All Hank, all the time.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
again, to focus on airports is to ignore the real targets that are most threatened and least protectible. you all seem to ignore it.

What do you think will happen once the terrorists start blowing themselves up on the subway or at ballgames?

the attacks on the Embassies, WTC 1, the Cole all occured before Iraq and Afghanistan- 20000 jihadis were trained in Afghanistan Before 9/11.

Does getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan take us back to those days of safety? really- don't we have to throw Israel to the wolves also, and what if they want us to give up France or England?

In a way, we should probably be reassured that the latest foiled plots involved airplanes. It could be read to suggest that the terrorists do not feel they are in a position to attack these softer targets.

Or perhaps it only suggests that they think airplanes make for better press. Regardless, it is only a matter of time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
anyone who can be perceived as leaders of those men cannot be making a statement that implies at all the actions of these men was understandable.
.

Exactly. This seems so obvious to me. How can someone even argue with this?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
The rest of the world was also subjected to endless propaganda (rigged photos, staged events, inflated casualty numbers), spewed by a complicit media, to make the Israelis look like a bunch of senseless butchers.

Where are the Reuters photos of the Israeli dead and the destruction from all the Hezzbollah rockets? Reading the papers, one would forget that Israel was merely defending itself.

Have you compared the numbers of dead and injured on each side? Israel was not getting the worst of it, which is one reason it wanted to prolong the conflict to try to do damage to Hezbollah. A few weeks (?) later, this is not looking like the wisest strategy, since Israel appears to have overestimated the damage it was doing. To Hezbollah, if not to Lebanon.

Need I list (again) all of the Islamic terrorist activity pre-Bush?

To observe that our Middle East policies stirs up animus against us is not to suggest that we are the cause of all unhappiness and/or terrorism.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
Exactly. This seems so obvious to me. How can someone even argue with this?

Because it seems a little strange to get your panties in too much of a bunch over a statement that didn't say anything new or surprising.

You're right on the PR (obviously, or we wouldn't be talking about it), but it is expected.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm at a loss to understand how Members of Parliament "can be perceived as leaders of . . . crazy Islamic men."

Are you really this obtuse? If someone refers to themself as a leader of the the Islamic community then why is it so crazy to see them as having a leadership position over someone in that community.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I am sure that it does. I'm sure that from their perspective it also means bombing a rocket launcher and killing an innocent bystander in the process.

They equate the two. Do you?

And they seem to give no special attention to addressing their own. That's the problem.

I tried to avoid equating the two, only to have Hank put those words in my mouth. Did you not read those posts, or are you just trying to be irritating?

What you are now saying is that it's not enough that they condemn the sort of terrorism that offends us the most -- they also have to publicly state that that kind of terrorism is special -- it's worse than everything else in the world. Where does this obligation come from?

Which is worse: 3,000 people dead on 9/11, or 400,000 people dead in Darfur? 9/11 troubles me more, because it's closer to home, but I don't think that everyone should have to feel the same way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
At this time they should have just condemned the actions and left it at that. Adding that such actions should be expected with Britians policies in the middle east makes it signed like they are partially justifiying and are using an implied threat.

Right after such an attack they should just vociferously and unequivacoly condemn the terrorist acts and leave it at that. If they have a problem with British foreign policy now is not the time to bring it up.

As a matter of PR, I agree with you.

If we are responding to what they said, rather than to how others will respond to what they said, I disagree for the reasons stated.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

(d) If those British MPs had put out an open letter condemning Islamist terrorism in the strongest possible terms, is there any chance at all that anyone who reads this board would have heard about it? I doubt it. (I'm not blaming any of us. We get our news from media. Controversy sells.)

This post implys that you agree that they one we are discussing did not condemn Islamist terrorism in the strongest possible terms. Don't you think it was a mistake not condemn Islamist terrorism in the strongest possible terms?

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
How many rockets were fired into Israel from Southern Lebanon this year before Israel started bombing Lebanon?

Quite frankly, any number greater than 1 is more than enough.

I take it you find no issue with kidnapping soldiers and dragging them across national borderlines?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you really this obtuse? If someone refers to themself as a leader of the the Islamic community then why is it so crazy to see them as having a leadership position over someone in that community.

You're the expert on reading comprehension, apparently, so perhaps you can point out the sentence here where they refer to themselves as leaders of the Islamic community:

• Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.
  
  It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
  
  To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
  
  The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
  
  Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.
  
  Such a move would make us all safer.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Not really, no. If you actually believe that you could expel all Arabs from the US without a major violent opposition, you're living in far more of a state of delusion than I thought.

Adel Darwish, writing in Asharq Alawsat, says:

"The main problem lies in finding the way to combat terrorism, which is an impossible task if we do not defeat its ideology, as Blair mentioned in his Los Angeles lecture and at his press conference last week. At any other time or in any other era prior to the emergence of the hard-line fundamental Islam, Bin Laden, Al-Zawahiri, Al-Zarqawi, Al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood, and others, these British-born young men would have been proud of belonging to their country, Britain, and would have been loyal to their country in which they live and on whose ground they earn their livelihoods.

The danger is that these young men have been brainwashed, and now they do not recognize the national belonging to the country, and they consider themselves to belong to a mythical expression some people call "Islamic Caliphate," or what they think to be an Islamic nation. This is similar to the utterance pronounced publicly by the general guide of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, "To hell with Egypt, the father of Egypt, and those who established Egypt." Therefore, these brainwashed Muslim Britons say "to hell" with Britain, to which their parents emigrated voluntarily looking for a culturally and economically better life, and they were not forced by anyone to come here. These young men say, or are taught to say "to hell" with life itself when they turn themselves into human suicide bombs.

The imams of corruption and hatred lied to these young men when they promised them that they would go to Paradise. Would any rational person believe that a person who committed suicide and who killed dozens of women and children will go to Paradise?

Perhaps for the hundredth time I join those who called in the past for expelling the imams of evil and hatred from Britain. In the absence of a religious affairs ministry, the Friday sermons and lessons ought to be subjected to the Interior Ministry through the supervision of Islamic academics, and they all should be delivered in English. If any of these imams did not want to master the English language, or refused to be integrated in Britain and to live as a Briton according to the laws and culture of the country, then he would be free to go back to where he came from, the same as he was free to come here. This is particularly true if he does not like the British way of life, and he considers it infidelity, he should leave this infidelity, go to the land from which he came, and join the society he likes.

At the same time, let the leftwing and liberal tendencies abandon political correctness, which they justify on the basis of respecting their cultural peculiarities. This is a fallacy, and a method that will lead to the isolation of Muslims, and their being locked up in a cultural "Ghetto" or "Muslim reservation," which in turn will create those who will install themselves as leaders of Muslims and lead them to perdition.

This is the legal aspect. As for the social, political, and cultural aspects, law alone is not sufficient. Purging Islam and Muslim communities in Britain of harmful ideas is up to the Muslims themselves. They could kick the imams of evil and the promoters of terrorism out of Britain, so that Britain remains the country of tolerance and amicability, and the capital of the Arabs and Muslims in the western countries.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This post implys that you agree that they one we are discussing did not condemn Islamist terrorism in the strongest possible terms. Don't you think it was a mistake not condemn Islamist terrorism in the strongest possible terms?

As a question of PR? I'm really not interesting in that question. I have a good sense of how their letter was received among lawyers who post on this board. I have no idea how it was received in the UK, apart from Slave's post.

What would the strongest possible terms be? They could say, acts of terrorism offend us more than eating rats. That's pretty strong. But then someone could point out that they didn't say, acts of terrorism offend us more than eating rats while watching Kathy Bates in a hot tub in About Schmidt, and -- voila -- again they've failed to denounce terrorism in the strongest possible terms.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You're the expert on reading comprehension, apparently, so perhaps you can point out the sentence here where they refer to themselves as leaders of the Islamic community:

• Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.
  
  It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
  
  To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
  
  The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
  
  Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.
  
  Such a move would make us all safer.

gosh! you're right they don't. hey, wait. didn't they like, you know, sign it? did they list any titles or anything by their names? how do you get to be in Parliment?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. I don't disagree (hi Sidd!) with that.

but it's really the fault of an educational system that ghettozies people of non-European descent into shoddy schools.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Adder
How many rockets were fired into Israel from Southern Lebanon this year before Israel started bombing Lebanon?

More than zero.