Comments on: Looking for Muslim extremists under your bed?

By: Jai

Jai — Tue, 24 Feb 2009 11:03:23 +0000

Bit late in catching up on this particular thread…..Absolutely brilliant post #161 by Don. That’s exactly the sort of brainpower and lateral thinking that’s needed in order to effectively deal with this issue.

Don, time for you to run for office. “Yes We Can” has obviously already been used by another dude, but I’m sure we could come up with a suitably snarky campaign slogan for you.

By: Don

Don — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 09:59:58 +0000

Point taken.

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 23:26:45 +0000

I did misunderstand then:

‘They celebrate, support or excuse deaths and pain in pointless ****** conflicts.’

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:55:55 +0000

guess since we’ve concluded your guidelines already excludes the government;

Do they? I missed that conclusion. Expand.

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 22:26:47 +0000

No not anything you’ve said, but a precursor to democratic development is a nation holding its destiny in its own hands and not agents of an external power, who by definition will only acknowledge its own interests.

Which is my way of saying, lets exclude groups which support dictatorships, and I guess since we’ve concluded your guidelines already excludes the government; we should explicitly exclude other types of groups too, such as thinktanks whether acting alone or in concert with external powers (allies or not).

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:58:03 +0000

Refresh, I think we more or less agree. What does acknowledge the right to self-determination. mean in the context of anything I have said?

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:16:36 +0000

Don,
If it was a choice between one or the other, the first excludes muslims as whole and your revision excludes nutters and the government.

Unless I’ve misunderstood.

One thing you could consider in your proposition is that we are not living through reasonable times. The other is to acknowledge the right to self-determination.

By: sonia

sonia — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:56:37 +0000

after all, it should be recognised that empires are/ought to be a thing of the past, or at least are recognised to be highly problematic and undemocratic!

By: sonia

sonia — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:55:15 +0000

well said don – its not unreasonable at all, but as you say, it shouldn’t apply to just one ‘group’ or any ‘group’ at all, but principles applying to anyone applying.

Re: first point –

“They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries.

i’d say this one to me is about resisting ‘empire’/ imperialism/imperialistic attitudes within the realm of governance.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:28:59 +0000

To get back on topic, if that is remotely possible, these leaked proposals seem to be about establishing criteria for which groups the government feels should be eligible for partnership/funding/ running social programmes. That's not unreasonable. Having these criteria apply only to one group is very unreasonable. Could they be tweaked to apply across the board? • They advocate a caliphate, a pan-Islamic state encompassing many countries. Tricky, as the definition of Caliphate as a state is problematic. Perhaps something along the lines of; The British government will only partner/finance/endorse groups which direct their energies towards improving the lot of UK citizens and residents, and not some big global dream. • They promote Sharia law. Easier. They seek to insinuate or introduce theocracy into the legal system. I could get behind that. • They believe in jihad, or armed resistance, anywhere in the world. This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military. They believe in jihad, or armed resistance,... Now that's just weasle words. Do they mean jihad i.e. armed resistance or jihad and any other form of armed resistance? This would include armed resistance by Palestinians against the Israeli military. Obviously. Would it also include British citizens serving with or actively supporting other, non-Palestian miltary groups? So how about; The British government will not partner/finance/endorse groups which encourage, support or endorse violence against anybody with whom we are not actually at war. • They argue that Islam bans homosexuality and that it is a sin against Allah. They argue that their religious beliefs entitle them to exemption from laws which protect the rights and dignities of others. • They fail to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan. They celebrate, support or excuse deaths and pain in pointless fucking conflicts. Obviously some work needs doing, but in principle I don't see anything wrong in laying down some rules about who you are prepared to get into bed with.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:02:52 +0000

Sam,

Depends. Do you recognise the Jordanian legal system as legitimate? Jordan sentenced Abu Qatada in absentia in 2000 to life imprisonment for his involvement in a plot to bomb tourists who would be in Jordan to attend the Millennium celebrations.

So has been found guilty of plotting murder, and sentenced.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:52:44 +0000

Has it been proven by a court of law that Qatada has killed people? Have charges been brought, has a trial taken place, has evidence been produced over his murders? Or do you simply think he deserves to be tortured to death in Jordan without any credible trial?

By: Sid

Sid — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:13:47 +0000

After all, Sid welcomes laws that allow Muslims to be deported without real reason, so surely he would welcome any move by the government to get rid of those pesky, homophobic women-hating Muslims?

No mate, I welcome laws that allow Islamists to be deported for real reasons such as for killing innocent Muslim and non-Muslim people and therefore afford their relatives some justice. Try and understand that point – it is crucial.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:09:20 +0000

Ramiie, go to Harry’s Place. There are others who hate Muslims, regardless of how religious they may or may not be, as much as you do. Being Muslim is a crime: you can enjoy being judge, jury and (in your bloodsoaked dreams) executioner in their comments sections.

By: Sam

Sam — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:06:47 +0000

Judging from Sid’s cracking open of the bubbly in response to the deporting of Abu Qatada, I would’ve thought he would be celebrating these leaked government proposals? After all, Sid welcomes laws that allow Muslims to be deported without real reason, so surely he would welcome any move by the government to get rid of those pesky, homophobic women-hating Muslims?

By: ramiie

ramiie — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 13:18:40 +0000

The threat posed by the Jihadists should not be underestimated. Just like the ridiculous Trots before them dreamt of world communism, they dream about a pan islamic state, and will continue to create mayhem as armed terrorists or intellectual terrorists, and will play the LONG GAME in order to push their noxious agenda. As a christian and right thinking westernised human being, I feel that much of what passes as Islam in the minds of said new world order Jihadists is nothing short of a declaration of war. They must be beaten militarily and intellectually everywhere in the west. They must be uncovered and challenged in our schools, universities, work places, places of leisure, in fact wherever they uncoil themselves. I dont want to wake up one day to find that some local, let alone national politician, has decided that women should consider adopt the headscarf or burka..and it could happen, if these craven leftist hand wringing apologists like some of you liberals have your way.

By: munir

munir — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:24:46 +0000

Refresh
“And following on from a pro-Israel consensus, is it essential it also has to be anti-muslim?”

No it isnt. However nearly all zionists have hoisted their petards to the anti-Muslim bandwagon and are milking it for all they’ve got on the basis of “if it makes the Arab/Muslims look bad it makes Israel look good”

This is a stupid tactic because
1) The hatred against Muslims they stir up could easily spill into hatred of Jews (perhaps theyd rather like this as it would encourage emigration to Israel)
2) It fatally prevents them ever being accepted in a region that is predominantly Muslim and Arab if they present themselves as fighters in the war against Islam or as the anthises of Arabs/Muslims.

By: cjcjc

cjcjc — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 09:53:24 +0000

Is it possible to “stir up” a consensus?

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:49:02 +0000

DavidT,

‘Frankly you are only interested in stirring up a pro Israel consensus.’

And following on from a pro-Israel consensus, is it essential it also has to be anti-muslim?

By: Refresh

Refresh — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 01:44:27 +0000

Sonia, as an anarchist what sympathy could you have with HP?