ENGLAND: Home of the Islamophobe extremists...

format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow

Are Muslims supposed to condemn every single bad thing other Muslims do? That's the impression I'm getting. If that's the case then that's just annoying.

When a White British kills a black person , it is called self defense.
When a black kills a whity is called terrorism.
A typical ignorant British mentality of judging others.

format_quote Originally Posted by GuestFellow

The problem is that soldiers are part of this war/occupation. Yes it is politicians that start these wars but it's the soldiers/military that execute the plan. They are responsible but to a certain extent. You cannot separate these two issues...

I suppose the attack has done it's job. If you are a British soldier attacking Muslims over seas you are not safe at home. It's kind of like the IRA way. Maybe young men will think twice about signing up to fight these Zionist wars. British soldiers should protect Britain NOT get involved in Zionist aggressions against Muslims. If they want to do that dirty work they should go as mercenaries like Blackwater, Black ops etc and sell their souls for a bucket of cash.

I agree, thank you.
Militaries are unfortunately necessary. The people calling the shots and using their country's military as their personal henchmen for their personal profit need to called out.

I'd love to believe they'd not volunteer for the military for the sole reason that citizens are realizing that the governments maneuvering these soldiers are not moral or to be trusted.

My son has expressed an interest in the military. I told him it is a noble thing to protect and serve; however, it is only noble to volunteer to soldier for a moral and decent government (if any still exist).

I've often wondered how correlated the crash of the American economy was with the feds need for more soldiers. With fewer job opportunities, the military often appears to be the only option out there for some.

format_quote Originally Posted by Ali Mujahidin

Come now, let's not condemn the soldiers too quickly. Their duty is just to do and die. Look to their masters for the root of the problem.

Soldiers and their masters need to be condemned. Solider are not innocent. Unless you think these are innocent?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-family.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_3356200.html



and many many more such barbaric animals!

Salaam

Another update

Britain's wars fuel terror. Denying it only feeds Islamophobia

The reason cited by the alleged Woolwich killers – the role of British troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror – has been mostly brushed aside as unseemly to discuss.

Eight years on, nothing has been learned. In the week since a British soldier was horrifically stabbed to death by London jihadists on the streets of Woolwich, it's July 2005 all over again.
David Cameron immediately rushed to set up a task force and vowed to ban "hate clerics". Now the home secretary wants to outlaw "nonviolent extremist" organisations, censor broadcasters and websites and revive plans to put the whole country's phone and web records under surveillance.

"Kneejerk" barely does it justice. As for the impact on Muslims, the backlash has if anything been worse than in 2005, when 52 Londoners were killed by suicide bombers.
As the police and a BBC reporter described the alleged killers as of "Muslim appearance" (in other words, non-white), Islamophobic attacks spiked across the country. In the first five days 10 mosques were attacked, culminating in a triple petrol bombing in Grimsby.

As politicians and the media congratulated themselves that Britain was "calmly carrying on as usual", it won't have felt like that to the Muslim woman who had her veil ripped off and was knocked unconscious in Bolton. Nor, presumably, to the family of 75-year-old Mohammed Saleem, stabbed to death in Birmingham in what had all the hallmarks of an Islamophobic attack last month – or, for that matter, the nearly two-thirds of the population who think there will be a "clash of civilisations" between white Britons and Muslims, up 9% since the Woolwich atrocity.

One key change since 2005 is the rise of the violently anti-Muslim English Defence League, given a new lease of life by Woolwich. More than 40% of Islamophobic incidents recorded by the Muslim organisation Faith Matters last year were linked to the EDL or other far-right groups. "It makes me feel I don't belong here", one Muslim community leader quotes his teenage son as telling him this week.

But almost nobody in public life mentions the war. The reason cited by the alleged Woolwich killers – the role of British troops in Afghanistan, Iraq and the war on terror – has been mostly brushed aside as unseemly to discuss. Echoing his predecessors, the prime minister insisted the Woolwich killing was "an attack on the British way of life". London mayor Boris Johnson declared there could be "no question" of blaming British foreign policy or "what Britishtroops do in operations abroad".

Instead, the problem is once again said to be "Islamism", regardless of the string of democratic Islamist governments elected from Turkey to Tunisia. Or the focus is on the "mistakes" of MI5, as if any amount of spooking could detect the determination of an enraged takfiri killer to exact revenge with kitchen knives and meat cleavers. Whatever the focus, even to mention the western wars that drive these attacks is deemed to justify them.

That is, of course, absurd. Targeting a soldier who fought in Afghanistan might not be terrorism in the sense of an indiscriminate attack on civilians. But the random butchery of an unarmed man far from the conflict by disconnected individuals who have nonviolent political alternatives is clearly unjustifiable in any significant religious or political tradition.

The fact that the US declared the war on terror to be a war without national borders and routinely targets unarmed or unidentified victims has fatally blurred those boundaries. The grisly, intimate killing of Lee Rigby was the absolute antithesis of high technology drone attacks. But both embody the degradation of the human spirit.

There can be no surprise, however, that such attacks take place. It's not just opponents of the war on terror who predicted from the start that it would fuel terrorism not fight it. The intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic did the same.The perpetrators of one attack after another, from London 2005 to Boston 2013, say they're carrying them out in retaliation for the vastly larger scale US and British killing in the Muslim world.

It's true that all kinds of personal factors and experiences help create the mentality to carry out such attacks. But as Abdul Haqq Baker – head of the south London "counter-radicalisation" outfit Street – puts it, the tipping point that has turned people to violence has been shown again and again to be episodes in the war on terror.

There is already some evidence that torture of one of the Woolwich suspects in Kenya – after which MI5 tried to recruit him – may have been such a catalyst. Azad Ali, a Muslim community activist who has advised the Metropolitan police, says there has been a pattern of official abuse of British Muslim activists in Arab countries, apparently using British-supplied intelligence, who are then pressed to work for the British security services when they return home.

What is indisputable is that there were no jihadist attacks in Britain before 9/11, itself claimed as a response to US support for Arab dictatorships, Israeli occupation and murderous sanctions on Iraq. Wars supposedly fought to keep Britain safe have been shown to do the exact opposite.

Given the bloodshed, torture, mass incarceration and destruction that US-British occupation has inflicted on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the civilian slaughter inflicted in the drone war from Pakistan to Yemen, the only surprise is that there haven't been more terror attacks.

Three years ago WikiLeaks gave a glimpse of the routine killing of Afghan civilians by British troops – as did the jailing for 18 months of a grenadier guardsman for stabbing an Afghan boy who asked him for chocolate. Now Britain is preparing to supply weapons directly to the Islamist-dominated rebels in Syria. But at home ministers want to use their "Prevent strategy" to freeze out still further nonviolent Islamist groups that have been most effective at isolating those drawn to violence.

Denial of the role of US-British wars, occupations and interventions in the Muslim world in fuelling terror attacks at home helps to get politicians off the hook. But it also plays into the hands of those blaming multiculturalism and migration, feeding racism and Islamophobia in the process. The wars should be ended because they are wrong and a failure – but also because they fuel terrorism and divide communities.

Those who carried out last week's killing are of course responsible for what they did. But those who have sent British troops to wage war in the Arab and Muslim world for more than a decade must share culpability.

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/unit...s-islamophobia

Salaam

More advise on how to respond.

Nice article. It makes a lot of sense.
Thank you for sharing.

format_quote Originally Posted by GodIsAll

I'd love to believe they'd not volunteer for the military for the sole reason that citizens are realizing that the governments maneuvering these soldiers are not moral or to be trusted.

My son has expressed an interest in the military. I told him it is a noble thing to protect and serve; however, it is only noble to volunteer to soldier for a moral and decent government (if any still exist).

I've often wondered how correlated the crash of the American economy was with the feds need for more soldiers. With fewer job opportunities, the military often appears to be the only option out there for some.

Does your son like killing animals? Have an evil streak? Hard and heartless? If the answer is yes then he will make a good soldier. Good natured people tend to have all sorts of mental problems after the horrors of battle.

He'd be a horrible soldier, truth be told. I wouldn't share that with him solely to avoid the possible installation of him trying to prove me wrong in the end.

All bias aside, he is a young man who adores everyone he gets to know.

I would not want to see him on that path, especially for a government that has proven consistently over the past several decades that their military decision and policy are ...less than noble.

I know what you're saying about evil, too. I have known many suckered into this whole "Defend us from Al-Quada, Saddam Threat" scheme. Good people who live with relentless guilt and horror.

Infinitely worse is the horror experienced by those thousands overseas who wanted nothing but to go about their daily lives.

I loathe the actions of people who kill any innocents in the name of their cause. Our "elected" officials (I have my doubts votes are even counted) need to reflect on why these people are so POed. All involved are guilty in horrid action. Admitting it and improving as a nation would make us greater, not less so.

Salaam

More analysis

The Politics of Condemnation – Blaming Muslims deflect from others

In the immediate aftermath of the killing in Woolwich on 22nd May 2013, the word ‘condemn’ was heard many times.

Muslim organisations, Imams, speakers and others condemned the act outright, before all the facts had even come in. Some made bizarre generic statements, which did not entirely make sense, like for example “these people are not from our community”. Another strangely declared opposition to terrorism affecting Japan, as well as that occurring in London. I have little doubt that those who spoke out were both shocked by the killing and were genuinely of the view that Islam did not sanction such an attack.

But the question is: Is it possible to condemn too much?

Even some non-Muslim observers commented that there was problem with the extent of the rhetoric of condemnation from Muslims. It seemed as if the Muslim’s condemning had a guilty conscience – almost as if they were protesting their innocence too much. It can perhaps be explained out of fear of how Muslims would be perceived by the wider public.

Some was by the ‘usual suspects’ – the ‘rent-a-quote’ brigade of secularists, who welcome a submissive and silenced Muslim community.

But it was clear the Western media was looking for a loud condemnation from the Muslim community – to such an extent that a Muslim is unable to comment on any related issue unless he or she prefaces a comment by words of condemnation.

Whilst speech may be free for others in Britain, it seems a Muslim needs to buy an entry ticket. Condemnation can go to excess in many ways. In the USA, after the Boston Bombing, the Muslim reaction became so exaggerated, for some prominent Imams it was not sufficient to express sympathy with the victims and say that Islam forbids such an act. They went so far that they did not want to bury one of the alleged bombers in a Muslim cemetery.

What possible harm could there be by condemning too much?

Several problems spring to mind:

The effective acceptance of collective guilt by Muslim ‘leaders’ shifts the blame of responsibility from the attacker and the thing that drove him – i.e. anger about foreign policy – to the whole Muslim community.

To condemn one death to this extent can be seen to diminish the value of the lives of thousands killed in other circumstances – for example by drone aircraft – whose killing receives little public condemnation.

If the problem is seen to lie with the Muslim community, the policies to deal with the problem will target the whole community.

Why should another Muslim expect to be grilled on something that he or she did not do? When journalists keep asking if Muslims will condemn, Muslim looks guilty, as if he has something to answer.

We need to be aware that the media posing a question can be a clever way of making an accusation against Muslims, so fuelling Islamophobia. ‘Is Abdul a danger?’ ‘Does Hussain pose a threat?’ ‘Are they a fifth column?’

The Muslim community has become a punch bag for the policies of politicians who send troops to far off lands, to kill and be killed, for no reason of national security whatsoever. The media completely ignores the politicians who send the soldiers on immoral campaigns, giving an easy ride when they take their seats in the TV studios – whilst at the same time, grilling Muslims in a climate such as this.

Rather than humiliating ministers who send other peoples’ children – rarely their own – to kill and be killed, they try to humiliate the Muslim community.

Some from our community have become like ‘battered wives’ or people who have been relentlessly bullied – once you lose self-esteem, and accept the abuse relationship the bully will step-up their pressure. There’s a lesson for all of us in how we respond to this sort of episode, and the unforeseen consequences of overreacting – and a necessity to understand and expose these belligerent practices.

http://www.hizb.org.uk/current-affairs/the-politics-of-condemnation-blaming-muslims-deflect-from-others

Bro why do you keep posting articles from a banned organization ^ that is known to have serious problems with their Aqeedah and methodology?

Muslims should be blamed when Muslims are in the wrong and are causing problems for the majority of other Muslims who don't agree with certain actions which have no basis in Islam.