Britons as suicide bombers

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by woopert, May 1, 2003.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. It turns out that the suicide bomber(s) that blew up a bar in Israel on Tuesday night were British. The bomb strapped to one accomplice failed to detonate, and after a struggle he escaped (more's the pity!)


    It seems the liberals have allowed us to become a furtive recruiting ground for Islamic extremists committed to violence on or off our shores. I am sure all right-minded Moslems are shocked and outraged as I am at this turn of events, but obviously not if you happen to be Cherie Blair, wife of the Prime Minister who voiced words of sympathy with Palestinian suicide bombers last year saying that she "understood" why they would resort to such measures.  :mad: Such calm words of wisdom from the wife of out PM in such troubled times, which I am sure played no part in promoting such acts of cowardly violence.
  2. Were they British Born, or were they naturalised?
  3. Ventress

    Ventress LE Moderator

    Sounds like Mr B_Liar's chickens have come to roost a bit sooner than even I imagined.

    This is the fallout predicted by several posts in other Boards and now the fundementalists and terrorists will have their pay back. I am not saying the Iraq Conflict has caused it, but it may go a long way to fuelling it.

    Also people who maybe wouldn't have gone to such extremes are now contemplating actions such as suicide bombing to express their political opinions- misguided as they are. And some may not bother to travel to Tel Aviv; they might just decide to jump on the Tube at Muswell Hill and create havoc there.

    Whats your point PTP, wether the bombers are British or immigrants? They carried British passports and that makes them as British as me.
  4. I am sure if an application was made to the Lottery Commision that money would be made available to help support and fund an all British Suicide School for delinquent single parent lesbians from the Gambia!
  5. Sorry Qman, my point was this.

    Were they naturalised Palestinians, who were always "Sleepers" , and used a UK based terror network for funding, indoctrination and training

    Or, were they British Born non-Palestinians, who were encouraged, trained, indoctrinated by terrorist support cells here, a la Richard Reid.  After all, you can't just rock up in the West Bank and say -I'd like to die for the palestinian cause, who do I speak to?

    It makes a difference in my eyes , but both point to the same conclusion.

    There are Hamas and other cells operating in the UK, providing funding and support for attacks. The use of British subjects reveals a more disturbing trend. As you so rightly point out, how long before a potential suicide bomber is told the best way he can serve the Palestinian cause, is to blow himself to pieces at Rush Hour on the Tube?

    I believe Iraq took our eye off the ball, and this is simply a prtent of things to come, but, I hope I'm wrong
  6. The guy who blew himself up was born in INdia, though I don't know if he was born British or became British. Omar Sharif (the guy on the run) was from Derby.
  7. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Sorry to display my ignorance of Islam, but does anyone know whether or not suicide is frowned upon, as it is in Christianity (unless you are Swiss or Dutch, and so 'reformed' as to be barely Christian anyway)?

    Surely a stern warning from the relevant religious leaders could stop it?  Or don't they want to?
  8. My understanding of Islam is that both murder and suicide are unacceptable, in the same way that it is unacceptable in the Christian tradition. The moderate clerics preach against it, but it's not moderate muslims who are blowing themselves up, or encouraging others to do so.

    Woopert, that is unmitigated cr*p, and an intellectually idle statement. Recruiting grounds for extremists of any persuasion exist in every type of society along whatever spectrum one would wish to choose.
  9. I understand that the Taliban regarded suicide bombings as a sin, although Al Qaida managed to persuade (shortly before the Taliban were removed from power) that it was justified in their circumstances.
  10. Hardly.

    Five years ago this (liberal) government relaxed the immigration laws which required a "minister of religion" to be sponsored by the heirarchy or governing body of the religion to which they belonged before a visa was granted. Now anyone claiming to be a "religious leader" (note that Islam does not "ordain" and therefore anyone who is a member of the religion can become an Imam with the approval of their mosque) is allowed to apply to enter the UK for religious purposes. Very few ever have their applications turned down, and many apply once in the country. Because the requirement for sponsorship has been lifted the means of control over what is preached in the name of a particular religion from its authorities has gone, which is why we get the likes of Abu Hamzar, and Omar Bhakri openly preaching their hatred of Israel and the west and acting as recruiters to Hamas, al Quaeda, and other fundamentalist groups against the sensibilities of the majority of British Moslems.

    The somewhat "left-of-centre" Lottery Commission have given grants to a number of organisations that pay to fihgt the deportation of not only asylum seekers, but also radical Moslem fanatics using the Human Rights Act (another liberal invention) as the means of lodging legal fights. In any case, a number of left-wing lawyers are queuing up to bleed the legal aid system dry to defend the "rights" of thses insidious individuals to remain in the country.

    The police are terrified of acting against the likes of Hamzar and Bhakri for fear of "upsetting the community", listening to the most extreme and self-appointed "leaders of the community".  When they attempt to act they are accused of racism.

    Labour MP Khalid Mahmood (a muslim) has gone on record as saying that "there are people who have been tolerated for far too long in this country who have been allowed to preach their vile doctrines". We should be asking why these people have been tolerated, and tolerated more under a liberal Labour government than a Conservative one.

    Liberals as a whole have a general view that the country should not seek to deter economic migrants (asylum seekers by their rightful name in the vast majority of cases), and that to impose immigration controls against certain groups is racist. I would argue that there are certain groups of individuals who are radically fanatical and who have no qualms about spreading ignorance and hatred and who will use violence and fear as a means of obtaining concession. Those that would promote such views and acts should not be allowed into this country, and those that are hear should be locked up or removed. Most left-wing liberals (the Prime Minister's wife included) hold anti-Israeli and pro-Palestinian views (for whatever reason) and are sympathetic to violence and terrorism because of the "desperation of Palestinians and the desire to free themselves of Israeli oppression" etc etc. When views such as these influence immigration policy, those with an agenda of violence will exploit it, as indeed they have.

    What evidence exists that a liberal policy on the preaching of hatred and allowing those who would preach hatred in this country to arrive an maintain is there you might ask? Well we can sight the instances of the man from Tipton who joined the Taliban, the man from Manchester who fought for Saddam, and the 5 Britons held in camp X-ray as being memebers of the Taliban. Abu Hamzar's sons are in gaol in the Yemen for planning a terrorist attack. Richard Ried (the man who tried to blow up a flight from washington to Paris) worshipped at the Finsbury Park mosque where Hamzar preached, as did one of the Sept 11th terrorists, as now it appears so did Asif Hanif, and Omar Sharif. Anjim Choudray, another radical preacher of hatred yesterday described them as "martyrs". This is the same person who organised a conference on the "positive outcomes of Sept 11th" called A Towering Day in History. This is the same man, by the way, who is a leader of the al-Muhajiroun group who recruit Islamic terrorists.

    Can someone please offer me an explanation as to why these people are in this country, and why we are allowing them to preach hatred and run a terrorist organisation,? becuase I'm buggered if I can work it out.
  11. The young men who are turning to extremist views within their religion have been taught/conditioned/brainwashed by clerics - older men who have lived in Britain for many years (for example, the mad bad b*stard with the one eye and a left hook). The young men who have started blowing themselves up appear to have been born in the UK - the old men who turned their minds were immigrants under - oooooo - that would be a Conservative Government then.........

    Evidence to back up that accusation please - and something a little more substantial than your disagreeing with their allocations of funds.

    economic migrants and asylum seekers are two different definitions - they have different eligibility criteria.

    What evidence exists? None. Do you seriously think that banning the preaching of extremist views is going to prevent that preaching from taking place?!! Come on Woopert, you're an intelligent man, you know damn well that banning something doesn't stop it happening - in fact, it fans the flames. These people are preaching out in the open, where most rational people can see their views for what they are - intellectually idle, unmitigated cr*p!! ;) If their preaching was truly effective, we would have hundreds, even thousands of men, women and children, flocking to be issued with suicide vests. Instead, we have a handful of  inadequates and misguided fools, and that's it. (yes, I know one fool is one too many, but that's a different argument).

    What I am really taking issue with you Woopert is this assertion that liberal views lead automatically to extremists springing up all uber der platz. They don't - that is a simplistic view. I am unapologetically liberal (in a kind of benevolent dictator kind of way....... 8)) and I absolutely do not support extremist views - in fact, I fight against them.
  13. If you marry a foreigner from outside the EU then you get 12 months leave to remain in the UK without recourse to public funds, after which time you are eligable to apply for permanent leave to remin in the UK irrespective of marital status.

    Hamza is being deproted because of his terrorist links and inciting violence under the provision of the ammended immigration act.

    Prodigal, the point is that irrespective of whether Hamza came into the country under a labour or Conservative government, the controls in place now are not adequate, and it was this government that made them so. The economic-leeches (sorry, asylum seekers as they attempt to call themselves, you know, the ones that travel through numerous "safe" countries to get here because of our liberal welfare state, the one that costs ME money that i resent paying to support these leeches) that are coming into this country in hoardes are dissapearing without trace because of the lack of immigration control and we have no idea who they are, or the dangers they pose.

    My assertion is that liberals do not view our borders as sacrosanct, let alone this liberal belief that I should be taxed to support their rantings by providing them with houses, health care, education, and spending money, and when they are threatened with deportation, it is more of MY hard-earned which goes to the lefty liberal lawyers to defend them through legal aid.

    the evidence is there to see, or you can live in a state of ignorant denial, I don't care which as nothing anyone says which is contrary to the liberal's view will be listened to.
  14. ---
  15. Good. good, much better quality arguments.

    You all have valid points of view (hey! how liberal is that!! ;D)

    oopert - would this be under the same legislation that the 'liberal' Labour Govt brought in that you are complaining of?! Look, I really don't want to get into a point scoring exercise a la lawyer scenario situation (mentally stimulating as it might be...)

    Woopert - the previous Govt wasn't faced with the same situation as this one has been, with all it's complexities. I believe this Govt has tried to find a balance of strong conflicting forces and interests - pehaps hasn't found the best one, but at least it hs tried. Can you not at least give it some acknowledgement that it has tried? (I didn't vote for it, by the way!)

    I agree with you this situation exists - the statistics bear it out - I don't like it either. Being a benevolent dictator, I like to know exactly how many, and who, I am giving my largesse to.........

    Slightly rambling. 'Our borders'......define sacrosanct - do you mean impermeable? Or sacred? Or White? Or colonial?

    Our taxes, Woopert, support all sorts of social initiatives that you might not support......or Conservatives might not support (are you Conservative?) They support social initiatives that I might not support, that you might........but I tolerate them, because there are some things that should exist, that I don't like........I, and you.....don't have the monopoly on what is right and what is wrong.........

    I wish. My conscience would give me so much more peace if I did. But I examine my own views all the time....I find as I get older I get more fixed, as my experiences colour my opinonsthey change - I am always forcing myself to conside alternatives - doesn't mean I enjoy the sensation!!!

    1690 -  I am not stupid and neither are you - don't waste oxygen typing cr*p - the health of a democracy is suggested by one of the indicators being an ability to argue a case. There are a number of individuals I would quite easily terminate, but don't because I have chosen to obey the law of the land. The clever thing to do is to allow a certain degree of tolerance - enough for the opposition to expose themselves, but not enough for social order to disintegrate....that's not being liberal, that's being cunning.........