[christ]

Originally Posted by Busemann

Almost all international terrorism today are caused by religious extremists. A lot of people in this world come from a background far worse than any al-qaeida terrorist, yet they don't resort to violence. In fact, most of them condemn it.

Not true.

A lot (maybe most) terrorist leaders introduce religion into their rhetoric, to drum up support from 'the masses'. but terrorism is almost exclusively targetted at political ends, not religious objectives.

This is also true of world leaders, who also introduce religion into their rhetoric in order to give some sort of 'blessing' to what they do - e.g. GWB and Tony Blair.

[Busemann]

Originally Posted by analogika

Do you really think that flying two planes into the World Trade Center was just a random act of terror, and not a statement?

What I'm saying is that it didn't happen as a consequence of oppression from the west. A lot of people hate America for what they have done throughout the years, but that doesn't mean they are terrorists. The terrorists' goal is to dominate the world with their ideology (an extreme and violent version of Islam which muslims the world over condemn)

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by christ

"right-thinking". As in "Fascist". There's the clue.

... but even so, there is a difference between punishing the offenders ("gutting the perps" as you so quaintly phrase it), and islamophobic ranting, and knee-jerk invasion of any handy country with a leader of whom you disapprove.

I am surprised that you haven't suggested invading Zimbabwe as a reprisal, or are they not muslim enough for you?

You must be confusing me with someone else. At not point ever have I suggested that Saddam be removed due to 9/11. I've suggested that he be removed because he's unpleasant, but nothing else.

But, come to think of it... ...we do need an excuse to get rid of Mugabe, don't we? Thanks for the suggestion.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by christ

But the conservatives and their "lash out first, think later (if at all)" philosophy is in the way.

Simply because someone thinks about their actions faster than you libs do it doesn't mean they haven't thought about it. How's the UN Sudan crisis thing going? Have you finished talking about it yet?

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Simply because someone thinks about their actions faster than you libs do it doesn't mean they haven't thought about it. How's the UN Sudan crisis thing going? Have you finished talking about it yet?

Interesting that you mention it, the news is that the civil-war between north- and south-Sudan was just ended, a new constitution written and the rebels of the south are granted political positions in the sudanese government as well as partly autonomy for the south. The profits of the oil gets shared between north and south. While all that is a great improvement, the problem of Darfur still remains.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4666701.stm

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Simply because someone thinks about their actions faster than you libs do it doesn't mean they haven't thought about it.

Very good observation.

[mojo2]

After hearing author Robert Pape interviewed on the O'Reilly Factor I've ordered his book and want to consider the STATISTICS he brings to bear on this whole terrorist situation.

Could it be that this STUPID CHILDISH AZZOLE BIN LADEN IS PLAYING OUT HIS VERSION OF JETS VS SHARKS????

If so, the term Pape mentioned in the interview, "Offshore Balancing" may be heard much more often than it's been heard so far.

In fact, I just searched these pages for the term "offshore balancing" and came up with nothing.

Offshore balancing.

Maybe.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Busemann

What I'm saying is that it didn't happen as a consequence of oppression from the west. A lot of people hate America for what they have done throughout the years, but that doesn't mean they are terrorists. The terrorists' goal is to dominate the world with their ideology (an extreme and violent version of Islam which muslims the world over condemn)

It MIGHT just be a stupid turf war.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by nath

I didn't say anything about negotiation, but well done for the knee-jerk anyway.
What I spoke of was a balanced approach. For one example, reform of the protectionist US policy in the occupied territories should have been part of the strategy from the start, and would have drained support from radical Islamic terrorist groups.

Originally Posted by nath
I find it interesting that the only reason you can come up with against a similarly balanced strategy in the current War on Terror is that teh ayrab terrists are somehow just less 'reasonable' than the maniacs on both sides in Ulster.

Originally Posted by mojo2
We tried negotiating in Iraq but so far, zip.

As far as negotiating with OBL goes, show me his list of "demands."

If you want to take some time to study ENGLISH, I'll grant you a few years to reach the point where you understand reasoning, the act of being reasonable means the same as negotiating. So, you can keep your knee-JERK comments to yourself, where they will be most fitting.

I think this probably sums up your view of the world quite neatly, so quoted for emphasis.

You've already made your loyalties to the radical muslim terrorists clearly known. You've also stated you live and work in a part of London where there are quite a few Muslims. When you quote something for emphasis one can imagine your using that phrase as a search aid so you can do, what? Retrieve an offensive quote at a later time or show it to someone you know to put on their team's locker room wall before the big game in order to really motivate them to 'play' harder?

When you use that little phrase, "quoted for emphasis" why do you choose some posts rather than others? Why are you emphasizing anything if a comment already exists as a post that SHOULD stand on it's own without any need for further emphasis?

How much scrutiny are you feeling these days, nath?

Sorry, I admit I'm just being a bit sarcastic with you!

[PookJP]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Okay. You're nuts. There. You happy? I think that NOT having "major attacks since 9/11" a pretty good step in the right direction. Frankly, if you don't think that then yes, I think you're "nuts."

You don't consider Bali, Madrid, and London major terrorist attacks?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by PookJP

You don't consider Bali, Madrid, and London major terrorist attacks?

I don't want to get in between a love connection here, but you know what she means, right?

If the US is the GREAT (friggin) SATAN, then any attack anywhere in the world, INCLUDING the places you named (as well as others, too) are certainly bad but the way I read it she was saying that the AZZOLES have been denied the ability to attack their greatest erection producing target, i.e. US.

And in a war you celebrate every victory you can, large and small.

In WWII, Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo was largely symbolic but a great deal was made of it in the USA because you take pleasure in every victory until you no longer can or feel the need to.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by PookJP

You don't consider Bali, Madrid, and London major terrorist attacks?

I don't want to get in between a love connection here, but you know what she means, right?

If the US is the GREAT (friggin) SATAN, then any attack anywhere in the world, INCLUDING the places you named (as well as others, too) are certainly bad but the way I read it she was saying that the AZZOLES have been denied the ability to attack their greatest erection producing target, i.e. US.

And in a war you celebrate every victory you can, large and small.

In WWII, Doolittle's Raid on Tokyo was largely symbolic but a great deal was made of it in the USA because you take pleasure in every victory until you no longer can or feel the need to.

[nath]

Originally Posted by mojo2

the act of being reasonable means the same as negotiating.

No, it doesn't.

Originally Posted by mojo2

You've already made your loyalties to the radical muslim terrorists clearly known.

I have? Wow, I didn't realise. Don't suppose you've got any evidence to go with that contention?

Originally Posted by mojo2

You've also stated you live and work in a part of London where there are quite a few Muslims.

Gasp! Then I MUST be a terrist!!!

Originally Posted by mojo2

When you quote something for emphasis one can imagine your using that phrase as a search aid so you can do, what? Retrieve an offensive quote at a later time or show it to someone you know to put on their team's locker room wall before the big game in order to really motivate them to 'play' harder?

Um...yeah. 'One' can imagine all sorts of things, if one is demented enough!

Originally Posted by mojo2

How much scrutiny are you feeling these days, nath?

I'm crumbling under the onslaught of your withering invective, honestly Aberdeen.

[saab95]

Originally Posted by lil'babykitten

Attacks condemned by Muslim leaders.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4660411.stm

They'll have to do a lot better than that.

They should cooperate in the fullest with the West to exterminate all manner of these fundamentalist terrorists.

You cannot make peace with these terrorists. Their stated goal is to annihilate the West. They have no sense of life, liberty, and prosperity. And they use force to enforce their deadly agenda.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by saab95

They'll have to do a lot better than that.

They should cooperate in the fullest with the West to exterminate all manner of these fundamentalist terrorists.

You cannot make peace with these terrorists.

How do you know that?

Their stated goal is to annihilate the West. They have no sense of life, liberty, and prosperity. And they use force to enforce their deadly agenda.

How do you know that?

[Planet_EN]

Originally Posted by saab95

You cannot make peace with these terrorists.

a bogus preconceived assumption ...

Their stated goal is to annihilate the West. They have no sense of life, liberty, and prosperity. And they use force to enforce their deadly agenda.

Not all the terrorist goal to annihilate the West. India also had some terrorist attacks in the past.

[nath]

Update: seems as if the bombers were British, and may have all died in the blasts.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...source=PA&ct=5

I don't know if this is good or bad news.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

Update: seems as if the bombers were British, and may have all died in the blasts.

In other words, the cops haven't got any leads and want to assure the public that it won't happen again, or...

Originally Posted by nath

I don't know if this is good or bad news.

...it's very, very bad news. Especially when you consider the fat gnome's recent mumblings about "curtailing civil liberties".

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

In other words, the cops haven't got any leads

Did you read the link? They have found ID for 3 of the 4 at the scene and this morning raided their addresses.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

...it's very, very bad news. Especially when you consider the fat gnome's recent mumblings about "curtailing civil liberties".

I haven't seen any evidence from Iraq of a lack of civil liberties preventing suicide attacks.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

Did you read the link?

No, read the Beeb one earlier.

Originally Posted by nath

They have found ID for 3 of the 4 at the scene and this morning raided their addresses.

Smells fishy to me. Why would suicide bombers bother to have their IDs on them?

Originally Posted by nath

I haven't seen any evidence from Iraq of a lack of civil liberties preventing suicide attacks.

Since when has lack of evidence stopped Labour from figuring out new ways to oppress us?

[christ]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

...it's very, very bad news. Especially when you consider the fat gnome's recent mumblings about "curtailing civil liberties".

I thought that you were all in favour of "curtailing civil liberties"?

I believe the term "lockdown" was yours?

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by christ

I thought that you were all in favour of "curtailing civil liberties"?

I believe the term "lockdown" was yours?

A country can have an external lockdown without curtailing internal civil liberties. Just redeploy the traffic wardens and politicians to new jobs at the customs entry points.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

A country can have an external lockdown without curtailing internal civil liberties. Just redeploy the traffic wardens and politicians to new jobs at the customs entry points.

Hmm, weren't the bombers british-born people, so external lockdown wouldn't quite work, unless you are willing to expell all muslims so that the <0.1% that are militants get out, too.

But even when all muslims were out, the terror wouldn't stop, it would just adapt and go away from using suicide-bombers towards conventional terrorism committed by hired european and christian people.

Taliesin

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Hmm, weren't the bombers british-born people

If you believe the papers / government spin.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Smells fishy to me. Why would suicide bombers bother to have their IDs on them?

I don't know. However the police seem to have tracked their journey from Leeds and have CCTV footage of the four arriving at Kings X.

Police said there was forensic evidence that one of the bombers died in the Aldgate explosion.

Property belonging to one of the suspects from West Yorkshire, who was reported missing by his family just after 10am on Thursday, was found on the devastated bus.

Police have established that man was joined on his journey to London by three other men.

The second man's property was found at the scene of the Aldgate blast and the third man's belongings at both the Aldgate and Edgware Road blasts.

Link

Originally Posted by Sherwin

If you believe the papers / government spin.

Er...these are police statements, not 'spin' from the 'papers' (none of which have printed since the release of this info this evening) or the government.

Obviously it's early days, but are you seriously suggesting that this is a conspiracy?

Either way it seems your advocacy of closed borders wouldn't have been of much use.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

Er...these are police statements, not 'spin' from the 'papers' (none of which have printed since the release of this info this evening) or the government.

Obviously it's early days, but are you seriously suggesting that this is a conspiracy?

I'm suggesting that there may be a bit of spin (police / government or otherwise) to calm everyone down - it's not unknown for this to happen. Last thing they want in the current climate is for the public to think that this is a result of lax border security and/or immigration.

What makes me think this? About two miles away from here there's a police forensics team doing a search on a Southern Eastern European immigrant's house.

[Super Mario]

Travel card is ID.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

I'm suggesting that there may be a bit of spin (police / government or otherwise) to calm everyone down - it's not unknown for this to happen. Last thing they want in the current climate is for the public to think that this is a result of lax border security and/or immigration.

As I said, I'm not sure whether people will think it's better or worse that the attack seems to have been executed by Britons. The BBC is headlining it as 'the nightmare comes true', which doesn't really seem to be an angle that spin doctors would be looking for.

The only really positive note is that it blows big holes in the BNP's sickening 'lockdown' related ad campaign (interested to hear whether you agree with them).

Originally Posted by Sherwin

What makes me think this? About two miles away from here there's a police forensics team doing a search on a Southern Eastern European immigrant's house.

Took me 2 hours to get to work yesterday because of three seperate bomb alerts. Go figure. Everyone's nervous as hell at the moment, and the slightest suspicion is enough for people to call it in.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Super Mario

Travel card is ID.

Not really - you only need to supply a passport photo (no corroborating ID) to get one.

[mojo2]

Anyone seen James L recently? I remember how much he made of the fact he visited Ground Zero after 9/11. I wonder if he's making a pilgrimage to London's Kings Crossing.

[Simon X]

---

[analogika]

Originally Posted by nath

Either way it seems your advocacy of closed borders wouldn't have been of much use.

Of course not!

the 9/11 pilots were perfectly innocuous engineering students who'd been living here in Germany for years, as well.

How the hell do you differentiate, other than "not at all" and just denying ALL foreigners entry for whatever reason - which is just idiocy?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Simon X

No at all. You can get a daily travel card without any ID. I get on almost everyday.

Yeah, I know. I meant the photocards that you have if you want a monthly.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

As I said, I'm not sure whether people will think it's better or worse that the attack seems to have been executed by Britons. The BBC is headlining it as 'the nightmare comes true', which doesn't really seem to be an angle that spin doctors would be looking for.

The only really positive note is that it blows big holes in the BNP's sickening 'lockdown' related ad campaign (interested to hear whether you agree with them).

I don't take any notice of the idiot BNP, so don't know whether I agree with them or not. Probably not. But you see how the news is affecting your opinion already? That's what I mean.

Originally Posted by nath

Took me 2 hours to get to work yesterday because of three seperate bomb alerts. Go figure. Everyone's nervous as hell at the moment, and the slightest suspicion is enough for people to call it in.

The mobile crime lab has been there for three days now. Not just a case of nervous folks.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

I don't take any notice of the idiot BNP, so don't know whether I agree with them or not. Probably not.

Oh, I don't know about that. In fact, I think you may have found a soulmate!

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Point was, human rights and other such leftie things are getting in the way of security. If you need to build a wall to stop things like this happening, you build a wall. If you need to completely lock down a country to stop things like this happening, you lock down the country.
...
Let us not forget, when we're talking about "the British" way of dealing with terrorists, that this involves Blair letting all the convicted terrorists out of prison and allowing their leaders to sit in the House of Commons.
...
Stopping letting AQ members into the country as asylum seekers would be a good start.

Obviously Islamic terrorists carried out the attacks, but it is the Labour Party's fault they did it.
It is the Labour Party that has lost control of our borders, so there is a huge sea of potential terrorists out there and the police can't see who is doing it. The Labour Party for years has allowed Islamic extremists to preach in mosques in Britain and use them to recruit people to their cause. It is the Labour Party to blame.
Nick Griffin, leader of the British Nationalist Party, BBC Radio 4 Today, 12/07/05

Originally Posted by Sherwin

But you see how the news is affecting your opinion already? That's what I mean.

Well, the news reports are reporting the detail of the investigations, with on the record quotes from the investigation team and the highest ranks of the Metropolitan Police. I am listening, and as of yet you have produced no evidence of a cover-up other than 'oh they must be spinning it'. Sorry if it makes me sound cynical, but I choose to believe their evidenced statements so far over your unsupported suspicions!

To turn your statement around, do you see how the news is making your posts from last week look really silly? LOCKDOWN!!! Nice one, Sherwin.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

The mobile crime lab has been there for three days now. Not just a case of nervous folks.

Right, do let us know when they find some bombs or terrists.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

I am listening, and as of yet you have produced no evidence of a cover-up other than 'oh they must be spinning it'.

You'll note that I said "may", not "must".

Originally Posted by nath

To turn your statement around, do you see how the news is making your posts from last week look really silly? LOCKDOWN!!! Nice one, Sherwin.

Actually, that just made you look a little naive. Do you believe everything you read in the papers? Do you really think that Blair is going to allow it to be said, under any circumstances, that this is a result of immigration (illegal or otherwise) two weeks after they've admitted that that at least 1% of the population are here illegally?

And yes, lockdown. This problem won't go away until people start to get that concept. No matter how many concessions we make towards "understanding" the perps and how much we attempt to "solve" the problem by not messing with other countries' affairs, it's going to carry on.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Actually, that just made you look a little naive. Do you believe everything you read in the papers?

No, but I believe the police's account so far of what happened. When are you going to stop asking silly questions and actually challenge their version of events, if it is so unbelievable?

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Do you really think that Blair is going to allow it to be said, under any circumstances, that this is a result of immigration (illegal or otherwise) two weeks after they've admitted that that at least 1% of the population are here illegally?

It is being said Sherwin, by you and the BNP, amongst others. It's just that nobody believes you.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

And yes, lockdown. This problem won't go away until people start to get that concept. No matter how many concessions we make towards "understanding" the perps and how much we attempt to "solve" the problem by not messing with other countries' affairs, it's going to carry on.

Again, how exactly will closing borders prevent young British men from launching suicide attacks? Please don't tell me you're also in favour of repatriation!?

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

Again, how exactly will closing borders prevent young British men from launching suicide attacks?

If you think they were British, it wouldn't work. But that's where we differ - I don't think they were British.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...9634?version=1

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.
...
"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."

He uses the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise."

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

If you think they were British, it wouldn't work. But that's where we differ - I don't think they were British.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...9634?version=1

That's just the ideology and opinion of one militant islamistic group, there are others that don't make that dinstinctions.

Taliesin

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

That's just the ideology and opinion of one militant islamistic group, there are others that don't make that dinstinctions.

But it'd certainly fit with the way most insurgents in Iraq aren't actually Iraqi.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

But it'd certainly fit with the way most insurgents in Iraq aren't actually Iraqi.

Most insurgents in Iraq are iraqis, 90% and more, most of them remnants of the Baath-regime, the former iraqi army, etc... It's just that the foreign islamistic terrorists, 8% of the insurgents I guess, make the news because of their suicide-bombings .

Taliesin

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

If you think they were British, it wouldn't work. But that's where we differ - I don't think they were British.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...9634?version=1

Uh...Sherwin - the people featured in the article you link to are not the bombers! And even if they were, you'd still be wrong. That article starts with the sentence 'Four young British Muslims in their twenties...'!

Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Mohammed Sadique Khan are the three bombers that have been identified so far. Their families have been informed by the police, and another man has been arrested. They lived in Yorkshire and were all born in Britain. The fourth has not been identified yet but is thought to be a teenager.



Do you honestly still think the London bombers were not British?

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

Uh...Sherwin - the people featured in the article you link to are not the bombers! And even if they were, you'd still be wrong. That article starts with the sentence 'Four young British Muslims in their twenties...'!

You're missing the point... ...which was: These people share the same mindset as the bombers. They think it's OK to bomb for islam. They share this belief. Is it not possible that they share other beliefs? (such as that of not pooping in their own back yard)

Originally Posted by nath

Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Mohammed Sadique Khan are the three bombers that have been identified so far. Their families have been informed by the police, and another man has been arrested. They lived in Yorkshire and were all born in Britain. The fourth has not been identified yet but is thought to be a teenager.

Do you honestly still think the London bombers were not British?

Again. Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers? I'm not saying I'm right. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm simply saying that what we read isn't always the truth and we need to question it.

Plus, even if these were the people responsible, just because they were born in Britain it doesn't make them British. I'm guessing that most islamic terrorists class themselves as "muslim" nationals. We might call them British, but they certainly don't call themselves that.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by nath

Uh...Sherwin - the people featured in the article you link to are not the bombers! And even if they were, you'd still be wrong. That article starts with the sentence 'Four young British Muslims in their twenties...'!

Shehzad Tanweer, Hasib Hussain and Mohammed Sadique Khan are the three bombers that have been identified so far. Their families have been informed by the police, and another man has been arrested. They lived in Yorkshire and were all born in Britain. The fourth has not been identified yet but is thought to be a teenager.



Do you honestly still think the London bombers were not British?

So for those that like profiling that means , all british born muslims, or all british born pakistanis, of the age of 15-29 are potential terrorists and therefore to be detentioned until the war on terror is over. Since war begets terror, that means the detention is meant forever.

Jokes aside, the fact that the bombers are british-born pakistanis/muslims is a very hard revelation for the british society as a whole, since the terror can't be attributed anymore to an external threat, and is therefore of a whole other dimension than the IRA-terror or even the one of 9/11.

That information puts Britain into a crisis, that can be healthy when handled wisely, but could as well lead to more and unpredictable turmoils.

I can imagine a few possibilities for a solution:

Britain and the islamic community must finally realise that they have a problem with islamistic tendencies, groups, mosques and imams. The reason for this is simple, these islamictid groups, mosques and imams are financed by Saudi-Arabia's wahabists. They put much more effort and money into the teachment of imams, which at the end have much more religious knowledge, intellectual and rhetoric capabilities, to impress young british muslims, against which ordinary british imams have not much of an opportunity to stand up against because they lack the intellectual means and comparable religious knwoledge and credibility, so that these islamistic imams can convince the british muslim youth, that the Wahabi-Islam represents the true and pure Islam, which is off course as far from truth as one can get.

So, in order to combat that phenomenon, the british government must do everything it can to prohibit and prevent Wahabitic financing of mosques, imams, religious schools, etc... and at the same time introduce an islamic-religious-tax with which it finances the academic and religious teaching of imams and mosques, so that they can meet the intellectual, religious and monetary challenge posed by the wahabists eye to eye.

Taliesin

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Again. Do you believe everything you read in the newspapers?

No, I don't believe everything I read in the newspapers.

However if a particular story is from multiple sources - from the BBC to Associated Newspapers, to Sky, to The Sun; backed by the highest authorities, supported by witness statements and even corroborated by the families and friends of the accused, then yes, I'll believe it. Until I get more compelling information that contradicts what I am reading, I will believe it.

You haven't offered any evidence along those lines, other than the same statement over and over again, the war-cry of the tinfoil hat wearers - you don't believe the meedja, do ya?!?

Face it - you thought they were foreigners that you would find it easy to demonise along the lines of your standard anti-immigration talking points, and you have been proved wrong. Time to refocus Sherwin - it's only a matter of time before aberdeenwriter beats you there otherwise. We're doing 'The Enemy Within' this week in nutjob central.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Plus, even if these were the people responsible, just because they were born in Britain it doesn't make them British.

Ah, now we get down to slow u-turn.

Yes, being born in Britain does make them, or anyone else, British, unless you later apply to change your nationallity. Nationality is a legal definition respected by pretty much every legal system around the world.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

I'm guessing that most islamic terrorists class themselves as "muslim" nationals. We might call them British, but they certainly don't call themselves that.

What they call themselves is irrelevant. What they are is British, because they were born here.

[Sherwin]

This is pointless. You're not ready to wake up.

However, I'll leave you with the following observation:

Originally Posted by nath

What they are is British, because they were born here.

Nicole Kidman and Mel Gibson are American then?
Jerry Springer and Kiefer Sutherland are British?

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

This is pointless. You're not ready to wake up.

Wake up to what? The little hate-fest you and the BNP have got going on?!?

Let's be honest Sherwin. I've refuted every point you've made, which hasn't been hard, since you lurched into this thread with your anti-immigration club swinging...only to be proven wrong by the facts that are now emerging.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

However, I'll leave you with the following observation:

Nicole Kidman and Mel Gibson are American then?
Jerry Springer and Kiefer Sutherland are British?

I have no idea about any of those people, it's not something that I think about a lot.

However, their nationality is based upon their place of birth, unless they have subsequently changed it. I think military bases are also regarded as sovereign territory with regards nationality.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by nath

Wake up to what? The little hate-fest you and the BNP have got going on?!?

Oh yeah. Quickest way of winning any argument, isn't it? Mention the BNP. That'll work. Carry on sleeping.

Originally Posted by nath

Let's be honest Sherwin. I've refuted every point you've made, which hasn't been hard, since you lurched into this thread with your anti-immigration club swinging...only to be proven wrong by the facts that are now emerging.

So these people aren't the children of immigrants then? And they weren't in any way influenced by more recent immigrants such as Hamza?

Originally Posted by nath

However, their nationality is based upon their place of birth, unless they have subsequently changed it.

Incorrect. You need to go read up about the subject.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Oh yeah. Quickest way of winning any argument, isn't it? Mention the BNP. That'll work. Carry on sleeping.

I mention them because you still haven't said whether or not you agree with their position as stated by Nick Griffin, earlier on this page. That is interesting.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

So these people aren't the children of immigrants then? And they weren't in any way influenced by more recent immigrants such as Hamza?

I'm saying they are British. You disagreed, now you're bringing up their parentage once proven wrong. I don't think their families sound that well inclined towards suicide bombing. You may have better information than I do.

You make a valid point about the likes of Abu Hamza; unfortunately it gets lost amongst all the other rubbish.

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Incorrect. You need to go read up about the subject.

Nationality is not based on place of birth? Really?

[mojo2]

"Breeding grounds for suicide bombers," from Tavleen Singh in Indian Express:

With Ayodhya on my mind I sat down to write a piece on how Islamic terrorism will not be defeated until we deal with the mullahs and madrasas who breed the suicide bombers and Islamic fundamentalists. I was still writing it when London exploded. This was not some distant horror but deeply personal since I have a son who lives in that city. He could have been on the bus, on the underground or just walking down a street. When I tried desperately to call him I found it impossible to get through and thought of all the others who might be trying as desperately to call a loved one and those who may have lost sons, brothers, sisters, parents, friends just because Islamic fundamentalists believe terrorism is their sacred duty.
Tony Blair called the acts of terrorism in London ''barbaric'' and said that the terrorists would not succeed because the civilised world was more determined to defend ''our values and our way of life'' than the terrorists are to cause death and destruction. But, they will succeed because no Western leaders and certainly not our own ''secular'' lot have shown any determination when it comes to dealing with the mullahs and the venomous ideology they preach through Islamic seminaries...

The Prophet's mission, as interpreted by the mullahs, also involves converting us infidels to the faith because otherwise we are a constant threat to Islam. This is where the problem begins.

If the mullahs used the religious seminaries to teach love and peace and respect for other people and religions, Muslims would find it easier to live with the rest of the world. But, they teach jehad and bigotry and it is from these teachings that Islamic terrorism is born. In India, if we want to tackle the problem we could begin by demanding a White Paper from the government on how many madrasas exist on our secular soil, when they were
built and where they get their funds from. I am willing to bet that most have come up in the past 15 years and that the money comes from the same Middle Eastern countries that funded last week's bombings in London and 9/11. As long as we pretend that this is not true we remain in danger of losing the war against terrorism.

Yep.