"Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
If its not banned there, that is.

Only a couple chapters in, but I never realized how far gone you guys 
are on the path to self subjugation within your own land - To the point 
that even known, convicted terrorists cannot possibly be deported, if 
they claim that they might get hurt by the country requesting extradition.
That attitudes of hippy, robin & chris are easily explained after 
reading this, for they are only spouting what it is that they are 
surrounded by 24/7.

Not that things are so much better here, but at least here there is 
effective opposition to the victim mentality that is ruining Europe, 
"UK" in particular - And at least we don't [yet] have Draconian laws 
regulating thought & speech, though no doubt Obongo & Co are working on 
that, in the guise of some "human rights" laws, just like over there.

I imagine this Ms Philips has been absolutely pilloried by the hoards of 
antis in that once fair country - Has she gotten a jail term for 
inciting racial hatred for writing this book ?

`````````````````````````````````
Londonistan by Melanie Phillips

Encounter. 213 pp. $25.95

When Americans express anger or frustration at Europe’s response to the 
global threat of Islamism, they generally make an exception for one 
country: Great Britain. The strong British presence in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s staunch support of President 
Bush, the legacy of a common history, culture, and language—these have 
reassured Americans that the United States has at least one ally across 
the Atlantic on which it can depend.

If the new book by the British journalist Melanie Phillips is right, 
however, this is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. A highly 
successful columnist and broadcaster, and at one time the news editor of 
the left-wing Guardian, Phillips reveals a very different Britain from 
the heroic nation that defied Hitler. In fact, she compares the mood 
today with that of the 1930's, the era of appeasement. As she shows, 
senior officials and their cultural cheerleaders still refuse to accept 
that they are confronted by a murderous, expansionist Islamic ideology, 
or that their own capital city has been transformed (in a term coined by 
the Western intelligence community during the 1990's) into 
“Londonistan.” For Phillips, Britain is a nation in denial—about Islam, 
about terrorism, about Israel, and above all about itself.

_____________



Londonistan is, first and foremost, about the identity crisis provoked 
by the terrorist attack on London's transportation system in July 2005. 
As the British people learned to their horror, the suicide bombers were 
not foreigners radicalized by suffering or oppression but true-born 
Englishmen, with good families and good prospects. They differed from 
most of their contemporaries in only one respect: they were young 
Muslims who, as Phillips puts it, had “repudiated not just British 
values but the elementary codes of humanity.” The leader of the bombers, 
Mohammed Sidique Khan, left behind a surreal video in which, speaking in 
a Yorkshire accent, he blamed his act of mass murder on British 
“atrocities” against “my people,” meaning the Muslim ummah. He owed 
allegiance not to Britain but to Islam.

The British Muslim community numbers more than 2 million, which is less 
than 3 percent of the country's total population, but it is growing 
rapidly through natural increase, immigration, and conversion. How many 
others might there be like Mohammed Sidique Khan, biding their time 
before turning on their fellow citizens? Officials estimate that some 
16,000 British Muslims actively engage in or support terrorism (not 
counting unknown numbers of foreigners resident in the country). Of 
these, some 3,000 have been trained at al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan or 
Afghanistan.

No less terrifying is the fact that even the supposedly mainstream 
elements in the British Muslim community have become more radical in 
their political theology. As Phillips shows in a pitiless unmasking, 
many of the “moderate Muslims” to whom the British authorities regularly 
pay obeisance are themselves hard-line Islamists, differing only by 
degree from more notorious recruiting sergeants for jihad.

Of particular interest to Phillips is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, 
secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. Sacranie was 
knighted at the same time as Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, 
evidently for reasons of multicultural balance—though there is no 
intellectual or moral comparison between Sacks, one of Britain's most 
respected religious leaders, and Sacranie, who rose to prominence by 
supporting Ayatollah Khomenei's fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Though he 
is the government's chief Muslim interlocutor, Sacranie has an avowedly 
anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda: he justifies Hamas suicide 
bombings, boycotts Holocaust commemorations, and harasses pro-Israel 
politicians. When his equivocal attitude to terrorism was exposed by a 
BBC documentary last year, Sacranie accused his critics of being part of 
a Zionist conspiracy.

_____________



The real wonder, according to Phillips, is not so much that Sacranie and 
his followers have aired their detestable views, but that their 
propaganda has been granted legitimacy, even embraced, by British 
officialdom. Shortly before last year's bombings, Sir Ian Blair, 
London's police commissioner, declared: “There is nothing wrong with 
being an Islamic fundamentalist. . . . Bridges will be built.” Even 
after the attack—the worst terrorist episode in London's history—an 
assistant police commissioner could tell the nation, “ ‘Islam’ and 
‘terrorists’ are two words that do not go together.” Shortly afterward, 
the police—for fear of raising tensions—persuaded the government to 
abandon its request for new powers to close down extremist mosques, as 
well as its plans to outlaw one of the most dangerous Islamist 
organizations, Hizb ut-Tahrir.

British security agencies do not understand Islamic jihad, Phillips 
argues, because they instinctively recoil from the idea of a war of 
religion. Having grown up in the shadow of Irish terrorism, they believe 
that, like the Irish Republican Army, the Islamists can eventually be 
induced, with the right package of concessions, to end their “armed 
struggle.” To Phillips, this is nonsense: there is no deal to be made 
with those who want to turn Britain into an Islamic republic.

Phillips's deeper concern is to show how her country reached this pass 
in its attitudes toward Islamic extremism. The culprit, she believes, is 
the ideological constellation consisting of multiculturalism, moral and 
epistemological relativism, and a perverted notion of human rights—all 
of which have served to “hollow out” traditional British culture. By 
encouraging Muslims to see themselves as victims, and by failing to 
instill respect for the majority culture, the British state, Phillips 
suggests, has connived in the creation of a minority whose instinctive 
response to terror is moral inversion. Thus, rather than accept 
responsibility for the jihadists in their midst, British Muslims have 
demanded that the government redress their own grievances, whether about 
Israel and Iraq or about the status in Britain of shari'a law. As 
Sacranie declared after the attacks on London, “the real victim of these 
bombings is the Muslim community of the UK.”

Still more discouraging for Phillips has been the readiness of her 
former political allies to make common cause with the Islamofascists. 
“The Islamic jihad,” she writes, “has turned into the armed wing of the 
British Left.” What she calls the “red-black alliance” is especially 
united in its hatred of Israel. Ignorant of history and theology, the 
leading lights of the universities, the press, and the Church of England 
have failed (or refused) to grasp the connection between attacks on 
Israel and the threat to Britain. Instead of seeing Israel as the victim 
of the Islamists' “theological animosity” toward Jews and the West, they 
blame Israel (and its principal ally, the United States) for provoking 
terrorist attacks, and turn a blind eye to the prevalence of blatant 
anti-Semitism among their Muslim compatriots.

_____________



Londonistan is very much a cri de coeur. But it is not a cry of despair. 
Phillips advocates an ambitious program to reverse the process that has 
left Britain uniquely vulnerable to its enemies and uniquely dangerous 
to its allies. Abolition of wrongheaded human-rights legislation, 
tougher immigration controls, prosecution of Islamist radicals in 
special courts, bans on organizations and individual clerics who 
advocate extremism, close monitoring of mosques as well as of Muslim 
charities and schools—all of this and more would go far to remove the 
immediate threat. More problematic, though no less desirable, is 
Phillips's call for a restoration of the primacy of indigenous British 
culture and Judeo-Christian values.

Some consider Phillips an alarmist. My own view is that she has, if 
anything, understated the peril that the “Londonistan” phenomenon poses 
to the U.S. and to Europe, both of which owe a profound debt to the 
British culture that is now in such disarray. When I worked for the 
London Daily Telegraph, Iqbal Sacranie and Inayat Bunglawala—the latter, 
another of Phillips's subjects, is the media spokesman for the Muslim 
Council of Britain—came to see us several times. They strongly objected 
to our use of the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” and demanded that Osama 
bin Laden be described not as an “Islamic” or even an “Islamist” 
terrorist but as an “international” one. To mention Islam in connection 
with terrorism, these lobbyists insisted, was “Islamophobic.” Their 
demands were rejected despite hints that Muslim readers might boycott 
the Telegraph; but the state has been more responsive. Editors must now 
tread carefully because the law now punishes Islamophobia as a “hate crime.”

Phillips has written a superb indictment of this frame of mind—an 
indictment, moreover, that no mainstream British publisher would 
touch—but will any of her recommendations be heeded? As she admits, 
“there is very little chance” of it. In fact, the problems she 
identifies are likely to grow. When the world turns its eyes to London 
for the 2012 Olympic Games, what it will see right next to the Olympic 
Stadium is one of the largest mosques in the world, with a capacity of 
70,000 worshippers. The funds for this massive project have come from 
Tablighi Jamaat, an avowedly Islamist global organization that the FBI 
says is used by al-Qaeda to recruit terrorists.

It is hard to imagine a more potent symbol of the transformation of 
London into Londonistan. And it is hard to imagine a greater prize for 
the Islamists than the infiltration of the land that gave birth to 
liberty. Anyone who cares about Britain, or indeed about the survival of 
Judeo-Christian civilization, should read Melanie Phillips's brave and 
disturbing book.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/londonistan-by-melanie-phillips-10101

"Jesse"  wrote in message 
news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@newsfe24.iad...
> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
> If its not banned there, that is.
>

There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has oppressed 
the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed other faith groups 
too.  Why is it then that Islam appears to be the single aggrieved party in 
terms of recent terrorism?

If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a struggle for 
freedom / liberation / retribution rather than using those simply as a 
recruiting call in a broader campaign of domination as some suspect, 
shouldn't we have seen other faith groups joining in from the same oppressed 
regions?


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@newsfe24.iad...
>> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
>> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
>> If its not banned there, that is.
>>
>
> There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has oppressed 
> the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed other faith groups 
> too.

How does that follow ? It depends how people of different faiths are treated 
in the "Muslim world".

You're in danger of building a strawman.


> Why is it then that Islam appears to be the single aggrieved party in 
> terms of recent terrorism?

Because, if we are talking "recent", perhaps no other faith groups have been 
put upon recently ?

You don't think that it may be because we are occuping  fighting wars and 
kiilling people in Muslim lands that Muslims may feel aggrieved. That not 
occupying, not fighting wars, not killing people in other lands gives them 
no cause to be even remotely upset ?

Occupy some other countries, fight wars there, and kill people, and I'm sure 
we'll see a similar backlash regardless of religion.

Come on TWP; you're not usually this naive or lacking in critical thinking.


> If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a struggle for 
> freedom / liberation / retribution

Islam isn't, some Muslims are.


> rather than using those simply as a recruiting call in a broader campaign 
> of domination as some suspect, shouldn't we have seen other faith groups 
> joining in from the same oppressed regions?

How do you know that people from other faith groups aren't joing in ?

Other faiths tend to be a minority in Muslim countries, just as most 
countries have a dominating faith, so it would be expected that the majority 
of those acting would be of the dominant religion.

Perhaps everyone who is so engaged is simply labelled "Muslim" no matter who 
they are. The 9-11 hijackers according to US intelligence spent their last 
night getting drunk and visiting strip-joints. That doesn't sound very 
Islamic to me.

TWP wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
> news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@newsfe24.iad...
>> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
>> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
>> If its not banned there, that is.
>>
> 
> There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has oppressed 
> the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed other faith groups 
> too.  Why is it then that Islam appears to be the single aggrieved party in 
> terms of recent terrorism?
> 
> If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a struggle for 
> freedom / liberation / retribution rather than using those simply as a 
> recruiting call in a broader campaign of domination as some suspect, 
> shouldn't we have seen other faith groups joining in from the same oppressed 
> regions?
> 
> 
> TWP

Well ,,, Theres not much to pick from, concerning major faith groups.

The mid east, as you are well aware, has always been under some form of 
foreign domination.
Famously by the Ottomans for 100's of years, then British & French 
imperialism in the turbulent wake of WW1.
With the invention of the combustion engine, this influence developed 
into supreme importance and, after Europeans dropped the ball in the 
wake of WW2, the USA picked it up, and the jockeying for position still 
continues.

The few countries in the region that are not oil rich are destitute and 
bitter that no one pays attention to them.
Those that are are courted, cajoled and favored, but always aware that 
oil is the only thing that separates them from their cousins eating sand.
So if there happened to be hindus or atheists there, I suppose that we 
would have conflict with them.
The struggle to secure vital energy supplies has little to do with 
religion, everything to do with geography.

I think the best solution would be the USA, Russia and possibly China 
getting together and depopulating the entire region, secure their own 
supplies, and become energy brokers for the rest of the world.
Short of that, continuous friction, which often works to the advantage 
of radical islamics, is on the table - And in any case, if there was no 
foreign power dominating the region, the void would be filled locally.

In message <EwVAm.44088$Bl2.17615@newsfe14.iad>, Jesse 
writes
>TWP wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message  news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@news
>>fe24.iad...
>>> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
>>> If its not banned there, that is.
>>>
>>  There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has
>>oppressed  the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed
>>other faith groups  too.  Why is it then that Islam appears to be the
>>single aggrieved party in  terms of recent terrorism?
>>  If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a
>>struggle for  freedom / liberation / retribution rather than using
>>those simply as a  recruiting call in a broader campaign of domination
>>as some suspect,  shouldn't we have seen other faith groups joining in
>>from the same oppressed  regions?
>>   TWP
>
>Well ,,, Theres not much to pick from, concerning major faith groups.
>
>The mid east, as you are well aware, has always been under some form of
>foreign domination.

Not really... unlike US history ME history goes back some 5 millennium
foreign rule as some one not from the region has only been VERY recently
only the last couple of 100 years.

>Famously by the Ottomans for 100's of years,

The Ottormans were local to the area.

> then British & French imperialism in the turbulent wake of WW1.

So not quite the last 100 years....

>With the invention of the combustion engine, this influence developed
>into supreme importance and, after Europeans dropped the ball in the
>wake of WW2, the USA picked it up, and the jockeying for position still
>continues.

You have absolutely no understanding of history or the middle east.


>The few countries in the region that are not oil rich are destitute and
>bitter that no one pays attention to them.

You mean Israel?

>Those that are are courted, cajoled and favored, but always aware that
>oil is the only thing that separates them from their cousins eating
>sand.

Only in the US mind.

>So if there happened to be hindus or atheists there, I suppose that we
>would have conflict with them.

There are atheists there. And Christians and Hindus and Jews and
Moslems.

>The struggle to secure vital energy supplies has little to do with
>religion, everything to do with geography.

Vital energy supplies for whom?

>I think the best solution would be the USA, Russia and possibly China
>getting together and depopulating the entire region, secure their own
>supplies, and become energy brokers for the rest of the world.

Why? Russia and China don't need the USA. Come to that neither does
Europe.

If you want to de-populate then take the Israelis out of Palestine and
put them in Texas.  Then get the Usa out of the Middle East where it has
no business.


>Short of that, continuous friction, which often works to the advantage
>of radical islamics, is on the table

When some one occupies a country there tends to be freedom fighters,.

>- And in any case, if there was no foreign power dominating the region,
>the void would be filled locally.

Yes. It is called the Legitimate Government.



-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On 2009-10-13 09:28:09 +0200, Chris H  said:

> In message <EwVAm.44088$Bl2.17615@newsfe14.iad>, Jesse 
> writes
>> TWP wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message  news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@news
>>> fe24.iad...
>>>> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
>>>> If its not banned there, that is.
>>>> 
>>> There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has
>>> oppressed  the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed
>>> other faith groups  too.  Why is it then that Islam appears to be the
>>> single aggrieved party in  terms of recent terrorism?
>>> If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a
>>> struggle for  freedom / liberation / retribution rather than using
>>> those simply as a  recruiting call in a broader campaign of domination
>>> as some suspect,  shouldn't we have seen other faith groups joining in
>>> from the same oppressed  regions?
>>> TWP
>> 
>> Well ,,, Theres not much to pick from, concerning major faith groups.
>> 
>> The mid east, as you are well aware, has always been under some form of
>> foreign domination.
> 
> Not really... unlike US history ME history goes back some 5 millennium
> foreign rule as some one not from the region has only been VERY recently
> only the last couple of 100 years.
> 
>> Famously by the Ottomans for 100's of years,
> 
> The Ottormans were local to the area.
> 
>> then British & French imperialism in the turbulent wake of WW1.
> 
> So not quite the last 100 years....
> 
>> With the invention of the combustion engine, this influence developed
>> into supreme importance and, after Europeans dropped the ball in the
>> wake of WW2, the USA picked it up, and the jockeying for position still
>> continues.
> 
> You have absolutely no understanding of history or the middle east.
> 
> 
>> The few countries in the region that are not oil rich are destitute and
>> bitter that no one pays attention to them.
> 
> You mean Israel?
> 
>> Those that are are courted, cajoled and favored, but always aware that
>> oil is the only thing that separates them from their cousins eating
>> sand.
> 
> Only in the US mind.
> 
>> So if there happened to be hindus or atheists there, I suppose that we
>> would have conflict with them.
> 
> There are atheists there. And Christians and Hindus and Jews and
> Moslems.
> 
>> The struggle to secure vital energy supplies has little to do with
>> religion, everything to do with geography.
> 
> Vital energy supplies for whom?
> 
>> I think the best solution would be the USA, Russia and possibly China
>> getting together and depopulating the entire region, secure their own
>> supplies, and become energy brokers for the rest of the world.
> 
> Why? Russia and China don't need the USA. Come to that neither does
> Europe.
> 
> If you want to de-populate then take the Israelis out of Palestine and
> put them in Texas.  Then get the Usa out of the Middle East where it has
> no business.
> 
> 
>> Short of that, continuous friction, which often works to the advantage
>> of radical islamics, is on the table
> 
> When some one occupies a country there tends to be freedom fighters,.
> 
>> - And in any case, if there was no foreign power dominating the region,
>> the void would be filled locally.
> 
> Yes. It is called the Legitimate Government.


Spot on Chris. Jesse's comments, as usual, arise from a complete lack 
of knowledge of the area and its history.

Secondly, we really don't need to worry too much about all this as it 
is based on the need for oil. Our need for oil, that is. When the oil 
runs out then we can all go home. Actually without the oil we probably 
couldn't get there in the first place.

Jesse wrote:
> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
> If its not banned there, that is.
> 
> Only a couple chapters in, but I never realized how far gone you guys 
> are on the path to self subjugation within your own land - To the point 
> that even known, convicted terrorists cannot possibly be deported, if 
> they claim that they might get hurt by the country requesting extradition.
> That attitudes of hippy, robin & chris are easily explained after 
> reading this, for they are only spouting what it is that they are 
> surrounded by 24/7.
> 
> Not that things are so much better here, but at least here there is 
> effective opposition to the victim mentality that is ruining Europe, 
> "UK" in particular - And at least we don't [yet] have Draconian laws 
> regulating thought & speech, though no doubt Obongo & Co are working on 
> that, in the guise of some "human rights" laws, just like over there.
> 
> I imagine this Ms Philips has been absolutely pilloried by the hoards of 
> antis in that once fair country - Has she gotten a jail term for 
> inciting racial hatred for writing this book ?
> 
> `````````````````````````````````
> Londonistan by Melanie Phillips
> 
> Encounter. 213 pp. $25.95
> 
> When Americans express anger or frustration at Europe’s response to the 
> global threat of Islamism, they generally make an exception for one 
> country: Great Britain. The strong British presence in Iraq and 
> Afghanistan, Prime Minister Tony Blair’s staunch support of President 
> Bush, the legacy of a common history, culture, and language—these have 
> reassured Americans that the United States has at least one ally across 
> the Atlantic on which it can depend.
> 
> If the new book by the British journalist Melanie Phillips is right, 
> however, this is an illusion, and a dangerous one at that. A highly 
> successful columnist and broadcaster, and at one time the news editor of 
> the left-wing Guardian, Phillips reveals a very different Britain from 
> the heroic nation that defied Hitler. In fact, she compares the mood 
> today with that of the 1930's, the era of appeasement. As she shows, 
> senior officials and their cultural cheerleaders still refuse to accept 
> that they are confronted by a murderous, expansionist Islamic ideology, 
> or that their own capital city has been transformed (in a term coined by 
> the Western intelligence community during the 1990's) into 
> “Londonistan.” For Phillips, Britain is a nation in denial—about Islam, 
> about terrorism, about Israel, and above all about itself.
> 
> _____________
> 
> 
> 
> Londonistan is, first and foremost, about the identity crisis provoked 
> by the terrorist attack on London's transportation system in July 2005. 
> As the British people learned to their horror, the suicide bombers were 
> not foreigners radicalized by suffering or oppression but true-born 
> Englishmen, with good families and good prospects. They differed from 
> most of their contemporaries in only one respect: they were young 
> Muslims who, as Phillips puts it, had “repudiated not just British 
> values but the elementary codes of humanity.” The leader of the bombers, 
> Mohammed Sidique Khan, left behind a surreal video in which, speaking in 
> a Yorkshire accent, he blamed his act of mass murder on British 
> “atrocities” against “my people,” meaning the Muslim ummah. He owed 
> allegiance not to Britain but to Islam.
> 
> The British Muslim community numbers more than 2 million, which is less 
> than 3 percent of the country's total population, but it is growing 
> rapidly through natural increase, immigration, and conversion. How many 
> others might there be like Mohammed Sidique Khan, biding their time 
> before turning on their fellow citizens? Officials estimate that some 
> 16,000 British Muslims actively engage in or support terrorism (not 
> counting unknown numbers of foreigners resident in the country). Of 
> these, some 3,000 have been trained at al-Qaeda camps in Pakistan or 
> Afghanistan.
> 
> No less terrifying is the fact that even the supposedly mainstream 
> elements in the British Muslim community have become more radical in 
> their political theology. As Phillips shows in a pitiless unmasking, 
> many of the “moderate Muslims” to whom the British authorities regularly 
> pay obeisance are themselves hard-line Islamists, differing only by 
> degree from more notorious recruiting sergeants for jihad.
> 
> Of particular interest to Phillips is Sir Iqbal Sacranie, 
> secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain. Sacranie was 
> knighted at the same time as Britain's chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, 
> evidently for reasons of multicultural balance—though there is no 
> intellectual or moral comparison between Sacks, one of Britain's most 
> respected religious leaders, and Sacranie, who rose to prominence by 
> supporting Ayatollah Khomenei's fatwa against Salman Rushdie. Though he 
> is the government's chief Muslim interlocutor, Sacranie has an avowedly 
> anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic agenda: he justifies Hamas suicide 
> bombings, boycotts Holocaust commemorations, and harasses pro-Israel 
> politicians. When his equivocal attitude to terrorism was exposed by a 
> BBC documentary last year, Sacranie accused his critics of being part of 
> a Zionist conspiracy.
> 
> _____________
> 
> 
> 
> The real wonder, according to Phillips, is not so much that Sacranie and 
> his followers have aired their detestable views, but that their 
> propaganda has been granted legitimacy, even embraced, by British 
> officialdom. Shortly before last year's bombings, Sir Ian Blair, 
> London's police commissioner, declared: “There is nothing wrong with 
> being an Islamic fundamentalist. . . . Bridges will be built.” Even 
> after the attack—the worst terrorist episode in London's history—an 
> assistant police commissioner could tell the nation, “ ‘Islam’ and 
> ‘terrorists’ are two words that do not go together.” Shortly afterward, 
> the police—for fear of raising tensions—persuaded the government to 
> abandon its request for new powers to close down extremist mosques, as 
> well as its plans to outlaw one of the most dangerous Islamist 
> organizations, Hizb ut-Tahrir.
> 
> British security agencies do not understand Islamic jihad, Phillips 
> argues, because they instinctively recoil from the idea of a war of 
> religion. Having grown up in the shadow of Irish terrorism, they believe 
> that, like the Irish Republican Army, the Islamists can eventually be 
> induced, with the right package of concessions, to end their “armed 
> struggle.” To Phillips, this is nonsense: there is no deal to be made 
> with those who want to turn Britain into an Islamic republic.
> 
> Phillips's deeper concern is to show how her country reached this pass 
> in its attitudes toward Islamic extremism. The culprit, she believes, is 
> the ideological constellation consisting of multiculturalism, moral and 
> epistemological relativism, and a perverted notion of human rights—all 
> of which have served to “hollow out” traditional British culture. By 
> encouraging Muslims to see themselves as victims, and by failing to 
> instill respect for the majority culture, the British state, Phillips 
> suggests, has connived in the creation of a minority whose instinctive 
> response to terror is moral inversion. Thus, rather than accept 
> responsibility for the jihadists in their midst, British Muslims have 
> demanded that the government redress their own grievances, whether about 
> Israel and Iraq or about the status in Britain of shari'a law. As 
> Sacranie declared after the attacks on London, “the real victim of these 
> bombings is the Muslim community of the UK.”
> 
> Still more discouraging for Phillips has been the readiness of her 
> former political allies to make common cause with the Islamofascists. 
> “The Islamic jihad,” she writes, “has turned into the armed wing of the 
> British Left.” What she calls the “red-black alliance” is especially 
> united in its hatred of Israel. Ignorant of history and theology, the 
> leading lights of the universities, the press, and the Church of England 
> have failed (or refused) to grasp the connection between attacks on 
> Israel and the threat to Britain. Instead of seeing Israel as the victim 
> of the Islamists' “theological animosity” toward Jews and the West, they 
> blame Israel (and its principal ally, the United States) for provoking 
> terrorist attacks, and turn a blind eye to the prevalence of blatant 
> anti-Semitism among their Muslim compatriots.
> 
> _____________
> 
> 
> 
> Londonistan is very much a cri de coeur. But it is not a cry of despair. 
> Phillips advocates an ambitious program to reverse the process that has 
> left Britain uniquely vulnerable to its enemies and uniquely dangerous 
> to its allies. Abolition of wrongheaded human-rights legislation, 
> tougher immigration controls, prosecution of Islamist radicals in 
> special courts, bans on organizations and individual clerics who 
> advocate extremism, close monitoring of mosques as well as of Muslim 
> charities and schools—all of this and more would go far to remove the 
> immediate threat. More problematic, though no less desirable, is 
> Phillips's call for a restoration of the primacy of indigenous British 
> culture and Judeo-Christian values.
> 
> Some consider Phillips an alarmist. My own view is that she has, if 
> anything, understated the peril that the “Londonistan” phenomenon poses 
> to the U.S. and to Europe, both of which owe a profound debt to the 
> British culture that is now in such disarray. When I worked for the 
> London Daily Telegraph, Iqbal Sacranie and Inayat Bunglawala—the latter, 
> another of Phillips's subjects, is the media spokesman for the Muslim 
> Council of Britain—came to see us several times. They strongly objected 
> to our use of the phrase “Islamic terrorism,” and demanded that Osama 
> bin Laden be described not as an “Islamic” or even an “Islamist” 
> terrorist but as an “international” one. To mention Islam in connection 
> with terrorism, these lobbyists insisted, was “Islamophobic.” Their 
> demands were rejected despite hints that Muslim readers might boycott 
> the Telegraph; but the state has been more responsive. Editors must now 
> tread carefully because the law now punishes Islamophobia as a “hate 
> crime.”
> 
> Phillips has written a superb indictment of this frame of mind—an 
> indictment, moreover, that no mainstream British publisher would 
> touch—but will any of her recommendations be heeded? As she admits, 
> “there is very little chance” of it. In fact, the problems she 
> identifies are likely to grow. When the world turns its eyes to London 
> for the 2012 Olympic Games, what it will see right next to the Olympic 
> Stadium is one of the largest mosques in the world, with a capacity of 
> 70,000 worshippers. The funds for this massive project have come from 
> Tablighi Jamaat, an avowedly Islamist global organization that the FBI 
> says is used by al-Qaeda to recruit terrorists.
> 
> It is hard to imagine a more potent symbol of the transformation of 
> London into Londonistan. And it is hard to imagine a greater prize for 
> the Islamists than the infiltration of the land that gave birth to 
> liberty. Anyone who cares about Britain, or indeed about the survival of 
> Judeo-Christian civilization, should read Melanie Phillips's brave and 
> disturbing book.
> 
> http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/londonistan-by-melanie-phillips-10101 
> 

Oh by the way, here it is as an ebook, for you broke cheap asses that 
can't afford to buy it

http://nowhereman.alfaspace.net/texts/politics/Londonistan.zip

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:oWFAm.2334$KR3.2229@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>> news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@newsfe24.iad...
>>> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
>>> If its not banned there, that is.
>>>
>>
>> There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has oppressed 
>> the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed other faith 
>> groups too.
>
> How does that follow ? It depends how people of different faiths are 
> treated in the "Muslim world".
>
> You're in danger of building a strawman.

Sorry not to reply sooner.  Something went wrong with my Outlook Express. 
No messages arrived since I posted.  I was starting to think world peace had 
been declared without me!  That'd teach me to take the piss out of Obama's 
prize! :-)   I thought a virus had hijacked my news connection to provide it 
with orders, so I've been attacking my computer all day.  I reset the ng 
list by unsubscribing then re-subscribing.  I didn't want to do it that way.


OK, how many people have you heard of that joined in this war against us 
that weren't Muslims?  Wouldn't you think it strange if I invaded France and 
only the Catholics fought me?  If we're throwing our weight around in a 
region of the world you would think we'd entangle people of all faiths and 
all reasons for fighting.  So far I've only heard an objection to what we're 
doing there in terms of religion v religion.   I don't think we've done our 
oppressing on purely religious grounds for a while.



>
>
>> Why is it then that Islam appears to be the single aggrieved party in 
>> terms of recent terrorism?
>
> Because, if we are talking "recent", perhaps no other faith groups have 
> been put upon recently ?

If we meddle in a region do you think that only Muslims get hurt?


>
> You don't think that it may be because we are occuping  fighting wars and 
> kiilling people in Muslim lands that Muslims may feel aggrieved. That not 
> occupying, not fighting wars, not killing people in other lands gives them 
> no cause to be even remotely upset ?


I do wonder if the war on the West is as simple as it's being made out to 
be.  Even "Muslims Lands" will have other groups on it.  If it's a war for 
the liberation of these lands I would have thought people defending Muslims 
as "not all terrorists" would have latched onto them in order to prove their 
case.  Why a holy cause rather than a national cause?

So far it (AQ / Islamic terrorism) seems more like a crusade to me than a 
resistance movement.



>
> Occupy some other countries, fight wars there, and kill people, and I'm 
> sure we'll see a similar backlash regardless of religion.
>
> Come on TWP; you're not usually this naive or lacking in critical 
> thinking.

Just because you disagree with the line of thinking doesn't mean I'm being 
naive.  We're being led to believe by some with a certain viewpoint on all 
this that Bin Laden's fight against us is justified because of all the 
shitty horrible things we've done in the past, but what if that's not what's 
going on here?  What if it isn't just us getting what we deserve at last?

When Hitler started his empire building he didn't start off as a conqueror 
swallowing up Europe, he started off as the wronged party, righting wrongs 
and taking back what was Germany's.  He gained power by uniting all the hurt 
and all the feeling of having been wronged into action that even those who 
hated him could admire him for (or at least make it hard to speak against), 
and be a part of with pride.  The trouble is, he wasn't actually interested 
in just writing wrongs, he was actually using it as a toe in the water for 
buinding a German empire.    If we were around then you might well be saying 
to me "What do you expect Germans to do when historically German land is 
being occupied?  Really we're in the wrong here for humiliating Germany". 
On the face of it, it would be a relatively fair assessment, and one that a 
lot of people would agree with, but it would in actual fact be turning a 
blind eye to the really bad motive behind the "good" motive.

The apparently Islam-only membership of all the attackers that I know of 
seems to go against the idea that we are fighting the people of a particular 
region that we've oppressed, say, for oil, but rather a broad spectrum of 
people who are united only by their faith, and having no ties to the 
"oppressed region with the oil" at all.  What makes it about religion?  The 
Blitz wasn't portrayed across the world as a war on Protestants.


>
>
>> If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a struggle for 
>> freedom / liberation / retribution
>
> Islam isn't, some Muslims are.

That's what I said.




>
>
>> rather than using those simply as a recruiting call in a broader campaign 
>> of domination as some suspect, shouldn't we have seen other faith groups 
>> joining in from the same oppressed regions?
>
> How do you know that people from other faith groups aren't joing in ?

Because they haven't been pointed out.  The West would have pointed to them 
in horror, because at that point you couldn't feel safe even with "your own 
kind".  Beause their participation would also broaden the recruitment 
potential against us.

I think we'd know if it had happened.



>
> Other faiths tend to be a minority in Muslim countries, just as most 
> countries have a dominating faith, so it would be expected that the 
> majority of those acting would be of the dominant religion.
>

Islam is a minority religion here, but Muslims still blew up the tube.  A 
minority religion can still involve themselves in a battle if they feel that 
they should involve themselves in a fight.

I can't believe that we wouldn't have seen some evidence of multi-faith 
involvement in AQ by now if there was any.




> Perhaps everyone who is so engaged is simply labelled "Muslim" no matter 
> who they are. The 9-11 hijackers according to US intelligence spent their 
> last night getting drunk and visiting strip-joints. That doesn't sound 
> very Islamic to me.
>

Far too easy, HH! :-)

I expect you could find Christians who would do a lot of un-Christian things 
on their last night alive (and repent afterwards, naturally).  I suppose it 
was up to their conciences how they spent their time.  It didn't mean they 
weren't Muslims, they just lapsed a little.

TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>OK, how many people have you heard of that joined in this war against us
>that weren't Muslims?  Wouldn't you think it strange if I invaded France and
>only the Catholics fought me?

Well it was Bush who turned it in to a religious war. However whilst you
are right that it is predominantly Moslems who have actively fought the
US there are a very large number of others who have moved from
supporting the US  to opposition by many means other than direct
violence.

> If we're throwing our weight around in a
>region of the world you would think we'd entangle people of all faiths and
>all reasons for fighting.

And that is the case. The US has attacked areas that are (nominally) 90%
+ islamic. With troops that are 90%+ Christian...

>  So far I've only heard an objection to what we're
>doing there in terms of religion v religion.   I don't think we've done our
>oppressing on purely religious grounds for a while.

Jesse seems to think so and he claims to have been a marine. The problem
is that in both the aggressor and the occupied their culture involves
religion

>>> Why is it then that Islam appears to be the single aggrieved party in
>>> terms of recent terrorism?
>> Because, if we are talking "recent", perhaps no other faith groups have
>> been put upon recently ?
>If we meddle in a region do you think that only Muslims get hurt?

No... The US forces like the IDF kill many civilians regardless of
faith. However in an area that is nominally 90%+ Moslem the casualites
will be 90%+ Moslem.


>> You don't think that it may be because we are occuping  fighting wars and
>> kiilling people in Muslim lands that Muslims may feel aggrieved. That not
>> occupying, not fighting wars, not killing people in other lands gives them
>> no cause to be even remotely upset ?
>I do wonder if the war on the West

No... It was a war on the USA not "the west".

> is as simple as it's being made out to
>be.  Even "Muslims Lands" will have other groups on it.

Yes....  It seems to have taken you about 8 years to catch up.

>If it's a war for
>the liberation of these lands I would have thought people defending Muslims
>as "not all terrorists" would have latched onto them in order to prove their
>case.  Why a holy cause rather than a national cause?

Because you don't seem top understand the culture of the areas in
question.

>So far it (AQ / Islamic terrorism) seems more like a crusade to me than a
>resistance movement.

You took the words right out of GWB's mouth...  and he did not
understand either


>> Occupy some other countries, fight wars there, and kill people, and I'm
>> sure we'll see a similar backlash regardless of religion.
>> Come on TWP; you're not usually this naive or lacking in critical
>> thinking.
>
>Just because you disagree with the line of thinking doesn't mean I'm being
>naive.

Then again it does not mean you aren't

> We're being led to believe by some with a certain viewpoint on all
>this that Bin Laden's fight against us is justified because of all the
>shitty horrible things we've done in the past,

Yes. That is why he was fighting back... retaliating NOT a first strike.

>but what if that's not what's
>going on here?  What if it isn't just us getting what we deserve at last?

Then you are a naive conspiracy nutter...  (who had not looked into the
history of all this)

>When Hitler

GODWIN'S LAW!!!! :-))))

> started his empire building he didn't start off as a conqueror
>swallowing up Europe, he started off as the wronged party, righting wrongs
>and taking back what was Germany's.

Yes.  However in this case it was things imposed on Germany after they
mobilised in WW1. This was the "punishment" for loosing WW1.  SO it is
not the same argument at all.

>The apparently Islam-only membership of all the attackers that I know of
>seems to go against the idea that we are fighting the people of a particular
>region that we've oppressed, say, for oil, but rather a broad spectrum of
>people who are united only by their faith, and having no ties to the
>"oppressed region with the oil" at all.
> What makes it about religion?

The US has oppressed many regions and areas.... the only common factor
is those between Mauritania and India (and particularly Palestine) are
largely Moslem

>  The
>Blitz wasn't portrayed across the world as a war on Protestants.

That was a European "civil war"

>> How do you know that people from other faith groups aren't joing in ?
>
>Because they haven't been pointed out.

Of course not.... that would upset the propaganda. BTW how many times
has the religion of the dead killed by US drones been itemised? Most of
the time they are not sure the numbers killed let alone identify the
people or their religion.

> The West would have pointed to them
>in horror, because at that point you couldn't feel safe even with "your own
>kind".

"The West" is not involved... you mean the US military.. They are well
known for falsifying reports as and when needed or simply leaving out
information that is counter productive.

>Beause their participation would also broaden the recruitment
>potential against us.
>I think we'd know if it had happened.

Naive.

>> Other faiths tend to be a minority in Muslim countries, just as most
>> countries have a dominating faith, so it would be expected that the
>> majority of those acting would be of the dominant religion.
>Islam is a minority religion here, but Muslims still blew up the tube.  A
>minority religion can still involve themselves in a battle if they feel that
>they should involve themselves in a fight.

Yes.

>I can't believe that we wouldn't have seen some evidence of multi-faith
>involvement in AQ by now if there was any.

It just isn't reported.

>> Perhaps everyone who is so engaged is simply labelled "Muslim" no matter
>> who they are. The 9-11 hijackers according to US intelligence spent their
>> last night getting drunk and visiting strip-joints. That doesn't sound
>> very Islamic to me.
>Far too easy, HH! :-)

Not at all. In theory 80% of the UK is Christian... yet the churches are
closing at the rate of 1 a week. Just because people are nominally a
faith does not mean they are.

>I expect you could find Christians who would do a lot of un-Christian things
>on their last night alive (and repent afterwards, naturally).  I suppose it
>was up to their conciences how they spent their time.  It didn't mean they
>weren't Muslims, they just lapsed a little.

Now there is a flexible truth.....

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:oWFAm.2334$KR3.2229@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> "Jesse"  wrote in message 
>>> news:tDuAm.44191$bP1.31984@newsfe24.iad...
>>>> "Londinstan" by Melanie Phillips ?
>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Londonistan-Melanie-Phillips/dp/1594031444
>>>> If its not banned there, that is.
>>>>
>>>
>>> There is something your post makes me wonder.   If the West has 
>>> oppressed the Muslim world so badly it must surely have oppressed other 
>>> faith groups too.
>>
>> How does that follow ? It depends how people of different faiths are 
>> treated in the "Muslim world".
>>
>> You're in danger of building a strawman.
>
> Sorry not to reply sooner.  Something went wrong with my Outlook Express. 
> No messages arrived since I posted.  I was starting to think world peace 
> had been declared without me!  That'd teach me to take the piss out of 
> Obama's prize! :-)   I thought a virus had hijacked my news connection to 
> provide it with orders, so I've been attacking my computer all day.  I 
> reset the ng list by unsubscribing then re-subscribing.  I didn't want to 
> do it that way.
>
>
> OK, how many people have you heard of that joined in this war against us 
> that weren't Muslims?

No idea. I'm not even sure we even know how many are in this war against us. 
TBH, I'm not sure what "this war against us" actually is.


> Wouldn't you think it strange if I invaded France and only the Catholics 
> fought me?

Not if it pas packed full of Catholics, or French non-Catholics didn't have 
a problem with being invaded.


> If we're throwing our weight around in a region of the world you would 
> think we'd entangle people of all faiths and all reasons for fighting.

Not necessarily.

> So far I've only heard an objection to what we're doing there in terms of 
> religion v religion.   I don't think we've done our oppressing on purely 
> religious grounds for a while.
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Why is it then that Islam appears to be the single aggrieved party in 
>>> terms of recent terrorism?
>>
>> Because, if we are talking "recent", perhaps no other faith groups have 
>> been put upon recently ?
>
> If we meddle in a region do you think that only Muslims get hurt?

No, but it's a mtter of maths and other factors. If the population is 97% 
Muslim then it's a good chance that 97% of those fighting back would be 
Muslim.

>> You don't think that it may be because we are occuping  fighting wars and 
>> kiilling people in Muslim lands that Muslims may feel aggrieved. That not 
>> occupying, not fighting wars, not killing people in other lands gives 
>> them no cause to be even remotely upset ?
>
>
> I do wonder if the war on the West

What "war on the west" is that ?

> is as simple as it's being made out to be.

It seems to have been entirely invented if you ask me. The attacks on 
America were entirely that, attacks on America, not the west.

>  Even "Muslims Lands" will have other groups on it.  If it's a war for the 
> liberation of these lands I would have thought people defending Muslims as 
> "not all terrorists" would have latched onto them in order to prove their 
> case.  Why a holy cause rather than a national cause?

Insurgency is a national cause, not a religious one.


> So far it (AQ / Islamic terrorism) seems more like a crusade to me than a 
> resistance movement.

There is no Islamic terrorism, only terrorism by those professing to be of 
the Islamic faith.


>> Occupy some other countries, fight wars there, and kill people, and I'm 
>> sure we'll see a similar backlash regardless of religion.
>>
>> Come on TWP; you're not usually this naive or lacking in critical 
>> thinking.
>
> Just because you disagree with the line of thinking doesn't mean I'm being 
> naive.  We're being led to believe by some with a certain viewpoint on all 
> this that Bin Laden's fight against us is justified because of all the 
> shitty horrible things we've done in the past, but what if that's not 
> what's going on here?

OBL wasn't fighting us, the British. He's not really fighting us now, as 
that's a campaign to remove British forces from Afghanistan. The terrorism 
we have seen on British streets was a result of us being in foreign lands 
killing people over there.


> What if it isn't just us getting what we deserve at last?
>
> When Hitler started his empire building he didn't start off as a conqueror 
> swallowing up Europe, he started off as the wronged party, righting wrongs 
> and taking back what was Germany's.  He gained power by uniting all the 
> hurt and all the feeling of having been wronged into action that even 
> those who hated him could admire him for (or at least make it hard to 
> speak against), and be a part of with pride.  The trouble is, he wasn't 
> actually interested in just writing wrongs, he was actually using it as a 
> toe in the water for buinding a German empire.    If we were around then 
> you might well be saying to me "What do you expect Germans to do when 
> historically German land is being occupied?  Really we're in the wrong 
> here for humiliating Germany". On the face of it, it would be a relatively 
> fair assessment, and one that a lot of people would agree with, but it 
> would in actual fact be turning a blind eye to the really bad motive 
> behind the "good" motive.
>
> The apparently Islam-only membership of all the attackers that I know of 
> seems to go against the idea that we are fighting the people of a 
> particular region that we've oppressed, say, for oil, but rather a broad 
> spectrum of people who are united only by their faith, and having no ties 
> to the "oppressed region with the oil" at all.  What makes it about 
> religion?  The Blitz wasn't portrayed across the world as a war on 
> Protestants.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> If Islam or at least "Militant Islam" is really engaged in a struggle 
>>> for freedom / liberation / retribution
>>
>> Islam isn't, some Muslims are.
>
> That's what I said.

Which makes "religious war" entirely moot.


>>> rather than using those simply as a recruiting call in a broader 
>>> campaign of domination as some suspect, shouldn't we have seen other 
>>> faith groups joining in from the same oppressed regions?
>>
>> How do you know that people from other faith groups aren't joing in ?
>
> Because they haven't been pointed out.  The West would have pointed to 
> them in horror, because at that point you couldn't feel safe even with 
> "your own kind".  Beause their participation would also broaden the 
> recruitment potential against us.
>
> I think we'd know if it had happened.

We don't even count the bodies so we don't know who has been killed or their 
religion.


>> Other faiths tend to be a minority in Muslim countries, just as most 
>> countries have a dominating faith, so it would be expected that the 
>> majority of those acting would be of the dominant religion.
>>
>
> Islam is a minority religion here, but Muslims still blew up the tube.  A 
> minority religion can still involve themselves in a battle if they feel 
> that they should involve themselves in a fight.

You seem to be imaging this is all one battle, one war whereas in fact there 
are a number of conflicts going on with different motivations.


> I can't believe that we wouldn't have seen some evidence of multi-faith 
> involvement in AQ by now if there was any.

Define "AQ".Again this points to not recognising that there are multiple 
conflicts going on.


>> Perhaps everyone who is so engaged is simply labelled "Muslim" no matter 
>> who they are. The 9-11 hijackers according to US intelligence spent their 
>> last night getting drunk and visiting strip-joints. That doesn't sound 
>> very Islamic to me.
>>
>
> Far too easy, HH! :-)
>
> I expect you could find Christians who would do a lot of un-Christian 
> things on their last night alive (and repent afterwards, naturally).  I 
> suppose it was up to their conciences how they spent their time.  It 
> didn't mean they weren't Muslims, they just lapsed a little.
>
> TWP

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote...

> TBH, I'm not sure what "this war against us" actually is.

IMO, as best I can see there are currently ten primary conflicts, probably 
more ...

1) The ideological war of some militant Islamists to propagate Islam.

2) OBL inspired action to divest the Middle East of American interference 
and western culture.

3) The push for supremacy by the Taliban in Afghanistan.

4) The push for supremacy by the Taliban and fundamentalist Muslims in 
Pakistan.

5) The sectarian war between Sunnis and Shi'ite in Iraq.

6) The conflict between Turkey and Kurd separatists.

7) The US war in Iraq.

8) The US and NATO war in Afghanistan.

9) The insurgency in Afghanistan against Karzai and the current Afghan 
government.

10) The resistance and retaliatory action against foreign forces in Iraq and 
Afghanistan and their operations there.

Not all of those are related, not all have the same players, however some 
players are involved in a number of conflicts and some players support the 
goals of others in their conflicts.

The anti-Islam propogandists invariable lay the blame for all these 
conflicts on (1), the few radical Muslims who want to see Islam as the 
dominant global religion and are prepared to achieve that by any means 
necessary. That's a convenient scapegoat which creates a single enemy 
"Islam". GWB played straight into their hands by labelling his so-called war 
on terror a "Crusade" giving the radical Muslims their "religious war"; for 
them, any western action against anyone of Islamic faith is therefore seen 
in that light.

On the other hand, resistance against western forces in Afghanistan is 
primarily an issue of sovereignty and straight forward retaliation for our 
actions there. Every single terrorist action and conviction in the UK has 
revealed 'revenge' for what we've done to be at its core and riving force, 
not any ideological or religious cause.

Of course, radical militants and OBL who oppose western interference will 
also back local resistance and defence of sovereignty, but they are not 
leading nor created that conflict; we did that by planting our forces on 
their land.

As Clinton recently ( and belatedly ) pointed out, not all Taliban are a 
threat to US or UK interests ( though they may likely be while we are still 
occupying their lands and backing the Karzai government ), and as General 
McChrystal noted, if you kill the wrong enemy, the conflict just keeps 
getting worse.

The NeoCons took on the notion of it being a religious war against the west 
for political expediency and convenience and that has tainted how the entire 
war on terror has been progressed and how all these conflicts have been 
perceived. That's why it's so hard to see what the US and NATO military 
action is meant to achieve when the conflicts are seen for what they are, 
separate, distinct root causes, not a single "Islam lives to murder" 
conflict. If it's a "war" then it's not entirely clear who is being fought 
or why.

Eradicating AQ will no more stop the resistance to occupation by foreign 
forces than eradicating the Mafia will end any grudges other people may have 
towards police and authorities. To attack the resistance on the grounds they 
are AQ or support AQ ( it's usually AQ supports them ) is to hit a group 
which has legitimate cause for complaint and just makes their cause stronger 
( as McChrystal notes ).

Holding "Islam" to blame as the NeCons and propogandists have is why the 
"wars" have dragged on for so long and are bogged down going nowhere. As 
McNamara put it on Vietnam; we were fighting one war, the 'enemy' were 
fighting an entirely different war. In this case we also seem to be fighting 
the wrong enemy.

"Chris H"  wrote in message 
news:PRIVSbFtYi2KFAyJ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message , TWP
>  writes
>>OK, how many people have you heard of that joined in this war against us
>>that weren't Muslims?  Wouldn't you think it strange if I invaded France 
>>and
>>only the Catholics fought me?
>
> Well it was Bush who turned it in to a religious war. However whilst you
> are right that it is predominantly Moslems who have actively fought the
> US there are a very large number of others who have moved from
> supporting the US  to opposition by many means other than direct
> violence.
>
>> If we're throwing our weight around in a
>>region of the world you would think we'd entangle people of all faiths and
>>all reasons for fighting.
>
> And that is the case. The US has attacked areas that are (nominally) 90%
> + islamic. With troops that are 90%+ Christian...

But have you heard of ANYONE involved who wasn't a Muslim?  Any of the 
people who have been identified, any of the people who have been arrested, 
any of the people who enabled terrorist action down the line?

OK, I haven't been watching out for this until now so I couldn't tell you 
either.  All I can tell you is that I don't remember anyone, and I think I 
would have because as I said, people in the West - and yes, the US in 
particular - would shit themselves at the thought that not only the people 
with funny hats were their enemy now, but potentially just about anyone that 
disagrees strongly with Western interference in the ME.




> Jesse seems to think so and he claims to have been a marine. The problem
> is that in both the aggressor and the occupied their culture involves
> religion

Not really a great explanation for their being no non-Muslims though, is it? 
Even the "American Taliban" guy was a convert to Islam.

>
>> is as simple as it's being made out to
>>be.  Even "Muslims Lands" will have other groups on it.
>
> Yes....  It seems to have taken you about 8 years to catch up.

I'm not sure what your point is here.  What have I caught up on exactly?



>
>>If it's a war for
>>the liberation of these lands I would have thought people defending 
>>Muslims
>>as "not all terrorists" would have latched onto them in order to prove 
>>their
>>case.  Why a holy cause rather than a national cause?
>
> Because you don't seem top understand the culture of the areas in
> question.

What am I not understanding about the culture that would mean that we 
wouldn't have encountered a non-Muslim AQ fighter by now?




>
>>So far it (AQ / Islamic terrorism) seems more like a crusade to me than a
>>resistance movement.
>
> You took the words right out of GWB's mouth...  and he did not
> understand either

GWB was probably telling it like he saw it.  Even he came to regret some of 
the things he'd said.   What's the old saying?  "Better to stay silent and 
look like a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".

OK, why does it not look like a holy crusade against the West - or the US if 
you prefer - when AQ appears so far to be a Muslim-only club that fights the 
West in the name of Allah?  That fights to defend Muslims?  That fights in 
part to repel non-Muslims from Islamic holy lands?

What am I not understanding here?  What does it actually have to look like 
for AQ's fight against the West / America to qualify as a crusade anyway? 
What has to be said that hasn't been said?  What has to happen that hasn't 
happened?



>>Just because you disagree with the line of thinking doesn't mean I'm being
>>naive.
>
> Then again it does not mean you aren't


So what have I asked that's so stupid?  You couldn't name any non-Muslim 
members of AQ either.  In fact for all your disdain you don't seem to have 
really proved anything.  The best I've heard goes along the lines of "no I 
don't know of any either, but there must be one around here somewhere" and 
that a purely or even if not purely, substantially, Muslim terrorist force 
that uses it's faith and god as a banner of war is just an accident of 
culture, and couldn't in any circumstances be considered a crusade for a 
minute.  Yes, GWB said "crusade", but GWB had foot and mouth disease.  GWB 
wasn't fighting a crusade - not a religious one anyway.  He would have gone 
to war with whoever had sent those aircraft on 11 Sept.  He'd have been 
lynched if he hadn't.

I'm not trying to push a point of view as fact, I'm simply asking a 
question.  Like they said on "Pulp Fiction", I just want to contemplate the 
"if"s.



>
>> We're being led to believe by some with a certain viewpoint on all
>>this that Bin Laden's fight against us is justified because of all the
>>shitty horrible things we've done in the past,
>
> Yes. That is why he was fighting back... retaliating NOT a first strike.
>
>>but what if that's not what's
>>going on here?  What if it isn't just us getting what we deserve at last?
>
> Then you are a naive conspiracy nutter...  (who had not looked into the
> history of all this)


So Bin Laden had nothing to gain from all this but revenge?  To become a 
hunted man, and all the destruction he brought down on "his people", the 
thousands of dead - he had nothing to gain from any of it but to exact some 
form of retalliation and maybe to purge a few unbelievers and gain some kind 
of dark notoriety and respect for his faith?

It seems unlikely.  Unless he's a complete moron, and I don't beleive that 
for a minute, he must have been seeking much more than that for his stake to 
be worth the gamble.

That's not conspiracy, that's just good sense.  If it's all as simple as 
revenge it would appear to be like burning your house down to get rid of 
cockroaches.

Even if OBL had no greater ambitions, I can't see 'his people' being 
satsfied with a simple victory party and a gold watch at the end of a 
conflict that has cost them so much.




>
>>When Hitler
>
> GODWIN'S LAW!!!! :-))))

Yes, ha ha...  You're right of course.  We have nothing to learn from 
Hitler, WW2, Chairman Mao,  Lenin etc, about how fragile 'our' seemingly 
permanent way of life actually is.   The world can't really change in a 
single day because of one man can it?  Such as... I don't know.... a single 
day like 1 Sept 1939, 22 November 1963 (allegedly!) or 11 Sept 2001....

It's not learning a lesson from history, it's just that silly old Godwin's 
Law and that nutter TWP.





>
>> started his empire building he didn't start off as a conqueror
>>swallowing up Europe, he started off as the wronged party, righting wrongs
>>and taking back what was Germany's.
>
> Yes.  However in this case it was things imposed on Germany after they
> mobilised in WW1. This was the "punishment" for loosing WW1.  SO it is
> not the same argument at all.

It wasn't seen as a punishment by Hitler's time.  It was seen by many as a 
needless humiliation by the Allies.   If there was a group like this then, 
I'd expect there'd be loads and loads of posts saying Hitler was justified.




>
>>The apparently Islam-only membership of all the attackers that I know of
>>seems to go against the idea that we are fighting the people of a 
>>particular
>>region that we've oppressed, say, for oil, but rather a broad spectrum of
>>people who are united only by their faith, and having no ties to the
>>"oppressed region with the oil" at all.
>> What makes it about religion?
>
> The US has oppressed many regions and areas.... the only common factor
> is those between Mauritania and India (and particularly Palestine) are
> largely Moslem

But not exclusively.  That's the point isn't it.  Why is it a purely 
religious force?  Why isn't it a multi-faith multi-national force?  Why do 
they call on Allah when they attack instead of Bin Laden or some other 
figure?  Why is it about religion and not territory?



>
>>  The
>>Blitz wasn't portrayed across the world as a war on Protestants.
>
> That was a European "civil war"

The geographical region it was in had nothing to do with the point I was 
making.  It wasn't the faith of National Socialism against the faith of 
Church of England.





>
>>> How do you know that people from other faith groups aren't joing in ?
>>
>>Because they haven't been pointed out.
>
> Of course not.... that would upset the propaganda.

No it wouldn't!  The fight would still be against AQ terrorism.  Those 
leading the "war on terror" have frequently tried to distance themselves 
from this being a war with Islam.




 BTW how many times
> has the religion of the dead killed by US drones been itemised?

Frequently drones are sent out to assassinate specific leadership targets, 
so they'll be known.  As to others, such as people planting roadside bombs, 
obviously they can't be itemised.  We can only go by the people we can 
itemise.

AQ operates across so many areas though.  It just seems odd to me that a 
paramilitary army fighting the oppression of a region by a national entity 
so far appears to be faith-exclusive.




 Most of
> the time they are not sure the numbers killed let alone identify the
> people or their religion.
>
>> The West would have pointed to them
>>in horror, because at that point you couldn't feel safe even with "your 
>>own
>>kind".
>
> "The West" is not involved... you mean the US military.. They are well
> known for falsifying reports as and when needed or simply leaving out
> information that is counter productive.

The West is involved.  OBL will have known Western involvement was 
inevitable.


>
>>Beause their participation would also broaden the recruitment
>>potential against us.
>>I think we'd know if it had happened.
>
> Naive.

Naive?  Well, I'll take your word for that.

Myself, I think Bin Laden would score a massive propaganda victory if he 
could widen the conflict to include non-Muslims, and he would put the fear 
of Allah into the West who could no longer take some comfort in profiling.






>
>>> Other faiths tend to be a minority in Muslim countries, just as most
>>> countries have a dominating faith, so it would be expected that the
>>> majority of those acting would be of the dominant religion.
>>Islam is a minority religion here, but Muslims still blew up the tube.  A
>>minority religion can still involve themselves in a battle if they feel 
>>that
>>they should involve themselves in a fight.
>
> Yes.
>
>>I can't believe that we wouldn't have seen some evidence of multi-faith
>>involvement in AQ by now if there was any.
>
> It just isn't reported.

Do you really think it's that simple?

Sounds kind of naive to me.....


TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> Naive?

And, I'm afraid to say, your perception is greatly affected by your tendency 
towards paranoia.


> Myself, I think Bin Laden would score a massive propaganda victory if he 
> could widen the conflict to include non-Muslims, and he would put the fear 
> of Allah into the West who could no longer take some comfort in profiling.

I'm sure he would but look at what you are asking for -

1) People aggrieved at western interference in the Middle East.
2) People so aggrieved they are willing to take up terrorism against the 
west.
3) People so aggrieved they are prepared to go through with that.

That's a pretty small number to start with. What you're doing is taking that 
small number and saying that because they are Muslim it's a 'war by Islam' 
when it's not; it's a 'war by a few people who happen to be Muslim'.

If some Christians in the UK took a dislike to perceived Jewish influences 
in the UK and took up terrorism directed against Jews, would you call that a 
'war by Christians' ? I doubt it.

The terrorism we have seen on the streets of the UK has not been from those 
fighting OBL's conflict; they clearly indicated this was in retaliation and 
revenge to the way the UK has been executing its operations in Iarq and 
Afghanistan.

Some people want you to believe there's a wide-sweeping 'war by Islam' 
because it serves their political agenda. It's a powerful pretext to curtail 
a section of society that they happen to dislike.

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote in message
>news:PRIVSbFtYi2KFAyJ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message , TWP
>>  writes
>>>OK, how many people have you heard of that joined in this war against us
>>>that weren't Muslims?  Wouldn't you think it strange if I invaded France
>>>and
>>>only the Catholics fought me?
>>
>> Well it was Bush who turned it in to a religious war. However whilst you
>> are right that it is predominantly Moslems who have actively fought the
>> US there are a very large number of others who have moved from
>> supporting the US  to opposition by many means other than direct
>> violence.
>>
>>> If we're throwing our weight around in a
>>>region of the world you would think we'd entangle people of all faiths and
>>>all reasons for fighting.
>>
>> And that is the case. The US has attacked areas that are (nominally) 90%
>> + islamic. With troops that are 90%+ Christian...
>
>But have you heard of ANYONE involved who wasn't a Muslim?

I don't know... Except for a few who are identified ad Moslem they don't
identify the religion of most of the many thousands of combatants.
However as the US has directly and indirectly attacked several
predominantly Moslem countries the press assumes that all those fighting
back are Islamic. How many Christians are there in Iraq who have been
fighting (other than the 10's of thousands of US troops)? There are
quite a few.

> Any of the
>people who have been identified, any of the people who have been arrested,
>any of the people who enabled terrorist action down the line?

Most have not had their religion identified.....

>OK, I haven't been watching out for this until now so I couldn't tell you
>either.

Also it is not normally mentioned.

>All I can tell you is that I don't remember anyone, and I think I
>would have because as I said, people in the West - and yes, the US in
>particular - would shit themselves at the thought that not only the people
>with funny hats were their enemy now, but potentially just about anyone that
>disagrees strongly with Western interference in the ME.

That is why it is never mentioned. Also there are a hell of a lot of
people who are non-moslem who whilst not taking up arms against the US
are very opposed to the US actions and are doing things from righting
letters of protest to all but taking up arms.

As has been pointed out here the US has lost all its friends in the
world. There are many ways of "fighting back" without picking up a gun.

>> Jesse seems to think so and he claims to have been a marine. The problem
>> is that in both the aggressor and the occupied their culture involves
>> religion
>Not really a great explanation for their being no non-Muslims though, is it?
>Even the "American Taliban" guy was a convert to Islam.

Converts tend to be the worst... in any religion :-)

However the US is predominately Christian and started this religious
war. It could have been down played but Bush made it a Crusade and a
religious war.  Had he treated the 9/11 bombers as Saudi criminals and
treated it s a civil crime he would have not develped as it has.

By invading two predominantly Moslem countries and called it a crusade,
permitted many in the US and in particular in the Military to view it as
religious the US crated a Religious war.

>>> is as simple as it's being made out to
>>>be.  Even "Muslims Lands" will have other groups on it.
>> Yes....  It seems to have taken you about 8 years to catch up.
>I'm not sure what your point is here.  What have I caught up on exactly?

That it was not a religious war until bush made it so. The US supported
Israelis killed many Christians in Lebanon,  there have been many non-
Moslem deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan Though in some areas eg the USA
and Afghanistan you have a religion simply by being born in a particular
location.

Many people are not acutely religious  but if the local church group is
organising the fight back against the invading aggressors and occupiers
that is where you go to sign on to fight back no matter what your
religious beliefs.

BTW there have been several stories posted here over the years of non
Christian soldiers in the US military coming under intense pressure
within their units for not going to church or praying when the others
do.. By non-chrisitan I don't mean Moslem just people who are not
particularly religious.

Though through several millennium of civilisation the Afghans and Iraq's
don't require you to have religion to fight for your country.

>>>If it's a war for
>>>the liberation of these lands I would have thought people defending
>>>Muslims
>>>as "not all terrorists" would have latched onto them in order to prove
>>>their
>>>case.  Why a holy cause rather than a national cause?
>>
>> Because you don't seem top understand the culture of the areas in
>> question.
>
>What am I not understanding about the culture that would mean that we
>wouldn't have encountered a non-Muslim AQ fighter by now?

Yes and you have.... dozens of them However the press and the military
just assume anyone in Afghanistan and Iraq is Moslem. Only in a few
cases have they stated the religion of some of the fighters. They don't
for the majority. You just assume they are all practising Moslems
because the US military went on a "Crusade" and it's culture is to
assume that all "rag heads" are Islamic.

>>>So far it (AQ / Islamic terrorism) seems more like a crusade to me than a
>>>resistance movement.
>>
>> You took the words right out of GWB's mouth...  and he did not
>> understand either
>
>GWB was probably telling it like he saw it.

Exactly ..... he did not understand what he was doing.

> Even he came to regret some of
>the things he'd said.   What's the old saying?  "Better to stay silent and
>look like a fool than to speak and remove all doubt".

He managed to do both. Opening his mouth and proving it and sitting
still and saying nothing when action was required.

>OK, why does it not look like a holy crusade against the West

It does look like that because the US has made it so. This was pointed
out at the time (October/November 2001) by many people

> - or the US if
>you prefer - when AQ appears so far to be a Muslim-only club that fights the
>West in the name of Allah?  That fights to defend Muslims?  That fights in
>part to repel non-Muslims from Islamic holy lands?

They are doing that. In the same way the US military appears to be a
Christian Army that attacked two Islamic countries with no provocation.
(The criminals who committed crimes on 9/11 were Saudis)

>What am I not understanding here?

It is a propaganda war that the US lost by it's own hand. Had it gone
after some Saudi Criminals for civilian crimes it would not be a
religious war. Instead the US started a Crusade with a Christian Army
against three Islamic countries.  As Palestine is Islamic and the US
supported the Jews it is clear that the US is anti Islam,...

> What does it actually have to look like
>for AQ's fight against the West / America to qualify as a crusade anyway?
>What has to be said that hasn't been said?  What has to happen that hasn't
>happened?

It is a holy war in defence of the several Moslem countries  against the
Crusade by GWB's Overtly Christian army. The US created a holy war out
of a criminal act. It's of their own making.

Had we not had the idiot Blair, who was more concerned about his own
position in history than the UK, the US would not have let the US run
amok as it had but would have been more forceful in getting a sense of
reality. I recall one US diplomat said as much in 2002

>>>Just because you disagree with the line of thinking doesn't mean I'm being
>>>naive.
>>
>> Then again it does not mean you aren't
>So what have I asked that's so stupid?  You couldn't name any non-Muslim
>members of AQ either.

How many Muslim ones can you name not many I suspect. The point is you
are assuming and falling into the propaganda trap from both sides. .

>In fact for all your disdain you don't seem to have
>really proved anything.

True. But all you have is the propaganda. That is not true either.

>The best I've heard goes along the lines of "no I
>don't know of any either, but there must be one around here somewhere"

How many of the 2 million UK  anti war protesters were Moslem? Many
sympathise and are anti US and pro Palestinian/Afghan or Iraq who are
not Moslems.

> and
>that a purely or even if not purely, substantially, Muslim terrorist force
>that uses it's faith and god as a banner of war is just an accident of
>culture, and couldn't in any circumstances be considered a crusade for a
>minute.

It is a holy war. No doubt.... but one in defence of Bush's holy war
when he attacked 2 Islamic countries and supported genocide in another.

> Yes, GWB said "crusade", but GWB had foot and mouth disease.

No argument there. And that was the major problem. Who let him say that?

>  GWB
>wasn't fighting a crusade - not a religious one anyway.

The Commander In Chief and many of his officers saw it as that. I recall
several news items of serving US officers saying as much in their local
churches in 2001-2003.  I recall one boasting that he told an Iraqi
officer that the US would win ".... because My God is bigger than Your
God!"    He was in uniform talking/preaching from the stage in a US
Christian church during the service.

>  He would have gone
>to war with whoever had sent those aircraft on 11 Sept.  He'd have been
>lynched if he hadn't.

That was the Saudi's.....  Al-Qeada has operative in many countries and
is not a nation or a country.

Don't give the crap they were trained in Afghanistan. All the trainign
required for their crime was in the USA.

>I'm not trying to push a point of view as fact, I'm simply asking a
>question.  Like they said on "Pulp Fiction", I just want to contemplate the
>"if"s.

Well the reasons are, as was pointed out in this NG in 2001/2002 largely
of the USA's own making. Had Bush not had a Crusade and a lot of overtly
Christian officers who promoted the Anti Islam Crusaded but conducted
civil criminal proceedings against the Saudis who committed the crime
and criminal proceedings against the criminals who supported them he
would not have the holy war BUSH started.

>>> We're being led to believe by some with a certain viewpoint on all
>>>this that Bin Laden's fight against us is justified because of all the
>>>shitty horrible things we've done in the past,
>>
>> Yes. That is why he was fighting back... retaliating NOT a first strike.
>>
>>>but what if that's not what's
>>>going on here?  What if it isn't just us getting what we deserve at last?
>>
>> Then you are a naive conspiracy nutter...  (who had not looked into the
>> history of all this)
>
>
>So Bin Laden had nothing to gain from all this but revenge?

So the US had nothing to gain from this but revenge?

>  To become a
>hunted man, and all the destruction he brought down on "his people",

The Saudis?

> the
>thousands of dead - he had nothing to gain from any of it but to exact some
>form of retalliation and maybe to purge a few unbelievers and gain some kind
>of dark notoriety and respect for his faith?

OBL wanted Saddam (a US asset) out of Iraq. He got that.
OBL wanted Iraq to be Islamic. He got that.
OBL wanted the USA brought to it's knees. He got that.
OBL wanted the Islamic states to band together. He got that
OBL wanted the USA to be exposed for the demon it is. For most of the
world he got that.
OBL wanted to get Israel out of Palestine.  That is still up in the air
but Israel's main/only supporter is severely weakened.


>It seems unlikely.  Unless he's a complete moron, and I don't beleive that
>for a minute, he must have been seeking much more than that for his stake to
>be worth the gamble.

He had gained a lot and Bush/USA has lost a lot.

>That's not conspiracy, that's just good sense.  If it's all as simple as
>revenge it would appear to be like burning your house down to get rid of
>cockroaches.

That would not work. Cockroaches are surpassingly resilient. However I
know what you mean.  As Afghanistan offered to hand over OBL *If the US
had any evidence*  (BTW the USA has been very short on solid evidence
for ANY of it's claims)  which is what OBL wanted. A public trial in the
USA on prime time. The best way to get all his message across.

>Even if OBL had no greater ambitions, I can't see 'his people' being
>satsfied with a simple victory party and a gold watch at the end of a
>conflict that has cost them so much.

Quite so.... Bush upped the stakes and is loosing.

>>>When Hitler
>> GODWIN'S LAW!!!! :-))))
>Yes, ha ha...  You're right of course.

Though in this case you did have a proper argument for mentioning him.
Hence the :-))))

> We have nothing to learn from
>Hitler, WW2, Chairman Mao,  Lenin etc, about how fragile 'our' seemingly
>permanent way of life actually is.

I agree.

>   The world can't really change in a
>single day because of one man can it?  Such as... I don't know.... a single
>day like 1 Sept 1939, 22 November 1963 (allegedly!) or 11 Sept 2001....

There are many such days but not all are public and clearly sign posted
in history.... I am sure there must have been a discussion somewhere
when plain Alexander (before he was Great) said: "I want a Holiday
saddle up the Army" or some one said if we get all the States working
together we will have United States of (Germany, Europe, America etc)

>It's not learning a lesson from history, it's just that silly old Godwin's
>Law and that nutter TWP.

Godwin is *usually* right but not always. This is an exception.

>>> started his empire building he didn't start off as a conqueror
>>>swallowing up Europe, he started off as the wronged party, righting wrongs
>>>and taking back what was Germany's.
>>
>> Yes.  However in this case it was things imposed on Germany after they
>> mobilised in WW1. This was the "punishment" for loosing WW1.  SO it is
>> not the same argument at all.
>
>It wasn't seen as a punishment by Hitler's time.  It was seen by many as a
>needless humiliation by the Allies.   If there was a group like this then,
>I'd expect there'd be loads and loads of posts saying Hitler was justified.

There were and have been over the years by many historians and not just
by far right nutters who say the death camps were fakes etc for whom
Godwin's law holds true.

>>>The apparently Islam-only membership of all the attackers that I know of
>>>seems to go against the idea that we are fighting the people of a
>>>particular
>>>region that we've oppressed, say, for oil, but rather a broad spectrum of
>>>people who are united only by their faith, and having no ties to the
>>>"oppressed region with the oil" at all.
>>> What makes it about religion?
>>
>> The US has oppressed many regions and areas.... the only common factor
>> is those between Mauritania and India (and particularly Palestine) are
>> largely Moslem
>
>But not exclusively.

True but the proportion is high enough top make it seem exclusive...

>  That's the point isn't it.  Why is it a purely
>religious force?  Why isn't it a multi-faith multi-national force?  Why do
>they call on Allah when they attack instead of Bin Laden or some other
>figure?  Why is it about religion and not territory?

For the same reason why the US military is "Christian" despite the being
US service men of many faiths.


>>>  The
>>>Blitz wasn't portrayed across the world as a war on Protestants.
>>
>> That was a European "civil war"
>The geographical region it was in had nothing to do with the point I was
>making.  It wasn't the faith of National Socialism against the faith of
>Church of England.

National Socialism was political and there were many Protestants,
Catholics and others in it.

The same as there are Catholics, Protestants and others in the UK Labour
party


In Afghanistan the informal social services (as in parts of the USA) are
done by the local culture. In Afghanistan the local Moselms organise it
just as in the USA the local Christian Church organise it.

In some parts of the USA you still get asked which Church you go to at
job interviews... (not what religion you are a sit is assume you are a
God fearing Christian) Now to be fair this is in the more rural areas of
both Afghanistan and the USA.

I note a Judge in the US has refused to sign a marriage license for a
couple one white and one black on racial grounds!

Now I am sure Jesse (we should have a "JESSIE's LAW" for Racial stuff)
will be able to justify that but how is it different from Afghanistan?


>>>> How do you know that people from other faith groups aren't joing in ?
>>>
>>>Because they haven't been pointed out.
>>
>> Of course not.... that would upset the propaganda.
>No it wouldn't!  The fight would still be against AQ terrorism.  Those
>leading the "war on terror" have frequently tried to distance themselves
>from this being a war with Islam.

Some have but as the US started it and pushed it both sides now find it
convenient. Though the UK forces are fighting a loosing battle (thanks
to the USA) to get rid of the religious war element.

> BTW how many times
>> has the religion of the dead killed by US drones been itemised?
>
>Frequently drones are sent out to assassinate specific leadership targets,
>so they'll be known.

NOT AT ALL!!!! They know the name of the intended target but no the
other 10-30 also in the building they blow up. Including those in his
party.

> As to others, such as people planting roadside bombs,
>obviously they can't be itemised.  We can only go by the people we can
>itemise.

True. SO I do hope you realise that many of the Al0-qeada fighters were
not Afghanis or Iraqi's but foreigners.  Whilst the US military is
overtly Christian (but contains many non-Christians) al-qeada whilst
also nominally overly Islamic also contains many non Moslems. However
unlike the some what more organised US military AL-qeada does not record
the details of it's members and their religion (or lack of) .

>AQ operates across so many areas though.  It just seems odd to me that a
>paramilitary army fighting the oppression of a region by a national entity
>so far appears to be faith-exclusive.

As does the US military... however that is by perception and there are
many non-Christian in the US military even if they are persecuted.

However the US appears to be targeting Islamic countries as a Crusade...
One slipe by Bush compounded by the actions of many overtly Christian US
military officers has created this.

> Most of
>> the time they are not sure the numbers killed let alone identify the
>> people or their religion.
>>
>>> The West would have pointed to them
>>>in horror, because at that point you couldn't feel safe even with "your
>>>own
>>>kind".
>> "The West" is not involved... you mean the US military.. They are well
>> known for falsifying reports as and when needed or simply leaving out
>> information that is counter productive.
>The West is involved.  OBL will have known Western involvement was
>inevitable.

Yes. However "the west" on the whole has got itself back out again. Only
the UK has any real involvement and that is against wishes of  the
majority of the population.

>>>Beause their participation would also broaden the recruitment
>>>potential against us.
>>>I think we'd know if it had happened.
>>
>> Naive.
>
>Naive?  Well, I'll take your word for that.
>Myself, I think Bin Laden would score a massive propaganda victory if he
>could widen the conflict to include non-Muslims, and he would put the fear
>of Allah into the West who could no longer take some comfort in profiling.

As would the USA had it not started the Crusade and let many overlyu
Christian US officers turn this into a crusade. As it is OBL is winning.


>>>> Other faiths tend to be a minority in Muslim countries, just as most
>>>> countries have a dominating faith, so it would be expected that the
>>>> majority of those acting would be of the dominant religion.
>>>Islam is a minority religion here, but Muslims still blew up the tube.  A
>>>minority religion can still involve themselves in a battle if they feel
>>>that
>>>they should involve themselves in a fight.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>I can't believe that we wouldn't have seen some evidence of multi-faith
>>>involvement in AQ by now if there was any.
>>
>> It just isn't reported.
>
>Do you really think it's that simple?

Yes.

>Sounds kind of naive to me.....

No.. Many years personal military experience and seeing what is actually
reported.

Also we attend many events now
The Counter terrorism event in London (trade only).
http://www.counterterrorexpo.com/

Defence Systems & Equipment International Exhibition (trade only)
http://www.dsei.co.uk/

Military and Aerospace Electronics (Trade only)
http://www.mae-show.com/

You get to hear a lot here that is no on the news.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote...

>>Not really a great explanation for their being no non-Muslims though, is 
>>it?
>>Even the "American Taliban" guy was a convert to Islam.
>
> Converts tend to be the worst... in any religion :-)

And also, what was the sequence of events ...

1) Became aggrieved, wanted to take action, became Muslim, and did so ?
2) Became aggrieved, became Muslim, decided to act, did so ?
3) Became Muslim, became aggrieved, took action ?

People who are aggrieved by normal everyday events join pressure groups and 
direct action groups in order to find a means of highlighting and rectifying 
ther grievances. Very few people act off their own back without 
affililiation, support or facilitation. 'Mr Smith' didn't scale Westminster 
to protest over Climate Change, "Greenpeace" did.

Now I'll accept, for most, it's a bit more than an everyday thing to change 
religion but for those who see the 'Christian Good Guys' and the 'Islamic 
Bad Guys' portrayal as a 'world upside-down' view it may be enough 
motivation to disown one religion and adopt another.

There are plenty of Christians who say "Not In My Name" and disown other 
so-called Christians. If one comes to the conclusion that those "In My Name" 
Christians are actually right, those "NIMN" are by definition not 
Christians - so where to go then ?

For others, simply changing religion may be a means to the end, they may not 
see it as a significant matter as others would.

There's probably no greater way than showing support for a particular group 
than signing up and becoming a full member of that group. No better way to 
have actions facilitated by that group.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:t5BCm.4584$KR3.3957@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ...
>
>> Naive?
>
> And, I'm afraid to say, your perception is greatly affected by your 
> tendency towards paranoia.

It's SO easy to say something like that, HH.   I think you give what I'm 
saying less serious thought because I think in your mind, and Chris H's 
mind - and I'm sorry if I've got either of you wrong on this - that because 
Bin Laden and 'his people' have been wronged by the West that they become 
'good guys', and no ulterior motive can be assigned to their actions in 
perpetuity or forever.  If you dare to suggest that something more might be 
going on here than just revenge you are a conspiracy nut or an Islamaphobe 
or have been watching far more Fox News than is good for a person.  You can 
suggest near any degree of nafarious plotting if the US/West is the bad 
guys, otherwise sparks start to fly.  A little while ago Chris seemed to be 
suggesting to me that evil plotting was a purely Western personality trait. 
Call me an unbeliever, but I just don't go along with that.  It's worth 
considering events beyond face value, that's all.

Bin Laden has put everything into his battle with the US and the West, and 
so have the people that fight for him.  They frequently offer their lives to 
his cause, or in response to the inspiration provided by him.  It seems 
improbable that they only seek to shake off or punish the Western world, and 
even if that is the case, it seems to me hightly likely that the goal that 
they're all fighting for will grow as more and more people die for it.


>
>
>> Myself, I think Bin Laden would score a massive propaganda victory if he 
>> could widen the conflict to include non-Muslims, and he would put the 
>> fear of Allah into the West who could no longer take some comfort in 
>> profiling.
>
> I'm sure he would but look at what you are asking for -
>
> 1) People aggrieved at western interference in the Middle East.
> 2) People so aggrieved they are willing to take up terrorism against the 
> west.
> 3) People so aggrieved they are prepared to go through with that.
>
> That's a pretty small number to start with. What you're doing is taking 
> that small number and saying that because they are Muslim it's a 'war by 
> Islam' when it's not; it's a 'war by a few people who happen to be 
> Muslim'.

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it may be, and certainly so far looks like 
it is.  I don't have enough facts to convict, but so far it walks like a 
duck and quacks like a duck.  I'm open to evidence that it isn't.  It really 
doesn't change that many realities even if it is.  Bombs still go bang 
whatever the motives of those planting them.  What will be different is what 
direction the attacks will take us in and possibly how long all of this will 
go on for.


>
> If some Christians in the UK took a dislike to perceived Jewish influences 
> in the UK and took up terrorism directed against Jews, would you call that 
> a 'war by Christians' ? I doubt it.

I maybe would if everyone involved was Christian and made a point of letting 
everyone know that the attack was in the name of Christianity.  How could I 
do anything but?


>
> The terrorism we have seen on the streets of the UK has not been from 
> those fighting OBL's conflict; they clearly indicated this was in 
> retaliation and revenge to the way the UK has been executing its 
> operations in Iarq and Afghanistan.

OK.  Lots of people felt that way, and still do, therefore by that logic 
anyone could have carried out that attack from any social or religious 
background in this country.  They didn't have to come from the countries 
involved, they didn't have to be any particular faith, they just had to feel 
that justice needed to be done and have the nuts to actually do something 
about it.  Since Islam is a small fraction of the UK population (about 2.5%) 
it seems unlikely that a random pick of people to act would incluide anyone 
from that faith... about 40:1 - 40:4 since there were four attackers, so 
there would only be a 10% chance of any Muslims being involved if this was 
purely about retalliation for involvement in an unjust war.  This supposes 
that the motivation was purely justice and religion had no part.  OK, so how 
many of the 7/7 attackers were Muslims?   If you said "all four" you'd be 
correct.  Going by purely population figures and no other factors such as 
peer pressure that looks like 40^4:1 (2.56 million to 1) to me that all four 
would be Muslims... or there might just be a war against the West by some 
followers of Islam.  OK, hardly scientific, but if you discount Islam as a 
factor, as you are doing, you get to a place where of four man team of 
Muslims becomes the less likely probability.

>
> Some people want you to believe there's a wide-sweeping 'war by Islam' 
> because it serves their political agenda. It's a powerful pretext to 
> curtail a section of society that they happen to dislike.

Is that really what's going on?  That seems quite vague and simplistic 
reasoning to me.

I'm not saying that there's some vast Islamic conspiracy.  There clearly 
isn't.  There is evidence though that there is a common element to the 
people who are fighting us.  In fact that common element seems to be so 
sommon it might be an entry requirement.

Anyway, it's one of those things that will have to reveal itself in its own 
time.


TWP







>
>

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:_GFCm.4680$KR3.1326@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "Chris H"  wrote...
>
>>>Not really a great explanation for their being no non-Muslims though, is 
>>>it?
>>>Even the "American Taliban" guy was a convert to Islam.
>>
>> Converts tend to be the worst... in any religion :-)

Probably! :-)

But it's not Christian v Islam is it.  The people fighting on "our" side 
represent a broad background of people.  Many won't even have a declared 
religion.

I think its a war against the power of the West, not the faith or 
necessarily meddling or even that the West exists, and certainly not as GWB 
said because they love freedom. I think it is a kind of crusade, but not the 
religion v religion type.  I also don't think exacting revenge for Muslim 
dead is a major factor for beginning all this.  I think it's a power 
struggle, on different levels for different people.  For some it'll be true 
power that they seek, possibly like the Taliban achieved, for others more 
distant from the real action it'll be a more idealistic "Braveheart" kind of 
power struggle.  .


TWP

In message <_GFCm.4680$KR3.1326@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"Chris H"  wrote...
>
>>>Not really a great explanation for their being no non-Muslims though, is
>>>it?
>>>Even the "American Taliban" guy was a convert to Islam.
>>
>> Converts tend to be the worst... in any religion :-)
>
>And also, what was the sequence of events ...
>
>1) Became aggrieved, wanted to take action, became Muslim, and did so ?
>2) Became aggrieved, became Muslim, decided to act, did so ?
>3) Became Muslim, became aggrieved, took action ?

Usually became aggrieved wanted to take action, went to the people with
guns and a plan... (Who are being lead by the Church)

Many homeless people go to the Salvation Army and will sing hymns and
stand for prayers just to get a bed for the night or some food. They
will say the words and appear Christian out of sheer pragmatism.

On the other hand just because 1 in 100 killed by the US is a fanatical
Moslem it is assumes the other 99 are also Moslems (eve though in many
cases they can't even identify them)

>There are plenty of Christians who say "Not In My Name" and disown other
>so-called Christians. If one comes to the conclusion that those "In My Name"
>Christians are actually right, those "NIMN" are by definition not
>Christians - so where to go then ?

In the UK there are several Moslem groups that do exactly that over the
"Islamic-terrorists"

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"TWP"  wrote ....

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
> news:t5BCm.4584$KR3.3957@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>
>>> Naive?
>>
>> And, I'm afraid to say, your perception is greatly affected by your 
>> tendency towards paranoia.
>
> It's SO easy to say something like that, HH.   I think you give what I'm 
> saying less serious thought because I think in your mind, and Chris H's 
> mind - and I'm sorry if I've got either of you wrong on this - that 
> because Bin Laden and 'his people' have been wronged by the West that they 
> become 'good guys', and no ulterior motive can be assigned to their 
> actions in perpetuity or forever.

That OBL had a legitimate grievance does not automatically make him the Good 
Guy. But I'm not prepared to accept assignment of an ulterior motive unless 
it can be shown to have validity and some supporting evidence.


> If you dare to suggest that something more might be going on here than 
> just revenge you are a conspiracy nut or an Islamaphobe or have been 
> watching far more Fox News than is good for a person.

It comes under the catch-all of wild imaginations without supporting 
evidence. That in itself isn't a problem per se, but once one starts 
extrapolating from that premise one becomes on increasingly dubious ground.


> You can suggest near any degree of nafarious plotting if the US/West is 
> the bad guys, otherwise sparks start to fly.  A little while ago Chris 
> seemed to be suggesting to me that evil plotting was a purely Western 
> personality trait. Call me an unbeliever, but I just don't go along with 
> that.  It's worth considering events beyond face value, that's all.

I don't recall that discussion, and I'd probably disagree with Chris on 
that. I would however say that the west seem less likely to admit things, 
say what they are doing than Arab cultures. OBL, AQ and terrorists we've had 
in the UK have all explained why and what it is they are fighting for. UK 
and US keep their cards close to their chests, denying things until they 
have no choice but to admit their truth. If that's what Chris meant I'd 
agree with him.


> Bin Laden has put everything into his battle with the US and the West, and 
> so have the people that fight for him.  They frequently offer their lives 
> to his cause, or in response to the inspiration provided by him.  It seems 
> improbable that they only seek to shake off or punish the Western world,

This is where what you say diverges from what I can accept. I'm all well and 
happy for you to say OBL may be fighting a war to expell western influence 
but 'may' want to achieve more, but to say 'probable' wants more then that's 
a casual jump to a more serious claim which requires some evidence and 
substantiation for me to agree it is either 'likely' or 'probable', or 'is' 
as the propogandists will have it.

> and even if that is the case, it seems to me hightly likely that the goal 
> that they're all fighting for will grow as more and more people die for 
> it.

Yes, that's the problem in Afghanistan ( and was in Iraq ) and McChrystal 
has stated plainly in black and white; kill people involved in legitimate 
struggle, or worse, those who aren't involved, and you drive more people 
into supporting it.


>>> Myself, I think Bin Laden would score a massive propaganda victory if he 
>>> could widen the conflict to include non-Muslims, and he would put the 
>>> fear of Allah into the West who could no longer take some comfort in 
>>> profiling.
>>
>> I'm sure he would but look at what you are asking for -
>>
>> 1) People aggrieved at western interference in the Middle East.
>> 2) People so aggrieved they are willing to take up terrorism against the 
>> west.
>> 3) People so aggrieved they are prepared to go through with that.
>>
>> That's a pretty small number to start with. What you're doing is taking 
>> that small number and saying that because they are Muslim it's a 'war by 
>> Islam' when it's not; it's a 'war by a few people who happen to be 
>> Muslim'.
>
> I'm not saying it is, I'm saying it may be, and certainly so far looks 
> like it is.  I don't have enough facts to convict, but so far it walks 
> like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Then you need to show how it quacks like a duck. From my perspective the 
assertion and apparent proof don't match up, which is why I disagree with 
you.


> I'm open to evidence that it isn't.

I and thers have given it, but you appear to simply reject it.


>  It really doesn't change that many realities even if it is.  Bombs still 
> go bang whatever the motives of those planting them.  What will be 
> different is what direction the attacks will take us in and possibly how 
> long all of this will go on for.
>
>
>>
>> If some Christians in the UK took a dislike to perceived Jewish 
>> influences in the UK and took up terrorism directed against Jews, would 
>> you call that a 'war by Christians' ? I doubt it.
>
> I maybe would if everyone involved was Christian and made a point of 
> letting everyone know that the attack was in the name of Christianity. 
> How could I do anything but?

By rationally looking at the claim made to see if it fts the facts.

What you seem to be saying is you'll willingly accept there was a war of 
'Christians against Jews' even when you knew there wasn't -- it doesn't 
therefore surprise me that, on the same rationale, you see a war of 'Islam 
against us' when there isn't. To paraphrase, "How could you do anything 
but?".

That's where lack of critical thinking shows; 'it must be true because its 
written in the papers'.


>> The terrorism we have seen on the streets of the UK has not been from 
>> those fighting OBL's conflict; they clearly indicated this was in 
>> retaliation and revenge to the way the UK has been executing its 
>> operations in Iarq and Afghanistan.
>
> OK.  Lots of people felt that way, and still do, therefore by that logic 
> anyone could have carried out that attack from any social or religious 
> background in this country.  They didn't have to come from the countries 
> involved, they didn't have to be any particular faith, they just had to 
> feel that justice needed to be done and have the nuts to actually do 
> something about it.

Yes, anyone *could* act, but you repeatedly won't take into account what 
makes people act in certain ways.

You are postulating that anyone aggrieved will be so aggrieved that they 
will act in the same way. What you and we see is evidence that they don't, 
but you take the end result then try and prove that shows something which it 
doesn't.

Ironically you acknowledge there are factors which cause the result other 
than what you claim; "they just had to feel that justice needed to be done 
and have the nuts to actually do something about it" - Maybe it's simply 
that Muslims have more "nuts" or non-Muslims have influences which prevent 
them from having the "nuts". I'd say that was true. Hence why you see the 
response coming from one group; you're seeing those 'with nuts' acting. The 
fact these are Muslim is secondary, not primary.

You're saying the terrorist action we see should be by "Muslims with nuts" 
and "non-Muslims with nuts". That we see none of the later you argue is 
because non-Muslims don't agree with the cause where it can equally be they 
don't have the nuts.

You then fall into the circuitous, bum-about-face, self-reinforcing argument 
that because it's only Muslims seen to be acting it's only Muslims 
aggrieved, an Islam only issue. You conveniently forget the "having the 
nuts" factor. Include that and your theory falls flat on its face.


> Since Islam is a small fraction of the UK population (about 2.5%) it seems 
> unlikely that a random pick of people to act would incluide anyone from 
> that faith... about 40:1 - 40:4 since there were four attackers, so there 
> would only be a 10% chance of any Muslims being involved if this was 
> purely about retalliation for involvement in an unjust war.  This supposes 
> that the motivation was purely justice and religion had no part.  OK, so 
> how many of the 7/7 attackers were Muslims?   If you said "all four" you'd 
> be correct.  Going by purely population figures and no other factors such 
> as peer pressure that looks like 40^4:1 (2.56 million to 1) to me that all 
> four would be Muslims... or there might just be a war against the West by 
> some followers of Islam.  OK, hardly scientific, but if you discount Islam 
> as a factor, as you are doing, you get to a place where of four man team 
> of Muslims becomes the less likely probability.

Yes, because you are offering up a theory that doesn't fit the facts nor 
reality of how people are. As you say, "hardly scientific", yet you seem 
suprised when your theory is rejected.

You could equally argue that if the UK were abusing animals then people 
other than the Animal Liberation Front would be attacking and burning down 
the property of those involved in vivisection and animal experimentations. 
You could then argue that as they are not, ergo there's no abuse, ALF are 
fighting a groundless campaign.


>> Some people want you to believe there's a wide-sweeping 'war by Islam' 
>> because it serves their political agenda. It's a powerful pretext to 
>> curtail a section of society that they happen to dislike.
>
> Is that really what's going on?  That seems quite vague and simplistic 
> reasoning to me.

I don't see how it's vague or how you mean simplistic. We've seen plenty of 
people on this forum who have taken the premise "Islam lives to kill", 
arguing there's a religious war by Islam against the west which we should 
fight against to destroy before it destroys us. That's fact and supported by 
evidence in the public domain.


> I'm not saying that there's some vast Islamic conspiracy.  There clearly 
> isn't.  There is evidence though that there is a common element to the 
> people who are fighting us.  In fact that common element seems to be so 
> sommon it might be an entry requirement.
>
> Anyway, it's one of those things that will have to reveal itself in its 
> own time.
>
>
> TWP

In message <HUWCm.4916$KR3.897@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy
Hippy  writes
>
>"TWP"  wrote ....
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:t5BCm.4584$KR3.3957@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> Naive?
>>>
>>> And, I'm afraid to say, your perception is greatly affected by your
>>> tendency towards paranoia.
>>
>> It's SO easy to say something like that, HH.   I think you give what I'm
>> saying less serious thought because I think in your mind, and Chris H's
>> mind - and I'm sorry if I've got either of you wrong on this - that
>> because Bin Laden and 'his people' have been wronged by the West that they
>> become 'good guys', and no ulterior motive can be assigned to their
>> actions in perpetuity or forever.
>
>That OBL had a legitimate grievance does not automatically make him the Good
>Guy.

Ditto George W Bush

>But I'm not prepared to accept assignment of an ulterior motive unless
>it can be shown to have validity and some supporting evidence.



>
>
>> You can suggest near any degree of nafarious plotting if the US/West is
>> the bad guys, otherwise sparks start to fly.  A little while ago Chris
>> seemed to be suggesting to me that evil plotting was a purely Western
>> personality trait.

No. That is not the case.

>>Call me an unbeliever, but I just don't go along with
>> that.  It's worth considering events beyond face value, that's all.
>
>I don't recall that discussion, and I'd probably disagree with Chris on
>that.

Shock horror! :-)
Actually Hippy and I disagree on a few things.

>I would however say that the west seem less likely to admit things,
>say what they are doing than Arab cultures.

Not sure about that.  It depends. Both "sides" play games... but
differently and to different rules.

>OBL, AQ and terrorists we've had
>in the UK have all explained why and what it is they are fighting for.

Most religious Freedom Fighters do. They are proud of what they do.
Particularly the suicide types (or those who think it unlikely they will
come back) in WW2 most air crew left letter to be sent to loved ones  if
they did not come back

> UK
>and US keep their cards close to their chests, denying things until they
>have no choice but to admit their truth. If that's what Chris meant I'd
>agree with him.

Yes but it is a bit different. You are equating a lone freedom fighter
making the ultimate gesture with a government.

Both the OBL "high command" and the US/UK Governments use propaganda and
misdirection.  The foot soldiers leave final letters home.

However the US government does have a proven reputation for lying and
falsifying it's own records and other blatant cover-ups. The UK was a
lot more subtle (having had many decades of practice) at not actually
lying or falsifying records.  Though I think we may find the current
government has overstepped the line and I think that after the next
election after there are prosecutions for expenses fraud it may well run
on to convictions over Iraq and Afghanistan.

Blair may well not be able to set foot back in the EU in a year or so.

OBL and Al-Qeada are not that well organised to be able to do the same
sort of cover up.


>> Bin Laden has put everything into his battle with the US and the West, and
>> so have the people that fight for him.  They frequently offer their lives
>> to his cause, or in response to the inspiration provided by him.  It seems
>> improbable that they only seek to shake off or punish the Western world,
>
>This is where what you say diverges from what I can accept. I'm all well and
>happy for you to say OBL may be fighting a war to expell western influence

That is a stated objective. It is political not religious.

>but 'may' want to achieve more, but to say 'probable' wants more then that's
>a casual jump to a more serious claim which requires some evidence and
>substantiation for me to agree it is either 'likely' or 'probable', or 'is'
>as the propogandists will have it.

He has not AFAIK ever wanted any more than the US and Israel out of the
ME

>> and even if that is the case, it seems to me hightly likely that the goal
>> that they're all fighting for will grow as more and more people die for
>> it.
>
>Yes, that's the problem in Afghanistan ( and was in Iraq ) and McChrystal
>has stated plainly in black and white; kill people involved in legitimate
>struggle, or worse, those who aren't involved, and you drive more people
>into supporting it.

Exactly.... Err didn't we say this in 2001? (Also 2002,3,4,5,6,7,8 &9 ?)
and the IS went from liberator to oppressor in a matter of a couple of
weeks in Iraq though it's own actions.

>> I'm open to evidence that it isn't.
>
>I and thers have given it, but you appear to simply reject it.

That is the problem if it does not fit the propaganda message it is
wrong.

>>  It really doesn't change that many realities even if it is.  Bombs still
>> go bang whatever the motives of those planting them.  What will be
>> different is what direction the attacks will take us in and possibly how
>> long all of this will go on for.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If some Christians in the UK took a dislike to perceived Jewish
>>> influences in the UK and took up terrorism directed against Jews, would
>>> you call that a 'war by Christians' ? I doubt it.
>>
>> I maybe would if everyone involved was Christian and made a point of
>> letting everyone know that the attack was in the name of Christianity.
>> How could I do anything but?
>
>By rationally looking at the claim made to see if it fts the facts.

Actually some of the US units were making the claim that they were
Christians avenging the Islamic attack on 9/11....  There are some quite
religious officers in the US military and after their CinC called it s
crusade they did rather push it a bit... to the extent some were in
uniform in their local churches preaching how they would take vengeance
for 9/11 in Gods name etc.... Though I think they got told to stop doing
that after the papers latched on to it.

>What you seem to be saying is you'll willingly accept there was a war of
>'Christians against Jews' even when you knew there wasn't -- it doesn't
>therefore surprise me that, on the same rationale, you see a war of 'Islam
>against us' when there isn't. To paraphrase, "How could you do anything
>but?".
>That's where lack of critical thinking shows; 'it must be true because its
>written in the papers'.

Agreed. The propaganda fits the paranoia.

>You're saying the terrorist action we see should be by "Muslims with nuts"
>and "non-Muslims with nuts". That we see none of the later you argue is
>because non-Muslims don't agree with the cause where it can equally be they
>don't have the nuts.

There are very many non-Muslims who are very anti the US. The trouble is
the US medial and US government are reinforcing the Moslem aspect and
only reporting "Moslem" were it suites their cause and ignoring anything
else.

That said suicide bombers (other than in places like Palestine where it
is the only option) will be the more fanatical religious types. Their
support crew could be any or no religion.

>You could equally argue that if the UK were abusing animals then people
>other than the Animal Liberation Front would be attacking and burning down
>the property of those involved in vivisection and animal experimentations.

They aren't but many non ALF are protesting in other ways... in fact in
the same way several million UK citizens are protesting against the Iraq
war.

>You could then argue that as they are not, ergo there's no abuse, ALF are
>fighting a groundless campaign.

Also there are many Animal Rights people who would happily see all the
ALF people arrested as it upset's their more legal actions.

>>> Some people want you to believe there's a wide-sweeping 'war by Islam'
>>> because it serves their political agenda. It's a powerful pretext to
>>> curtail a section of society that they happen to dislike.
>>
>> Is that really what's going on?  That seems quite vague and simplistic
>> reasoning to me.
>
>I don't see how it's vague or how you mean simplistic. We've seen plenty of
>people on this forum who have taken the premise "Islam lives to kill",
>arguing there's a religious war by Islam against the west which we should
>fight against to destroy before it destroys us. That's fact and supported by
>evidence in the public domain.

And the US government who started this Crusade against the wrong targets
for the 9/11 event. The religious war was started by GWB. Had he gone
after the Saudi CIVILIANS as CRIMINALS and not started a religious war
against the legitimate government of Afghanistan there would be no
religious war.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"Chris H"  wrote...

[snips]

>>I don't see how it's vague or how you mean simplistic. We've seen plenty 
>>of
>>people on this forum who have taken the premise "Islam lives to kill",
>>arguing there's a religious war by Islam against the west which we should
>>fight against to destroy before it destroys us. That's fact and supported 
>>by
>>evidence in the public domain.
>
> And the US government who started this Crusade against the wrong targets
> for the 9/11 event. The religious war was started by GWB. Had he gone
> after the Saudi CIVILIANS as CRIMINALS and not started a religious war
> against the legitimate government of Afghanistan there would be no
> religious war.

It's true though that there were and are so-called Islamic radicals who 
would like Islam to become the global religion, just as there are so-called 
Christian radicals who believe the same for Christianity. Those are the 
minority in both religions. They and their opponents both point to the same 
religious texts and argue their own case.

Those who argue for domination by their religion *are* a danger to other 
religions and to those of their own religion who disagree with them.

What GWB did in labelling the US-led war a "Crusade" was play into the hands 
of the Islamic radicals by allowing them to say, 'look, we told you; the 
west - that is Christians - is at war against Islam, now they admit it. Now 
they come to occupy our lands and subjugate us, fight us and kill us'. That 
then brought those who opposed a 'Christian war on Islam' into the radical's 
fold. Of course, whether fighting a war for Islam or defending in a 
perceived Christian war against Islam the west disingenuously categorises 
both as fighting an Islamic war against us.

Islamic radical action did exist and was criminal, extremely violent, but 
not a war.

By moving to militarily engage those Islamic radicals, GWB made it a war, 
doing so by way of "Crusade" turned it into a religious war. That may not 
have been intended, may not be what it is from a general western 
perspective, but that's the reality of what we ultimately created.

To paraphrase TWP (again ) when Muslims see military action against Muslims 
on Muslim lands, see that military action described as a "Crusade", see that 
as a religious war on them; " How could they do anything but" ?

When those Muslims who don't hold to such a notion, reject the Islamic 
radical's beliefs, but find themselves, families, children and friends 
killed by western forces regardless of their innocence it is no surprise 
that they may ask, to paraphrase Ali-G, 'is it coz I is Muslim" ? It is no 
surprise that they may come to see it as the Islamic radicals describe it 
and join their fold.

It is equally no surprise that those far from the field of battle may be 
asking the same, 'is it coz they is Muslim', and of those who come to the 
conclusion that it is as the Islamic radicals see it come to believe that 
they, being of the same faith, are also being fought against, that they are, 
or will be, facing the same war against them.

We in the west may not perceive it as a Christian war against Islam but it's 
certainly understandable as to why some Muslims may see it that way. As it 
is said, "if it looks like a duck, quakes like a duck ..."

On the notion of, "one may as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb", it is 
also no surprise that some of those who are labelled as being in a religious 
war against the west and are facing be killed for that, end up in such a 
ware anyway.

GWB calling the military action a "Crusade" and US military action against 
civilians and others not engaged in a religious war against the west has 
turned it into a religious war. GWB chose the words to use, the US chose the 
tactics of military operations, which leads some to say that the US intended 
this to be a religious war.

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
news:HUWCm.4916$KR3.897@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>
> "TWP"  wrote ....
>
>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>> news:t5BCm.4584$KR3.3957@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>
>>>> Naive?
>>>
>>> And, I'm afraid to say, your perception is greatly affected by your
>>> tendency towards paranoia.
>>
>> It's SO easy to say something like that, HH.   I think you give what I'm
>> saying less serious thought because I think in your mind, and Chris H's
>> mind - and I'm sorry if I've got either of you wrong on this - that
>> because Bin Laden and 'his people' have been wronged by the West that
>> they become 'good guys', and no ulterior motive can be assigned to their
>> actions in perpetuity or forever.
>
> That OBL had a legitimate grievance does not automatically make him the
> Good Guy. But I'm not prepared to accept assignment of an ulterior motive
> unless it can be shown to have validity and some supporting evidence.
>
>
>> If you dare to suggest that something more might be going on here than
>> just revenge you are a conspiracy nut or an Islamaphobe or have been
>> watching far more Fox News than is good for a person.
>
> It comes under the catch-all of wild imaginations without supporting
> evidence. That in itself isn't a problem per se, but once one starts
> extrapolating from that premise one becomes on increasingly dubious
> ground.
>
>
>> You can suggest near any degree of nafarious plotting if the US/West is
>> the bad guys, otherwise sparks start to fly.  A little while ago Chris
>> seemed to be suggesting to me that evil plotting was a purely Western
>> personality trait. Call me an unbeliever, but I just don't go along with
>> that.  It's worth considering events beyond face value, that's all.
>
> I don't recall that discussion,


I didn't exactly remember it correctly, we weren't talking about evil, it
was about hate.  My fault.  I should have checked before I posted.

From thread "OBL Threatens Europe"  Around 29 Sept 2009.  I don't have the
thread since the newsgroup locked up for me a few days ago and I had to 
delete and reset the list.

"> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait."

It just seemed to reveal to me the anti-West/anti-US bias that seems to run
through discussions like this.



>
>> Bin Laden has put everything into his battle with the US and the West,
>> and so have the people that fight for him.  They frequently offer their
>> lives to his cause, or in response to the inspiration provided by him.
>> It seems improbable that they only seek to shake off or punish the
>> Western world,
>
> This is where what you say diverges from what I can accept.

You had no trouble accepting that the Iraq war might be for oil! :-)

I don't know.  I can't really say what OBL is thinking behind that beard.  I
do think though that he's going to be seeking some objective, and you won't
go broke betting on people wanting power.



>> I'm open to evidence that it isn't.
>
> I and thers have given it, but you appear to simply reject it.
>

You didn't really give me any evidence, you just told me that I didn't have
any!

I thought I'd found evidence for you here:
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp

...but it mentions that the non-Muslim fighters are converts.

"HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage war 
against the West, senior security sources warned last night.
As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for 
the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks 
inside the UK, according to one MI5 source."






>
>>  It really doesn't change that many realities even if it is.  Bombs still
>> go bang whatever the motives of those planting them.  What will be
>> different is what direction the attacks will take us in and possibly how
>> long all of this will go on for.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If some Christians in the UK took a dislike to perceived Jewish
>>> influences in the UK and took up terrorism directed against Jews, would
>>> you call that a 'war by Christians' ? I doubt it.
>>
>> I maybe would if everyone involved was Christian and made a point of
>> letting everyone know that the attack was in the name of Christianity.
>> How could I do anything but?
>
> By rationally looking at the claim made to see if it fts the facts.
>
> What you seem to be saying is you'll willingly accept there was a war of
> 'Christians against Jews' even when you knew there wasn't

I wouldn't know that there wasn't though, would I?   I'd only have the 
evidence as it appeared to me, like a jury member.   All the evidence points 
to Mr X having committed a foul murder.  Is it Mr X though, or did that evil 
bastard Mr Z set him up?   How can I tell without evidence of fabrication by 
Mr Z?  Until there is some proof that the apparently valid evidence against 
Mr X was actually invalid I'd have to convict him.


> That's where lack of critical thinking shows; 'it must be true because its
> written in the papers'.

That's not what's happening.

So far to my knowledge, 100% of AQ are Muslims.  It's not wild fantasy to 
believe that it isn't a co-incidence.  That isn't the same thing as all 
Muslims being AQ members either before that gets t urned on me.







>> OK.  Lots of people felt that way, and still do, therefore by that logic
>> anyone could have carried out that attack from any social or religious
>> background in this country.  They didn't have to come from the countries
>> involved, they didn't have to be any particular faith, they just had to
>> feel that justice needed to be done and have the nuts to actually do
>> something about it.
>
> Yes, anyone *could* act, but you repeatedly won't take into account what
> makes people act in certain ways.
>
> You are postulating that anyone aggrieved will be so aggrieved that they
> will act in the same way. What you and we see is evidence that they don't,
> but you take the end result then try and prove that shows something which
> it doesn't.

No, from what I could see you were postulating that.   You said that the 7/7 
attacks were nothing to do with OBL, but were basically retalliatory attacks 
against us for supporting the Iraq invasion.

My point was that it wasn't just about retalliation, but followed the same 
'crusade' pattern, in that all of the attackers were Muslims.  If Islam had 
nothing to do with it, or didn't have an element that was inherently hostile 
towards us, all four being Muslims would be a staggering co-incidence.






> You then fall into the circuitous, bum-about-face, self-reinforcing
> argument that because it's only Muslims seen to be acting it's only
> Muslims aggrieved, an Islam only issue. You conveniently forget the
> "having the nuts" factor. Include that and your theory falls flat on its
> face.

It doesn't fall on it's face at all.  If you refuse to recognise that there 
is an element to Islam that is violently hostile towards us, 7/7 especially 
makes very little sense.  Why would people who had nothing to do with Iraq - 
they weren't even descended from there - take time out of their lives to end 
their lives and take 50 others with them to protest a war there?   Why were 
none Iraqis but all Muslims?  I could have understood if they were all 
Iraqis, since Iraq was actually being invaded, but Islam wasn't being 
invaded.






>
>
>> Since Islam is a small fraction of the UK population (about 2.5%) it
>> seems unlikely that a random pick of people to act would incluide anyone
>> from that faith... about 40:1 - 40:4 since there were four attackers, so
>> there would only be a 10% chance of any Muslims being involved if this
>> was purely about retalliation for involvement in an unjust war.  This
>> supposes that the motivation was purely justice and religion had no part.
>> OK, so how many of the 7/7 attackers were Muslims?   If you said "all
>> four" you'd be correct.  Going by purely population figures and no other
>> factors such as peer pressure that looks like 40^4:1 (2.56 million to 1)
>> to me that all four would be Muslims... or there might just be a war
>> against the West by some followers of Islam.  OK, hardly scientific, but
>> if you discount Islam as a factor, as you are doing, you get to a place
>> where of four man team of Muslims becomes the less likely probability.
>
> Yes, because you are offering up a theory that doesn't fit the facts nor
> reality of how people are. As you say, "hardly scientific", yet you seem
> suprised when your theory is rejected.
>

Which part doesn't fit the facts?  Are any AQ members non-Muslims?  Were any 
of the 11 Sept, 7/7, 21/7, Madrid attackers non-Muslims?  Did the 7/7 
attackers come from Iraq?

Why is it a crime to believe that there is something going on that involves 
Islam anyway?  It doesn't mean that it encompasses every Muslim.  I already 
said I didn't believe that was the case.

I'm sure you could concede the link without becoming an evil Islamaphobic 
racist.




> You could equally argue that if the UK were abusing animals then people
> other than the Animal Liberation Front would be attacking and burning down
> the property of those involved in vivisection and animal experimentations.
> You could then argue that as they are not, ergo there's no abuse, ALF are
> fighting a groundless campaign.

The ALF don't only select membership from one part of the population.  If 
they did I'd be curious why they were doing so and what they stood to 
accomplish from that.  Wouldn't you?



TWP

"TWP"  wrote ...

> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
> news:HUWCm.4916$KR3.897@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> "TWP"  wrote ....
>>
>>> "The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message
>>> news:t5BCm.4584$KR3.3957@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>>>>
>>>> "TWP"  wrote ...
>>>>
>>>>> Naive?
>>>>
>>>> And, I'm afraid to say, your perception is greatly affected by your
>>>> tendency towards paranoia.
>>>
>>> It's SO easy to say something like that, HH.   I think you give what I'm
>>> saying less serious thought because I think in your mind, and Chris H's
>>> mind - and I'm sorry if I've got either of you wrong on this - that
>>> because Bin Laden and 'his people' have been wronged by the West that
>>> they become 'good guys', and no ulterior motive can be assigned to their
>>> actions in perpetuity or forever.
>>
>> That OBL had a legitimate grievance does not automatically make him the
>> Good Guy. But I'm not prepared to accept assignment of an ulterior motive
>> unless it can be shown to have validity and some supporting evidence.
>>
>>
>>> If you dare to suggest that something more might be going on here than
>>> just revenge you are a conspiracy nut or an Islamaphobe or have been
>>> watching far more Fox News than is good for a person.
>>
>> It comes under the catch-all of wild imaginations without supporting
>> evidence. That in itself isn't a problem per se, but once one starts
>> extrapolating from that premise one becomes on increasingly dubious
>> ground.
>>
>>
>>> You can suggest near any degree of nafarious plotting if the US/West is
>>> the bad guys, otherwise sparks start to fly.  A little while ago Chris
>>> seemed to be suggesting to me that evil plotting was a purely Western
>>> personality trait. Call me an unbeliever, but I just don't go along with
>>> that.  It's worth considering events beyond face value, that's all.
>>
>> I don't recall that discussion,
>
>
> I didn't exactly remember it correctly, we weren't talking about evil, it
> was about hate.  My fault.  I should have checked before I posted.
>
> From thread "OBL Threatens Europe"  Around 29 Sept 2009.  I don't have the
> thread since the newsgroup locked up for me a few days ago and I had to 
> delete and reset the list.
>
> "> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait."
>
> It just seemed to reveal to me the anti-West/anti-US bias that seems to 
> run
> through discussions like this.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Bin Laden has put everything into his battle with the US and the West,
>>> and so have the people that fight for him.  They frequently offer their
>>> lives to his cause, or in response to the inspiration provided by him.
>>> It seems improbable that they only seek to shake off or punish the
>>> Western world,
>>
>> This is where what you say diverges from what I can accept.
>
> You had no trouble accepting that the Iraq war might be for oil! :-)

That's because the facts fitted the asserted scenario.

Saddam was anti-AQ, anti-Iran, had not been involved in 9-11, had not 
supported AQ, had not made any move against the west, and - as many ignored 
intelligence officers said - had no viable WMD.

The NeoCons had vocalised their belief in seizing ME resources through 
militray campaign through the Project for the New American Century. 
Administration staff under GWB were members of PNAC, supported the NeoCon 
agenda.

The benefits in securing Iraqi oil under US control were beig talked-up and 
promoted in te run up to invasion.

To me it's hard to see how the asserted scenario is not backed-up by the 
facts.


> I don't know.  I can't really say what OBL is thinking behind that beard. 
> I
> do think though that he's going to be seeking some objective, and you 
> won't
> go broke betting on people wanting power.

Of course he has an objective, he's stated that on numberous occassions, and 
told us exactly what it is, over and over.


>>> I'm open to evidence that it isn't.
>>
>> I and thers have given it, but you appear to simply reject it.
>>
>
> You didn't really give me any evidence, you just told me that I didn't 
> have
> any!

Well, if you tell me how I prove a negative ;-)

You're the one asserting 'guilt', the onus falls on you to prove that.


> I thought I'd found evidence for you here:
> http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/AlQaeda39s-white-army-of-terror.3667425.jp
>
> ...but it mentions that the non-Muslim fighters are converts.
>
> "HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage 
> war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.
> As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam for 
> the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror attacks 
> inside the UK, according to one MI5 source."

Any evidence that this is evidence and not just propoganda ?


>>>  It really doesn't change that many realities even if it is.  Bombs 
>>> still
>>> go bang whatever the motives of those planting them.  What will be
>>> different is what direction the attacks will take us in and possibly how
>>> long all of this will go on for.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If some Christians in the UK took a dislike to perceived Jewish
>>>> influences in the UK and took up terrorism directed against Jews, would
>>>> you call that a 'war by Christians' ? I doubt it.
>>>
>>> I maybe would if everyone involved was Christian and made a point of
>>> letting everyone know that the attack was in the name of Christianity.
>>> How could I do anything but?
>>
>> By rationally looking at the claim made to see if it fts the facts.
>>
>> What you seem to be saying is you'll willingly accept there was a war of
>> 'Christians against Jews' even when you knew there wasn't
>
> I wouldn't know that there wasn't though, would I?   I'd only have the 
> evidence as it appeared to me, like a jury member.   All the evidence 
> points to Mr X having committed a foul murder.  Is it Mr X though, or did 
> that evil bastard Mr Z set him up?   How can I tell without evidence of 
> fabrication by Mr Z?  Until there is some proof that the apparently valid 
> evidence against Mr X was actually invalid I'd have to convict him.

Not a valid analogy. We're not debating if Mr X committed murder but "why?".


>> That's where lack of critical thinking shows; 'it must be true because 
>> its
>> written in the papers'.
>
> That's not what's happening.
>
> So far to my knowledge, 100% of AQ are Muslims.  It's not wild fantasy to 
> believe that it isn't a co-incidence.  That isn't the same thing as all 
> Muslims being AQ members either before that gets t urned on me.

I'll agree on both points, but that is largely irrelevent.


>>> OK.  Lots of people felt that way, and still do, therefore by that logic
>>> anyone could have carried out that attack from any social or religious
>>> background in this country.  They didn't have to come from the countries
>>> involved, they didn't have to be any particular faith, they just had to
>>> feel that justice needed to be done and have the nuts to actually do
>>> something about it.
>>
>> Yes, anyone *could* act, but you repeatedly won't take into account what
>> makes people act in certain ways.
>>
>> You are postulating that anyone aggrieved will be so aggrieved that they
>> will act in the same way. What you and we see is evidence that they 
>> don't,
>> but you take the end result then try and prove that shows something which
>> it doesn't.
>
> No, from what I could see you were postulating that.   You said that the 
> 7/7 attacks were nothing to do with OBL, but were basically retalliatory 
> attacks against us for supporting the Iraq invasion.

Indeed and I stand by my opinion.


> My point was that it wasn't just about retalliation, but followed the same 
> 'crusade' pattern, in that all of the attackers were Muslims.

Yes but this is the flaw in your thinking. You admit not all Muslims are AQ, 
but then you turn it round that these Muslims must be AQ by rejecting 
retaliation as grounds for their actions, simplyfor reason that they are 
Muslim.


> If Islam had nothing to do with it, or didn't have an element that was 
> inherently hostile towards us, all four being Muslims would be a 
> staggering co-incidence.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> You then fall into the circuitous, bum-about-face, self-reinforcing
>> argument that because it's only Muslims seen to be acting it's only
>> Muslims aggrieved, an Islam only issue. You conveniently forget the
>> "having the nuts" factor. Include that and your theory falls flat on its
>> face.
>
> It doesn't fall on it's face at all.  If you refuse to recognise that 
> there is an element to Islam that is violently hostile towards us, 7/7 
> especially makes very little sense.

It makes entire sense to me as retaliatory action; "you hurt my people, I'll 
hurt yours". Don't we in the west say, "an eye for an eye" ?


> Why would people who had nothing to do with Iraq - they weren't even 
> descended from there - take time out of their lives to end their lives and 
> take 50 others with them to protest a war there?   Why were none Iraqis 
> but all Muslims?  I could have understood if they were all Iraqis, since 
> Iraq was actually being invaded, but Islam wasn't being invaded.

We seem to be going round in circles.


>>> Since Islam is a small fraction of the UK population (about 2.5%) it
>>> seems unlikely that a random pick of people to act would incluide anyone
>>> from that faith... about 40:1 - 40:4 since there were four attackers, so
>>> there would only be a 10% chance of any Muslims being involved if this
>>> was purely about retalliation for involvement in an unjust war.  This
>>> supposes that the motivation was purely justice and religion had no 
>>> part.
>>> OK, so how many of the 7/7 attackers were Muslims?   If you said "all
>>> four" you'd be correct.  Going by purely population figures and no other
>>> factors such as peer pressure that looks like 40^4:1 (2.56 million to 1)
>>> to me that all four would be Muslims... or there might just be a war
>>> against the West by some followers of Islam.  OK, hardly scientific, but
>>> if you discount Islam as a factor, as you are doing, you get to a place
>>> where of four man team of Muslims becomes the less likely probability.
>>
>> Yes, because you are offering up a theory that doesn't fit the facts nor
>> reality of how people are. As you say, "hardly scientific", yet you seem
>> suprised when your theory is rejected.
>>
>
> Which part doesn't fit the facts?  Are any AQ members non-Muslims?  Were 
> any of the 11 Sept, 7/7, 21/7, Madrid attackers non-Muslims?  Did the 7/7 
> attackers come from Iraq?

Not all Muslims are AQ, as you note.

> Why is it a crime to believe that there is something going on that 
> involves Islam anyway?  It doesn't mean that it encompasses every Muslim. 
> I already said I didn't believe that was the case.

Which is ehere I'm really confused. You don't believe it but appear to be 
arguing it is the case.

> I'm sure you could concede the link without becoming an evil Islamaphobic 
> racist.

You talk of "Islam" when you should be talking of factions who each claim to 
be of the Islamic faith.


>> You could equally argue that if the UK were abusing animals then people
>> other than the Animal Liberation Front would be attacking and burning 
>> down
>> the property of those involved in vivisection and animal 
>> experimentations.
>> You could then argue that as they are not, ergo there's no abuse, ALF are
>> fighting a groundless campaign.
>
> The ALF don't only select membership from one part of the population.  If 
> they did I'd be curious why they were doing so and what they stood to 
> accomplish from that.  Wouldn't you?

But you can equally argue that there are commonalities between all ALF 
members. I don't see any evidence that AQ only selects from one part of the 
population. That you might not see particular populations within AQ doesn't 
mean they would not be welcomed. Again, this is what, for me, is adding up 
to creating a strawman. You are taking single characteristics then saying 
there is only one conclusion for such a characteristic when there are many.

In message , TWP
 writes
>>> You can suggest near any degree of nafarious plotting if the US/West is
>>> the bad guys, otherwise sparks start to fly.  A little while ago Chris
>>> seemed to be suggesting to me that evil plotting was a purely Western
>>> personality trait. Call me an unbeliever, but I just don't go along with
>>> that.  It's worth considering events beyond face value, that's all.
>>
>> I don't recall that discussion,
>
>
>I didn't exactly remember it correctly, we weren't talking about evil, it
>was about hate.  My fault.  I should have checked before I posted.
>
>From thread "OBL Threatens Europe"  Around 29 Sept 2009.  I don't have the
>thread since the newsgroup locked up for me a few days ago and I had to
>delete and reset the list.
>
>"> There was no hate involved.  That is a US trait."
>
>It just seemed to reveal to me the anti-West/anti-US bias that seems to run
>through discussions like this.

Yes... The US always seems to want Vengeance...
Look at want happened over the Magrahi and Lybia.... They wanted him to
rot in prison despite:
1 he had terminal cancer
2 the conviction was unsafe and it was fairly certain he did not do it.

Re 9/11 they wanted to attack Afghanistan and Iraq despite the bombers
being Saudis who were trained in the USa but they HAD to attack some
one.

They want to invade Iran (not sure why) and they still do.

They have threatened N. Korea (why?)

They keep  sanctions against Cuba for absolutely no good reason....

Vengeance "NOW!" seems to be their first reaction.

>>> Bin Laden has put everything into his battle with the US and the West,
>>> and so have the people that fight for him.  They frequently offer their
>>> lives to his cause, or in response to the inspiration provided by him.
>>> It seems improbable that they only seek to shake off or punish the
>>> Western world,
>>
>> This is where what you say diverges from what I can accept.
>
>You had no trouble accepting that the Iraq war might be for oil! :-)

Not just oil. I think the US was worried there might be some alliance
between Iraq and Iran. Also some wanted to push though Iraq to Iran

>I don't know.  I can't really say what OBL is thinking behind that beard.  I
>do think though that he's going to be seeking some objective, and you won't
>go broke betting on people wanting power.

I don't think he wants power in a conventional western sense.

>> By rationally looking at the claim made to see if it fts the facts.
>>
>> What you seem to be saying is you'll willingly accept there was a war of
>> 'Christians against Jews' even when you knew there wasn't
>
>I wouldn't know that there wasn't though, would I?   I'd only have the
>evidence as it appeared to me, like a jury member.   All the evidence points
>to Mr X having committed a foul murder.  Is it Mr X though, or did that evil
>bastard Mr Z set him up?   How can I tell without evidence of fabrication by
>Mr Z?  Until there is some proof that the apparently valid evidence against
>Mr X was actually invalid I'd have to convict him.

Equivocation

>> That's where lack of critical thinking shows; 'it must be true because its
>> written in the papers'.
>That's not what's happening.
>So far to my knowledge, 100% of AQ are Muslims.

Of course because the only ones who have been mentioned as having a
religion are Moslems... there are many thousands in AQ but only a small
fraction have had their religion mentioned.

> It's not wild fantasy to
>believe that it isn't a co-incidence.

Not at all the US has gone on a Crusade against Moslem Countries....
Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan and focused on the fact that they are
Islamic and that America is Christian and has God on it's side. The US
is hardly going to admit or highlight the non Moslems or even worse any
Christians fighting against them,

>  That isn't the same thing as all
>Muslims being AQ members either before that gets t urned on me.

Not at all many Moslems disapprove of Al Qeada. (Whilst also disproving
of the USA murdering civilians even more.


>>> OK.  Lots of people felt that way, and still do, therefore by that logic
>>> anyone could have carried out that attack from any social or religious
>>> background in this country.  They didn't have to come from the countries
>>> involved, they didn't have to be any particular faith, they just had to
>>> feel that justice needed to be done and have the nuts to actually do
>>> something about it.
>>
>> Yes, anyone *could* act, but you repeatedly won't take into account what
>> makes people act in certain ways.
>>
>> You are postulating that anyone aggrieved will be so aggrieved that they
>> will act in the same way. What you and we see is evidence that they don't,
>> but you take the end result then try and prove that shows something which
>> it doesn't.
>
>No, from what I could see you were postulating that.   You said that the 7/7
>attacks were nothing to do with OBL, but were basically retalliatory attacks
>against us for supporting the Iraq invasion.

Yes. That is the case. Many people in Britain have had civilian
relatives killed by the US forces and they also blame the UK government
and UK military for assisting. That had nothing to do with 9/11 and OBL
but the US actions in Afghanistan  (do remember that the 9/11 bombers
were US trained Saudis)

>My point was that it wasn't just about retalliation, but followed the same
>'crusade' pattern, in that all of the attackers were Muslims.

Not at all. This was retaliation for the US invading a country and
killing civilians.

> If Islam had
>nothing to do with it, or didn't have an element that was inherently hostile
>towards us, all four being Muslims would be a staggering co-incidence.

Islam is a focal point because  the USA launched an overtly Christian
Crusade against the Islamic Terrorists.  The US generated the war
against Islam and has made sure that has been the focus.


>> You then fall into the circuitous, bum-about-face, self-reinforcing
>> argument that because it's only Muslims seen to be acting it's only
>> Muslims aggrieved, an Islam only issue. You conveniently forget the
>> "having the nuts" factor. Include that and your theory falls flat on its
>> face.
>
>It doesn't fall on it's face at all.  If you refuse to recognise that there
>is an element to Islam that is violently hostile towards us,

There is. Why is that? Perhaps because the USA launched a Crusade
against Islam?

> 7/7 especially
>makes very little sense.

7/7 makes a lot of sense without the religion.  A lot of people living
in the UK have had their relative killed by the actions of the USA and
to a lesser extent the UK governments. The terrorists are using religion
in the same way George Bush did.  There are many stories of problems
faced by non Christian (or non religious ) members of the US forces.

There is religious brain washing on both sides.

>  Why would people who had nothing to do with Iraq -
>they weren't even descended from there - take time out of their lives to end
>their lives and take 50 others with them to protest a war there?

Why do any young people protest and take up causes?

>Why were
>none Iraqis but all Muslims?

Why did the USA invade Afghanistan when the 9/11 bombers were US trained
Saudis?

Why did the US invade Iraq when it's own inspectors said there were no
WMD and that the only al-qeada in Iraq wanted to get rid of Saddam?

>  I could have understood if they were all
>Iraqis, since Iraq was actually being invaded, but Islam wasn't being
>invaded.

What do Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestine all have in common?
What is the normal target of a Crusade?
What is the Christian US army attacking?
Why did Bush repeatedly refer to Islamic terrorists?

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

"The Happy Hippy"  wrote in message 
news:ip%Cm.4998$KR3.3575@text.news.virginmedia.com...
>


>> "HUNDREDS of British non-Muslims have been recruited by al-Qaeda to wage 
>> war against the West, senior security sources warned last night.
>> As many as 1,500 white Britons are believed to have converted to Islam 
>> for the purpose of funding, planning and carrying out surprise terror 
>> attacks inside the UK, according to one MI5 source."
>
> Any evidence that this is evidence and not just propoganda ?

No.  I didn't pay it much attention after it didn't disprove what I was 
saying.  I could find stuff with my eyes closed that say AQ members are 
Muslims/Muslim converts.  I'm interested in seeing if AQ does (or can) 
develop beyond Islam though.



>> I wouldn't know that there wasn't though, would I?   I'd only have the 
>> evidence as it appeared to me, like a jury member.   All the evidence 
>> points to Mr X having committed a foul murder.  Is it Mr X though, or did 
>> that evil bastard Mr Z set him up?   How can I tell without evidence of 
>> fabrication by Mr Z?  Until there is some proof that the apparently valid 
>> evidence against Mr X was actually invalid I'd have to convict him.
>
> Not a valid analogy. We're not debating if Mr X committed murder but 
> "why?".

No, what I'm saying is we can't know at any particular moment more than we 
have discovered until that particular moment.   If I see Jews being killed 
by a group who's members are exclusively Christians, and these killers are 
saying that they're killing Jews because its their duty I have to believe 
that it is highly probable that there is a purely Christian group out there 
who's members are killing Jews, and since religion is a common element, then 
the motive is probably some religious duty - until I gain new knowledge that 
disproves this position.  Once it is disproved I'm not going to go away and 
put a gun to my head.  I haven't staked my heart and sould on being right 
about my first conclusing, it simply fit the available facts at the time. 
I'll just rebuld a new position based on the currently available updated 
facts.

Assuming I have a box of 100 pens, if I pick out 80 and every one of them is 
black I wouldn't consider myself obligated to assume that there MUST be some 
blue and red ones in there too, although it would be a possibility.  If I 
pulled out a blue one, I'd then update my facts and assume it was a box of 
black and blue pens, but wouldn't consider myself obligated to assume that 
since there were black AND blue pens then there MUST be some red ones in 
there too somewhere, although it would certainly be a possibility.




>> My point was that it wasn't just about retalliation, but followed the 
>> same 'crusade' pattern, in that all of the attackers were Muslims.
>
> Yes but this is the flaw in your thinking. You admit not all Muslims are 
> AQ, but then you turn it round that these Muslims must be AQ by rejecting 
> retaliation as grounds for their actions, simplyfor reason that they are 
> Muslim.

No - I made no link to the 7/7 attacks and AQ.  I made a link with Islam and 
the 7/7 attacks.  AQ was probably an inspiraton to the 7/7 attackers, but I 
think the real link between the 7/7 attackers and the Iraq war was Islam.





>> It doesn't fall on it's face at all.  If you refuse to recognise that 
>> there is an element to Islam that is violently hostile towards us, 7/7 
>> especially makes very little sense.
>
> It makes entire sense to me as retaliatory action; "you hurt my people, 
> I'll hurt yours".

.... and what made the Iraqis "their people?"  They were all British....


>Don't we in the west say, "an eye for an eye" ?

What eyes had the 7/7 attackers lost?




>
>
>> Why would people who had nothing to do with Iraq - they weren't even 
>> descended from there - take time out of their lives to end their lives 
>> and take 50 others with them to protest a war there?   Why were none 
>> Iraqis but all Muslims?  I could have understood if they were all Iraqis, 
>> since Iraq was actually being invaded, but Islam wasn't being invaded.
>
> We seem to be going round in circles.

I didn't expect to make any progress! :-)   Did you?





>> Which part doesn't fit the facts?  Are any AQ members non-Muslims?  Were 
>> any of the 11 Sept, 7/7, 21/7, Madrid attackers non-Muslims?  Did the 7/7 
>> attackers come from Iraq?
>
> Not all Muslims are AQ, as you note.

But are any AQ members that you've heard of non-Muslims?





>
>> Why is it a crime to believe that there is something going on that 
>> involves Islam anyway?  It doesn't mean that it encompasses every Muslim. 
>> I already said I didn't believe that was the case.
>
> Which is ehere I'm really confused. You don't believe it but appear to be 
> arguing it is the case.

You are still trying to pull all this in a direction I'm telling you over 
and over again that I'm not going in.   I am not saying that Islam itself is 
the problem, I'm saying that the problem is directly connected with Islam. 
Big difference even if it sounds similar.   The terrorist problem - or 
whatever you see it as - isn't being created by Islam, otherwise all good 
Muslims would be terrorists, but it is feeding from Islam.  It makes those 
who fight for the terrorist cause brothers in blood - in fact brothers 
beyond blood.  It's a unifying and probably strengthening ingredient that 
goes beyond national borders.  Even the most patriotic to their home nation 
would usually put their God and faith above their national loyalties.



>
>> I'm sure you could concede the link without becoming an evil Islamaphobic 
>> racist.
>
> You talk of "Islam" when you should be talking of factions who each claim 
> to be of the Islamic faith.

You dodged! :-)
It doesn't matter if they are a faction.  People like AQ won't consider 
themselves a faction anyway, they'll think they're the only real Muslims 
around.

I can call Catholics and Protestants different factions, but they all 
believe in the same God.  They both have the same commandments.  They're 
just different ways of interpreting what is basically the same root 
religion.  Both would consider themselves "real Christians".



>
>
>>> You could equally argue that if the UK were abusing animals then people
>>> other than the Animal Liberation Front would be attacking and burning 
>>> down
>>> the property of those involved in vivisection and animal 
>>> experimentations.
>>> You could then argue that as they are not, ergo there's no abuse, ALF 
>>> are
>>> fighting a groundless campaign.
>>
>> The ALF don't only select membership from one part of the population.  If 
>> they did I'd be curious why they were doing so and what they stood to 
>> accomplish from that.  Wouldn't you?
>
> But you can equally argue that there are commonalities between all ALF 
> members. I don't see any evidence that AQ only selects from one part of 
> the population. That you might not see particular populations within AQ 
> doesn't mean they would not be welcomed.

Exactly right, but this brings us back to the Mr X / Mr Z problem.  Until 
you know that non-Muslims are being admitted, and not just one or two, but 
actually taken on like everyone else - and in the face of every AQ member 
that I know of (and you yourself otherwise you'd have mentioned them by now) 
being a Muslim, I have to assume at this point in time that all or nearly 
all AQ members are Muslims, and that this is probably intentional, since AQ 
cells operate even in countries where Islam isn't the majority religion. 
Does that mean all Muslims are AQ members or secretly want to be?  No, that 
doesn't follow.  AQ has its roots in Islam, Islam doesn't have it's roots in 
AQ.



Again, this is what, for me, is adding up
> to creating a strawman. You are taking single characteristics then saying 
> there is only one conclusion for such a characteristic when there are 
> many.

I'm using the information I have to hand.  If every person in AQ that I've 
heard of is a Muslim then I'm not gong to be struck down by any gods of 
reason for saying 'going by the facts I have at hand to date, all AQ members 
are likely to be Muslims, and if that is the case there is likely to be a 
reason for this exclusivity'.


TWP

In message , TWP
 writes
>
>>> My point was that it wasn't just about retalliation, but followed the
>>> same 'crusade' pattern, in that all of the attackers were Muslims.
>>
>> Yes but this is the flaw in your thinking. You admit not all Muslims are
>> AQ, but then you turn it round that these Muslims must be AQ by rejecting
>> retaliation as grounds for their actions, simplyfor reason that they are
>> Muslim.
>
>No - I made no link to the 7/7 attacks and AQ.  I made a link with Islam and
>the 7/7 attacks.  AQ was probably an inspiraton to the 7/7 attackers, but I
>think the real link between the 7/7 attackers and the Iraq war was Islam.

No it wasn't.  The link was the US actions killing civilians. The 7/7
bombers wanted to do something about it. The method of indoctrination
used by the Al-Qeada people was Islam... ie God is on our side it is
righteous to strike back... EXACTLY the same as Bush had been using for
the previous 5 years.  Just because the Al-qeada people are cynically
using that form of motivation I(just as the US military does with
Christianity) does not mean that AQ is Islamic.

In fact many eminent Moslems have said Islam is being misused in this
respect.


>>> It doesn't fall on it's face at all.  If you refuse to recognise that
>>> there is an element to Islam that is violently hostile towards us, 7/7
>>> especially makes very little sense.
>>
>> It makes entire sense to me as retaliatory action; "you hurt my people,
>> I'll hurt yours".
>
>.... and what made the Iraqis "their people?"  They were all British....

What had Iraq got to do with it? The US has been killing Civilians in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Palestine, Kurdistan, etc

What make the Iraqi's and Afghans US targets when some US trained Saudis
attacked on 9/11?

>>Don't we in the west say, "an eye for an eye" ?
>What eyes had the 7/7 attackers lost?

Over 100,000 civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan,
Palestine, Kurdistan, etc

>>> Why would people who had nothing to do with Iraq - they weren't even
>>> Which part doesn't fit the facts?  Are any AQ members non-Muslims?  Were
>>> any of the 11 Sept, 7/7, 21/7, Madrid attackers non-Muslims?  Did the 7/7
>>> attackers come from Iraq?
>>
>> Not all Muslims are AQ, as you note.
>
>But are any AQ members that you've heard of non-Muslims?

No. Simply because if they are not Overly Moslem their religion is not
mentioned.

>the problem, I'm saying that the problem is directly connected with Islam.

That is because the US made it a religious war...

>The terrorist problem - or
>whatever you see it as - isn't being created by Islam, otherwise all good
>Muslims would be terrorists,

Correct

> but it is feeding from Islam.

In exactly the same way the US is using Christianity.... However the US
started on this track and made it a religious war.

>It makes those
>who fight for the terrorist cause brothers in blood - in fact brothers
>beyond blood.  It's a unifying and probably strengthening ingredient that
>goes beyond national borders.

Quite so... the US miscalculated here.... They exp0ected the Christian
west to bind together but they didn't because unlike the US population
the Europeans are less susceptible to propaganda

>Even the most patriotic to their home nation
>would usually put their God and faith above their national loyalties.

But Americans don't... they seem to see it as one and the same. God
really *IS* in the Side of the USA as they are Gods warriors and the
Worlds Policemen...  that is turning patriotism into a religion.


>> You talk of "Islam" when you should be talking of factions who each claim
>> to be of the Islamic faith.
>
>You dodged! :-)
>It doesn't matter if they are a faction.  People like AQ won't consider
>themselves a faction anyway, they'll think they're the only real Muslims
>around.

Like Westbough Baptists? :-

>I'm using the information I have to hand.  If every person in AQ that I've
>heard of is a Muslim then I'm not gong to be struck down by any gods of
>reason for saying 'going by the facts I have at hand to date, all AQ members
>are likely to be Muslims, and if that is the case there is likely to be a
>reason for this exclusivity'.


You are making a fatal mistake. There are many thousands in AQ. Just
because the religion of a few is prominently mentioned for propaganda
purposes by both sides you assume that what holds for the minority is
true for the majority with only propaganda for evidence.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/