The Islamic threat in the UK (considered posts only).

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Bleachy, Jul 3, 2007.

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. Firstly, I make no apologies for stating such a thread. Contentious as it is, I seek to provide a central focus to capture all of the issues surrounding the Islamic threat in the UK. I have bolded the word 'in' to best describe the point of the thread. There are many other threads on this website that debate the threat of Islamic fundamentalism to the UK from factions overseas. Indeed, the majority of arrse members will have experienced / witnessed this threat first hand during various recent operational tours. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Islamic threat that the UK faces from within its own borders.

    Being no different to the majority of UK citizens, I am instantly shocked when I hear of the latest terrorist atrocity to hit our cities. This is particularly compounded when cited alongside the daily ‘Sun’ or ‘Mirror’ style stories surrounding the UK's Islamic community. Although I consider myself to be reasonably well educated and therefore have a zero respect or trust for the national media, I still find my shock continually degenerating to anger, frustration and finally, bitter resentment.

    I am a British citizen raised on British values by a British family who have lived in this country for generations. Many of them, including myself have personally risked life to protect the British way of life against those that have sought to change or destroy it. I do not want to have to worry every time I walk through UK airport security and see a person of Asian descent getting on the same flight as me. I do not want to be labelled a bigot or racist if I complain when the UK airport security staff does not ask the guy's wife to remove her face veil in order to verify her identity. Finally, I want to be able to send my children to school safe in the knowledge that they will be taught about according to the British way of life, where they can be proud of their heritage and not be shunned because of these beliefs.

    There are two fundamental questions which I hope my fellow arrsers can help me answer. Firstly, how do we define the Islamic threat in the UK and secondly, how can we counter it? Without wishing to suppress the notion of free speech, I only wish to caveat potential posters with one prerequisite. In order to prevent the proliferation of racist drivel which will ultimately undermine the thread, please consider your comments before posting rather than going with 'gut instinct' if you see something you don't like.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, 'the Islamic threat in the UK'.......discuss.
     
  2. Firstly could you change the name of the thread? Islamists are a threat. :roll:

    Secondly.

    The threat, IMHO is due to our lack of will to engage the problem head on. Unless we discard the Multicultural mistake (for Multiculturalism read Ghettoisation) and start to give all young people values to aspire to then we will lose impressionable young men (no women so far) to Islamist rhetoric.

    The greatest threat we face is failing ourselves. Lets stop being open toed sandal wearing beardies about it and let all members of our society know that there are rules we expect to be obeyed. We will respect Islamic culture as long as they:

    a. Respect ours.

    b. Start cleaning their house of the Islamist ordure that has been allowed to congregate in the darker corners. Or helping the Police / five / six to do it for them.


    Heed.
     
  3. Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not
    David Selbourne

    LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.
    If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.
    *************************************************************
    1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

    2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

    Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

    Related Links
    She's a red rag to a mullah
    Men had converted to devout form of Islam, residents say
    Terrorism is rotting the Islamic revolution it craves
    3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.

    4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

    5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

    Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

    6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

    7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”

    8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.

    9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

    10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.

    But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.

    David Selbourne is the author of The Losing Battle with Islam, which was published in the United States in November last year

    The Telegraph
     
  4. Surely Islamists are the incarnation of the threat, the threat itself is correctly deemed to be islamic?

    I think the definition of the threat is as important as the profiling of the embodiment. Neither should be seen as an attack on a particular religion or section of society per se. Unfortunately radical islam and ordinary decent islam are not so clearly speparated by blue water in reality or in the mind of Joe and Joanna Public.
     
  5. To take these one at a time:

    1) Probably fair; the main victory of the Jihadis so far has been in convincing many in the West that there is, in fact, no war going on;

    2) Probably not relevant. Failure of Muslims to unite around a common leader is as damaging for the Jihadis, as that failing aparently is for us in the West;

    3) Unfair. Western leadership reacts to the level of the threat; just look at how Broon has responded in the past few days. running round shouting, "The sky's falling in" doesn't work with Western audiences.

    4) "Hello Kettle, this is Pot, black over." Discussion is how we get the best out of people in this society.

    5) Important with regard to the political class, but I believe that the majority of people, at least in this country, are not fooled at all. This will be of critical importance if the threat level is perceived to rise to the point where our way of life is actually threatened, rather than merely inconvenienced;

    6) Maybe;

    7) It's not moral poverty, merely an inability to believe that people actually WANT to live like that. Have I just discovered that Muslims and Westerners don't understand each other? Please send my Nobel Prize to...

    8 ) Undeniably true;

    9) Also true, but policy makers are finally waking up to this.

    10) 'An old delusion'? In other words we've bumbled along for over a century in which our technological advantages and progress have kept our societies comfortable and relatively safe (when compared to life in Yemen or Pakistan, for instance). If that's a delusion, then fine, but if it works, can it still be a delusion?

    Nice article, but he's wrong. The West, particularly the USA and Britain, don't mobilise fully unless we have to; once we do, then watch out. If radical Islam thinks it can get to a point where it is ready to conquer the West, without us noticing until it's too late, I would submit that they're reading the wrong newspapers. Never believe what your friends are telling you, if you've been feeding them lies for 20 years.
     
  6. Surely the threat is a global one, as Islamists seek global enforcement of their doctrine. It is the ease with which they can pursue this in the UK, that is the worry.
     
  7. The only way to truly eradicate Islamic terrorism from Great Britain is to banish Islam. You know, like Muslims want to banish Jews. Why tolerate the intolerant? I say let them live in an Islamic country.

    I expect this post to be deleted as it's not "PC", simply the opinion of an indigenous Briton.
     
  8. Were the plan to out reproduce the population of Britain and gradually become the dominant demographic, then Islamists might have a chance of success... otherwise they are just pin pricking their way to becoming enough of a nuisance to cause a crack down and mass deportation. The public there, and here in the states, can shift violently at any moment no matter how politically correct the elected administration tries to be.
     
  9. Although I do not agree, I think you make a valid point. 'They' of course are hell bent on making this country an islamic country so you argument will have been fulfilled.
     
  10. Khyros, the second most popular name in Britain currently stands as Mohammed (variations of spelling).

    Just an idea of just how many muslims currently reside here.
     
  11. A few years ago IIRC, Brown gave a budget in which he promised more money for MI5 "regional centres", or field offices, outside London.

    If the events of the last few days prove anything, it's that terrorists can be based and/or strike in any part of the country.

    I think the spooks should have field offices in every major city in the UK. MI5 has in the past stated that one of their biggest problems is sheer lack of manpower. Brown has said that the primary role of government is to protect it's citizens. Time to prove it; give the spooks whatever they need
    to do the job.

    Because next time we might not be so lucky.
     
  12. Ord_Sgt

    Ord_Sgt RIP

    As has been said we've had greater threats to our national security than a couple of bigoted amateurs with a can of petrol and been victorious.

    These so called islamists are nothing more than a minor thorn in our side, despite the feeding frenzy in the media trying to convince us otherwise, which will cause no lasting damage. A few unfortunate people will get killed, but these fools are no threat to the vast majority. Should they become so the retribution the majority will extract will be massive.

    If these people really think that we as a nation will just dump our national character born over a thousand years and submit to religious bigotry and suppression because of a few bombs they really need to pick up a few books and read up on our history.
     
  13. Working on that Statement by Brown then more Defence spending and a boost to the Police budget seems to be in order, as if.
     
  14. True. I'm not going to hold my breath either.
     
  15. We may thank God that Islam is disparate, disunited, riven by faction and inchoate to a degree that renders cooidination very unlikely in our lifetimes.

    I perceive the threat as not greater that the of PIRA and its fellow-travellers, whom we contained rather successfully over many decades .