The enemy within

First topic message reminder :

British jihadists are the most bloodthirsty in Syria says rebel commander as they are blamed for beheadings and crucifixions

Two out three people fighting for an extreme Sunni group are foreign

Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) known for beheadings and crucifixions 

Group considered so extreme it has even been condemned by Al Qaeda 


British jihadists make up the largest foreign contingent of one of the most violent terrorist groups in Syria, now infamous for beheading, crucifying and stoning to death enemies.
Syrian rebel commander Brigadier-General Abdulellah al-Basheer has urged the UK to send weapons to help fight Sunni Islamist group The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
Almost two out of three of ISIS' fighters are foreign-born and have chosen to join a group bent on creating an Islamic state in the war-torn country and Iraq.


Around 400 Britons are believed to have gone to Syria over the last two years to fight, with an estimated 20 having died.


In a letter to The Times, General al-Basheer, chief of staff of the supreme military council, the commanding body of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), which opposes the regime of President Assad, said the 'majority' of ISIS fighters were from the UK, with others from France, Germany and Belgium.
He said: 'We, the Syrian people now experience beheadings, crucifixions, beatings, murders, outdated methods of treating women, an obsolete approach to governing society. Many who participate in these activities are British.'



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2639413/British-jihadists-bloodthirsty-Syria-says-rebel-commander-blamed-beheadings-crucifixions.html



I'm sure they will be revert back to being nice happy peace loving and non violent muslims when they return.....

Dry your eyes didge

It's called a backlash

smelly_bandit wrote:Dry your eyes didge

It's called a backlash

Mate I am laughing at you badly that you now are open an honest that you support associate with antisemitic parties, shows what a fuckwit you are smelly

Shady wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..there is actually a much  better post by Shady.. Nems...only the other week Shady made  post saying how he would love to s**g you and FTL, sorry it's a bit rude, but that was Shady's words ...and you were not complaining ,whinging or pretending to be so offended.

..you took Drama at college didn't you?   ::smthg:: 

Shit Nems, you always dig your own hole in the end..and claim not be the the things you really area!

So predictable as usual Nems!   

Do you think you could supply a link to substantiate that accusation regarding me as I don't recall saying it?

Ho hum - usual tactics Shady...

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:Dry your eyes didge

It's called a backlash

Mate I am laughing at you badly that you now are open an honest that you support associate with antisemitic parties, shows what a fuckwit you are smelly

Didge what have I been saying all these years??

I've been saying that unless Muslims wind their tits in and stop being so decisive and hatemongering that the good people of Europe (who you are accusing of being nazis) would eventually run out of tolerance and there would be a backlash

But because you lefties were so drunk on your delusions of a sharia law utopia you refused to believe that anyone could not love Muslims and Islam as much as you do

I've been saying there would be a backlash and now it's finally here thank god, if anyone is to blame its lefties like you and Blair and brown, the fanatics of PC and multiculturalism who forced these savages down our necks for years and ignored the warnings

Thank you for making farages job so easy and remember

Vote UKIP

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


Mate I am laughing at you badly that you now are open an honest that you support associate with antisemitic parties, shows what a fuckwit you are smelly

Didge what have I been saying all these years??

I've been saying that unless Muslims wind their tits in and stop being so decisive and hatemongering that the good people of Europe (who you are accusing of being nazis) would eventually run out of tolerance and there would be a backlash

But because you lefties were so drunk on your delusions of a sharia law utopia you refused to believe that anyone could not love Muslims and Islam as much as you do

I've been saying there would be a backlash and now it's finally here thank god, if anyone is to blame its lefties like you and Blair and brown, the fanatics of PC and multiculturalism who forced these savages down our necks for years and ignored the warnings

Thank you for making farages job so easy and remember

Vote UKIP

Hate fuels hatred, but many of these hates were there before any Islamic extremism in some European countries, so what brings about this hate, far right hate, both are the seed from the same pod of hate and you do not combat hate with yet more hate, what you do is work together with people to eradicate the extremists, whether Islamic, religious or far right, or far left.
What has happened is people are gullible to hate and even more so after a recession, thus they are susceptible to bullshit mainly by preachers of hate like yourself, though as reforms happen the far right always loses support and even 10 years later you will still be spouting the same bull and though then many people will laugh amusingly and what an idiot you are claiming we are at some mythical war. You even ignore many right wing people are against your views, showing your notion of left and right is both comical and ignorant
The reality is I bet you have no concern over many UKIP policies and just see them as a means to hopefully start your world war, that is what is so sad about you smelly and that will never happen either, they would kick you out in a second with your views
So it is the recession and the ability to use people to blame that has seen a rise in support for the idiot far right

Hate fuels hate indeed and I you lefties didn't Islam and it's hatred on us we wouldn't hate in return

Cause and effect didge I've said it for years haven't i??

smelly_bandit wrote:Hate fuels hate indeed and I you lefties didn't Islam and it's hatred on us we wouldn't hate in return

Cause and effect didge I've said it for years haven't i??

The above makes no sense, and I have no hate for you just pity and always stand against your hate showing it is nothing but hate and has no validity, which has always been done through history to show the bad affects of hate, why hate never wins and why you will never win smelly

How many hates can you fit into a single paragraph??

smelly_bandit wrote:How many hates can you fit into a single paragraph??

Hate is easy to fit in when talking about hate with someone of hate, who lives by hate and wants to die also by hate, because he is fueled easily by hate, when he reads hate all the time by other people of hate who follow the same hate as he.


Plenty it seems

I hate all this hate,it's hateful to hate all the time, hate brings hate back and that's hateful. I hate having to hate hate!!

nicko wrote:I hate all this hate,it's hateful to hate all the time, hate brings hate back and that's hateful. I hate having to hate hate!!

  

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:How many hates can you fit into a single paragraph??

Hate is easy to fit in when talking about hate with someone of hate, who lives by hate and wants to die also by hate, because he is fueled easily by hate, when he reads hate all the time by other people of hate who follow the same hate as he.


Plenty it seems

You seem to like hate

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:
Hate is easy to fit in when talking about hate with someone of hate, who lives by hate and wants to die also by hate, because he is fueled easily by hate, when he reads hate all the time by other people of hate who follow the same hate as he.


Plenty it seems

You seem to like hate

I stand against it, which means I stand against you and do it so well with words, love always conquers hate.

 :askissas: 

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

You seem to like hate

I stand against it, which means I stand against you and do it so well with words, love always conquers hate.

 :askissas: 

You stand against hate but defend Islam

Bit confused are you??

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

I stand against it, which means I stand against you and do it so well with words, love always conquers hate.

 :askissas: 

You stand against hate but defend Islam

Bit confused are you??

..I agree with Didge...love conquers all, not hate Smelly, you should know that coming from SA..where many need home security.


 :askissas: 

Joy Division wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

You stand against hate but defend Islam

Bit confused are you??

..I agree with Didge...love conquers all, not hate Smelly, you should know that coming from SA..where many need home security.


 :askissas: 

Yes exactly

It's home security that keeps me safe not love

Spare me your hippy love philosophy JD, I'm a realist

smelly_bandit wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


..I agree with Didge...love conquers all, not hate Smelly, you should know that coming from SA..where many need home security.


 :askissas: 

Yes exactly

It's home security that keeps me safe not love

Spare me your hippy love philosophy JD, I'm a realist

Well I'm a realist too Smelly and although it will never ever happen...can you Imagine what a much better place the world would be if we never had religious and racial wars?...

Speaking of realist, do you think it's logical to argue over religions considering none of us have ever seen a 'God'?

Joy Division wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Yes exactly

It's home security that keeps me safe not love

Spare me your hippy love philosophy JD, I'm a realist

Well I'm a realist too Smelly and although it will never ever happen...can you Imagine what a much better place the world would be if we never had religious and racial wars?...

Speaking of realist, do you think it's logical to argue over religions considering none of us have ever seen a 'God'?

What ? You've never seen Lemmy.  ::alahoo::  ::alahoo::  ::alahoo::

Tommy Monk wrote:And what if they were born here and so called British citizens....???

There must come a point when their citizenship status and 'human rights' don't trump the safety of the public. These animals will be coming back with extensive combat training, hardened to some of the worst atrocities man can inflict on man, and let loose on our streets with all their new skillz ready to use them on us unsuspecting infidels. I would make them all stateless, personally.

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

I stand against it, which means I stand against you and do it so well with words, love always conquers hate.

 :askissas: 

You stand against hate but defend Islam

Bit confused are you??

You see this is why you are clueless smelly, I think all religions are bollocks, what I am against is idiots like yourself trying to wage wars on religions, for no other reason because you have been mentally been twisted with hate against them. They are all bullshit, but it is people that follow religions and perceptions change and have changed through history, you though would rather engage in 11th century mentality and continue conflict, hence why you are clueless

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:Good evening Folks.

And even scarier are the likes of Didge,Sassy,Drug Division,Irn Bru etc who embrace the myth that all muslims are peaceful & anyone who points out articles like this one are racist bigots.

We know that there are many good muslims,unfortunately there are too many of the bad ones living & practicing their evil ways in the UK......where they are protected by the likes of the aforementioned traitors.

I do not think all Muslims are peaceful, with have a growing problem with Islamic extremism brought about by poor western policies, one of the worst being the Iraq war, but you do not want to see why such a rise in extremism happens and want to put tour hands over your ears and just castigate all Muslims, when it will be Muslims themselves that need to combat extremism.
basically you are no better than many racist party views that we see sweep across Europe, you seek to cast blame and instigate hatred and it is you people like yourself that our a great stain on our decent society.
Ask yourself, would there have been a 7/7 attack, the rise of extremism in Britain without going to war in Iraq?

Gotta correct you there. Preachers such as Hamza and Qatada were spreading islamic hatred long before we went to Iraq, since the mid to late 90s in fact. You can't just blame our foreign policy alone. The problem is that islam and western culture are fundamentally incompatible, and islam encourages violent jihad. Which is why thousands of 'British' muslims went to fight in Bosnia, Syria, and other warzones.

The Puzzler wrote:

Didge wrote:



I do not think all Muslims are peaceful, with have a growing problem with Islamic extremism brought about by poor western policies, one of the worst being the Iraq war, but you do not want to see why such a rise in extremism happens and want to put tour hands over your ears and just castigate all Muslims, when it will be Muslims themselves that need to combat extremism.
basically you are no better than many racist party views that we see sweep across Europe, you seek to cast blame and instigate hatred and it is you people like yourself that our a great stain on our decent society.
Ask yourself, would there have been a 7/7 attack, the rise of extremism in Britain without going to war in Iraq?

Gotta correct you there. Preachers such as Hamza and Qatada were spreading islamic hatred long before we went to Iraq, since the mid to late 90s in fact. You can't just blame our foreign policy alone. The problem is that islam and western culture are fundamentally incompatible, and islam encourages violent jihad. Which is why thousands of 'British' muslims went to fight in Bosnia, Syria, and other warzones.

Gotta correct you there, we were funding them to fight the Russians in the 80's, funded Saddam to fight Iran, so yes you can very much blame foreign policy, if it was not for Tony Blair going to war in Iraq, it is very conceivable they would have been no 7/7 and a rise in Islamic extremism in Britain

Didge wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:
Gotta correct you there. Preachers such as Hamza and Qatada were spreading islamic hatred long before we went to Iraq, since the mid to late 90s in fact. You can't just blame our foreign policy alone. The problem is that islam and western culture are fundamentally incompatible, and islam encourages violent jihad. Which is why thousands of 'British' muslims went to fight in Bosnia, Syria, and other warzones.

Gotta correct you there, we were funding them to fight the Afghans in the 80's, so yes you can very much blame foreign policy, if it was not for Tony Blair going to war in Iraw, it is very conceivable they would have been no 7/7 and a rise in Islamic extremism in Britain

To be quite honest I'm sick of people like you making excuse for islamic terrorism. These worms, these jihadi cockroaches NEVER target the government that was responsible for our foreign policy, they never targeted Labour, no they instead took their anger and frustration out on innocent people shopping, commuting, spending time with their families. These cowardly little snakes only ever target civilians, people going about their lives peacefully, there can be no excuse for that ever  

Got any suggestions for what we should do with jihadists returning from Syria, Didge?

The Puzzler wrote:

Didge wrote:


Gotta correct you there, we were funding them to fight the Afghans in the 80's, so yes you can very much blame foreign policy, if it was not for Tony Blair going to war in Iraw, it is very conceivable they would have been no 7/7 and a rise in Islamic extremism in Britain

To be quite honest I'm sick of people like you making excuse for islamic terrorism. These worms, these jihadi cockroaches NEVER target the government that was responsible for our foreign policy, they never targeted Labour, no they instead took their anger and frustration out on innocent people shopping, commuting, spending time with their families. These cowardly little snakes only ever target civilians, people going about their lives peacefully, there can be no excuse for that ever  

Er what excuses am I making when every report on the Iraq war states quite clearly the affects had a rise on Islamic extremism in this country. So when innocent Muslims are targeted which they have been on many occasions and wars have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths to illegal wars, you seem to think that is acceptable and will not have people claiming the west are terrorists? Behave, you need to actually study history then you might actually learn something. Nobody is excusing any terrorism, it is all wrong, but what can be deduced is how it can rise and spread and the fact is the west used to back and fund Islamic terrorists themselves, but hey the bigger enemy then was communism.
So why not go way and study something you have not the first clue about eh?

Good luck

We can argue til the cows come home about the rights and wrongs of our foreign policy, I was always opposed to Iraq(was quite a leftie actually at 14!) and would like to see Blair stand trial for war crimes, none of it's acceptable, but I don't remember any British troops walking into Baghdad markets and setting off suicide vests. It's strange that all these firebrand, anti Western preachers and their supporters are happy to live here and take advantage of all the benefits(no pun intended!) our society brings, while railing against our whole culture and way of life. This is what islam does, infiltrates a country and attempts to change it from within, if it wasn't our foreign policy they'd just find another excuse to commit terror.

Anyway, back on topic. What should be done to stop 'British' jihadists returning from Syria? Do their human rights come first, over the risk of Mumbai style attacks? Not in my opinion they don't. Anyone caught going there, whether to fight, fuck(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_jihad) or fund their brothers, should be made stateless.

The Puzzler wrote:Anyway, back on topic. What should be done to stop 'British' jihadists returning from Syria? Do their human rights come first, over the risk of Mumbai style attacks? Not in my opinion they don't. Anyone caught going there, whether to fight, fuck(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_jihad) or fund their brothers, should be made stateless.

I doubt many will come back, many have been reported to have burnt their passports in a show of solidarity to stay, many want to stay to form an Islamic Republican. To me they should be refused entry, they decided to make a new life fighting for a cause, so they stay there and live with the consequences

Didge wrote:

The Puzzler wrote:Anyway, back on topic. What should be done to stop 'British' jihadists returning from Syria? Do their human rights come first, over the risk of Mumbai style attacks? Not in my opinion they don't. Anyone caught going there, whether to fight, fuck(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_jihad) or fund their brothers, should be made stateless.

I doubt many will come back, many have been reported to have burnt their passports in a show of solidarity to stay, many want to stay to form an Islamic Republican. To me they should be refused entry, they decided to make a new life fighting for a cause, so they stay there and live with the consequences

Glad there's summat we can agree on!  ::D:: 

The Puzzler wrote:We can argue til the cows come home about the rights and wrongs of our foreign policy, I was always opposed to Iraq(was quite a leftie actually at 14!) and would like to see Blair stand trial for war crimes, none of it's acceptable, but I don't remember any British troops walking into Baghdad markets and setting off suicide vests. It's strange that all these firebrand, anti Western preachers and their supporters are happy to live here and take advantage of all the benefits(no pun intended!) our society brings, while railing against our whole culture and way of life. This is what islam does, infiltrates a country and attempts to change it from within, if it wasn't our foreign policy they'd just find another excuse to commit terror.

You are still not getting the bigger picture, things like drone attacks have killed many civilians including children and this is seen as acceptable collateral damage accept to the victims of course and to the extremists who use this to spread a view there is a war against Islam. Now can you gamine for one second Saudi troops and fighters being based in the UK at the height of the IRA campaign with civilian deaths from drone attacks on suspected IRA targets, how do you think many civilians would feel here? Basically I am trying to show you want has created people from these countries to be susceptible to the extremist propaganda. If Islam says what you claim it to be then surely millions would be flocking to the extremist cause with no fear of doing so happy to die fighting the jihad, this though is not the case at all. So again this is an extremist view which you will find in any religion accept in the last few decades a combination of events has seen the rise of this extremism

The Puzzler wrote:

Didge wrote:


I doubt many will come back, many have been reported to have burnt their passports in a show of solidarity to stay, many want to stay to form an Islamic Republican. To me they should be refused entry, they decided to make a new life fighting for a cause, so they stay there and live with the consequences

Glad there's summat we can agree on!   ::D:: 

No Problem

 ::D:: 

Didge wrote:

Shady wrote:Good evening Folks.

And even scarier are the likes of Didge,Sassy,Drug Division,Irn Bru etc who embrace the myth that all muslims are peaceful & anyone who points out articles like this one are racist bigots.

We know that there are many good muslims,unfortunately there are too many of the bad ones living & practicing their evil ways in the UK......where they are protected by the likes of the aforementioned traitors.

I do not think all Muslims are peaceful, with have a growing problem with Islamic extremism brought about by poor western policies, one of the worst being the Iraq war, but you do not want to see why such a rise in extremism happens and want to put tour hands over your ears and just castigate all Muslims, when it will be Muslims themselves that need to combat extremism.
basically you are no better than many racist party views that we see sweep across Europe, you seek to cast blame and instigate hatred and it is you people like yourself that our a great stain on our decent society.
Ask yourself, would there have been a 7/7 attack, the rise of extremism in Britain without going to war in Iraq?

Weasel fucking words from a weasel!!!! Quote Didge the apologist "We have Muslim Terrorist because it's our fault e.g. Foreign Policy"

What a complete twat. That's alright then the world deserves to be inundated with barbaric acts because of poor foreign policy and the lefties and weasels will keep on defending the monsters.

Of course that will mean every Muslim will be vilified because all will be tarred with the same brush, every woman will be ill treated as it becomes normal to subjugate Muslim women. It will be fine to put death sentences on a Muslim converting to Christianity that happens here as well as abroad. I could go on but its pointless apologists for barbarism abound.

You are a true knobhead Didge.

So, according to the liberalist "we"(the civilian population) deserve to be bombed...becasue our leadership like playing wargames with real people...

they say...because drones (does THAT make a difference?? as opposed to a typhoon?) kill civilians as "collateral damage the muslim can target US...directly.

now hold on a min

IF a muslim were to target an army base and civilians injured/killed THAT. bad as it would be, could be said to be "retaliation" and could, in the context of "war" be seen as equitable. HOWEVER the deliberate and exclusive targeting of civilians (like 7/7 and come to that 9/11) is NOT the same...

like I have said before...and the cowards ran away from it

their pusillanimous pleadings FOR the "enemy", for "understanding" is NOTHING short of the same rhetoric used by some in the case of Brevick.


FYI............... Full Definition of PUSILLANIMOUS

: lacking courage and resolution : marked by contemptible timidity
— pu·sil·lan·i·mous·ly adverb

9/11 is sort of a legit target(everything is debatable) as the REAL enemy is not the poor Sap that has signed up as a grunt, but the huge Multinational Financiers that profit from a lot of the fucked up shit the west does to other nations.
Many of Those Financiers worked out of the World trade centre.

7/7 (is that the train bombs in london?) and the bali bombings and others are not justifiable in anyway since they were targeting 'innocent' civilians.

the West has targeted (and accidentally) bombed its fair share of civilians too   

I think the real issue is Defining the Enemy and saying the Enemy is 'Islam' is actually incorrect and probably just makes things worse. The Enemy is Fundamentalism and the best weapon against it is Scientific education and pushing secular ideals of governance.

victorisnotamused wrote:So, according to the liberalist "we"(the civilian population) deserve to be bombed...becasue our leadership like playing wargames with real people...

they say...because drones (does THAT make a difference?? as opposed to a typhoon?) kill civilians as "collateral damage the muslim can target US...directly.

now hold on a min

IF a muslim were to target an army base and civilians injured/killed THAT. bad as it would be, could be said to be "retaliation" and could, in the context of "war" be seen as equitable. HOWEVER the deliberate and exclusive targeting of civilians (like 7/7 and come to that 9/11) is NOT the same...

like I have said before...and the cowards ran away from it

their pusillanimous pleadings FOR the "enemy", for "understanding" is NOTHING short of the same rhetoric used by some in the case of Brevick.


FYI...............  Full Definition of PUSILLANIMOUS

:  lacking courage and resolution :  marked by contemptible timidity
— pu·sil·lan·i·mous·ly adverb

Sory Victor that is a poor argument now to natural weather compared to civilian attacks and the fact for the last couple of hundred years poor foreign policy has left great resentment and an increase in extremism against the west, this is not exclusive to the Muslim majority countries but many others as I will explain. So to answer your first point, extremist Muslims and those civilians that have been affected by drone attacks as well as countless years of bad foreign policy is to them a direct attack, war does not even come into or make these attacks equitable on Muslim civilians. That same poor argument was used by many sides in WW2 which had the opposite affect, from the bombing of London to the for example bombing of Dresden, which was poorly veiled attacks on civilians, which instead of making people want to give up, hardened their resolve to fight back, in fact Germany continued to the bitter end. It shows when you target civilians or do not concern yourself with them as collateral damage, it creates great anger, a good example of this was cases of downed American and British pilots being lynched. So I am not trying to justify anything but show you the affects of such poor policies, which as stated lead to a rise in extremism. So it has nothing to do with what you see as being targeted, because to the many Muslims, they believe they are the target, which like with the recent far right rise in support is how again people are susceptible to extremist views, something you and others do not understand. It does not mean they are right to feel this way, the same as people stupidly drawn to the far right, but it shows how people can be.

Now we can look at years of bad foreign policy, from recent examples over the last few decades where Russia has great resentment for America, because then it was okay for America to fund terrorists, when the enemy was Communism, this was not an issue for America to organised, finance and equip terrorists in both Afghanistan and then later with Bosnia though Communism was not the issue then, to the point they became a formidable fighting force, a major backfire on the part of the Americans, where it will always come back to bite you in the but if you follow the lame philosophy of my enemy's enemy is my friend, as can be seen of after WW2 the cold war and countless poor conflicts over Communism. The west also made Saddam into a powerful tyrant, because of their dislike of Iran, so they were also happy to finance him also and support him with weaponry, again another poor example of my enemy's enemy is my friend, where again it came to bite them in the butt. Can you start to see the pattern now and many innocent Muslims are in the middle of this, (which has given rise to the persecution of Christians another side affect of these policies) which because of policies and countless others like promises not kept going back to WW1, the formation of Israel has created such resentment to the West from Muslim majority countries. More examples is how countless times the west has backed dictators who have used oppressive tactics, Iran with the Shah being a fine example, all this over yeas has created and driven extremism. Now Israel is a different entity and I support its nationhood, but because they refuse to grant nationhood to Palestine, it and with the support of America creates more problems. The time has gone where Israel was seen as being picked on and started on all the time, now Israel is seen as the aggressor by many western countries, even though it has very right to defend itself against extremism and terrorism, but it actually creates 10 more for every one they kill by bad polices. Seriously I could go on the list is endless with bad policies, how about the Indonesian National Revolution, where to stop this the British did the unthinkable, they actually rearmed the defeated Japanese soldiers, where only recently before both the British and Indonesians had been fighting to rid the country of Japanese and this was not even a British colony, but Dutch. I could go on, but this is about how so many poor foreign policies have created and driven the rise of extremism. 


Brevik was a different kettle of fish, as what did children have to do with anything, he tarted them bot from any attacks from left wing but the idiotic claim of appeasement, which you here from fuckwits like drinky, the tax dodger. He was again driven by bullshit far right ideology claiming the left and Muslims were in cahoots to take over the west, which was daft to say the least and the kind of bullshit smelly comes out with, where if he had targeted Muslims, then that would have made more sense in regards to his ideology, but he never did, he attacked his own people, showing how fucked up the far right are and how dangerous they are because like Muslims extremists, they have no issue killing people from their own nations.

So its time people stopped excusing why there has been a rise in extremism, it does not mean the extremism is justified of any civilians deaths is justified, what it means is, that the West has been a major player in all these problems.





Any this is like me showing why such events happen, not justifying them, that is what silly people do when faced with realism, like the muppet drinky who is not worth replying to as he sound like a child throwing his dummy out all the time and is also a homophobic pratt:








On July 7, 2005, four bombs exploded on London’s public transport system. The final death toll was 56, including three Asian and one Jamaican suicide bombers of the Islamic faith. Stunned but resilient, the British populace including Muslims later partook of a two-minute silence to honor the slain victims of the worst terrorist attack on mainland Britain. Fourteen days after the original attack, Londoners awoke to discover that four more attempted bombings had been thwarted.
Several explanations were offered for the events of 7/7. Prime Minister Blair and his spin-doctors argued that those responsible were murderous terrorists whose horrible actions put them outside the civilized norms of protest, democracy, and rational debate. British Muslim leaders attributed 7/7 to the incendiary teachings of radical preachers who fanned the flames of violence in the hearts and minds of impressionable youth. Some politicians and journalists pointed to a global terror network stretching from Pakistan to London, especially through the madrassa--schools for propagating militant Islam. Others argued that these events illuminated the social alienation of minorities in modern Britain.

All these explanations are less than convincing. Although Blair has tried to use 7/7 to buttress his case for going to war--even going so far as to mimic Bush’s post 9/11 response--many people do not buy it. The notion that these bombers were brainwashed by radical clerics begs all sorts of questions: Why these four youths and not others? Were their actions not the consequence of a more complicated set of factors than one set of teachings? The existence of a global terror network needs to be linked to the complicity of British and American intelligence services in the past which supported radical Muslims to fight proxy wars against the Russians in the 1980s and in Bosnia during the 1990s ( www.guardian.co.uk, Sept. 10, 2005). The argument for alienation fails to explain why many minorities have not turned to revolutionary violence. Besides, these bombers hardly fit the profile of alienated youth: one was a teacher, another a sports science graduate, while another was a keep-fit enthusiast and carpenter (Independent, July 16, 2005, p. 7).

By far the most persuasive explanation for the London bombings links them to the war on Iraq. The British government has repeatedly denied this connection. The evidence to the contrary, however, is quite compelling. In response to 9/11, the United Kingdom has supported the global war on terror spearheaded by the United States. This has resulted in the death and maiming of thousands of Muslims, illegal detentions, prisoners of war abuses, desecration of Arab and Muslim life, and the persecution of innocent American and British citizens of the Islamic faith. According to Chatham House, an independent think-tank on foreign affairs, the events of 7/7 exemplify the problem that the United Kingdom is “riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror” (Guardian, July 18, 2005, p. 1).

Moreover, the corruption of British foreign policy has contributed to recent events. The original reasons for the attack on Iraq (WMD’s, links with Al Qaeda etc), have proven to be spurious. Yet Blair has refused to rethink his original position. Meanwhile, the British government continues to support the illegal invasion and occupation of a secular state with a Muslim majority. The July bombings were one consequence. The issue was not one of blind hate or inhuman savagery. This is the way proponents of revolutionary violence are invariably portrayed, whether slave rebels, Irish nationalists, Vietnamese communists, the African National Congress etc. Rather, 7/7 should be seen as an expression of armed struggle in the metropolis in response to the killing and maiming of thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women, and children. In a video featuring Mohammed Khan, the bomber describes himself as a “soldier” concerned with “protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters” (Newsweek, Sept. 12, 2005, p. 11). Put another way, the 7/7 bombings and the loss of life would not have happened without war on Iraq. Far more people would be alive today in London, Madrid, Baghdad, and Fallujah if Bush had not waged war on Iraq and Blair had not supported him. Even senior Muslim leaders appointed by the British Home Secretary to investigate the causes of 7/7 concluded: “We believe it [British foreign policy] is a key contributing factor” (Independent, Nov. 11, 2005, p. 5).





http://hnn.us/article/22934