And so the UN Resolutions and international Law must have be completely wrong ? What an ignorant and ridiculous position to take? The reality on the ground is that Hamas was voted in only AFTER 40years of increasingly bad oppression? the Oppressed have become more and more fervent in seeking freedom. You are quite comfortably side-stepping the issue of occupation. Very convenient i might add!

Israelis think that the whole Arab world is after their destruction and the killing of Jews and if they give the Palestinians autonomy, it will only quicken their own deaths because Hamas will have more power. That much is obvious.

And so lets continue the oppression of palestine? Is that your position? lmao!

Hasnt US – Isreal – UK – Palestinians etc stated that there should be a 2 state solution? To what end? In the end, Hamas were voted in just 2 years ago…notice that previous leaderships in Palestine wanted a two state solution too and Isreal did what…yes carried on occupying! All mouth no action?

You think you’re the only one who is the victim? You think Palestinians are the only ones feeling under attack?

Not at all. The facts speak for themselves. Have a look at the death tolls of each respective people, the picture is clear as to who is attacking who! And that doesnt even take into account the effects of occupation in terms of denying basic human rights. You’re completely ignoring the oppressed and the effect/affects of occupation.

So above, all you’ve done is justified terrorism by saying the Palestinians have no choice.

Err no. Im not justifying terrorism. Are you saying only one side is committing terrorism?? It seems to me that you are saying isreal is not committing terrorism thro occupation, despite civilian population centres being deliberatly targeted but if palestinians do the same lets label that as terrorism. Let be completely unequivocal here. If terrorism is the use of terror against civilians then Isreals policies can be called ‘State Terrorism’ and that my friend is the crux of this matter. That BOTH sides are terrorists. Hence, if there is going to be a solution then ONLY international law can clear up the mess. And that is why UN Resolutions 242 ought to followed right now. If not. Then isreael ought to be punished in exactly the same manner as Iraq was when it invaded Kuwait. No amount of acadamic debate will change the facts on the ground!

Israelis meanwhile justify the wall and the economic blockade saying they have no choice either.

No-one has a problem with ANY wall, the issue more importantly is where the wall is built. And yes in the occupied lands! Again i think you’re completely ignoring the facts! They do have a choice. Simply follow international law.

So you are then justifying terrorism, there is no point denying it because that is what you’re doing.

As is israel? Im simply suggesting if Isreael continues to oppress there will be FREEDOM fighting! What you term terrorism? Its a 2-way street.

The only option available, according to you, is that Hamas recruit some boys and convince them to blow themselves up in Israeli shops where innocent women and children also die.

Nope, I would like the option to be that Isreal withdraws to what international Law says its borders are. If it doesnt then, of course, what choice is there for palestinians?? You still cant come up with what should happen!

Well how is that different to the UK? Those four fuckwits who blew themselves up in London are simply saying, like you, that they had no other choice in order to help the Palestinians or Iraqis. Isn’t it? The only reason you and MPAC don’t admit that is because it is too close too home and because then they’d be shipped off to Belmarsh. the reasoning is the same.

Not at all. Again great spinning on your part. Ive written it black and white. And its documented above. Home grown terrorists were wrong and what they committed was an act of gross inhumanity. And i condemn them eaqually as i condemn the acts of US/Britain/Israel in the middleast. I cannot see the difference between people dying in London and people dying in Baghdad or Qana or Sabra and Shatila etc. Should i have more sympathy for people in london than in palestine? no way! To me they are all humans. There is wrong and a right here, which you just dont want to recognise nor do you want to acknowledge it. There is a cause and there is an affect.

Perhaps one day the UN will force Isreal to comply with UN Resolutions. That day, i hope arrives soon and i hope peace may come to all in the middleeast.

Your continual ignorance of my disapproval of terrorism is tiresome. Frankly, you wont condemn the policies that have given rise to terrorism in the first place. That much cannot be denied either!

And I am hyping things up in my essay, but that’s cause I assumed that most people reading it (if any)would tend toward that way of thinking.

Anas – I don’t think you read my points above carefully. Tackling terrorism in the short term will indeed mean re-evaluating our idiotic and hypocritical foreign policy.

But that does not take away religious extremism. That does not take away tensions between different faith groups in the UK or the issues of integration/political participation and Khalifah etc. Those were there before FP became a big issue and people such as MPAC, HuT and Al-M etc will always use some sort of grievance to rally their base. That is central to their existence.

If there was nothing to get agitated against, how else would MPAC write a really angry article and then ask people to donate to MPAC to “help the cause”? Think about it. If there were no “issues” as such, then don’t think they’d become irrelevant? Go bust? Of course they would. So it’s in their interests to agitate.

And lastly – you seem to exaggerate the “threat” we face from Muslim extremism too. I don’t buy Bush’s hyperbole that western civilisation is under threat. Bollocks. If worse comes to worse the state will simply enact very harsh rules of engagement, deport or imprison agitators and declare war on any country that threatens it. The west remains waaaaay more powerful than all of the Middle East combined. It’s because the threat isn’t very big that we’re seeing all this rubbish from the police and politicians. If the threat was real they’d actually do something useful.

But the fact is the vast majority of British Muslims don’t want to get involved in this jihad that MPAC are trying to create simply because they want to get on with their lives.

Sunny, in answer to your points I could do little better than to quote from my own essay here:

It is also claimed that were it not for foreign policy, the extremists would find plenty else wrong with our secular Western civilisation (i.e., free-speech, sexual liberality, equal rights for women, materialism, etc), or with the process of globalisation that’s exporting Western values across the world. This is what I call the ‘one amongst many’ (OAM) hypothesis: Western foreign policy is only one amongst many grievances that the extremists have. And of course broadly speaking it is true, but when it comes to tackling the threat of terrorism it seems that proponents of the idea that the terrorists have some other agenda — and that by invoking Western foreign policy they are effectively masking their real intentions — are slightly missing the point.

To see why this is so you only have to ask yourself why it is that Islamic extremism poses such an overwhelming threat to the West. In other words what has been consistently identified, by security forces, academics, and politicians as one of the, if not the core challenges that the West faces in its battle against Islamic extremism and terrorism? Simply put, the problem is that of recruitment: the more Muslims that the extremists can convince of the righteousness of their mission, the more likely they are to find recruits willing to help plan and carry out further atrocities; the more sympathy they elicit within the Muslim community, the less likely members of that community will cooperate with intelligence services or the police (a recent survey done for a British newspaper suggested that 9% of British Muslims would not inform the police of any suspicions they had of terrorist activities), the harder terrorist perpetrators will be to identify. If the issue were only that of a few isolated madmen plotting to blow themselves up with no support or sympathy from a wider community, then the threat would be significantly reduced indeed would most likely be minimal; it’s their power to convince others and to dissiminate their poisonous message that poses the real, longstanding threat. As the politicians constantly iterate, the so-called war in terror must also incorporate the battle for Muslim hearts and minds if it is to be at all successful, not least at home.

Therefore bearing this in mind and given the quotes above, we have to ask, why these prominent proponents of terrorist ideology almost exclusively justify their actions — to their intended audience, which we must assume is primarily Muslim — as revenge against an unjust and immoral Western foreign policy? Why does recruitment propaganda focus almost exclusively on the atrocities supposedly perpetrated by the West — if not, that is, to capitalise upon the very real Muslim anger at these perceived injustices, and at the policy of which they are part? Why use foreign policy as a so-called proxy and so adamantly repudiate suggestions that there may have been other reasons for the bombings, going so far as to set as the grounds for a truce the immediate cessation of Western actions in various parts of the Muslim world, if not to recruit (primarily) young Muslims radicalised by Western FP?

The evidence suggests that the OAM hypothesis when it relates to the hidden intentions of extremist ideologues is at best an irrelevance: the real question is why would these particular extremists be so careful to present a certain image across to the rest of the Muslim world? If you are willing to accept Islamic extremists as rational agents (and we have to attribute some level of rationality to them if we’re going to label them terrorists and therefore willing to use terror as a weapon to further some agenda) then we must judge the public statements of Bin Laden et al, as we do every other kind of propaganda, indeed as a particularly effective piece of propaganda, the risk assessments with regard to the increase in terrorist activity in the UK testify to that. Some commentators argue that denied the opportunity of exploiting extreme discontent felt towards foreign policy, the extremists would use, for example, Western promiscuity as a pretext for committing acts of terror, but in that case how many others could they convince of the righteousness of their cause to the extent that they’d be willing to kill themselves and others? Anyone who thinks it wouldn’t make any difference to their ability to recruit potential suicide bombers and terrorists is absolutely deluded.

So above, all you’ve done is justified terrorism by saying the Palestinians have no choice. Israelis meanwhile justify the wall and the economic blockade saying they have no choice either. So you are then justifying terrorism, there is no point denying it because that is what you’re doing. You and MPAC are saying there is no other choice.

Sunny, that’s why it’s so important that both parties fulfil their obligations under International Law. And why any serious critique of Israel and/or Palestine must be based on international law and human rights guidelines, see for example Norman Finkelstein’s brilliant analyses of the conflict.

1) On foreign policy: There were religious extremists way before Iraq/Afghanistan, and many times they didn’t even care about Palestine. We have Al-Muhajiroun and Hizb ut Tahrir people plastering posters on uni campuses telling us that the Khalifah was coming to Britain. They sent around leaflets calling on Muslim boys to actively convert Hindu/Sikh girls (search the net) and organising rallies in London calling for people to convert otherwise others would burn in hell etc.

We ignored these religious supremacists. But the Iraq war has helped them develop their supremecist ideology further and recruit brainwashed kids who they tell that resistance in the form of violence is the only way.

So let me put this briefly for you Anas, maybe because you haven’t been on the receiving end of religious extremists who are Muslim – the wars have recruited more to their cause – hence there are more people willing to blow themselves up. But that does not negate the existence of poor, sexually frustrated jihadis who wanted to blow themselves up for the Ummah and kill innocent people who they saw as the oppressors .

Anas your argument is old and already covered here plenty of times. Do a search for ‘tipping point’ on PP and you’ll see my response.

2) Occupation, oppression, suppression and killing of innocent civilians will lead to more of the same (suicide bombers etc!). Its no biggie, in fact im surprised you dont understand that concept. You dont seem to present the solution for the oppressed, simply criticising their actions. Demonstrations, albeit peaceful have no affect. Diplomacy has had little effect,

genghis I’m going to try and get this over to you last time. During a conflict both sides see themselves as the oppressed (or under attack) and the others as aggressors.

Israelis think that the whole Arab world is after their destruction and the killing of Jews and if they give the Palestinians autonomy, it will only quicken their own deaths because Hamas will have more power. That much is obvious.

You think you’re the only one who is the victim? You think Palestinians are the only ones feeling under attack? Who you think is the oppressor or who is the oppressed is irrevelant. The other side sees it the same way but with the roles reversed.

So above, all you’ve done is justified terrorism by saying the Palestinians have no choice. Israelis meanwhile justify the wall and the economic blockade saying they have no choice either. So you are then justifying terrorism, there is no point denying it because that is what you’re doing. You and MPAC are saying there is no other choice.

The only option available, according to you, is that Hamas recruit some boys and convince them to blow themselves up in Israeli shops where innocent women and children also die.

Well how is that different to the UK? Those four fuckwits who blew themselves up in London are simply saying, like you, that they had no other choice in order to help the Palestinians or Iraqis. Isn’t it? The only reason you and MPAC don’t admit that is because it is too close too home and because then they’d be shipped off to Belmarsh. the reasoning is the same.

They make the same point I do. So that deals with religious extremism.

Thabet’s talkin’ bull, my own fab article puts forward the case that FP is chiefly responsible for terrorism:
http://anask.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/its-the-foreign-policy-stupid-part-1/

Check dis out too

http://anask.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/who-is-she/

Seems that it’s not only rape that the JC condones nowadays.

See, now you’re contradicting yourself. You are either against the killing of innocent people by others or you are not.

Here in black and white I AM Totally and utterly against the killing of any Innocent people!

You are against the first and making excuses for the second, as MPAC do.

Nope, not at all thats simply your spin on my posts and grossly misconstruing the points being made. I’ll explain again in simple terms.

Im against ALL killing, murdering, maiming of innocent people. That said, i understand what is right and wrong in a given scenario. And i all comprehend and understand what the cause and effect of certain actions are. Occupation, oppression, suppression and killing of innocent civilians will lead to more of the same (suicide bombers etc!). Its no biggie, in fact im surprised you dont understand that concept. You dont seem to present the solution for the oppressed, simply criticising their actions. Demonstrations, albeit peaceful have no affect. Diplomacy has had little effect, UN resolutions are applied inequitably which renders that organization almost useless bar the humanitarian aid. Let me know if you still dont understand where im coming from!

In fact MPAC are not making excuses they actually call suicide bombers in Israel ‘martyrs’ – so they support those actions.

Again thats simply your spin on it. They are against suicide bombing but understand why its occuring in the middleeast. They wholeheartedly condemn home made suicide bombers, as i do.

Neo-cons justify attacks on Palestinians and Iraqis on the same basis – that they are under attack from suicide bombers.

Yes they do. It would be useful if we could state which way around things occured. Suicide bombers or the occupations?

You’re not that stupid that you don’t recognise that.

Ditto!

It doesn’t matter about the balance of power: that is how they justify it.

Completely disagree. One side is oppressed, the other side are the oppressors. So yes it matters. alot!

So I repeat, you are either against killing innocent people or you are not. Don’t make excuses to me. Then you’re just trying to wiggle out of it like the neo-cons.

So I repeat, i am against killing innocent people. Don’t make excuses to me. Then you’re just trying to wiggle out of it like the neo-cons.

See, now you’re contradicting yourself. You are either against the killing of innocent people by others or you are not. Get it right in your head before preaching to others. I’m against the bombing of Iraqis/Afghanis/Palestinians and I am fully against suicide attacks against innocent people (that incl women and kids remember). You are against the first and making excuses for the second, as MPAC do. In fact MPAC are not making excuses they actually call suicide bombers in Israel ‘martyrs’ – so they support those actions.

Neo-cons justify attacks on Palestinians and Iraqis on the same basis – that they are under attack from suicide bombers. You’re not that stupid that you don’t recognise that.

So in other words – both sides (MPAC and neo-cons) justify attacks on innocent people by saying the other side is aggressive. It doesn’t matter about the balance of power: that is how they justify it.

So I repeat, you are either against killing innocent people or you are not. Don’t make excuses to me. Then you’re just trying to wiggle out of it like the neo-cons.

I wont be joining in race riots. Your stance is an arrogant one. A community under seige will react. History has shown this (paris, bradford, oldham etc). For you to ignore history is your perogative. Just wanted to know your thoughts on the mini riot last night in Prestwich…point proven!

No I didn’t think you’d agree either. Then your whole argument falls apart. Well that is not my concern and neither do I agree with you on that. Myself and others (incl Muslims) have made the same point. If you disagree then you have a right to. I’m just going to ignore your analysis.

You can ignore my analysis.Its your perogative. And not a problem. Muslim suicide bombers have existed in the middle-east to fight against military odds that are stacked against them. The home grown Suicide bomber only came after the invasion of Iraq!

Which is the argument that the London suicide bombers used too.

Yes and ? Like i said, the home grown suicide is no different from the bombers that bomb innocent civilians in Falluja or Qana or Afghanistan. And im not justifying the home grown suicide bomber, but i do recognize the ingredients that have led to such an extreme reaction. You can ignore those reasons. If you feel that both are as reprehensible then at least attack both with equal fervour!

You’re the one making excuses for people “fighting back”. I don’t want innocent people killed either way.

Sunny, just out of interest, how would you advise palestinians defend themselves. Diplomacy hasnt worked.

I’ll repeat this again – most of those people listed have only professed their hatred of religious extremists and the organisations that justify them (like MPAC).

Thats a crude if not loose interpretation. My opinion. MPAC does not justify the homegrown Suicide bombers. But does recognize why the middleeastern Suicide bomber exists. Thats not tantamount to justification.

I dont think the the time nor the inclination of finding all the commentary of those people. Their commentary is well documented is widely available on the Web!

Going back to a point you raised earlier about why i think the Media isnt impartial. No other religion has been highlighted with so much daily negative reports of it as headline news. eg the guide dog and muslim taxi driver. Had that been a sikh taxi driver do you think it would have been newsworthy? let alone headline national news?

No. If you claim to be acting in the name of a religion and, furthermore, claim divine sanction for your actions, then you should follow the principles of the religion’s tenets (and prohibitions, especially regarding acceptable tactics for warfare) to the letter, and then live or die with the consequences.

Sometimes taking the higher moral ground means you will face defeat. So be it. There is such a concept as “Death before dishonour”.

It will read to race-riots only if someone starts a race riot isn’t it? Will you go out on a rampage beating up ordinary white people because of the Daily Express coverage? Let us know if you do.

err no i dont agree with that. Home grown suicide bombers killing briton occured after the invasions. Home grown suicide bombers in Tel Aviv – after the invasion of iraq?

No I didn’t think you’d agree either. Then your whole argument falls apart. Well that is not my concern and neither do I agree with you on that. Myself and others (incl Muslims) have made the same point. If you disagree then you have a right to. I’m just going to ignore your analysis.

but they realise that sometime there are only certain ways to defend oneself.

Which is the argument that the London suicide bombers used too. You add that:

Im just wondering why you find one form of killing human more reprehensible than the other?

No I don’t. Maybe you haven’t read this website much but I’m absolutely against and always have been against the British invasion of Iraq. You’re the one making excuses for people “fighting back”. I don’t want innocent people killed either way.

And lastly:
Most that are labelled islamophobic by MPAC are so cos they are islamophobic

I’ll repeat this again – most of those people listed have only professed their hatred of religious extremists and the organisations that justify them (like MPAC). That does not make them Islamophobic. Just because MPAC says so doesn’t make it law. You find the related quotes and then you let us know.

Not at all, that wasnt my aim, all i did was try to highlight how and why muslims feel targeted and singled out. which may lead to feelings of anxiety and a seige mentality and some feelings of persecution plus with the background of the middle-east leaves people feeling ultra sensitive (i know that sunny and co dont agree with this phenomenon). The media+politicians are largely responsible – as are extremists too! I certainly dont think the media is controlled by zionists in tel-aviv or deepest manhatten etc. My humblest aplogies if ive spoilt the thread. wasnt my intention. i think my spleen is vented now anyhow!

Wheres the ferking smirnoff ice when you need it!

You were saying?

But then it wouldn’t be a thread on Pickled Politics if someone hadn’t turned it into a Zionists-control-the-media discussion, would it?

Its hard to quantify your stupidity.

Let the Picklers decide who is right on this issue.

Genghis why not do what that Danish Iman did and take this article around the middle east and stoke up some artifical rage.

Your getting angry over nothing.