You’re Muslim, you must be a terrorist then


by Sunny
22nd February, 2006 at 5:05 am    

Director Michael Winterbottom has just finished making The Road to Guantanomo, a documentary-drama telling a story of the Tipton Three from their perspective. The boys were taken by the US military to Guantanomo Bay and kept their for two years before being released without charge. It opened at the Berlin Film Festival where it won awards and acclaim. Channel 4 financed it and will be showing it on 9th March.

Yesterday morning I went to its advance screening where the team confirmed an assertion first made by Craig Murray that the actors and one of the Three were repeatedly detained on the way to and back from Berlin under anti-terror laws.

On Monday The Lip published an exclusive interview with actor Rizwan Ahmed who was detained for longer (now released as a statement by C4), followed by The Guardian and BBC Online with more details yesterday.

The police statement said: “Part of the counter-terrorism act allows us to stop and examine people if something happens that might be suspicious.” Meaning: you know…. if they happen to have beards and brown skin…that sort of thing. A bit of harassment will go a long way to combat terrorism I’m sure.

I shall be reviewing the film soon. Meanwhile the Indy and Times have more from the Q&A session.

A point they both omitted: Winterbottom called for Gitmo to be closed, but added that the facility seemed to be the “public image” of detainees following Afghanistan’s invasion designed to attract all the attention. A smokescreen if you may, to deflect attention from the hardcore elements they want to deal with in other ways in secret jails.

Given the recent uncovering of “extraordinary rendition“, this certainly seems plausible. The stats speak for themselves. Funny then, that I’m forced to agree with Jack Straw once again.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Civil liberties,Current affairs,Party politics






54 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Bijna — on 22nd February, 2006 at 8:12 am  

    > were repeatedly detained

    Sounds like the guy was wearing a dress.

  2. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 10:41 am  

    There’s a simple answer – get rid of the beard, focus on the ‘tache and stick to Bollywood.

  3. PapaHomer — on 22nd February, 2006 at 11:17 am  

    I’ll post this again as it didn’t get a response in the other thread.

    “Sunny, will you be asking Mr Winterbottom what he thinks Messr’s Iqbal, Ahmed & Rasul were really doing in Afghanistan at the time they were picked up American special forces? And what to do you, personally think they were doing there? From what i’ve read, the film does a nice job of skirting round some of the unpalatable truths.”

    Ok, so did you ask? Do you care? And are you really naive enough to believe that the Tipton 3 were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time?

  4. Don — on 22nd February, 2006 at 11:33 am  

    The way the Tipton Three were treated in Gitmo was appalling, but given their Afghan jaunt, being stopped at airports is scarcely an outrage.

    Rizwan Ahmed’s article gives the distinct impression that the police were unsure of their ground, badly briefed and uncordinated. But I suspect that the reason they stopped these guys had more to do with the afghan connection than beards and complexion.

    I’m not saying racial profiling doesn’t happen, just that there was another factor here. There seems to have been clumsiness and a certain rudeness on the part of the police. By all means lodge a complaint, that’s why the system is there, but it’s not all that sinister, surely.

  5. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 12:31 pm  

    I wish liberals would be really honest about the complexities of the situations we are finding ourselves in these days.

    For example, Gitmo is an affront to natural justice, its continuing existence is wrong and it should be closed down, its methods discontinued. It is a stain on America and it can never be defended. This is a festering sore and the arrogance that its existence and continuation points to is amazing.

    But why does Michael Winterbottom have to say that “They were just ordinary British teens who got caught up in these events”

    They were not just ordinary British teens. Ordinary British teens do not sign up for a Jihad and run to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban after being recruited in Karachi mosques. The case for Gitmo being closed is irrefutable. But why the need to romanticise and ignore the reality of who is being defended?

    Why be a sap? Because Winterbottom is a sap for believing that the ‘Tipton Three’ were just a bunch of ordinary lads having a lark in Kandahar. Because it presents a more complex picture if you acknowledge that, doesnt it? But there is no need to baulk at this – it is perfectly feasible and legitimate to say that two wrongs do not make a right, that no matter what they did or believed, the injustice of Gitmo is a stain on the face of America, because of the need for due process and justice and even Jihadis deserve to be treated with dignity and honour. This is NON NEGOTIABLE. Charge individuals with crimes, or release them, and keep those charged with crimes in humane conditions.

    The Tipton Three belong in a line of homegrown Jihadis that stretches back to suicide bombers in Kashmir, the mastermind of the Daniel Pearl murder, the shoe bombers, the Israel suicide bombers, the London bombers, the list goes on and on and on.

    I will respect a liberal who acknowledges this and makes the case that despite this Gitmo is wrong. But I will always suspect the motives of somebody who is afraid of the context and shading. I will always think they are Jihadi-sympathetic or just a clueless sap.

  6. Bijna — on 22nd February, 2006 at 12:51 pm  

    Gitmo is a necessary evil.

    If you put the Jihadi’s in a normal prison,
    in no time they will raise their Mahdi army
    and take over the prison.

  7. Rohin — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:07 pm  

    Hear hear Jay.

  8. Bijna — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:27 pm  

    > Jihadi-sympathetic or just a clueless sap.

    One theory is that left people like a strong (and of course smart) leader under which every1 is equal.

    They only replaced Communism with Islam.

  9. Bijna — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:28 pm  

    …. I dont think they full understand Islam.

  10. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:34 pm  

    They were not just ordinary British teens. Ordinary British teens do not sign up for a Jihad and run to Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban after being recruited in Karachi mosques. The case for Gitmo being closed is irrefutable. But why the need to romanticise and ignore the reality of who is being defended?

    There is no evidence at all that they “signed up for jihad”. If it was the case, then they’d all be in Gitmo for a lot longer.

    The Americans thought the boys were at a rally in Afghanistan in 2000 with Osama. Turns out one was working at Currys during that time, and the other two had minor mis-demeanours. HArdly your religious types.

    There are plenty of complex reasons given for why they would end up in afghanistan. Because it was cheap (2.5)… because people in Pakistan were all talking about going to afghanistan to help the brothers so to speak with aid… people wanted to help the afghanis against the impending american attacks… etc etc… or maybe just a sense of adventure since people trvale between the two countries almost freely.

    The point being, why the automatic assumption the boys were out to wage jihad against the americans?

  11. Vikrant — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:40 pm  

    For example, one can hardly s’pose they were on a tourist jaunt with Northern Alliance-Taliban slugging it out.
    Also given the fact that two British Moslem’s had previously blown themselves up in Kashmir and Israel werent Americans justified in assuming that they were there to wage jihad?

  12. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:43 pm  

    The point being, why the automatic assumption the boys were out to wage jihad against the americans?

    Given the context and consistency of British Muslims engaging in jihadic activities, and that Asif Iqbal says “The preacher [at a Karachi mosque] was saying we should help the Afghan people in whatever way we can. So we got a bus and off we went.”“, it is not unreasonable to suspect that this is exactly what they were doing.

    Refer to my previous post. Guantanamo should be closed. But the ‘Tipton Three’ make chumps out of people like Michael Winterbottom.

  13. Don — on 22nd February, 2006 at 1:58 pm  

    The most charitable explanation for their presence in Afghanistan (which I am not too inclined to accept) is that they were very, very stupid.

    Stupidity on such a scale has consequences, one of which will be delays at airports for you and anyone travelling with you.

    The gitmo aspect is seperate, I’m sure everyone here is pretty much of one mind on that; it is a disgrace to a democracy that such a place exists. But, even without an ‘ automatic assumption the boys were out to wage jihad ‘ they have made themselves legitimate objects of suspicion. They should factor that into their travel plans.

  14. Siddharth — on 22nd February, 2006 at 2:17 pm  

    So, yours is an assumption then Jay? Thought as much. But you can’t be blamed for the assumptive reasoning that we’ve been fed by the authorities. So given there are no counter-narratives (which is what Michael Winterbottom is bravely trying to portray), it cheerfully follows that thats the received perception we should accept.

    Prior to the USS Cole terrorist attack in October 2000, bin Laden, who was later made culpable and who accepted responisibility, was a friend of the US. Why? Because he had organised many thousands of millions of dollars engaging people and facilities in the fight against the USSR in the Afghan front. Russia, who had invaded Afghanistan in 1979, fell apart as totalitarian state in the 1990s, not because, as Americans would like us to believe, there was something inherently inferior about communism as such (debatable, I know), but because it had haemmoraged untold billions in the ‘Afghan Trap’. The Afghan Trap, so called by the Zbigniew Brzinskini, was a tacit ploy by the US and the CIA to inject counter-revolutionary activity into Russia with the help of the Islamists. These Islamists being fronted and organised by the Bin Laden (because he had access to big money) and the Moujahedin.

    Prior to 2000 hundreds of Muslims had entered Afhanistan through Pakistan (as did the the Tipton Three) to fight with their Moujahideen “brethren” with the full compliance of the US authorities who were only too happy to have this human flood of self-motivated conscripts coming in to fight their war against Communism. For the Muslims, it was a fight to free the afghan brothers from Russia. The British authorities were also well aware of the hundreds who made their way to Afghanistan from Britain.

    Cut to September 9/11. Bin Laden is suddenly public enemy number one and every single one of the happy conscripts is a potential jihadist terrorist ready to run amok in the West in their thousands with their US military-issue rocket launchers and their stinger missiles. The USA invades Afghanistan in 2001 and all mercenary fighters is an anti-Western Terrorist with links to a secret worldwide terrorist called al-Qaeda.

    There’s an over-simplification and not to mention a chronological problem here that we have to be aware of. And its far more complicated, with far more players including our own governments, who are complicit in the situation that we are in now. But that besides the point.

    The point is – is every single detainee in Guantanamo a bona-fide terrorist? Or is Gitmo really just a shop front for the American tax payer to believe that her government is on top of the terrorist problem?

  15. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 2:21 pm  

    So, yours is an assumption then Jay? Thought as much. But you can’t be blamed for the assumptive reasoning that we’ve been fed by the authorities. So given there are no counter-narratives (which is what Michael Winterbottom is bravely trying to portray), it cheerfully follows that thats the received perception we should accept.

    Sid, I don’t assume anything. Don’t weave me into the spoon-fed-by-the-authorities tapestry you build up. I have critical intelligence and I use it. Honestly, spare me that line.

  16. PapaHomer — on 22nd February, 2006 at 2:32 pm  

    Are you being willfully obtuse Sunny? I never took you for a fool. Shafiq Rasul was captured after the battle @ Qalai Janghi fortress. You know, the one where the Taliban prisoners revolted after tearing a CIA man and their guards to pieces. The revolt was supressed by american & british special forces with the help of the northern allliance. It was all over the tv and newspapers so i figure you would remember it. It was the same battle that the so called ‘American Taliban’ John Lind was captured in. You think Rasul was there providing ‘aid’? Don’t make me laugh. He was there for Jihad. The reason he is out of Guantanamo is because the Americans had no real crime they could charge him with. ‘Legal limbo’ was the oft used expression no? He wasn’t an Al-Qaeda member, so of no intelligence value. They let him/them go as a favour to Blair, because the human rights lobby was doing so much bleating at home. He is still a criminal and a traitor because he took up arms agains british soldiers, and the only reason he is free is to appease naive fools who think he just stumbled onto the battlefield (as you do). I wonder how much of my tax money goes on watching him the rest of his life? How many MI5 officers keeping an eye on him that could be doing something else? It’s a shame he wasn’t on the receiving end of one of the numerous 500 lb bombs they dropped to quell the revolt.

  17. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 2:35 pm  

    If he was found in the field fighting against British troops why could he not be charged with treason?

  18. jamal — on 22nd February, 2006 at 3:07 pm  

    The title of this article says it all.

    After Santa and the Easter Bunny, it is one of the biggest misconceptions widely believed today.

  19. Rohin — on 22nd February, 2006 at 3:42 pm  

    Santa and the Easter Bunny are terrorists?

  20. Jai — on 22nd February, 2006 at 3:51 pm  

    Of course Santa’s a terrorist. Sliding down people’s chimneys and leaving strange parcels lying around. Send him to Gitmo, I say.

    As for the Easter Bunny, that twitchy nose is a dead giveaway. He’s a candidate for extraordinary rendition if ever there was one.

    No doubt the Tooth Fairy will soon be appearing in a televised statement on Al-Jazeera too, condemning infidel Western children for such abominations like leaving teeth under their pillows in return for unearned income. Shocking.

  21. K — on 22nd February, 2006 at 3:59 pm  

    This incident is not about the Tipton 3 and the background to their incarceration. The concern is that an actor who portrayed one of them in a film was detained on unspecified grounds and asked about his political views.

    Why was he detained? By association? Where is the evidence or even reasonable suspicion that the actor (let me say that again – actor) was in any way sympathisers with terrorists or terrorism? Of course, that matters little because the recent anti-terror legislation does not require even reasonable suspicion.

    The officers who detained them seemed uncertain themselves as to the basis of the custody or the reasons for their questions. If you read the interview with the actor, you will see that he was asked whether he got into acting to highlight the plight of Muslims and whether he thought the Iraq war was wrong. So his choice of profession (acting) and his political views were grounds for suspicion.

    As a lawyer who was against the Iraq war I should really watch out then. Oh hang on – since I’m white and female I’m fine.

  22. PapaHomer — on 22nd February, 2006 at 4:23 pm  

    Oh please, spare me the sob story. He was detained for less than an hour because he caught a flight to and from berlin with a jihadi former inmate of guantanamo, who is obviously being watched by the security services. I would hazard a guess that these were SIS rather than special branch because, as others have pointed out, there was a rather clumsy attempt to recruit him as an informer.

    “She then asked me whether I would mind officers contacting me regularly in the future, “in case, for example, you might be in a café, and you overhear someone discussing illegal activities”.

    I don’t think his profession or his political views were a cause for suspicion, his choice of company however was. Forgive me if i don’t shed any tears over his ‘terrible ordeal’.

  23. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 4:36 pm  

    Perhaps this discussion should now move up the food chain and onto Harry’s Place. Its definitely got that feel about it.

    Sunny – why don’t you stick to Asian things like Bollywood and avoid the daily feeding frenzy.

    Jay you’re critical thinking has shocked me.

  24. Rohin — on 22nd February, 2006 at 4:41 pm  

    Refresh you’re quite welcome to move up the foodchain. If we all patronise the same blogs then no new ones will succeed.

    Last time I checked, the entire Tipton three were Asian, as are the actors, so you can hardly level an accusation of not sticking to an Asian remit. And you’ll be able to count the number of Bollywood-related posts on PP on one hand and I’m confident the vast majority of people on here would like to keep it that way.

  25. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 4:56 pm  

    Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough.

    Each time there is a discussion on muslims we end up with the same sterile debate. Even with Guantanamo we have contributors who wave their liberal flag saying that its a boil on the face of democracy, and yet those that have had the pure fortune of being released are then to be marked out for life.

    And as for the actor(s) being targetted – well I am surprised he even chose to share the same plane as the Tipton Three. Or would that have looked even more suspicious?

    Its this I find very difficult to understand – ‘Guantanamo must close – but if you have been in there then there must have been a reason.’

    Unless I’ve misunderstood, Rohin, you fall in that category.

    No such thing as innocent unless proven guilty – not a progressive argument. Face it, its a charade.

    As for Sunny raising the subject in the manner he does is absolutely correct. Its the feeding frenzy that I find appalling.

  26. mirax — on 22nd February, 2006 at 5:08 pm  

    “Its this I find very difficult to understand – ‘Guantanamo must close – but if you have been in there then there must have been a reason.’”

    Oh you definitely misunderstood then, Refresh. Read again.

  27. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2006 at 5:16 pm  

    Heh, is it any wonder that Muslims feel marginalised.

    If he was found in the field fighting against British troops why could he not be charged with treason?

    Lets get a few facts out of the way first.

    There is no evidence that the Tipton Three were found fighting anyone.

    There is no evidence AT ALL to suggest they were in Afghanistan for Jihad.

    You guys also don’t know the atmosphere in Pakistan at the time. The assumption is – if you were Pakistani and had crossed over to Pakistan at the time then you must be a terrorist and be locked up and tortured. Damn what anyone else says.

    The motives of what made the cross over are complex, and maybe there was an element of “yeah man, let’s see what’s gwaaning in Afghanistan and maybe we’ll able to do a good deal or two and come home as better Muslims” yada yada. Or maybe they’d just smoked some dodgy marijuana in Pak and decided to cross over the border for a laugh.

    To be honest I don’t feel a huge amount of sympathy for them, but I feel that if you’ve done something wrong, then you should be tried legitimately, not chucked in a fucking prison in the middle of nowhere and tortured (spare me the arguments please, there is plenty of evidence for torture).

    The whole point of a liberal democracy, in case some self-proclaimed defenders of freedom have fogotten, is that people are treated according to the law and people are afforded civil liberties no matter how badly they behave. It ain’t just about screaming Freedom of Speech when some cartoons get published.

    PapaHomer:
    Oh please, spare me the sob story. He was detained for less than an hour because he caught a flight to and from berlin with a jihadi former inmate of guantanamo, who is obviously being watched by the security services.

    You kind of forget that the police here let them go after ONE DAY because they could not convince anyone these guys were ‘jihadi’. They were petty criminals and Curry’s workers for fucks sake.

    The guy detained was an actor, and the way the police acted, if its as if this is a bloody Pakistani or an Indian jail cell. Where is the legitimacy and accountability? And you’re supposed to be defending democracy? Maybe you’d feel better off in Pakistan or something Papa where this is standard behaviour with the police. Then no one will come to you with a sob story because they’re used to police brutality.

  28. K — on 22nd February, 2006 at 5:17 pm  

    Again, a statement that this is about a “sob story” is to miss the point entirely. This is about the potential misuse of police powers to detain someone. Use and abuse of police powers should be of concern to everyone in civil society.

    The detention of someone without a legal basis for that detention has been a common law crime (false imprisonment) for centuries. The length of the detention does not change that. There are strict rules regarding the powers of police to detain without falling foul of this common law crime, mostly codified in PACE, a statute brought in during the 80′s which codified what came before it.

    The checks and balances of a democratic society require those rules to be complied with so that police powers are not abused. A consequence of that is that the populace trust the police and do not fear being mistreated by them; a consequence beneficial to all that could be lost if the police start acting as though they are suspicious of people on the basis of their political beliefs.

    “Terrible ordeal” is a phrase used by no one except you PapaHomer. The statement of Rizwan Ahmed is, as far as I can see, calm and measured. It does not slip into hyperbole or polemic. It is of little use to anyone to slip into this form of discourse, so please refrain.

  29. PapaHomer — on 22nd February, 2006 at 5:20 pm  

    I don’t think anybody is saying everyone who has been in Gitmo is guilty. Innocent people end up in jail everywhere. Saying that everyone who has been released was innocent is equally foolish. There is plenty of evidence that a number of gitmo releasees have returned to the fight. Ex-Gitmo detainees return to terror.

  30. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 5:35 pm  

    Refresh

    Yes – you need to read that stuff again dude.

  31. Rohin — on 22nd February, 2006 at 6:32 pm  

    “No such thing as innocent unless proven guilty”

    In Star Trek, Q (a kind of demi-god) changed the law so that everyone was guilty until proven innocent. He said “what’s the point in trying the innocent?”

    That’s all I have to add for now.

  32. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 6:37 pm  

    Mirax, Jay guide me – what do I need to read again?

    Sunny, thank you for that – you read my thoughts.

    K, absolutely correct.

    Where will this spiral take us? That is the question and believe it or not we should all be fearful of ourselves and our capacity to inflict harm on our fellow citizens.

    These are issues of huge proportions, for muslims living in Europe its a question of how they are going to be ‘dealt’ with. For others it will be question of what they are capable of – and then there is the middle ground – the brown ones who will have to declare themselves as ‘not muslim’, and worse have to join in with the ribbing and the ridiculing of muslims to prove their ‘right to be here’.

    For me its a question of what will become of my children, my grandchildren, my family who are muslim, christian and atheist. Me my neighbours, my friends who are sikh, hindu, jewish. Should I not worry when people on here marshall all their intellectual resources – to split hairs or dance on the head of a pin.

    Today I read in the Independent that the BNP will be using the ‘cartoons’ on their racist posters for the local elections in May.

    Up until Monday, I could not find the appropriate description for those cartoons, then someone described them perfectly: They are Racist Posters, which in another time and another place I am sure supporters of this blog would have gone out to tear them down.

    You don’t have to look at muslims, only yourselves to see what you could become.

    Perhaps some of you can feel safe that this time there will be no Nuremburg.

    See it as hyperbole or polemic – but these are my real fears.

  33. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 6:43 pm  

    Refresh

    Right, so our discussion is in the context of the long march to the gas chambers of Bradford and Slough, which will appear in the next decade or so, right?

    You don’t have to look at muslims, only yourselves to see what you could become

    Yeah – I have the jackboots ready to be taken out and polished.

    Get a grip man! Don’t try to circumscribe discussion because of your lack of perspective.

  34. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 6:46 pm  

    Jay, somehow its an argument I wish you would win. But somehow I fear the perspective portrayed and entertained here.

    Please re-assure me.

  35. Jai — on 22nd February, 2006 at 6:55 pm  

    I doubt the UK will head in the direction being alluded to here, unless there are a series of further 7/7-type attacks, and/or more “behead those who insult Islam”-type protests which attract a sufficient number of supporters.

    Large numbers of people allegedly supporting the idea of Shariah being implemented in the UK, along with Anjem Choudhary and his “colleagues” repeatedly appearing on mainstream news channels and openly declaring their aspirations to turn the UK into an Islamic state, probably doesn’t help matters.

  36. Jai — on 22nd February, 2006 at 6:56 pm  

    PS For the benefit of Refresh, let me just confirm that I am not “Jay Singh” (ie. the different spelling of my name is not a typo).

    However, my namesake usually makes some astute and pertinent points, so let’s see what he has to say too.

  37. Rohin — on 22nd February, 2006 at 7:02 pm  

    Jai, this “I’m not Jay Singh” thing has reached epic proportions now! Ever since you altered your screen name, I think it’s quite clear! I know you’re just trying to be clear, but you’ve said it so many times it makes me giggle!

    Singh thing. I like that.

  38. Jay Singh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 7:03 pm  

    Refresh

    What can I say to reassure you? I don’t have anything to say to reassure you if that is the way you are inclined to think.

    Do you really think people are motivated here to get at Muslims indiscriminately? There is a problem and the reason why the Muslim far-right has to be tackled and their apologists too is because they push us all to the precipice where the real Nazi dogs are salivating ready for us to fall so they can attack. This has to be dealt with.

  39. Refresh — on 22nd February, 2006 at 7:16 pm  

    Jai, how can anyone give assurances that any of the above won’t happen. Whoever Anjem Choudhary is – he must not be given the platform.

    I am sick to death of them. I was seriously disturbed by that nut-case who ran off to Lebanon (I think linked also to Anjem Choudhary) – only then to be back in my living room giving interviews courtesy Channel 4 and others.

    As for the idea of having sharia in certain areas – well how much of that am I to believe? But then the real question is how much of that does the general public believe, and will it feature in the BNP propaganda? I suspect it will be at the top of their list – given they will be targetting the poorest communities in the UK.

  40. Sid D H Arthur — on 22nd February, 2006 at 9:00 pm  

    Jai, this “I’m not Jay Singh” thing has reached epic proportions now!

    Second in epical proportion only to Jai’s other plea to the great unwashed:

    “I’m not a Muslim. All Asians are not Muslims.”

    I always pee myself when I see that.

  41. Sid D H Arthur — on 22nd February, 2006 at 9:03 pm  

    Sounds like the guy was wearing a dress.

    I always tell those cross-dressing Muslims that the beards have got to go.

  42. Bijna — on 22nd February, 2006 at 10:39 pm  

    > Heh, is it any wonder that Muslims feel marginalised.

    It seems seems feeling marginalised is part of the
    Muslim DNA. They are very quick to use the racist
    word, even if they are wrong, for example when
    stopped while boarding a train without a ticket.

    > Today I read in the Independent that the BNP
    > will be using the ‘cartoons’ on their racist
    > posters for the local elections in May.

    Did I just spoke about the overuse of the
    word racist by Muslims?

    It sounds like BNP stands for freedom.
    At the moment the cartoons are one of the
    biggest symbols of freedom.

    Its not racist to want freedom.
    The freedom to have a piglet lunch box.
    The freedom to have a Yahoo nick called Callahan
    (it contains Allah so its banned).

    Many small new rules trinkling in, and all because Muslims are blowing stuff up.

    Ah yes, I must be racist.

  43. Bijna — on 22nd February, 2006 at 10:41 pm  

    I know you are not making these rules or blowing stuff up, so I am wating my time here :]

  44. Sid D H Arthur — on 22nd February, 2006 at 10:43 pm  

    It sounds like BNP stands for freedom.

    Thats the sound of covers blowing.

  45. Sunny — on 22nd February, 2006 at 11:03 pm  

    Refresh, I think being paranoid about the Holocaust part 2 is going over the top, specially as the liberal and left tradition in western societies is quite strong. The amount of times I’ve heard in the last few weeks is astounding… as if some massive gas chambers were being re-built for no particular reason.

    But I am similarly worried about the de-humanisation of Muslims in a way that has happened for longer to young blacks in this country. “He’s driving a beamer, he must be a criminal”, sort of attitude. Muslims get stopped by the police at airports, young black kids get stopped every day much more than other minority groups.

    Homer:
    I don’t think anybody is saying everyone who has been in Gitmo is guilty. Innocent people end up in jail everywhere. Saying that everyone who has been released was innocent is equally foolish.

    Someone did mention above that the guy detained was just an actor. It might help reading how we was treated then.

    Secondly, your argument is slightly bizarre. I assume then that if a person is not found guilty of murder, there is a chance they may murder in the future, therefore they should be treated with suspicion all the time? You do realise this has the opposite impact of radicalising men and making them hate the system even more?

    The Tipton Three and others have become more religious thanks to the American administration. I expect you don’t really care about that?

  46. Sunny — on 23rd February, 2006 at 1:32 am  

    Its not racist to want freedom.
    The freedom to have a piglet lunch box.
    The freedom to have a Yahoo nick called Callahan
    (it contains Allah so its banned).

    None of those are actually banned… but to make out as if your world is threatened because you believe in the Muslim bogeyman Bijna – that’s just downright stupid. and obtuse, and bigoted.

    I know you are not making these rules or blowing stuff up, so I am wating my time here :]

    You’re wasting your time here anyway. You don’t come here to discuss, only to spread bigotry. 99% of the time people ignore you.

  47. Refresh — on 23rd February, 2006 at 2:13 am  

    Sid – I suspect there are plenty more covers that need to be blown.

    Sunny, I hope you are correct about it just being paranoia. I am intrigued by your comment as to how many others are thinking the same.

  48. PapaHomer — on 23rd February, 2006 at 9:39 am  

    It’s your arguments that are bizarre Sunny, not mine. Smoked some dodgy weed in Pakistan and just decided to cross the border? Have a word with yourself. Does the injustice that is Guantanamo make you so angry that it intereferes with your ability to think clearly? Maybe you have been smoking some of that dodgy spliff yourself. I have no doubt at all that prosecution was mooted for the Tipton 3, but considering how difficult it would have been to secure a conviction the idea was canned. Do you think the security services are wasting time and resources watching these people because they are brown? The Tipton 3 are innocent in the eyes of the law…that has already been established, and this isn’t a courtroom. That does not mean that they weren’t Jihadis. Your patently absurd excuses won’t wash. What does being a Curry’s worker have to do with anything? Asif Mohammed Hanif worked in a duty free shop at Heathrow airport…it didn’t stop him immolating himself and 3 other people in a Tel-Aviv bar. Occams razor applies, and no amount of obfuscation on your part will change that. I’m happy that the security services are making life difficult for these people. Rizwan is an actor..so what? He’s still associating with Jihadis. So they leant on him a little and called him a ‘fucker’. He did exactly the right thing..he was obviously prepared for it considering how quickly he managed to get hold of Clive Stafford-Smith and Gareth Pierce. This weekend i’m going to Amsterdam, stoner capital of the world. There’s a strong possibilty that on my return i will get pulled by customs, have my person and my luggage seached, and be asked detailed questions about what i got up to while i was there. Should I do what most people do in this situation, which is answer their questions politely and wait for them to let me leave? Or play billy big-balls and immediately ask to speak to a human rights lawyer? How do you think those customs offices will react if i do that? Somethings tells me the rubber gloves will be on before i could say “but i don’t smoke officer!”

  49. SirB — on 23rd February, 2006 at 11:27 am  

    Zionism is the problem, not Islam.

    Lets taken the causes not the symtoms.

    Dot heads please note.

  50. Jai — on 23rd February, 2006 at 11:27 am  

    I agree that the “Holocaust 2″ idea is a little paranoid. It’s pretty unrealistic to think that Western nations — at least the US and the UK — will start building gas chambers and initiate industrial-scale slaughters of their Muslim populations. I just don’t see that happening here; also, it’s worth bearing in mind that post-9/11 and post-7/7, there were not mass riots or murders of Muslims in these countries. You can bet that the response by the rest of the population would have been quite different if such terrorist atrocities had taken place in (for example) Mumbai or New Delhi, certainly if there had been mass civilian fatalities.

    As I said in my previous post, it would require a series of further attacks (or one really horrific, major incident) for the local governments to take more extreme measures. “Gas chambers etc” — hell no, but in the worst case scenario I can foresee mass deportations, although it would take a hell of a lot for matters to reach that extreme. And that would only occur if it was proven beyond any doubt that, at the time, there is a sufficient degree of treasonous support & activity amongst the MAJORITY of local Muslims for them to be a clear & present threat to national security. Which, of course, is not the case.

    On a more international level, I do think that the jihadists underestimate the lengths that Western nations will go to in order to defend their citizens and to protect their way of life, if they are pushed to that extreme. Again, this doesn’t mean Nazi-style exterminations or concentration camps etc, but there is a possibility of more radical military actions if there are no other options. There are precedents for this, especially WW2. In any case, Western countries and their populations are a lot tougher than the jihadists think, and although — at present — they are actually not being as heavy-handed as they could be (certainly compared to how some other countries would react if in the same position), they would not be willing to go down easily. If the worst came to worst, I can imagine them taking some very difficult military decisions in the interests of self-defence.

  51. Sunny — on 23rd February, 2006 at 1:27 pm  

    Does the injustice that is Guantanamo make you so angry that it intereferes with your ability to think clearly?

    Not really PapaHomer.

    Maybe you have been smoking some of that dodgy spliff yourself.

    I have been partial to the odd spliff occasionally but that only makes me think better. Though I haven’t smoked for months now so I can’t say it applies in this case :)

    I have no doubt at all that prosecution was mooted for the Tipton 3, but considering how difficult it would have been to secure a conviction the idea was canned

    Yes, because they had nothing to base their convictions on. The fact they wanted a conviction doesn’t imply culpability. Try and remember that sometimes.

    That does not mean that they weren’t Jihadis. Your patently absurd excuses won’t wash

    But you’re clearly sure they are, just because they went to Afghanistan? It seems you’re the one looking for a bogeyman, not me. I’m not making excuses, you’re simply pointing the finger without evidence. I’m just saying you don’t know what went on inside their heads.

    What does being a Curry’s worker have to do with anything?
    Because the Americans were sure he was in Afghanistan in 2000. But it was proven he was working in the UK at the time.

    Rizwan is an actor..so what? He’s still associating with Jihadis.

    By being an actor? You’re off your fucking trolley. Get a grip. If I portray a murderer in a drama tomorrow I should be questioned for associating with murderers? Like I said, Saudi Arabians are more likely to pander to your way of thinking.

    he was obviously prepared for it considering how quickly he managed to get hold of Clive Stafford-Smith and Gareth Pierce.

    Given that he was travelling with Michael Winterbottom, that’s hardly too difficult. If you’re considering becoming a lawyer, I’d look for another day job.

    This weekend i’m going to Amsterdam, stoner capital of the world. There’s a strong possibilty that on my return i will get pulled by customs, have my person and my luggage seached, and be asked detailed questions about what i got up to while i was there

    Really? I’ve been to AmDam quite a few times now, never happened to me. Do they have your name on file as a regular stoner, because you certainly sound like it by the logic of your post.

  52. PapaHomer — on 23rd February, 2006 at 3:06 pm  

    You are still being deliberately obtuse. Like i said, this isn’t a court of law and i can’t prove a thing. The evidence may be circumstantial but it speaks for itself. Your suggestion that Shafiq Rasul somehow ended up at the Qalai Janghi fortress with a bullet wound in his shoulder ‘by mistake’ is a fucking joke. And you call my logic unsound and say i’m off my trolly? You’re right, i don’t know what went on inside their heads but i can take a good guess. It certainly wasn’t to help the ‘afghan people’. Your little scenario about portraying a murderer is full of holes too. Lets say just for the sake of argument the murderer you are playing is a mafioso. In order to research the part you spend time with a number of mafiosi. Those mafiosi are currently being investigated for serious crimes. Would the police be justified in asking you a few questions? Maybe even asking you to provide them with a little inside knowledge? Not in your eyes i guess. Re The Dam, i have a friend who has been pulled the last 2 times he arrived back in the UK from there. He is a dodgy looking so and so though…maybe you’re too pretty?

  53. TOM VARNDELL — on 18th March, 2006 at 10:19 am  

    AS USUAL CHANNEL 4 TAKES SIDES WITH THE TIPTON TALIBAN.I’D EXPECT NOTHING LESS FROM WESTERN MEDIA OBSESSED WITH ISLAMIC TERRORISTS HUMAN RIGHTS OVER NON MOSLEMS.
    THESE ISLAMISTS ARE NOT AS INNOCENT OR GULLIBLE AS YOU CONVENIENTLY PORTRAYED THEM.
    LORD HAW HAW WOULD BE PROUD!FANCY COLLORATING WITH AN ENEMY POTENTIALLY WORSE THAN THE NAZIS.FANCY BEING THE CARRIER OF THIS MISINFORMATION.ARE YOU ALL IN LEAGUE WITH AL JAZREIA.DO YOU HONESTLY BELIEVE THESE TIPTON 3 WHO SURPRISE SURPRISE ALWAYS TURN OUT TO BE MOSLEMS,JUST AS ALL TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE WEST ARE ALWAYS PERPETRATED BY MOSLEMS,WERE JUST IN THE WRONG PLACE.I KNOW THEY ARE GUILTY.THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FREED FROM AFGHANISTAN.THIS IS THE AMERICANS MISTAKE.THESE SO CALLED PAKISTANI MOSLEMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT TO ROT IN AN AFGHANI JAIL OR BETTER STILL NOT BEEN TAKEN PRISONER AT ALL.

  54. Don — on 18th March, 2006 at 10:46 am  

    Sorry Tom, didn’t catch that. Could you speak up?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.