ChatterBank2 mins ago
Uk's Terror Threat Level 'will Stay At Severe And May Rise Further'
100 Answers
http://
But just to highlight the fact that they are not just picking on Islam they announce that the threat from 'extreme right-wing terrorism' was also growing and four plots had been disrupted since March last year.
Would they be four planned peaceful marches of protest?
But just to highlight the fact that they are not just picking on Islam they announce that the threat from 'extreme right-wing terrorism' was also growing and four plots had been disrupted since March last year.
Would they be four planned peaceful marches of protest?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
//But thank you for alerting us to the dangers of mentally unstable right wing terrorists. We don’t need another Jo Cox, nor Soho nail bomber, so just with Islamic terrorists, we need to be wary of right wing nut jobs//
You've forgotten Osbourne who did the Finsbury Park attack and the Westboro Baptist Church who've got thousands of followers where I live, SP.
You've forgotten Osbourne who did the Finsbury Park attack and the Westboro Baptist Church who've got thousands of followers where I live, SP.
YMB
I think we need to make a distinction between terrorists and murders (although it’s true that a terrorists is both a terrorist and a murderer).
The difference is that a murderer has a specific target, and that target is normally a single person (leaving aside serial killers), where a terrorist’s purpose is to strike fear into a large group of people.
I think we need to make a distinction between terrorists and murders (although it’s true that a terrorists is both a terrorist and a murderer).
The difference is that a murderer has a specific target, and that target is normally a single person (leaving aside serial killers), where a terrorist’s purpose is to strike fear into a large group of people.
// Indeed, but very few people are curious about the ideology which inspires the terrorist.//
count me in on that
uncurious I am
uncuriouser and uncuriouser as someone might say.....
I mean at Bataclan ( 99 dead) - bagga bagga bagga ( er sounds of gunshots )
Now Misewer, why did you do that ?
cant say I can rouse any enthusiasm for that question
count me in on that
uncurious I am
uncuriouser and uncuriouser as someone might say.....
I mean at Bataclan ( 99 dead) - bagga bagga bagga ( er sounds of gunshots )
Now Misewer, why did you do that ?
cant say I can rouse any enthusiasm for that question
Gromit
I rather think that it is you who has lost the plot.
/// You seem to be asserting that 4 peaceful marches have been classed as terrorism threats, ///
No I haven't.
/// Then you said terrorism isn't terrorism until a successful prosecution had been made. ///
No I didn't, but what I did say was a terrorist isn't a terrorist until proven to be one.
/// Then you said that Nazis do not exist because Hitler was sorted out. ///
No I didn't
/// And then you said ABers who disagree with you had never criticised the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS. ///
No I didn't I have not once mentioned the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, not on this thread at least.
Not one of your best attempts to twist my words Gromit.
I rather think that it is you who has lost the plot.
/// You seem to be asserting that 4 peaceful marches have been classed as terrorism threats, ///
No I haven't.
/// Then you said terrorism isn't terrorism until a successful prosecution had been made. ///
No I didn't, but what I did say was a terrorist isn't a terrorist until proven to be one.
/// Then you said that Nazis do not exist because Hitler was sorted out. ///
No I didn't
/// And then you said ABers who disagree with you had never criticised the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS. ///
No I didn't I have not once mentioned the Taliban, al Qaeda, ISIS, not on this thread at least.
Not one of your best attempts to twist my words Gromit.
// few people are curious about the ideology which inspires the terrorist. //
It is not Islam that inspires terrorists. They just use Islam as an excuse to justify their actions, because that is their rule book.
The main inspiration of Middle Eastern terrorism is their sense of injustice. They blame the west for interfering in their countries and visiting wars on their fellow muslims. Corrupt regimes and despots often maintain their grip on power with the collusion of the the rich countries. So we become the target for anyone not happy with their rulers.
Islam is full of that ‘eye for an eye’ nonsense, so people use it to justify the killing and atrocities they undertake. And not the first time people have used their holy books to perpetrate nasty crimes against humanity.
It is not Islam that inspires terrorists. They just use Islam as an excuse to justify their actions, because that is their rule book.
The main inspiration of Middle Eastern terrorism is their sense of injustice. They blame the west for interfering in their countries and visiting wars on their fellow muslims. Corrupt regimes and despots often maintain their grip on power with the collusion of the the rich countries. So we become the target for anyone not happy with their rulers.
Islam is full of that ‘eye for an eye’ nonsense, so people use it to justify the killing and atrocities they undertake. And not the first time people have used their holy books to perpetrate nasty crimes against humanity.
//It is not Islam that inspires terrorists...The main inspiration of Middle Eastern terrorism is their sense of injustice".
I understand this a popular line, Gromit, but what makes you so sure? Have you spoken to a terrorist about it?
Those who are connected with ISIS will be acting to pursue ISIS' aims, won't they? No secret about that aim - it's to restore the Caliphate. And there's nothing more essentially Islamic than the imposition of God's law on a faithless world.
If there's an argument within Islam about this it won't be about the objectives, only the (legitimate Islamic) means of attaining them.
.
I understand this a popular line, Gromit, but what makes you so sure? Have you spoken to a terrorist about it?
Those who are connected with ISIS will be acting to pursue ISIS' aims, won't they? No secret about that aim - it's to restore the Caliphate. And there's nothing more essentially Islamic than the imposition of God's law on a faithless world.
If there's an argument within Islam about this it won't be about the objectives, only the (legitimate Islamic) means of attaining them.
.
VE,
No, I have never spoken to any form of terrorist about terrorism.
ISIS rose out of the instability resulting from the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was invaded after 911 even though they had buggerall to do with the attack on the World Trade Centre. ISIS was further helped by the instability brought about by the Syrian Civil War. Their aim was indeed to re-establish a caliphate, and they wanted to do that by taking over muslim countries and uniting them under one flag. ISIS targets were mainly other muslims. It was a power grab, nothing more.
No, I have never spoken to any form of terrorist about terrorism.
ISIS rose out of the instability resulting from the invasion of Iraq. Iraq was invaded after 911 even though they had buggerall to do with the attack on the World Trade Centre. ISIS was further helped by the instability brought about by the Syrian Civil War. Their aim was indeed to re-establish a caliphate, and they wanted to do that by taking over muslim countries and uniting them under one flag. ISIS targets were mainly other muslims. It was a power grab, nothing more.
v_e
ISIS’ roots are in the Sunni terror group al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), started in 2004 by Jordanian Islamist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It was a major player in the insurgency against the US-led forces that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, and against the ***-dominated government that eventually replaced Hussein.
Hussein had led a secular government, but it was dominated by members of Iraq's Sunni minority and it brutally repressed opposition. When Saddam was ousted, power went to the majority Shiites, who wanted revenge.
There was a growing perception among Sunnis that they were being persecuted and excluded from power by *** officials.
AQI recruited Sunni fighters to its cause -- trying to establish a Sunni Islamist control of the country.
Tons more at this link:
https:/
I think the problem that many of us have is that the roots of Islamic terrorism is actually quite complicated.
ISIS’ roots are in the Sunni terror group al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), started in 2004 by Jordanian Islamist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. It was a major player in the insurgency against the US-led forces that toppled Saddam Hussein in 2003, and against the ***-dominated government that eventually replaced Hussein.
Hussein had led a secular government, but it was dominated by members of Iraq's Sunni minority and it brutally repressed opposition. When Saddam was ousted, power went to the majority Shiites, who wanted revenge.
There was a growing perception among Sunnis that they were being persecuted and excluded from power by *** officials.
AQI recruited Sunni fighters to its cause -- trying to establish a Sunni Islamist control of the country.
Tons more at this link:
https:/
I think the problem that many of us have is that the roots of Islamic terrorism is actually quite complicated.
// ISIS’ roots are in the Sunni terror group al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI), started in 2004 …..I think the problem that many of us have is that the roots of Islamic terrorism is actually quite complicated.//
Indeed they are, but if you really want to discover the root of Islamic aggression you need to go back rather further than 2004… in fact to biblical times. (Just a reminder : 9/11/2001 was also pre-2004).
Indeed they are, but if you really want to discover the root of Islamic aggression you need to go back rather further than 2004… in fact to biblical times. (Just a reminder : 9/11/2001 was also pre-2004).
I'm with you 100% on your analysis (16:17), Gromit.
Can I encourage you to think further about the implications of your post? You write:
"Their aim was indeed to re-establish a caliphate, and they wanted to do that by taking over muslim countries and uniting them under one flag. ISIS targets were mainly other muslims. It was a power grab, nothing more.".
Yes, indeed, a power grab, but that's what the Caliphate is. So in this respect[i ISIS is as Islamic as you can get. The most basic doctrine of Islam is that Allah is the supreme and [i]only] legitimate law-giver, and that it is the duty of every Muslim to help extend the reach of that law. "Struggle" (that's "jihad" to you and me these days) in the cause of Allah is a divine mandate going back to the earliest days of Islam. The fatwas and condemnations of ISIS coming from the Islamic jurists in Al-Azhar and other schools of law don't attack ISIS for being un-Islamic, or for "perverting a great religion" - that's the deliberate deceit we get from the MCB here and from CAIR in the States. The essential (admittedly, there's quite a lot of more nuanced stuff in there as well if you read some of the fatwas) criticism of ISIS is that Baghdadi's claim to be caliph is spurious.
Can I encourage you to think further about the implications of your post? You write:
"Their aim was indeed to re-establish a caliphate, and they wanted to do that by taking over muslim countries and uniting them under one flag. ISIS targets were mainly other muslims. It was a power grab, nothing more.".
Yes, indeed, a power grab, but that's what the Caliphate is. So in this respect[i ISIS is as Islamic as you can get. The most basic doctrine of Islam is that Allah is the supreme and [i]only] legitimate law-giver, and that it is the duty of every Muslim to help extend the reach of that law. "Struggle" (that's "jihad" to you and me these days) in the cause of Allah is a divine mandate going back to the earliest days of Islam. The fatwas and condemnations of ISIS coming from the Islamic jurists in Al-Azhar and other schools of law don't attack ISIS for being un-Islamic, or for "perverting a great religion" - that's the deliberate deceit we get from the MCB here and from CAIR in the States. The essential (admittedly, there's quite a lot of more nuanced stuff in there as well if you read some of the fatwas) criticism of ISIS is that Baghdadi's claim to be caliph is spurious.
"In the years leading up to the First World War, “suffragettes conducted a ferocious and prolonged bombing campaign across the whole of the UK; planting improvised explosive devices (or IEDs) in places as varied as Westminster Abbey, St Paul’s Cathedral, the Bank of England, the National Gallery, railway stations and many other locations”
http://
History teachers used to insist this got them nowhere, women were granted the vote because they worked jolly hard on the home front in WW1. I doubted this when I was 12; I doubt it more so now. There was a long history of peaceful suffragism and it got women absolutely nowhere. It wasn't till they got violent that the government started to pay attention.
But how you ban all terrorism - which I would happily do - without acknowledging its pivotal role in creating modern Britain, I don't know.
It's worth asking, I think, whether the British government is particularly resistant to peaceful calls for reform. Women in Wyoming got the vote decades earlier, in 1869, two full generations before Britain, and in New Zealand it was 1893. Neither place needed violent campaigns, but I think in both cases the reform was made for party political purposes. In Britain, though, it looks as if neither party wanted women voting for them, and it took bombs to change their minds.
https:/
http://
History teachers used to insist this got them nowhere, women were granted the vote because they worked jolly hard on the home front in WW1. I doubted this when I was 12; I doubt it more so now. There was a long history of peaceful suffragism and it got women absolutely nowhere. It wasn't till they got violent that the government started to pay attention.
But how you ban all terrorism - which I would happily do - without acknowledging its pivotal role in creating modern Britain, I don't know.
It's worth asking, I think, whether the British government is particularly resistant to peaceful calls for reform. Women in Wyoming got the vote decades earlier, in 1869, two full generations before Britain, and in New Zealand it was 1893. Neither place needed violent campaigns, but I think in both cases the reform was made for party political purposes. In Britain, though, it looks as if neither party wanted women voting for them, and it took bombs to change their minds.
https:/
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.