/* */

PDA

View Full Version : uk no 1 al qaeda target



nishom
10-19-2006, 12:51 PM
UK 'number one al-Qaeda target'

bbc.co.uk
accessed on 19/10/2006 at 13.49

The bombings on 7 July last year killed 52 people
Al-Qaeda has become more organised and sophisticated and has made Britain its top target, counter-terrorism officials have told the BBC.
Security sources say the situation has never been so grim, said BBC home affairs correspondent Margaret Gilmore.

They believe the network is now operating a cell structure in the UK - like the IRA did - and sees the 7 July bomb attacks "as just the beginning".

Each cell has a leader, a quartermaster dealing with weapons, and volunteers.

According to our correspondent, each cell works on separate, different plots, with masterminds controlling several different cells.

Those involved in the cells were often aware they were being followed and so were meeting in public spaces.

In addition, training is taking place in the UK and Pakistan.

They set up groups a bit like Boy Scouts or Boys' Brigade... totally legitimate


It was thought that five years ago al-Qaeda was a number of "loosely-connected organisations" with common aims, but it is now more organised, she said.

Security officials are concerned the group is targeting universities and the community, and are "less worried" about mosques, she added.

The network is targeting men in their late teens and early 20s, according to our correspondent.

"They set up groups a bit like Boy Scouts or Boys' Brigade... totally legitimate.

"Those who are particularly interested they start giving religious indoctrination.

"Then those who are very interested they start introducing to political teachings, anti-Western rhetoric.



"And those who are still interested they then start giving technical training.

"They also start sending them on bonding sessions to things like white-water rafting.

"You end up with a small team of people - the cell is prepared.

"A lot of this is happening outside London," our correspondent added.

Joint regional offices of MI5 intelligence gatherers and anti-terrorist police officers have been set up in Manchester, Birmingham and Sheffield.

The leadership of al-Qaeda does appear to ... be more coherent and organised than had been thought in recent years


BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the view was Britain was particularly vulnerable because "it may be easier for al-Qaeda to strike the UK than other targets".

He said these views were "based on activity they are actually seeing. Plots they're disrupting, trials which might be coming up soon".

"There is hard evidence behind it, rather than just theories," said our correspondent.

"That's based partly on what they are seeing, in terms of the types of activity, and partly based on the coincidence, that al-Qaeda's leadership is based in the tribal areas of Pakistan where there are links to the UK and flows of people going back and forwards.

"It makes it easier to make the UK a target than the other countries it might wish to target."

The network also appeared to be better organised, he continued.

"The leadership of al-Qaeda does appear to have been re-grouping and to be more coherent and organised than had been thought in recent years.

"The view is it clearly was an organised group before 9/11, but the campaign in Afghanistan disrupted that leadership very heavily.

It is no longer about looking for a needle in a haystack



"But in recent years, particularly in the tribal areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the al-Qaeda leadership has been able to re-group and re-organise itself.

"In doing so it's able to open up channels of communication, contact, recruitment and planning around the world, and operate those in a more coherent fashion than maybe we were seeing three years' ago."

However, intelligence analyst Crispin Black said another attack in the UK "was not inevitable", citing the UK's "considerable successes against the IRA".

He said the security services had a good idea about who they were dealing with, saying: "We still have that expertise and training present within our military forces and intelligence."

"It is no longer about looking for a needle in a haystack. We have some pretty good clues and information on where we should be looking."
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Keltoi
10-19-2006, 03:04 PM
There is a good reason why the U.K has "become" the #1 target for Al-Qaeda, and that is simply because there is more radicalism in the U.K. It is much easier to plan and organize attacks in the U.K. because the groundwork for extremism already exists. In other words, Al-Qaeda doesn't have to sneak terrorists into the country when many willing terrorists already live there.
Reply

S_87
10-19-2006, 03:09 PM
:sl:

i hope not

may Allah keep us away from extremism...
Reply

afriend
10-19-2006, 03:17 PM
Well to tell you the truth...I've seen many people....rather heard... Non-Muslims saying that they are interested in these terrorist groups and would like to become members and carry out attacks...as it makes them look 'good'...or in modern terms 'gansta'.

Surely there will be 'Muslims' ^o) among them, but what I'm trying to say is, media portrays these Muslims and non Muslims to be one body...hence showing that the only people involved in these bombings/wrongful acts as to be Muslims, And ONLY muslims......

Think about it.....Chavs....All they want to do is create havoc....
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Keltoi
10-19-2006, 03:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
Well to tell you the truth...I've seen many people....rather heard... Non-Muslims saying that they are interested in these terrorist groups and would like to become members and carry out attacks...as it makes them look 'good'...or in modern terms 'gansta'.

Surely there will be 'Muslims' ^o) among them, but what I'm trying to say is, media portrays these Muslims and non Muslims to be one body...hence showing that the only people involved in these bombings/wrongful acts as to be Muslims, And ONLY muslims......

Think about it.....Chavs....All they want to do is create havoc....
Actually, here in the U.S. we are well aware that Al-Qaeda would love to use Hispanic and black men(and women) to carry out attacks with less danger of being discovered. Usually they are recruited in prison. Padilla is a good example. The problem with this is that these people aren't exactly the most intelligent members of society, and they are usually picked up before long.

Just to clarify, my statement of "these people aren't exactly the most intelligent members of society" wasn't in relation to their ethnicity, just the fact that they are institutionalized and "gangsta", not professional terrorists.
Reply

Pk_#2
10-19-2006, 03:29 PM
Hmm..........

#@:#*^%$£

:)
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
10-19-2006, 08:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
Non-Muslims saying that they are interested in these terrorist groups and would like to become members and carry out attacks...as it makes them look 'good'...or in modern terms 'gansta'.
You know, that's an excellent point. In America people began to copy the Mafia, even though their motives were completely different. But there was an old Mafia saying that became a way of life here, that went: The Enemy of my enemy is my friend. It's carried on since then too.

Now, Columbine, and the thousands of kids who began wearing black London Fog trench-coats, and the beat goes on.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

AhlaamBella
10-20-2006, 12:47 AM
All these articles on Islamic extremism and Al-Qaeda really bug me.:rant:
Reply

Joe98
10-20-2006, 12:58 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by DeepOcean
All these articles on Islamic extremism and Al-Qaeda really bug me

Why would an article bug you?
Reply

AhlaamBella
10-20-2006, 12:59 AM
Because it's all a load of rubbish. Mainly the extremism ones.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 10:06 AM
i consider UK and America to be the extremists?


"oh no that countries got weopens, lets tell them to stop it or bomb them and kill millions of innocent people then make up crap excuses"




£%£%(£^%("^% disgusting extremist :anger:
Reply

Woodrow
10-20-2006, 12:56 PM
Labels only mean what the person using them desires them to mean. Who I call an extremist will be a freedom fighter to somebody else. What I see as moderate may be either liberal or fanatical to another.

The author of the article is calling the UK the no. 1 target, yet from another view the UK can be seen as the no. 1 aggressor.

I believe what we are seeing is that a very large segment of the population does not feel as if they are part of the UK. Each segment is viewing the other as the aggressor and themselves as being the victim.

Each are seeing themselves as being the target of potential agression and fear a possibility that somebody will act upon it. Often times when we act upon our views of other people and believe we are protecting our safety, we are being the agressor and doing what we fear is going to be done to us.

So yes I agree the UK is a no. 1 target, while at the same time those they see as the aggreessors are also no. 1 targets. Fear of being a target is resulting in all becoming agressors.

Who is the no.1 target and who is the no. 1 agressor, will depend on who you are.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 01:08 PM
and also now uk's victimising the muslims.

The country that prides themselves as the bastian of freedome of expression feels there is something wrong with the niqaab, the niqaab which is seen as obligatory by a lot of sisters and is a very valid islamic opinion !


Who will take down those terrorists :anger:
Reply

Woodrow
10-20-2006, 02:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
and also now uk's victimising the muslims.

The country that prides themselves as the bastian of freedome of expression feels there is something wrong with the niqaab, the niqaab which is seen as obligatory by a lot of sisters and is a very valid islamic opinion !


Who will take down those terrorists :anger:
Although I agree with your statement and understand where you are coming from. we are both looking at it from the viewpoint of a Muslim. A non-Muslim will see the same thing and say:

"and also now uk's being victimised by Muslims.

The people that pride themselves as the bastian of freedome of expression feels there is something wrong with showing their faces, the niqaab which is seen as obligatory by a lot of Muslims, are violating the very laws that protect them !


Who will take down those terrorists :anger:"

There will be constant problems until all people can see and understand each other. Inability to be tolerant results in misunderstanding and distrust. I believe if we could somehow spread understanding of the Niqab, this is one issue that can be resolved. The non-Muslims need to be aware of what it means to us, we need to be aware of why it is feared by some.

Perhaps there are areas where it would be a hinderance for a Muslimah to wear it and then I believe we need to look at it and consider if that is even an area we as Muslims would even consider walking into.
Reply

doodlebug
10-20-2006, 02:10 PM
asalam alaykum

Think of what good could come if these terrorists put all of that energy and effort into making dua for peace instead of concentrating on killing people.

Think of what good could come if these extremists were to instead make a peaceful campaign against the USA and the United Kingdom by bringing to the public eye all that they disagree with.

THEN that would hilight that they are the peaceful ones and that the US and the UK are the true bullies.

Unfortunately though it does not seem like they can try to be the better person in this case. It's really sad because it means it won't end until everyone's gone. :cry:
Reply

Keltoi
10-20-2006, 03:29 PM
Which leads me to another issue I have a problem with. From posts like Woodrow's, and many others, it seems that when Al-Qaeda or terrorism is brought up many Muslims will automatically throw themselves in the same boat with them. Not by saying "I support them" obviously, but by this moral relativism. Woodrow mentions that to "some" the U.K. is seen as the #1 aggressor. What exactly does that mean in the context of this conversation? Is that supposed to be a defense for people who WANT to blow up women and children? I know Woodrow doesn't mean it in that way, but what other way can I look at a statement like that? Because the U.K. has trust issues with the Muslim community they are being aggressive? Again, a cause and effect in play there. I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hopefully I was able to make my point in the right way.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 03:33 PM
^ We dont defend anyone who kills innocent people with no good reasoning, but we certainly arent happy with the US or UK and everytime i see that condoleeza rice lice or wateva i jus get :anger:
Reply

AhlaamBella
10-20-2006, 03:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
^ We dont defend anyone who kills innocent people with no good reasoning, but we certainly arent happy with the US or UK and everytime i see that condoleeza rice lice or wateva i jus get :anger:
lol I know how you feel. My dad starts growling at the TV everytime she comes on.

I really hate the way people feel Islam teaches such horiffic acts. It's disgusting.
Reply

Keltoi
10-20-2006, 03:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
^ We dont defend anyone who kills innocent people with no good reasoning, but we certainly arent happy with the US or UK and everytime i see that condoleeza rice lice or wateva i jus get :anger:
"We don't defend anyone who kills innocent people with no good reasoning"?

Interesting statement. I'm not sure what the rest of the post is getting at however.
Reply

AhlaamBella
10-20-2006, 03:40 PM
Basically 2 wrongs don't make a right. At least thats what I got from the post.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 03:43 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by DeepOcean
Basically 2 wrongs don't make a right. At least thats what I got from the post.
jazakAllah khair. I dont see what was so hard to understand :rollseyes
Reply

AhlaamBella
10-20-2006, 03:44 PM
BarakAllahfee.
Reply

Keltoi
10-20-2006, 09:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by DeepOcean
Basically 2 wrongs don't make a right. At least thats what I got from the post.
Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people? That is basically saying "I don't defend terrorists but since I don't like Condaleeza Rice I can just blame her." This inability some have to be critical of people who proclaim to have the same faith is very troubling to me, but by now it is hardly a surprise.
Reply

- Qatada -
10-20-2006, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people? That is basically saying "I don't defend terrorists but since I don't like Condaleeza Rice I can just blame her." This inability some have to be critical of people who proclaim to have the same faith is very troubling to me, but by now it is hardly a surprise.

Hi keltoi.


It's not really that. The real reason we don't like people like her is due to the fact that they go to the muslim land's and kill our brothers and sisters. It's got nothing to do with what the "terrorists" are doing in these lands, both are totally different topics.

The American government is justifying what their doing by going to the muslim lands and causing corruption there, while they use "terrorists" as a form of side track to keep the people thinking that what their doing is justified.



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
Reply

Keltoi
10-20-2006, 10:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hi keltoi.


It's not really that. The real reason we don't like people like her is due to the fact that they go to the muslim land's and kill our brothers and sisters. It's got nothing to do with what the "terrorists" are doing in these lands, both are totally different topics.

The American government is justifying what their doing by going to the muslim lands and causing corruption there, while they use "terrorists" as a form of side track to keep the people thinking that what their doing is justified.



Allaah Almighty knows best.



Peace.
It would be nice to believe that terrorism is a "side" issue, but unfortunately it is not. At least not to me and not the majority of U.S. and British citizens. Not to mention the Spanish. Religious extremists who are willing to kill themselves and as many people as they can take with them are not a side issue to "trick" the poor dumb citizens of the West. I know it would be comforting for some people to believe that.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 10:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It would be nice to believe that terrorism is a "side" issue, but unfortunately it is not. At least not to me and not the majority of U.S. and British citizens. Not to mention the Spanish. Religious extremists who are willing to kill themselves and as many people as they can take with them are not a side issue to "trick" the poor dumb citizens of the West. I know it would be comforting for some people to believe that.
where do u get this from keltoi?

as you will no, no man of religious islamic understanding would simply and stupidly blow a portion of a city up. there is no point to that at all. It is simply not strategic !
Reply

wilberhum
10-20-2006, 10:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
where do u get this from keltoi?

as you will no, no man of religious islamic understanding would simply and stupidly blow a portion of a city up. there is no point to that at all. It is simply not strategic !
Maybe they lack "religious islamic understanding".
I think we all assume that.
Reply

- Qatada -
10-20-2006, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It would be nice to believe that terrorism is a "side" issue, but unfortunately it is not. At least not to me and not the majority of U.S. and British citizens. Not to mention the Spanish. Religious extremists who are willing to kill themselves and as many people as they can take with them are not a side issue to "trick" the poor dumb citizens of the West. I know it would be comforting for some people to believe that.

I know it doesn't seem like that to the majority of the west, but remember when bush said "you're either with us or against us" - i wonder why he said that. It's obvious that anyone who is against the wars is supposedly on the opposition. Which mean's the person isn't on the side of the US.

Now the irony is that we already know this, there are two parties [even though now is the grey area] - a party of pure belief and a party of total disbelief. Allaah Almighty know's best, but these event's may even lead upto the time of ad-dajaal, the anti christ.


You might have realised that islaam is being attacked from all sides; kashmir, iraq, palestine, chechnya, bosnia, afghanistan, muslims in the west etc. Why is this? It's because the Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) told us that Allaah would humiliate us, until we returned back to our religion. And what time are people more likely to turn to Allaah? It's when they are getting harmed. This global scale is what may lead to the final event's, and Allaah the Exalted knows best.



Peace.
Reply

wilberhum
10-20-2006, 10:42 PM
You might have realised that islaam is being attacked from all sides
There is war in every corner of the world. So People are being attacked from all sides.
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 11:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
There is war in every corner of the world. So People are being attacked from all sides.
yes but if you take a look around at france, at london, at canada etc etc we hear many stories of masjids being raided, sisters being victimised, brothers being accused of terrorism, we even see cab drivers appear on the headlines of mainstream newspapers just for refusing to let a guide dog in. We are most certainly todays focus!
Reply

wilberhum
10-20-2006, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Mazed
yes but if you take a look around at france, at london, at canada etc etc we hear many stories of masjids being raided, sisters being victimised, brothers being accused of terrorism, we even see cab drivers appear on the headlines of mainstream newspapers just for refusing to let a guide dog in. We are most certainly todays focus!
How is that different than what happens to the Jews? It's wrong, but it happens to many different people. I quess the main difference is I attack all discrimination. I care not if the victoms are Muslim, Jewish or WallaWallaBingBangs.

Though I am particulary concerned when agnostics are targeted. :hiding: ;D
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
10-20-2006, 11:29 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
How is that different than what happens to the Jews? It's wrong, but it happens to many different people. I quess the main difference is I attack all discrimination. I care not if the victoms are Muslim, Jewish or WallaWallaBingBangs.

Though I am particulary concerned when agnostics are targeted. :hiding: ;D
have you compared the magnamity of the attacks at the jews/muslims and walawalabingbangs?
Clearly muslims are targetting the most furiously and the jews... i havent even really heard much on that so i cant say, as for the walawalabingbangs, lol man psychiatrist !!!
Reply

wilberhum
10-20-2006, 11:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by IbnAbdulHakim
have you compared the magnamity of the attacks at the jews/muslims and walawalabingbangs?
Clearly muslims are targetting the most furiously and the jews... i havent even really heard much on that so i cant say, as for the walawalabingbangs, lol man psychiatrist !!!
The walawalabingbangs have received so much discrimination that almost no one knows anything about them. :giggling: :giggling:
On the serious side, discrimination must be attacked from all sides. Discrimination is a sickness within society.

I find it dormitory to attack discrimination of only one group.
Reply

Woodrow
10-20-2006, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Which leads me to another issue I have a problem with. From posts like Woodrow's, and many others, it seems that when Al-Qaeda or terrorism is brought up many Muslims will automatically throw themselves in the same boat with them. Not by saying "I support them" obviously, but by this moral relativism. Woodrow mentions that to "some" the U.K. is seen as the #1 aggressor. What exactly does that mean in the context of this conversation? Is that supposed to be a defense for people who WANT to blow up women and children? I know Woodrow doesn't mean it in that way, but what other way can I look at a statement like that? Because the U.K. has trust issues with the Muslim community they are being aggressive? Again, a cause and effect in play there. I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I hopefully I was able to make my point in the right way.
Interesting. When I made that statement I had intended to to be a generality with no reference. I was trying to point out that opposing views will see the same thing differently.

I apologise for not having made it clearer.

I am not offended, I appreciate the input on the manner in which it could be seen.

I do agree with your term of cause and effect.


Much of what we see is "self fulfilling prophecy" if people believe Muslims are terrorists, some Muslims will try to prove them right and live up to the label, verifying what is believed. The opposite is also true if Muslims believe the government is singling them out the easy it will be so see rules/laws that do single them out and any protesting of the said rules/laws will verity the thought and lead to more restrictive rules/laws.

A share of communication is a good method of breaking the barriers of misinterpretation. Communication consist of three parts a message, a sender and a reciever. All too often the sender never knows what the reciever heard and then makes the error of assuming it was what he thought he sent.

Feed back from eachother is the best way for us all to know if what was heard matches what was said.
Reply

InToTheRain
10-21-2006, 12:37 AM
This is a prime time to blow something up in UK, I wouldn't surprised if someone did bomb things in the next 3 months as we all know AL-Qaeda or Muslims are going to be blamed for it.
Maybe the we will see the revival of the IRA behind the scenes :?
Reply

Keltoi
10-21-2006, 04:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
This is a prime time to blow something up in UK, I wouldn't surprised if someone did bomb things in the next 3 months as we all know AL-Qaeda or Muslims are going to be blamed for it.
Maybe the we will see the revival of the IRA behind the scenes :?
You say "Al-Qaeda and Muslims" will be blamed for it. As if they aren't to blame for it and it is all some secret cover-up meant to make Muslims look bad. That is exactly the mentality that I'm talking about.
Reply

guyabano
10-21-2006, 08:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Iqram
Well to tell you the truth...I've seen many people....rather heard... Non-Muslims saying that they are interested in these terrorist groups and would like to become members and carry out attacks...as it makes them look 'good'...or in modern terms 'gansta'.

Surely there will be 'Muslims' ^o) among them, but what I'm trying to say is, media portrays these Muslims and non Muslims to be one body...hence showing that the only people involved in these bombings/wrongful acts as to be Muslims, And ONLY muslims......

Think about it.....Chavs....All they want to do is create havoc....
Well, might be, but Muslim groups always identify their acts against 'unbelievers' and in the name of Allah, while non-muslim groups always have a political background. That is the main difference, plus, I can only hardly believe non-muslims join muslim extremist groups, just because they want to be a 'gangsta', means, I don't think, there are mixed groups out there !
Reply

- Qatada -
10-21-2006, 08:11 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by guyabano
Well, might be, but Muslim groups always identify their acts against 'unbelievers' and in the name of Allah, while non-muslim groups always have a political background. That is the main difference, plus, I can only hardly believe non-muslims join muslim extremist groups, just because they want to be a 'gangsta', means, I don't think, there are mixed groups out there !

Remember that according to islaam, if a person is following another religion besides the religion of Allaah, then their non muslim - because they havn't submitted themselves to Allah, and thats what islaam actually means. so what about the christians who fight in the name of religion? What about the hindus? the sikhs? etc.


What you said above is biased, because where some muslims use religion as their title, so do people from other faiths, and this is obvious when people keep mentioning the crusaders to christians. And other groups from other religions.


So it's not only islaam, but nearly every other religion.




Allaah Almighty knows best.




Peace. :)
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
10-21-2006, 02:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Labels only mean what the person using them desires them to mean.
Oh man! That was excellent... I'm going to add that to my collection of famous quotes: One-liners that say it all!

Ninth Scribe
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
10-21-2006, 03:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Since a person isn't "happy" with the U.S. and U.K and they don't like Condaleeza Rice that offsets whatever blame extremists have for blowing up people?
You know, it's that type of statement that probably causes all this confusion. With the exception of Al Qaeda, no one else took up arms (which is how they got labelled extremists) until after the U.S. invasions (they didn't believe the actions of Al Qaeda justified U.S. occupation of their lands), and even Al Qaeda argues the invasion of Palestine is where this all began. It's kind of like breaking up a fight between your kids. You ask each child what happened and together, they reply: Well... he started it!

The other problem I have, what upsets me about all the 'extremist' reporting is their tendency to lump all these different groups together. When New Orleans went into a state of chaos, everyone lost control. It wasn't just the thugs ripping off plasma TVs, the cops were doing it too! But western media knew there was a big difference between thugs and cops and they made major ratings for reporting the difference... Cops getting caught stealing was big news! But they don't distinguish between fighter groups in Iraq. That's one of the problems Zarqawi was trying to address in his last video. He identified them as:

The first kind is the one trying to attach themselves with the Mujahedeen, although they never lived the Mujahedeen life...

What he was talking about were groups who called themselves Mujahedeen (borrowed the cool name), but didn't behave like the Mujahedeen. In short, local thugs and other Mujahedeen wannabes who lacked moral fortitude and discipline. Their actions were diectly responsible for tarnishing the reputation of the Mujahedeen in the same way Private Green ruined the reputation of the U.S. soldiers by commiting acts of rape and murder.

Add to this, western media continuously attaches every horrific act onto the name of the Mujahedeen, even events that turned out to be caused by American operations and other militias, and voile... dangerous reporting! The pen becomes an effective weapon in the War on Terror. But this is a manipulation. I have to ask myself why I could land my butt in hot water for printing a few simple facts to shed some light on certain subjects, or creating more desirable image files? I can honestly say I don't particularly like my government pointing their weapons at me in order to try and control what I have to say. Did you know for instance, that everyone who opposes the War in Iraq are named in a DB of potential subversives? You can get paid good money for saying something for the Iraq War but you can go to jail for saying something against it... or... how did they put it? Promoting the cause of a known terrorist organization (only because their cause happens to be against the Iraq War)?

Ninth Scribe
Reply

InToTheRain
10-21-2006, 03:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
You say "Al-Qaeda and Muslims" will be blamed for it.
I said Al-Qaeda OR Muslims :uhwhat
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
As if they aren't to blame for it .
As if they aren't to blame for what? What are you talking about?

format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
That is exactly the mentality that I'm talking about.
Ye your right, it's Al-qaeda and Muslims which is in the way of world peace. I apologise for suggesting that some one else can take advantage of the fact that Al-qaeda or Muslims are in the spotlight so they can perpatrate acts of terrorisms knowing the spotlight won't be on them, How silly of me to suggest this when we all know muslims are always to blame for these things.
Reply

Keltoi
10-21-2006, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Ninth_Scribe
You know, it's that type of statement that probably causes all this confusion. With the exception of Al Qaeda, no one else took up arms (which is how they got labelled extremists) until after the U.S. invasions (they didn't believe the actions of Al Qaeda justified U.S. occupation of their lands), and even Al Qaeda argues the invasion of Palestine is where this all began. It's kind of like breaking up a fight between your kids. You ask each child what happened and together, they reply: Well... he started it!

The other problem I have, what upsets me about all the 'extremist' reporting is their tendency to lump all these different groups together. When New Orleans went into a state of chaos, everyone lost control. It wasn't just the thugs ripping off plasma TVs, the cops were doing it too! But western media knew there was a big difference between thugs and cops and they made major ratings for reporting the difference... Cops getting caught stealing was big news! But they don't distinguish between fighter groups in Iraq. That's one of the problems Zarqawi was trying to address in his last video. He identified them as:

The first kind is the one trying to attach themselves with the Mujahedeen, although they never lived the Mujahedeen life...

What he was talking about were groups who called themselves Mujahedeen (borrowed the cool name), but didn't behave like the Mujahedeen. In short, local thugs and other Mujahedeen wannabes who lacked moral fortitude and discipline. Their actions were diectly responsible for tarnishing the reputation of the Mujahedeen in the same way Private Green ruined the reputation of the U.S. soldiers by commiting acts of rape and murder.

Add to this, western media continuously attaches every horrific act onto the name of the Mujahedeen, even events that turned out to be caused by American operations and other militias, and voile... dangerous reporting! The pen becomes an effective weapon in the War on Terror. But this is a manipulation. I have to ask myself why I could land my butt in hot water for printing a few simple facts to shed some light on certain subjects, or creating more desirable image files? I can honestly say I don't particularly like my government pointing their weapons at me in order to try and control what I have to say. Did you know for instance, that everyone who opposes the War in Iraq are named in a DB of potential subversives? You can get paid good money for saying something for the Iraq War but you can go to jail for saying something against it... or... how did they put it? Promoting the cause of a known terrorist organization (only because their cause happens to be against the Iraq War)?

Ninth Scribe
You're right, we should all look to Zarqawi for enlightenment. Since those against the war get thrown in jail, shouldn't you be in there right now?
Reply

Keltoi
10-21-2006, 05:44 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by WnbSlveOfAllah
I said Al-Qaeda OR Muslims :uhwhat


As if they aren't to blame for what? What are you talking about?



Ye your right, it's Al-qaeda and Muslims which is in the way of world peace. I apologise for suggesting that some one else can take advantage of the fact that Al-qaeda or Muslims are in the spotlight so they can perpatrate acts of terrorisms knowing the spotlight won't be on them, How silly of me to suggest this when we all know muslims are always to blame for these things.
The "spotlight" is going to be on anyone who commits an act of terrorism against the West, whether it be Muslims, Gypsies, or followers of Michael Jackson. However, we all know it isn't Gypsies or angry Radio Shack employees doing the damage now.
Reply

AhlaamBella
10-21-2006, 06:31 PM
*raises one eyebrow* It isn't muslims worldwide either.
Reply

MahmoodShariff
10-22-2006, 03:01 AM
aswrwb

pray to Allaah, inshaAllaah, that the image of Islam is never low.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
10-22-2006, 04:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
You're right, we should all look to Zarqawi for enlightenment. Since those against the war get thrown in jail, shouldn't you be in there right now?
I haven't released my statements yet, hence the stay of execution. But it is kind of rediculous that a teenaged girl got a visit from the big, bad men in black over publishing a derrogatory image file of our great leader on her My Space page. Almost even more rediculous is my attorney telling me I could be accused of "Assisting in the promotion of a known terrorist" all because I swiped a more attractive still frame of him from his video! Pft!

Still, they haven't cornered the market on all the law books. We're preparing a legal defence as a contingency, based on the premise that you can't promote the cause of a known terrorist if he is deceased (eg: in the format of a documentary). All records will end at June 7th, 2006. Call it a snip off the active time line.

But my point is, no one should have to go through all this palavah to say what's on their mind. I would never deny you that. We don't agree about certain things... but I'm not trying to prove myself to you. There is no win-defeat agenda. To me, you're just a fair question. I'm just trying to answer it. If for no other reason, than so you at least understand where I'm coming from.

I suppose it helps that I'm deeply curious and interested... in what everyone has to say.

Ninth Scribe
Reply

David Gould
10-22-2006, 05:09 PM
Doodlebug, you say you wish that those with violence in their hearts could pray for peace. These sentiments are so close to not only my heart but the hearts of so many in this country...the silent majority who wish for nothing but peace and tolerance...but our voices are drowned out by extremists from all sides whether they be Islamic or BNP.(I see little difference in the violence that either of these peddle) It is indeed more than time that we came together with one voice; Muslim and Non-Muslim to pray for peace, to talk about peace, to believe in peace, to become the peace.

There is a very essentual message in the Holy Qur'an that mankind needs to listen to. It is not about death and destruction but about the building of a better world in preparation for the world to come.

Surely what is needed is not separatism but togetherness to defeat a common enemy.

After all you only kill your enemy NOT your friend.
Reply

Ninth_Scribe
10-22-2006, 05:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by David Gould
It is indeed more than time that we came together with one voice; Muslim and Non-Muslim to pray for peace, to talk about peace, to believe in peace, to become the peace.[/B]
Exactly. War is a frustration of thought/intelligence. I've studied the disputes that have caused all this dissent and they were presently badly, but they all have simple solutions. It's useless, as it is though... you'll all talk to me about these matters, but you won't talk to each other! It would simplify things so much if everyone Assembled. In one hand they must bring a Demand. In the other they must bring a Concession. Each will be expected to collect one and give the other. It's so easy a child could do it.

Ninth Scribe

BTW: Sorry if I came on too heavy in my last post. I was under the influence of Queenes Ryche's Mind Crime Live CD.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-06-2011, 08:02 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-23-2009, 07:11 PM
  3. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-03-2006, 12:03 AM
  4. Replies: 31
    Last Post: 04-12-2006, 09:39 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!