'Plot to blow up planes' foiled

Schuhart

mike65 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4796995.stm
its a 7 day extension. Mike.

Speaking as a man with several pints on him, if it turns out this was all smoke and mirrors then someone in the UK security services should be beaten to death with a wet sponge.

InFront wrote:

But that is not exactly true. The Qu'ran itself does not ridicule Jews' and Christians' beliefs….Anyway, myself at blame, this is getting into a religious debate which is probably more suited to the Islam Forum.

I think the key point I’m trying to make is political – i.e. that freedom of expression involves publication of pretty fundamental objections to cherished beliefs of others. That said, I agree this is not the place for lengthy discussion of the Islamic faith. But what was on my mind was, to take a point, Surah 19:88-92

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!" Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous! At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin, That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious. For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.

I’ll try not to labour the point, but hopefully the implication is clear. If we were to establish as state law the concept that the fundamental beliefs all religions must be respected, then either we have to edit the Quran or we have to change the entire basis of Christianity. Alternatively, we just accept that we each have the right to express our own beliefs, even though they are utterly inconsistent with each other. What we outlaw is anybody trying to force acceptance of their views on anyone else. Yes, this does open the door to Larry Flynt and Hustler, which is hardly the most noble expression of the human intellect. It also opens the door to Channel 4 commissioning a series called ‘Imam Ted’. But, otherwise, how do you allow Islam to publically state that Christians are full of it?

InFront wrote:

Upsetting muslims, as the Rushdie book did, is not dangerous. Upsetting violent extremists who happen to be muslims, as the Rusdhdie book did, is dangerous. Do you see my point? .

I think I half get your point. The first bit I think we can both fully deal with – clearly Muslims have as much right as anyone to let the world know what they think of Rushdie, and good luck to them. The second bit might need a little more exploration. My first response would be if someone takes up a weapon in response to a book, then what we need to do is pursue and disarm the violent party. The idea that we curtail our lives because of a fear that extremists will hit the roof just doesn’t seem right – but that might not be what you mean.

Victor

Trode wrote:

Yes, it may be against common sense to go to Harlem and insult black people. That in no way excuses anyone of any colour who comes along and stabs you. Furthermore, it's even less logical to excuse them if they stab you for saying those things in another part of the world. Violence is absolutely not an acceptable response to hurt feelings, regardless of how strongly those feelings are held.

To reverse the thinking, while it wouldn't be acceptable, it would be understandable.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

If we were to establish as state law the concept that the fundamental beliefs all religions must be respected, then either we have to edit the Quran or we have to change the entire basis of Christianity.
Alternatively, we just accept that we each have the right to express our own beliefs, even though they are utterly inconsistent with each other.

I do not think that the accurate translations in English of the reference you quote insults Christians.

Originally posted by Schuart from a translation of the Qur'an
Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!

I am not a scholar, but a better translation of the Arabic Laqad ji tum shay an iddan would be found in saying 'indeed/ definitely ye have uttered a disastrous thing as opposed to "monstrous", which I think might be inaccurate here.
Rather than describe the Christian subscription to the idea of God having a son as 'monstrous', which I don't believe it does, it advises that such an idea is a 'disaster' in terms of God as being greater than anything that comes from the Earth, and a theory like that could not really be justified.
Is this still an offense to Christians? That is a thing for a Christian to say. I would not like to think it 'ridicules' Christianity as much as instructs Muslims and asks them to come to Allah and only to Allah.
There is also a huge difference between allowing the Ibrihimic faiths a freedom to instruct their people in the faiths, and allowing a popular social magazine to print pictures that unreservedly demonise not just a religious following, but their prophets.
This is where the terms 'disaster' and 'monstrous' again gain relevance. If they were to lament what they perceived to be the shortcomings of Islam as a 'disaster', then as disappointing as that would be to a Muslim, it wouldnt have caused as much if any offense.
Compare to what they did do - which was to present Islam as a monster, and Muhammad p. as a monster and to make a monster of the Qur'an - much in the same way as Rushdie made sought to make a monster of Islam in his novel.
I dont know how much, if any sense that makes. But it's 3.50am, my brain is addled.

The idea that we curtail our lives because of a fear that extremists will hit the roof just doesn’t seem right – but that might not be what you mean.

Just to clarify that, it's not that the Rushdie book was wrong because of the danger from extremism. The danger from extremism itself, while a threat, is not enough to stop someone from getting on with their work or their life. I don't think we should always automatically yield to extremism.

Rather, the realisation of the offense he was causing, especially as a Muslim (or a former Muslim I presume) should have awoken him to see the error of his ways, and ideally he would have chosen to interact with Islam in a more constructive way than an all-out attack... Just in the same way as the July 7 bombers - or indeed the more recent would-be-bombers - would have been as well off to find more constructive methods in their aggrievances.

Ssorry if this post was a bit muddled, I'll fix it tomorrow if I can.

sovtek

On Saturday the Guardian had several pages devoted to "the plot". From what I've read all they really have about the suspects is that some of them have visited Pakistan and some happen to originally be from Kasmir. Oh and some were recent "converts" ie they grew up like everyone else and recently took their religion seriously.
The same peice went on to describe militant groups from Pakistan, but in no way connected the suspects to these groups. In fact all the people quoted that knew the people arrested said that there is no way they were involved in any terrorist plot.
"The plot" as I've heard it described sounds an awful lot like a right wing scare email I got from my parents about a year or so ago. It describes "eyewitness" accounts of some suspicious middle eastern types going to the toilet at different times. What that meant to these people was that they were trying to assemble a bomb on the plane. Why these people lived to tell about it is still a mystery.

Trode

InFront wrote:

Would you please point to wherever I have apparently made such a sweeping statement as that about Muslims?, which would be extremely odd.

You didn't, and I hope I never said you did. If that's the implication you got I apologise. I was saying that that's an unpleasant corollorary to the logical conclusion of the 'It's safer not to piss off the extremists' angle.

InFront wrote:

Upsetting muslims, as the Rushdie book did, is not dangerous.
Upsetting violent extremists who happen to be muslims, as the Rusdhdie book did, is dangerous.
Do you see my point?

I do, but when it's the same act that does both, it renders the first one as dangerous as the second. Should we avoid the former for fear of the latter?
To take your later point, Rushdie could have 'interacted' with Islam on a more constructive level, but ultimately that should have remained his choice. Letting the extremists dictate the tone of discourse is as bad as letting them control the discourse itself.

Victor wrote:

To reverse the thinking, while it wouldn't be acceptable, it would be understandable.

Lots of crimes are 'understandable' to some extent. I can understand a husband murdering his wife to cop off with the secretary without a messy divorce, I can understand a kid stealing a car and going joyriding out of boredom or rebellion, I can understand someone detonationg a car bomb because he really hates them queers/blacks/yanks/whatever. Doesn't mean I accept their motives as valid reasons for their actions, or that I have any sympathy whatsoever for their plight.

The_Scary_Man

Interesting article here from Craig Murray on the reality behind the hype and propaganda surrounding the terror plot.

http://www.craigmurray.co.uk/archives/2006/08/the_uk_terror_p.html

Jim

Rather humerous and informative artical about the feasability of the plot.
http://www.theregister.com/2006/08/17/flying_toilet_terror_labs/

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I do not think that the accurate translations in English of the reference you quote insults Christians.

I know we’re not really discussing the Quran text per se, and I know that only the original Arabic text is regarded as divine. But just to know I obtained the translation from Islamonline.net. I understand this to be a reasonable site that simply aims to spread awareness of the faith. They have three different online translations available, which in the case of this phrase are ‘a thing most monstrous’, ‘a disastrous thing’ and ‘an abominable assertion’. I’d suggest a Christian, if minded to do so, could say any of these phrases is an attack on the fundamentals of their faith.

I think the point stands that even something as self evidently reasonable as the practice of a mainstream religion requires the acceptance that things will be said that are utterly abhorrent to others.

InFront wrote:

Is this still an offense to Christians? That is a thing for a Christian to say. I would not like to think it 'ridicules' Christianity as much as instructs Muslims and asks them to come to Allah and only to Allah.

Absolutely, and if a Christian does take offence you still have the right to read that passage. But he has the right to broadcast his view of the situation – perhaps questioning the authenticity of the Quran. And, to be honest, once we accept that principle we do pretty much get to the situation where people can say pretty much what they want.

Now, we might have limits in the space of, say, someone starting a movement that wants to round up Kerrymen and shoot them. But that’s because its entering the space of conspiring to commit crime. There’s a world of difference between that and placing limitations on the ability of Kerrymen to elect Jackie Healy Rae because it makes the rest of us want to shoot them.

Rather, the realisation of the offense he was causing, especially as a Muslim (or a former Muslim I presume) should have awoken him to see the error of his ways, and ideally he would have chosen to interact with Islam in a more constructive way than an all-out attack.

I’m not presuming to know Rushdie’s motives for writing the book. But it is acceptable for an artist to create a work that shocks, on much the same basis as that which allows Islam to maintain that Christianity is (at the very least) founded on a disaster.

Bear in mind, the areas that free speech advocates might squirm over is pornography, because its hard to see it as anything other than someone using their liberty to turn over a quick buck. But the freedom of significant novelists to explore challenging themes is very central to this idea. A society that banned porn might still be substantially free. One that banned works like the Satanic Verses would not, as it suggests there are areas and ideas that people are not permitted to explore for fear they might discover an uncomfortable truth.

InFront

Schuhart wrote:

They have three different online translations available, which in the case of this phrase are ‘a thing most monstrous’, ‘a disastrous thing’ and ‘an abominable assertion’. I’d suggest a Christian, if minded to do so, could say any of these phrases is an attack on the fundamentals of their faith.

I know, there is such a variety in the translations it can be frustrating, lets take the term monstrous at face value. I'm open to correction from anyone who feels differently, but I can't really imagine Christians finding this line offensive as long as they bear in mind that it is come from a book in which God speaks directly to the reader.
You won't find it published on a billboard so as to convert Christians, you don't come across it as an advertisement in The Irish Times quoting these lines. That is not to say be ashamed of these words, instead these words are a revelation that exist only for the reader who wishes to become a good Muslim in his own private relationship with God.

OK let’s say a Christian is offended by this line, because he knows that it exists or has heard about it. When a statement like this belongs to a faith, it has entered a sort of higher pitch, and we must allow it some more tolerance.
If part of the bible which is disagreeable to Islam says 'Muslims are blasphemers' that is one thing. It is a religion that the reader believes has come from God untampered, and he reads it in his private dealings with God. As such, it doesn't offend me.
On the other hand, for a Trinity newspaper or a Danish pop magazine - publications committed to neither religion nor morality, and there for everyone - to say such a thing, is wrong because it is an opinion employed by a writer simply by malice and to create tension.
The bible has been around for hundreds and hundreds of years and even though it is not really in itself sacred to Muslims, it is very sacred to millions (billions?) of people.

Popular social publications serving as anti-Christian or anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim propaganda are fleeting works of begrudgery that see no purpose beyond their own ill intentions to spread animosity. As such, they are simply not afforded the same courtesy as the Ibrihimic texts, and because they are not real faith, can and should be questioned and if needs be, criticized or banned.
There is no sanctity attached to them, they are temporary things that have no merit or purpose but to cause disquiet and ridicule as a cheap way of making money or satisfying some perverse motive.

I don’t think anybody would like to see us become a direct replica of places like Iran, Saudi Arabia or the old Afghanistan who unquestionably violate or have violated basic human respect and principles in other ways. That's not something that society should aspire to.
But societies like ours here are guilty of similar violations. There's this 'sticks and stones will break my bones' theory in our society, 'but nothing you say can hurt me'. Well it isn't really true at all.
It refuses to acknowledge that there are words and accusations that can be far more hurtful than a black eye or a slap in the face... and without even broaching the matter of crime, should at least be considered with the same social stigma as violence.

Originally posted by Schuart
society that banned porn might still be substantially free. One that banned works like the Satanic Verses would not, as it suggests there are areas and ideas that people are not permitted to explore for fear they might discover an uncomfortable truth.

The objectification of religion to turn a quick buck is a sort of pornography in itself.
People who are motivated to act so perversely towards individuals acting in good faith are themselves pornographers of sorts... in that they undermine God in that way that one might undermine sex as love between a man and a woman.
How can one be banned and the other be seen as fair game?

Edit: Sorry about the length, I know we've gotten very off topic on this one, and it isn't to suggest that terrorism itself is an east-west issue, it isn't. The east/west dynamic is a far tamer seperation. Extremism, be it violence against writers or media or London communters, is just an extension or a manipulation of that.

Wibbs

Schuhart wrote:

Absolutely, and if a Christian does take offence you still have the right to read that passage. But he has the right to broadcast his view of the situation – perhaps questioning the authenticity of the Quran. And, to be honest, once we accept that principle we do pretty much get to the situation where people can say pretty much what they want.

As concise an explanation of free speech as I've seen in a while.

InFront wrote:

I'm open to correction from anyone who feels differently, but I can't really imagine Christians finding this line offensive if they bear in mind that it is come from a book in which God speaks directly to the reader.

In which God speaks directly to the reader? Whose God? The Christians? The Muslims? If they "bear that in mind" as you put it, it would be likely very insulting to them as it states that their whole faith is wrong. It would be similar for Christian to state that Mohammed is a heretic for claiming such a message from God. If nothing else it comes across as very patronising. Our God is right you got the message from our God all muddled up, poor dears. Now I think I get a fair idea of you from your well thought out and constructive writings on this and other matters and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't intend any insult or offence, but do you not see the issue? Do you not see how ones worldview informs your position? That a Christian worldview may take that as a bit OTT?(sheesh reading that back makes me sound het up on goofballs, but I'm not I swear )

On the other hand, for a Trinity newspaper or a Danish pop magazine - publications committed to neither religion nor morality, and there for everyone - to say such a thing, is wrong because it is an opinion employed by a writer simply by malice and to create tension.

Yes I do take your point on this, but it can be the thin end of the wedge. If you ban that kinda thing, next you're circumscribing non religious based discourse on other faiths, next you're circumscribing scholarly research on religions, because the findings might upset someone. Compare and contrast the relative paucity of historical research on the Islamic texts when compared with the Christian ones.

But societies like ours here are guilty of similar violations. There's this 'sticks and stones will break my bones' theory in our society, 'but nothing you say can hurt me'. Well it isn't really true at all.

Really? I would contend that any person with true faith wouldn't even register it on their radar. IMO if any faith is that sensitive it doesn't deserve the name. I've often found that the hardest insults to take are the ones which the recipient feels have some resonance of truth. If I call someone a bad Muslim or Jew and they react badly, it's often because it struck a nerve. If I call the same person a Martian what reaction would there be but laughter and rightly so. One of the most devout people I ever met was a Muslim and he took any insult intended or not extremely well. Mainly because his faith in his Allah was beyond reproach and fair enough too.

We've gotten very off topic on this one, and it isn't to suggest that terrorism itself is an east-west issue, it isn't. The east/west dynamic is a far tamer seperation. Extremism, be it violence against writers or media or London communters, is just an extension or a manipulation of that.

Very true.

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I'm open to correction from anyone who feels differently, but I can't really imagine Christians finding this line offensive if they bear in mind that it is come from a book in which God speaks directly to the reader.

But, for my part, I can’t see why Muslims should have a major problem with the Satanic Verses, as similarly it’s a communication between the writer and the reader.

InFront wrote:

When a statement like this belongs to a faith, it has entered a sort of higher pitch, and we must allow it some more tolerance.

Religious expression cannot really expect a higher level of tolerance than, say, the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered community or stamp collectors. Remember, you also have to accept people of no faith. Every time a priest raises a chalice and says ‘This is the Body of Christ’, they are making a statement I feel is false. I respect the priest has a right to make that assertion. I expect the same freedom to express my belief it is false, and my belief the Quran is false.

As such, they are simply not afforded the same courtesy as the Ibrihimic texts, and because they are not real faith, can and should be questioned and if needs be, criticized or banned.

The problem with this reasoning is it could have been used for banning Darwin’s Origin of Species.

It refuses to acknowledge that there are words and accusations that can be far more hurtful than a black eye or a slap in the face... and without even broaching the matter of crime, should at least be considered with the same social stigma as violence.

In all this there is a very clear distinction between violence and free discussion. Violence is about forcing your will on others. In discussion, people can decide to participate or ignore what being said as they determine. Equating the two is not a valid line of argument. I get a pain in the arse when I think that Jackie Healy Rae is sitting in the Dail. But there’s a wild difference between that and a group of Kerrymen battering me until I agree to vote for him too.

InFront wrote:

How can one be banned and the other be seen as fair game?

That’s why, in practice, pornography has to be permitted. At the end of the day, someone might say it gives them the buzz others get from religion. You and I might agree that its hardly the highest expression of the human spirit, but neither of us – nor anyone else - has any particular authority to tell an adult what they can or cannot read. My point was more that pornography is on the fringe of the free expression argument. Novels with challenging themes are not.

InFront

Originally posted by Wibbs
In which God speaks directly to the reader? Whose God? The Christians? The Muslims? If they "bear that in mind" as you put it, it would be likely very insulting to them as it states that their whole faith is wrong..

But a Christian doesn't believe that the Qura'n is a valid text. They don't have to believe this is God's word, that is never forced upon them. All anybody needs to accept is that this is our faith, we believe it, and that should be respected. I don't believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, but I understand that Christians believe that, and so, any references therein that are objectionable to us Muslims, we need to put up with it and afford them that respect.
Most people in the three Ibrihimic religions operate in this basis and have done so down the centuries.
My point of disagreement is only with the corporations and the publishing houses, who are not preserving a sacred faith or operating in tandem with their society, they take advantage of freedom of speech (a priceless, wonderful thing in itself), and abusing it to shove and flaunt their wares that provoke, anger and offend.

Think of the good comes from the Qur'an, and think of the good that is undoubtedly encouraged in the Christian and Jewish texts...
What good came from the Danish cartoons? They were offensive and nothing else. Offense for the sake of it.

Originally posted by Schuhart
Religious expression cannot really expect a higher level of tolerance than, say, the Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgendered community or stamp collectors. Remember, you also have to accept people of no faith.

neither of us – nor anyone else - has any particular authority to tell an adult what they can or cannot read

I can understand the difficulties of a legislative directive in that regard, however I'm sure most people would think more of a voluntary decision of behalf of certain organisations, or a choice to better direct their God given talents and abilities into more constructive projects that don't just seek to offend.
And yes I understand the impracticality of such a desire, it's just a major gripe I have with some media companies and publishing groups.
Whatever about using their efforts to offend people, simply offending people and having no productive return apart from money, I imagine it must be very unsatisfying.

Originally posted by Wibbs
I would contend that any person with true faith wouldn't even register it on their radar. IMO if any faith is that sensitive it doesn't deserve the name.

I don't know what your own religion is, and if you can just shrug off somebody belittling your God, or your faith, you are probably all the stronger for it.
However if somebody insulted your wife, I don't think you would just shrug it off. I'm not saying we should treat God as our wives, but the relationship there is just as intense. I would not like to think it demonstrates an insecure relationship as much as the intensity of our relationship. Islam determines (or more likely, should determine) everything that we do in life, and so a charge against Islam is also a charge against even our daily life and decisions.

Originally posted by Schuhart
The problem with this reasoning is it could have been used for banning Darwin’s Origin of Species.

I wouldn't go that far I think. Where a theory has scientific backing, and it is biologically, mathematically, chemically or gentically accurate, whichever apply, then it deserves everybody's attention and the researchers deserve credit for that.
Darwin's theories have been coming under serious revision in the past 50 years as I'm sure you know, and the book is not closed on that topic just yet.

Wibbs

InFront wrote:

But a Christian doesn't believe that the Qura'n is a valid text. They don't have to believe this is God's word, that is never forced upon them. All anybody needs to accept is that this is our faith, we believe it, and that should be respected. I don't believe that the Bible is the direct word of God, but I understand that Christians believe that, and so, any references therein that are objectionable to us Muslims, we need to put up with it and afford them that respect.

Fair enough and a good plan. Now equally if you put up with that why not other works that contradict those beliefs?

they take advantage of freedom of speech (a priceless, wonderful thing in itself), and abusing it to shove and flaunt their wares that provoke, anger and offend.

Many works provoke anger and offend, some considered to be great works now. In fact when the Quran or the Gospels first saw the light of day I would imagine they caused exactly those reactions to the Christians and Jews respectively. Now sometimes the mark may be stepped over, but that's where the law comes in.

What good came from the Danish cartoons? They were offensive and nothing else.

Well we're having this discussion for a start. Debate is a good thing. This level of feeling among Muslims may not have been realised to anything like the same extent as before. EG How many people on the street would have known that showing living creatures or the Prophet was against some forms of Islam before the incident in question? It sparked dialogue both good and bad.

I don't know what your own religion is, and if you can just shrug off somebody belittling your God, or your faith, you are probably all the stronger for it.
However if somebody insulted your wife, I don't think you would just shrug it off.

Actually I would. If my girlfriend or wife was insuted by someone it's their problem not hers. Rule one of life, nothing is personal. It may appear like it is, but it actually isn't. The insult is only personal to the insulter, not the insulted. The second you see that the power of insult and those who would insult you is gone. If the insult strikes a nerve and has some truth, then it is only personal to you in the sense that it may help you change, if that is what you want.

Islam determines (or more likely, should determine) everything that we do in life, and so a charge against Islam is also a charge against even our daily life and decisions.

No it's not. I would again suggest that the charge is their problem not yours, unless you feel an unease about your lifestyle. That goes for any deeply held belief. To take the insult of being fat further; if you're skinny the insult has no weight behind it(ouch). If you were overweight your reaction may be different. If someone calls a man gay where's the problem? If he's not they may as well suggested he's a Martian, if he is then it's a statement of fact. Where's the problem? It's only a problem if said man doesn't want to be gay or has issues about gay people. Either way the insult only has power when you give it that power. In any case, if you were the only Muslim in the world surrounded by an ocean of disbelief, You would still be a Muslim and proud of it. Now would insult affect you? More to the point should it? No, if you truly believe that Allah is there supporting you it shouldn't make an iota of difference. Indeed logically Mohammed at one point was the only Muslim. Got a lot of stick for it too IIRC. Didn't stop him, or Jesus or Buddha for that matter. Plus the fact the religious would believe God/Allah/Yahweh is big enough to not take offence, which after all is a very human emotion.

I wouldn't go that far I think. Where a theory has scientific backing, and it is biologically, mathematically, chemically or gentically accurate, whichever apply, then it deserves everybody's attention and the researchers deserve credit for that.

Whatabout historical debate on any of the religious texts out there then. Should they not be allowed to come under the same scrutiny? They may support some notions and dismiss others. A lot of scientific discoveries over the years have offended someone, including some scientists that held on to the previous notions.

Darwin's theories have been coming under serious revision in the past 50 years as I'm sure you know, and the book is not closed on that topic just yet.

True, but may I respectfully suggest and out of concern you should stay away from the creationist debate in the Christianity forum with that line of thought. Trust me "good of your health" issues

Schuhart

InFront wrote:

I can understand the difficulties of a legislative directive in that regard, however I'm sure most people would think more of a voluntary decision of behalf of certain organisations, or a choice to better direct their God given talents and abilities into more constructive projects that don't just seek to offend.
And yes I understand the impracticality of such a desire, it's just a major gripe I have with some media companies and publishing groups.

While we’re coming at it from very different angles, I actually share an amount of this desire to see a better voluntary ethic. I’m not convinced that we are well served by media outlets, who tend to spin stories in a sensational way. But, indeed, its hard to see an immediate solution to this other than people simply learning to apply a filter of scepticism to whatever they read.

Ethics can cause as well as relieve problems. I suppose when I reflect on this issue what’s really on my mind is the way the Catholic Church used its position to censor any books or ideas it deemed unwise. The result of such censorship and control can even look appealing. Consider that magical image of the simple, devout faith of the Irish that we have now lost. But reflecting on things like the banning of the Tailor and Ansty reveals the extent to which that magical image was actually based on fear and ignorance. I find the description of the Tailor being browbeaten by priests into burning the book recording his fireside tales speaks a multitude. (Apparently he recovered from the experience enough to joke in later years ‘It was a good book. It made a great blaze!’)

The core of free expression in relation to Islam just amounts to its own adherents inquiring as they will into their faith, along with interested non-Muslims curious about what this unfamiliar religion is all about. Incidently, there’s no reason why Islam should be getting all the attention – it’s just the context that happened to lead us to this discussion.

The irony is the Danish cartoons are not really part of that process. They are just dumb cartoons, really dumb. They don’t have any of the wit and insight that, say, Martyn Turner brings to his work. The defence of the cartoons really is about free expression necessarily protects the right of the dull and inept to get their spake in.

Rock Climber

Guys while your discussion on Religion is interesting its all rather off topic in this thread and long winded.

Please take it elsewhere.

I see the police have leaked that some of the detained suspects had made martyrdom videos...
If that turns up in court it would be pretty damning and a vindication of the police.
It's pretty dificult to argue with video evidence as regards intent

Wibbs

It looks at this stage that there is more substantial progress alright. At least what is being released to the public.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5265182.stm The videos
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5261086.stm Bombmaking equipment apparently found
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5264348.stm And more questions for those arrested in Pakistan.

Now it could all be smoke and mirrors if you were of a conspritorial bent, but at this stage it does look pretty likely that something big was about to kick off.

fly_agaric

InFront wrote:

I think the west thinks it is an open society, but is itself blinkered, focused on only one idea of what is correct, one way of life that everyone should fit into. When people dont fit into that, we have problems. My only point is that the west is a lot more narrow minded than the absolute freedom it claims to champion.

I think that's somewhat unfair to "the West" (a very diverse group of countries). As for being narrow minded and expecting/forcing citizens to fit into one way of life - perhaps you could say particular countries here rather than the whole "West"?
I don't think that would be something you could accuse the US or UK of anyway.

InFront wrote:

My only point is that the west is a lot more narrow minded than the absolute freedom it claims to champion.

Do any "Western" countries bang on about "absolute freedom"?
A totally "open" society with no structure = no society at all. Chaos.
A society where everything is arranged for the comfort and wishes of one particular group means a type of slavery, a loss of freedom for everyone else who doesn't "fit in". If you do happen to fit in I'm sure its wonderful though.

[e.g. the society with some mega-strict blasphemy laws cuts down on the stress and anger levels for religious-types but athiests who want to be free to rip the píss out of religion could find it oppressive and chafing.]

No country can even come close to a society that will give one particular group in it everything they may want without making everyone else whose own interests/wants are directly opposed suffer.

mike65

Bump.

BBC report on 11 individuals charged with various crimes including conspiracy to murder and preparing acts of terrorism. Bearing in mind no charges needed to be bought for a few more days I reckon they know they can mount a good legal case.

It sounds like the accused were PC Worlds largest non-corporate customers.

Searches had also found more than 400 computers, 200 mobile telephones and 8,000 computer media items such as memory sticks, CDs and DVDs

Police experts have removed 6,000 gigabytes of data from the seized computers alone.

Full rap sheet here

Mike.

lostexpectation

ew'll soon find out which one of them was the agent provocateur like in the canadian case...

dathi1

Jihadist videos and hydrogen peroxide. Well that’s me finished. I have that Dirty Kaffir video on my PC since last year and my partner has the hair dye in the bathroom. Also the BIGGY. It looks like the old conspiracy charges brit style of justice will be going on for a number of months. Blair scratched his back in the run up to fallujah and now again in the run up to congressional elections in november. Overall I get the feeling that this is a wanabee jihadist and his associates being blown out of proportion by new labour appointed police officers. Keeps Blair in full time until Feb next year and helps his mate Bush in Nov.

Also..Bomb making equipment can consist of mixing bowls and fridge freezers when it come too acetone type bombs. ie paint thinners and hair dye.

InFront

Rock Climber wrote:

Guys while your discussion on Religion is interesting its all rather off topic in this thread and long winded.

Please take it elsewhere.

Yeah fair enough, sorry about that:o

Why do these guys require so much media equipment. I would have thought that once you have your 'team' stablished, it's pretty straightforward. Why leave behind an unnecessary e-trail?
The bonus of course is that the interweb opens up a new frontier against the terrorists - another form of progression in (a sort of) warfare, maybe.

They've now charged eleven people, with the possibility looming over the remaining 12. If the Deputy Chief Commissioner's words are anything to go by, the police are leading a very impressive investigation. They're talking about worldwide inquiries and saying that the investigation is far from complete.

There's something comforting about a police chief talking about chasing down and roping in these criminals, as opposed to a statesman...

fly_agaric

lostexpectation wrote:

ew'll soon find out which one of them was the agent provocateur like in the canadian case...

Could you explain that please?

Did someone try to push things onto the group in Canada or was one of them a spy or something?

I thought that the wannabe terrorists themselves tried to buy the job-lot of fertiliser and the suspicious order was notified to the police who then allowed the sale to go appear to go through normally?

EDIT: Please ignore my question - I understand what you were getting at - found this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/toronto-bomb-plot/shaikh.html

mikep

InFront wrote:

If the Deputy Chief Commissioner's words are anything to go by, the police are leading a very impressive investigation.

The only problem is according to a former member of the Flying sqaud of the London met. due to the comments made by senior police and politicians regarding the evidence it seems that the case will never proceed due to the fact that the information mentioned was sub judicae!!

I'm getting more sceptical by the day.......:rolleyes:

The_Scary_Man

This thing really is falling apart at the seams. Theres a detailed examination of the facts in this blog, including the fact that the NYT blocked UK users from accessing their latest piece on the 'plot'.

http://www.bradblog.com

The_Scary_Man

The_Scary_Man wrote:

http://www.bradblog.com

What a load of Garbage ...

dathi1

dathi1 wrote:

Jihadist videos and hydrogen peroxide. Well that’s me finished.

You have video's of yourself on your pc outlining how noble a deed you've done blowing yourself up on a plane??

RedPlanet

Tristrame wrote:

What a load of Garbage ...

What is so "garbage" about it.
I think the site looks like hell and he should change some of his links but otherwise it pretty well details the sequence of events to date.

RedPlanet

RedPlanet wrote:

What is so "garbage" about it.

It's some randomer whose preconceived opinion ,is just one drop of an opinion in the billions of others.It also reads like a pre conceived opinion ie one where you start with an opinion and pick a few things to dress up that opinion after you've formed that opinion...
In other words its garbage.

The_Scary_Man

Tristrame wrote:

What a load of Garbage ...

Which parts of it do you disagree with?

Tristrame wrote:

You have video's of yourself on your pc outlining how noble a deed you've done blowing yourself up on a plane??

Making a video of yourself is not a crime no matter what you say in it. If these guys did make jihadist videos then the videos are only useful as evidence when backing up more direct substantial evidence.

The thing is maybe these fellas were planning to go through with this terrible act but the fact of the matter is that the trap was sprung too early. Its pretty much accepted now that these attacks were not 'imminent' as we were led to believe in the immediate aftermath of the arrests.

As a result of this pre-emptive strike on the part of Pakistani officials, which forced the hand of the british police, a lot of these guys will escape prosecution on technicalities. The timing of these arrests is highly suspicious in my eyes given the fact that the plot seems to have been very much still in the planning stage.

These guys had no tickets and most of them didn't have passports. The idea of them bringing liquid components on board the plane and mixing them on board to create a bomb seems highly implausible given the mixing times and temperatures required not to mention the equipment.

At what point did governments abandon the tactic of holding back information from the public to avoid widespread hysteria in favour of blowing threats all out of proportion and seemingly promoting panic?

RedPlanet

Tristrame wrote:

It's some randomer whose preconceived opinion ,is just one drop of an opinion in the billions of others.It also reads like a pre conceived opinion ie one where you start with an opinion and pick a few things to dress up that opinion after you've formed that opinion...
In other words its garbage.

It's called a blog, that's what they do in blogs.
I'd listen to your protestations of it being "garbage" if you actually refuted the sequence of events it lays out.
I've a feeling you didn't read it at all.
Some good links in there, nestled amidst loads of (not particularly) amusing ones.