Terrorism in the UK- British Muslim Response

From Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's column in the Independent...

"As they wake up to news of the foiled car-bomb attack on Glasgow Airport, I know what millions of my compatriots - atheists, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and Christians - will be saying, their easy Sunday ruined by yet another alleged Islamicist plot: "What's wrong with these crazed Muslims?" "Why the hell are they here if they hate it so much?" "When will we be rid of the lot of them?" "What do they want?" "Other minorities also have a hard time, they don't blow up nightclubs and airports".

What these aggrieved Britons don't realise is that exactly the same conversations are taking place in most Muslim households too, with many more expletives flying. Sane, ordinary British Muslims are even less forgiving of such nihilists, whose barbarism undermines our fundamental right to belong to this country as absolute equals. These are hobby terrorists with screwdrivers and screwed heads; they appropriate legitimate concerns, turn them into excuses on their own violent reality shows, sure to be broadcast again and again on screens around the world.

With no politics, no aim, no dreams, no noble imperative, for these Islamicists and their ideological masters, the means is the end. They are at once satanic abusers of our faith and social misfits unloved by all except their own reject band of brothers. Scorned by those they claim to defend, the dreaded sociopaths now seem determined to wound fatally the social contract made between this country and Muslim citizens. Only each assault deepens our sense of nationhood. We still rail against racism and unethical government policies - and I do so incessantly, as you know. Unlike self-righteous neocon liberals, we see how our young are profoundly affected by Iraq and Palestine. However, when bloodthirsty Islamicists strike, we experience a collective intensification of our attachment to Britain. There is no place like this home for us, the only place we want to live and die in.

On Saturday night, at a lavish Shia wedding in Hertfordshire, Muslim guests were livid about "these bastards giving us a bad name". "Send them packing to the Middle East or Pakistan," said a solicitor to much cheering at one table. "Time to say we love this country. For Muslims, no better country - that's why so many want to come over," added a businessman, who had come here penniless and turned his fortunes around within 10 years.

The father of the bride, too, arrived in Britain with little and joined a small English family firm. He brought entrepreneurial energy; they gave him encouragement and support. This ultra-loyal immigrant for many years led the pre-dawn prayers at our main mosque in Kensington."

Article in full

http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/yasmin_alibhai_brown/article2727903.ece

Nice to see Australia owning up to the reasons for their involment in Iraq. Over to you Gordon:>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6272168.stm

Ziggy! wrote:

Nice to see Australia owning up to the reasons for their involment in Iraq. Over to you Gordon:>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/6272168.stm

I really don't see this as a big revelation. It is in the West's interest to have a secure supply of oil and a way of hurting the West is to restrict that supply... this is obvious to anyone.

The agenda in Iraq was to set up a Western friendly democracy (to secure oil supplies YES!) which if it was found to be viable might induce political unrest in other countries in the region and they too might be pushed toward more democratic regimes that would counter the Islamic extremism. This essentially was the Neocon agenda. It was a coincidence that in this case their agenda also meant getting rid of Saddam a brutal dictator (which was and still is a good thing). This is also the reason why countries like Syria and Iran don't want Iraq to succeed.

The rest of the international community by failing to support the Iraqis have decided that they would rather see a US failure even if it means Iraq descending in to civil war and handing a huge victory to the terrorist groups that are now using the plight of Iraq for their own ends. This is the real tragedy in Iraq.

BUT if you really think that Al Qeida or other terrorist groups give a *Bad word* about what happens to Iraq or its people apart from making sure it remains unstable as possible for as long as possible then you really are deluded. Their agenda goes far beyond Iraq and is essentially as anti western agenda.

The Islamic group who killed the Japanese translator of "The Satanic Verses" were not doing this because of Iraq or Oil but because they want to attack the western Ideal of free speech. This Anti western radicalism is a strong factor in Jihadist terrorism and this has been on the rise well before Iraq, 7/7 or 9/11...

I agree Iraq is a vacum(which we created) but its mostly civil war amongst Muslims and criminal groups now. The American troops are just target practice. As soon as a strong enough 'leader' rise above the chaos he will forma junta and the US will back him to get stability,the new Saddam! We did the same in Iran and Saudi and we will do it here. You talk as if there is some sort of gallent effort going on by the west in the M.E...?

I have to mock you when you say we want "democracy in Iraq". No historian or political strategist would suggest thats possible. Thats absurd. The Middle East works and votes on fuedal tribal law and always will. I agree its beneficial for Iraq to stay 'hot', but for both sides. America knew exactly how it was going to pan out and that didnt come into consideration by greedy oil barons who put the cretin Bush in power.

The early IRA resistance to the British at the beging of the last century was led by doctors, people who see the carnage every day.

Ziggy! wrote:

I have to mock you when you say we want "democracy in Iraq". No historian or political strategist would suggest thats possible. Thats absurd. The Middle East works and votes on fuedal tribal law and always will. I agree its beneficial for Iraq to stay 'hot', but for both sides. America knew exactly how it was going to pan out and that didnt come into consideration by greedy oil barons who put the cretin Bush in power.

So now the failure in Iraq by the US in the aftermath of the war is a sort of Baldrick like 'cunning plan' by the US to keep the country unstable?! so that they can ...secure Oil supplies?... become the most unpopular administration ever?...be at odds with most of the international community?...destabilise their relationship with all the other major Oil suppliers in the region...?Give the terrorist as opportunity to claim a victory and increase the global terrorist threat?

Wow that's a good one even for you...

I said the oil lobby who but Bush in power were the ones not worried about the consequences. Americans know no different and think petrol comes from thin air.
Nearly all wars of the last 100 years are about oil and resources, the Cold War the cataylst.
If you watched Question Time last night 80% of the young audience thought the attacks in the UK were a response to Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesnt matter how many times the perps of these attacks say just that it just doesnt get reflected by this above Muslim Council, men promised honours to play ball. We started an empirocal war for oil and we have to take the hits. Brown has no choice but to pick up Blair and Bushs agenda if wants this cvoutry to have petrol in twenty years time..

Ziggy! wrote:

I said the oil lobby who but Bush in power were the ones not worried about the consequences. Americans know no different and think petrol comes from thin air.
Nearly all wars of the last 100 years are about oil and resources, the Cold War the cataylst.
If you watched Question Time last night 80% of the young audience thought the attacks in the UK were a response to Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesnt matter how many times the perps of these attacks say just that it just doesnt get reflected by this above Muslim Council, men promised honours to play ball. We started an empirocal war for oil and we have to take the hits. Brown has no choice but to pick up Blair and Bushs agenda if wants this cvoutry to have petrol in twenty years time..

BUT the best way to ensure Oil supplies is to have a stable western friendly Middle East. It is the extremists that don't want this to happen.

This is why a stable Iraq is the last thing that the terrorists want.

Mauri wrote:

BUT the best way to ensure Oil supplies is to have a stable western friendly Middle East. It is the extremists that don't want this to happen.

Yeah, they don't want 'us' coming in and parading our way of life to make a region we destabalised, stable for our purposes!

The west's power base for the past 100 years has been on the oil supplies we have abused. We are in the area now so that we don't have to pay the true cost of buying oil from an area who by rights, should have control of it themselves.

drewboy wrote:

Mauri wrote:

BUT the best way to ensure Oil supplies is to have a stable western friendly Middle East. It is the extremists that don't want this to happen.

Yeah, they don't want 'us' coming in and parading our way of life to make a region we destabalised, stable for our purposes!

The west's power base for the past 100 years has been on the oil supplies we have abused. We are in the area now so that we don't have to pay the true cost of buying oil from an area who by rights, should have control of it themselves.

Well I think the middle east countries have gained a little form oil revenue over the years...and the true cost of the oil is relative since the control of supply by OPEC in the past has always set the price. If there has been an abuse of resources then the Middle Eastern government have been complicit in that.

I don't quite understand what you mean by parading 'our way of life' are you suggesting that democracy is privilige of the West and that the Middle East is not 'meant' or can't cope being democratic and so have to suffer under what is essentially a form of fascist dictorships...(How patronising is that!?) I guess all the millions of people in Iraq that braved the violence to vote for a democratic government might not agree with you BUT conveniently they seem to have been forgotten when anyone talks of Iraq as have all the ordinary workers and trade unionists etc. who welcomed the fall of Saddam and the prospect of self rule a prospect that has been deined them by the violence of the terrorist and 'insurgents', the failure of planning by the West and the woeful inaction by the international community that have decided that it is better to punish the Iraqis than to give any hint of vindication to the US over its actions in Iraq.

I agree with Drew (get therapy Phill!). All around the world the US-and to some extent the UK-have always supported and armed dictators to insure our resources and oil. Arent China doing that right now in Africa? El Salvador...Nicuragua...Chile..the list is endless, and thats just with Reagan.
The thing with the Middle East is the oil is easy to extract and so a big mark-up for both producer and supplier. Its beneficial for both supplier and dictator to keep the region volatile and prices high. If we could get oil the way you talk about dont you think we would be?? America have some seriously hypocritcal oil deals with Saudi to secure the cheapest price, not even flinching when Saudi attacked the US on 911. And what about Gadaffi,now selling oil again. When did he become a Pope?
We, the west, educate, arm and support most of the worlds dictators. I believe Idi Amin went to uni quite near you Mauri..

Mauri wrote:

Well I think the middle east countries have gained a little form oil revenue over the years...and the true cost of the oil is relative since the control of supply by OPEC in the past has always set the price.

A very good point. Heres a link which details how the oil revenues in Iraq are to be used by the Iraqi government to help Iraqi people. Although of course Western oil producers will make millions at the same time.

Mauri wrote:

I guess all the millions of people in Iraq that braved the violence to vote for a democratic government might not agree with you BUT conveniently they seem to have been forgotten when anyone talks of Iraq as have all the ordinary workers and trade unionists etc. who welcomed the fall of Saddam and the prospect of self rule a prospect that has been deined them by the violence of the terrorist and 'insurgents',

Another excellent point. We seem to forget what the Iraqis want in all this. They want to decide their own governments which was proved by the very high turn out at the polling stations despite the dangers around them. Thats why we cant turn our back on them now and let them slide back into a dictatorship.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/09/world/middleeast/09oil.html?ex=1323320400&en=b08df7038436ab20&ei=5088&partner=rssn

The Iraqi oil revenue link !!

They voted on tribal lines, like they always have, although the differance here it was a cross on a piece of paper rinted in Washington, but an action which encouraged a civil war. The oil companies will earn billion from this,the average Iraqi f** tll. Why else are we in the desert?

Ziggy! wrote:

They voted on tribal lines, like they always have, although the differance here it was a cross on a piece of paper rinted in Washington, but an action which encouraged a civil war. The oil companies will earn billion from this,the average Iraqi f** tll. Why else are we in the desert?

Of course they voted on tribal lines most people in the UK vote on 'tribal' lines...labour in the north and conservative in the south

But that is not the point, the point is that they decided (even at great personal risk) to vote and give the process a chance!!! The people who derailed the process are not the Americans or the the UK or the moderate Iraqis but the terrorists/insurgents who started blowing up Mosques holy sites and market places thus creating more 'tribal' tension and retaliation (and the foreign countries backing them). These 'freedom fighters' are engaded in a war against the west supposedly responding to the invasion of Iraq BUT who are they fighting for? Certainly not Iraqis who they seem quite pleased to blow up with dreadful regularity!

A great opportunity was lost, the US failed in not organising the aftermath of the war properly, the international community failed because it did not support the process properly (putting its differences with the US over the legality of the war to one side for the sake of the Iraqi people) and encouraged the whole of the region to get behind the process (because it didn't want to give the US any kind of justification to the war in the first place)... and yet all we hear about is the imperialist aims of the US neglecting to mention that but for the Islamofascist extremist bombing the hell out of Iraq the democratic porcess might have had a chance.

The big losers in all this are the Iraqis...

They voted for a civil war and they got one. There was minimal free speech on show. Sunni voted Sunni;Shia voted Shia;Kurd voted Kurd...
Was it not the case the CIA were planting terrorists bombs with the Vietnamese army in the French controlled North of Vietnam to drag them into a civil war. It makes me laugh that you dont ever contemplate how nasty America can be to get their resources .

Ziggy! wrote:

They voted for a civil war and they got one. There was minimal free speech on show. Sunni voted Sunni;Shia voted Shia;Kurd voted Kurd...
Was it not the case the CIA were planting terrorists bombs with the Vietnamese army in the French controlled North of Vietnam to drag them into a civil war. It makes me laugh that you dont ever contemplate how nasty America can be to get their resources .

They did not vote for a civl war...no one in Iraq apart from the extremist want violence. The people who gain form a civl war are forces outside of Iraq!

What you say doesn't make any sense, the Iraq war has been the biggest disaater for the US on almost every level, politically, financially and morally why would they want the country to descend in to civil war that would empower their enemies in the region Iran and Syria and would hand a voctory to the terrorist, your logic if there is any is perverse.

The best possible result for the US would have been a stable democratic Iraq which was friendly to the west that ensured regular Oil supplies and thus put perssure and lessened the power of the other Arab states. At the same time the threat of more intervention in the middle east would be a real possibility and thus it would make the other courtries in the region more willing to deal with the west.

The situation at the moment which could lead to a US withdrawl from Iraq and then a civil war that could result in a unstable Islamic state being set up would be the last possible thing the US want.

Are you telling me the Pentagon didnt vector in civil war as highly likely off the back of their battle plan? Theres no supposed to be anything rational about this invasion. MCnamara said that once the US military machine is unleashed it cant be stopped. War for the sake of war. The Bush family are one of the biggest share holders in the arms industry in the US. They love war!!!!!and oil...

Ziggy! wrote:

Are you telling me the Pentagon didnt vector in civil war as highly likely off the back of their battle plan? Theres no supposed to be anything rational about this invasion. MCnamara said that once the US military machine is unleashed it cant be stopped. War for the sake of war. The Bush family are one of the biggest share holders in the arms industry in the US. They love war!!!!!and oil...

Hold on now you're chaging your tune, of course civil war was always a possibility wars are always unpredictable and the lack of adequate planning for after the invasion made this more likely although it could have been avoided if the wider international community had put its differences with the US to one side and had thought more of the well being of the Iraqis rather than its collective ego and its wish to prove the US wrong.

Saying that the pentagon considered the possibilty of civil war is one thing saying (as you did) that the civil war was planned as part of a US conspiracy to ...secure oil supllies? Or as you are saying now to boost the arms industry? is frankly idiotic.

There 'plan' was to turn Iraq into a western friendly democracy that would put pressure on the other countries in the region to deal more favourably with the west, it wasn't planned for porperly and it went wrong... no great conspiracy there.

I say again it's the terrorist and the extremist in the middle east that are most happy with what has happened not the US, which is why regardless of what we feel about the US ect we should we worried about the lonewgr term consequences AND the biggest losers are the Iraqis who have been dumped on by ALL sides especailly those who are 'fighting' in their name.

Im not saying civil war was planned, im saying it was invitable, but no one cared. The arms industry get rich, the oil compnaies get rich, and the war machine is kept oiled. America keep thier super power status for the next twenty years off the back of this, priming up for the war with China. This is not about sense Maz its about US power, the same game Russia are playing and the game China will soon have to play.

Maz, the Iraqis ARE the insurgents, the guys shooting at the Americans. They want us out!

"There 'plan' was to turn Iraq into a western friendly democracy that would put pressure on the other countries in the region to deal more favourably with the west, it wasn't planned for porperly and it went wrong... no great conspiracy there".

*Bad word*!

Ziggy! wrote:

"There 'plan' was to turn Iraq into a western friendly democracy that would put pressure on the other countries in the region to deal more favourably with the west, it wasn't planned for porperly and it went wrong... no great conspiracy there".

*Bad word*!

OK I've given you loads of reasons why I think you are talking Bolloxs but why do you think what I said can't be true...Wouldn't a democratic western friendly Iraq be exactly what the US wants in the region? Yes, that would secure Oil supplies and I'm sure the arms industry would make a fair amount from selling them all the equipment they need to rebuild their armies...

What the ordinary Iraqis WANT as do most people around the world is a chance to work for a decent wage, for their families to be safe and to live without fear of violence. It's the extremists funded and backed by foreign powers that are causing the unrest. What the iraqis want has nothing to do with it.

You are just lapping up the 'freedom fighter' bullshit propaganda...

Did you ever think that maybe most of the bombs and insergents are Iraqis fighting other Iraiqis and the Americans? The Isalmist angle is overhyped to make us look better. Are we in Sudan? No. Are we in oil rich Iraq.Yes. This is a no-brainer Maz.
You are helpig terrorists by agreeing they are fighting some sort of ideology war. THEY WANT POWER IN IRAQ! WE WANT POWER IN IRAQ!
Yes a democratic friendly Iraq is ideal but there was never on the cards. It always about getting our man in there to sell us cheap oil. Both the current leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan have worked for UNOCAL.

Ziggy! wrote:

Yes a democratic friendly Iraq is ideal

Finally you agree with me

Ziggy! wrote:

but there was never on the cards. It always about getting our man in there to sell us cheap oil.

Why wasn't it on the cards? It's worked in the past. The only reason it's failing is that there has been a disgraceful lack of support and leadership from the international community, there has been a failure by the US to plan and deal politically with the others in the region and there has been little condemnation of the terrorists for what they are.

It was about getting 'our man' but through the ballot box...

There is little ideology to the terrorist apart from anti westernism. They don't want power in Iraq what would they do with power? They want Iraq to fail because they want the US/West to fail.

It doesn't matter to them that democracy might take hold or how many people die they would bomb in any case, I think even if the US wanted to install an Islamic governmnet the terrorist would still bomb the hell out of the place...