So, basically I have to suffer? look, if anything, the freak that wants to cut your throat should have to suffer - noone else.
Well no. It depends if you think of it as suffering. You would have more time to practice your religion as it should be! I agree that the freak who wants to do it should suffer, but if he blows himself up, or wants to die in jail, there is little chance of that. So the ideal solution would be to make sure that he is caught first or better yet not even "created" in the sense of radicalised. How to do that? Again you would need massive co-operation from the UK Muslim community. Any sign that this is forthcoming? Not that I can see. They are all too busy blaming Blair and telling the British they had it coming for Iraq. Thus the need for unilateral solutions.
I very much doubt that the government will at any time soon implement sharia law - so there really isn't any need to feel threatened.
I do not want Sharia for myself, any children I might have, any children they might have, or any grandchildren those grandchildren of mine might have. It is not enough to say it is not going to happen soon. Happening at all is a problem. But it is not Sharia that I find threatening. It is bombings and terrorism. I do not wish to become an internet video star like Nick Berg.
Change requires two things: time and patience - in the world of the West, these two are often small in quantities. Not that this is neccesarily a negative thing might I add.
And Pakistan has these in abundance? I can think of a few changes that would not require a lot of time. I don't think the West has much patience left. I used to think this was a bad thing. I think tolerating the intolerable is worse.
Ah the wall strategy would be usefull. However, what makes you think that the wall will not fall? If people want in the West, they will find a way.
Well against a purely kafir background Muslims would tend to stand out. The problem with the radicals is that at the moment, against the background of an angry and bitter Muslim community, they do not stand out. Someone who thinks British people deserve to die has no problems fitting into British Muslim life and no one much notices. See the Sunday Times last week?
Even if a few of them get in, it would radically reduce the number of attacks. Look at the dive in Israel. It is not 100 percent effective there, but it is still very good.
During the twelve month period from August 2003 to July 2004 three suicide bombers launched attacks from areas where the fence has been completed which resulted in no deaths or injuries. In contrast during the preceding twelve months, from September 2002 to August 2003, 73 attacks were successfully carried out from these areas, in which 293 Israelis were killed and 1,950 were wounded. The decrease in casualties was not due to a decrease in attempted terrorist attacks; from August 2003 to July 2004 Israeli security forces prevented dozens of planned attacks in the final stages of their implementation and uncovered 24 explosive belts and charges intended to be used for these attacks. From July 2004 to October 2004 only one suicide bombing has resulted in casualties in areas where the barrier has been built. [17]
There is general agreement that effects to date have coincided with improved Israeli security. The cease-fire agreement of December 2005 has naturally led to a decrease in Palestinian militant attacks and has offered less opportunities for Israel to test the barrier's efficacy. The Palestinian NGO MIFTA speculates that long-term effects will create more Palestinian hostility towards Israel and that the current security benefits will be "only an illusion": "although the wall may give some immediate relief from the relentless series of terrorist attacks inflicted on the state and people of Israel, building the fence on Palestinian territory will inflame tensions in the region and do nothing to solve the crisis. ... it will give only an illusion of security to the people of Israel in the longer term." [18] On the other hand, Israeli Ambassador to U.S. Daniel Ayalon speculates that the barrier will "save the political process" and lead to long-term security because otherwise "terrorist groups have the ability to hold that process hostage because of their capability to conduct these devastating acts." [19] Lt. Col. Dotan Razili of the Israeli Defense Forces speculates that the long-term effects of a security barrier around the West Bank will be similar to the long-term security effects of the security barrier around Gaza. In an interview on the PBS program The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, he says that "we have experience in other borders... since 1996 if I'm not mistaken, no suicide bombers went out of the Gaza because we have fenced it."
[quite]The truth is, that yes, it is a muslim problem - quite clearly. However, the problem is at present in the west - simply moving muslims into the middle east won't change that. Yeah, it'll work for maybe a few months or so, but certain muslims will always dislike the West and so will always find a way to attack the west - now, i'm not supporting or justifiying their actions, no. But, i'm telling you as a human being, your solution that has been proposed wouldn't work in this case. As much as I would like it to, i'm afraid it would only make certain muslims even more angry, thus the attacks would intensify - a definate bad thing for all of us. [/quote]
The Middle East is full of Muslims who hate the West. Look at the Pew figures. Few of them get to attack the West. The 9-11 attacks happened because the US made it so easy for Saudis to visit. So imagine a situation in which Britain now has no Muslims at all. In fact no Muslims to the West of Thrace in Europe. The Middle East to the East of Thrace is full of angry and bitter Muslims. I'd hope some of them would think about why this disaster has happened, but let's not get too optimistic. Sure some Muslims would try to cross the border with Greece with the intent of doing damage. But most would fail. Those that did would have, what?, 1500 miles to cross before they reached the Channel which they would have to do undetected without anyone recognising them as Muslims? I think that Britain would be safer.
Sure they built the wall around Gaza - but has the conflict between Israel and Palestine ended? It's been a warzone for the better half of this century - what makes you so certain that by simply moving every muslim back into the middle east will solve it?
I agree that the conflict has not ended. But I no longer think it can end except in utter defeat for one side or the other. I used to think that would be Israel. The fence may make Muslims angry and frustrated, but once they see there is no effective path forward they might just start to think about peaceful solutions to their problems. Or at least alternatives. After all enough oppression and most Muslims do stop fighting. Saddam did not suffer suicide bombs. Syria is one of the safest countries in the Middle East. You mess with those governments and you pay a terrible price. It is certainly true that when Muslims were oppressed by the British they did not resort to terrorism - all those years ruling India and no Islamist terrorism. It is only once they have been invited to Britain, welcomed into the family, treated as equals that the response of some of them has been violence.
And you will find that many muslims feel the same way.
It does no good unless it achieves something. Four Muslim boys did this. Four others tried to copy them. How can we stop another four boys from doing it again? Apart from not leaving even four Muslim boys in the country.
