Muslims should expect to be stopped....

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

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

Answer me this simple question:

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

[me283]

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.

Originally Posted by me283

....but I have not heard any gripes from the Muslim Council of Great Britain, for example?

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."
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

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.

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!

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Hmmm, remember this story?

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.

Originally Posted by me283

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

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

Originally Posted by punky

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

Why not?

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

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

[me283]

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

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.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Why not?

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 )
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

It reminds me a bit of when I was very young,

<snip>

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

Originally Posted by punky

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 )

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!

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Answer me this simple question:

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by me283

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",

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.

but that's the reality; there ARE people who would destroy this country if they had the chance.

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!!

By suggesting that anyone who looks like a Muslim debases the hard work and fine results that come from the security services.

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 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.

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...
__________________

Originally Posted by punky

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

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

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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?
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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...

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".