"Almost all terrorists are Muslims."

[nichomach]

Nicho, the nail bomber won't ever be caught. He/she placed the device in the hedge and walked off. End of story. It was spotted by a squaddie who was out running and his lace came undone. He knelt down to re-tie his she and the device fell into his eye line. I was in Kenya at the time and received a letter from my wife telling me of it. I can give you some more lesser known incidents if you like.

I'm sorry about that, truly. I'd guess there were no useful forensics collected from the scene so it'd be down to witnesses and/or informants. As I say, I view that act with utter disgust.

Now here's a dichotomy. As I understand it the PIRA were a marxist organisation. Yet they also claim to be a Catholic organisation. Now my Marxism/Leninism theory isn't really up to scratch, but aren't the 2 ideals total opposites?

Good question; Marx and Lenin were atheists, but when you get down to it, Marxism/Leninism is a socio-economic theory in the same way that capitalism is (which I'd hold to be its natural opposite). In the same way that one may be a Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Atheist Capitalist, I think one could be a Christian or Muslim or Jewish or Atheist Marxist/Leninist. Marx and Lenin's atheism is sort of an ornamental waterspout on top of the socio-economic theory. Actually, the PIRA don't claim to be a Catholic organization, though. It's true that the nominal faith of the majority of their members is Catholic, but Republicanism doesn't imply Catholicism; look at many of the founding fathers of Republicanism, like Wolfe Tone who were actually Protestant.

[RVF500]

Plus it was politically expedient to be perceived as a Catholic organisation to gain favour with the 'Irish Americans' who were ripped off by NORAID. I wonder how many of them would have deliberately contributed to bombs in pubs and religious memorials (Cenotaph at Enneskillen for instance) Interesting point is that after about 30 years the US Govt came down on the fund raising activities of NORAID shortly after September 11. More political expedience.

I thought Marx was Jewish? or did he renounce his faith? Anyway, we are back to interpretation of the word again as Stalin came down hard on the Orthodox church in Russia as it was seen to be outside the teachings of marx/lenin (more likely the dirges of Stalin). I wonder how much that would have been seen more as a threat [against the system] due to the power that the church can weald. Which brings me nicely back to the thread. Wealding so much power, religious establishments can effectively be part of the war on terror. Especially in areas where groups rely on the religious beliefs of the locals for protection and recruitment.

[nichomach]

They certainly can; but it's easier for them to do that if the mainstream press actually report what they say.

Stalin's an odd duck for a number of reasons; you're quite right as regards his oppression of the Orthodox Church. He did much odder than that, though. You know his original name was Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili? Djugashvili's a Georgian name, and indeed the boy Stalin came from and grew up in Georgia; now there was a lot of prejudice in Russia against Georgians (they were called "cockroaches" after a fancied resemblance between the luxuriant moustaches of Georgian men and the antennae of cockroaches). Consequently, when he became involved with the Communist Party, he changed his name, and under his rule, a third of the population of Georgia...vanished. They were denounced as "kulaks" (sort of Bourgeois peasants, landowners etc) and shipped off never to return. Kind of odd behaviour for a Georgian but consistent if you take into account the extent to which he camouflaged his own heritage.

As regards NORAID, you're not wrong. The US turned a blind eye to them for decades, since offending the Irish vote in the US would be political suicide. All of a sudden, they realise they'd look pretty stupid allowing fundraising for terrorism to continue while asking us to help them with their terrorism problem...

[RVF500]

Odd duck is a bit of an understatement for a paranoid psycopath like Stalin. I knew he was Georgian but didn't know about the name change. He is named historically as Stalin when he was deported to Siberia at the same time Lenin was in exile in France and Switzerland. Speaking of odd facts. did you know that he and Aleksandr Kerensky, the leader of the provisional government after the first revolution, were born in the same town and Kerensky's father taught Lenin at university saving him from jail after a student protest. Kerensky being overthrown by Lenin's Bolsheviks and having to go into exile as a result.

Edit: Just read that he changed his name when he returned from Siberia.

[nichomach]

I didn't know that they'd been born in the same town; I knew about Kerensky's givernment being overthrown by the then Social Democratic Party (now THAT'S a beautiful irony ).

[RVF500]

Just had a look on the sky news website and this article showed exactly what I was talking about earlier in the thread

Islamic extremists in the UK have hailed the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks.


The radical group al Muhajiroun described al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden as a "Muslim brother" who would be elected leader in any Muslim country.

and a bit further down:

The group described 9/11 as a "towering day" in history and paid tribute to the "magnificent" 19 hijackers.

Representative Anjem Choudary said the event had divided the world into two separate camps, Muslim and non-Muslim.

"There are two types of terrorism," he said.

"The type of terrorism which is praised by the almighty Allah and the type of terrorism which is dispraised."

He goes on to say that British based muslims who are under a covenant of security aren't allowed to carry out operations in Britain.

The full article is here: http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0...220118,00.html

Which highlights my earlier point that whatever the Islamic leaders of this country do to stop the prejudice against British muslims, they'd better be loud and positive about it. Because acts like this only serve to inflame the situation. The sound of silence or obligatory noises about condemnation sound more like paying lip service to this situation. Or indeed tacitly supporting it.

People will draw their own conclusions. In my experience people are more likely to draw negative conclusions unless shown clearly otherwise. So the abuse that black knight metioned will continue and possibly escalate.

[Zathras]

Under the same assumptions, should I or others on here come out and decry computer-based paedophilia? After all pretty much 95% of the perpetrators are white male professionals with strong links to IT, which sums up both me and numerous others on here. Is my staying silent tacit support for the paedophiles? How about people demanding the Archbishop of Canterbury come out and condemn every loyalist-based terror action in Northern Ireland because the perpetrators were Protestant? There have been numerous condemnations of Sept 11th and other extremist Islamic terror actions by pretty much every mainstream Muslim group or leader yet these aren't widely publicised with the media focusing on Abu Hamza and Al-Muhajiroun. You get extremists everywhere, witness the media furore over the extremist animal rights activist who advocated terrorist actions. That doesn't mean every animal rights group share his aspirations or agree with his methods and I don't expect a press statement from every one of them to distance themselves from it.

[nichomach]

I think you're right, they will and I also agree that Muslim groups need to be loud and positive; that said, I just searched the Sky News site for "Qaradawi":

" No results were found for your query, please widen your search criteria and try again.

To search this site, enter your search criteria in the text box and then decide how to refine your search in the fields below. The more information you add, the better the results will be."

"Muslim Council of Britain" returned one item, but not associated with the organization, purely because it had the word "Muslim" in it.

I think we agree as to what the people in question need to do; it's just that it seems that they don't get reported when they do it. I mean, al Muhajiroun can get reported, sure, but then that fits with the headline grabbing stuff doesn't it?

[RVF500]

I think we agree as to what the people in question need to do; it's just that it seems that they don't get reported when they do it. I mean, al Muhajiroun can get reported, sure, but then that fits with the headline grabbing stuff doesn't it?

Which fits the point about being louder than the press. Though I did say gutter press I think the line between respectable and gutter press is beginning to fade.

Zathras, these people are being insulted in a very dangerous way from within. I say dangerous because it won't be long before some hothead takes it into his head that 'something needs to be done' and sitting quietly isn't going to help. The wrong people are holding the loud public meetings. Like any minority group that wants to seem bigger than they are they shout louder than the rest. So loud that we hear them, not the vast majority.

Peadophiles are a completely different issue. Though just as emotive and look at how ordinary peaceful people behave when the feel they and their children are threatened. It won't take a quantum leap of imagination for some people to feel the same sort of emotions in the light of recent acts of terror. So I feel your point is relevant, but not in the way I think you intended it.

People aren't bothered about animal rights extremists because they haven't carried out widespread terror attacks. I have seen these people [animal rights] up close. Not nice. I was working in the dock area at Shoreham during the veal cattle export demonstrations. The fact was that I worked for a telecomms company who just happened to have a site there. But that was enough for them to target my work colleagues and I. We frequently had to travel home through a torrent of abuse and threats. Often with a Police escort. Despite the fact that we had absolutely nothing to do with the industry that they were demonstrating against. That same mentality and mis-directed anger is what I am talking about.

[Simonsnet]

I've slowely read through this thread, and come to realise that I'm really not sure what my opinion is.

What I do know, is that I would class terrorism as any act of violence targetted at civilians. Within that I do not classify a countries leader (prime minister, royalty or president, whatever..) as a civvy.

I know for sure that if the UK was run by a dictatorship I would certainly be part of whatever effort to install a democratic government. As such, I cannot completely disagree with people rising up against an occupying army, or what they perceive as such. However, that does NOT mean that they are right. Simply, that I can understand their thinking, however warped.

However, let me make this very clear. I completely abhore anyone who intentionally targets civilians. I understand the analage (sp) about the abrams tank and the rock, but it is certainly flawed. Occupying troops are always extremely vulnerable and easily targeted with carefully thought out ambushes.