Four Britons plotted to bomb British army base using toy car.

[user1]

Did anybody think that out of so many plannings and attacks only one attack was successful.

One attack in US to establish that Al-Qaeda was a real threat to US.

One attack in UK to establish that Al-Qaeda was a real threat to UK.

Each and every subsequent planning or action was either uncovered or turned out to be so ill-planned/ill-executed that it was bound to fail; quite opposite to the attacks of 9/11 & 7/7 which were both masterly planned & executed.

Most, if not all, of suspected terrorists captured were caught in sting operations.

Most of these terrorists were not religious at all, many had criminal backgrounds and some even had spent time in jail or were involved in illegal activities.

 

[Roybot]

Did anybody think that out of so many plannings and attacks only one attack was successful.

One attack in US to establish that Al-Qaeda was a real threat to US.

One attack in UK to establish that Al-Qaeda was a real threat to UK.

So basically CIA/Mossad/MI5?

 

[VCheng]

Did anybody think that out of so many plannings and attacks only one attack was successful.

One attack in US to establish that Al-Qaeda was a real threat to US.

One attack in UK to establish that Al-Qaeda was a real threat to UK................

Ever heard of this?

"Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me!"

 

[gambit]

it's an irrelevant question....the suspects are British citizens. Apart from their elders, they have no connection to Pakistan whatsoever. They talk british, act british, dress british, and have british passports.

incidentally, there have been terrorist suspects of indian, bengali, north african as well as irish background/origin as well

It is not irrelevant. If I criticize the US Congress about -- say Medicare -- an issue, I am criticizing an issue that is subordinate to the greater entity call United States of America. Subordinate in the sense that it is an issue created by, administered by, alterable by, and even can be eliminated by -- the US. The methods that I use to criticize the issue's administration, and by extension am criticizing the administrator, is indicative of how strongly do I feel about the issue, whether to change or to eliminate, do I express my displeasure in a peaceful manner do I violently attack the sub-administrators, ie 'Members of Congress', to effect my desired changes.

The problem here is that there is a distinction between a domestic issue versus one of foreign policy, in other words, the issue that is under contention, reveals the ideological and moral foundation upon which a person stands to express his displeasure. I have said it before and will say again: That we do not live our lives in complete intellectual and moral vacuums. Everything we do, even of a biological impulse like eating, must have a justification, or at least in our minds that the things that we do are morally justified to our comfort.

To violently attack the country's military require said intellectual and moral justifications. Foreign policies are about interactions and affecting changes on and from other political entities to favorable ends. A person does not need to have racial, ethnic, or even familial ties to a foreign country in order to develop and sustain an emotional connection to a foreign country. But those ties do make it easier to develop and sustain that connection. Plenty of Americans feels strongly about and for the Palestinians out of sheer intellectual justifications of justice. No racial or cultural or familial history involved.

So would it raise eyebrows if an Irish-American take up a China-US issue, vis-a-vis Taiwan for example? Most likely: Yes. For a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society like the US, there are always someone with closer and stronger racial, ethnic, and even familial ties to a foreign country to take up issues that are relevant to that country. It would not make sense for a Sikh to take up an Islamic issue. It would not make sense for a Scot to take up the China-US-Taiwan issue. By 'take up' I mean to feel so strongly that the Sikh and the Scotsman would risk lives for them.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is not irrelevant. If I criticize the US Congress about -- say Medicare -- an issue, I am criticizing an issue that is subordinate to the greater entity call United States of America. Subordinate in the sense that it is an issue created by, administered by, alterable by, and even can be eliminated by -- the US. The methods that I use to criticize the issue's administration, and by extension am criticizing the administrator, is indicative of how strongly do I feel about the issue, whether to change or to eliminate, do I express my displeasure in a peaceful manner do I violently attack the sub-administrators, ie 'Members of Congress', to effect my desired changes.

The problem here is that there is a distinction between a domestic issue versus one of foreign policy, in other words, the issue that is under contention, reveals the ideological and moral foundation upon which a person stands to express his displeasure. I have said it before and will say again: That we do not live our lives in complete intellectual and moral vacuums. Everything we do, even of a biological impulse like eating, must have a justification, or at least in our minds that the things that we do are morally justified to our comfort.

To violently attack the country's military require said intellectual and moral justifications. Foreign policies are about interactions and affecting changes on and from other political entities to favorable ends. A person does not need to have racial, ethnic, or even familial ties to a foreign country in order to develop and sustain an emotional connection to a foreign country. But those ties do make it easier to develop and sustain that connection. Plenty of Americans feels strongly about and for the Palestinians out of sheer intellectual justifications of justice. No racial or cultural or familial history involved.

So would it raise eyebrows if an Irish-American take up a China-US issue, vis-a-vis Taiwan for example? Most likely: Yes. For a multi-racial and multi-ethnic society like the US, there are always someone with closer and stronger racial, ethnic, and even familial ties to a foreign country to take up issues that are relevant to that country. It would not make sense for a Sikh to take up an Islamic issue. It would not make sense for a Scot to take up the China-US-Taiwan issue. By 'take up' I mean to feel so strongly that the Sikh and the Scotsman would risk lives for them.

So using your arguments, of individuals 'not acting in a vacuum and developing certain intellectual and moral justifications based on their culture/religion/background', can we draw certain conclusions about non-Muslim Americans/the American military from incidents such as the massacres of civilians in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, the rape and murder of women and children in Iraq etc.?

 

[JayAtl]

So using your arguments, of individuals 'not acting in a vacuum and developing certain intellectual and moral justifications based on their culture/religion/background', can we draw certain conclusions about non-Muslim Americans/the American military from incidents such as the massacres of civilians in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, the rape and murder of women and children in Iraq etc.?

There have been no " massacres" in any of those countries as sanctioned , planned or executed by the united states. Prove it. I hear these accusation , especially on Iraq, that US killed millions civilians ( absurd number), or even thousands- that is a fabrication. Most i.e. 98% civilians that were killed were muslim on muslim terror acts in Iraq. The rape and murder was a criminal act and not an act as a part of institutionalized jihad.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There have been no " massacres" in any of those countries as sanctioned , planned or executed by the united states. Prove it. I hear these accusation , especially on Iraq, that US killed millions civilians ( absurd number), or even thousands- that is a fabrication. Most i.e. 98% civilians that were killed were muslim on muslim terror acts in Iraq. The rape and murder was a criminal act and not an act as a part of institutionalized jihad.

Whether the massacres and rapes committed by US troops/contractors were committed as part of an 'institutionalized plot' or not, Gambit's argument does apply in terms of these individuals 'not acting in a vacuum and developing certain moral and intellectual justifications in targeting people from one specific faith/culture', and therefore being representative of the attitudes of non-Muslim Americans/American military.

If Gambit and others can make generalizations about Muslims/Pakistanis based on the acts of a few, then why can generalizations about non-Muslim Americans/American Military be made based on the acts of a few?

 

[gambit]

So using your arguments, of individuals 'not acting in a vacuum and developing certain intellectual and moral justifications based on their culture/religion/background', can we draw certain conclusions about non-Muslim Americans/the American military from incidents such as the massacres of civilians in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan, the rape and murder of women and children in Iraq etc.?

Whether the massacres and rapes committed by US troops/contractors were committed as part of an 'institutionalized plot' or not, Gambit's argument does apply in terms of these individuals 'not acting in a vacuum and developing certain moral and intellectual justifications in targeting people from one specific faith/culture', and therefore being representative of the attitudes of non-Muslim Americans/American military.

If Gambit and others can make generalizations about Muslims/Pakistanis based on the acts of a few, then why can generalizations about non-Muslim Americans/American Military be made based on the acts of a few?

I made no generalizations. I am saying that we cannot dismiss the intellectual and moral foundations upon which a person stands to act. Certainly enough generalizations have been made, here and everywhere else, about US soldiers about the crimes they committed, BEFORE the current tension between the West and the muslim world, about racist AmericKKKa, imperialism, colonialism, and so on. It seems you speak as if this sort of examination-cum-generalization is something brand new specifically created for the muslims. You need to address the issue: Why Pakistani Britons?

 

[Last Hope]

what the F and since when al qaeeda started their own publication as for territorial army no one gives a crap who are they heck they wont have any soldiers .. court should send them to juvenile correctional institute

That would have been the case if they weren't Muslims.
Remember the Norway terrorist? They had tried a lot to declare him insane and after a couple of months in an asylum, set him free. If he were a Muslim, he already would have been on his death bed with half a dozen broken bones, not on trials.

 

[Sergi]

That would have been the case if they weren't Muslims.
Remember the Norway terrorist? They had tried a lot to declare him insane and after a couple of months in an asylum, set him free. If he were a Muslim, he already would have been on his death bed with half a dozen broken bones, not on trials.

So you wana say these Arrested Britons are going to suffer the the fate because they are Muslims ???
I personally would have liked to shoot the bas**** at spot who try to blow up the army base evenif he or they are Muslims/Hindus/Or any other religion

 

[Last Hope]

So you wana say these Arrested Britons are going to suffer the the fate because they are Muslims ???
I personally would have liked to shoot the bas**** at spot who try to blow up the army base evenif he or they are Muslims/Hindus/Or any other religion

I am just comparing these four Britions who got arrested for plans to blow up the army base to a terrorist who killed a hundred.

 

[Mercenary]

The problem with British Pakistanis is that they were mostly uneducated laborers who came to England in 1960s and 1970s to work in Textile Mills and thus they are not smart enough to diffrentiate between nonsense and the proper teachings in Islam.

The Pakistanis in Canada and USA are educated and middle class people and thats why they are better integrated than our crazy cousins in England.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You need to address the issue: Why Pakistani Britons?

Why American Soldiers/Contractors?

 

[gambit]

Why American Soldiers/Contractors?

This is not about Americans. There are plenty of threads about US soldiers committing atrocities. I can see you are evading.

 

[Last Hope]

Why American Soldiers/Contractors?

This is not about Americans. There are plenty of threads about US soldiers committing atrocities. I can see you are evading.

You don't have a reply for that either.
Out of numerous crimes committed throughout UK, only a small percentage is Pakistan oriented.
In Pakistan, you can leave your home and wander in the streets whenever you want to, but that doesn't happen in UK or US with a high rate of street crime/killing/rape. These aren't Pakistanis but the local people.

And it is safe to say that these crimes are committed by Jews/Christians. Afterall, it's your habit to label every crime or attempt by a Muslims with 'Muslim'. Why not this?