[Closed] British Muslims.

Just picked up on this - isn't that precisely the point? State terrorism is orders of magnitude worse than non-state terrorism, but somehow it's okay because it's a country doing it?

I reckon the mayhem caused by ISIS probably eclipses what we managed to do in all the time we were in Iraq. Having said that, I guess ISIS is partly a product of our intervention. Who knows what kind of insanity would have ensued if Saddam was still about though.

Getting rid of Saddam was a good idea on paper, we just never carried the job out properly. I've got a number of Iraqi friends who attest to this.

What about supporting Saddam in the 1st place?
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/28/iraq.politics1 ]
How £1bn was lost when Thatcher propped up Saddam
[/url]

For more than a decade, yellowing paper files in a government store have hidden the story of the way £1bn of Whitehall money was thrown away in propping up Saddam Hussein's regime and doing favours for arms firms.

It took place when many in both the British and US administrations were covertly on President Saddam's side. But as yet another war against the Iraqi dictator looms, what may be the final skeleton in Britain's arms-to-Iraq cupboard has been uncovered.

Or providing weapons and training to Rebel groups affiliated with ISIS?

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/03/us-isis-syria-iraq ]Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq[/url]

the trial in London of a Swedish man, Bherlin Gildo, accused of terrorism in Syria, collapsed after it became clear British intelligence had been arming the same rebel groups the defendant was charged with supporting.

The prosecution abandoned the case, apparently to avoid embarrassing the intelligence services. The defence argued that going ahead with the trial would have been an “affront to justice” when there was plenty of evidence the British state was itself providing “extensive support” to the armed Syrian opposition.

That didn’t only include the “non-lethal assistance” boasted of by the government (including body armour and military vehicles), but training, logistical support and the secret supply of “arms on a massive scale”. Reports were cited that MI6 had cooperated with the CIA on a “rat line” of arms transfers from Libyan stockpiles to the Syrian rebels in 2012 after the fall of the Gaddafi regime.

Clearly, the absurdity of sending someone to prison for doing what ministers and their security officials were up to themselves became too much. But it’s only the latest of a string of such cases.

Seems this is a fair representation, taking into account some members the Mujahadeen went on to become the Taliban + Al Qaeda:

[img] [/img]

Though we shouldn't just cast scrutiny on the US, as our government and intelligence services have been every bit as complicit.

And that's before you take into account [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733 ]their involvement in domestic extremism[/url]

Any updates on reliable figures for percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe involving Muslims?

How about percentage of terrorist attacks in the US?

Who knows what kind of insanity would have ensued if Saddam was still about though.

You know you're in a bad place when you make jhj look like the voice of reason 🙂

What about supporting Saddam in the 1st place?

How £1bn was lost when Thatcher propped up Saddam

Again, never said that I agreed with that. More whatabouttery.

Any updates on reliable figures for percentage of terrorist attacks in Europe involving Muslims?

Again, why do you only care about European attacks, when we are exporting European Muslims to carry out attacks elsewhere? Is it not terrorism if they don't do it on European soil?

The muslims you notice, are the ones that stand out. Likewise the muslims that get reported on by the media and discussed by politicians. White british people who stand out are dismissed easily as outliers. Stereotyping is always, always bollocks.

And that's without getting into the many flavours of muslims, it's like assuming catholics, the church of england, and the wee frees are all basically the same because they're christians.

You're argument is at odds with the stats though isn't it Northwind.

How many non-muslim Brits are currently joining non-state based terrorist groups - now how many Muslim Brits have travelled to Syria/Iraq to join ISIS? Now let's compare those numbers against the percentage population of each demographic.

Ignoring it and digging your head in the sand whilst decrying anyone who discusses the issue as a stereotyper/racist will only make the issue worse.

Why do our Muslims want to fight Assads forces?
Is it due to his human rights violations, is he the wrong type of Muslim or do they just want a ruck?
If Isis didn't dress in black and weren't really good at waving flags would they still have the same allure?
What type of Muslims do we have and do they get uppity with the other type over here?

Again, never said that I agreed with that. More whatabouttery.

Thatcher supported Saddam with Taxpayer's money, Taxpayer's money then went on the Gulf war and Invasion of Iraq, both of which were started under false pretenses with media collusion:

[img] [/img]

Many lives were lost.

No 'whatabouttery' there.

when we are exporting European Muslims to carry out attacks elsewhere?

Muslims who have been radicalized by [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wahhabism-a-deadly-scripture-398516.html ]Saudi Funded Wahhabism[/url] and [url= http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/circus-how-british-intelligence-primed-both-sides-terror-war-55293733 ]MI5/MI6/State Media backed extremists
[/url]
No 'whatabouttery' there

Is it not terrorism if they don't do it on European soil?

Refer back to this:

It's partly about British [s]Muslims[/s] soldiers going to [s]Syria[/s] other people countries on the orders of their superiors and blowing themselves up civilians up and polluting the land for generations, yes? But when British [s]Muslims[/s] Soldiers do that, it's not terrorism cuz they didn't blow Brits or mainland Europeans up right?

Define terrorism, then perhaps we can continue the debate...

Again more whatabouttery, just because Tony Blair went to war/engaged in state sponsored terrorism despite 49-50 percent of the country not wanting him to, doesn't mean to say that one cannot highlight a legitimate issue in the present.

Totally bollocks argument, and I say that despite having sympathy with your point of view.

I am pretty sure the most recent CIA data put Muslim terror attacks at less than 10% of worldwide terror and Muslim victims of terror attacks dosprpportionaly high .

Tom_W1987 - Member

You're argument is at odds with the stats though isn't it Northwind.

No, the stats precisely prove my point, as does your post. There's almost 3 million british muslims. Estimates vary for how many british muslims are fighting for Isis- the MOD says 500, others say 1500, either way it is a tiny proportion- about 1% of 1%.

So. The muslims you've noticed, are the ones that stand out.

No, the stats precisely prove my point, as does your post. There's almost 3 million british muslims. Estimates vary for how many british muslims are fighting for Isis- the MOD says 500, others say 1500, either way it is a tiny proportion- about 1% of 1%.

So. The muslims you've noticed, are the ones that stand out.

It's still an issue though isn't it, 500-1500 is another 500-1500 fighters/supporters for ISIS currently causing mayhem in Syria/Iraq. And something is causing those people to make that journey and sympathise with ISIS (seeing as that number likely makes the Muslim demographic at least 1000 times more likely to join a terrorist group than the rest of the country, ignoring Irish nationals), dismissing them as statistical outliers won't help people in Syria. Will it?

500-1500 fighters/supporters for ISIS

And something is causing those people to make that journey and sympathise with ISIS

=

Muslims who have been radicalized by Saudi Funded Wahhabism and MI5/MI6/State Media backed extremists

If there is proof of the security services funding ISIS as opposed to other players, then heads need to roll Jive.

Tom_W1987 - Member

(seeing as that makes the Muslim demographic at least 1000 times more likely to join a terrorist group than the rest of the country, ignoring Irish nationals

Means precisely nothing. Of course muslims are more likely to join an islamic jihadist movement than nonmuslims, just like white british people are more likely to join the national front than muslims, or cyclists are more likely to join British Cycling. It is just inevitable self-selection, and it's not actually interesting let alone worrying.

The odds of any individual british muslim joining ISIS are vanishingly small. The odds of a british person who joins ISIS being a muslim are incredibly high. That's statistics. You're welcome.

Means precisely nothing. Of course muslims are more likely to join an islamic jihadist movement than nonmuslims, just like white british people are more likely to join the national front, or cyclists are more likely to join British Cycling.

False, there are far far fewer individuals of other demographics joining non-state terrorist groups of any sort. I'd wager the difference between the two groups would be statistically significant.

Comparing the national front to ISIS is hilarious btw, last time I checked they weren't a designated terrorist group and have yet to carry out any actions that would make them one.

Comparing the national front to ISIS is hilarious btw

True, the intelligence services don't waste time and money arming and training the National Front for combat

Tom_W1987 - Member

Comparing the national front to ISIS is hilarious btw.

Pretending people have said something they didn't isn't hilarious, it just shows how feeble your argument is. I didn't compare the national front to ISIS. I didn't compare British Cycling to ISIS, for that matter. I used them as examples of the self-selection you foolishly believe (or pretend to believe) is worrying with ISIS.

Pretending people have said something they didn't isn't hilarious, it just shows how feeble your argument is. I didn't compare the national front to ISIS. I didn't compare British Cycling to ISIS, for that matter. I used them as examples of the self-selection you foolishly believe (or pretend to believe) is worrying with ISIS.

Put this another way. Most African-Americans don't murder people, however, a huge percentage of murders carried out in the US are carried out by African-Americans. Using your logic, your response would be "yeah but most African-American's don't murder people". What I'm saying, is that not discussing the issue sensibly and not researching the social causes and fixing them does that community a profound disservice and allows racists to derail the argument.

I used them as examples of the self-selection you foolishly believe (or pretend to believe) is worrying with ISIS.

Epic stats fail.

So, being as confining it Europe is too biased for your cosmopolitan tastes, have you come up with any reliable long term figures for percentage of terrorist* attacks carried out by Muslims?

Crankboy may be on the right track:

I am pretty sure the most recent CIA data put Muslim terror attacks at less than 10% of worldwide terror and Muslim victims of terror attacks disproportionately high .

*whatever that means

am pretty sure the most recent CIA data put Muslim terror attacks at less than 10% of worldwide terror and Muslim victims of terror attacks disproportionately high .

That was for attacks on US soil...since the 1960s.

I know loads of Muslims. Apart from not having a beer when they go to the pub and fasting all summer they are no different to the non-muslims I know.

Oh and there seem to be plenty of white British who are under the impression that bringing up their kids is not their responsibility.

So, being as confining it Europe is too biased for your cosmopolitan tastes, have you come up with any reliable long term figures for percentage of terrorist* attacks carried out by Muslims?

For 2011, Sunni terrorism alone accounted for 70 percent of non-state based terrorism.

So you're relying on 1 year and not providing a source... pretty solid evidence there

The source is an NCTC report on terrorism. Google is your friend.

Again, I'm using common sense here but I don't think that numbers changed too much since 2011.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Epic stats fail.

Oh go on, explain the flaw in my statistics, it'll be fun. Or are you just going to declare it to be an "epic fail" and then run away?

This isn't an argument about nonprejudice vs prejudice... It's an argument about mathematics vs prejudice. The only way you can fight that argument is by retreating into illogic, deceit and nonsequitors, you did that fast and early, well done.

But it's just a simple fact; the muslims you're talking about are a tiny minority. This isn't about PC, or even really about prejudice, it's about the fact that if you want to tackle a problem, you need to look realistically at the causes. And clearly it's not about being muslim, because if it were, more than 1% of 1% of british muslims would have joined ISIS.

Your desire to make is simple, makes it meaningless.

Oh go on, explain the flaw in my statistics, it'll be fun. Or are you just going to declare it to be an "epic fail" and then run away?

This isn't an argument about nonprejudice vs prejudice... It's an argument about mathematics vs prejudice. The only way you can fight that argument is by retreating into illogic, deceit and nonsequitors, you did that fast and early, well done.

Do you disagree with the fact that Muslims are joining non-state based terrorist organisations at a higher rate in comparison to the rest of the population, and if so, what groups are all these non-Muslim Brits joining and in what numbers? You won't find anything.

Your argument simply seems to hinge on "Muslims join ISIS cuz their muslim....you're self selecting".

Similar to binners, as a Welshman I would like to apologise for...

well nothing really. Zilch, nada.

Cos we're fab/bendigedig!

😀

This isn't about PC, or even really about prejudice, it's about the fact that if you want to tackle a problem, you need to look realistically at the causes. And clearly it's not about being muslim, because if it were, more than 1% of 1% of british muslims would have joined ISIS.

You can't look at the causes is you deny there is an issue in the first place. I never said the cause was "being Muslim", that's being deliberately obtuse. Using your logic though, we shouldn't even be considering social causes within the Muslim community that might be driving people towards extremism.

You won't find anything.

Not engaging in a "debate" with you mainly because its impossible for the reasons NW notes 😛

You'd describe Kurds fighting ISIS as terrorists? As opposed to fighting a war of self defence? When they were fighting Turkey, they could have been. I don't think they could currently be described as a terrorist organisation.

Neither do I agree with Brits being allowed to fight for Israel, again, more whatabouttery.

I'm using common sense here

Debatable, but on that note:

Something that has just occurred to me is just how relevant figures for Terrorist attacks in Western Countries are... after all, the west has invaded and destabilized many Arabic countries, without genuine provocation (fabricated provocation has of course been used on multiple occasions)

Even after all that, figures show that Terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims are a very low percentage:

[url= http://metro.co.uk/2015/01/15/the-number-of-terrorists-who-are-actually-religiously-motivated-will-surprise-you-5023616/ ]less than 2% of terrorist attacks in Europe over the last 5 years have been carried out by muslims[/url]

[url= https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05#terror_05sum ]of terrorist attacks on US soil from 1980-2005, Muslims only accounted for 6%[/url]

Of course, taking common sense into account, that is only part of the picture, in that same period, the lives lost and instability fuelled by actions of allied military and intelligence services in the Middle East and elsewhere will have far surpassed any terrorist* activity and fuelled extremism and hatred, motivating further conflict and terrorism*

*Whatever that means

Tom_W1987 - Member

Do you disagree with the fact that Muslims are joining non-state based terrorist organisations at a higher rate in comparison to the rest of the population, and if so, what groups are all these non-Muslim Brits joining and in what numbers? You won't find anything.

That would kind of be the point. Non-muslim terrorists can't join Anti-Islamic State, because there isn't one. The existance, accessibility and huge public presence of jihadist terrorist organisations gives them a flag and an easy road to follow. Anti-islamic terrorists in the UK just set fire to a mosque.

At my school, there was a chess club but no draughts club. Nobody joined the draughts club, that must mean there were no draughts players.

Tom_W1987 - Member

Your argument simply seems to hinge on "Muslims join ISIS cuz their muslim....you're self selecting".

No, just... no. I don't think you're stupid enough to think that's what I'm saying. On the contrary, I think you're clever enough to avoid engaging with what I'm actually saying. Though, still daft enough to bring stats into an argument that can only be lost with stats.

You'd describe Kurds fighting ISIS as terrorists?

That would kind of be the point. Non-muslim terrorists can't join Anti-Islamic State, because there isn't one. The existance, accessibility and huge public presence of jihadist terrorist organisations gives them a flag and an easy road to follow. Anti-islamic terrorists in the UK just set fire to a mosque.

I refer you to

The truth seems to be that propaganda on its own cannot force its way into unwilling minds; neither can it inculcate something wholly new; nor can it keep people persuaded once they have ceased to believe. It penetrates only into minds already open, and rather than instill opinion it articulates and justifies opinions already present in the minds of its recipients. The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. he echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already "know."

ISIS wouldn't exist without underlying sentiments that lead to joining these sorts of groups, there is no anti-muslim ISIS because the sentiment does not exist on the ground.

The underlying sentiments wouldn't exist without Saudi funded Wahhabism...

which kinda brings us back to this:

Given our leaders (elected and otherwise) and security services long allegiance with Saudi Arabia:

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

^Same bloke as with Thatcher, Bandar Bin Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to USA 1983-2005^

[img] https://s.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/Lcw6rgY3Otvvm.6SqDy_4g--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Zmk9ZmlsbDtoPTM4MDtxPTc1O3c9NjQw/http://media.zenfs.com/en-GB/video/video.sky.com/9ab1859e23e088b9a030e5f0b4391c36 [/img]

Isn't it a bit odd that the most extreme form of islam, Wahhabism, which led to the rise of ISIS has been actively promoted in mosques throughout the UK and worldwide by Saudi Arabian interests

an undercover reporter for Channel 4 filmed preachers and obtained DVDs and books inside mosques which were filled with hate-filled invective against Christians and Jews. They condemned democracy and called for jihad. They presented women as intellectually congenitally deficient and in need of beating when they transgressed Islamic dress codes. They said that children over the age of 10 should be hit if they did not pray. Again the main mosque chosen for exposure was influenced and funded from Saudi Arabia.

"Saudi spending on religious causes abroad as between $2bn [£960m] and $3bn per year since 1975 (comparing favourably with what was the annual Soviet propaganda budget of $1bn), which has been spent on 1,500 mosques, 210 Islamic centres and dozens of Muslim academies and schools".

The ties are close enough that, Prince Turki bin Faisal, who was director general of Saudi Arabia's intelligence agency from 1977 to 2001 (resigning the position abruptly on 1 September 2001, some ten days before the September 11 attacks in which 14 Saudi nationals hijacked commercial American airliners), then went on to become ambassador to the Court of St. James's:

[img] ?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=9QMziWNtBI6whP66vhs4oU8oDbfaBtGaQoiJ28ewjfigV6nlrP9jn1yqTto%2B7HSo[/img]

Before going on to replace Prince Bandar (his cousin, involved with the very dodgy Al-Yamamah BAE arms deals and shown with Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair above) as Ambassador to the US.

Add to the mix well founded allegations that the intelligence services have been involved in promoting extremism

A few years ago, BBC Newsnight proudly hosted a “debate” between Maajid Nawaz, director of counter-extremism think-tank, the Quilliam Foundation, and Anjem Choudary, head of the banned Islamist group formerly known as al-Muhajiroun, which has, since its proscription, repeatedly reincarnated itself. One of its more well-known recent incarnations was "Islam4UK".

Both Nawaz and Choudary have received huge mainstream media attention, generating press headlines, and contributing to major TV news and current affairs shows. But unbeknown to most, they have one thing in common: Britain’s security services. And believe it or not, that bizarre fact explains why the Islamic State’s (IS) celebrity beheader, former west Londoner Mohammed Emwazi – aka “Jihadi John” - got to where he is now.

we really have to ask some probing questions

Tom_W1987 - Member

ISIS wouldn't exist without underlying sentiments that lead to joining these sorts of groups, there is no anti-muslim ISIS because the sentiment does not exist on the ground.

You think anti-muslim sentiment doesn't exist on the ground?

The vast majority of terrorist incidents today are carried out by deluded Muslims. It hasn't always been like that and may not be in the future but right now they have a monopoly. It is true that a significant minority of British Mulsims condone Jihad in the Middle East and Africa although quite how they get from a position of being against Assad and believing Isreal has no right to exist to wanting to cut the heads off other Muslims I don't understand at all. What happened in Charlston was a racially motivated hate crime, if you want to classify it as terrorism you can but as sad as it is to see 9 people murdered at a bible study group it's a fraction of those which are dying in Syria and Iraq every day.

We live in a free and open country, people are entitled to hold differing views. If they find their religious beliefs mean they cannot accept living in the UK they are free to leave and frankly I would not spend resources in trying to keep them here against their will. I would spend money making sure they don't get to come back. If other countries don't wish to accept them that's their choice too. Jihadi John wasn't welcome in Kuwait, he'd been born there but had no right to live there.

Jive, all these photos and links mean nothing. As a politician you are obliged to interact with many people including those you may not agree with, you may interact with people you detest as the least bad option. The same logic applies to Royalty. I know you understand this.

It's hard to ignore the argument that suggests the Middle East and North Africa needs brutal leadership to keep things in check. We've seen the "Arab Spring" which many in the West would lead to some kind of democratic revolution and an increasing acceptance of tolerance and western values turn into chaos and anarchy and a murderous list for power, control and of course money.

You think anti-muslim sentiment doesn't exist on the ground?

Not to the extent that causes large scale organized violence aimed at bringing down governments.

My point stands, people join and or start organizations where there is already a willingness to do so. These people aren't brainwashed, they don't go from being moderate democracy loving Muslims to terrorists. The rise of fascism in Germany was predicated on the existing national myths and feelings of victimization that already existed in Germany before the rise of the NSDAP. The same can be said for many of those British individuals joining ISIS.

and we really have to ask some probing questions

Mr Woppit - Member

And so to jhj...

chewkw next with his maggots, I suppose.

Oh well.

To be precise they are called [u]zombie maggots[/u] not maggots. 🙄

Some people ... ts ts ts! 🙄

Tom_W1987 - Member

Not to the extent that causes large scale organized violence aimed at bringing down governments.

My point stands, people join and or start organizations where there is already a willingness to do so.

Why would western anti-muslims be joining terrorist campaigns to bring down their westernised governments? This is just insider vs outsider. British anti-islamic terrorists don't have any need for that sort of campaign, they're attacking a relatively weak minority so their terrorism takes a different form- street hate-crime, attacks on islamic centres, etc. (and unsurprisingly, gets far less attention than muslims going to join ISIS.)

You're basically asking why a terrorist apple acts differently from a terrorist orange. Or an orange terrorist 😉 Different motivations, different environments, different outcomes. It'd never be any other way.

Also, remember that ISIS didn't start here- people are given a convenient and succesful flag to follow, from outside. Would the people going to join ISIS have started their own ISIS here if it didn't exist? Not a chance. Sometimes people take up chess because there's a chess club.

This is just insider vs outsider. British anti-islamic terrorists don't have any need for that sort of campaign, they're attacking a relatively weak minority so their terrorism takes a different form- street hate-crime, attacks on islamic centres, etc. (and unsurprisingly, gets far less attention than muslims going to join ISIS.)

If people were willing to sensibly discuss the causes of terrorism, try to make Muslims feel more British and attempt to reduce the ghettoisation of them then there wouldn't be as many Muslims joining ISIS and there wouldn't be as mush anti-muslim sentiment. Would there? Instead you are helping to damage the Muslim community even further by attempting to show why it's totally not a problem that 500-1500 Brits have joined ISIS, not only that, but we have a duty to Syrians/Iraqi's to make sure that as few of them join ISIS as possible.

You are going out of your way, clutching at straws even, to try to argue why that discussion should not take place.

Without ISIS, there would have still been more 7/7's and Lee Rigby style attacks. The rest of the world would still be suffering from the spectre of Islamic terrorism and disaffected British youth would still be tempted to join other groups such as Abu Sayaf/AQ/Boko Haram.

But yes, let's get back to why there isn't a catholic terrorist chess club etc.