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

Of course in the interests of balance you should have seen Monday's programme putting forward the alternative viewpoint. In the interests of balance I missed both of them ;)

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

Well I missed it too however having veiwed the channel 4 website on tonights programme Immigrant time bomb it would certainly seem biased in some points, mainly in defense of immigratin tho calling politiians and press attitudes to the problem as complete hogwash.
What was the other program you mention from monady and which side did it balance ?

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

Balance? Channel 4? Eh????? Asking a bit much there....

Not watching any 'documentaries' is about the only way of getting balance.

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

In all of the above you have managed to *totally* miss the point.

You are much more likely to die in a road accident than from a terrorist attack.

You are much more likely to die in a road accident than in a rail accident.

If you are female you are more likely to die from complications in pregnancy due to *not* taking that type of Pill than from any risk of heart disease.

Yet in *ALL* of the above cases, people's *perceptions* of risks were totally at odds with what the *actual* risks were and they took the *more* dangerous option open to them.

By actually bothering to *think* instead of letting others tell us (especially those in the tabloid media) what our opinions should be.

By *not* simply saying "well the government or some senior Policeman says there's a threat, so we have to give up our basic freedoms in order to be safe"

By actually using our *own* brains for once.

And I'm saying that just because the government says "we need to take away these rights for your own safety" it's not that straightforward either.

If you are asking me to 100% categorically *prove* the above, then, no, of course I can't, nor can I go up to Osama Bin Laden et al and ask their motivations.

But perhaps you can suggest what *other* motivations the terrorists might have, because I have thought a lot about this and cannot see any other reasonable explanation (or even "unreasonable" explanation) for what they are doing.

Their aim cannot simply be to "Kill the infidel". Whatever their beliefs may be, they are not stupid and realise that they will not be able to "wipe out the West" by sheer weight of numbers.

So what can they do? They can attack us or threaten us in ways that make us *react* to what they do.

The aim of the IRA was to try to force the British out of Ireland by terror, intimidation or simply by hoping that people would say "sod them, it's not worth our while, let's leave them to sort it out themselves".

The Muslim terrorists aim is, I believe, primarily to get the West out of the Middle East and related areas so that they can create their idea of an Islamic state. Since they cannot do this by force of arms, they do it by attacking economic or civilian targets.

Their hope is, I think, that we respond in irrational and "knee jerk" ways by passing laws to restrict freedoms with the result that they cause unrest and make life so difficult and repressive for us *here* that we won't have the time or the money to go and interefere in their "back yards".

If we fall for this trap, we give them a victory and the more liberties we give up here, the greater their success.

If we do this, the terrorists *WIN*.

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

No, I didn't miss the point. The point you were trying to make is just one way of looking at the issue - namely the comparative risk involved.
I was showing how each one could be rationalised, which I thought was important since your view is that anyone that doesn't rationalise it your way is wrong.

No - it's your evaluation that such is the case. And since you have decided that the comparative risks are what you say they are, then everyone else's evaluation of those risks must by your definition be wrong.

Just because the risk of shooting myself in russian roulette is less than not shooting myself doesn't mean that playing the game is a good idea.

Based on those statements I take it you consider that only you use your brain and only you are impervious to outside influence.

Since I doubt you did all the research that determined the comparative risks as you describe them I must assume you relied on some other party for that information.

Indeed, any government that tells you it's restricting your personal freedoms for your own good is tyring to act out the 1984 scenario.

But that's not quite how everyone hears it..

OK, so we don't know that they're playing some complex psychological game - they might simply be out to kill us all.
Hence, different people will have a different evaluation of the comparative risks, since they'll probably choose neither of those alternatives.

Here you're asking me for alternative motivations, yet at the same time trying to deduce that "kill the infidel" is inpractical and therefore not a candidate.

Let's look at some alternative motivations. Maybe it is just "kill the infidel" - maybe they are stupid enough to believe they can achieve it. Maybe they believe the person that tells them they can achieve it.

If that person then also uses their religion to colour that belief and next thing we have these people who actually believe that God is helping them to achieve that seemingly impossibe goal.

Beginning to sound a bit like our fanatical extremists, I think.

But I am equally prepared to consider that they envy us for the 'power' that the west has. The fact that we have sex, drugs and rock & roll, and they haven't. In fact, any number of reasons why they are jealous of us.

Or they hate us. For not being Muslims. For being Christians. Because they still hate us for the Crusades. Because we don't believe in Allah like they do. Because we're not monotheistic (the Christians that believe in the trinity, anyway.) For being American. For being richer.

I think there are plenty of other motivations besides a realisation that they can't defeat us physically, and that therefore it has to be psychological.

In fact, I don't even think that any number of terrorists all have the same motivation. It's just that the ultimate goal suits them equally.

That's your conclusion because it suits your argument. It's not in any way the only inevitable conclusion.

No. The IRA were (and maybe still are) committed to driving the Brits out of Ireland. It is true that over the years some people thought that maybe we should just "sod them and leave them to it", but when we started voicing those kind of ideas we just ended up breeding Unionists terrorism - the faction that was going to keep us in there at all cost.
If there was any intimidation by the IRA, it was to try to intimidate the British public into demanding British withdrawal from Ireland from the British government.

They never really succeeded in that.

Yet in the Iraq war that voice spoke up before the terrorists started their campaign. So having already achieved that, what might they be trying to achieve now? If the anti-war message is not enough for them, then they must want more.

We were suffering casualties from the 'insurgents' from very early on after the defeat of Saddam. That wasn't about pushing out the 'west' to make way for an Islamic state. That was about a group wanting to take control in post-Saddam Iraq. It's just that we won't let them. And boy, do they hate that!

It may well be true that they also want to create an Islamic state - probably along the fundamentalist lines, since that's the most attractive to the power hungry.

So you think it is more likely that these people think in terms of a 'domino effect' - instill fear, cause governmental restrictions, generate disaffection - rather than simply 'kill' and dominate?

That wonderful quote, attributed to Sherlock Holmes:

I think you have taken this to mean that the improbable must be true. I suggest we consider those 'impossibilities' first.

That is your conclusion, and you love repeating it, but the statement is no stronger for it's repetition, because it is based on your singular line of reasoning.

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

Answer my question first.

Here, I'll repeat it for you again so that you don't have to bother looking it up.

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

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

Lets keep this civil ladies...

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

Does that mean I'm well balanced??! ;)

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

Peversely.... yes :)

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

Got it in one.

There is no political agenda, they are not like terrorists we have been used to dealing with, because those other terrorists like ETA/IRA have a political goal and therefore can be negotiated with.

Al-Qaedas goal is to make islam the only religion in the world.

We are all infidels and therefore death to us is the only answer, they cannot bear us sharing the same planet as we are an abomination.

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

"Rationalising" the risk doesn't mean that that rationalisation is valid or sensible. All of the responses you posted were not logical or sensible representations of the facts.

No, ScaredWebWarrior, these are *demonstrable* and *provable* facts. Trying to dismiss them with superficial "rationalisations" does not change that.

Where did I say "everyone else"? Answer, I didn't. There are some who, like me, have some understanding of the nature of risk and who don't simply assume that the headlines tell the whole story. Unfortunately there are also those who don't bother to actually think logically about the dangers and take the *more* risky choice.

[quopte]Just because the risk of shooting myself in russian roulette is less than not shooting myself doesn't mean that playing the game is a good idea.[/quote]

What on earth is this nonsense trying to prove, except that you seem to have missed the point again? Try looking at the examples I gave again and see what choices people made (eg use trains/ don't use trains) and the relative dangers of each (more likely to die on the road than on trains) and try to understand what I'm talking about.

And once again you try to put words into my mouth :rolleyes:

I have not said anything of the sort, please don't imply that I have.

Yes, I did and if you want you can check the figures for yourself.

Take a look at http://www.pacts.org.uk/policy/brief...tistics_uk.htm

Fatalities per billion passenger kilometres:

Motor cycle/moped 112
Foot 48
Pedal cycle 33
Car 3
Van 0.9
Rail 0.1

You are *THREE HUNDRED* times more likely to be killed in a car accident than a rail accident, yet when people were asked whether they would feel safe on the railways, many of them said "no" and that they'd go back to cars!

That is very evident.

Can you *really* say that that is a realistic scenario? Do you really think that the *terrorists* consider that to be an achievable aim? Whatever else they may be, they're not stupid.

Yes, that is what I'm asking for and yes, I believe that "kill the infidel" is not practical.

Yes, and I'm sure they are saying "God is on our side" and maybe I'm wrong for thinking that they're capable of thinking logically about the subject because that is what I would do, however I think their motivations are more subtle than that.

Or because we *have* "sex and drugs and rock & roll" and we are "exporting" that to their lands and trying to "corrupt the faithful".

I think they hate us more for recent history than the Crusades.

[qutoe]Because we don't believe in Allah like they do. Because we're not monotheistic (the Christians that believe in the trinity, anyway.) For being American. For being richer.[/quote]

Possibly, apart from the last one (who has all the oil?)

Again, possibly true.

No, but it follows from the evidence and given a choice between "they're just trying to kill us all" and "they're trying to make us react and make life hard from us", I know which I think sounds more logical.

Well if someone had invaded *your* country and then tried to impose what could be perceived as a "puppet government" whose main aim was to do the occupying power's bidding, what would *you* do?

See also the French Resistance in WWII...!

Or, as they see themselves, "the Faithful", which puts a different spin on it.

Yes, I do.

I'm well aware of the quote. I'm also well aware that Conan Doyle cheated and some of Holmes' deductions are more than a little ropey.

And, no, I don't think that "the improbable *must* be true", but the "impossibilities" seem a lot less likely to me.

The following is not meant to sound or be patronising, but I'm pleased to see that at least you are thinking about this. If you can demonstrate faults or fallacies in my reasoning, please, I would welcome seeing them so I can find out whether it stands up to scrutiny.

But from everything I have seen, I believe my conclusions are valid.
__________________

The point is, Xaccers, I am *not* going to answer that question.

My response of answering another question was to *demonstrate* that the question you asked is unhelpful to the debate because it makes assumptions about the answer and I'm not going to fall into the (obvious) trap.
__________________

Yes, I'm sure that's correct, but I think all but the the most fanatical of them realise that they can't simply kill us all, so they need to find *other* methods of getting rid of us and the first step on that path is to destroy our *societies* and that, I think, is what they aim to do with their attacks.

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

Says Master Graham.

Clear superiority complex.

You just don't get it, do you? It's not about the numbers. It's not about facts and figures. It's about sentient creatures with emotions, not computerised robots.

So your maths is spot on. Wow. Have a gold star.

That doesn't mean you're any better at judging the terrorists motives than I am, or anyone else.

Yet you try to suggest that you are.

Yes, I can really say that - in fact I did. And yes, you can make people believe almost anything, even that the impossible is achievable.
Not having met them, or seen the terrorists CV or academic qualifications, I'm not sure if I can make a valid judgement of their stupidity - clever of you that you can.

And you are the only one that has excluded that possibility without having any evidence, except that to accept the possibility would completely destroy your own pet theory.

(Emphasis mine)

Hang on, I got it wrong. You are saying that maybe you've got that wrong.
So maybe what I said is not so non-sensical or illogical after all?

So now you're trying to invalidate my suggested motives by changing them around a bit? Point made being that there are a range of motives.

Next time they need food/water/medicines we'll send them a few barrels of crude instead.

You've already said that maybe they're not being logical. So they may not be following the pattern you suggest.

I was talking immediately after the liberation. At that point nothing had as yet been imposed, yet as soon as Saddam was out of the picture there were others ready to take over where he left off.

Yeah - I notice that as soon as we stormed the Normandy beaches they started pelting us with stones and shooting us. Ever since we liberated them they've been trying to kill us.

No it doesn't.

Conan Doyle is not contributing to this debate, so the ropeyness of his argument is not in question here.

I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.
They may not stand up to your scrutiny, but they will to others.
In fact, I don't think it is possible for you to accept the possibility of a flaw in your reasoning, hence you have to dismiss any and all reasoning or evidence to the contrary.

Indeed. Your belief in your own infallibility is only second to your arrogance.

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

Yes, it's about sentient creatures thinking *emotionally* instead of taking a step back and looking at *FACTS*!!!

You are conflating two entirely separate parts of the discussion here.

SWW once again, if you want to have a reasonable debate, *please* don't make comments like this because they add nothing to the discussion.

"The only one"? I'm the only one in this *discussion* who *may* have done such a thing, but that's rather a different matter.

And "completely destroy"? Nope, weaken, maybe. Destroy no. Curiously enough, that's what I think the terrorists are trying to do to us...

I'm saying that perhaps my assumption that you highlight is wrong. However in the absence of any other evidence, I still consider it to be valid.

Why do you seem to treat this as some sort of fight? I'm not trying to "invalidate" your suggested motives, but comment on them from *my* viewpoint.

Yes, I agree there are a range of motives that the terrorists have, however the aim of these are to bring about a worldwide Islamic state.

The point is they *have* the crude, but *we* then come in, and buy it all up, yet *they* see little return from it.

Yes, that's a possibility. I'm not a terrorist, I can't read their minds, but I know what I might try to do were I in their place.

Of course, did you expect otherwise? After Germany surrendered in WWII there were groups like the SS Werewolves who ran terror campaigns to try to bring back the Reich.

Oh dear, have you *really* missed the point *that* badly? I was talking about their reaction to the *GERMAN* invaders... :rolleyes:

<panto>Oh yes it does...</panto>

Care to back that up with something?

You brought the quote up! Now you're saying that the validity of the quote isn't relevant!! Sheesh! :shrug:

I did, and you conveniently ignored the ones you couldn't argue with.[/quote]

*WHICH* ones?

If they fail to stand up to any one particular scrutiny unless it is based on incredibly narrow criteria, then it it generally reasonable to assume that they fail.

In which case you think very, very *wrong*.

And now we're back to personal insults instead of reasoned debate... :rolleyes:

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

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

Plenty of reasoned debate, if you want it.

For example, all of these are things you have said:

To me these things sound arrogant, particularly:

Whose scrutiny? Yours? Is that the benchmark? Maybe for you it is, and that's arrogant.

And since you persistently rubbish any reasoning from anyone else, you must believe that only you are right.

And with that one sentence you dismiss everything I say as 'rubbish'.

You persist in claiming you're right:

Hence my comment on your belief in your own infallibility.

So it is my opinion which I expressed in that statement that you call a 'personal insult', an opinion formed following the reasoning given above.

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

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

People, we have started to get complaints about this topic and its content, please calm it down or the thread will be closed.

Have a nice day!

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

ScaredWebWarrior there was nothing in your post that was relevant to the discussion.

I see no point in continuing this further.

:walk:

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

:notopic: We have asked for you to keep this ontopic please try.

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

The last of the Belmarsh detainees have been released on bail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4338849.stm

The article mentions a list of restrictions placed on these people.
What I can't understand is that one of the detainees is described as "a truly dangerous individual" - so why is he being let out?
It seems hard to believe that this person can be judged to be so dangerous without any evidence of criminality or criminal intent, so why can we not prosecute, or deport?

Meanwhile, the curb on our civil liberties as being pushed through parliament has it's list of restrictions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4288407.stm#list

Since it's beginning to look like these measures will become law, at least for the time being, maybe we'd all better get used to the idea.

The higher standard of proof demanded doesn't seem to make any real difference either.

Of course, if we didn't have any of this, those detainees released would be free to do whatever they chose.

So if we were not to have any of these restrictions, how would we deal with the threat these people appear to pose?

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

According to the BBC the House of Lords have now passed the bill...

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

You won't answer my question because it helps point out the flaw in your argument doesn't it?

Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are most likely to be Asian.
Now, that is not the same as saying "All Asians are islamic fundametalist terrorists" but then, no one believes that.
Now, being a muslim, you're more likely to come into contact with terrorist suspects than say a middle class white person, through no fault of your own.
For instance, you may unwittingly share a mosque with a terrorist suspect, and socialise with them.
As such, it is understandable that the security forces would be interested in you and may even bring you in for questioning.
That is why it was stated that muslims are more likely to be affected by the anti-terrorism proceedures.
It is not the case that a muslim going about his business with no links at all to terroism, is going to be dragged off for interrogation just in case they're a terrorist.

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

No, it is because a ridiculous question.

Sorry, "no one believes that" you say, but you immediately continue:

The only "link" you have is entirely specious.

This is *NOT* "understandable" at all, this is simply "guilt by association".

You have no proof, no evidence, no *reasonable* grounds for supposing that someone may be a terrorist, yet you consider it "understandable" that someone should be dragged in for questioning simply because they have been seen *next* to a suspect and you seem to think that *they* should be *happy* to be questioned in this way!

Justice? Presumption of Innocence? Not in Xaccers' country!!!

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

It is an extremely valid question, one you felt you could not answer because it exposed the flaws in your argument.




Perhaps you neglected to read what I actually stated Graham?
What did I state which relates to presumption of innocence when dealing with a suspect? Suspect being the operative word graham, it means that someone is suspected of criminal activity but has not be charged, or found guilty, they are still innocent!

Perhaps you believe that if someone is murdered in a nightclub the police should let everyone there go and not take them in for questioning, after all, most of them would have had nothing to do with the murder.

Or perhaps you have no idea how the law has been working for the past 50+ years?


Intelligence? reasoned response? understanding of quoted text? Not in Graham's posts apparently!!!

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

At last....found the question!

OK how about answering your question with a question ;)

If you are a police officer within a force which confesses itself to be instutionally racist (as GMP here have) are you more likely to stop and search:

1. A white person?
2. A black/Asian person?

The issue with stop and search is that it is a power that has in the past been abused and demonstrated to be counter-productive to effective policing. We are all, I'm sure, concerned with reducing and containing the threat of terrorism (although we may disagree on what the level of threat is) and my point is simply that S&S is unlikely to be in any way effective in doing so.

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

That does not answer my question.
Also, muslims comming into contact with anti-terroist proceedures over any other group were the comments made, not stop and search.

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

But the question is so loaded and misses the point. In promoting stop and search, and explicitly accepting that more innocent muslims will be subject to it, the Police risk losing the support of the 1.6m muslims who live in Britain and who are already feeling alienated because of growing Islamophobia in which people increasingly equate 'muslim' with 'terrorist' Indeed in an earlier post you talked of targeting Muslims. Slip of the keyboard no doubt, but it's terrorists we're supposed to be targeting.

Anyway, as I say, my argument is simply that this tactic will be counter-productive.

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

Unlike the Snark, not everything you say three times becomes true.

You have in no way proven or demonstrated the validity of your point nor shown a flaw in my arguments, no matter how many times you claim it.

No, I read *exactly* what you said. Unfortunately you don't appear to understand the implications of what you are saying.

Yes, but the *ONLY* grounds you have for "suspicion" is that the suspect has been *seen* in the company of another person (who, themselves, may only be a SUSPECT!)

These are *NOT* reasonable grounds for bringing someone in for questioning without further evidence. You are using supposition to imply guilt.

This is an entirely different situation and it is ridiculous for you to suggest that they are at all comparable.

Perhaps you'd care to make some reasonable points instead of knocking down straw men?

Oh dear, back to personal insults.

I'm off again.

:walk:

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

Yes, you do appear to be quite good at giving them

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

I dont see what the problem is.

Lets do what Graham says lets leave them alone and not be racist.
I mean its easy to tell a nasty terrorist islamic fanatic from the non nasty, non terrorist islamics isnt it?
I mean obviosuly the terrorists walk around saying I'm a terrorist I'm going to kill you western infidel.

So nice of them to identify themselves. :rolleyes:

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

Interesting programme on TV tonight about immigration. It was a type of "The Case For And Against", and was presented in a case for the prosecution/defence type way. Very interesting.

Anyway, the "prosecution" called a really good witness, by the name of Liddle or Little (can't remember as I'm tired). Anyway, he's a well known radio presenter, former Labour party researcher, documentary producer, something to do with the Spectator etc etc.

He said that there were now approximately 2 million Muslims in the UK. His point of concern was that whilst he embraced the mix of cultures we have in the UK, he was concerned with Muslims. The reason was, he said, that the Muslim society are becoming more of a seperate society within the overall society, and that was not good; in fact it caused a great deal of alienation.

Now, there are two points to make here: Firstly, with all the will in the world 2 million Muslims will not be stopped for questioning. Secondly, due to the Muslim community shutting out society as a whole (his view, not necessarily mine), it is vital that communication be kept open and that the police presence is very evident.

Just ny views, that's all.

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

When the UK first started "importing" workers from the West Indies back in the 1950s there were similar claims that these "coloureds" would form their own "separate cultures" in our cities etc etc.

Somehow, however, it seems that they've become integrated into our society without creating "blacks only" communities.

No, only the ones (according to Xaccers) who happen to pray at the same mosque as a "suspect".

Oh and Xaccers, in answer to your "night club murder" scenario, if someone was murdered in a night club, yes I would expect the Police to question everyone at the club.

However if someone *left* the club and murdered a random stranger who was *not* at the club, I would consider it a waste of time and resources for the Police to question everyone at the club.

I agree that communication should be kept open. However surrounding them with a noticable "police presence" is probably not the best way of saying to these people "we want you as part of *our* society"...

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

The big difference is that the Muslim culture is very different from or own, not least in that they fundamentally oppose some things that most of us take for granted, and many have fought long and hard to achieve. And by the way, there are actually a lot of "blacks only" communities in the UK.

The communication lines have to be opened, and kept open. Someone has to start the ball rolling, and in this case, it may well be the police.

Re: your comment about Xaccers, what's that got to do with anything? I don't know Xaccers personally, but I would bet you a pound to a penny that he actually won't get to decide who is and isn't questioned?

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

I really dont see any alternative to random stopping.

Theres a threat from the islamic quarter, youre certainly not going to waste time picking on non islamics so you dont appear racist.
And thats the problem, because of certain liberal attitudes, trying to protect innocents of all races, the authorities are branded racist. I still cant figure that out.

Its not like theres a quota, stop 5 non muslims for every 5 muslims. It doesnt work that way and it simply cant work that way.

We have to do what we can to prevent an attrocity on the scale of 9/11. Some people wont like it, but its tough, I'd much rather feel safe walking the streets visiting landmarks etc than worry about whether my police force was being racist by stopping the people that fit the description.

Look what happened in Gibraltar, all intel stated the IRA were going to kill soldiers and most likely innocent civillians, the SAS shot them dead. Subsequent investigation revealed no remote detonating device. And wow did the liberals cry over that one, you murdered them.
Hang on a minute, these people were IRA terrorists, what were the SAS supposed to do, take the risk they were on holiday? Wait for them to kill before taking action? These people were considered armed and extremely dangerous, hence the reason the SAS were called in in the first place.

Was it racist because they stopped the Irish, were they racist because the gunned down white people?
Or were they simply doing their job ?


If I waled down the street with osama bin ladin, wouldnt you think, hang on I bet he has some info, lets question him.
If I did the same 15 years ago with Gerry Adams, the same thing.
So I think question people that attend the same mosque as a suspect is pretty sensible and damned well logical.

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

All good points TimeWarrior. And I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that in Gibraltar they actually did find explosives in a car, although as you rightly point out no detonating device. And yes, there were cries of overreaction, but the alternative was unthinkable.

It stands to reason, if there are Muslims who are known to be terrorists, or terrorists who are known to be Muslims, then a good place to look for them might be in the Muslim community. You don't try buying a loaf of bread in a shoe shop, do you?

Again, I would reiterate that Hazel Blears has caused a big issue here. I would expect this to be a case of specific Muslims being questioned, not every Muslim or anyone who might look like one. I would also expect some kind of "Muslim community focussed" initiative; eg talks to Muslim groups, more police presence in the Muslim community, perhaps attempts to form bonds with Mosques etc. But that would be no different to the focus on the Chinese community if there were a perceived threat from that section of society.

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

Graham, with regards to the red rep you've given me, exactly how old are you??? :rolleyes:

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

And that's a bad thing? We seem to be trying to export "Western Culture" all over the world which is also "very different" from the indigenous cultures. Is that also a bad thing and should be stopped?

Or is it a case of "Us: Good. Them: Bad"?

What about all those British ex-Pats out in the Middle East etc who want to drink alcohol against Islamic law? Somehow the Muslim communities seem to have come to an accommodation with them, why can't we do the same with the Muslims here?

You mean like not being locked up without charge? The right to challenge evidence in court? The right not to be restricted in your own home on the say-so of a politician...???

Care to back that claim up with anything? Yes, there are areas which have high levels of black occupancy, but we're not talking about "no go" areas for whites or "ghettos".

It was a belated response to a comment that I meant to make earlier but forgot, so it got tagged on this message.
__________________

I do. It's called "Intelligence based Policing" ie using intelligence (in both senses of the word!) so you don't end up harassing innocent people based solely on what they look like or how they dress or where they pray.

The point is you don't "pick on" *any* group. If you have *reasonable* grounds for stopping someone, that's a different matter from "he looks suspiciously Muslim".

It seems clear that you can't figure it out because your last paragraph is nonsensical.

Of *course* it can't work that way, but neither can it work, as I keep pointing out, that you simply stop someone based on their religion, looks, clothes etc!

And once again I have little doubt that Osama Bin Laden and friends are sitting in their caves, watching satellite TV and laughing as we throw away the liberties that make our society *FREE* and which they hate so much.

I'm sure you would, but once again I point out, *YOU* are unlikely to be stopped or harassed, so again it seems a case of "I'm alright, Jack, it's ok to hassle people who aren't *me* so long as *I* feel safe".

Yes, because what happened was sheer, cold blooded murder, nothing else.

If these people were *known* IRA terrorists (which they were, as you admit) and they were on UK soil (which, again, you admit they were) they could have been *arrested* for being members of an illegal organisation.

Yet the *excuse* the SAS gave was that "they thought they were going for a gun or a detonator" when challenged, but that simply smacks of incompetence because it would have been possible to isolate and detain all of the victims with proper planning and manpower had they *really* wanted to arrest them.

You appear to think that it's ok to blast people down on the street simply on suspicion, yet if the SAS had been following them for as long as they said, they could have isolated the possible threat of a car bomb and taken the suspects into custody instead of gunning them down.

Who said anything about the SAS being "racist"? The Gibraltar murders had nothing to do with race at all. Please don't suggest that they did and please try to stay on topic.
__________________

This is an interesting one because searching on this gives results varying from there were "no explosives found" to "no explosives but another car had the equipment to make a detonator" to "140 lbs of high explosives were found".

I don't know about you, but when I go out to buy a loaf of bread, I *already* have some idea of what sort of bread I am going to buy, eg Brown Wholemeal.

I don't go into the bakers and examine *EVERY SINGLE* loaf of bread before I decide "hmm, I'll take this one" and I think the baker would get rather annoyed were I to handle and examine and taste each one...!
__________________

Answered by PM to keep the discussion on topic.

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

Have you ever been to Broadwater Farm? I have. Sure, you find people of all races there, but there is a very high density of coloured people. That's no bad thing per se, but it is not the only area of it's type.

Re the bread... as I've pointed out, not every Muslim will be questioned. It ain't gonna happen.

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

Of course the residents of Broadwater Farm would never prefer to live in Kensington. People often don't get to choose where they live. Poverty is often a major factor. Asian families extended family networks and cultural cohesion do play their part but the idea that people want to live in crap neighbourhoods (whatever their colour) is absurd

Stop and searching 1.6m people may indeed prove problematic ;) But the fact that there are so few muslim police officers and an acknowledged lack of understanding of muslim culture within police forces is an issue. Targetting muslims with such a blunt and ineffective tool will only create antagonism and further distance the police from a community they need to serve. Not checked your profile but are you old enough to recall the SUS laws and the devastating effect they had?

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

I still dont get it.

Using intelligence means stopping people of a certai description.

They are looking for a threat from islamic fanatics, Now let me see where would the most likely place be to find fanatics?
Oh yeah perhaps with others.......this is reasonable.
So other being, For instance Abu Hamza, well he's in prison, but other people that associated with abu hamza arent, so perhaps maybe we should ask them a few questions. Hey I know lets ask some of their associates questions.

It isnt random, it is using a form of intelligence. However it is still selecting a certain target group.

What exactly is your problem with this Graham?

Would you be doing as much crying and complaining if it was people of a christian background, that wore jeans and t-shirt being questioned about being a western infidel in Afghanistan?

I somehow doubt it.

maybe we shouldnt adopt these tactics, perhaps we should invite them all here because no doubt they are just misunderstood, maybe with some counselling they will see the error of their ways thus proving they deserved to be in the community all along.

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

But, as you say yourself "you find people of all races there". In other cities there are high densities of Italians, Jews, Chinese, Asians or whatever in certain areas, but nobody seems to think that *they* are a threat to our society.

No, but yet again I point out that some people are still talking as if *every* Muslim should be a suspected terrorist.
__________________

No, it means stopping people when you have *reasonable grounds* for stopping them.

It does *NOT* simply mean that you stop them because they match a certain description (Middle Eastern, Muslim, Beard, Robes, Funny Hat, whatever) but because you have *some* evidence that they may be up to no good.

And *HOW* are you going to tell the innocent people from the "fanatics"? Stop and question them all? Suspect *everyone* who has been seen in the company of a "fanatic"? Hassle anyone who dresses in a certain way?

This is not "reasonable" this is ridiculous.

A "form" of intelligence? Yes.

Short sighted, bigotted, prejudiced, narrow minded and insensitive, but, yes, it's definitely a "form" of intelligence :rolleyes:

Let's say that a certain person who uses the alias timewarrior2001 was arrested for being a suspected terrorist. Then the Police discover that he messages on Cable Forum. Since he's swapped messages with all those people the Police decide to bring in all the members of Cable Forum for questioning "just to be on the safe side".

Wow, what an "intelligent" and "reasonable" use of resources... :rolleyes:

You are free to believe whatever you want. I am also free to ignore ridiculous comments like this that add nothing to the debate and do not give extra credibility to your arguments.

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

If the policing was intelligence led I don't they'd be getting yer average Plod to do stop and search.

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

Back then British society was not at all tolerant, and the 'immigrants' had no other choice than to integrate into British society, rather than importing their own variation of it.

So that situation cannot be compared to that of today, where any notion that Britain has any kind of indigenous culture that deserves preserving, is always subsumed by the need for acceptance of alien cultures.

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

Please quit with your disrespectful comments, it's a Kufie not a "funny hat"


It's called questioning a suspect Graham, part of the legal process, it does not assume guilt.

Rather than mocking the post Graham, why not actually explain why you feel that way about the idea of questioning people who support Abu Hamza and his terrorist supporting views?

Firstly, until they found out sufficient evidence to suggest that TW was a terrorist, they wouldn't expand their investigation to this forum.
However, if they had sufficient evidence then they could aquire a warrent to find out if TW had been exchanging terrorist related PM's with anyone.
If he had, then those people would be put under survealance, not dragged in for questioning.

Again with the mocking...

------


Now, getting back to the matter at hand and I guess I should specifically state I am not directing this at graham, one of the issues with the asian community is their banding together.
If an asian has broken the law there is likely to be a wall of silence while the suspect is rushed out of the country.
It happens a lot in rape/murder cases.
Several of the Muslims I work with have commented that the intelligence services will find it hard to recruit Muslims in the war against terror because it is seen as betraying your brother to turn them in.

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

I agree, and even if the question was considered valid, the answer would probably have to be 'all 4'.

What this would mean is that 'targetting terrorists' cannot include stop & search, because it might lead to more Muslims being stopped than anyone else?

Admittedly, it's a blunt tool, because it relies on 'luck' in catching a terrorist. If, however, a police officer has suspicion of any individual, he should not have to worry himself about their cultural ethnicity before making a decision to stop & search.
__________________

Wonder who would be safest?

Lots of people around Britain would welcome a visible police presence to deter crime and anti-social behaviour.
__________________

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1160846.stm

Seems that maybe they're not as accomodating as we're expected to be.

But where is the intelligence going to come from? It is quite clear that to some Muslims the fact that we're talking about Islamic terrorists means that they've got problems informing on them.
Can't see a lot of intelligence turning up from that quarter.

Someone said something about Snarks and how repetition proves nothing?

I don't believe support for this is driven by selfishness - simply if it doesn't directly affect someone, then they're hardly going to have a strong opinion against it.

Maybe, maybe not. Like in most of these situations we don't have enough facts to determine why it happened the way it did.

If the government had intended to arrest these people, it would have sent the police after them, not the SAS.
__________________

Maybe not, but they'd certainly start looking at everyone he'd communicated with to see what had passed between them. And then if anything didn't look right, they might start looking at others more closely, even bring them in, just to be on the safe side.

This is suspicion by association, and I'd consider it rather incompetent if the police did not examine closely the activities of associates of suspected terrorists.

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

Tiime to calm down people - and lets have a few less personal digs at people who don't agree with your views. It is not the person who shouts loudest who is right. We don't like closing topics, but this one is heading that way if things don't improve. :cool:

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

This is a very important point in this debate, since it goes directly against the expectation that some seem to have of the support we might get (or risk losing) from the Muslim community.

If they put Islam before justice or the safety of their (host) nation, then they have alienated themselves from us already.

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

Ya know I was interested in this thread till I read some of the disrespectful comments on it. Thnkafully none have been aimed at me yet so I guess really I shouldn't try defending any of you. The mere fact that there is some islamaphobia in here and that we are using that as an excuse to trun on one anotherr shows how much things have degraded.

Firstly, Muslims are people, just like you and I. The vast majority of them are not terrorists. The belief that some, including myself, are perpertrating is that they do not deserve to be stopped anymore than Joe Blogs does. Just becasue a small minority of those practising Islam are fanatical doesn't mean that each and every one of them are. NEither are they all middle Eastern or of Asian or Indian appearnacve. The stereotype in this thread is that all Muslims must have beards and wear identifiable clothing, strangely just like most from the Mid East and other Asian countries do. As I have pointed out before most Muslims are of very different appearance. If we are targeting one small section because they allegedly have more fanatical beliefs then in the interest of fairness we should be targeting Mr Smith from up the road who has converted to Islam.

Opinions are fine. It's when it gets to thread bashing or reply bashing things aren't fine. You are debting opinions not how one of you responds to posts or how that post is worded. I reckon all of you are as bad as one another !!

Sian

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

There is no islamophobia on my part.
I'd feel the same if the threat was from Scotland.....or much more likely, Wales :D

But in all seriousness, isnt this the point, people are using the fact thats its Islam to intimidate others into keeping quiet or we'll call you racist?

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

Some posts have been considered, others less so and there has definitely been more than a hint of Islamophobia in some.

I do not think that those who have argued against this measure on both practical and moral grounds have acted 'because it's Islam' and threatened to call people racist. If someone makes a post on this or any other thread which makes sweeping generalisations or pours opprobrium on people because they are of a different race, religion or culture, or because that poster has no understanding of, or interest in understanding a different race, religion or culture, then it may be legitimate to point out they are being racist ( and my own rule is always to be wary of a post beginning "I'm no racist but...." ;)

Personally though, I think this debate has run its course as little in the way of fresh ideas are being brought to the table from either side.


EDIT: Can't give you a greeny again I'm afraid Seti!

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

OOoooOOO just cos we beat the Scots over the weekend !!! :LOL: Anyway my mates call me the Welsh Terrorist. I dunno why though :angel:

and its ok Andy i will give you one


um um a greenie i mean. Um I can't they say I have to spread meself around :D

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

Nice to see things have changed so much (at least in regard to Muslims)!

Why did they have "no other choice"? Or was it that, as the next generation came along, they *became* part of British Society?

So what *is* "British indigenous culture"?
__________________

1) I wasn't aware of the name, thank you for the information.

2) The only "disrespect" there is directed at those who *would* stop someone because they match a certain description and I doubt very much whether they would know or even *care* what the hat was called.

There is also a part of the legal process called "reasonable grounds for suspicion".

The quote that was in response to was "They are looking for a threat from islamic fanatics," now do you assume that *everyone* who looks and dresses a certain way is a potential fanatic? Well, you'd have to if you're going to question them and consider them a suspect...!!!

Whoops, there goes a fast one...! Catch it, quick...!!!

Your statement above is *exactly* the sort of thing that I "feel that way", because you are making an *ASSUMPTION* that these people "support Abu Hamza and his terrorist supporting views" without any *EVIDENCE*!!!

How do *YOU* know? Are you a member of the Security Services??

But, but...!!! Hang on! This is from the same person who in response to "And *HOW* are you going to tell the innocent people from the "fanatics"? " replied:

So now you're saying that they *wouldn't* be questioned, but that the Police would expend even *more* manpower and resources keeping them under surveillance???

No, stating an opinion about those comments

And you don't grass your mates up to the Police, teacher, whoever, no matter whether you're black, white, asian or anything else.

Don't try to imply that this is *exclusive* to Muslims.

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

Think there's some confusion about 'integration' which enables cultural traditions to be maintained within a wider society, and 'assimilation' which requires effective renunciation of cultural heritage. The Scots, for example, may be assertively Scottish and yet integrated within English society.

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

Ah, I wondered how long it would take to mention that old chestnut "Islamophobia". Do you think Andy is showing "Policephobia" when he mentions the SUS laws (which I do remember)? Or am I guilty of "Liberalphobia" by disagreeing with him? Ye Gods, you'll be shouting "racist" next.

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

It seems pretty damn accommodating to me.

I have answered this one several times already. We have to develop policies where the Muslim community would consider it to be worthwhile providing information instead of alienating them.

There is a difference between simply saying something again and again and a reasonable extrapolation based on known facts.

A Stop and Search policy directed against Muslims or Blacks or Irish people isn't going to directly affect me, yet *I* have a strong opinion against it because *I* can see that such things, if allowed to run unchecked will eventually affect *everyone*!

I agree. But there is a difference between "examining activities" and bringing them in for questioning simply because of their association with someone which is the point I'm trying to make.
__________________

So does that make them "fair game"?

Or does it mean that we should rethink our policies to try and get them back onto *our* side?
__________________

I thought it was that people were using the fact that someone being Islamic is seemingly enough to suspect them of being a potential terrorist...

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

A very valid point. Integration is that fine give-and-take that allows each to hold on to their individual cultural identity, while also subscribing to the national identity.

It is easy to be suspicious of those that seem not to share our national and/or cultural identity.
__________________

That was the point I made - The British were less inclined to make allowances and expected immigrants to fit into the british way of life.

Sunday roast with beef, Pork, Lamb - whatever. Maybe a pint in the pub.
I could probably think of more if I tried - but even these simple things are quintessentially British - you won't find them in Germany, Holland or France.

And there are already at least 2 things in that list you couldn't share with a Muslim.

Maybe you would protect your 'mates' - although I'd think a lot less of anyone who protected their 'mates' from justice if that was what they deserved. There are some things we can accept from no-one.

But we're talking about extending that protection to people you might barely know, simply because of religion. (Even when the crime that person has committed is against that religion!)

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

Errmmm the fact that there were gathering of people that stilloccured when hamza preached outside the finsbury park mosque, you know when he was kicked out. There were people there backing him.
Its not hard to read into, death to the infidel, death to america.
Unless I'm very much mistaken, or the English language has changed dramatically in the last few months, those slogans mean, death to the infidel, death to america. Sounds pretty much like a radical view.

As for supporters check this link:-

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...phy/Masri.html

And it quotes a bibliography of sources.
Many of them from Yemen.









Ermm, hang on a minute, wouldnt that be a presumption on your part that no one here has grassed anyone up?
And we arent always talking about mates, or does every person know everbody else personalkly enough to call them "mates".

I've grassed friends up, when they have done wrong. Fortunately for me, my friends know when they have done wrong 99% of the time.

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

Amen to that.

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

I think it is time to call it a day, as there will be no winners or no losers!!!! everyone is entitled to their bit okay!!!!

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

Would you honestly and truthfully be saying that if a person with ginger hair a kilt and claymore was stopped because he looked scottish?

Or a man walking down street with leeks and clogs being stopped because he looked Welsh?

Graham, I do accpet our views are extremely different in these cases (but not always ALL the time). But I do sense that a lot of what shapes your views does come down to their race. For example, I am under the distinct impression that because they are black and muslim, you will jump to their defence, no matter what.
Whilst I often fail to see the side you obviously do, I do think that you fail to see what any repercussions could be should we ignore the fact.

What is right?
What is wrong?

We both are almost certainly in the wrong in our views. The right choice would be somewhere down the middle. However that choice isnt always possible.
There is a growing problem, yes the problem is fundementally an islamic one. But the islamic groups need to realise that whilst they cover for the behaviour of their kind, in the name of their religion, its inevitable that they are all, at some point, going to be regarded with suspicion. And whilst that happens, the powers of stop and search will be used.

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

End now !!!!!

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

Sorry but due to work commitments I havent yet managed to say what my thoughts are.

If the thread is to be closed, I must protest that because of work I cannot post at the same time as others.

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

Close it becasue it is like a dog chasing its tail!!!!!

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

No-one is asking you to read it...

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

Excuse me but when did I imply such a thing?

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

Sorry, but that's not your decision. :) However, it is starting to get a little heated in here so maybe a few people should step back and take a rest. You know who you are. ;)

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

Nope I am just commenting on what I am reading. I can't say your a liberalophbic me283, I just find some of the coments on here insane when really we are just debating a difference of opinion. Mind you I oculd be a conservativeophobic :-P

But they do. Well ok Muslims do in my part of the World. I was following a car today from outside my local comprehensive school. (No I wasn't stalking ) Muslim ladies were wearing the Welsh Football shirt and had a Welsh flag on the back of their car. Brought a tear to my eye it did. So I guess they subscribe to the Welshness of Wales :) Ain't so sure about the Islamic individuals living in Bradford or Oldham, there seems to be a lot of racial tension there because no one really understands Islam. I don't claim to either but I enjoy hearing others cultral beliefs, values and norms.

I also believe that we should protect that as far as possible. I dont' know maybe I am old-fashioned but I see targetting *ONE* small section of the Islamic community wrong. Don't target those of Middle Easter appearance target them ALL. I amsure there would be a public outcry then.

Islam is an old Ottoman tradition as far as I know. The religion has a history steeped in goodness. I have to concur that this religion was changed a lot and its concepts and meanings changed to suit other aspects of religion and power and control. Take the Sunni's and Shi'ites for example, One sect believes in the way of Mohammed and the other belives in the way of his brother Ali. They have very different cultral identities.

I would think (and its only an opinion so don't kill me unless you use a funny smilie) that moving to somewhere as WEternized as Britain or America must be a BIG culture shock. For starters, how do they learn to cook ? What foods do they buy that are consistent with their religion ? Where do some of them end up ? Estates on badly maintained local housing areas with other people of Islamic desent ? how do they learn what our norms, value and beliefs are if we stop integrating these people now ? If we arrest on site and interrogate or detain how are they learning anything new from our way of living ? I just think a lot .

Sian

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

I think you miss the point. Kids have the knack of picking up whatever they are exposed to and will tend to "fit in" with what's around them. It often causes trouble in their community when their parents try to force them into a different cultural mould. Eventually they come to an accommodation between the two cultures.

So those are *some* things that *some* British people do. However they're not obligatory to be "British" are they? Nor are supporting Man Utd/ Liverpool/ Arsenal/ whoever, or watching cricket or going Morris Dancing or going to church on a Sunday or...

I don't drink. I can't remember the last time I ate Roast Pork, does that make me "not British"? Of course not.

Maybe you would protect your 'mates' - although I'd think a lot less of anyone who protected their 'mates' from justice if that was what they deserved. [/quote]

The point I was trying to make is not what *I* would necessarily do, but that there exist in many cultures/ groups "rules" that you don't drop your mates in the cacky. I also didn't say that it was a good thing.

And especially not from group (insert name here).

I suggest you ask a Freemason about his pledge to support and assist other Masons and the number of senior Policemen who allegedly shake hands in a peculiar manner...

Or how about members of the Black community who will help a "Brother" against "Whitey" simply based on their skin colour...

Or... There are many more examples of people who would "extend protection" to someone else based on what are, frankly, very subjective criteria.

This is *not* exclusive to Muslims.
__________________

It also sounds like Freedom of Speech. Not a very responsible or sensible use of it, but, none the less, Freedom of Speech.

Yet I didn't actually hear about the Police taking those who went to hear him preach into custody or questioning them "just in case" they were terrorists...

You're looking at a *Jewish* site for opinions about Muslims?

Great idea!

Now how about looking at a BNP site for opinions about Blacks? I'm sure you'll find more equally open minded and unbiased commentary on there...!!

See my comments above.

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

Could someone please point out the post where it was claimed that only muslims protect each other from the law as I can't see it?


Ah so because it's a jewish site it must be biased and full of lies with no truths at all?
WTF?

http://memri.org/aboutus.html

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

What on Earth are you on about? I don't see many people walking down the street dressed like that, do you? However I *do* see people dressed in "Islamic" clothing, yet, somehow, I don't automatically think "maybe they're a terrorist someone should question or search them!"

Then you would be utterly *UTTERLY* wrong and I would have to say that you have completely failed to understand a word I have been saying.

I don't give a *damn* about race. Nor colour, nor creed, nor clothing, nor which football team they support.

What I *DO* care about is *PREJUDICE*, those who *would* judge someone based on any or all of the above or any other subjective criteria and *RIGHTS*, because if we take rights away from just *one* group, we are on a very dangerous path as history has demonstrated time and time again.

If someone said "we should arrest anyone who calls themselves 'timewarrior2001' because it's a silly name" I would be standing up for *your* rights just as much as I would stand up for *anyone's* rights, no matter what.

On the contrary, I am well aware of what people claim the repercussions could be (letting terrorists in, letting them commit atrocities etc) but it seems that those self-same people "fail to see the side I obviously do" because they cannot see the dangers present in presuming that *one* particular group is less deserving of rights than everyone else.

And, once again, you make incorrect assumptions and sweeping generalisations that will only make the problem *WORSE*.

Yes, there are *SOME* Muslims who will "cover for the behaviour of their kind" (hmm, "their kind", another great generalisation!), just as some blacks will support their "brothers" against the White Man and so on, but there are also many who deplore the atrocities committed in the name of their religion and who will do everything they can to see them brought to justice.

However there is also a *third* group, the "undecideds" for want of a better term who think "well, I shouldn't cover for these people, but if I'm going to get hassled by ignorant unbelievers who want to give me grief simply because I worship in a Mosque or wear certain clothes or look a particular way or have a beard, why the hell should I be bothered to help them?"

Now the question becomes "what do *we* do"? Do we develop policies to get them on *our* side? Or do we, instead, treat them as suspects which is more likely to drive them to the "other" side?

I know which I think is more sensible.

What about you?
__________________

This sort of behaviour happens in *many* groups as I said above, not just in asian/ Muslim communities as you mention.
__________________

Did I say that? No, I didn't. You're complaining I'm implying things into your messages that you didn't say, yet then you go and do exactly the same thing!

The point is that there is little love lost between many sections of the Jewish and Islamic communities. Picking a single example like that doesn't necessarily provide proof by any means.

ADDENDUM: PS thanks for the red rep based on your straw man argument! :rofl:

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

Great, so because I didn't mention every other ethnic group, in a thread about muslims, I'm obviously implying that it's only muslims this occurs with?

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

<Sigh> Ladies and gentlemen, in my documents folder I have a sealed message with my prediction for the response to that message from Xaccers... :rolleyes:

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

No, you actually said:

Equating a jewish site's content with that of the BNP and you don't expect to get a red rep for it???
Didn't a certain mayor cause great offence by suggesting a reporter's actions were similar to an anti-semetic group?

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

How did I *know* you were going to jump on that one...?!

You would have to ask Ken Livingstone about that, I don't speak for him.

Now excuse me, I'm going to bed.

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

Doesn't that breach your "human rights"?

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

I think it might be time for some people to do some growing up. Some of the comments posted have been beyond puerile.

Has anyone got a point to make anymore?

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

Just the one really. By the sound of things, this is going to happen anyway. It remains to be seen whether or not it works, and we shall never know if the alternatives would have been better or worse. But if it leads to the capture of one terrorist, or prevents a single atrocity, I believe it will all have been worthwhile.

I'm gone.

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

No, since I made the point and you want to argue with it, it's you that's missing the point.

First you ask me to describe the British indigenous culture, and then you want to argue against it on the basis of it being 'obligatory'. I didn't say it was, nor is cultural identity based things that are obligatory.

I sometimes think you only ask a question so that you can argue about someone's answer/opinion.

Now you're being facetious.

Really? let me remind you:

That sounds very much like your opinion, rather than your opinion on another culture/group.
__________________

Not when it is impossible to stay on topic because someone continually takes the discussion off at a tangent.

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

I have snipped the majority of your post because there is nothing on topic to reply to, but there are a couple of points I wish to address:

In which case you have, once again, missed my point.

__________________

Paging messers Pott and Kettle-Black... :rolleyes:

:walk:

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

I think we have all just about had enough of this topic now - it's pretty much going round in circles with lots of petty personal remarks and reps. Time to move on. Thread closed.