And another thing…

There are Good people in this world and there are Bad people in this world.

The Good people do Good things and the Bad people do Bad things.

But to make Good people do Bad things . . . you need religion.

If we could ask the righteous religious people to live on another planet . . . we, the secular, the infidels, and the non-chosen, could then live in relative peace. . . whilst observing their wars at a safe distance.

Far, far easier, Tom, to inveigh against some nameless, faceless stereotypes. I know that it’s confusing. It’s one thing to question an actual opinion, and another thing entirely to make brash. pronouncements about what straw men are saying, or insinuate that anyone here would say that…

Not going for a heads in the sand moment here, but a sense of perspective. 52 people have ever been killed by Islamic terrorism in the UK. In 08/09 there were 648 homicides.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t be vigilant, but the way the PM talks about it, he makes it sound like people are killed every week in the UK by Islamic extremists. Heck, more people die every month falling down stairs but we don’t go banning those now do we?

Innocent patsies non, But useful nevertheless…

Labour sent the troops into Northern Ireland with a shoot to kill policy and look where that ended up.
You have done the same again in the Islamic world so you must take the blame, of course it does not excuse what these people planned to do. But you have to look at the whole picture and you are failing to do that Tom. I found your post just far to simplistic.

These would-be murderers have still left their mark on the world – no liquids above 100ml on aircrafts.

And I heartily second this:

“If we could ask the righteous religious people to live on another planet . . . we, the secular, the infidels, and the non-chosen, could then live in relative peace. . . whilst observing their wars at a safe distance.”

I hope in years to come that we evolve into a rational humans free of religion.

I have no doubt there was a plot; albeit it rather smacked of an unworkable scheme cobbled together by a group of serial fantasists.

Didn’t of course stop the CPS and the BBC (Captain Insensible Broadcasting Corporation) going into hype-overdrive in their commenting on it.

You might remember that on the day of the arrests John Reid milked it for all it was worth as well.

This government has form for using the timing and reporting of ‘terror’ arrests for its own political purposes. Of course I’m sure you will argue that it was a mere coincidence that on the day Blair announced his u-turn on the European referendum there was a series of arrests for the quote unquote plot to blow up Old Trafford which kept Blair’s reverse gear off the front-pages.

I have great respect for the security forces – but zero respect for politicians who use the work of the security forces for their own cheap political advantage.

Oh by the way nice to see our Prime Minister on one of his regular visits to school. Truly he is The Father Of The Nation.

PS is this Fightback #8 or Fightback #9?

I lose count.

I don’t think anyone in their right mind would rather the state was planning these things, but the uncomfortable truth is that Western nations have a history of committing false flag terror attacks just as mad Muslims have a history of blowing people up too.

I’ve no idea yet if these three are patsies, but as Henry says, “useful nevertheless…”.

Since the Cold War ended, the Inner Party has required a new and permanent enemy to frighten the masses and give us our two minutes of hate. So they invented al Qaeda.

That BBC report says: “intelligence officers believe it was directed by al-Qaeda figures in Pakistan.”

Of course it was. That would have been Rashid Rauf in charge then? – the bloke who had been in custody, but escaped after being allowed to go into a mosque by himself to pray.

So, let’s all trust the government on this. It’s not as though they would do anything to threaten our sovereignty, safety or freedom, is it?

“I’ve no idea yet if these three are patsies…”

Yet? That says everything I need to know about you, Stewart. No doubt you’ll find the truth in a YouTube video detailing how MI5 and/or MI6 and/or the CIA and/or Mossad framed them in order to cover up something or other or to help the government in its nefarious plans to sell the UK to the EU and turn us all into homosexuals etc, etc…

Very humorous, Tom.

By ‘yet’ I meant that I haven’t studied it enough *yet* to be able to make an informed decision one way or the other *yet*. Maybe I never will.

Don’t knock online videos. They are a source of information the BBC and its political wing, New Labour, would not want us to think about.

I find it hard to believe the comments that I see above.
The one simple fact that I observed in the trial report was that these people were caught on camera making bombs.

There really is no need to go any further than that. Whether these people intended to blow up an aircraft or a shopping centre or their next door neighbour or even ‘just to frighten people’ is irrelevent. Bombs kill people even it that is not directly intended. The mere fact of making the bomb is an intention to kill.

What I do not understand is why it has taken three years to convict. Why not three months?

@Silent Hunter
But to make Good people do Bad things . . . you need religion.

And of course you count communism as a religion.

If we could ask the righteous religious people to live on another planet . . . we, the secular, the infidels, and the non-chosen, could then live in relative peace. . . whilst observing their wars at a safe distance.

The logistics make it unfeasible, even assuming there was another planet and enough spacecraft.

Lots fewer atheists, so logistically and in a spirit of democratic fairness, those asking others to leave should naff off.

Though it would make the world a little less interesting.

—————

Back On Topic:

The three have been tried and found guilty, until new evidence is identified I’ll say they’re guilty.

Blowing people up and acts of terrorism aren’t new to some muslims.

I do think the goverment is using terrorism to instill fear in a way not done before, it is used as an excuse by the UK goverment for lots of extra controls and people monitoring.

They seemed pretty guilty to me.

It can’t have helped their defence that they taped themselves talking about blowing up planes.

What surprises me is that they lied in court about their reasons. Surely they should be proclaiming loud and clear their hatred for the uk people (the non-muslim ones, anyway)?

Wait a second. I heard that they were brainwashed by MI5 into saying that they were guilty in order to give the government an excuse to put video cameras in our homes, monitored by the unemployed.

Bad people caught by the security services.

Doesn’t mean for one second we should take our eyes off what the government do in our name. It would be infinitely easier to defeat every idealogical terrorist in the world to keep us safe than to stop the gradual and unrelenting creep of our own government into our personal affairs.

Incidentally, an issue raised by this is that of racial profiling (ignoring that Muslims aren’t a race!).
A quick thought experiment, there are three planes heading to your destination:
1. Everyone onboard is checked, check in etc. is 4 hours before the others, costs double the usual cost.
2. People are checked at random, about 10% of people onboard are checked.
3. People are profiled and checked on that basis.
Which flight do you choose?
Which flight would the average Muslim choose?

Silent Hunter: Please stop perpetuating the myth that ONLY religion makes good people do bad things. Hitchens should be called on this whenever he makes it. The fact is that all it takes for good people to do bad things is authority. Religion just happens to be a very good way to have authority over people. 1940’s Germany had quite a few good people do bad things because they were told it was the right thing to do, no religion necessary.

Are these the same guys that claimed it was just a stunt, and they never intended to set off bombs?

If you want to do a stunt, dress up as Batman or The Flash (as I understand it, some comic or series is being made about 99 muslim superheroes, so there’s a thought). Don’t make actual bombs. That bloke who joked about having a bomb in his suitcase got in enough trouble.

The problem, Tom, is not that anyone contests how much some Muslims hate this country. The problem is that the shadowy security services can easily take advantage of our fears and prey on our (often justified) prejudices.

@richard Tuesday 8 September 2009 at 7:46 am

Surely they should be proclaiming loud and clear their hatred for the uk people (the non-muslim ones, anyway)?
//

Quite so. Indeed, the new Political Editor of the New Statesman, Mehdi Hasan, has made his hatred of the “kefir” quite clear. Apparently that is fine. Were I to say the reverse, I would be banged up.

There is still NO action against hate preaching in mosques. More likely, as channel 4 found out, were you to report it, you would be charged with inciting racial hatred.

STEWART COWAN >> Since the Cold War ended, the Inner Party has required a new and permanent enemy to frighten the masses and give us our two minutes of hate. So they invented al Qaeda.

Over two hundred Kenyan office workers, and another dozen hotel staff would have begged to differ had they not been blown-up years before 11/9. Not to mention tens of thousands of Algerians.

JOHNNY NORFOLK >> Labour sent the troops into Northern Ireland with a shoot to kill policy and look where that ended up.

Defeat of the IRA? Plus, I think you’ll find that troops were sent in 30 years before 1997 (which is the only reasonable interpreation of your Labour remark).

>> You have done the same again in the Islamic world so you must take the blame

Oh, stop it. Moral Philosophy 101 – those who commit acts of violence are responsible for them. “Muslims” are not improperly formed moral creatures – they are responsible for their own acts.

Besides, as any fule nose, these sociopaths had their ideological roots in Kashmir; and Islamism is older than Tony Blair himself, with its roots in European fascism and the decline of the Ottoman Empire.

Are you next gonna tell us that “we” kill more of “them” than “they” of “us”?

RICHARD >> What surprises me is that they lied in court about their reasons. Surely they should be proclaiming loud and clear their hatred for the uk people (the non-muslim ones, anyway)?

Possibly ‘cos they are men-children whose bottomless ignorance of their “cause” came out in videos which sounded like the surly petulence of Kevin
the Teenager meets the malevolence of Algerian Jihad.

MARK M >> Not going for a heads in the sand moment here, but a sense of perspective. 52 people have ever been killed by Islamic terrorism in the UK. In 08/09 there were 648 homicides.

Maybe so, maybe so, but if I started firing a six-shooter in your street, with the possibility of killing no more than half a dozen, I suspect you’d find reasons not to go to the shops.

SAMMY >> I have no doubt there was a plot; albeit it rather smacked of an unworkable scheme cobbled together by a group of serial fantasists.

The same would have been said of David Copeland in early April 1999. They had live bombs and were prepared to use them. This was not a computer game which could be reset at any time.

Lock them up, and hope they never develop cancer.

Tom said “I WONDER how long it will be before someone theorizes that the would-be airplane bombers convicted today are innocent patsies set up by… oh, I don’t know, MI5 or someone?

I’m afraid you are three years out of date Tom.
The Guardian – wot a surprise – published an article in 2006.. saying it was all a fix and the Muslims charged would be found innocent..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/15/ibetyouitwillturntobea

Unfortunately the opinion was understandable at the time and still is.. All these Libyans being released from House Arrest as the Home Office (or whatever) will not release the evidence on which they were “convicted”.

Not of course that there was a trial.

You must realise that anyone who belives anything the Government says – on almost any issue – is by definition naive , stupid and likely to be proven to be an idiot.

See the Megrahi case where MINISTERS make statements which contradict each other and the PM…which means some of them by definition MUST be lying.

And in the background Tony McNulty goes into print on anything from th EC to terrorism and makes the Government look a bunch of conniving cheating idiots.

And seriously I don;t think they (all) are. Just some of them.

Lies breed distrust. Tell that to the chief liars – not that it will change one thing they do.

The real danger is that with so many commentators identifying the bombers as vile, evil murderers, we overlook prime factors.

They are not vile,evil murderers. They do not kill for sex or money. They are ultra-devout and deeply courageous young muslims, willing to martyr themselves obeying to the letter the religious obligations of their faith.

Whether they are misled or not, until we grasp their true motivation, the thousands of other equally devout, equally brave young muslims in this country will continue to pose a gigantic threat.

@richard

“…What surprises me is that they lied in court about their reasons. Surely they should be proclaiming loud and clear their hatred for the uk people (the non-muslim ones, anyway)?”

I don’t think they particularly hate UK people.

Right across the world, for decades, the target has been mainly the infidel, or sometimes those muslims they see as apostates.

If we qualify, so be it. But the nationality doesn’t really come into it.

Apologies: I am wrong. Fro McNulty read MacShane..

>> They are not vile,evil murderers. They do not kill for sex or money. They are ultra-devout and deeply courageous young muslims, willing to martyr themselves obeying to the letter the religious obligations of their faith.

Quite apart from the fact that they didn’t have to guts to admit to admit to it in Court – instead wishing to slink away and press the reset button – they were no more “courageous” than family-anhilators: those men who kill their families rather than let their ‘property’ live without them.

Murderous cowards who would have displayed their absolute contempt for other humans that they’d be willing to forgo their lives to cause havoc.

They were absolute nobodies who sought to find purpose in deciding whether I or my friends and family could live or die.

Even “suicide missions” in Western-style war involve the soldiers *trying* to stay alive. A truly courageous act of self-immolation would have involved detonating themselves away from others, like Vietnamese monks and American Quakers.

It’s not a word I often use, but this is evil.

Plus, they loathed impure Muslims as much as the rest. Mohammed Siddiq Khan’s shaheed video was not limited to the whine about Iraq and Israel, as was shown on public broadcasts – the much longer section involved a broadside against those elders who’d told out for a few baubles and Toyota in the drive-way.

Funnily this it never was shown. Maybe it was according to the Sunny Hundal School of Media Philosophy, but it was considering boring.

Madasafish, yo, did you see Omar getting done?

>> or sometimes those muslims they see as apostates.

Mostly other Muslims. “We” may kill more of “them” than “they” do of “us”, but “they” kill far more of “them” than “we” do.

@Alec

The point I’ve clearly failed to make is not that these people should somehow be praised, but that we should correctly identify the religious motivation which drove them to such dastardly acts.

Classing them as ‘normal’ criminals runs the risk of missing that point.

@Madasafish Tuesday 8 September 2009 at 10:54 am

Apologies: I am wrong. Fro McNulty read MacShane.
//

MacShane is frankly, not fit for purpose; his CiF article on the Afghan elections

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/21/afghanistan-troops-strategy)
has been shown by events since it to be riddle with untruths. And rank stupidity.

Tom – if I were you, I’d lock MacShane in a broom cupboard till the election. The man is a fool.

I’m staggered that no-one’s mentioned the Bildeberg Group yet…

Tom, you must admit that when The White House say that they changed the Terror Alert Level for purely political motives (bury bad news, downrank an opposition speech) then the automatic trust in politics you expect is dead and only skepticism can remain.

We can only assume that the UK followed their lead, on the terror level if not the actual policy of burying news, and there is plenty of evidence that the UK blindly followed the US on many issues.

But the fact that UK citizens were taken to Guantanamo, allegedly tortured, based on faulty information or data gathered using torture, and then placed under house arrest or surveillance in the UK makes me very uncomfortable.

None of which changes the fact that the problem is blind faith (either in the security services on our part or the Qu’ran on their part). Faith is bad, skepticism good.

Libranos, you called them “ultra-devout and deeply courageous young Muslims”, so taking the reading I did is reasonable.

I did give an assessment of their religious motivation… namely that they see non-Muslims and Muslims from other confessionals as of being less value than insects.

I’m quite happy to class them as wannabe mass-murderers, but classing them as anything like warriors for their god runs the risks of presenting them as devout Muslims instead of evil cowards.

But Liberanos terrorists do share a lot of characteristics with ‘normal’ violent criminals.

They are almost always men, aged between 18 – 35. They are usually described by people as quiet i.e. they live in their own heads a lot and probably have a strong fantasy life. They clearly lack empathy and compassion for others and are full of rage which they express through acts of violence.

That’s a broad description of terrorists but it’s also a description of the vast majority of ‘normal’ violent criminals locked up in our prisons – if of course you accept that it is ‘normal’ to beat/stab someone to a death if they walk down your street without permission or support a different football team. It’s also a description of most people who commit suicide.

That is not to say that the psychological make-up of the individual is the only thing that leads them to become terrorists. Clearly it is not, other factors like politics and religion play a part. I am sure that the police probably have a pretty clear idea of the type of person who may get involved in terrorism and that will be based on their personal profile as well as on whatever political or religious activities they are involved in. I simply do not believe that anybody could be turned into a terrorist by indoctrination. They would need to have a couple of screws loose in the first place.

“Innocent Patsies”? Nope.

Idiots with a plan that would likely never have worked. Yes.

The ludicrous headlines on the papers today, the mail or whatever screaming “THE SAME AS 10 LOCKERBIES!” reminded me so much of the South Park “911 times a 100″ jape.

Some police bod on the radio on the way home yesterday saying 10s of thousands of people could have been killed if the plot had worked as planned.

Yes but that’s a bloody big IF isn’t it?

If came up with an ‘idea’ to blow up the whole ruddy country by making a really really (_really_) big bomb and placing it somewhere in the midlands, even if I had _NO_ chance of making a bomb that big, the police and the papers would say “THIS MAN WAS GOING TO BLOW UP ALL 61 MILLION OF US!”.

Well yes, _if_ I could buy 9×10^23 tonnes of TNT then maybe. But I’m afraid that’s impossible.

These islamic nutter’s plan was _almost_ as impossible.

I really don’t think these people should have been prosecuted until they had at least started to build their bombs, or at least buy the components needed to actually make said bombs, and maybe buy some plane tickets, or passports… But of course iirc this was all prompted by Bush wanting to fire up the old Terror card and causing the police to go in early.

Was this not the second trial after a failure to obtain a conviction the first time around? Also am I not right in saying 3 convicted 4 acquitted? In light of the evidence disclosed in the media I hope I am not alone in finding this bewildering. What happens now to those acquitted? Are they being deported? I am not sure the smug CPS has quite as much to be happy about as they seemed to yesterday.

If anyone is interested, I have the video of them over at my place

Tom few doubt that their are islamist terrorists. The problem though is exaggerated.What is disgraceful is that the scaremongering opens the floodgates to erode our civil liberties, and frighten us into supporting invasions of other countries. What is the point of fighting to keep our freedoms if the means itself removes what we are trying to defend? Denying this is no less naive than believing any threats are an MI5 concotion. Mind you after the WMD fairytale, is it any wonder some do? It is naive to believe that our foreign policies do not add credence to the extremists anti western ideology. The americans and their british lapdogs provide all the necessary drive to extremist groups’ recruitment.

Governments have manipulated or even concocted major events to increase power or regain credibility throughout history. Why should 20/21st century powers behave any differently to the rest of history? It is this view that our leaders are whiter than white that is just as laughable as anything the conspiracy theorists present on youtube.

WONDER how long it will be before someone theorizes that the would-be airplane bombers convicted today are innocent patsies set up by…

I can remember any number of supposed IRA bombers being released on appeal after spending years in prison. For example, the Birmingham Six.

There’s not need to drag the government or MI5 into this. A bomb goes off somewhere, and the police are under extreme pressure to catch the culprit. So they charge someone, and the heat comes off. 10 years later, they find out it was the wrong man. By then, nobody is much bothered.

Quite a few people seem to think that the Pan Am Megrahi bomber was the wrong man too. I don’t know. But I wouldn’t be a bit surprised.

Its good to see that at least David Cameronn does not have his head in the sand about government spending. His excelent speach today he showed how Labour have just wasted money and instead of cutting back what we cannot aford they have done nothing. Cameron is proposing to start with MPs. so you will have to pay the same price we do for a pint. I now see why you are eating at Asda with the rest of us

Anyone wanting to read all of DC speec as its hidden by the BBC and when you find it you get abou 1.5 mins.

http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2009/09/David_Cameron_Cutting_the_Cost_of_Politics.aspx

@ Alec: totally agree.

@Johnny Norfolk: why have you shoehorned in this stuff about Cameron, when it’s nothing to do with the topic in question? Are you in fact propagandist-in-chief at Conservative Central Office?

…And there will never be a shortage of McCarthy-esque government loyalists on hand to call anyone who questions British foreign policy a traitor – or an “appeaser”.

(Not that it’s actually possible to appease the enemy you describe, but there we go.)

Cold Day In Hell #1. The day I formulate my opinions by watching some god-awful ‘truth’ video posted on youtube by someone with pimples.

Cold Day In Hell #2. The day that British foreign policy is ran by a few dozen ‘radicalised’ (and unelected) twenty-somethings in Bradford and Bolton.

Cold Day In Hell #3. The day I describe wannabe murderers as ‘ultra-devout and deeply courageous’. What they are is me me me me attention-seekers. That ‘volcano of angah’ video was just a vanity-publishing version of the Big Brother Diary Room.

Nicky.

Toms title piece is about Heads in the Sand. If you have read his title.
There had been plenty of comments about what Tom was refereing to, so i moved on to compare the PM to DC refering to the PMs head in the sand regarding the cuts that have to be made.
Its called conversation, you know when you get together with friends and instead of talking about the same thing all night the conversation moves on.

Do you understand what I am saying or would you like further explanation.
Phew.

Sammy,

Enemies of your enemies are not necessarily your friends.

You call them “attention seeking”. They certainly achieved that on September 11th, didn’t they?. 17 people armed with Stanley knives?

If you think those were the last 17 to “seek attention”, you are sadly mistaken.

Ask Lord ” I will raise an army of 10,000 Muslims” Ahmed (Labour), shortly before he served 16 days in prison for killing a man.

You’re a bit shallow if you’re just going to dwell on “Islamist” terrorist – do you not keep up with the news? A Neo Nazi right-wing man was charged, just to give you one example. Britain faces many other terror threats ,not only from fanatics [a minority I must say] who use their religion to justify their actions.

The bigest threat to this country at the moement is the spend,spend,spend. Labour government. The way we are going we have no wealth to do anything.

but dont worry we will be told in November what they are going to start doing after the election.
They could not manage a whelk stall.

I know, this was unlikely to have worked, so let’s give these lads five years in chokey. When the next plot, building on knowledge gained here, *nearly* works, let’s give them 10.

I mean, it’s not a learning process, is it?

>> Ask Lord ” I will raise an army of 10,000 Muslims” Ahmed (Labour), shortly before he served 16 days in prison for killing a man.

Points of order: the precise quotation appears to be unsubstantiated; he was gaoled only for dangerous driving, and cleared of causing the actual death.

He still has invited Swedish neo-Nazis to Westminster.

Thankie, Nicky.

>> You’re a bit shallow if you’re just going to dwell on “Islamist” terrorist – do you not keep up with the news? A Neo Nazi right-wing man was charged, just to give you one example.

Charged? I can think only of Neil Lewington who has just been sentenced.

His arrest and conviction had garnered a great deal of media attention at the time, just as David Copeland is still being talked about despite being eclipsed by the London bombers.

In that second link, I also reproduce David T’s rationale for Jihadist terrorism receiving greater attention than white supremacy terrorism (give in response to remarks by Mehdi Hasan, mentioned above).

@Alec
“…I’m quite happy to class them as wannabe mass-murderers, but classing them as anything like warriors for their god runs the risks of presenting them as devout Muslims instead of evil cowards.”

Warriors for their god is exactly the definition, I’m afraid. It’s what separates the truly devout muslim from the rest.

Jihad is the word most often used.

@Indy

“…But Liberanos terrorists do share a lot of characteristics with ‘normal’ violent criminals.”

They do indeed. But muslim terrorists claim religious imperatives for their actions, which tends to place them in a totally different, and far more dangerous category.

Few ‘normal’ criminals pray constantly, eschew materialism, read almost nothing but their holy book, and go happily to their death committing mass murder.

Liberanos – does it matter whether someone claims religious imperatives for their actions?

People are judged by their actions, not their motivations.

There is nothing wrong with being religious per se,

There is something wrong with killing people (or planning to kill people).

Start from that point.

The problem is the killing people bit, not the religion bit.

You say that Muslim terrorists pray constantly, eschew materialism, read almost nothing but their holy book, and go happily to their death.

So do nuns.

But nuns tend not to kill people so perhaps you should go back and reconsider what the problem actually is.

There is an enormous difference between the neo-nazis et al. and the religious terrorists.

The religious crazies have given their life to god, or the evil bar steward pretending to speak for god, and thus take no moral responsibility for their actions. As far as their morals go they think they must be on the side of right as they are doing god’s work.

The other crazies have simply dehumanised their victims or think their terrorist acts are for the greater good. They are also less likely to succeed as they rarely want to die or be caught – this is what separates them from the religious terrorists.

As for Liberanos comment on them being ‘courageous’ I cannot agree. I think the brainwashing (or self-delusion) that they have means they act without fear, without a care for the consequence and with a relish for the outcome of their acts. This is not in line with most people’s views on courage. If a soldier goes on a killing spree with an almost lustful rage with no regard for himself then we, rightly, think he’s a psychopath
not a courageous hero.

@Indy.

“Liberanos – does it matter whether someone claims religious imperatives for their actions?”

It certainly does. They’re infinitely more dangerous…joyful willingness to die for one thing.

@Paul

There’s clearly a philosophical as well as an etymological component of courage.

Was Thomas More courageous…or an idiot?

But quite obviously, you’re right. Muslim terrorists are disqualified from the normal parameters of courage because they deliberately take others with them. This is more akin to cowardice.

What I was attempting to emphasise, clearly unsuccessfully, was the dangerous, sometimes fatal shortcomings of regarding them as run of the mill criminals.

When the koran is your road map, and a vengeful God your paymaster,
Constable Plod can look puny indeed.

Liberanos I cannot see that Islamic terrorists are any more dangerous than any other terrorists simply because they are Islamic. The whole suicide thing is admittedly a novel twist – but it does not actually make them any more dangerous to you or I than the IRA were when they were active.

Being willing to murder to achieve your objectives makes someone dangerous, whether or not they also blow themself up in the process (and there were a few IRA terrorists who did that, albeit accidentally). Hopefully we can all agree on that.

Whether the objectives are personal, political or religious or a mixture of all three is not actually the point. It is the willingness to kill to achieve the objective that is dangerous. Nobody can seriously argue that Islamic terrorists have a monopoly on that because they don’t.

I think part of the problem with this issue is that a lot of the language used by government and its supporters is simply OTT.

It is not enough to say that Islamic terrorists pose a threat – they must somehow pose a worse threat than anyone else, they must be more dangerous than anyone else, they must be more terrifying than anyone else. There are even comparisons drawn with the threat Britain faced in WW2! And on the other side of the Atlantic I believe that Condoleeza Rice actually commented that Al Quaeda were a greater threat to the USA than the Nazis, because the Nazis had never attacked the American homeland. That beggars belief.

This kind of thinking is sheer nonsense and most people know it. Why build these people up to be bigger than they are?

Yes Islamic terrorists pose a threat. But let’s be realistic about the level of threat they pose which does not warrant the level of rhetoric used. Indeed, it is that rhetoric that actually drives suspicions that the threat of terrorism is being used by the powers that be as an excuse for attacking civil liberties etc.

Indy, anyone willing to die to further their cause is more dangerous than someone who isn’t. But here’s why the Religious/suicide side makes them more dangerous:
They have a ready made support group and can much more easily radicalise each other, their religion also gives them legitimate cover both in meeting up and in community support*.
They are able to form larger cells (or groups of cells) with better contacts and better access to dangerous materials than smaller groups.
They not only want to cause panic and terror but actually the greater the harm they cause the better for their cause.
They are willing to be on location to make sure devices function at the optimum moment – also means no messing about with timers or other things that can go wrong.
The ultimate aim (Global Islam) is not acceptable to anyone else and thus they view them as sub-human and deserving to die rather than simply collateral damage.

However, I do agree that the threat to our country/way of life is overstated. To compare this threat with the threat an actual country would pose is ridiculous. I also agree that the government are using this threat to strip away our civil liberties and we should be fighting to get them back.

As a personal view I think that missing a small number of determined terrorists is a price worth paying for living in a free country. And that is assuming all the extra tracking of the mainly non-islamist population does stop more than the previous legislation was able to.

Liberanos, we do not treat them like run of the mill criminals, but if we viewed them as disturbed, violent, sociopathic criminals then wouldn’t that cover it? Do we really need new laws to deal with suicidal sociopaths?

* Community support here is before they have done anything they may be protected by their community who believe police etc. are unfairly targeting them because of their faith.

@Indy

If the whole basis of your religion… as you see it…is to destroy those who do not share it; that to die doing so is the greatest honour there is and brings you the greatest reward, and there are thousands of you around the world, believing the same thing, I’m rather surprised that anyone can think you pose no greater threat than any other killers.

Comparisons with the IRA are only valid if the IRA terrorists wanted desperately to martyr themselves to honour their religion and their god.

There are no more dangerous terrorists that those who welcome dying. Surely that’s completely obvious?

@Paul

You’re right about community support.

When one reads of the numbers recorded as fully supporting these terrorists (120,000 at least in this country)one has to wonder.

Mass rallies to protest at the death dealers, rather than mass rallies to protest at drawings and books, would be rather more comforting.

We certainly can overstate the threat. And I don’t think we need too many new
laws. But I’d really like to see more awareness of the unique quality of the threat.

>> Warriors for their god is exactly the definition, I’m afraid. It’s what separates the truly devout muslim from the rest.

So, are you taking the Osama bin Laden line that no ‘true’ Muslim can wish to live a Western society without seeking violent insurrection?

>> Was Thomas More courageous…or an idiot?

He lived in the 16th Century. What low standards you set of Muslims if you think this is the best they can live up to.

Besides, he went by himself to the executioner’s block.

I don’t agree that anyone willing to die for their cause is more dangerous than someone who isn’t.

A suicide bomber can, by definition, only kill people once.

@Indy

You miss the key issue:
Suicide bombers are actually nothing more than the weapons that true criminals higher up the tree use.

A suicide bomber can only strike once but by instilling fanatical beliefs into youths you have an unending supply.

As a weapon a suicide bomber is much better than a remote explosion – the bombs are much simpler and require no remote detonation and can be placed incredibly accurately at any time.

This is why this type of terrorism is more dangerous than simply a criminal matter. However, the previous laws were sufficient to cope with this.

So the imminent danger are the small bands of fanatics willing, if not desperate, to blow themselves up. But the real problem is with the people who fire up the young men into a religious frenzy in what can only be described as brainwashing.

While the IRA engaged in some form of brainwashing young men the ideas placed into the young men’s heads did NOT include:
The glorification of killing the sub-humans who were not Irish;
The promise of a glorious afterlife where all your worldly dreams come true;
AND they did not claim the authority of the creator of the universe in trying to win back Ireland.

@Alec
“…So, are you taking the Osama bin Laden line that no ‘true’ Muslim can wish to live a Western society without seeking violent insurrection?”

No. The muslim terrorists are.

@ Indy

Non-muslim terrorists are heavily constrained in the scope,spread and effectiveness of their wickedness by the necessity to avoid killing themselves.

Suicide bombers have no such constraints. They welcome it.

Liberanos I don’t think that is true.

For example, whoever planted the bomb on Pan Am Flight 103 that exploded over Lockerbie and killed 270 people was not on the plane at the time.

Paul, no I don’t think I am missing the key issue.

The key issues as I see them are these:

1. Terrorists are a threat – no argument.

2. The threat of terrorism, while real, is not on a par with threats such as the Nazis or even the good old Cold War – remenber Protect and Survive and all that? We coped with that, we can cope with this. Many other things (not least climate change) present a much bigger threat to our way of life.

3. Muslim terrorists are no more of a threat than other terrorists were when they were active. More people were killed by the IRA than have been killed by Muslim terrorists and we did not go into a national panic over it.

4. The threat of Muslim terrorism is exaggerated for reasons which I don’t quite understand but which include justifying foreign policy as well as nonsensical ideas like a national ID database (a scheme which was never ever feasible even if judged desirable).

5. Politicians are not actually experts on terrorism. The police are. It is probably the case that the less involvement politicians have in fighting terrorism the better.

6. One of the side effects of the politicisation of terrorism has been a demonisation of all Muslim people, with unfortunate effects such as an increase in racially motivated attacks.

@ Indy
Not every terrorist outrage is conducted by suicide bombers.

Those which are, are infinitely worse, and infinitely more difficult to prevent than others, because the perpetrator has no fear of dying with his bomb.

This point has been made several times, by myself and others, and I fear the thread is getting a little repetitive.

So if you’ll forgive me, I’ll bow out now.

Fair enough Liberanos, I am never going to be persuaded that people who seek to kill themsleves as well as others are mored dangerous than people who seek to kill others with no consequences for themselves so we will just have to agree to disagree.

Hello Chris Wills!

Sorry for the late reply.

As you seem to make assumptions about me . . . shall I assume that you are in fact a ‘religious Nut Job”?

Oh . . . and I think you’ll find that “the Chosen” are definitely in a minority . . . so, would you like me to get your coat for you?

@Silent Hunter

Are you the same Silent Hunter who posted

But to make Good people do Bad things . . . you need religion.

If we could ask the righteous religious people to live on another planet . . . we, the secular, the infidels, and the non-chosen, could then live in relative peace. . . whilst observing their wars at a safe distance.

You wrote we the secular infidels so I assumed you are secular and non-religious. If one or both is incorrect perhaps you shouldn’t have written that.

The comment about good people doing bad things is simply another untruth popular amongst some anti-religion people. So, as you posted it, I took it to mean that you believed it and were being generally insulting to those who believe differently from you.

You might also wish to think about your desire to rid the world of those you don’t agree with.
Be are far more boring world and no less war torn, whatever your beliefs about the inherent peacefulness of non-believers.

Feel free to believe whatever you wish about me, but do base it upon what I write, just as I have with you.