British muslims protest Bin ladens death

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by human151

"in Lebanon, just 34 percent of Muslims surveyed said that suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified, compared to 74 percent who expressed the same view in 2002. Only eight percent of those polled in Egypt believed suicide bombing was justified, as did 11 percent in Morocco.

In contrast, 41 percent of Palestinians said such attacks are often justified while another 29 percent said it can sometimes be justified. The poll was conducted between April and May, before Hamas took over the Gaza Strip following violent clashes with Fatah.

The survey also reflected declining support - identified as "Muslim confidence" - for Osama bin Laden. The percentage of Jordanian Muslims who support bin Laden dropped from 56 percent in 2003 to just 20 percent in 2007. "

this does not exactly answer the question, but is the only stats I could easily find.[

There are over a billion muslims world wide. If only %5 are extremist or share their views, then that is 50,000,000 muslims who are extremists or sympathize with their views.

5% of ANY big number can be classed a significant amount. So assuming there are 1.5 billion people in the world who would identify as Muslim, that would mean 75 million feeling suicide bombing is sometimes justified - which is a significant and worrying amount to me too... until we look at the much larger figure presumably thinking it's not justified.

Do you know how large that figure would be?

1,425,000,000.

That's close enough to be an approximation of the original sample size of 1.5 billion!! Such is the misleading power of big numbers, and such is the way our difficulty to envisage them can be exploited for propagandist purposes.

My point to all this being that coming out with remarks like 'wow muslims are nice' is pretty damn ignorant. There's enough tribal hate in the world without you contributing to it.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by human151

But, the muslims you people hold so dear and say have only minimal support, are able to wage war against the most powerful nations on earth

Who of us here holds dear those particular Muslims?

Oh I see... at this point, you're back to talking about all Muslims in a very general sense, are you?

Tell me, what use is that?

I guess this falls into the 50% of your purpose here that's classed as "getting everyone going", right?

(I wonder if that's what the BNP, the tea party and all the far right groups are doing when they do the same and casually switch the focus between Muslims in general and extremist Muslims in particular without making an explicit distinction? Maybe they're all just injecting a bit of life into the debate too, eh?)

[human151]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Who of us here holds dear those particular Muslims?

Oh I see... at this point, you're back to talking about all Muslims in a very general sense, are you?

Tell me, what use is that?

I guess this falls into the 50% of your purpose here that's classed as "getting everyone going", right?

(I wonder if that's what the BNP, the tea party and all the far right groups are doing when they do the same and casually switch the focus between Muslims in general and extremist Muslims in particular without making an explicit distinction? Maybe they're all just injecting a bit of life into the debate too, eh?)

yeah, I admit I chose the wrong wording there, no one here has openly been supportive of "those" particular muslims. Just supportive to muslims in general.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by human151

this is a global terrorist organization were talking about here.

I've heard a number of senior police and military officers dispute that - quite senior figures such as Sir Ian Blair who was Met Police Commissioner at the time of the 7/7 London bombings ("Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working") Most intelligence analysts seem to agree that the typical structure of al-Qaeda is more one of networks than of formal terrorist organisation. In that sense, it's closer to the post 1960s feminist movement than it is to the IRA (and no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists. I'm talking from a purely structural point of view - ie. the shared lack of a common organisational structure or code of conduct.)

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

All this might seem somewhat academic - at the end of the day, they're a terror group of some sort. But it's important in the debate about support and funding and what we're up against. Certainly there IS funding and there IS support. But it's not remotely necessary that there need be a steady stream of money continually flowing into it, like a political party, in order for terrorists to carry out atrocities. If you're a single extremist Muslim in Britain looking to cause a devastating amount of carnage, you can do so using simple household products as home-made explosives. At the very least, you can cause an enormous amount of disruption by planning it in a thoughtful way. That requires virtually zero support or funding. It doesn't even require other Muslims to know about it or agree with it.

That's obviously on a different order of magnitude to the Taleban, which is receiving enormous funding and support from -somewhere- in order to keep "the most powerful Nations on earth" on their toes. And the same with a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, which I believe would have not only required OBL's personal funding, but also funding from other Muslims sympathetic to the cause. *cough*ISI*cough*

But when it comes to car bombs and suicide attacks, it's quite scary to reflect how easy it would be to carry something like that out, at least if you have the will to do it. I've often been astounded that there haven't been many more terrorist attacks in this country. Think about it. That should be the real story you take home about the 1.5 million Muslims living in Britain - the sheer scarcity of such events, given the huge population of Muslims. Yes there are bound to be many attempts - some that we never hear about. But the security services can only thwart so many of them.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Originally Posted by Deckard

I've heard a number of senior police and military officers dispute that - quite senior figures such as Sir Ian Blair who was Met Police Commissioner at the time of the 7/7 London bombings ("Al-Qaeda is not an organization. Al-Qaeda is a way of working") Most intelligence analysts seem to agree that the typical structure of al-Qaeda is more one of networks than of formal terrorist organisation. In that sense, it's closer to the post 1960s feminist movement than it is to the IRA (and no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists. I'm talking from a purely structural point of view - ie. the shared lack of a common organisational structure or code of conduct.)

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

All this might seem somewhat academic - at the end of the day, they're a terror group of some sort. But it's important in the debate about support and funding and what we're up against. Certainly there IS funding and there IS support. But it's not remotely necessary that there need be a steady stream of money continually flowing into it, like a political party, in order for terrorists to carry out atrocities. If you're a single extremist Muslim in Britain looking to cause a devastating amount of carnage, you can do so using simple household products as home-made explosives. At the very least, you can cause an enormous amount of disruption by planning it in a thoughtful way. That requires virtually zero support or funding. It doesn't even require other Muslims to know about it or agree with it.

That's obviously on a different order of magnitude to the Taleban, which is receiving enormous funding and support from -somewhere- in order to keep "the most powerful Nations on earth" on their toes. And the same with a terrorist attack on the scale of 9/11, which I believe would have not only required OBL's personal funding, but also funding from other Muslims sympathetic to the cause. *cough*ISI*cough*

But when it comes to car bombs and suicide attacks, it's quite scary to reflect how easy it would be to carry something like that out, at least if you have the will to do it. I've often been astounded that there haven't been many more terrorist attacks in this country. Think about it. That should be the real story you take home about the 1.5 million Muslims living in Britain - the sheer scarcity of such events, given the huge population of Muslims. Yes there are bound to be many attempts - some that we never hear about. But the security services can only thwart so many of them.

Had to chime in here: What I'd pay to hear Queen E. say "WTF?", like, out loud.

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by Deckard

no I am NOT likening al-Qaeda to feminists.

That was close....

Journalist Adam Curtis makes an interesting point on this. He claims that the idea of al-Qaeda as a formal organisation is mainly an American invention that was necessary in order for the US DoJ to be able to charge OBL in absentia under the RICO statutes (for the '98 U.S. embassy bombings). He's not claiming the US is made it all up. He's simply disputing the idea that al-Qaeda is (or at least was - at the time) an actual organisation. He also states that there's no evidence that OBL used the term 'al-Qaeda' to refer to the name of a group until after 9/11, when he realised that was the name the US had given it. It's an interesting idea, and while I haven't heard anyone else make a similar claim, I've yet to see it disputed.

Reminds me of the article Robin Cook (RIP) wrote for the Guardian the day after the 7th July bombings. I will post it here in full as I think he had it bang on the nail. And - getting my tinfoil hat out - I am still suspicious about the way he died of a heart attack while out hillwalking on his own.....

I have rarely seen the Commons so full and so silent as when it met yesterday to hear of the London bombings. A forum that often is raucous and rowdy was solemn and grave. A chamber that normally is a bear pit of partisan emotions was united in shock and sorrow. Even Ian Paisley made a humane plea to the press not to repeat the offence that occurred in Northern Ireland when journalists demanded comment from relatives before they were informed that their loved ones were dead. The immediate response to such human tragedy must be empathy with the pain of those injured and the grief of those bereaved. We recoil more deeply from loss of life in such an atrocity because we know the unexpected disappearance of partners, children and parents must be even harder to bear than a natural death. It is sudden, and therefore there is no farewell or preparation for the blow. Across London today there are relatives whose pain may be more acute because they never had the chance to offer or hear last words of affection.

It is arbitrary and therefore an event that changes whole lives, which turn on the accident of momentary decisions. How many people this morning ask themselves how different it might have been if their partner had taken the next bus or caught an earlier tube?

But perhaps the loss is hardest to bear because it is so difficult to answer the question why it should have happened. This weekend we will salute the heroism of the generation that defended Britain in the last war. In advance of the commemoration there have been many stories told of the courage of those who risked their lives and sometimes lost their lives to defeat fascism. They provide moving, humbling examples of what the human spirit is capable, but at least the relatives of the men and women who died then knew what they were fighting for. What purpose is there to yesterday's senseless murders? Who could possibly imagine that they have a cause that might profit from such pointless carnage?

At the time of writing, no group has surfaced even to explain why they launched the assault. Sometime over the next few days we may be offered a website entry or a video message attempting to justify the impossible, but there is no language that can supply a rational basis for such arbitrary slaughter. The explanation, when it is offered, is likely to rely not on reason but on the declaration of an obsessive fundamentalist identity that leaves no room for pity for victims who do not share that identity.

Yesterday the prime minister described the bombings as an attack on our values as a society. In the next few days we should remember that among those values are tolerance and mutual respect for those from different cultural and ethnic backgrounds. Only the day before, London was celebrating its coup in winning the Olympic Games, partly through demonstrating to the world the success of our multicultural credentials. Nothing would please better those who planted yesterday's bombs than for the atrocity to breed suspicion and hostility to minorities in our own community. Defeating the terrorists also means defeating their poisonous belief that peoples of different faiths and ethnic origins cannot coexist.

In the absence of anyone else owning up to yesterday's crimes, we will be subjected to a spate of articles analysing the threat of militant Islam. Ironically they will fall in the same week that we recall the tenth anniversary of the massacre at Srebrenica, when the powerful nations of Europe failed to protect 8,000 Muslims from being annihilated in the worst terrorist act in Europe of the past generation.

Osama bin Laden is no more a true representative of Islam than General Mladic, who commanded the Serbian forces, could be held up as an example of Christianity. After all, it is written in the Qur'an that we were made into different peoples not that we might despise each other, but that we might understand each other.

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

The danger now is that the west's current response to the terrorist threat compounds that original error. So long as the struggle against terrorism is conceived as a war that can be won by military means, it is doomed to fail. The more the west emphasises confrontation, the more it silences moderate voices in the Muslim world who want to speak up for cooperation. Success will only come from isolating the terrorists and denying them support, funds and recruits, which means focusing more on our common ground with the Muslim world than on what divides us.

The G8 summit is not the best-designed forum in which to launch such a dialogue with Muslim countries, as none of them is included in the core membership. Nor do any of them make up the outer circle of select emerging economies, such as China, Brazil and India, which are also invited to Gleneagles. We are not going to address the sense of marginalisation among Muslim countries if we do not make more of an effort to be inclusive of them in the architecture of global governance.

But the G8 does have the opportunity in its communique today to give a forceful response to the latest terrorist attack. That should include a statement of their joint resolve to hunt down those who bear responsibility for yesterday's crimes. But it must seize the opportunity to address the wider issues at the root of terrorism.
In particular, it would be perverse if the focus of the G8 on making poverty history was now obscured by yesterday's bombings. The breeding grounds of terrorism are to be found in the poverty of back streets, where fundamentalism offers a false, easy sense of pride and identity to young men who feel denied of any hope or any economic opportunity for themselves. A war on world poverty may well do more for the security of the west than a war on terror.

And in the privacy of their extensive suites, yesterday's atrocities should prompt heart-searching among some of those present. President Bush is given to justifying the invasion of Iraq on the grounds that by fighting terrorism abroad, it protects the west from having to fight terrorists at home. Whatever else can be said in defence of the war in Iraq today, it cannot be claimed that it has protected us from terrorism on our soil.

[human151]

Originally Posted by Deckard

5% of ANY big number can be classed a significant amount. So assuming there are 1.5 billion people in the world who would identify as Muslim, that would mean 75 million feeling suicide bombing is sometimes justified - which is a significant and worrying amount to me too... until we look at the much larger figure presumably thinking it's not justified.

Do you know how large that figure would be?

1,425,000,000.

That's close enough to be an approximation of the original sample size of 1.5 billion!! Such is the misleading power of big numbers, and such is the way our difficulty to envisage them can be exploited for propagandist purposes.

My point to all this being that coming out with remarks like 'wow muslims are nice' is pretty damn ignorant. There's enough tribal hate in the world without you contributing to it.

Yes I agree that the number which is not part of that %5 is a large number.

That said, why does the small percentage basically control the perception of the muslim world? Why havent they been marginalized? In the united states there are a small percentage of people who are skin heads/rascists. But these people are such a small amount and are so marginalized, no one in their right mond takes them seriously.

could you imagine some skin head group waging war against the unites states? Of course not because no one takes them seriously, they are ridiculed and have virtually no support. now, compare these skin head groups with their muslim equivalent, al qaeda. WHich group has more support? The answer is obvious, more muslims support hate groups such as Al qaeda and taliban than christians/non muslims do.

It is an undeniable fact. What is more telling is the fact that main stream muslims have not marginalized their hate groups, as non muslims have.