Brown calls for action to curb terrorist recruitment
Gordon Brown yesterday called for better cross-border sharing of intelligence on terror as his new security chief warned the fight against extremism in Britain could last as long as 15 years.
The warning from Admiral Sir Alan West, former head of the Royal Navy, coincided with the disclosure from Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, former MI5 chief, that more than 100 suspects were awaiting trial in Britain for terrorist-related offences.
Today, Sir Alan is due to give an interim report to the Prime Minister on his investigation into NHS overseas recruitment following the terror incidents in London and Glasgow in which all the suspects were revealed to have been medical staff.
Last night, Indian police said they had seized CDs containing material about the Islamist conflicts in Chechnya and Iraq from the home of two Indian suspects in the alleged UK car bomb plot. A senior police official said officers had found the CDs in the family home of Kafeel Ahmed, 27, and his brother Sabeel, 26, both arrested by police in Britain.
On Saturday, Bilal Abdullah, an Iraqi doctor, became the first person to appear in court charged in connection with the suspected car bomb plot. He was remanded in custody by City of Westminster Magistrates. The 27-year-old, who was arrested after a blazing Jeep was driven into Glasgow Airport a week ago, is accused of conspiring to cause explosions.
On the same day, around 1500 people attended the Scotland United Against Terror event in Glasgow's George Square organised by the local Islamic community.
Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has announced
that baggage handler John Smeaton, 31, from Erskine in Renfrewshire and other members of the public who intervened at Glasgow Airport together with emergency workers at the scene, are to be honoured with an official reception in the city.
Mr Brown told Sky News that the current security "watchlist" system should be expanded to create a better flow of information between countries about "the potential recruitment or the actual recruitment" activities of terrorist groups.
"I want the system that we are trying to expand between Europe, a system whereby we know who are potential terrorist suspects, we expand that to other countries in the world and then we may have a better idea of people coming in to different countries, whether as professional recruits or in other ways, about what the dangers and the risks we face are.
"It is very important that we tighten this up and it is something we are looking at as a matter of urgency," he said.
However David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said while the Conservatives welcomed the PM's sentiments they were undermined by the revelation that Britain was not checking potential immigrants against an existing global database of terror suspects.
"Yet again, it is not the government's policy that is the problem, it is their lack of competence in delivering on that policy that is the problem, which is threatening our security," he said.
Mr Davis was referring to a claim by Ronald Noble of Interpol, who was quoted yesterday as saying: "We have the passport numbers, fingerprints and photos of more than 11,000 suspected terrorists on our database but the UK does not check it against immigrants coming into the country or foreign nationals it has arrested. The guys detained last week could be wanted, arrested or convicted anywhere in the world and the UK would not know."
Earlier, Sir Alan said preventing people being recruited to extremism was central to beating terrorism and called for some un-British "snitching" from the public to help the cause. The Falklands hero also launched an attack on the term "war on terror", saying: "I hate that expression. It's not like a war in that sense at all. It demeans the value of a war and it demeans the value of a lot of things."
Sir Alan, who conceded the government was "not getting our message across properly", said he did not like the concentration on the Muslim community. "We've got to be very careful. The threat is to our British way of life and all of our British people," he said.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Graham, Glasgow on 11:57pm Sun 8 Jul 07
Well Gordon you could maybe try stopping them getting into the country. The man with the hooks and his family were given a four star lifestyle courtesy of the DHSS. Kind of wondered who helped him fill in the application forms!![bold]bold[/bold]
Well Gordon you could maybe try stopping them getting into the country. The man with the hooks and his family were given a four star lifestyle courtesy of the DHSS. Kind of wondered who helped him fill in the application forms!!
Posted by: J, Glasgow on 1:44am Mon 9 Jul 07
Comments yesterday on the subject of terrorism, by Admiral Sir Alan West and Hilary Benn, suggest that rather than focus on finding a solution to the serious problems (which we helped to cause) in the Middle East the new Cabinet intends to concentrate on stirring up hatred towards a particular group. This is thoroughly depressing.
An honest look at the actions of Tony Blair leading up to the illegal invasion of Iraq should lead all reasonable people, surely, to want urgent dialogue in order to find solutions, bring an end to attacks on the civilians of this country and, most important of all, get our forces home again?
I cannot quite believe the arrogance of those who have so quickly buried facts in order to pursue a plan which simply involves hating Islam and all associated with it. I do not understand the logic which states that we can kill indiscriminately with our sophistacated array of weapons, in a country we had no legal right to invade and occupy, yet dismiss the anger provoked by that illegal invasion as "terrorism".
It seems to me that rather than take positive steps to address the rights and wrongs of a situation and set up dialogue at UN level, thus involving ALL member countries in finding a solution, Gordon Brown, and the British media, sadly, are happy to play the racist card and bury our part in the whole mess, thanks to Tony Blair. After all, had Blair not walked away from the Security Council in order to follow his master in the White House in the illegal invasion of Iraq, Britain would never have become a target anyway.
Those who claim to be democrats (note the small d) yet support the right of particular countries to set international law aside in order to pursue illegal invasions of other countries are supporting terrorism. For by their very actions, countries who behave in that manner are terrorists themselves! Sadly they just have a narrow definition of the word terrorism, in that they believe it can only apply to people who aren't white, or who do not kill, maim or reduce cities and towns to rubble using state funds......as we did illegally in Iraq and as Israel does illegally in Palestine. We cannot have it both ways.
When particular countries believe they are above the law, that they can pick and choose when they will abide by the terms they signed up to at the UN in order to rush off and invade other countries when they like are they not a serious danger to the world in general? Are they not dictators? Are they not the real terrorists?
We are at a point where we could, if we choose, turn the whole situation in the MIddle East around. Gordon Brown could begin that process now if he really wanted to by saying that he wants to. What he shouldn't do is go down the path sounded out today in the statements made by his new "Security Minister" and by Hilary Benn. The former predicts that the so-called "war on terror" will go on for at least another fifteen years? Why on earth should it?
Perhaps if Gordon Brown announces that since we in the UK are such a great example of democracy he intends to start encouraging us to behave like it, we could look forward with more optimism. For frankly, if he is saying that the British people must steel ourselves for more attacks simply because he will not address the situation by working with the UN member countries to solve a problem WE caused, then he is failing in his duty to protect us. Why should we be the ones to suffer because of Blair's monumental blunders and what is so wrong with seeking a solution through dialogue rather than promoting the lie that none of it was our fault? If Gordon Brown really is his own man, and doesn't want to suffer the same fate Blair did over the same issue - Iraq - he had better come up with some positive answers soon. Sending lackeys out to promise another fifteen years of this is anything but positive. If he has courage he knows what he should do.
Comments yesterday on the subject of terrorism, by Admiral Sir Alan West and Hilary Benn, suggest that rather than focus on finding a solution to the serious problems (which we helped to cause) in the Middle East the new Cabinet intends to concentrate on stirring up hatred towards a particular group. This is thoroughly depressing.
An honest look at the actions of Tony Blair leading up to the illegal invasion of Iraq should lead all reasonable people, surely, to want urgent dialogue in order to find solutions, bring an end to attacks on the civilians of this country and, most important of all, get our forces home again?
I cannot quite believe the arrogance of those who have so quickly buried facts in order to pursue a plan which simply involves hating Islam and all associated with it. I do not understand the logic which states that we can kill indiscriminately with our sophistacated array of weapons, in a country we had no legal right to invade and occupy, yet dismiss the anger provoked by that illegal invasion as "terrorism".
It seems to me that rather than take positive steps to address the rights and wrongs of a situation and set up dialogue at UN level, thus involving ALL member countries in finding a solution, Gordon Brown, and the British media, sadly, are happy to play the racist card and bury our part in the whole mess, thanks to Tony Blair. After all, had Blair not walked away from the Security Council in order to follow his master in the White House in the illegal invasion of Iraq, Britain would never have become a target anyway.
Those who claim to be democrats (note the small d) yet support the right of particular countries to set international law aside in order to pursue illegal invasions of other countries are supporting terrorism. For by their very actions, countries who behave in that manner are terrorists themselves! Sadly they just have a narrow definition of the word terrorism, in that they believe it can only apply to people who aren't white, or who do not kill, maim or reduce cities and towns to rubble using state funds......as we did illegally in Iraq and as Israel does illegally in Palestine. We cannot have it both ways.
When particular countries believe they are above the law, that they can pick and choose when they will abide by the terms they signed up to at the UN in order to rush off and invade other countries when they like are they not a serious danger to the world in general? Are they not dictators? Are they not the real terrorists?
We are at a point where we could, if we choose, turn the whole situation in the MIddle East around. Gordon Brown could begin that process now if he really wanted to by saying that he wants to. What he shouldn't do is go down the path sounded out today in the statements made by his new "Security Minister" and by Hilary Benn. The former predicts that the so-called "war on terror" will go on for at least another fifteen years? Why on earth should it?
Perhaps if Gordon Brown announces that since we in the UK are such a great example of democracy he intends to start encouraging us to behave like it, we could look forward with more optimism. For frankly, if he is saying that the British people must steel ourselves for more attacks simply because he will not address the situation by working with the UN member countries to solve a problem WE caused, then he is failing in his duty to protect us. Why should we be the ones to suffer because of Blair's monumental blunders and what is so wrong with seeking a solution through dialogue rather than promoting the lie that none of it was our fault? If Gordon Brown really is his own man, and doesn't want to suffer the same fate Blair did over the same issue - Iraq - he had better come up with some positive answers soon. Sending lackeys out to promise another fifteen years of this is anything but positive. If he has courage he knows what he should do.
Posted by: Tom McAlister on 1:49am Mon 9 Jul 07
The answer to that "Graham" is that even with hooks he was useful to some folk, problem was he outlived his usefullness by indulging in little side lines which eventually caused more of an embarrassment to those folk who thought he would be useful to them than what they perceived he was actually worth. Aye,beezness as usual down at Spookhall on Thames,Eh.
The answer to that "Graham" is that even with hooks he was useful to some folk, problem was he outlived his usefullness by indulging in little side lines which eventually caused more of an embarrassment to those folk who thought he would be useful to them than what they perceived he was actually worth. Aye,beezness as usual down at Spookhall on Thames,Eh.
Posted by: Tom McAlister on 1:53am Mon 9 Jul 07
.
Good posting "J " of Glasgow by the way.
.
.
Good posting "J " of Glasgow by the way.
.
Posted by: Derek on 2:01am Mon 9 Jul 07
J of Glasgow thinks the answer to Muslim terrorism is "by working with the UN member countries to solve a problem WE caused" . Ple-eaaase!! He bangs the old left-wing, racist drum against the British, Americans and Israelis the while sitting on the garbage heap of history with his discredited "ideas". If he wants to leave to a more salubrious location, he should carry out a reality check - beginning with a thorough study of the history of Islam.
J of Glasgow thinks the answer to Muslim terrorism is "by working with the UN member countries to solve a problem WE caused" . Ple-eaaase!! He bangs the old left-wing, racist drum against the British, Americans and Israelis the while sitting on the garbage heap of history with his discredited "ideas". If he wants to leave to a more salubrious location, he should carry out a reality check - beginning with a thorough study of the history of Islam.
Posted by: Jock Tamson's Bairn on 2:21am Mon 9 Jul 07
J of Glasgow is way off beam. What does he mean "Sending lackeys out to promise another fifteen years of this" Promising? Promising? You mean it was the British Government which drove a jeep into the airport last week?
"The former predicts that the so-called "war on terror" will go on for at least another fifteen years? Why on earth should it?"
A question better asked of Al Qaeda than HMG.
Perhaps J of Glasgow can explain exactly who was responsible for the appalling carnage in Amirli. Was it "a plan which simply involves hating Islam and all associated with it. " If so then maybe he acn tell us the religion of those responsible for this bombing?
J of Glasgow is typical of those Nats who think the west is responsible for everything. It's their comfort blanket. They want to blame the UK because they think it furthers their cause. Not because they really believe it. For if they did then they would have to admit that they preferred Iraq to be ruled by Saddam - a man who gassed his own people. In their eyes Saddam
J of Glasgow, Saddam would salute your indefatigibility
J of Glasgow is way off beam. What does he mean "Sending lackeys out to promise another fifteen years of this" Promising? Promising? You mean it was the British Government which drove a jeep into the airport last week?
"The former predicts that the so-called "war on terror" will go on for at least another fifteen years? Why on earth should it?"
A question better asked of Al Qaeda than HMG.
Perhaps J of Glasgow can explain exactly who was responsible for the appalling carnage in Amirli. Was it "a plan which simply involves hating Islam and all associated with it. " If so then maybe he acn tell us the religion of those responsible for this bombing?
J of Glasgow is typical of those Nats who think the west is responsible for everything. It's their comfort blanket. They want to blame the UK because they think it furthers their cause. Not because they really believe it. For if they did then they would have to admit that they preferred Iraq to be ruled by Saddam - a man who gassed his own people. In their eyes Saddam
J of Glasgow, Saddam would salute your indefatigibility
Posted by: J, Glasgow on 3:06am Mon 9 Jul 07
To the presumptious idiots above who assume I am male, I'm not. I am female, and I feel I should also say, since you seem to be implying I am a potential terrorist myself, I am white and British. But I, unlike you, base my views on the facts, as they unfolded, in the Middle East.
We invaded Iraq illegally. We abandoned the Security Council talks on Iraq in order to do so. Blair did, remember? France or Russia intended to block the plans of Bush and Blair and scupper them, so they walked away from the vote and went on their own illegally. That is the truth.
The people who are way off beam here are those who are blaming Muslims for all of this, when it was our reckless actions which made the situations a thousand times worse by going into Iraq.
Derek, you do the reality check, driving jeeps into Glasgow Airport happened certainly, but who took our troops into Iraq and how much blood was spilled then? Or does that not matter?
Finally call me old fashioned, but I believe in ALL countries playing by the rules because as soon as you start saying some don't have to you are in big trouble, like we are now! And Jock, I don't need a comfort blanket, the truth will do me thanks all the same. You're the one with the comfort blanket, its knitted with lies and racist bile.
To the presumptious idiots above who assume I am male, I'm not. I am female, and I feel I should also say, since you seem to be implying I am a potential terrorist myself, I am white and British. But I, unlike you, base my views on the facts, as they unfolded, in the Middle East.
We invaded Iraq illegally. We abandoned the Security Council talks on Iraq in order to do so. Blair did, remember? France or Russia intended to block the plans of Bush and Blair and scupper them, so they walked away from the vote and went on their own illegally. That is the truth.
The people who are way off beam here are those who are blaming Muslims for all of this, when it was our reckless actions which made the situations a thousand times worse by going into Iraq.
Derek, you do the reality check, driving jeeps into Glasgow Airport happened certainly, but who took our troops into Iraq and how much blood was spilled then? Or does that not matter?
Finally call me old fashioned, but I believe in ALL countries playing by the rules because as soon as you start saying some don't have to you are in big trouble, like we are now! And Jock, I don't need a comfort blanket, the truth will do me thanks all the same. You're the one with the comfort blanket, its knitted with lies and racist bile.
Posted by: Tom McAlister on 3:20am Mon 9 Jul 07
What a load of self opinionated garbage those last two posts after "J ",Gladgow were.
"J ",Glasgow may not have all the solutions to this vexing and dangerous problem but i venture to suggest that with hindsight what is written is this post is more worthy of notice in finding solutions than the meanderings of self opinionated and dare I say it biased contributions to the causes of conflict,rather that contributions to a settlement.
What a load of self opinionated garbage those last two posts after "J ",Gladgow were.
"J ",Glasgow may not have all the solutions to this vexing and dangerous problem but i venture to suggest that with hindsight what is written is this post is more worthy of notice in finding solutions than the meanderings of self opinionated and dare I say it biased contributions to the causes of conflict,rather that contributions to a settlement.
Posted by: rav, Toronto, Canada on 4:14am Mon 9 Jul 07
To J, why then do they bomb trains in India. Muslims have more than usual rights of ordinary citizens of India. They are guded by philosophy that only those associated with their religion can exist. the rest are kafirs or non-believers and should be decimated.
To J, why then do they bomb trains in India. Muslims have more than usual rights of ordinary citizens of India. They are guded by philosophy that only those associated with their religion can exist. the rest are kafirs or non-believers and should be decimated.
Posted by: Confused on 5:42am Mon 9 Jul 07
Surely when the prophet said all he did, he spoke in a time of swords and not of C4... how can you kill yourself and others with a sword and all at the same time... if you killed someone with a sword and then killed yourself afterwards then that was just regular suicide (so straight to hell for you)... so how can these guys translate it to mean it's okay to blow yourself and others up (or alternatively douse yourself in BP 4 star and see if you get that extra mileage), you couldn't do that with a sword back in the day... it was impossible!
Surely when the prophet said all he did, he spoke in a time of swords and not of C4... how can you kill yourself and others with a sword and all at the same time... if you killed someone with a sword and then killed yourself afterwards then that was just regular suicide (so straight to hell for you)... so how can these guys translate it to mean it's okay to blow yourself and others up (or alternatively douse yourself in BP 4 star and see if you get that extra mileage), you couldn't do that with a sword back in the day... it was impossible!
Posted by: JG on 6:53am Mon 9 Jul 07
Excellent post J. You should post it every day on these boards.
Excellent post J. You should post it every day on these boards.
Posted by: Mike, Edinburgh on 9:01am Mon 9 Jul 07
J,
Good to see males confusing your intelligence as being male. I respect your right to an opinion but as far as your assertions go you are talking utter rubbish, these people kill many more of their own people in the name of their religion all around the world.
J,
Good to see males confusing your intelligence as being male. I respect your right to an opinion but as far as your assertions go you are talking utter rubbish, these people kill many more of their own people in the name of their religion all around the world.
Posted by: donald, glasgow on 9:13am Mon 9 Jul 07
Curb Brirtish Army Recruitment and get rid of Nuclear bases
Curb Brirtish Army Recruitment and get rid of Nuclear bases
Posted by: Alastair, Aberdeen on 10:44am Mon 9 Jul 07
J, your post should be compulsory reading! Is it not blindingly obvious to all and sundry that blatant double standards in middle east foreign policy, utter disregard for the UN in waging an illegal war have been what has brought this upon us. Until we accept that, we are on a hiding to nothing. Your post is brilliant. Keep up the good work!
J, your post should be compulsory reading! Is it not blindingly obvious to all and sundry that blatant double standards in middle east foreign policy, utter disregard for the UN in waging an illegal war have been what has brought this upon us. Until we accept that, we are on a hiding to nothing. Your post is brilliant. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: J, Glasgow on 1:33pm Mon 9 Jul 07
Thank you to those who understand my posts above and share my sentiments.
To those who can only respond with personal insults, by doing so you only let yourself down because you cannot cope with the truth and you have no answer to it. But the truth does that to people.
Those who have the courage to accept the facts of this terrible situation, our part in it, and wish to see a peaceful solution being found via the UN, have more courage. Yes, at the UN, because we should never have walked away from the UN in the first place and abandoned the promises we made when we signed up to be part of that body, and a Member of the Security Council to boot. Yes, at the UN, because we claim to be a civilised country, a democracy and that we believe in justice, in equality for all Member countries and in finding peaceful solutions to world situations which if escalated can, will and have hurt us all.
We let the UN,and our Forces, down by walking away and now that the liar Blair is gone there is no shame in returning to the UN and going back to the democratic route.
Blair rid the Labour Party of Clause 4 because he said it was undemocratic and unfair that the big, powerful Unions could over run everyone else using their block votes . What a pity he didn't follow the same principle at the Security Council because he couldn't live with the outcome of a One Country One Vote scenario!
I am proud that I reject any notion that the big boys call the shots in the world because that makes them bullies. I am proud that I can at least look at the part my country has played in the current almighty mess that is the MIddle East and see the mistakes and want us to do all it can to put those right. I am especially proud that when I see broken bodies I do not consider some as worthless simply because of their colour, race or creed. I despair for all of them because all people bleed.
It takes courage to abandon a course someone else committed a country to but Gordon Brown could do it and I believe the country would back him. Most in this country know Blair is a liar and worse and despise him for what he brought upon us as a direct result of his reckless policy to follow a man who is the greatest danger to the world residing on the planet at the moment.
Before anyone lectures the world about democracy it is necessary to prove by their own actions and behaviour that they understand the meaning of it themselves. Some need to look the word up in the dictionary obviously but perhaps the more dangerous types are those who do know the true definition but are happy to disregard it when it suits.
Thank you to those who understand my posts above and share my sentiments.
To those who can only respond with personal insults, by doing so you only let yourself down because you cannot cope with the truth and you have no answer to it. But the truth does that to people.
Those who have the courage to accept the facts of this terrible situation, our part in it, and wish to see a peaceful solution being found via the UN, have more courage. Yes, at the UN, because we should never have walked away from the UN in the first place and abandoned the promises we made when we signed up to be part of that body, and a Member of the Security Council to boot. Yes, at the UN, because we claim to be a civilised country, a democracy and that we believe in justice, in equality for all Member countries and in finding peaceful solutions to world situations which if escalated can, will and have hurt us all.
We let the UN,and our Forces, down by walking away and now that the liar Blair is gone there is no shame in returning to the UN and going back to the democratic route.
Blair rid the Labour Party of Clause 4 because he said it was undemocratic and unfair that the big, powerful Unions could over run everyone else using their block votes . What a pity he didn't follow the same principle at the Security Council because he couldn't live with the outcome of a One Country One Vote scenario!
I am proud that I reject any notion that the big boys call the shots in the world because that makes them bullies. I am proud that I can at least look at the part my country has played in the current almighty mess that is the MIddle East and see the mistakes and want us to do all it can to put those right. I am especially proud that when I see broken bodies I do not consider some as worthless simply because of their colour, race or creed. I despair for all of them because all people bleed.
It takes courage to abandon a course someone else committed a country to but Gordon Brown could do it and I believe the country would back him. Most in this country know Blair is a liar and worse and despise him for what he brought upon us as a direct result of his reckless policy to follow a man who is the greatest danger to the world residing on the planet at the moment.
Before anyone lectures the world about democracy it is necessary to prove by their own actions and behaviour that they understand the meaning of it themselves. Some need to look the word up in the dictionary obviously but perhaps the more dangerous types are those who do know the true definition but are happy to disregard it when it suits.
Posted by: Mike, Edinburgh on 3:20pm Mon 9 Jul 07
J,
When I said that I thought you were talking rubbish, I did not explain my comment. It wasnt about your premise on what should be done. It was more that unfortunately with the existing political system in these countries it was a pie in the sky idea that has no chance of even being considered. This country has a long history of making political mistakes that their arrogance wont lt them back down. I dont know if you read some of Campbells Sterile Memoirs but the story of Bill Clinton screaming down the phone at Blair gives us a rough idea where we stand in the pecking order. If the yanks say jump to a British Prime Minister he asks how high. Tony Blair/Gordon Brown made a self concious decision to seek the wealth of the US for the British Economy plain and simple. If they back out now and try to speak to these people there is going to be a lot of defaulters of mortgages. Its got nothing to do with the American People, its their political system where war is encouraged by the people with the real power. THE MONEY MEN who run arms manufacturers, oil industry etc. They are the ones who decide who will sit in the Whitehouse. Look at the money that Clinton and Osama have already in their election war chests. Do you think they get that from donations from people who genuinely support them, no its like the book about Nixon which showed he had to go for a chat with the rich and powerful to find out if it was his turn. I think the likes of Hilary Benn are like their dad. They mean well but as soon as they get into power they are shown a folder that lets them know what will happen to this country if we dont tow the line.
J,
When I said that I thought you were talking rubbish, I did not explain my comment. It wasnt about your premise on what should be done. It was more that unfortunately with the existing political system in these countries it was a pie in the sky idea that has no chance of even being considered. This country has a long history of making political mistakes that their arrogance wont lt them back down. I dont know if you read some of Campbells Sterile Memoirs but the story of Bill Clinton screaming down the phone at Blair gives us a rough idea where we stand in the pecking order. If the yanks say jump to a British Prime Minister he asks how high. Tony Blair/Gordon Brown made a self concious decision to seek the wealth of the US for the British Economy plain and simple. If they back out now and try to speak to these people there is going to be a lot of defaulters of mortgages. Its got nothing to do with the American People, its their political system where war is encouraged by the people with the real power. THE MONEY MEN who run arms manufacturers, oil industry etc. They are the ones who decide who will sit in the Whitehouse. Look at the money that Clinton and Osama have already in their election war chests. Do you think they get that from donations from people who genuinely support them, no its like the book about Nixon which showed he had to go for a chat with the rich and powerful to find out if it was his turn. I think the likes of Hilary Benn are like their dad. They mean well but as soon as they get into power they are shown a folder that lets them know what will happen to this country if we dont tow the line.
Posted by: Chris, New York on 3:52pm Mon 9 Jul 07
J, you still didn't respond to the question about why Indian Muslims also murder people there. What about the WTC bombings in the early 90's or even 9/11? The US wasn't in Iraq then but the crazies still found a reason. How about the bombing in Bali that killed over 200 innocent tourists?
It's easy to say that it's all America's, Britain's, and Israel's, etc. fault but that's far too simplistic. Look at Muslim atrocities around the world and you'll see that they have happened before Iraq and would have happened regardless of the Iraq issue.
J, you still didn't respond to the question about why Indian Muslims also murder people there. What about the WTC bombings in the early 90's or even 9/11? The US wasn't in Iraq then but the crazies still found a reason. How about the bombing in Bali that killed over 200 innocent tourists?
It's easy to say that it's all America's, Britain's, and Israel's, etc. fault but that's far too simplistic. Look at Muslim atrocities around the world and you'll see that they have happened before Iraq and would have happened regardless of the Iraq issue.
Posted by: humphrey mcturd, nae idea on 5:00pm Mon 9 Jul 07
Chris New York I agree with you 100%. These Morons have been killing people indiscriminately for years. Any one thinking pulling out of Iraq will solve the terrorist threat are living in cloud cuckoo land. Salmand Rushdie springs to mind,Danish cartoons spring to mind ,Leon Klinghofer springs to mind(wheelchair bound American shot and thrown overboard a cruise ship). Aeroplane hijackings,kidnappin
gs, beheadings,murder , mayhem ,you name it these people are more than capable of carrying these atrocities out.
Chris New York I agree with you 100%. These Morons have been killing people indiscriminately for years. Any one thinking pulling out of Iraq will solve the terrorist threat are living in cloud cuckoo land. Salmand Rushdie springs to mind,Danish cartoons spring to mind ,Leon Klinghofer springs to mind(wheelchair bound American shot and thrown overboard a cruise ship). Aeroplane hijackings,kidnappin
gs, beheadings,murder , mayhem ,you name it these people are more than capable of carrying these atrocities out.
Posted by: J, Glasgow on 8:01pm Mon 9 Jul 07
Chris and Humphrey, bad US and UK policy in the Middle East didn't start in the 1990s and I have not said that anywhere. Bad policy, double standards in the Middle East go back decades. In fact if you start at least from 1948 onwards you'll see when it really kicked off.
Your latest responses simply prove again that you think along the "International Law and rules and for others, not for us and our friends." philosophy. That policy stinks and those who operate within it and then dare to claim they recognise the principles of democracy are the real danger to the rest of the world.
Chris and Humphrey, bad US and UK policy in the Middle East didn't start in the 1990s and I have not said that anywhere. Bad policy, double standards in the Middle East go back decades. In fact if you start at least from 1948 onwards you'll see when it really kicked off.
Your latest responses simply prove again that you think along the "International Law and rules and for others, not for us and our friends." philosophy. That policy stinks and those who operate within it and then dare to claim they recognise the principles of democracy are the real danger to the rest of the world.
Posted by: Jock Tamson's Bairn on 8:31pm Mon 9 Jul 07
J of Glasgow: "Look at the money that Clinton and Osama have already in their election war chests"
I didn't know Osama had turned democrat but it's welcome news. Or perhaps you are mixing him up with Obama the way the rabid right-wing pundits on Fox do.
In amidst al lyour rants about everything being the west's fault you conveniently ignore intra-muslim violence. Perhaps you can tell us who is responsible for the mayhem in Darfur? Or exactly whose tanks are shelling the Red Mosque in Islamabad? I don't see many western forces involved in either place.
As for this:
"I think the likes of Hilary Benn are like their dad. They mean well but as soon as they get into power they are shown a folder that lets them know what will happen to this country if we dont tow the line."
You are right. That's also the folder which shows the faked moon landings, reveals Prince Philip as the murderer of Princess Diana, demonstrates convincingly that Elvis was behind the Kennedy assassination and has inside info on the whereabouts of Lord Lucan and Shergar
J of Glasgow: "Look at the money that Clinton and Osama have already in their election war chests"
I didn't know Osama had turned democrat but it's welcome news. Or perhaps you are mixing him up with Obama the way the rabid right-wing pundits on Fox do.
In amidst al lyour rants about everything being the west's fault you conveniently ignore intra-muslim violence. Perhaps you can tell us who is responsible for the mayhem in Darfur? Or exactly whose tanks are shelling the Red Mosque in Islamabad? I don't see many western forces involved in either place.
As for this:
"I think the likes of Hilary Benn are like their dad. They mean well but as soon as they get into power they are shown a folder that lets them know what will happen to this country if we dont tow the line."
You are right. That's also the folder which shows the faked moon landings, reveals Prince Philip as the murderer of Princess Diana, demonstrates convincingly that Elvis was behind the Kennedy assassination and has inside info on the whereabouts of Lord Lucan and Shergar
Posted by: J, Glasgow on 3:38pm Tue 10 Jul 07
Jock Tamson, your comments above prove you didn't even read my posts properly. In future please don't attribute quotes to me which weren't written by me, as you have done. I did not mention Clinton or Bin Laden anywhere!
As for "rants" - my own posts cannot be described as such as my contributions were based on facts and on the understandable principle that for democracy to work all countries MUST obey International Law and no one can set the Law aside when it suits. No one can be above the law, end of.
Finally I have to say that your contribution above is as good an example as I have seen of a real rant. I think you should be more careful in future before committing to print insults against others who didn't even say in the first place the things that upset you.
Jock Tamson, your comments above prove you didn't even read my posts properly. In future please don't attribute quotes to me which weren't written by me, as you have done. I did not mention Clinton or Bin Laden anywhere!
As for "rants" - my own posts cannot be described as such as my contributions were based on facts and on the understandable principle that for democracy to work all countries MUST obey International Law and no one can set the Law aside when it suits. No one can be above the law, end of.
Finally I have to say that your contribution above is as good an example as I have seen of a real rant. I think you should be more careful in future before committing to print insults against others who didn't even say in the first place the things that upset you.
Posted by: donald anderson, glasgow on 9:01am Wed 11 Jul 07
Stop terrorising Iraq.
Posted by: BigMac, Glasgow on 5:06pm Wed 11 Jul 07
Re : J, Glasgow on 3:38pm Tue 10 Jul 07
J, enjoyed reading your posts.
Don't agree with all your posted comments but your views allow others to question their own thinking. And in some cases entrenched thinking.
I agree with you that many people in Islamic parts of the world see the west as hypocrites in their dealings with the middle east.
If it's to be believed that the money spent and the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan is a fight for democracy. -Then why has the same political will by the west not applied to the fate of the Palestinians ( leaving Israel aside ) who had been waiting a lifetime to be liberated ?
I also agree with you that evading the will of the UN in regard to Iraq in the eyes of Islamic world confirmed to many Muslims that the west and in particular USA play by their own rules.
Those who say 9/11 came before Iraq and Afghanistan should perhaps re-examine history in the middle east prior to 2001 before jumping on the war on terror bandwagon.
Of course nothing can justify the suicide attacks currently in our midst. But we must accept western double standards has played it's part in pushing some people towards extremism.
Separately, I've seen many people on theses posts and elsewhere use the word Muslim with a very board brush. The people blowing themselves up are Jidahists - we should call them Jihadists. Saying just " Muslim terrorist " is sloppy and plays into the hands of extremists on all sides. Lets not sleep-walk into "holy war" or into any more traps that the extremists have set for us.- In the case of Iraq it might already be too late.
Re : J, Glasgow on 3:38pm Tue 10 Jul 07
J, enjoyed reading your posts.
Don't agree with all your posted comments but your views allow others to question their own thinking. And in some cases entrenched thinking.
I agree with you that many people in Islamic parts of the world see the west as hypocrites in their dealings with the middle east.
If it's to be believed that the money spent and the lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan is a fight for democracy. -Then why has the same political will by the west not applied to the fate of the Palestinians ( leaving Israel aside ) who had been waiting a lifetime to be liberated ?
I also agree with you that evading the will of the UN in regard to Iraq in the eyes of Islamic world confirmed to many Muslims that the west and in particular USA play by their own rules.
Those who say 9/11 came before Iraq and Afghanistan should perhaps re-examine history in the middle east prior to 2001 before jumping on the war on terror bandwagon.
Of course nothing can justify the suicide attacks currently in our midst. But we must accept western double standards has played it's part in pushing some people towards extremism.
Separately, I've seen many people on theses posts and elsewhere use the word Muslim with a very board brush. The people blowing themselves up are Jidahists - we should call them Jihadists. Saying just " Muslim terrorist " is sloppy and plays into the hands of extremists on all sides. Lets not sleep-walk into "holy war" or into any more traps that the extremists have set for us.- In the case of Iraq it might already be too late.
Politics
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (23)
