Police believe a fire which destroyed the roof of a mosque may have been in revenge for the alleged terrorist plot to blow up planes leaving UK airports.

At about 3.30am today, police and fire crews were called to the Al-Birr Masjid Mosque in Sarum Hill, Basingstoke, Hants, after the roof had caught fire.

The blaze took 16 firefighters almost two hours to put out, according to Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service. Nobody was injured in the fire.

Assistant Chief Constable Steve Watts, of Hampshire Police, said the fire was being treated as arson and a full investigation was under way.

He said: "In this current climate, we cannot rule out the possibility that this incident is related to the recent security threat.

"Therefore we are treating it extremely seriously and dealing with it appropriately."

Superintendent Chris Brown added that the force was talking to local community leaders in a bid to prevent problems escalating in the area.

He said: "We are fully investigating this incident and have put all appropriate resources into place.

"The investigation is being led by a detective superintendent and once we have identified the offender or offenders they will be brought in front of a court as swiftly as possible.

"We will be working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to ensure a successful outcome.

"We are liaising closely with the local Muslim community in Basingstoke to reassure them that our protective services are in place and of our determination to prevent recurrences."

Last year, two men were charged with racially aggravated assault and racially aggravated criminal damage to a vehicle parked at the mosque.

No-one was available at the mosque for comment today.


TERRORISM TAKES MANY FORMS, AND THIS QUITE CLEARLY IS ONE OF THEM. What a multicultural society we live in. What a tolerant society we live in. I think that now any crime such as this, or where religious sites are lown up, should be trated the same as any act of terror which muslims are being implied to.

if this proves to be arson ..then those behind it have earned the title TERRORIST.

They attacked a place of worship because they apparently hated the terrorists..they ended up being like them.

Well, if the arsonists would have strapped bombs to themselves and ran into the mosque during a crowded time of day, blowing themselves up and God knows how many other people, that would be my definition of terrorism as it is defined today. However, arson in itself is an act of terrorism, just not on the same level as the terrorism that struck on 9-11, Bali, Kobalt Towers, etc.

Well, if the arsonists would have strapped bombs to themselves and ran into the mosque during a crowded time of day, blowing themselves up and God knows how many other people, that would be my definition of terrorism as it is defined today. However, arson in itself is an act of terrorism, just not on the same level as the terrorism that struck on 9-11, Bali, Kobalt Towers, etc.

True, but that's nothing compared to the Holocaust and the atrocities you Christians have committed

keltoi, terrorism takes many forms, look up the definition of terrorism please, because its very insulting to hear that blowing up a mosque is not in itself terror. and by your definitio of what terror is today, the west are the biggest terrorist. they go one further, they drop bombs the size of cars out of planes.

you also frgot to mention hiroshima, lebanon, iraq, afghanistan. Oh hold on that wasnt terror, just a military strategy. Disgusting to say the least, that you forget about the victims of the holacus who were subjected to terror, hioroshim, the worlds deadliest terror attack, coninious bombarding if iraq, aka shock and awe.

lol...nice try bringing the Holocaust and WWII into the conversation, but completely off point. I stated that arson itself is an act of terrorism, just like the church burnings in the American south recently were acts of terrorism. I simply pointed out that it wasn't the murderous form of terrorism that is on the minds of people, journalists, etc who report on the issue.

lol...nice try bringing the Holocaust and WWII into the conversation, but completely off point. I stated that arson itself is an act of terrorism, just like the church burnings in the American south recently were acts of terrorism. I simply pointed out that it wasn't the murderous form of terrorism that is on the minds of people, journalists, etc who report on the issue.

You brought in 9/11, and I brought in the Holocaust. Fair enough

There is no need to go back to history. Muslims would need to destroy Israel hundreds of times to come to the level of murder by Christians.

Originally Posted by QuranStudy

You brought in 9/11, and I brought in the Holocaust. Fair enough

There is no need to go back to history. Muslims would need to destroy Israel hundreds of times to come to the level of murder by Christians.

I find this comment rather puzzling. I made no connection between Islam and the terrorist acts I mentioned, in fact, I would like to believe they are mutually exclusive. This was a thread about an arson attack, and why the attack wasn't called terrorism by whatever article was sited. I believe the reason is that this attack wasn't the "terrorism" that is on the minds of people lately. Of course burning down a place of worship is terrorism, it was during the 1960's, and it remains so. However, in the context of current events and the terrorist acts being committed globally, it doesn't surprise me that a journalist didn't use the label "terrorist act". It is about the meaning of word in the minds of most people in 2006, which is suicide bombings, hijackings, beheadings, etc.

So as you define it terrorism is fasion, just call it terrorism when it suits the masses and sounds negative and ill towards a minoirty group. I can ever remember the transgression at the hands of the IDF terror, i can remeber the US marine that raped and killed a muslim girl terror, i can remember Hiroshima ever beeing called terror. So whats in next week, perhaps muslims being called immoral murders for using the knife instead of the stun gun to kosher their meat??

One question keltio, and please give an honest answer, and i promise ill leave it at that.

!!!!!!!!!!!!do you think the bombings of lebabon, to be more specific the bombing of 13+ children in an aprtment block was a terroris attack. the same terror that is defined in 2006 which include hijackings, mass murder, use of explosives?!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please take ur time to answer, as your answer will make me get a better picure of who im communication with

It isn't about fashion or attacking minority groups. It is about an arson attack which didn't kill anyone. This happens in the U.S. on a daily basis. Mostly to Christian churches. When this happens and I read the story it never says "terrorist attack", it says "arson attack". It is a matter of semantics in many ways, but I don't think there is some orchestrated effort to not use the word "terrorism" because it was a mosque, since it happens quite often to Christian churches and the word isn't used in that context either.

do you mind answeing my question. On a serious note, i can understand if it puts you on the sppot and you feel uncomfortable answering.

Originally Posted by Isaac

One question keltio, and please give an honest answer, and i promise ill leave it at that.

!!!!!!!!!!!!do you think the bombings of lebabon, to be more specific the bombing of 13+ children in an aprtment block was a terroris attack. the same terror that is defined in 2006 which include hijackings, mass murder, use of explosives?!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please take ur time to answer, as your answer will make me get a better picure of who im communication with

That would depend on whether the fighter pilot who is dropping the bombs and firing the missiles intentionally targeted the building because it had children and civilians inside. If that is the case, then yes it is terrorism. To the people on the ground it makes no difference of course. Here is an analogy I often use...

If John Doe is walking through a crowded street market with a nailbomb under his jacket, walks up to family of five ordering orange soda from a street vendor, then blows himself up and takes them with him, that is the basic definition of "terrorism".
If a pilot is in a war, and comes under anti-aircraft fire from a structure on the ground, or locks on to the source of rocket or missile fire, and fires upon that position, and the end result is civilian casualties, that is awful and unfortunate, for both the victims and the pilot. However, that isn't the definition of terrorism. Does it make any difference to the family in the structure or the family getting blown apart by the nailbomb? No.

Originally Posted by Isaac

keltoi, terrorism takes many forms, look up the definition of terrorism please, because its very insulting to hear that blowing up a mosque is not in itself terror. and by your definitio of what terror is today, the west are the biggest terrorist. they go one further, they drop bombs the size of cars out of planes.

Your labeling it terrorism when it very easily could have been a kitchen fire.