from where these kids came and who's fault is it.?

We cannot blame kids who are a product of the system from whence they came. We CAN blame the system--shouldnt we require more in they way of Social Justice support from our Government.?

And Freediver just saying they get plenty of support and they dont take advantage of it..is shooting from the hip.



Provide some proof please!!

Poverty and ignorance breeds killers and terrorists.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 19^th, 2007 at 9:39pm:

Poverty and ignorance breeds killers and terrorists.

Yes that what I just said Sprint..care to elaborate?

Whos fault for instance is the poverty and ignorance? :-?

Social inequality and poverty/ignorance are not the same.

People are responsible for theior own poverty and lack of understanding.
Social inequality sounds like transferring the blame.

eg, negroes in USA in slavery were socially unequal. It was not their making. They did not launch terrorist attacks though. They wanted equality, not to kill others.



A poster at my work said :

"You think medical research and education is expensive. Try disease and ignorance."

i want to know why this killing spree over in Virginia hasn't been labelled a terrorist attack?
is it because the guy wasn't muslim?

i often wonder if the guy was muslim, then how would the media portray the incident? i have no doubt it would be portrayed as a terrorist action.

but i blame the entertainment industry, alot of movies glorify killing. that picture of the guy posing with the guns reminds me of Angelina Jolie in Tomb Raider who struck a similiar pose. i will try to find the pic and post it here.

it would make a great side-by-side comparison.

guest,

have the pic of jolie in my head.

Still comes back to young vulnerable socially depleted kids made susceptible thru lack of support thru a family values system and the Government not providing enough support for families in ways that catch these kids who slip thru the cracks.

Why make everything into a terrorist issue? It was a copycat killing-he referred to the Columbine shooters a few times.

wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 11:36am:

Why make everything into a terrorist issue? It was a copycat killing-he referred to the Columbine shooters a few times.

so killing innocent people at a university is not terrorism??
please explain?

If they had intended to scare people in order to promote some ideology or poltiical issue, that would be terrorism. This was more personal I think.

I agree Freediver-it seemed more this guy rebelling aagainst the inequities in the class structures that obviously  excluded him.

which gets back to my opening post.

The Social inequality question.

I guess you could say he is a terrorist for OB's political movement or agenda. He killed people to prove that those who cannot afford ipods and cars are not responsible for their actions.

Wonder if it would have been possible for a few people to rush him and overpower him ?

had they been army trained, sure.

I wouldn't be volunteering. You'd have a better chance throwing something heavy at him, Dundee style.

freediver wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 1:59pm:

I guess you could say he is a terrorist for OB's political movement or agenda. He killed people to prove that those who cannot afford ipods and cars are not responsible for their actions.

that was unneccessary freediver and you obviously think the topic is not worthy of serious discussion?

As regards a few people rushing and overpowering him. They are in a no lose situation.
Throwing something is a good idea.
Same as those people in the plane that was hijacked and headed for the pentagon (i think).

Better to go down swinging.

oceans.b, I see nothing wrong with freedives comments.

As he had no "agenda", ie was not trying to force others to do or not do something , his actions were not those of a terrorist.

Just a nutter.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 2:57pm:

Wonder if it would have been possible for a few people to rush him and overpower him ? had they been army trained, sure.

His mood was ugly- he was packing 'lead' and he was intent on taking out as many as he could before he was caught and killed himself--so i doubt anyone would have had the b alls to do it and live.

So, you going to lie under the wooden table and wait for him to pop a cap in you ?
Or shall we join forces and rush him ?

There were a few who survived by playing dead. I would be hoping for the negotiaters to step in or the police to kill him. Sure if he turned his back or something stupid you would jump him, especially if you were certain he was going to kill everyone, but he could kill a lot of people running directly at him.

wrote on Apr 20^th, 2007 at 11:15am:

i want to know why this killing spree over in Virginia hasn't been labelled a terrorist attack? is it because the guy wasn't muslim? i often wonder if the guy was muslim, then how would the media portray the incident? i have no doubt it would be portrayed as a terrorist action.

JJJ tell me how you can compare this with a terrorist attack when it was one individual doing it for thrills not a cause?

The definition of a terrorist attack is;

"a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims"

Based on what you are saying should have given reason for the US to invade North Korea as he was korean. Why do people like yourself constantly run around looking for excuses to call rascism, biaism or pregudice? It is people like you that is the real reason why assimilation is struggling in society.

enviro wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2007 at 4:45pm:

wrote on Apr 20th, 2007 at 11:15am: i want to know why this killing spree over in Virginia hasn't been labelled a terrorist attack? is it because the guy wasn't muslim? i often wonder if the guy was muslim, then how would the media portray the incident? i have no doubt it would be portrayed as a terrorist action. JJJ tell me how you can compare this with a terrorist attack when it was one individual doing it for thrills not a cause? The definition of a terrorist attack is; "a surprise attack involving the deliberate use of violence against civilians in the hope of attaining political or religious aims" Based on what you are saying should have given reason for the US to invade North Korea as he was korean. Why do people like yourself constantly run around looking for excuses to call rascism, biaism or pregudice? It is people like you that is the real reason why assimilation is struggling in society.

No I never thought it could be classed as a 'terrorist attack'.

The Australian has thrown objective journalism out the window and launched an extraordinarily personal and vitriolic front page attack against justice Michael Kirby. They accuse him of being somehow backwards for being less eager than his colleagues to overturn our constitutional rights in response to the 'new threat.' The only thing they left out is how this new threat has materialised on our shores. Could that be because it hasn't? Is Rupert Murdoch trying to achieve what a bunch or turban clad lunatics from the caves of Afghanistan couldn't - the destruction of our constitutional rights and freedoms? Is it really time to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside? Lets hope our judges don't throw away the traditions that have protected us so well as eagerly as News Corp has.

Times change, but Kirby doesn't

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22180819-5013404,00.html

Some quotes:

FOR an exceedingly bright fellow, Michael Kirby does a great impression of someone who has closed his eyes to the changed world in which we live.

Instead of confronting the new reality, Kirby and his supporters have retreated into the comforting world of the familiar. To simply parrot the mantra that terror is nothing new and should be treated by the law just like any other offence is a complete intellectual failure.

When John Maynard Keynes was criticised for departing from views he had previously espoused, he responded by saying that when the facts change, he changed his mind. Justice Kirby, what do you do, sir?

hi there, since 15 of the 19 hijackers on Sept 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia, is there any reason why Saudi Arabia is not part of the Axis of Evil? is there any plans to invade Saudi Arabia in the War on Terror?

i would think that would be more relevant than invading Iraq, which had no connection to the Sept 11 attacks at all.

George Bush is friends with a lot of Saudi Arabians.

is that the problem? given that George W Bush is friends with the very group of people that attacked us.
to me, it seems that we are wasting our time & resources over in Iraq, whereas the real terrorists (i.e. not Saddam Hussien) are living the high life.

Thats right.
The main reason for the invasion of iraq was because saddam and govt supported palestine.

---

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2007 at 1:29pm:

Thats right. The main reason for the invasion of iraq was because saddam and govt supported palestine.

not really, if that were the case then we would be invading the whole Middle East since every Middle Eastern country supports the Palestinian cause.

i think we invaded Iraq because it has huge oil reserves, not for WMD's since if that were the real reason then we would be invading North Korea right now.

and we didn't go to Iraq to liberate the Iraqi's from Saddam Hussein's rule since he was in power for 20 odd years and at one point was best mates with the US (during the 1980's).

Plenty of European countries support palestine financially. Iran couses far more trouble there than Iraq did.

yeah, but neither Iraq, Iran or North Korea were involved in the Sept 11 attacks, so why are they the focus on the War on Terror?

shouldn't we focus on Saudi Arabia, since it obviously is a breeding ground for terrorists since the majority of the Sept 11 hijackers were from there.

I suppose if saudi arabia was invaded, the entire islamic world would be up in arms about it, their propagandarists stating its a war against islam as this is the country which has the city of mecca.

---

The 'war on terror' is a stupid term. The whole point of using terrorism is that it avoids a conventional war against your enemy. If your enemy is stupid enough to not realise this, it just makes it more effective. The war on terror is not a war against any country and if we make it one that will just turn more people to terrorism. You could argue that the rulers of Afghanistan were attacking the US, but not any other country.

The real reason we went to war in Iraq is that GWB realised that the only way he could get re-elected was if his country was at war, and the war in Afghanistan wasn't big enough to count.

And to finish off daddys work. ;)

I reckon if bush was never elected and al gore was president instead, the trade centre attacks never would have happened.

I wouldn't go that far. At the most, they would have postponed it.

What is rarely discussed and indicates why Saddam contributed towards the suicide bombers in Palestine is the pre-emptive strike by Israel on Baghdad.


Quote:

On June 7, 1981 Israeli warplanes struck the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad. This "unprovoked" action by Israel was a pre-emptive strike to deny Iraq the capability of producing nuclear weapons, weapons Israeli intelligence believed were in the works. Iraqi defenses were taken by surprise and opened fire too late. In one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins. The IAF planes returned to base without losses.

Immediately following the raid, Israel announced:


Quote:

Under no circumstances will we allow an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against our people

Haven't we heard that somewhere before?

Baghdad was once one of the most beautiful, historical and cultural cities in the world.  Is it any wonder Israel and the US have fast become the most hated nations in the world.

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2007 at 1:49pm:

I suppose if saudi arabia was invaded, the entire islamic world would be up in arms about it, their propagandarists stating its a war against islam as this is the country which has the city of mecca.

i suppose, but then again alot of muslims hold that view anyway since we've only invaded muslim countries so far. when it came to a non-muslim country (i.e. North Korea), we decided to undertake diplomatic solutions, rather than invade them, even though they had been developing nuclear weapons.

Skeptic, whats your nationality?

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 12:18pm:

Skeptic, whats your nationality?

i'm Australian, although my ancestors are Irish, who came here around the 1900's.
why are you asking?

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2007 at 1:19pm:

given that George W Bush is friends with the very group of people that attacked us.

was just that. thought you might be in another country.
Unless you are referring to the japs.

wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 12:56pm:

wrote on Mar 6th, 2007 at 1:19pm: given that George W Bush is friends with the very group of people that attacked us. was just that. thought you might be in another country. Unless you are referring to the japs.

when u attack the US, ur really attacking Western civilisation, that's what i meant by "us".

i really don't like the idea of George W Bush being friends with Saudi's, makes me wonder whether he knew about Sept 11 beforehand and let it happen anyway.

Ah now i understand. i misread it.
I agree completely.
Im sure they did know the attacks were going to happen. just as they knew the pearl harbour attacks wre imminent. they just needed an excuse to go to war to help israel.
The U.S has too many interests in Saudi arabia. they are also so called ''allies''.

Saudi Arabia and the US share common interests. They are both getting fat from the oil trade. That's all it is.Suggesting that the Saudi Arabian government knew about 9/11 is just as absurd as suggesting that the British or spanish government knew about their terrorist attacks.

freediver wrote on Mar 7^th, 2007 at 1:17pm:

Saudi Arabia and the US share common interests. They are both getting fat from the oil trade. That's all it is.Suggesting that the Saudi Arabian government knew about 9/11 is just as absurd as suggesting that the British or spanish government knew about their terrorist attacks.

freediver, u have to admit, it does look suspious.

the US & Saudi Arabia are friends/allies, who both have interests in oil.
most of the Sept 11 bombers were from Saudi Arabia, but then we decide to invade Iraq instead (which is another oil rich country).

and it's not just the US being friends with Saudi government, but also rich Saudi families, including the bin Laden's (Osama's family).

Of course they are friends. They all managed to look past their differences and get rich together from the oil business. The Saudi government did not support the terrorist attacks. The taliban did. 9/11 was not the reason for the invasion of Iraq.

It's a long stretch from looking suspicious to terrorism.

Here is a thought, whats going to happen when they run out of oil?
Or indeed when oil is finally banned??

Will we still be friends??? :'(

We would probably be on much friendlier terms because we would stop interfering in the region. Of course, GWB would have no reason to talk to those Saudis.

How often have we heard that cliche?  More importantly, how often have we heard it decried by the supporters of "The War On Terror(ism)"(tm)?   Yet, today we can see the hypocrisy of the Bush Administration's claims about terrorists and terrorism exposed for all to see:


Quote:

Anti-Castro exile freed Anti-Castro Cuban exile Luis Posada Carriles, wanted in Cuba and Venezuela for the 1976 bombing of a Cuban airliner and awaiting US trial on immigration charges, has been released on bail. Posada Carriles posted bail totalling $US350,000 to get out of jail in New Mexico. He has been in detention since May 2005 after entering the United States illegally to seek asylum. "He has been released on bond and he is on his way to Miami to report to pre-trial services," US Marshal spokesman Gary Brown said in San Antonio, Texas. The 79-year-old Posada Carriles, a former CIA operative accused in various plots against Cuban leader Fidel Castro, has been ordered to live with his wife under house arrest in her Miami home until his trial. He is scheduled to be tried starting May 11 in El Paso on seven immigration fraud charges accusing him of lying to immigration authorities. His lawyers said recently they expected that once Posada Carriles was freed on bail, which was granted by US Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso, Texas, he would immediately be detained again on an immigration-detention order. But Mr Brown said "that has not happened yet". "We expect him to appear in court on May 11 for his criminal proceeding as ordered by the court," US Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said in Washington A spokeswoman for the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement in El Paso said she was waiting for a statement from Washington to comment. Posada Carriles is wanted for trial in Cuba and Venezuela for trial on charges he masterminded a Cuban airliner bombing that killed 73 people. The two leftist countries have demanded his extradition, but the US has refused, which has prompted charges that the Bush administration is ignoring its own "war on terror". An ailing Mr Castro, who has not appeared in public since emergency surgery eight months ago, accused the US Government last week of harbouring his nemesis. "Not a single word has been said about his countless victims, his bomb attacks on tourist facilities in recent years or dozens of his plots financed by the US Government to eliminate me physically," Mr Castro wrote. Posada Carriles was jailed in Panama for a plot to assassinate Mr Castro during an Ibero-American summit in 2000, but was pardoned by outgoing president Mireya Moscoso in 2004. Cuba also accuses him of plotting a wave of bomb blasts in Havana hotels in 1997 that killed an Italian tourist. - Reuters

Why is this man not detained in Guantanamo Bay?  Why is he not on trial as an "unlawful combatant"?  Why is he not charged with warcrimes?

Hi Brian,
How are you ?

Perhaps he is not in guanantamo because he did no crimes against the usa ?

that reasoniong also covers qn 2,

q 3 - warcrimes - he was not at war ? war was not declared.

take care

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 21^st, 2007 at 10:44pm:

Hi Brian, How are you ?

Pretty good.


Quote:

Perhaps he is not in guanantamo because he did no crimes against the usa ?

Appears to me many of those detained in the Gitmo Hilton have committed no crimes against the USA as well.


Quote:

that reasoniong also covers qn 2, q 3 - warcrimes - he was not at war ? war was not declared. take care

He is though, a known Terrorist and is wanted for extradiction back to the nations which have suffered his Terrorism.  Therefore it is the greatest hypocrisy for the US to claim they are serious about fighting Terrorism and not deliver him up for justice.

Hi Brian,

Those in guantanimo are on the side against usa ??

yes, by your account he is a terrorist. Not a terrorist againt usa.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2007 at 12:20am:

Hi Brian, Those in guantanimo are on the side against usa ?? yes, by your account he is a terrorist. Not a terrorist againt usa.

Which suggests some hypcrisy on their part, don't you think?

Hi Brian,

I don't think USA should or could apprehend terrorists who wage terrorist events against any country.
They should only be concerned about their own countries security and possibly those who they have close relations with.

If other countries hate usa, then want protection by usa when they tghemselves become targets.
Well, they don't really have a good cause to put forward, do they ?  

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2007 at 12:02pm:

Hi Brian, I don't think USA should or could apprehend terrorists who wage terrorist events against any country. They should only be concerned about their own countries security and possibly those who they have close relations with. If other countries hate usa, then want protection by usa when they tghemselves become targets. Well, they don't really have a good cause to put forward, do they ?

The US President has made it clear that his government will not support or deal with Terrorists.  His Government has kidnapped suspected Terrorists from third party nations, extradicted them and imprisoned them without trial.  Yet here we have the US Government actively protecting Terrorists.   You appear unable to detect the contradictions in these two positions, why?

This came up on the multiculturalism board with DT:


ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 8:01pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2007 at 7:46pm: The Iraqis who are killing Americans are not fighting for what they see as a different version of freedom. Your 'different version of freedom' spiel sounds like some of the extreme 'left wing' stuff about how extremists should be free to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. At least, it's usually associated with left wing ideologues. It's not what I normally expect from you. Alright... whatever... you just proved my point. It may be left-wing ideology but it's correct. *End of 'what defines freedom' discussion*

The way I see it, most of the extremists in the middle east want to take away people's freedom of religion and other personal freedoms. I don't believe that they would see themselves as freedom fighters. Obviously, once you mix in the political stuff they can say they are fighting for freedom from US interference and the politics is a major factor in how they act out their plans, but if you strip the issue down to the core values, they would openly admit to opposing personal freedom, even in a general sense.

freediver wrote on Jul 10^th, 2007 at 8:15pm:

This came up on the multiculturalism board with DT: ex-member DonaldTrump wrote on Jul 10th, 2007 at 8:01pm: freediver wrote on Jul 10th, 2007 at 7:46pm: The Iraqis who are killing Americans are not fighting for what they see as a different version of freedom. Your 'different version of freedom' spiel sounds like some of the extreme 'left wing' stuff about how extremists should be free to kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. At least, it's usually associated with left wing ideologues. It's not what I normally expect from you. Alright... whatever... you just proved my point. It may be left-wing ideology but it's correct. *End of 'what defines freedom' discussion* The way I see it, most of the extremists in the middle east want to take away people's freedom of religion and other personal freedoms. I don't believe that they would see themselves as freedom fighters. Obviously, once you mix in the political stuff they can say they are fighting for freedom from US interference and the politics is a major factor in how they act out their plans, but if you strip the issue down to the core values, they would openly admit to opposing personal freedom, even in a general sense.

That's what you believe, freediver. THEY believe they're preserving their FREEDOM to be Islamic and discriminate. This is a freedom Americans will take away from them.


FREEDOM FREEDOM FREEDOM.


Has no meaning.

THEY believe they're preserving their FREEDOM to be Islamic and discriminate.

How do you know that's what they believe?

http://www.uq.edu.au/events/event_view.php?event_id=3426

Dr Martin Weber (UQ): `The moral grammar of social struggles and the use of force for political ends - before the law`View event details below. On this page you can view a printable version of the event, export event in iCalendar and Outlook formats and send the event to your friend.


Primary Information  
Date: Friday, 12 October 2007  
Time: 3:00pm - 4:30pm  
Room: 537
UQ Location: General Purpose North 3 (St Lucia)  
Event Information  
Description: `The moral grammar of social struggles and the use of force for political ends - before the law`

The paper is intended as a clearing exercise concerned with inquiring into the relationship between moral claims, and normative frameworks (or, framing understandings) in the context of the use of force for political ends. Its point of departure is a brief (and borrowed) critique of legal positivist thought, and, specifically, the idea that the socio-political ‘grammar’ of moral claims regarding the justification of political violence is defined by prevailing and evolving legal code (for instance, the Geneva Convention).

Having established this critique, the paper considers competing argumentative strategies for justifying the use of force for political ends in moral terms, and considers these against the backdrop of their respective general orientation: As justification on behalf of the dominant (for instance, the use of preventive military action, torture, or forceful coercion by other means), for instance by, or on behalf of, states), or the subaltern (for instance, the use of guerrilla tactics, targeted attacks, or coercive threats, for instance by, or on behalf of, insurgent groups, movements, or minorities). Contrasting and comparing these strategies with regard to the substantive moral claims to which they give expression, allows for a critical survey of their short-comings, and presents an opportunity to theorise them occupying a ‘pre-legal’ socio-political space in the context of broader normative change.
For such a theorisation, however, not many resources are currently available with which the attendant problems (identity/difference, perspectivism, etc.) can be grasped appropriately. In the final part, I consider ‘recognition theory’ as a possible candidate, and tease out strengths and weaknesses in the context of a discussion of the Nepalese insurgency, on the one hand, and the UK’s response to the threat of terrorism on the other.
URL: http://www.polsis.uq.edu.au/index.html?page=66192
Event Category: Seminars & workshops /  
Contact Information  
Name: Dr Seb Kaempf
Phone: 57530
Email: s.kaempf@uq.edu.au
Org. Unit: Political Science and International Studies  

---

Anti-terror work 'may spur radicals'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Antiterror-work-may-spur-radicals/2007/10/15/1192300631741.html

The federal government's hardline approach to terrorism prevention may spur on radicals, a new report compiled by Melbourne academics for Victoria Police says.

The Counter-Terrorism Policing and Culturally Diverse Communities report, the result of a three-year project initiated by Victoria Police and researched by Monash University terrorism experts, is expected to be released on Monday, Fairfax newspapers say.

It warns that the federal government's approach could fuel radicalisation and undermine Victoria Police efforts to build links with communities.

"The Australian government's approach to prevention of terrorism fits with the major policy approach being applied in the United States, and is at odds with the best available knowledge on the threat of terrorism and the way that threat is best countered," the report says.

Credible anecdotal evidence exists that extremists were already probing Victorian society for alienated individuals to recruit, it says.

Tough counter-terrorism laws catches up more innocent people than traditional anti-criminal approaches, the report says. "Evidence from the UK and US suggests the impact of this may be significant in terms of fuelling a process of alienation, social exclusion and, ultimately support for terrorism."

A better way would be community policing that emphasises social cohesion and human rights, the report says, as it is more likely to win the trust of communities, including Muslim communities.

---

And you though our government was overreacting:

Japan fingerprinting foreigners

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Japan-fingerprinting-foreigners/2007/11/20/1195321778020.html

Japan has begun fingerprinting foreigners entering the country on Tuesday in an anti-terrorism policy that has sparked complaints from human rights activists, business travellers and long-term residents.

"At a time when terrorism is occurring throughout the world, we want foreigners entering Japan to cooperate, and to understand that it is better for them as well that Japan be safe," said Hisashi Toshioka, head of the Immigration Bureau at Narita airport, the main international airport serving Tokyo.

"The biggest objective is to prevent terrorism."

Critics, however, say the new procedures reflect a deeply entrenched view in Japan of foreigners as more likely to commit crimes and plays down the possibility of home-grown terrorism.

No!

Why don't they offer $25 Billion?

As far as I know, the offer is for information. The US doesn't want to to pay some other country to wage a war whcih it would prefer to wage itself and potentially interfere with US operations. If someone had the information, I doubt the extra money would be a deciding factor.

freediver wrote on Aug 28^th, 2007 at 7:11pm:

As far as I know, the offer is for information. The US doesn't want to to pay some other country to wage a war whcih it would prefer to wage itself and potentially interfere with US operations. If someone had the information, I doubt the extra money would be a deciding factor.

Ok, Ta!

Apparently, the bounty was FAR too much !
The sort of people who was likely to assist USA , $25 Mill is an unthinkable amount.
May as well offer them the moon. It was unbeleiviable, hence untrustable. Esp from christians.

A good offer would have been for them to negotiate for the bounty, starting at .... something comprehendable for them

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 28^th, 2007 at 10:29pm:

Apparently, the bounty was FAR too much ! The sort of people who was likely to assist USA , $25 Mill is an unthinkable amount. May as well offer them the moon. It was unbeleiviable, hence untrustable. Esp from christians. A good offer would have been for them to negotiate for the bounty, starting at .... something comprehendable for them

Seriously?

Yes.
We're talking about goat herders here. Uneducated, but not idiots.
They hate western society and are vey suspicious of us.

To offer them $25 mill for information is ludicrous. Who would believe that ?

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 28^th, 2007 at 11:29pm:

Yes. We're talking about goat herders here. Uneducated, but not idiots. They hate western society and are vey suspicious of us. To offer them $25 mill for information is ludicrous. Who would believe that ?

Maybe a fair point.

But it would be information leading to capture.

yes, from our point of view it is ok.
from their point of view it is unbeleviable. offer them a small farm, some flocks of sheep, passage to another country etc etc .

mmm

well they might give it up for aWendys* Shake and Dog-* goats milk of course, and they would want theyre dog  beef jerky style.

I've heard of the Americans chasing down enviornmentalists and animal libbers as terrorists, but this is new:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Maori-targeted-in-antiterrorist-raids/2007/10/15/1192300644072.html

Maori and environmental activists are believed to have been targeted in a series of early morning anti-terrorist raids across New Zealand's North Island in which firearms were seized and arrests made.

The armed offenders squad executed search warrants under the Suppression of Terrorism Act and the Firearms Act at addresses in Auckland, Whakatane, Wellington, Ruatoki, and Hamilton.

The raids are understood to have targeted activists across a range of protest groups, including the environmental and Maori sovereignty movements.

Police late Monday morning refused to disclose the reason for the raids, and a spokeswoman in the PM's office said Miss Clark was not talking and directed all calls to police as it was an operational matter.

Yep, maoris are of a warrior breed. Militant peoples at times
A guy I know over there is an "activist" politically.

They are called "The Shaky Isles" for a few reasons

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Protestors-gather-against-Maori-arrests/2007/10/16/1192300738026.html

A small group of protesters gathered outside the New Zealand consulate in Melbourne on Tuesday to oppose the arrests of Maori activists in anti-terrorism raids on Monday.

The protest was led by Sina Brown-Davis, who called herself a Polynesian anti-globalisation activist, and said the New Zealand government should be ashamed.

"This is a full-on criminalisation of dissent and a deplorable and disgusting attack on peace activists," she said outside the building in Melbourne's city centre.

I don't have any background leading to this event so I won't comment much on this.

On the surface (from my reading of the NZ news website) they are Maori activists and evironmentalists - militant one, at best. But how does that relate to anti-terror? I thought the anti-terror laws and the preamble of its application is to combat military terrorists. Sure, environmentalist and native rights activists can be militant in their application of their protest and do disrupt the everyday going-ons of a peaceful society. This strikes annoyance, agitation, and scorn from some but it doesn't strike fear and terror in the hearts of people. But lets, for argument sake call them terrorist. There is a difference between military terrorist group (as in the case of Al Qaeda, Black September, IRA, Laskar Jihad, Tamil Tigers) and militant terrorist group (bikie gangs, LA Bloods, LA Crips, Aryan Brotherhood and in this case NZ environmentalists).

Cheers!

Hi acid,
How have you been ?
I guess the anti-terror laws are enacted against people who plan to use violence to get their point of view across.
Be it religious, economic, ethnic, environment, socioeconomic, whatever.


If a group want to use petrol bombs, they are terrorists.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 10:35pm:

Hi acid, How have you been ? I guess the anti-terror laws are enacted against people who plan to use violence to get their point of view across. Be it religious, economic, ethnic, environment, socioeconomic, whatever. If a group want to use petrol bombs, they are terrorists.

I am well. Thanks.

I agree with you that if their actions are illegal then they should be prosecuted. It's interesting to note that a US christian anti-abortion/pro-life group call Army Of God is listed as a terrorist group because of their direct action methods. So I guess the same can be said for the Animal Liberation Group who have in the past been suspected of torching laboratories and private companies for conducting or tendering animal experimentations.

I understand that there are special interest protest and lobby groups and sometimes they get out of hand. However there are laws for protection against them - arson - if a petrol bomb is thrown, trespassing if they invade private property, willful damage and sabotage, public nuisance and public disturbance, riot and afray, inciting a riot, blackmail, extortion, gaining advantage via deception, manslaughter, murder etc. Anti-terror laws against these groups is a little paranoid and extreme, don't you think? I mean if we had the anti-teror laws back then do you think they should be used against the militant BLF union of the 80s or recently against the Stevedores Union during their action against Patricks? Or, against the environmentalist who attempted to jump the fence in Pine Gap a few years ago? Or, also recently the human rights groups who help the refugees escape the detention camp in SA?

Anti-terror laws are derived from the aftermath of global systematic and coordinated attacks on our society as a whole from extremists miltary groups who are not easily identified within the boudaries of a country. Eg. if NZ decided that declare war on Australia then there is an easily identifable enemy. A group like Al Qaeda who isn't a country, has no borders, has no nationality or race and therefore cannot be identified. The anti terror laws are drawn up to provide authorities special powers to counter the invisible. I don't think that they should be should on militant special interest groups.

Cheers!

Hi Acid,

Very fair that the US christian anti-abortion/pro-life group call Army Of God is listed as a terrorist group . I had not heard of them.
yes, could be a fine line between being "over vigilent" and averting future crimes.
I hope they get the discernment right.

take care

The paradox of the Islamic Jihad being waged against the West, is that it is a Jihad that is itself parasitic on the West. It could not exist without Western money and Western support. Without these it would quickly shrivel up and die.

There are few better demonstrations than Abu Hamza or Captain Hook living on the dole in the UK while preaching terrorism. Abu Hamza is simply a microcosm of Islamic terrorism which feeds off the West, from the Saudi sponsored Jihad funded by Western oil money and protected by American tanks to Pakistan's ISI backing of the Mujahadeen which would not have been possible without American support to Fatah's terrorist infrastructure now being revitalized by the State Department-- Islamic terrorism is dependent on the West.

The reason that most Arab states exist in the first place is that they were created by England or France and funded by the United States. The House of Saud and the entire fiction of Saudi Arabia was created with British and American support. The Arab League was organized by the British and when they discarded it, the United States picked it up in order to use it as a bulwark against Communism.

About the only real export of these Arab states is oil and this oil was discovered and developed by primarily American companies which were then slowly taken over and in effect nationalized by these Arab countries. The ruler of the House of Saud, Ibn Saud, began as a bandit and camel raider in the desert at the turn of the century. American and British patronage turned him into a monarch and turned Saudi Arabia into a wealthy land. The House of Saud turned around and has backed Islamic terrorism and expansionism across Europe, America and the World.

Saudi money drives the global Jihad but Saudi money and oil are really American money and oil. It was American tanks that kept Saddam out of Ridyah in 1992. But it is in fact America that has kept most of the Arab world intact. It was America which forced England, France and Israel to pull out of Egypt in the 1956 Suez Canal War. Egypt rewarded America for this by inviting the Russians in. It was American influence that kept Russia from going into Iran instead of Afghanistan. Today Iran is America's worst enemy. The list goes on and on.

If America and Europe did not exist, does anyone really believe that oil hungry world powers like Russia or China or Japan would have allowed the tinpot bandit Emirs and Princes and Tyrants of the Arab countries to keep control of their oil for very long? It was the long hand of America that protected them all along. For all their wealth and brutality, no Arab state has managed to defeat even tiny Israel, how long would they have lasted against Russia or China?

Not only has America protected their independence, it has even allowed them to nationalize resources developed by American and British companies. The United States has pumped in money and sacrificed the lives of American soldiers to protect them, in return we have received terrorism, oil boycotts and the funding of Islamic expansionism on our own soil.

Rarely has ingratitude been so viciously manifest, but all this goes to show that the Jihad is a self-destructing Jihad. The Jihad is aimed at the West, yet it could not exist without the West. The Islamic terrorists attacking America resemble an angry passenger carving a hole in his lifeboat in the hopes that everyone else in the lifeboat drowns while he somehow swims to safety.

The Arab world has produced nothing in the last century, its technology and its money come from outside. Its literacy level is below that of Sub-Saharan Africa and its labor, from its oil production to its simplest tasks is done by imported foreigners, often Westerners.

The self-destructing Jihad, should it destroy the West, would leave the Middle East barren, without customers for its oil, tourists for its cities, workers for its oil operations and protection for its kingdoms.

If the West responds by cutting immigration and achieving oil independence, then the Middle East will wind up with an economy based on worthless oil and a demographic time bomb turned against itself.

Either way the Jihad loses. The Jihad may succeed in either pushing the world back to the dark ages or at least turn the Middle East into fanatical Mullah and Imam ruled enclaves, but it won't create a new Islamic civilization, only chaos and dark ages. In Iraq and Gaza, the Jihad quickly degenerated into Muslims killing Muslims. This is nothing new, the Jihad in the end has always turned against fellow Muslims.

When Muslims in the West wage Jihad, these engineers and doctors also attack the very system that provides them with a generous income and generates the technology and resources that makes their profession possible. When Muslims in the Middle East wage Jihad, they attack their best customers and the source of their protection and wealth. One way or another the Jihad is engineered to kill the Goose with the Golden Egg and is literally a suicide Jihad, because its success would destroy the very sources of that Jihad.

http://news.smh.com.au/nz-town-to-set-up-citizen-roadblocks/20071230-1jig.html

Residents of a New Zealand township raided by police in October are planning to set up a blockade.

Residents of Ruatoki in the Bay of Plenty, on New Zealand's North Island, will "check suspicious travellers" at roadblocks into the township for 24 hours from 5am on January 20, the Sunday Star-Times reported.

The roadblocks will be manned by "select hapu of Ruatoki settlement" who will ask people for passports and ask outsiders to sign a book and say what their business is.

"If these criteria and standards have been met, we will permit access, following the distribution of civil rights information," a notice sent to the newspaper said.

On October 15, police arrested 17 people in raids nationwide but the focus was on Ruatoki, about 20km south of Whakatane, where police alleged terrorist camps were being run.

Ruatoki residents consider the police raid was over-the-top.

Police are facing legal action over the raids. Lawyer Peter Williams QC, acting for Te Kotahi o Tuhoe, which speaks on behalf of the Tuhoe people, has said writs would be filed in the High Court at Rotorua in the new year.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2007 at 4:27pm:

Public awareness foiled UK bomb plot: PM http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Public-awareness-foiled-UK-bomb-plot-PM/2007/06/30/1182624219074.html A foiled car bombing plot in London proves that anti-terrorism public awareness campaigns work, Prime Minister John Howard says. London ambulance officers alerted police after they thought they saw smoke inside a green Mercedes parked outside a London nightclub. Mr Howard said the discovery proves that community awareness programs, like his government's heavily criticised "be alert, not alarmed" campaign, are worthwhile. "It's a great tribute to the vigilance of those ambulance officers. That sends a very strong message that these community awareness programs work." Mr Howard said there is no reason for concern in Australia, but the discovery should be a reminder to continue guarding against potential terrorist threats.

I wonder if Bali has the same type of campaigns.

deathrides - by the time smoke is inside a car, it is way past the stage to stop it.
The innocent people were lucky the bomb did not go off.

One way to stop it is to stop the source of it.
ie, the koran, mosques and islam.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 2:20pm:

One way to stop it is to stop the source of it. ie, the koran, mosques and islam.

So, I guess that you advocate religious censorship, and a rewrite of our constitution on the freedom to congregrate and freedom of religion. I guess that means that we'll have to change the text on the Australian values citizenship test as well.

:)

acid - I don't care what anyone believes.
If their "book" says explicitly to kill us, I don't accept it.

If they say they can't live with us, so it is.

I have a right to live in safety and freedom.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 6^th, 2008 at 5:58pm:

acid - I don't care what anyone believes. If their "book" says explicitly to kill us, I don't accept it. If they say they can't live with us, so it is. I have a right to live in safety and freedom.

Nevertheless, you advocate a rewrite of our constitution and values statement.  :)

Don't forget, even the Christian bible advocates death. Sure, its in the Old Testament but many Christians quote and recite the Old Testament to justify their beliefs and actions. South Africa's former aparthied regime and the KKK in the US draw their extremisn from the bible.

Your use of the word seems very selfish as the freedom you imply applies only to you and those who think like you. What about multi generational Australian of other religions? Their freedom doesn't apply?

Not all muslims are terrorists. To ban an entire religion to get rid of terrorism looks like a case of the cure being worse than the disease. It is naive to think you could take any action against a religion and not end up in a situation 100 times worse than the current one. Ban terrorism, not Islam. It's that simple.

acid -  where are the christian suicide bombers ??
Or the extremist buddhists ?

the facts are all the problems come from muslims.
This is indicitive of a weekly news item.


"SUSPECTED Islamist militants have shot dead at least nine tribal elders who were trying to negotiate a ceasefire between Pakistan's security forces and al-Qa'ida and Taliban insurgents near the border with Afghanistan.

The killings in the mountainous stronghold of Baitullah Mehsud - the al-Qa'ida and Taliban-linked militant blamed for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto - have prompted fears of escalating violence in restive northwestern Pakistan.

They came as a new report by a Pakistani think tank showed that the country is now the most violent in the world after Iraq in terms of the casualties caused by terrorism.

According to the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, the country last year witnessed 1442 violent incidents, including border skirmishes, which caused nearly 9000 casualties - 3448 of them fatal. "

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23024900-25837,00.html



freediver - gto any other ideas on how to stop terrorists then ?

The same way we stop other crime.

thanks for not answering.

why bother typing unless you are going to answer a directly given question ??

OK, I'll rephrase. Terrorism can and should be dealt with within the current law enforcement framework. Hysterical calls for the abolition of fundamental human rights (freedom of religion) are absurd in the current context and are unlikely to ever be necessary. Please don't make me list all the ways the police and security forces are currently approaching the problem and have solved it elsewhere in the past. It is commone knowledge.

fd - you still have not given any concrete "other ideas"

the means we are using now are not working. the incidences are rising.
We have to try other means.

Any other ideas ??

The problem is not solved

the means we are using now are not working.

By what standard? Most forms of crime are on the rise. Should we create a police state? We could easily put ten times as much effort into fighting terrorism if it became necessary. At the moment it is an economic tradeoff. We aren't putting more effort in because it isn't such a big problem. If you think it is, ask for more money. We could have an undercover agent in every mosque in the country. It would be better than standing out thousands of dollars to people who aren't even pruchasing a new home.

you've changed topics, not answered a question and answered many more questions.

it's not an economic tradeoff, it is apathy.
before the time we put undercover agents in mosques, better to close them all down, send them away.
Ask england/france/europe what happens

So you think the over-reaction should come first, before the rational reaction?

It appears to me sprint that you see Islam as the problem, not terrorism. Terrorism is just another excuse you are using to abolish freedom of religion.

fair comments Freediver.

I'm fine with every oother belief system, even "non-belief" systems.
Their goal is not to subjugate me, to convert me and rule the world.

By their book, they say non-muslims cannot live in peace with them.
You ok with that ?
I'm not.

I've met a couple of atheists lately who cannot seem to be at peace with anyone that doesn't believe exactly the same. Their goal is to convert and to have the world ruled by atheists. The try to bend science and everything else to fit in with their beliefs. They used very unethical methods to try to control what I say, enough to have me genuinely worried what they would do. When it didn't stop me, they resorted to censorship. The thing is, atheism is a belief, not absence of belief, which is agnosticism.

The few quotes from the Koran I have seen here do have me genuinely iterested in that angle, but I'm obviously not convinced the religion is a danger. The battle between religions is in the past. The future is the battle between ideologies. That is, fascim vs freedom, democracy and human rights. Obviously, if we loose personal freedoms like freedom of religion, then it could all go downhill and end in another crusade. But loss of freedom would be the cause of, not the solution to our problems.

To confuse the battle against fascism with a battle against Islam denies the reality of the situation and prevents any real victory. For example, I have seen plausible arguments made here that Islam is inherently antidemocratic. Yet the experience of Iraq, turkey, pakistan, Indonesia and other predominantly Muslim countries contradicts these. Each of those countries could vote out it's democracy any time it wanted, just like QLD voted away it's upper house. Whatever the Koran might say, the people themselves want a say in their future. They want democracy. The struggle for freedom in the middle east is no different from the struggle for freedom anywhere else in the world. At times it seems hopeless, but there are always people prepared to lay down their life for it.

We can either choose to scare the residents of the middle east into supporting a known dictator because they fear the unknown represented by western democracy, or we can support their struggle for freedom. The two courses of action may appear on the surface to be identical. A lot of it comes down to what we say, and more importantly what we really mean. If we fight against Islam, Islam will fight against us - a fight to a very nasty death. If we fight for freedom, Muslims will fight alongside us. We are all humans first, Christians, Muslims and Atheists second.

Is it in the book of athiesm to martyr themselves  and get 77 virgins for it ?
Do they do suicide bombings ?

I'm happy to put agnostics in with a "belief" or "non-belief" set. Not much time for semantcs.
They ain't going to behead me.

islam is against freedom.

USA, england, spain and us have given iran their first ever free election.
That's the goal of the free world. That's against islams ideals.

You cannot fight a religion sprint. What you have to remember is that in the end you are fighting people. Some Muslims are against freedom. Some are for it. So, fight alongside those who strive for freedom. If you make it about Islam, they will all be against you, because you will be fighting against freedom. You would be no different from the extremist Muslims who would ban Christianitiy of they could. You would lose. You remind me of the church in the middle ages, when they thought the best way to keep people in the faith was to behead those who lost their faith. If Islam is as bad as you make out, then all you have to do to defeat it is to give the people the freedom to choose for themselves.

freediver - i certainly do hear you.
iraq now has democracy, muslims there are still murdering muslims.

only one country has ever got out from under islam law.
Once there the law/religion forbids anyone leaving.

there are some warnings in the bible about the yoke of religion vs the freedom of spirituality.

In the end, I don't care what or if anyone else "believes" in anything or not.  
Much the same as all other beliefs, bar one.

All other beliefs can live in peace with one another, except one.
That's what is says in their book, what hilali says, what mohammad did.

iraq now has democracy, muslims there are still murdering muslims

Christians murder Christians all the time. The point is, Muslims (not islam) were given a vote. They voted for democracy. I think it was you who claimed that Islam is inherently antidemocratic.

only one country has ever got out from under islam law

There was a time in history when only one country had broken free from Christian dictatorship. Soon it will be two. BTW, Iraq was an old fashioned dictatorship, not a theocracy.

All other beliefs can live in peace with one another, except one.

Wrong. In all beliefs, you get some people who can, and some who can't. It's no different with Islam.

That's what is says in their book, what hilali says, what mohammad did.  

Well, millions of other Muslims think differently to them. If you give them freedom of choice, they will choose freedom. If you take away their freedom of religion, they will try to kill you. I wouldn't blame them.

Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither.

---

Japan votes to return to US-led 'war on terror'

http://news.smh.com.au/japan-votes-to-return-to-usled-war-on-terror/20080112-1ljf.html

Japan voted Friday to return to the US-led "war on terror" after a two-month gap as the government took the drastic step of overriding a rejection in parliament for the first time in the modern era.

Embattled Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda is expected to win praise from Western nations for restarting the mission, but analysts said he risked a domestic backlash by ramming the controversial legislation through parliament.

The opposition, which won control of one house of parliament last year, in November forced an end to the naval mission, under which Japan provided fuel in the Indian Ocean to coalition forces operating in Afghanistan.

The opposition-led upper house voted down legislation to restart the mission on Friday, the last day it had to take action on the bill.

But the move meant the bill returned to the lower house, where Fukuda's coalition still enjoys an overwhelming majority. The more powerful chamber immediately voted largely along party lines, 340-133, to approve the bill.

The disputed mission, which was a factor in the resignation of Fukuda's predecessor, is likely to resume as early as next month.

---

from an email:

I know nothing of the politics of the Downsize DC organization, but their "I am not afraid" campaign is something I can certainly get behind.  I think we should all send a letter like this to our elected officials, whatever country we're in:  "I am not afraid of terrorism, and I want you to stop being afraid on my behalf. Please start scaling back the official government war on terror. Please replace it with a smaller, more focused anti-terrorist police effort in keeping with the rule of law. Please stop overreacting. I understand that it will not be possible to stop all terrorist acts. I accept that. I am not afraid."

Refuse to be terrorized, and you deny the terrorists their most potent weapon -- your fear.