UK Police setting a stage for a false flag Mumbai style false flag attack?

Run_to_da_hills

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.'



No doubt this latest bit of scaremongering will be used to further erode civil freedom and privacy. :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6962867.ece

Undergod

What relevance has that picture, exactly?

Do you think that there could be any genuine warnings issued, that aren't just scaremongering but actual concerns over potential threats?

Run_to_da_hills

Undergod wrote: »

What relevance has that picture, exactly?

Picture depicts sofisticated next generation smart CCTV which can be programmed to flag irregular movements of individuals. We will no doubt see more and more of this technology being rolled out.

Undergod wrote: »

Do you think that there could be any genuine warnings issued, that aren't just scaremongering but actual concerns over potential threats?

I always had my doubts about 7/7. :rolleyes:

Emme

I love the dude with the red braces and rolled up jeans - is this going to be the trend for Spring-Summer 2010?:D

Run_to_da_hills

Emme wrote: »

I love the dude with the red braces and rolled up jeans - is this going to be the trend for Spring-Summer 2010?:D

LOL

PirateShampoo

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Picture depicts sofisticated next generation smart CCTV which can be programmed to flag irregular movements of individuals. We will no doubt see more and more of this technology being rolled out.
I always had my doubts about 7/7. :rolleyes:

So this new cctv can photoshop 1990s tv characters into its video feed?

amazingemmet

Emme wrote: »

I love the dude with the red braces and rolled up jeans - is this going to be the trend for Spring-Summer 2010?:D

It actually already is the trend in london, no joke

Run_to_da_hills

PirateShampoo wrote: »

So this new cctv can photoshop 1990s tv characters into its video feed?

I am shure It could do a lot more than just that. :eek:

aurelius79

Undergod wrote: »

What relevance has that picture, exactly?

Do you think that there could be any genuine warnings issued, that aren't just scaremongering but actual concerns over potential threats?

This is scare mongering, pure and simple. If security forces were able to find all this information on a website, then surely they could find out who owns the website and track the individuals making the threats. They could probably shut down the website all together if they wanted to.

Security forces make it a point to not release any statements about possible threats until they are absolutely certain of who will carry out these attacks, where they will be carried out, and when they will be carried out. Scotland Yard do not have this information so why release a statement about it? To keep the people in London scared of a possible threat that most likely will not even come to pass.

Diogenes

aurelius79 wrote: »

This is scare mongering, pure and simple. If security forces were able to find all this information on a website, then surely they could find out who owns the website and track the individuals making the threats. They could probably shut down the website all together if they wanted to.

And if the website isn't hosted in the country of their jurisdiction? Doesn't hand over IP logs, and actively goes out of it's way to hide users IP addresses.

If what you said was true, there would be no child porn websites, no torrent sites etc....

Security forces make it a point to not release any statements about possible threats until they are absolutely certain of who will carry out these attacks, where they will be carried out, and when they will be carried out.

Scotland Yard do not have this information so why release a statement about it?

These two statements are a oxymoron.

To keep the people in London scared of a possible threat that most likely will not even come to pass.

Or to make people aware of a potential threat. For example, what happens if the attack does occur, and Scotland Yard come out afterwards, and say "We had vague intelligence, but didn't want to scare people, in case there was a panic"? There would be uproar, thats what. They're in a damned if they do, damned if they don't position when they're presented with this kind of intelligence.

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Scotland Yard has warned businesses in London to expect a Mumbai-style attack on the capital.

In a briefing in the City of London 12 days ago, a senior detective from SO15, the Metropolitan police counter-terrorism command, said: “Mumbai is coming to London.”

The detective said companies should anticipate a shooting and hostage-taking raid “involving a small number of gunmen with handguns and improvised explosive devices”.

The warning — the bluntest issued by police — has underlined an assessment that a terrorist cell may be preparing an attack on London early next year.'

Always reach for the high ground there RtdH....

No doubt this latest bit of scaremongering will be used to further erode civil freedom and privacy. :rolleyes:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6962867.ece

So Terrorists, or wannabe terrorists, discuss a plan similar to another attack last year. Police warn businesses to prepare, maybe check their security, and this is "scaremongering?"

Run_to_da_hills

Diogenes wrote: »

So Terrorists, or wannabe terrorists, discuss a plan similar to another attack last year. Police warn businesses to prepare, maybe check their security, and this is "scaremongering?"

No more like "we need more sophisticated CCTV systems rolled out across our cities, ANPR at every major intersection, the use of track & trace ID cards, more intrusive powers that we can sift through text messages, E mails etc so we can apprehend these so called "terrorists"!". :rolleyes:

Diogenes

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

No more like "we need more sophisticated CCTV systems rolled out across our cities, ANPR at every major intersection, the use of track & trace ID cards, more intrusive powers that we can sift through text messages, E mails etc

And you accuse others of scaremongering? :eek::P:pac::rolleyes:

so we can apprehend these so called "terrorists"!". :rolleyes:

You don't believe in Islamic terrorists?

indough

so they warn about a potential attack, and its scare mongering?

im gonna hazard a guess here and say if an attack does occur youll say it was a false flag attack by the government or something along those lines

RoboClam

indough wrote: »

so they warn about a potential attack, and its scare mongering?

im gonna hazard a guess here and say if an attack does occur youll say it was a false flag attack by the government or something along those lines

Yeah, or if they hadn't let anyone know and there was an attack he'd say,

"The 'all knowing government' :rolleyes: has once again kept secrets from us in order to solidify our obedience in them and to plant more RFID chips in us. So much for full disclosure :rolleyes::rolleyes:"

Any story can be twisted to suit your own ideas really.

aurelius79

Diogenes wrote: »

And if the website isn't hosted in the country of their jurisdiction? Doesn't hand over IP logs, and actively goes out of it's way to hide users IP addresses.

If what you said was true, there would be no child porn websites, no torrent sites etc....

Due to increased international co-operation against terrorist threats, I do not believe problems with jurisdiction would be a problem. The governments/security forces of the country of origin would be obliged to take action against such websites.

Child pornography sites are closed down all the time, the people responsible are convicted and sentenced. Unfortunately, this issue is not a top priority for many countries, the consequence being that these sites are difficult to monitor. Torrent sites are subject to individual national laws and as such is irrelevant in this discussion.

aurelius79 wrote: »

Security forces make it a point to not release any statements about possible threats until they are absolutely certain of who will carry out these attacks, where they will be carried out, and when they will be carried out. Scotland Yard do not have this information so why release a statement about it?

Diogenes wrote: »

These two statements are a oxymoron.

Care to explain why that statement is an oxymoron? It's very simple. If Scotland Yard has specific information regarding a possible attack, they release a statement. In this case, they are unable to say where, when, or how this alleged attack will take place. So why are they releasing a statement?

Diogenes wrote: »

Or to make people aware of a potential threat. For example, what happens if the attack does occur, and Scotland Yard come out afterwards, and say "We had vague intelligence, but didn't want to scare people, in case there was a panic"? There would be uproar, thats what. They're in a damned if they do, damned if they don't position when they're presented with this kind of intelligence.

What difference would it make if they released vague information or not? If an attack where to take place, the statement would not affect the outcome in any way whatsoever. People would still be injured or killed.

This statement was extremely irresponsible. The only effect it had was to keep people living in fear and paranoia about a possible attack they know nothing about.
The public can do absolutely nothing with this information except to lock their doors and refuse to go to work, and I think we can all agree that this situation is highly unlikely.

Diogenes

aurelius79 wrote: »

Due to increased international co-operation against terrorist threats, I do not believe problems with jurisdiction would be a problem. The governments/security forces of the country of origin would be obliged to take action against such websites.

Source? What if it's hosted in a country that doesn't co-operate against terrorists? Or lacks the infrastructure to track them.

Child pornography sites are closed down all the time,

As are Islamic terrorist chatter sites. But like Child Pornography sites they pop back up again

the people responsible are convicted and sentenced. Unfortunately, this issue is not a top priority for many countries,

You can cite me proof of the above? Some of the largest and most complex international criminal investigations have been into child pornographer. Never heard of operation Sapphire?

Care to explain why that statement is an oxymoron?

You claimed security service only issue statements about specific threats, and then cited a security agency issuing a non specific threat. Scotland Yard are a security agency. Hence oxymoron. Pretty simple.

Also are you not familiar with the threat rating guide from Homeland security, amber, green red etc...theres another security agency issuing a nonspecific warning about a threat.

It's very simple. If Scotland Yard has specific information regarding a possible attack, they release a statement. In this case, they are unable to say where, when, or how this alleged attack will take place. So why are they releasing a statement?

If you bothered to read the times piece, the quotes from eavesdropping don't mention targets just ideas for targets, and possible weapons.

What difference would it make if they released vague information or not? If an attack where to take place, the statement would not affect the outcome in any way whatsoever. People would still be injured or killed.

As pointed out already, if they didn't release a warning, and an attack did happen, and they mentioned after the fact that they with held information and warnings there would be hell

This statement was extremely irresponsible. The only effect it had was to keep people living in fear and paranoia about a possible attack they know nothing about.

You don't live in London do you? I do. We really don't live in fear and paranoia.

The public can do absolutely nothing with this information except to lock their doors and refuse to go to work, and I think we can all agree that this situation is highly unlikely.

Or alternatively, since the original statement was made to businesses, and referenced attacks on police stations. Businesses could run an evacuation drill make sure everyone knows the best routes out in an emergency. Check alarms, and make sure all Marshalls, and First Aiders are up to speed.

Black Uhlan

Diogenes wrote: »

And you accuse others of scaremongering? :eek::P:pac::rolleyes:




You don't believe in Islamic terrorists?

In Mumbai? Fair skinned, clean shaven, alcohol drinking, LSD taking T-shirt wearing jihadi's?

Diogenes

Black Uhlan wrote: »

In Mumbai? Fair skinned, clean shaven, alcohol drinking, LSD taking T-shirt wearing jihadi's?

There's two points here;

1) Do you or do you not believe that Islamic extremist terrorists exist? Yes or No.

2) Sources please for the above specific claims. I could do with a giggle.

Black Uhlan

Diogenes wrote: »

There's two points here;

1) Do you or do you not believe that Islamic extremist terrorists exist? Yes or No. .

Yes. Do you believe in false-flag 'terrorist' attacks? yes or no?

Diogenes wrote: »

2) Sources please for the above specific claims. I could do with a giggle.

A Mumbai policeman on the scene http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/27/mumbai-terror-attacks-india4

"I went into the building late last night," he said. "I got a shock because they were white. I was expecting them to look like us. They fired three shots. I fired 10 back.

Mumbai eye-witness Pappu Mishra - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/south_asia/7752625.stm

Then, the "foreign looking, fair skinned" men, as Mr Mishra remembers them, simply carried on killing.

More eye-witness accounts:

Gaffar Abdul Amir, an Iraqi tourist from Baghdad, says he saw at least two men who started the firing outside the Leopold Cafe.
...
"They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed," says Mr Amir.

Locals say the orgy of killings in Mumbai began here. Three men walked into the cafe, drank beer, settled their bills and walked out. Then they fished out guns from their bags and began firing.

They wore white jeans and T-shirts

:pac::pac::pac: Away...

indough

"One police officer who encountered the gunmen as they entered the Jewish centre told the Guardian the attackers were "white", although this could mean they were paler-skinned Indians from the country's north."

interesting the way you left that bit out, sorta explains the whole account of them looking foreign and white

also do not get the significance of them wearing jeans and t-shirts and where does it say they were on lsd?

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

"One police officer who encountered the gunmen as they entered the Jewish centre told the Guardian the attackers were "white", although this could mean they were paler-skinned Indians from the country's north."

interesting the way you left that bit out, sorta explains the whole account of them looking foreign and white

also do not get the significance of them wearing jeans and t-shirts and where does it say they were on lsd?

What is interesting about it?

I quoted the eye-witness, you on the other hand are quoting the the opinion of a reporter. Which do you think has more relevance? Which would you be more likely to omit?

OK...Here is a photo of someone matching the attackers description


Here is a photo of a "pale skinned" indian

http://wallpapers.oneindia.in/d/171463-2/shahid-kapoor04.jpg

Here is an "al-qaeda" terrorist:


See if you can spot the difference...

Black Uhlan

LSD:

Take you pick http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&um=1&q=mumbai%20attack%20lsd&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

Not even gonna bother reading and looking for this stuff anymore that I already know.

So...Doesn't the idea of beer guzzling, drug taking, blond, white, Pakistani, Al Qaeda Jihadi's strike you as bizarre?

namloc1980

Black Uhlan wrote: »

What is interesting about it?

I quoted the eye-witness, you on the other hand are quoting the the opinion of a reporter. Which do you think has more relevance? Which would you be more likely to omit?

OK...Here is a photo of someone matching the attackers description


Here is a photo of a "pale skinned" indian

http://wallpapers.oneindia.in/d/171463-2/shahid-kapoor04.jpg

Here is an "al-qaeda" terrorist:


See if you can spot the difference...

The dudes at the bottom are wearing balaclavas....they could be blonde blue eyed white dudes. Why not look at the pictures of the actual terrorists who were captured on CCTV....it's on youtube...dark haired..dark skinned looking fellas.

PirateShampoo

Black Uhlan wrote: »

LSD:

Take you pick http://www.google.se/search?hl=sv&um=1&q=mumbai%20attack%20lsd&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw

Not even gonna bother reading and looking for this stuff anymore that I already know.

So...Doesn't the idea of beer guzzling, drug taking, blond, white, Pakistani, Al Qaeda Jihadi's strike you as bizarre?

Not really, who better to send on a suicide mission than someone who drinks and takes drugs.

Being white doesnt make a bit of difference.

Black Uhlan

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Not really, who better to send on a suicide mission than someone who drinks and takes drugs.quote=PirateShampoo;63605931]

I''m gonna go for idealist. I don't think junkies would have made good kamikazes, do you?

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Being white doesnt make a bit of difference.

It does if your supposed to be Pakistani.

I don't know what the use is.

I tell you they were LSD taking, white skinned etc etc first it makes you "giggle" with disbelief because it doesn't fit your version of events. Then I show it to be true.

Only then when its established and contrary does it become unimportant.

namloc1980

Black Uhlan wrote: »

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Not really, who better to send on a suicide mission than someone who drinks and takes drugs.quote=PirateShampoo;63605931]

I''m gonna go for idealist. I don't think junkies would have made good kamikazes, do you?



It does if your supposed to be Pakistani.

I don't know what the use is.

I tell you they were LSD taking, white skinned etc etc first it makes you "giggle" with disbelief because it doesn't fit your version of events. Then I show it to be true.

Only then when its established and contrary does it become unimportant.

You posted eye witness reports, hardly conclusive evidence....eye witness reports are notorious for being incorrect especially in traumatic situations. Here's one of the terrorists:



doesn't look like a white guy to me?

Black Uhlan

namloc1980 wrote: »

Here's one of the terrorists:?

...

namloc1980

Black Uhlan wrote: »

...

...

PirateShampoo

Black Uhlan wrote: »

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Not really, who better to send on a suicide mission than someone who drinks and takes drugs.quote=PirateShampoo;63605931]

I''m gonna go for idealist. I don't think junkies would have made good kamikazes, do you?



It does if your supposed to be Pakistani.

I don't know what the use is.

I tell you they were LSD taking, white skinned etc etc first it makes you "giggle" with disbelief because it doesn't fit your version of events. Then I show it to be true.

Only then when its established and contrary does it become unimportant.

You seem to think im disagreeing with you, im just saying im not suprised.

When America went to afganistan you had american and birtish civilians joining up with Al qaeda.

I dont see why your so suprised with colour, arnt white people capable of such atrositys?

And junkies are perfect people to send, because they dont give a crap and you dont give a crap about them.

Diogenes

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Yes. Do you believe in false-flag 'terrorist' attacks? yes or no?

I believe that genuine terrorist attacks are are far more likely than false flag.

A Mumbai policeman on the scene http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/27/mumbai-terror-attacks-india4

Lets remember your first quote...

So...Doesn't the idea of beer guzzling, drug taking, blond, white, Pakistani, Al Qaeda Jihadi's strike you as bizarre?

I see from your quotes slightly paler skinned, not drinking beer, no evidence of drugs, nothing about being blonde/

Just from a moment it was a false flag attack. Do you really think that if they were trying to blame Al Qaeda or Islamic terrorists, that they wouldn't take the time to dye their hair, and tan their skin?

:pac::pac::pac: Away...

Yes because t-shirts and jeans are forbidden by the Koran. Honestly....

Black Uhlan

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Black Uhlan wrote: »

You seem to think im disagreeing with you, im just saying im not suprised.

When America went to afganistan you had american and birtish civilians joining up with Al qaeda.

I dont see why your so suprised with colour, arnt white people capable of such atrositys?

And junkies are perfect people to send, because they dont give a crap and you dont give a crap about them.

Fair enough, but I amn't saying they did it because they were brown or white - I am saying it is very suspicious that multiple eye-witnesses describe at least some of them as foriegn white men (and possibly 1 woman). Can we agree that a Mumbai policeman can tell the difference between a Pakistani/Indian and a foriegner?

Also, there is no way a true Moslem Jihadi willing to give up his life for his beliefs would drink alcohol or take drugs.

There are lots of other reasons it stinks too. The head (I think) of the Indian anti-terrorist squad was assasinated that first morning. A likely target, but for whom?
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/ats-links-lt-col-purohit-with-samjhauta-blasts/78233-3.html

He was responsible for bringing down aHindu terrorist group backed by members of the Indian military that was committing terrorist acts on Indian soil against Indians and posing as Muslims (sound familiar)

indough

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Can we agree that a Mumbai policeman can tell the difference between a Pakistani/Indian and a foriegner?

no, its not all that uncommon for those from northern pakistan to have skin almost as white as european and with blonde hair

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Also, there is no way a true Moslem Jihadi willing to give up his life for his beliefs would drink alcohol or take drugs.

opinion

Black Uhlan

Diogenes wrote: »

I believe that genuine terrorist attacks are are far more likely than false flag.

Yeah but I asked you a yes/no question - after I answered yours.

Diogenes wrote: »

Lets remember your first quote...

Lets. But lets represent it accurately.



It was

Black Uhlan wrote: »

In Mumbai? Fair skinned, clean shaven, alcohol drinking, LSD taking T-shirt wearing jihadi's?

Almost all have been established, and what has not could be whereas you were wrong to rubbish it originally and you should accept it rather than trying to dance around it.

Diogenes wrote: »

I see from your quotes slightly paler skinned,

"I got a shock because they were white"

Diogenes wrote: »

not drinking beer,

"Three men walked into the cafe, drank beer,"

Diogenes wrote: »

no evidence of drugs

, Linked to later

Diogenes wrote: »

nothing about being blonde/

""They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair."

Diogenes wrote: »

Just from a moment it was a false flag attack. Do you really think that if they were trying to blame Al Qaeda or Islamic terrorists, that they wouldn't take the time to dye their hair, and tan their skin?

Yeah do think it would be best practice, you can't argue with that logic however personally i think it is far more likely to for this oversight to occur than there to be blonde, white, beer drinking moslem idealists so committed to their cause that they are willing to sacrifice their own life.

indough

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

no, its not all that uncommon for those from northern pakistan to have skin almost as white as european and with blonde hair

Come on, its hardly Sweden is it?

indough wrote: »

opinion

No its not, not at all. Alcohol is forbidden absolutely by the Quran and directly from the prophet Muhammad to his followers at the time. Most observant Moslems, which by definition these supposed jihadis are don't even use alcohol in cooking.

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

pic

Gonna need some ID;)

indough

did you even look at the picture i posted?

you havent met many muslims have you? many of them do take a drink despite what the quran says, they are not all the ever obedient and dedicated followers of allah they are made out to be in the media you know

also we do not know for sure that they were drinking anyway

if you had read the reports regarding the 9/11 attackers youd know they were also reported initially to have been off their games on the nights leading up to the attacks, these claims also were found later to be made up or exaggerated, why would these be any different?

the moral of the story is that a lot of claims made at times like this end up being totally false or exaggerated either due to hysteria or god knows what

indough

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Gonna need some ID;)

i hope youre not suggesting id post a false pic?

look, if you actually knew anything about the region or its people youd know its not that uncommon

edit: here is a quote from wikipedia (yes i know but they cite sources)

"In Central, Western Asia (Middle East) and South Asia there is also a low frequency of natural blonds found among some ethnic populations. In Afghanistan blonds are particularly found among the Pashtun and Nuristani people who have a blond hair frequency of one in three. In Pakistan the Kalash tribe sometimes have blond hair. Blonde hair colour can naturally occur even among people from Northern part of India which includes Kashmiris, Kalash, Pashtuns, and descendants of European colonists found in various parts of the country like Goa, Pondicherry, and North India."

this is the same region where al qaeda is said to have influence by the way

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

did you even look at the picture i posted?

Yeah and its facinating if true, but thats all it was - a picture.

indough wrote: »

you havent met many muslims have you?

Actually I have, I have Egyptian in-laws. I even lived up there for a month in their tiny apartment, beautiful people. I met many Muslims in Ireland, one of my friends in school lived in the mosque up by the national stadium and here in Sweden Islam must be the 2nd faith,

indough wrote: »

do take a drink despite what the quran says, they are not all the ever obedient and dedicated followers of allah they are made out to be in the media you know

That is why I said observant Moslems. This is the part you are missing - If you are going to dedicate your life to an ideal, to be prepared to die fighting for that ideal you are not going to be half-arsed about that ideal are you? Non consumption of alcohol is an essential factor of that ideal.

indough wrote: »

also we do not know for sure that they were drinking anyway

No we don't, you know why cos' we weren't there. What we do have do go on is an eye-witness report claiming they were drinking. Meanwhile you have no reason to believe otherwise, true?

indough wrote: »

if you had read the reports regarding the 9/11 attackers youd know they were also reported initially to have been off their games on the nights leading up to the attacks, these claims also were found later to be made up or exaggerated, why would these be any different?

They were actually true (look up Atta's girlfriend) and puts the hijackers under the same suspicion for me too.

indough wrote: »

the moral of the story is that a lot of claims made at times like this end up being totally false or exaggerated either due to hysteria or god knows what

I can accept that but I hope you can also accept that a lot of claims are also 100% accurate?

indough

again all this is based on the false assupmtion that they would have to have been good obedient robot like muslims to have carried out terrorist attacks

"SAS: My own instinct is that just as they inhabited a psychic or psychological state that convinced them they were reliving the Prophet's experiences at the very moment they were about to violate both the very strict shari'a ("Islamic law") rules governing war and the Prophet's canonic sayings condemning the killing of civilians, so they must have assumed that the purifying nature of their approaching martyrdom gave them some sort of cosmic dispensation.

YF: Speaking of dispensation and states of mind, when I was in Karachi waiting to meet up with Ramzi and Khalid, my contact called me at the hotel I was staying at to arrange a meeting time. Since it was Friday I suggested we meet in the mosque either before or after the prayer and he said to me "No, no, no! Don't leave the hotel." And I said, "But it's Friday and there are the prayers," and he said, "No, no, no! God will forgive you." But I think their sense of dispensation was derived directly from the idea that they were engaged in jihad ("holy struggle"). Now you know, in jihad there are certain liberties allowed.

SAS: You mean like not having to pray in a congregational manner if that puts the believers in danger, or being allowed to say one's prayers on horseback if on guard or patrol and not having to dismount and pray, as one usually does, on the ground.

YF: Right. Well, I believe they took the liberty of making their own interpretation of these dispensations or liberties granted to the one making jihad."

http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Fall02/Fouda.html

indough

the rumours about them drinking were not found to be true, but even if they were that would still prove that jihadist terrorists dont necessaqrily adhere to muslim law the way you seem to think they do

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

again all this is based on the false assupmtion that they would have to have been good obedient robot like muslims to have carried out terrorist attacks

First of all I think you should rephrase that as it is an insult to honest, God-fearing observant Moslems. I'll read the rest now...

indough

what are you talking about? i find it insulting that you believe that they would have to fit some racial stereotype you have going on in your head, not all muslims are the same as your preconceptions are telling you

Black Uhlan

indough wrote: »

what are you talking about? i find it insulting that you believe that they would have to fit some racial stereotype you have going on in your head, not all muslims are the same as your preconceptions are telling you

You were comparing observant Moslems to robots, thats what i suggested you rephrase, but we are going to get off topic here. It was an interesting interview, thanks, I can't fully take it in now though. I'm really tired.

indough

yes i liken people who blindly follow any order theyre given to robots, thankfully ive never met a muslim who does this though so im not insulting any real person, here is another quote for you to read btw

"...In the mountain of documents left behind in al-Qaedas’ training camps in Afghanistan, one Yemeni, Khalid, wrote to his brother describing the people he had just joined:
I am in a whirlpool of contradictions. You cannot trust anyone here. Imagine that I might have to hide the copy of the Koran you gave me for fear it might get stolen like my watch. They train us here on how to mix with the Christians and how to emulate their life style. We have to learn how to drink alcohol and to shave off our beards.

Al-Majallh issue no. 1188, 23 November 2002, p. 24"

cited page 20, Masterminds of Terror, Yousri Fouda and Nick Fielding

Undergod

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Picture depicts sofisticated next generation smart CCTV which can be programmed to flag irregular movements of individuals. We will no doubt see more and more of this technology being rolled out.

And when was this smart CCTV picture taken? A system that inserts full-colour high resolution people into grainy grayscale pictures isn't very good for forging...

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I always had my doubts about 7/7. :rolleyes:

So what? That doesn't answer my question. I don't see why you think this is specifically a false alarm, or foretelling a false flag attack. They could equally issue real warnings about real threats to allow them to crack down on civil liberties. Or better yet, let attacks happen. Isn't it widely believed the US knew Pearl Harbour was going to happen, but allowed it to continue so they could enter the war more legitimately? Seems like similar logic applies here- if a couple of dozen people get killed in an attack, the population would be more accepting of measures that hinder their freedoms than if such policies were enacted purely on the basis of a warning. And don't have to run the risk of a false flag attack getting discovered; allowing an attack to happen would be an easier coverup than running a false falg attack.