Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

WHAT?!!!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I take your point

but I'm not hearing any other options. During the IRA threat all people in N.I. were treated with suspicion. Even more so Catholics.

It wasn't nice but had to be done.

Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, some islamic/asian people may be inconvenienced, if in a given circumstance the police have good reason to speak to them.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I will ask again then.........what will work? :confused:


I have a patient who works for the govt advising UK embassies worldwide about security......
He had just come in from London and said that given the level of threat we are under atm, if he was offered a job that meant he had to use the tube every day, he wouldn't take the job. :erm:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I've been wanting that for months now :erm: :(

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

If nazi intentions had been nipped in the bud then Belsen wouldn't have happened.....you agree?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Quick, invade the USA too then, just in case.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I'm with Graham on this one. If you don't want a debate, goodbye.

Agree with him or not,Graham's posts are always thought provoking, occasionally provocative, always reasoned, always intelligent, always detailed. Some posts on CF are bigoted, uninformed, regurgitated-from-the tabloids drivel; have a pop at them instead.
__________________

You're happy to be seen comparing muslims to the Nazis are you. And Paul M feels fit to have a pop at Graham!

And on your other point re other solutions; I've already responded.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

That may be :D
........but it doesn't invalidate my point that you can ultimately bend over backwards too far in trying not to offend.
__________________

erm.......no :confused:
I'm pointing out where appeasement gets us sometimes. :dozey:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Whatever way I look at it you're comparing muslims to nazis in raising this 'appeasement' idea. Who precisely are we supposed to be appeasing?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

You can look at it any way you want but what you are alleging isn't true :dozey: muslims

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

How do you know what my race or religion is? Bit of a pre-judgement there, don't you think? Presuming I am "guilty" because of my opinions... tut tut
__________________

No, try New York, Bali, etc etc
__________________

IF it's true reporting, Andy. Key word there is IF. After all, IF my auntie had balls, she'd be my uncle.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Assuming that is true (my understanding is that Republicans were treated with suspicion) did it work? No. The police's record in finding good reason is not good.
__________________

I quite specifically said I didn't want to re-open that debate and yet.....
__________________

So how are you making your argument against so called appeasement then? And we're appeasing muslims are we? Is that all muslims, the majority of British muslims that don't support terrorism. Please do explain.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

OK, I must have mis-understood... I presumed that you meant the debate on what was said specifically, as opposed to the question of whether the reporting was accurate.

By the way, this shows that because one person doesn't want something, they won't necessarily get their own way...;)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Certainly. It has been pointed out today that muslims may experience more stop and search and more counter terrorist activities in order to try to stop loss of life in this country from terrorist activities. Some sections of the muslim community (and our own liberal contingent) are up in arms about this. If we back down from such counter terror activities then we are appeasing those sections of our society. Seems straightforward enough to me :confused:
My argument against appeasement is that sometimes giving in like that can lead to an increased confidence in those who would do us harm (as it did in the 1930's) and spur them on and indeed allow them a freer reign in their activities.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Actually, the VCP's (Vehicle Check Points), body searches before entering Belfast City Center etc, wheren't really designed to ''stop'' the terrorists. They where designed to make attacks more difficult.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Catholic/Republicans 99% = the same thing.

Did it work? not very well but then again the IRA had a political agenda that we could work on, and an avenue for peace.

What is the muslim extremists agenda? oh that's right destruction of the west and what it stands for. Could be a bit difficult negotiating peace with that.

The polices record in finding good reason is not good, based on what exactly. Do you have personal experience of it?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Actually I think before the peace process Sinn Fein polled about 23% of the Northern Ireland electorate. So that would have given republicans approx 340,000 votes, which would constitute less than half of catholic voters in Northern Ireland. :)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I think the agenda is just a little bit more complicated than that, the Middle East not being a particularly simple issue and our historic role within it not terribly impressive.

As I have said more than once, during the SUS laws of the 70s the Police were shown quite categorically not to have shown good judgement (see the Scarman report). Searches were only discriminate in that they disproportionally - by some margin - targeted the black population. Obviously blacks are Ok now, its Asians' turn. And yes I have personal experience. I have been illegally searched, illegally held and even had a nice 6ft tall policeman point out how big his boots were to me whilst I was illegally held in a cell (can't think why he should point that out to me). Is that enough for you?
__________________


1. If we 'back down' from indiscriminate searching/harassment of people because of their race/religion, that is not appeasement. That's having a sense of justice.

2. In discussing appeasement you refer to the Nazis (due to a previous post, granted). The appearance at least is one of comparison.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

And as I pointed out, the 70s were about 30 years ago. You may as well accuse all German soldiers of goose-stepping! It is also a statistic that certain crimes in certain areas were committed by blacks more often than whites or Asians. You probably wouldn't complain if more skinheads than pensioners were searched at a football match, would you?

Why not move on from what was reported in the 70s and look at what's happening now. Remember, there are a lot more Asian police officers now... are you accusing them of being racist too?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

1. Lessons from history can be learnt; you don't move on from them
2. I don't think you understand the massively detrimental effect indiscriminate (ie nowt to do with suspicion) had at the time.
3. A lot more Asian police officers? Still rare as rocking horse sh*t (and I live in Greater Manchester where the police's record, by their own admission and widespread evidence, is hardly a bastion of race-neutral policing).

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

1.But you shouldn't really base your opinion of how you think the police MAY behave in future on how they behaved 30 years ago.
2.Again, that was 30 years ago.
3.And I spend a lot of time in areas with a more densely populated Asian community, and I can tell you there are a LOT more Asian officers in the force. Good thing too, if you ask me.

But do you think that any spot checks on Muslims would be viewed as racist if thay are carried out by Asian (possibly Muslim) officers?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

That may be, but we have also been talking about offending muslims with this development. If we back down from that then it's appeasement.
It's not a comparison, it's an example

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

They also ignored the Nazi's discriminatory treatment of the Jews, look where *that* got us...!!

Shooting anyone who's a potential terrorist would also stop attacks.

Do you think *that* is worth a try too...???

Well, she is, according to what you say, "a Muslim", and, also according to what you say "probably knows what she is talking about re muslim attitudes in the UK", so I'd be interested to know what an ordinary Muslim would *do* in a situation like that...!

Why not.

Well, apart from the fact we might have to suspect them of being terrorists if people posting in here are right...

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Hmmm... I'm no expert, but...

People being stopped, questioned, searched, whatever, tend to be able to carry on afterwards as if nothing has happened. Shooting people tends to suggest that might be less likely. Innocent people can walk away, having been questioned; shot innocent people can't.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Oh, so we've been abusing these rights *already*!

So let's ignore the fact it's a breach of the Common Law and the EU convention on Human Rights (which this country is signatory to).

We've already set a precedent, so it's all right, then... :rolleyes:

So it's ok to repress and harass a minority but *not* a majority?

At what point does it become unacceptable?

But then you went on to say "So if we agree that inside informants (Like Ramrod said) is extremely unlikely,"

Except that, as I said in the next paragraph:

Please quote me something where I said "all intelligence" because I'm certain that I did not, nor would, say anything like that!

I agree, for instance, as I said in a debate not long ago with the concept of using Phone Tap evidence in a court of law *provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip".

Frankly I'm utterly astonished that Charles Clarke *doesn't* want this to happen and I can't for the life of me understand *why* unless there's some ulterior motive or reason that hasn't been revealed to us.
__________________

Thank you.

Did it? Or did it simply *contribute* to exacerbating The Troubles? I know which *my* money is on.

And, just as with The Troubles in Ireland, I think the "solution" is just going to make the problem worse.
__________________

YEAH!! :D
__________________

Fine, you're right, I don't know if you're part of that minority or not.

I apologise.

Whooosh! Sorry, but that point clearly went over your head.

Belsen et al happened because *ordinary* people were content to stand back and *DO NOTHING* whilst others had their rights taken away and were shipped off.

Now the proposal is, once again, to treat an entire group as the problem and take away their rights, but, once again, ordinary people seem to be going to do nothing because the loss of rights won't affect *them*, however they think it will make things better for them.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Yes that was terrible, but that did occur as a result of the original appeasement.



:confused: Who mentioned shooting them? That is a rather large escalation to try to prove a point



As she said, they might not/would not want to say anything as it's betraying a felow muslim to the infidel. As for what she would do, I would like to think she would speak up, but I don't know for sure.



I didn't say that about them.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I suggest you look at the history of the Appeasement of the Nazis before you make any more comments like this.

Appeasement resulted in Hitler, Chamberlain, Daladier of France and Mussolini signing the Munich Agreement carving up Czechoslovakia and giving Germany the Sudetenland. When the Czech leadership quite rightly complained, Chamberlain simply told them that Britain wouldn't go to war over this.

In fact this is exactly counter to your argument above because just as the right of the Czechs in the Sudetenland to determine what happened to them were ridden roughshod over, so some seem to want to ride roughshod of the rights of *all* Muslims based on the actions of a minority!

And violating their rights can lead to more of them being driven into the waiting arms of the extremists who are looking for willing converts who are disaffected by the way their rights are being treated as irrelevant.
__________________

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

- George Santayana
__________________

If you are targetting any particular group based simply on what they look like or what religion they profess, that is discriminatory, no matter *who* is doing it.
__________________

Have you never heard of "Pour encourager les autres"?

Or how about "Shoot them all, let God sort them out"?

It's got to be worth a try...

[NB Just in case anyone's not sure what I'm saying here, please read the above with a strong sense of cynicism!]
__________________

No, it occurred because "it's not our problem".

It's an extrapolation. At what point does something *cease* to be "worth a try"? Shooting them? Violating their Civil Rights? Where do you draw the line?

Fine, so don't betray them to the "infidel", tell their Imam instead and get them to sort them out.

But they wouldn't *do nothing* which is what some seem to suggest.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

No. The proposal is for ordinary people (the police) ask questions of other ordinary people (Muslims) to try and find information and weedle out less than ordinary people (terrorists). It's a form of communication. Granted, it may not appear the perfect way to open lines of communication, but it's quick and direct. Isn't that the best way to combat terrorism?
__________________

I think one of the current popular expressions is "Holy War". Since the "armies" involved don't necessarily wear a uniform, one must use whatever means possible to identify the "soldiers".

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

No, and it is nothing of the sort. Since God knows when, the government has been allowed to hold people under suspicion. That is what remand is for. That is why they have cells in police stations, so suspects can be held during questioning. At no time is the criminal judged to be guilty, but during that time is to be held. Do we bail every single suspect because remand is against their human rights? Do we go a step further and ask everyone nicely, after arrest, to hang around outside the station until we call them for questioing?


Police need more than ethnicity to suspect someone of a crime.


So... Ramrod says informants are few and far between, and then you go on to say that they'll be less? Then how can you rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering?



But how do you know who to wiretap without intelligence telling you who could be suspects? It is the chicken-and-egg story. And how come you have changed your mind about their right to privacy all of a sudden?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

So the nazis were appeased and they went on to commit greater and greater atrocities.......point proven, thank you. :)
Bit of a dodgy argument there.......I'm fairly certain that you know the name of the fallacy that you are basing your argument on .....and I'm sure that you quoted it to me once :D

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Yes, but for someone to be held on remand they must have been *charged* with a crime.

That is not the same as remanding someone in custody pending trial and there are strict laws regarding how long someone can be held before they must be either charged or released.

What Charles Clarke wants, however, is to lock someone up *without* charge and possibly without ever *being* charged, let alone having the evidence tested in a court of law, not to mention ignoring the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights for someone to be made aware of the charges against them and for a speedy trial.

I suggest you look at the history of the Special Patrol Group back in the 1980s and the reports of institutionalised racism following the Stephen Lawerence murder etc.

Sorry, *where* did *I* say we should "rely on them as our sole method of intelligence gathering"?

Again you seem to be assuming I have said something I haven't. Intelligence is available from the community, from informants and many other sources. All of this can be obtained without trampling on the rights of a complete section of society.

And I have not changed my mind about the right of privacy either. As I said I agree with phone tapping "*provided* that the tap was done based on reasonable suspicion rather than just as a "fishing trip"."

If the government was to tap the phone lines of every Muslim or every Black or everyone called Punky I would, naturally object, because they would have no justification for such an action.

If there was legitimately obtained evidence to suspect people of planning a crime, *then* their phones could be tapped (subject to proper scrutiny and review) and, if evidence was obtained, for that to be used in a court of law.
__________________

Point proven? Hardly, unless you can actually *demonstrate* a causal link between the two which I very much doubt.

Oh, BTW, this is the fallacy known as "Post hoc, ergo proper hoc" or "after this, therefore *because* of this..." implying that there is a logical connection between the two, rather than just two events happening one after another.

Yes, Ramrod, it's *meant* to be fallacious! :rolleyes: I'm trying to point out that your "it's worth a try" argument is *also* fallacious!

And the fallacy is the "Burden of Proof" ie that your claim "it's worth a try" is attempting to put the onus on me to *disprove* that claim, when, in fact, the requirement is that *you* prove your case.

See http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.htm for more information.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Without informants, how would you find out anything, without invading privacy?

We already said that informants can't be relied upon for the sole source of intelligence. So what are these "many other sources"? If you know a better way of gathering intelligence that is both informative, but doesn't break people's right to privacy, why not share it with MI5? Or if not them, then share it with me.

Aside from informants, which we discussed was not substiantial enough to be solely relied upon, I can't see any other intelligence gathering that doesn't involve breaking someone's human rights. The only one I can think of is if the police bust something by sheer dumb luck, like if they search a house for stolen goods and find Ricin.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I really don't think we should be quoting the European Human Rights legislation here. Week in and week out, one hears and reads of examples of this pathetic legislature allowing the so called "human rights" of particular groups or individuals to trample on the lives of others, who presumably have less "human rights". And please don't blame sensationalist journalism here.

As with the SUS law in the 70s, quoting an area of policing from the 80s is equally defunct. Why not quote the police efforts to recruit more officers from ethnic minorities during the 90s and 2000s? After all it's more recent and hence more relevant... but then it doesn't really fit your argument, does it?

But it's the last point that interests me most: you talk about "reasonable suspicion", yet that is what this is all about. It has not been declared that EVERY Muslim will be stopped, questioned and searched whenever they leave home. It seems clear to me that what is being said is that people may be detained and questioned more often, and that there is a strong chance that there will be a larger proportion of Muslims among this element. But I think you will find that for someone to be detained and questioned, there will need to be suspicion in the first place. So, you are happy for a "suspect" to have their phone tapped (currently illegal under normal circumstances I believe), but not for them to be questioned (currently legal I believe)?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

You seem to be ignoring generally accepted history :confused:

linky
linky
linky etc....etc....

As for you saying 'prove a link' between appeasement and subsequent nazi, that can't conclusively be done (you would need a paralell universe) but it is generally historically accepted that the link is there.

So my saying that perhaps watching the muslim community more closely is 'worth a try' is the same as you saying that they should be shot?! :erm:
I think it's safe to say the line could be drawn somewhere before shooting them.

edit.............I'm outta here :wavey:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

1. So do you seriously think we shouldn't be signed up to and abide by internationally agreed Human Rights treaties. And yes, sorry, I do blame sensational, not forgetting right wing, journalism.

2. The SUS laws are totally relevant because the tactics being suggested are exactly the same. The recruitment of more ethnic minorities to the Police is not particularly relevant as this exercise hasn't exactly been covered in glory, numbers remain dispropritionately low and many forces acknowledge they are institutionally racist (which makes policing by consent in ethnic communities more difficult; application of stop and search will aggravate this and, as a result there will be less, not more, communication between the police and the people they serve and less useful information being passed on to them regarding criminal activity generally.) If policing does not have the support and consent of the community, it is doomed to fail.

3. If we're talking reasonable suspicion as grounds for stop and search then I'm at a loss as to why innocent Muslims would be targeted. If there are reasonable suspicions of terrorist activity I would not expect your average Plod to be doing a stop and search. It's an extraordinarily blunt and ineffective tool.

Leaving the obvious discrimination issues aside, history tells us this tactic WILL NOT WORK.

Of course if you want to damage community relations and prevent the forestalling and detection of crime, do bat on.

I've had enough of this. Bat on. Graham for President.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

There is nothing wrong with signing up to internationally agreed human rights treaties, provided they are setup and run by sane, intelligent, reasonable people.

The UN and the EU are a joke. They are in no way capable of adminstering such treaties responsibly. An example on UN and human rights: The UN thought that Syria should be in a position to dictate to everyone who to run their own countries (until 2004 it was on the UN Security Council), when we aren't to send its citizens back there because they will get tortured. Well you can't have it both ways, either Syria is a fine and upstanding country, and we should be able to deport people back, or if it is violation of human rights laws, then it should be treated accordingly. Its funny, the UN was set up to avoid a repeat of WW2, and due to its extreme appeasement policy it will stand by and watch history repeat itself.

I like the way you fall back on that old chestnut, the "right-wing journalism". If you woke up with a spot one day, i'm sur you'd think that it is the Daily Mail's fault too.

They won't be, but the BBC want to sensationalise it too. Yes, the left are actually as bad as the right.

What the MP said was no different than: "Innocent people will be convicted of murder". That doesn't mean the police will be going round fitting up innocent people for murder, but that it has happened, and will happen again, regardless of what you try and do. But that would be a reasonable and muted argument, and Auntie wouldn't like to put that on her news would she?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Parting shot:

STOPPED BY THE POLICE

Abdurahman Jafar, 32, London barrister

"My wife and I were driving through King's Cross. Police were stopping [non-white] people. I asked a policeman why. He said, 'There are a lot of people dealing drugs here'. I said, 'What's that got to do with me'? It was insulting. Just because I'm a certain colour ... the fact that he pinpoints me is horrible. It's humiliating. You don't feel part of the country you grew up in and love."

Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, 47

"Twice I've been stopped at British airports. Once I was travelling to the US from Heathrow with the Mayor of Lahore. We both had beards and brown skin. Out of 65 mostly white people we were picked out. The other time I was travelling from Birmingham to Saudi Arabia with my wife and was asked if I was taking any money with me. When I said I was, they wanted bank receipts to prove it was mine."

Michael Eboda, 41, editor of New Nation

"I was stopped and searched by 30 armed officers in 2003; I was told it was because I was black and driving a high-value vehicle. If it really was intelligence-led policing and improved communities that would be one thing, but it just antagonises people. The chance of stopping a person who is an Islamic terrorist is minimal. It is a waste of police time."


From today's Independent: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/leg...p?story=616329




Unsubscribe.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

And you could also blame the disproportionate reporting of "institutionally racist police forces" on sensationalist journalism, and the same for your dredged up comments about SUS laws and the SPG.

As for the idea of "too low a proportion" of police officers from ethnic minorities, what do you suggest? We wait until the number is at a level considered good enough by lily-livered liberals, and then we start approaching the issues of policing ethnic morities? Or do we accept that "a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single footstep"?

Innocent people will be affected, as they always have been. But when you stop and search someone, you cannot be sure they are guilty. Hence, they may be innocent, and the stop and search may well prove that.
__________________

And there we have it... it's because they are black/Asian/coloured. Obviously. It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?

I lived in an area where EVERY arrest of anyone from an Asian/black/ethnic minority background was touted as being racist, however guilty the person was. You get used to it. Us realists accept it as people chancing their arm; liberal types throw up their arms, as if the police just do it for kicks (when on occasion, that's what they end up receiving).

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Transcript of the committee hearing were Ms Blears spoke



http://www.parliament.the-stationery...-v/uc16502.htm

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I have already answered this. You even quoted my words!

Of course informants can't be relied on for the *sole* source of intelligence, but I have never suggested that they *could*!

Punky, exactly *what* point are you trying to make here? Are you actually discussing the topic or just banging on about this in the hope of finding some contradiction in what I have said so you can denounce me as a hypocrite?

Again you're talking about something being "solely" relied on, but again I have never said that anything *should* be solely relied on!
__________________

Would you care to back that up with some cites? Or is it just that because *you* don't agree with their verdicts that they're "pathetic"?

If you really think that human attitudes have changed so massively in the last twenty or thirty years then I wish I lived in the same world that you did.

I agree that recruiting officers from minorities is a good start, but even that isn't sufficient, not to mention that racism is still evident amongst recruits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3207899.stm

But that's from 2003, is that not recent enough to fit *your* arguments?

Yes, but the point is that, as has been suggested already in this this thread, that "suspicion" can start with four Muslim looking men in a van near an airport.

Would that "suspicion" still exist if they were white? Hell, even if they were black they would probably not be considered potential terrorists!

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1) Phone tapping is entirely legal under strict guidelines and approval from the Home Secretary.

2) I would be happy for people's phones to be tapped provided adequate grounds for the tap were provided and it was not simply done as a "fishing expedition" and

3) I would be happy for people to be questioned *provided* it was for something more than looking "suspiciously Muslim".

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

A very good post

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

All of which are about appeasement and NONE of which are *anything* to do with The Holocaust, nor do they demonstrate the slightest causal link between the two.

By whom? None of your above cites demonstrate any such acceptance.

Except if you go back and *read* the thread you'll note that we were not *talking* about simply "perhaps watching the Muslim community more closely"!

I think it's safe to say the line could be drawn somewhere before shooting them.[/QUOTE]

But not before locking them up based purely on suspicion without trial, evidence or justice... :rolleyes:
__________________

Are you *kidding*?! :Yikes:

There is no way I'd ever want *that* job...!!!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Graham:

Intelligence that doesn't come from informants, apart from odd lucky breaks I mentioned before is "fishing" and as stated by you, is against an individual's right to privacy. Your phone taps example needs intelligence, so you can get the phone tap to get the intelligence you needed in the first place. Chicken-and-egg again. I am still waiting for you to mention any intelligence source that doesn't abuse an individual's right to privacy and doesn't rely on informants.

You said there were "many", so it can't be that hard.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Thank you for posting that, I tried looking for it yesterday, but was unable to find it :-(

I would draw people's attention to the following section:

Now as far as I can see it clearly states that activity is a) falling disproportionately on the Muslim Community and b) that activity is being *targetted* towards that community.

She may not have explicitly said that Muslims should "accept" this, but I feel that is definitely very implicit in the statement "That is the reality of the situation, we should acknowledge that reality..."
__________________

But, as I keep pointing out, you must have *reasonable grounds* for suspicion before doing a stop and search.

And "looking suspiciously like a Muslim" are *not* reasonable grounds.

And there we have it... it's because they are black/Asian/coloured. Obviously. It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?[/quote]

"Fitted the description"?

"Well, Officer, he was black/ looked like a Muslim/ dressed in funny foreign clothes..."

So because *some* make claims that "it was racist", you narrow-minded types (see, I can sling personal insults around too) are willing to dismiss *all* such claims as nothing more than "people chancing their arm" whereas us open-minded types want to consider the bigger picture and note that there *IS* institutional racism in the Police as has been evinced several times already.
__________________

Yes, if you are doing it based on nothing more than a vague suspicion or because you don't like what the guy looks like/ what religion he espouses.

Oh Punky, I can almost *see* you there at your keyboard going "Hah! I've got him! I've finally nailed Graham on a point he can't answer...!!"

But consider, for a moment, a Muslim Cleric who is preaching "death to the West". How about getting a Muslim Police officer to infiltrate his followers and associates and check out whether he or any of them are planning to do more than just shout slogans?

Or what about checking through his rubbish (not illegal) for documentation or materials that suggest terrorist intent?

Then again, if there is someone you are *already* investigating (and, possibly, whose phone you are legitimately tapping) and they phone up said Cleric and talk to him about planned action or in coded terms, that *would* give reasonable suspicion *without* invading privacy and would justify further investigation.

Are these sufficient to answer your question?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

As far as I see it, there is a women telling it like it is.

a)The threat is from Islamic terrorists, therefore it is not very clever using your "resources" surveiling Jews, Bhuddists, Christians, Wiccans etc Of course compared to those other religions there will be a disproportionate experience.

I don't see how there could possibly a proportionate experience

b)Of course its targetted at that community, what other community should they target.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

You don't consider that, although legal, that going through people's rubbish to be an invaison of their privacy? If I went round and took everyone's rubbish, read their letters, looked at what products they use, to be an abuse of their human rights? I'd consider going through everyone's rubbish in case they are criminals to be much the same as intercepting everyone's phone calls, wether it happens to be legal or not. And if this is widespread, wouldn't everyone just destroy their rubbish anyway making it completely ineffective as an intelligence source?

Also, successful undercover agents are even fewer and further between than informants.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Thank you Pierre.
__________________

"Fitted the description"?

"Well, Officer, he was black/ looked like a Muslim/ dressed in funny foreign clothes..."



So because *some* make claims that "it was racist", you narrow-minded types (see, I can sling personal insults around too) are willing to dismiss *all* such claims as nothing more than "people chancing their arm" whereas us open-minded types want to consider the bigger picture and note that there *IS* institutional racism in the Police as has been evinced several times already.
[/QUOTE]

Do you know this to be the case? Or could it be the guy was wearing similar or even identical clothing to a suspect? Maybe his hair was the same? Your flip response shows merely that you are trying to muddy the waters here. Instead of just bleating that someone MUST have been arrested or questioned because he was black/Asian, why not check the facts and find out why it happened? Or is there a fear that there could be some perfectly reasonable justification?

In response to your second point: so "some" police have been guilty of racism you are willing to accept that "all" police forces are riddled with bigots and racists?

Believe me, I have seen incidents time and time again where "racism" is cited when it was clearly not apparent. I have seen blacks accuse Asian officers of racism, whites accuse black officers of racism, etc etc. It's time you got to grips with it: racism is not all against blacks or Asians. If there was a perceived threat that a skinhead group were seriously intent upon torching a mosque or sikh temple, then you might find police attention "targetted" at that particular social group. I doubt you would be up in arms about that?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

In other words: "Hey, Muslims, other people who call themselves Muslim are being naughty boys, so we're going to target your entire group to be on the safe side. Deal with it" :rolleyes:
__________________

If you are worried (as you should be, but for reasons of ID theft, not "national security") that someone was going to go through your rubbish, shred it before you throw it away.

But what would you have us do? If a binman sees something written on a piece of paper that he's just chucked in the back of the wagon and reads it, should he be arrested for breach of privacy???

Where did I say "everyone"? Oops, I didn't.

Irrelevant. You asked for an alternative method, I gave one.
__________________

No, but I refer you to the logical fallacy of the Burden of Proof as mentioned earlier in the thread. *You* have made the suggestion "It couldn't be (in the first instance) that perhaps he fitted a description of a known or reported drug dealer?"

Well, yes, it *could* have been the case. But you will have to prove your side before asking me to prove mine.

Burden of Proof...

Again, prove that they are not.

If there are *reasonable grounds* for suspecting a particular skinhead group, no, I would have no objection.

But going from the suggestions in this thread it idea seems to be that *all* skinheads would be targetted and treated as suspects, whether there is any proof or not.

*THAT* I would object to.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Burden of proof? OK, try this: some police officers are racist... prove that they all are.

And next time you see a gang of skinheads stood outside a Mosque with a gallon or ten of petrol and some matches, chanting about death... prove that they aren't on their way to a barbecue whilst reciting the lyrics to some heavy metal songs.

Get real will you? If you go through life justifying everything you do in advance, you will do nothing. Why? Because you cannot justify the unknown. The 9/11 pilots could have been mid-air joyriders ny your logic. It was only when they hit the Twin Towers that they became genocidal maniacs. Or could you have "proven" that was their intention far enough in advance?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Anyone watching "This Week" right now? Paul Ross is making some extremely good arguments in favour of house arrest, terrorism prevention, etc.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Is he talking about his brother for house arrest Jonathan Woss.

:D

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Unfortunately - yes.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

3 arrested in coventry by Scotland Yard last Tuesday apparently, 2 men 1 woman in connection with international terrorism.

Kinda close to my home town. Who has a problem with it cuz I dont.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

One assumes or has to assume these days, that they were nice people with never an unkind thought in their heads, good to their neighbours and pillars of the community! Perhaps they merely wanted to build a nice school in Afghanistan for equally minded nice people!

:Yikes:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Graham, can you just clarify something, are you saying that the Anti Terrorist measures shouldn't be targetting the group which the terrorists belong (or claim) to?

Are you also suggesting (or do you believe) that the Anti Terrorist forces would turn a blind eye/ignore/fail to take seriously/fail to respond to any reported non-muslim terrorism intelligence?


(appologies if you've already clarified the above, but could you do it again in plain English as I'm playing catch up. Thank you)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I can't. But there again, I never claimed that they all were.

Please stop being silly. This is not helping your arguments at all.

Me283 I see little point in continuing this any further as this has ceased to be a reasonable debate.
__________________

Unfortunately, indeed.

Stupid? I certainly think so.
__________________

They should target terrorist *groups*.

They should *NOT* target Islam simply because the terrorists call themselves "Muslims".

No, but I've never said that.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Here's a question: It appears that these proposed measures may cause friction between Muslims and the rest of society... but according to whom? I may be unaware of it, but I have not heard any gripes from the Muslim Council of Great Britain, for example? It may well be that the Muslim community appreciate the reasoning behind these actions, and fully support them? Is it possible that it is the liberal do-gooders among us who are just stirring up trouble where there may be none? Should we not let the Muslims decide if it offends them, instead of deciding in advance that it will?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Perhaps you just haven't looked hard enough:

http://www.telegraphindia.com/105030...ry_4447671.asp

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Fair point. Thank you.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

How exactly do you target muslims specifically unless you hang around outside mosques and follow them...

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

A very fascinating article.

It even includes a perfect example of the kind of threat we face:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Great, so let's arrest everyone with a beard... :rolleyes:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Years ago, when I was young, I was taught about stuff like propoganda and stereotyping. I feel that this is what is being attempted against the muslim community. A while back on BBC2 there was a documentary aired called "The Power of Nightmares". Clearly this showed some new racial stereotpying techniques and how some material is given to the media in order to make the general public scared and therefore frightened of one group. I suggest that, if any of you can, you watch it. It definetly opened my eyes.

In this case it is the Muslim community.

Does anyone remember a while back all the stereotypical aruguments and generalisations about the Irish and the black community ? It is well known that police used to stop black youths a lot more than white youths. In fact I think it is documented in the statistics for crime. the Irish went through stricter customs controls just in case they were coming in with bombs or semtex or guns or something!!

All the government and media are now doing is changing the publics' focus onto something new; a new race, a new threat a new migration problem. The vast majority of the muslim community are decent, hard-working, law abiding citizens whom are not in the least a threat.

There are threads elsewhere on the forum regarding house arrest and the individuals who were locked up in Belmarsh prison, detained without a trial. It has been documented, see The Independent, Daily Mail etc, that these individuals were not in the least a threat. One attended a wedding in Pakistan !! some are now coming out with mental health problems becasue of the incarceration, they were kept in a separate wing with very little privileges. Belmarsh is a category A prison, that means it houses people like Huntley and murderers and all sorts of serious offenders.

Think, what did these guys do ? Luckily the House of Lords has stood up for our rights, and freedom, and stopped the "house arrest" Program from going through.

If we are now to stop every muslim in this country then how are we to resource it for a start. How do we know who is mulism and who isn't ? There are different forms of the faith and different cultures to consider. They don't all have beards and wear long flowing clothes. Albanians and Turkish people are mostly muslim. Their women do not wear the same sort of clothing as those from Pakistan or Iraq. In fact most of them are Westernised, they may just wear a head scarf. Oops isn't that just like the Cathoilics do in some nations ?

I suggest all women here hide their scarves and hats just in case they are stopped !!

It's a question of how far you would like the State to go in invading your civil liberties.

Sian

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Good idea!
Beards are bad!
Ban the beards!


On a more serious note, lets also keep an eye out for anyone acting suspiciously especially if they are acting suspiciously in an area which could be a terrorist target and if they happen to look like they could belong to a terrorist organisation and forget this PC bovine excriment.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

And how do we *tell* if they "happen to look like they could belong to a terrorist organisation"...? :rolleyes:

Here we go round the mulberry bush. Again.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Answer me this simple question:

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I think too much has been made of this "looking like a Muslim" angle. It's obvious that the security forces aren't going to just run around detaining anyone with a beard; they will have a lot more information on their suspects than anyone here will ever know, and if they detain someone, they will have a damn good reason.

If a person known to overseas security services as having strong terrorist links, then in my opinion it is right to detain them. In fact, I would prefer that they were refused entry in the first place, but that's a different matter. However, whether it can be proven that they are going to commit a terrorist crime could be difficult. I guess it's down to how you rate the risk, and whether you are willing to take that risk. If they have even one reason to suspect a person (and remember, they aren't about to make those reasons public), then it is the only real option to detain them.

Now, I know this doesn't fit in with the thinking of our "PC brigade", but that's the reality; there ARE people who would destroy this country if they had the chance. Unfortunately they play their "game" by different rules, and don't give a damn about fairness. By suggesting that anyone who looks like a Muslim debases the hard work and fine results that come from the security services.

Of course, we could just sit back and wait for people to let the security services know of impending acts of terrorism, but I personally wouldn't have a great deal of faith in that.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I dont think the Muslim Council was overly impressed hence they wrote to Hazel Blears and have reported her response on their website:

"Hazel Blears responds to MCB letter
The MCB wrote to the Home Office Minister Hazel Blears following her comments to the Home Affairs Select Committee on March 1, 2005. The Minister had said that British Muslims will have to accept as †˜realityâà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã¢â€à …¾Ã‚¢ that they will be stopped and searched by the police more often than the rest of the public. The MCB Secretary-General Iqbal Sacranie in his letter to Hazel Blears described the 'great alarm and offenceââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢ felt by Muslims as a result of her comments. In her response to the MCB in a letter dated March 4, 2005, Hazel Blears reassured the Muslim community that she had †˜always been very clear that the powers in our counter terrorism legislation are aimed at terrorists, whatever their background. They are not aimed at any community, religion or ethnic group.ââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢ She added that stop and search powers would not be disproportionately used against members of any particular community."
__________________


Hmmm, remember this story?

"Based on "credible" intelligence sources, presumed Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists were planning to hijack an Air France plane and "crash it on US soil in a suicide terror strike similar to those carried out on September 11, 2001."

Air France Christmas flights out of Paris were grounded. F-16 fighters were patrolling the skies.

Following the investigation by the French authorities, the Al Qaeda terrorists turned out to be a five year old boy, an elderly Chinese lady and a Welsh insurance salesman.

A routine case of "mistaken identity" had contributed to breaking the Spirit of Christmas, across the Land.

Based on erroneous intelligence, an entire Nation had been brought under Orange Code terror alert... It is now official: the stand down orders on Air France's Christmas flights from Paris to Los Angeles were based on fabricated information."

Source is an anti globalisation site http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO401A.html but I think we all recall the case in question. Worth reading the article.


Fills me with confidence!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I got that one before Andy, already admitted I was wrong! (unlike some people (not you BTW)... no names mentioned!). I think I'll pass on the humble pie this time ;)

But I'm sure you see the point that there won't be a glut of stop and search, house arrest type actions of anyone with a beard. For what it's worth, I think Hazel Blears has done no favours to anyone here.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

You can't just take one example make it the rule because it fits your agenda.

It is pointless here debating Intelligence, as none here works for the Security Services, so we are all equally guessing.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Ooops. That is a very fair point indeed. Sorry bout that. :)
__________________

Why not? ;)

As are they guessing judging by the many other stories regarding the quality of intelligence.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

It reminds me a bit of when I was very young, and there were "IRA" bomb scares seemingly every day. I recall being evacuated from shops on more than one occasion; my school was cleared out once; my parents business suffered horribly after one incident; all were hoaxes.

The problem is that it would be a foolish person to take a chance and just carry on regardless, putting the lives of many at risk. In these cases, and maye the French case (I don't know the details), some clown has got off on causing mayhem. You can't really include that in the equation when you're trying to deal with a real threat. It's a tough one.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Because isn't that what you have been arguing about all this time? Judging everyone individually, and not stereotyping across the board because one example fits an agenda?

An example of why not... Some Islamic scholars are terrorists. More than one, but not all. Does that mean we should ban all Islamic scholars? No, because that one example does not make the rule. You judge everyone independantly

Everyone keeps focusing on "looks like a terrorist"... That's rubbish. Radical domestic activists can pose as much of threat to the health and security of the nation, and they look nothing like an Islamic scholar.

If the Security Services see someone poses a threat to the lives of other people, then they should be able to deal with it with impunity, and not have to worry about the MCB or anyone else because the guy happens to be Muslim.

People seem to think nowadays the only terrorists now are Muslim. Well, they should go into London on May Day... Hang around Huntingdon Life Sciences a bit (or Oxford University now :rolleyes:)
__________________

:clap:

And if they did ignore the warning, and something did happen, they'd get blamed for that too. (Like with the 9/11 commission)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

OK. I have picked on one example of how the intelligence services can, shall we say, get things a wee bit wrong. It is one example but it illustrates wider weaknesses - in this case a five year old boy did not have to look like a terrorist but sound like one! Surely you must admit that there have been some very dubious bits of intelligence which have emerged? That's not to totally demean the security services (hence my tongue in cheek response previously) but to point out that in the hysteria of recent years they have made some very serious mistakes which have not defused the situation one iota (and have arguabky made it worse)

Of course the security services should act on credible intelligence regardless of the race, religion, sex etc of the persons involved. The issue here is that the intelligence has been incredible. Add to that the particularly blunt (and historically abused) instrument of stop and search and you have a recipe for disaster as communities feel that their freedoms are being violated and and feel increasingly isolated. Policing will, per se, become more difficult in such circumstances as the Police lose the trust of the people they serve (cf. 1981 riots).

Incidentally heard a professor of criminology on the radio today talking about the poor crime detection rates which were published today; he made a similar point that without policing by consent detection will always be more difficult.

Gotta do some work today so this will be the last of me for a while; wouldn't want to be accused of ducking any issues in my absence! ;)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Certainly, as soon as you answer me this one:

A person with a beard, of Middle Eastern appearance possibly wearing some sort of hat or cap and robes and talking in a funny language is most likely to be:

A) An Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist.

B) An innocent person.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

What's this? An answer? :shocking: I shall wait with baited breath! Luckily I'm a VERY patient person... :sleeping:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

me283, if you *want* a reasonable debate, please can you *try* to debate reasonably.

Petty sniping and using phrases like "our PC brigade" add no credibility to your arguments.

And *what* do they want to do to "destroy" this country? Why they want to get rid of the fundamental liberties and rights to fair trials, to freedom of expression, to the presumption of innocence etc that we have so they can impose their own version of the rules.

But, hell, they don't even need to *do* anything now, because our "lock 'em all up Brigade" (see, I can sling mud too) are quite happy to do the job *for* them!!

That is being referred to elsewhere in this thread, so I don't think I need to shoot that one down again...

Of course we *could* put people on trial if we actually have *evidence* that they're going to commit acts of terrorism instead of just locking them away and hoping nobody notices...
__________________

Funny, I thought that was exactly what *was* being suggested!!

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I would love to. But I thought debating was about exvhanging ideas and viewpoints, looking at all sides of a discussion, asking and answering questions... the latter point seems to be a bit of a problem with you though, Graham.

And "PC brigade" is a well-known phrase. Why do you object to it?
__________________

Well, if you were to listen to the preachings of some of the more radical and extreme members of the religious groups already discussed on this and other threads, you may be aware of the expression "Holy War". There have been incitements to "rise up and wipe out the West" (not verbatim) and the suchlike. Also, what do you suppose "they" want to do with bombs etc?

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Certainly, as soon as you answer me this one:

An Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorist is most likely to be:

A) A person with a beard, of Middle Eastern appearance possibly wearing some sort of hat or cap and robes and talking in a funny language

B) A clean shaven person, of north European apparance probably bare headed, in a 3-piece suit and speaking English

So much easier to ask another question than to answer one, isn't it.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

The first of these two points is actually a little poor on your part. Unless you know exactly what our security services are doing and have done, maybe we should neither praise them nor criticise them? My preference is to believe that it is at least partly due to theirefforts that we in the UK have not suffered atrocities of the ilk of 9/11 etc.

The latter point, I believe I have already "shot down".

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

And, once again, we have petty sniping instead of reasoned debate!

If you want to exchange ideas and viewpoints, to look at all sides of the discussion and ask and answer (reasonable) questions, please, let's do so, but I see little of that going on in this message.

Because it is a glib, meaningless soundbite that fails to address any idea or viewpoint and does not look at any "side" in a discussion, nor does it ask or answer a question, but is simply an attempt to dismiss an argument or point without actually addressing it at all.

That is not reasoned debate according to *your* description!
__________________

The point of terrorist actions is to cause *terror*. To make people act in an irrational and emotional way to a threat, rather than a logical and sensible manner.

There are not enough of these "radical and extreme members" to defeat us by force of arms or bombs, so instead what they wish to do is to force *us* to dance to their tune by taking actions that play into their hands such as removing basic liberties.

The idea is that they cause *us* to make our own country *more* unstable and to cause greater disaffection and alienation amongst the Muslim populations of the world and that then gives them greater opportunities for recruitment and actions to increase their "power base" that will, they hope, give them enough strength to "rise up and destroy the West".

Do you *want* to fall into their traps?
__________________

*WHOOOOSH* Sound of a point going right over SWW's head...

Remember that phrase "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?

How many people who fit the description of "A person with a beard, of Middle Eastern appearance possibly wearing some sort of hat or cap and robes and talking in a funny language" are likely to be Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists?

So, would consider it reasonable to consider them *all* potential terrorists...???

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I don't want to fall into any traps Graham. But let's debate. I would like to ask you one, possibly two questions.

1) Do you believe there is a real terrorist threat to this country?

2) If so, how would you propose that it is dealt with?

I hope you can give me answers to these questions.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Who is responsible for the information that has lead to people being locked up in Guantanamo Bay, Belmarsh Prison et al?

"Partly"? Yes, you may be right. Of course that doesn't say *how big* that part it...

I remember after September 11th, there was a lot of "Us too!" going on in the world with every country jumping on the bandwagon saying "terrorists could fly planes into X building or bridge or famous monument", yet somehow these attacks never materialised.

Of course it *could* have been due to amazing (and unseen) work by the Security Services. Or maybe there *wasn't* such a big threat as was claimed after all...??

You have? Sorry, excuse me? Where and when exactly did you "shoot it down"?

The only relevant comment I can see appears to be "If they have even one reason to suspect a person (and remember, they aren't about to make those reasons public), then it is the only real option to detain them." which is no argument at all.
__________________

Ah, now a *reasonable* question...!

I believe there are those who would wish to carry out terrorist attacks in this country. However I do not believe that the level of threat is as great as some in the government and security services wish to make out, nor do I believe that this threat justifies the sort of actions that the government wishes to take to "counter" it and I think that such actions are actually *counter-productive* in the fight against terrorism.

By the rule of law, based on the principles of human rights and justice.

I hope you appreciate my answers.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

But there was the Madrid train bomb? And the explosion in Bali? Maybe they didn't involve planes, but that doesn't diminish from the fact that they happened.
__________________

Sadly the weakness of that argument is that those of whom you talk do not base their actions the principles of human rights and justice.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Naturally. I mean, after completely failing to stop a mortar attack on Downing Street, truck bombs at Canary Wharf and Manchester city centre, and other assorted IEDs in Warrington, Omagh and elsewhere, all planted by a well known, well understood and well penetrated organisation like the IRA, it's perfectly reasonable for us to believe that MI5 is suddenly so competent it has no trouble spotting and stopping 'major incidents' planned by a previously unknown, largely ignored and virtually impenetrable bunch of Islamist nut cases.

Or, maybe the threat is being severely over-egged in order to provide a platform on which certain egomaiac Labour politicians can strut? :dozey:

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

"Maybe they didn't involve planes" is exactly the point!

These were "conventional" bomb attacks, yet everyone was throwing masses of money at preventing another September 11th.
__________________

[/quote]

No, actually that's the *strength* of that argument, ie that we will *not* be forced to dance to the terrorists' tune by throwing away our principles and rights because they are suddenly "inconvenient"!

That is what *makes* us civilised.

If we have to become what we hate in order to destroy it, we have *LOST*.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Prevention is better than cure.

And it's a pity we had to experience September 11th, before we worked to prevent "another" September 11th.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Not quite. I was merely demonstrating your debating style, namely answering questions with questions.

Just like that...

Hang on - let's just see how interesting it gets if someone does answer your questions-to-questions:

Yes.

Millions.

Possibly a word missing in that question, but I will assume it was supposed to be "...would you consider..." - in which case the answer is it depends.

It depends on who you are, where you are etc. It's not just a simple case of it being irrational to tar everyone with the same brush. While that may be wrong, it's what people do. And that they do is not always irrational.

The whole point is that you can't shut down a debate with a couple of questions - even if I were to give you the answer that would allow you to do the 'aha!' bit that wouldn't mean I'd come around to your viewpoint, or even agreed with it.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

And, as I've already asked in a not dissimilar thread this afternoon, can we please stop dissecting each other's posting/debating/language styles and stick to the topic.

Thank you.

:)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Doesn't mean they don't want to have another go with planes. I'd say from the effect it had they'd be very keen to do it again.

I don't for one second believe that the terrorist are only after creating 'terror' (i.e. the fear) that drives us to do that.

Hence I think it is appropriate that our response is sufficiently rigorous to combat the threat.

It's not just the fear of terrorism we face, they're actually trying to kill us.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Certainly, it could be any of the four races mentioned. Muslims come from all quarters of the world not jus Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq. Well let's just cut it short and say the Middle East.

There are fundamentalist Islamic movements in Amsterdam. Um I believe these are of Northern European appearance unless I am blind.

Well um I didn't realise the Bali people were all Middle Eastern. Please correct me if I am wrong, being a female we're all used to that :) But didn't they find out that the people who massacred the individuals in the Bali bombing were actually BALIANS who supported Al'Qaeda ? Wasn't there a Balian Islamic cleric arrested for that ? Did it have anything to do with the Middle East continent apart from the ties to Al'Qaeda ?

Let's remember as well at first news reports regarding Madrid were saying that an extreme SPANISH group managed to blast the trains. Suddenly, it was changed to oh it was Al'Qaeda. They are still unsure whether it was or not and the burden of proof is not on myself but the Spanish government to prove it.

Well Scared Web Warrior all I can do is suggest you broaden your horizons and read and watch more than the media allow you too. As I stated before I found the Power of Nightmares an excellent program on the propoganda machine employed by governemnts to garner votes and popularity. Basically they say " Oh look we are so wonderful we are protecting you". What exactly are they protecting us from ?

America is a good example of how fear is used to potray something that isn't actually happening. All over America there were reports on how these magic pens, just like James bond, contained Anthrax and that the American individuals should watch for anyone playing with a ball point!! In another case a small US town was allegedly targeted by terrorists. Problem was they didn't have anything for the terrorists to target. (See Good old Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11)

In the UK, we are told daily about Muslims wanting to attack the fabric of the nation. Thankfully, the vast majority of them don't, so we create an atmosphere of unrest and islamaphobia. Not against all Islamics, just the ones from the Middle East and sub Asian continents. The Albanians, Turks, Macedonians, Czechs, Croats, Bosnians, Africans and the Dutch, French, German and British contigents are to be "left alone". Is this possibly because we have been taught a stereotypical example of how a Muslim should look ? You know, men with beards of Middle Eastern or Indian or Afghani origin ? If the terrorist threat is real shouldn't ALL Islamics be treated the same way not just a few select groups ?

Say you converted to Islam tomorrow. Would you like to be stopped ? Mind you i don't suppoe you are of Middle Eastern appearance so that point is probably null and void. I dont suppose that any of you are aware of the huge amounts of people who convert to Islam WHO DO WEAR SUITS and are of Northern European Appearance either. IF Muslims are to be stopped then don't you think it should be across the board rather than *telling* us it's just the Middle Eastern people, because rest assured it most definetely isn't.

Sian

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Living in an oxygen tent in a sterile house will prevent you from catching diseases.

Trouble is, you won't have much of a life...

But the Security Services (remember them? Those wonderful people...) allegedly had *plenty* of warnings that an attack like September 11th was going to happen, yet they were unable to stop those attacks.

How many potential attacks do you want us to guard against? Dirty Bombs? Chemical attacks on the Underground? Ricin in the water supply? Suicidal train drivers? Conventional bombs? Others I haven't mentioned...?

How many rights must we surrender to protect against all of these and more? How many liberties will we sacrifice before you will say we are "safe"?

And even if we give up those rights and liberties and *still* an attack happens, could you *really* say losing them all was *worth* it?
__________________

Thanks, Chris.
__________________

Yet, despite the claims of lack of security at airports etc broadcast by our scaremongering Tabloid press, they *haven't* done so.

The number of people killed on September 11th is approximately the same number killed on the USA's roads in *one month* and resulted in a massive downturn in people using air travel, even though there were huge increases in security.

The number of people who died in rail accidents such as Paddington or Hatfield are the equivalent of a couple of *days* deaths on the roads in the UK, but they caused a lot of people to decide to stop using trains and, instead, go back to road travel *even though* they would actually be less safe.

When a certain type of birth control pill was announced to have a possible link with heart disease, many women stopped taking it, even though the risk of complications due to pregnancy etc were much greater than those from heart disease.

The point of all this is that people do *NOT* respond to risk and threat in a rational or sensible manner. They see headlines and very often don't bother to look behind them, this is very probably what the government is *relying* on to get their anti-terror legislation through Parliament (and also very probably what got George W Bush re-elected).

The terrorists (note the first syllable "Terror") are counting on this, they don't want us to *think* about the fact that actually there aren't that many of them and whilst they can hurt us they can't really "destroy" us, they want us scared and frightened and willing to throw away rights and liberties to counter their "threat" because it serves *their* purposes.

We should *NOT* give in to terror by dancing to their tune.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I have very broad horizons indeed, and certainly don't simply accept what the media tell me.

Nor am I actually saying that I support the new legislation, because by all accounts it wouldn't be very effective anyway.

But I do think that we cannot ignore the possible threat and must therefore guard against it. That may well include changing some things we're not that happy/comfortable with.

The law does at times get changed to counter some type of crime or other, but very often we just let it happen (even support it wholeheartedly), or we don't care simply because it doesn't affect us.

With respect to the anti-terrorism legislation under discussion I suspect that because we know that the law can't be applied justly it might just affect any of us, not just the ones it should target.
If we knew the laws would only affect terrorists we wouldn't be debating it (except maybe with terrorists.)

As to converting to Islam - wouldn't protect you from the fundamentalists and their insane interpretation of Islam - they'd just say you were a yankee collaborator and then you would be a legitimate target to them. No matter what you look like, or even if you are of middle eastern origin! (Just look what's happening in Iraq.)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

The point I was trying to make is that there have been terrorist attacks since 9/11.
__________________

OK, so in future should they react to warnings? And then be criticised if there is no subsequent attack? Or should they ignore warnings and hope nothing happens? It can't be both ways.
__________________

There is a difference: 9/11 deaths were caused deliberately.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

That comment was in response to your statement "And it's a pity we had to experience September 11th, before we worked to prevent "another" September 11th."

As I pointed out below, people *do not* respond rationally or logically to dangers. If we had spent millions on trying to prevent September 11th *before* it happened and caused huge inconvenience to many air travellers without (seemingly) good reason, there *would* be those who would have criticised this (NB please note that I did *not* say I would be amongst them).
__________________

<rhetorical>So thousands dying on the roads *by accident* makes those deaths better somehow? </rhetorical>

However the fact remains that people *DO NOT* respond to threats and risks in a rational manner, but this is what is happening with the current laws being proposed.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Well, that's OK then. Nothing to worry about.
Just have a look at the comparison you're making. The number of people dead in 3 hours as opposed to 30 days. You could at least normalise the data to try make a legitimate comparison.
The road deaths are an unfortunate side-effect of modern life, having your life ended by terrorists in the manner of 9/11 can in no way be compared to that.

The way the UK railways have been mismanaged, I can't really blame them. It certainly was looking like it might become a common occurance.

By the same token we should leave all that food contaminated with Sudan I on the shelves, because there really is only a very tiny risk associated with it in the quantities in which it is found in that food.
If you discontinue with something because of an associated risk when you don't need to continue with it is not irrational, it's sensible.

It is true that some people's response to a perceived threat (i.e. risk) can sometimes be irrational. I have an irrational fear of spiders. Fortunately it doesn't rule my life because I am WAY bigger than said spider, and I can reason my way around that one (and/or flatten the spider.)
If, however, we are faced with a threat/risk we cannot properly quantify or control, then how can we know what is a measured/rational response?

You say quite categorically:

I'm saying that it's not at all that straightforward.

This is straight repetition of what you said before, and assumes that the threat is less real than maybe we perceive. It also assumes the terrorists motive, which I dispute, since the terrorists have not really given us any reason to assume that.

If, however, that was what their game plan was, then indeed we'd be risking playing into their hands. But before we follow that strategy I'd like some proof.

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Watch channel 4......right now!.......'Immigration time bomb' :D

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

I've just put it on boss man :)

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

Damn straight! :D
..............Now that made interesting viewing.............1% of UK population is African men but they make up 37% of aids cases and account for 95% of hiv treatments in hospital :shocked:
Islam is completely opposed to homosexuality......
etc, etc....bluddy hell, that was an eye opener :(

Re: Muslims should expect to be stopped....
 

And I missed it.. :(