Muslims should expect to be stopped....

Originally Posted by me283

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, 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.

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

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!
__________________

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?

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?
__________________

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

*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...???

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

Do you *want* to fall into their traps?

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.

Originally Posted by me283

Unless you know exactly what our security services are doing and have done, maybe we should neither praise them nor criticise them?

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

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.

"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...??

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

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by me283

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?

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.

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

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

I hope you can give me answers to these questions.

I hope you appreciate my answers.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

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



I hope you appreciate my answers.

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

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...??

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?

Originally Posted by me283

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.

"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.
__________________

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.

[/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*.

[me283]

Originally Posted by Graham

"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.

Prevention is better than cure.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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

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...???

Just like that...

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

Originally Posted by Graham

Remember that phrase "Presumed Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Graham

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?

Millions.

Originally Posted by Graham

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

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.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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

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.

Originally Posted by Graham

"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.

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.

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*.

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.

[Seti]

Answer me this simple question:

An islamic fundamentalist terrorist is most likely to be:

A) White

B) Black

C) Asian

D) Oriental

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.

Orignally posted my me223: 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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by me283

Prevention is better than cure.

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...

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

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?
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

Thanks, Chris.
__________________

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

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.

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Seti

Well Scared Web Warrior [sic] all I can do is suggest you broaden your horizons and read and watch more than the media allow you too.

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.)

[me283]

Originally Posted by Seti

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.

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

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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.
__________________

Originally Posted by Graham

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.

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

Originally Posted by me283

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.

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).
__________________

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

<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.