Britons as suicide bombers

#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!)

NEWS REPORT LINK

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?
 

Ventress

LE
Moderator
#3
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.

Were they British Born, or were they naturalised?
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.
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#7
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.

It seems the liberals have allowed us to become a furtive recruiting ground for Islamic extremists committed to violence on or off our shores.
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
Sorry to display my ignorance of Islam, but does anyone know whether or not suicide is frowned upon?
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
Woopert, that is unmitigated cr*p, and an intellectually idle statement.
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
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
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.........

The somewhat "left-of-centre" Lottery Commission
Evidence to back up that accusation please - and something a little more substantial than your disagreeing with their allocations of funds.



economic migrants (asylum seekers by their rightful name in the vast majority of cases),
economic migrants and asylum seekers are two different definitions - they have different eligibility criteria.

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.  
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.
 
#12
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.....Which is why we get the likes of Abu Hamzar, openly preaching their hatred of Israel and the west. /quote]

Don't want to appear a pedant, but Abu Hamza settled in the UK because of marriage. (The marriage has ended, but I understand there are question marks about whether it was legal.) He naturalized under the Conservative government. Accordingly, any Labour changes to the rules about 'ministers of religion' wouldn't have affected him.
 
#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.
 
#15
Good. good, much better quality arguments.

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

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

controls in place now are not adequate, and it was this government that made them so.
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!)

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.  
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.........

I disagreeertion 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.  
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.........

ignorant denial
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!!!

A ban won't work - so let's tolerate it!
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.........
 
#17
The fact that these fanatics were 'British' is really neither here nor there.   The fact that they are Muslims is the core issue, along with the shock and awe value of how they choose to kill their perceived enemies.

Islam is not just a religion, but an entire social & political system which transcends nationality, ethnicity, and racial origin.   To a Muslim, nationality takes a very definite second place to his common Islamic identity.

The shock and awe aspect is that people from such a privileged society as Britain should choose to blow themselves up, with the express intent of killing as many 'enemies' as possible into the deal.   In this case, the enemy was Zionist Jews in Israel -  seen as infidel invaders of an Islamic land.

It's not that different in essence to a bunch of Saudi Arabians and other rich Gulf Arabs (hardly paupers with nothing to lose) deciding to fly aircraft into symbols of western financial and political power - recognisable as the height of usury and herecy in ideological terms even to a moderate Muslim.

Like any book, the Quran is open to the perception and interpretation of any individual who reads it.   Suicide and murder is not sanctioned, but killing the enemies of Islam, or at least resisting anything non-Islamic most definitely is.   It's a religious duty to resist infidels and the herecy they represent via Jihad - either by physically or mentally fighting against non-Islamic people and ideas.

Having said that, most ordinary Muslims wouldn't want to die before their time any more than the average happy clapper or Bible-basher would.   They're happy enough going to the mosque five times a day, staying tea-total and avoiding bacon banjoes in order to make their path to heaven that much easier.

But to die during what you truly believe to be a Jihad means instant martyrdom for Mr. Muslim Fundie.   No weighing up of sins and salvations, just a no-stop pass straight to heaven.   There's no equivalent in Christianity.

At the end of the day, there are plenty of folk who do some pretty weird things because voices in their heads told them to.   Strapping yourself up with TNT happens to be the wheeze of the moment for some of them.  

I'm afraid it's not remotely possible to weed out nutters from Britain or anywhere else, based on what they believe or preach.   Abu Hamza is an all-round repulsive fcuker, a religious nutter, and seen as such by most folk.  

But if he was a witch there are people out there who would believe he could turn them into toads... and those are the type of people you'd need to weed out.  You can't tell who they are because they croak, grow warts, and eat flies - although George Bush and most of the great American public might disagree with me on that one.   Oh, and the BNP and a few Sun readers.
 
#18
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!)
No I can't give it credit for something it has failed to do. It has failed to adequately control umetred access to this country by foreigners with no right to be here and no legitimate claim for asylum. It's responsibilities are clear, maintain the integrity of the borders and prevent illegal immigrants from entering, and be fully aware of who it is allowing to live in this country.

Slightly rambling. 'Our borders'......define sacrosanct - do you mean impermeable? Or sacred? Or White? Or colonial?
Your words and intents, not mine. I did not bring race into this. This is a typical liberal ploy, question their record and the race card is played. Argue that the liberals are failing and you face being branded a racist, a little Englander, an imperialist etc etc. I didn't mention colour of skin, and I didn't mention colonial, you just assumed that was what i meant. By sacrosanct i mean there to be protected from invasion, which in terms of the sheer number of illegal economic migrants making attempts to cross out borders, that is in effect what they are. Our borders should be protected, and those with no legitimate claim to entry to this country should be turned away, with force if necessary.

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.........
Our taxes should pay for:

*A strong defence
*hospitals that are well run
*schools that educate our children on how to read, write, understand maths and sciences, and who know the history of this great land and all of its glory and achievements (and not politically correct dogmas)
*A strong police that is on the streets, arresting criminals and detecting and preventing crime
* A judiciary that locks up criminals for a long time and prisons that detain them
*Lean and efficient administration of the machinery of government, free from political bias and small in numbers

At a local level government should provide:

*primary health care for the young, the sick and the elderly (and stop wasting health care money on "Outreach Workers for Men who have sex with men" and other wastes of money on employing fellow lunatic Guardian readers)
*Local parks, recreation, and sports facilities
*Waste disposal and street cleaning and other infrastructure services
*lean and efficient administration

Government, both national and local, should not be about creating more and more worthless jobs, but should be about less, being less intrusive in our lives, spending less of our money on worthless politically correct initiatives, less on prioritising people who fit their liberal agendas (such as asylum seekers and deviants). Government should be about collecting smaller and fewer taxes and should stop interfereing in businesses and quotas, and working time directives and all of the other things that are killing this economy. I want to take home more of my money to spend as I see fit, not less. I don't want a government that does not represent me deciding it knows better how to spend my money than I do.

Our borders remain our last defence against an influx of people we know nothing about, having agendas that are not clear, promoting values that are not ours. Hundreds of thousands of decent Muslims will be outraged that a small percentage of those who claim to be the same faith as they do are openly preaching hatred in their name, and the government is paralised with liberal fear and guilt into not acting. We knew nothing about the "asylum seekers" who were preparing sarin in Wood Green because they slipped through the net because of the laxed controls of this government. It is no co-incidence that they too attended the Finsbury Park mosque.
 
#19
Woopert, just want to say that I totaly agree with all the points you are making.   It seems every day you talk to people in the forces you realise how many are thinking of moving away from UK.   We are being pushed out of our own country.   We do not have the roads, hospitals, schools, prisons and infrastructure to keep allowing people in.   It must be costing us as a country a vast fortune to police other countries to make them a safer place to live so why do we offer assylum.

I and many others feel we are giving the UK away.
 
#20
Woopert, completely agree with the 'shopping list' of what you would like the Govt to produce.

My word!! You are being very defensive about my question as regards the definition of sacrosanct!! You introduced the accusation of racism, not me!! I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to define who you would allow in through the borders, seeing as we are talking about foreign nationals.

the government is paralised with liberal fear and guilt into not acting
What have they got to be guilty about??!! I think I understand what you are alluding to wrt 'liberal fear' - but the Police still went into the mosque to look for their men - was that an example of 'liberal fear'?

Jamspangler, thank you for your educational post, it does put everything we're chewing over here, in context.  Are we all in danger of confusing two separate issues here - Muslim extremists and illegal immigrants? Obviously there are a number of individuals who are both, but I don't think that there is enough to significantly connect both issues.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top