how about an all out infiltration by the police of british mosques? a total suspension of normal criminal law procedure seems in order.
the british should simply treat muslims the way they have treated the catholics in n eire over the past 40 years. that is, run an all out police state. that is the only way to restore order and defeat the enemy.
There's little criminality in fascist states except state criminality... Anyway, they're not dumb enough to wait for the police in mosques.
what was al queda's excuse for its atrocities PRIOR to the invasion of iraq? lets see. there was the decadence of western culture, the crusades, colonialism, the existence of israel, the loss of spain, the existence of jews, the existence of christans, the yom kippur war, the crimes against muslims in yugoslovia, the six day war, the fall of the ottoman empire, the 1948-49 war, the status of women in western societies, christian missionaries, etc. etc. etc. etc. do you see, liberals? these people will ALWAYS come up with some lame excuse for murder.
patrickm is a troll, folks. Ignore him. It's for his own good. He needs to get back to his homework so he can finally escape ninth grade.
and i forgot the fact the alcohol is legal in the west, which is another atrocity against islam, right? its ok for a dirty old man like bin laden to marry a 12 year old, but its an atrocity to drink a pint of lager.
As long as you're talking about AQ members, this is in fact accurate. To be more precise, the US interference in the ME was their main reasons. Let's be honest, Iraq has just given them the perfect alibi and that was the kind of things they were actually looking for by perpretating 9/11.
The comments made patrickm may be those of a troll, but they are indeed what is taught by American popular culture, even as officially it is not politically correct to state some of the conclusions from them as explicitly. There are different groups, with different agendas and gripes in the Middle East. Some are secular and quite Westernized, yet are anti-American because they do see an inconsistency in the ideals proclaimed by the US and its actions in the region. These group see US policy towards Israel as the preeminent example of that hypocrisy. They are certainly not interested in changing the West and its lifestyle; indeed the opposite: they want to spread it to the Islamic world as well. Even their divisions, from the left to the right, are essentially borrowed from the same divisions in the secular parts of the Western world. Others are religious and find it offfensive that the region has been subjected to different forms, both direct and indirect, of Western encroachment. For them, Israel is very much a colonial outpost of the Western world, but the fight is broader and not just about israel. They resent seeing the region being taken over by the West, spiritually, culturally, economically and politically. Very few even among them, if any, however are messianic and have any illusion or desire to dictate how people should live outside of what would be considered Dar Al Islam (realm of Islam) in Islamic jurisprudence. I dare say not even Al Queda, regardless that some of their comment might appear that way. Simply put, much of Islamic jurisprudence is derived from the period after the initial Islamic conquests, where a state of peace prevailed between Christiandom and Islam. That jurisprudence divided the world into the realm of Islam (dar al Islam) and dar al Harb (real of infidels). Under it, protecting the realm of Islam from foreign invasion and encroachment was a religious duty; however, spreading Islam by war outside its own realm came with many restrictions and difficult requirements. It basically is not endorsed by any type of Islamic thought, more so as the balance of power began shifting and eventually the best the Islamic world could even hope for was to defend itself from Western imperialism and colonialism. All these theoretical issues aside, let me explain Al Queda a bit. First, the group itself today is probably more symbolic of a certain ideology than an actual organization. Before 9/11, the organization was comprised of various Islamic zealots who were initially financed heavily by the Saudis, mostly to butress their Wahabi Islamic credentials and shield themselves from the ideological threat from Iran's revolution. As such the group initially had most of its venum reserved for the shia. The Wahabis, though puritancial and upholding beliefs that is not consistent with either the "modernist" aspects of Iran's revolutionary theolgy or certainly anything in Western culture, were not such a big and heavy anti-Western crusaders until US troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia. They opposed that decision and when their opposition went unheeded, they began first to attack the Saudi royal family and quickly began to go after the rest of the world. The Saudis for a while did play a dupliticious game with this group. They basically decided the best way to deal with them, without undermining the while Wahabi ideology that underpins their rule, was to export them and use them in the meantime against Iran. Best place for that was in Afghanistan: Saudi money and Pakistani arms were the lifelong of support for the Taleban and indirectly Al Queda. The problem was that the direction the Saudis preferred, despite the ideological indoctrination, was not the only one that Al Queda assumed for itself. The group too what were mostly apolitical but virulently bigoted and prejudiced ideas about everyone else (shia, Jews, Christians, you name it) and turned it into a crusade of its own! This group, by its very nature, would always have a few hardcore friends and sympathisers, and an overwhelming number who would not be able to stand them. In Iran, they are openly regarded as savagaes, not to placate any Western notions, but because of Iran's own reasons. The US could have easily defeated this group, already isolated as it was, by focuing only on Al Queda and giving out a message opposite of what drove Bush. The message being: whoever is not with Al Queda, is with us in fighting this group. For reasons I have explained elswhere, Bush preferred another message to fruther another agenda, and in the process increased the sympathy and support this group can enjoy symbolically, regardless of what happens to them organizationally.
You are un-********ing-beleivable. Every single post of yours is a mirror of the previous. Change the tune already, it's embarassing. I bet your mullahs are very proud of you, maybe you can run for the next president of Iran.
They must have had ways of communicating right before each attack or they just agrred on the time they will attack.
those that went western style democracy in the middle east have absolutely no connection to a neo medieval group like al queda or any other islamic terrorist group. do you think that anyone who supports al queda wants to see secular democracy? i think not. no trolling, just facts.
There are large numbers of people who can be influenced one way or another depending on the threats they face and the environment that surrounds them. In one environment, a group like Al Queda is very isolated and people within these societies are prepared to help to root them out. In another enviroment, they are more tolerated and their rhetoric viewed with greater sympathy. In the meantime, those who support a host of other ideologies more progressive than the backward savagery of Al Queda, can suffer in their ability to thrive politically by the kind of acts the US has engaged in the Middle East. I will give you the example from Iran, although Iran has absolutely no interest in Al Queda across the political spectrum. Still, the shift in voting patterns and attitudes is unmistakable if only people stop listening to propaganda, and pay attention to what has happened to Iran. In Iran, reformists were winning landslide victories in presidential elections (1997, 2001), parliamentary elections (2000), and city council elections. The topic of discussion in Iran, in terms of international relations, was "dialogue between civilizations", "detente", "respect for international law", etc. Domestically, it was "rule of law", "freedom of press", "human rights", "democracy", "political accountabilty", etc. That trend was reversed after Bush came to office and began talking in billigerent terms. Maybe a small minority of Iranians liked Bush's message about regime change and "axis of evil"; the majority felt threatened by it. They naturally began gravitating towards people who were no longer espousing friendly relations with the US. From 2003 onward, conservatives began winning one election after another. Today, they control the city councils in Iran, the parliament and recently won the presidency. There are a lot of other reasons for that shift in attitudes, but I assure you that Bush and his accomplices played a role in many of them directly or indirectly! Now, in Iran, even hardliners (contrary to the propaganda) aren't all that crazy, nor certainly are they medieval in their thinking. Certainly not in comparison to a group like Al Queda. But in other societies, especially those were there is a cultural or religious affinity for a group like Al Queda, actions like the invasion of Iraq and the entire bellicose talk from Washington moves people to feel more sympathy for Al Queda. And with it, as the pedelum swings, the numbers that a group like Al Queda could recruit from increases as well. If the US has focused only on Al Queda after 9/11, with the world united, included through much of the Islamic world, the US would have been able to route out this group. And any "luster" their banner might enjoy today for all but a very small group of people. Today, while Bush's actions have given Al Queda a large base to recruit from, fortunately the group itself has done things to dent its appeal: if Al Queda is not a bit more popular than it could have been, it is because of some their actions in going after so many Moslems and their atrocities even against their fellow correligionists in Iraq. Otherwise, this group would have been able to find a large recruiting base in the sunni Islamic world. And Bush's so-called "war on terrorism" would be a major culprit in that equation.
why do you insist on calling the war "the so called war on terrorism"? anyway, you can't worry too much about voting trends. the important thing is that there are elctions. if a more conservative group wins, so be it. the same thing happened in turkey a few years ago. don't forget that al queda attacked muslims in saudi arabia several times as well. al queda doesn't really care who they kill. unlike many terrorist groups, they don't even have a particular goal in mind. they simply enjoy creating mayhem. you get all kinds of sick people who join terrorist groups. some do it for religious reasons, some for political reasons, some for money, some for adventure, some feel peer pressured, and some just like doing things like that. that's the criminal mind.i rather doubt that the invasion of iraq has greatly increased support for al queda throughout the muslim world. remember all of the attacks launched by al queda even before 9-11. and lets not forget one little detail; that is, that muslims kill other muslims all the damm time. how do you account for that, saladin?
You apparently didn't get it: I would not mind at all if the US was focused on Al Queda. I mind that the US is focused on another agenda, and going after a wide range of groups, many who have nothing to do with Al Queda. In the process, further radicalizing the region and not only increase the support base for Al Queda, but turning various other groups to become more radical than otherwise.