Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

scot1870 wrote:As for jabba never having seen police like that when he was young, I saw more riot police growing up fighting strikers, hooligans and the like! They're all body armour and no action these days. We just don't see enough water cannon action on our TV screens

True water cannon is a lot better then bullets (albeit even plastic);

For sure - I remember the minders. But I am sure they wore had tit hats with truncheons;

How about this for a bit of history;

scot1870 wrote:Hmmmm, the minority take on the occupying forces, the majority shoot and bomb civilians because of, well, whatever reason they think up that day.

I didn't know that a census had been carried out. Your information is better than mine

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

scot1870 wrote:Hmmmm, the minority take on the occupying forces, the majority shoot and bomb civilians because of, well, whatever reason they think up that day.

I didn't know that a census had been carried out. Your information is better than mine

Cheers,
Shafique

Count the bodies

scot1870 wrote:

shafique wrote:

scot1870 wrote:Hmmmm, the minority take on the occupying forces, the majority shoot and bomb civilians because of, well, whatever reason they think up that day.

I didn't know that a census had been carried out. Your information is better than mine

Cheers,
Shafique

Count the bodies

Counting the bodies of civilians may indicate the majority of victims are Muslim. (And here I'm thinking of civilian deaths around the world - not just in Iraq).

Where muslims are killing other muslims (as opposed to Israelis, American mercenaries..sorry contractors, American soliders etc)... do you guys think the family of the muslims killed think that Islam condones terrorism?

One piece of news that has got good coverage over the past few days is the letter sent by 138 Islamic (religious) leaders to the Christian community emphasising the peaceful nature of Islam and amongst the points raised that Islam rejects terrorism.

Cheers,

Shafique

Oh - and I haven't seen a good argument or statistics yet that the majority of supporters/members of Al Qaeda/Insurgents etc are engaged in terrorism rather than armed resistance to an occupation.

Maybe I'm just being pedantic about the use of words?

Count the bodies[/quote]

Counting the bodies of civilians may indicate the majority of victims are Muslim. (And here I'm thinking of civilian deaths around the world - not just in Iraq).

Where muslims are killing other muslims (as opposed to Israelis, American mercenaries..sorry contractors, American soliders etc)... do you guys think the family of the muslims killed think that Islam condones terrorism?

One piece of news that has got good coverage over the past few days is the letter sent by 138 Islamic (religious) leaders to the Christian community emphasising the peaceful nature of Islam and amongst the points raised that Islam rejects terrorism.

Cheers,

Shafique[/quote]


tut tut shaf - do i detect a note of sarcasm - rare indeed

Arnie - mercenaries/contractors quip was sarcastic, but the rest of the message was serious.

I do have a sense of humour.... incidentally one of my frustrations is that I haven't found a site which has downloads of each episode (whereas all the US shows are uploaded within hours of broadcast!)

what episode and of what Shaf?

That's what you get with young children running around and moving and deleting text as you type!

I was/am looking for 'Have I got news for you' - can't get regular downloads of it... the only saving grace is that they've started showing the highlights on the BBC web site.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf

i dont know much about torrents etc, but i know you are. My lads friends say this is one of the best in the UK at the mo

http://www.uknova.com

Hope this helps

Thank your friend for me Arnie - I have registered with the site and will be downloading the programme!

Cheers,
Shafique

Glad to help mate

arniegang wrote:Shaf

i dont know much about torrents etc, but i know you are. My lads friends say this is one of the best in the UK at the mo

http://www.uknova.com

Hope this helps

uknova.com is a great site and has been a staple diet for me whilst working away.

Got to watch the opening show of x-factor whilst in kuwait, sad I know.

Shafique has made some great points.

There's such an obvious double standard in how true terrorism and foreign criminal activity is labeled/not labeled. This simpleton bias is so ingrained in the media and in the masses, that I don't see it changing any time soon, I mean c'mon, let's be real. And it's not as if most people have a knack for questioning what doesn't benefit their perceptions of themselves or their countries.

If anything one would hope that more "alternative" but serious international media outlets would use accurate language when referering to true terrorism. But many a times they're too busy trying to be politically correct and fitting in to Western media standards - what else is new?

In a more balanced world Israel would be officially coined a extremist terrorism state, and its actions against its neighbors/hostaged land: Jewish terrorism. It is a self-titled Jewish state after all, and it is an expert at inhumanity - in applying it that is - but we all know the grip that this Jewish state has on the world, the played out opportunistic victimization by which they will forever justify their own victimization on others.

As to American/Anglo Christian terrorism - two-faced Protestant morals aside - let's just call it what it really is: very poorly concealed Neo-White Supremacy.

Many good points have been raised by everyone regarding the term "Islamic Terrorist".

As previously pointed out:

The Islamic refererence is an unfortunate adjective used to describe the group of terrorists, who happen to all have a have a common belief in islam. Unfortunately, this is the most appropriate description.
This leads to the most common misconception in that ALL islamic terrorists are fighting for islam.
Other objectives are then overlooked.
However, the misconception is not limited to the non-mulsims. The term also leads muslims to believe that the war on terrorists is a war on islam, which is also incorrect. Just the other day i had a personal aquaintence tell me that the Americans were worried about islam taking over the world.

So although the term "Islamic Terrorist" is not appropriate, I do beleive that it is accurate and not another example of double standards.

I do think a lot of people share your conclusion benwj - that the term 'Islamic Terrorist' is accurate.

My only hope is that they are using the term 'Islamic' to mean 'Muslim' (as I have said above, I have no issue with the label 'Muslim Terrorist'), but I fear that in actuality the label is symptomatic of the belief that Islam (and therefore all muslims) condones terrorism.

Cheers,
Shafique

I suspect that the term 'Islamic' was used instead of 'Muslim' because it was coined by the western media who believed it to be more of a technical reference, rather that the xenophobic Muslim reference.
Either reference can be misinterpreted the same way, and your fears are well justified.

There has been a lot of references to the IRA/PIRA in this thread, and it should be noted that it wasn't that long ago that the rest of the world incorrectly considered all Irish to be terrorists, or at least have a connection to one. Nothing could have been further from the truth, and it has only been since the violence has ceased that opinions have changed.

Unfortunately, as long as there are "Islamic Terrorists", most muslims will be tarred with the same brush.

benwj,

I lived through the PIRA bombings of main-land Britain - and during that time (generally speaking) the British did not view all Irish as terrorists and conversely the Americans were the main source of funding for the PIRA - who viewed them as freedom fighters!

Cheers,
Shafique

freza wrote:
In a more balanced world Israel would be officially coined a extremist terrorism state, and its actions against its neighbors/hostaged land: Jewish terrorism. It is a self-titled Jewish state after all, and it is an expert at inhumanity - in applying it that is - but we all know the grip that this Jewish state has on the world, the played out opportunistic victimization by which they will forever justify their own victimization on others.

What you clearly miss is that pre-9/11 the world was building pressure on Israel as an oppressive state that used disproprionate force. The events of 9/11 made the world think again, whether rightly or wrongly.

As for the Arab fixation that the world is run by Jews, get over it, so many people here verge on the dellusional on that point. Jewish people hold shares in companies, as do Arabs and Christians and folks from any walk of life. Being Jewish doesn't give them a magic extra power like many people seem to believe.

As for Shafique's point on PIRA being funded by Americans, absolutely true. The ignorance of the Yanks who are Irish (ie. 4th generation on their mothers side, so not Irish by anyone else's definition) fuelled Irish terrorism and it was only 9/11 that led to a crackdown on such activity. As has been covered before though, Irish terrorism did not have its roots in religion, having thousands (millions?) of 16 year olds declaring Jihad when they clearly don't understand all the influences is a very different situation.

scot1870 wrote:As has been covered before though, Irish terrorism did not have its roots in religion, having thousands (millions?) of 16 year olds declaring Jihad when they clearly don't understand all the influences is a very different situation.

Many will argue that the roots of 'Muslim Terrorism' is not religion but the perceived/real oppression of people who also happen to be Muslims. At least, that is what Bin Laden says and emphasises this with his comment that Sweden isn't being targeted.

Also, let us be clear - Jihad does not equal terrorism. If you target civilians, you are a terrorist. In fact, Jihad (in the sense of armed struggle) comes with strict laws and any act of terrorism cannot be called 'Jihad'.

I've avoided discussing the use of the term 'Jihad' - because the meaning in most people's mind is clear, even if the term is not appropriate. Therefore the word has taken on a meaning which is not true to its roots, but as a label for acts of armed attack by Muslims, it does the job. And it is in this context I am saying that Jihad is not equal to terrorism.

I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific.

Cheers,
Shafique

scot1870 wrote:As has been covered before though, Irish terrorism did not have its roots in religion, having thousands (millions?) of 16 year olds declaring Jihad when they clearly don't understand all the influences is a very different situation.

Many will argue that the roots of 'Muslim Terrorism' is not religion but the perceived/real oppression of people who also happen to be Muslims. At least, that is what Bin Laden says and emphasises this with his comment that Sweden isn't being targeted.

Also, let us be clear - Jihad does not equal terrorism. If you target civilians, you are a terrorist. In fact, Jihad (in the sense of armed struggle) comes with strict laws and any act of terrorism cannot be called 'Jihad'.

I've avoided discussing the use of the term 'Jihad' - because the meaning in most people's mind is clear, even if the term is not appropriate. Therefore the word has taken on a meaning which is not true to its roots, but as a label for acts of armed attack by Muslims, it does the job. And it is in this context I am saying that Jihad is not equal to terrorism.

I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific. However, the capture of the soldiers was branded as 'terrorist' acts by a 'terrorist organisation' [sigh].

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:benwj,

I lived through the PIRA bombings of main-land Britain - and during that time (generally speaking) the British did not view all Irish as terrorists and conversely the Americans were the main source of funding for the PIRA - who viewed them as freedom fighters!

Cheers,
Shafique

But not many people are as broad minded as you Shafique!

shafique wrote:I do not see anything wrong, say, with Hizbullah capturing the Israeli soldiers in South Lebanon last year. They are legitimate military targets generally, and the fact that thousands of lebanese are being held captive without trial makes the legitimacy quite specific.

Sorry, which government does Hizbullah represent? None? Ah, then it's not an army is it?

And before you start, if the hundreds of thousands of low-paid workers who are shamefully treated like dirt in this country created their own "army" they would not be viewed as "freedom fighters" either, otherwise you're just ignoring democracy and advocating take up arms when you don't like something.

Oh and I should add I'm in no way pro-Israeli, equally Hizbullah is clearly not supportable either. It's the fact that both sides manage to be in the wrong that makes it so hard to find a solution.

scot1870 wrote:
Sorry, which government does Hizbullah represent? None? Ah, then it's not an army is it?

I don't see why resistance to an occupying army, or a regime that is holding your nationals, needs only to be carried out by government sanctioned fighters to be legitimate.

Were French resistance fighters not fighting against the French Vichy government and the German occupation? Were they terrorists? They certainly weren't an army. Arguably Hizbullah fighters are an army - did you see the Al Manar (sp?) footage of their training etc that was aired during the war - I was surprised to see Hizbollah fighters in uniforms, with helmets etc - to me they certainly looked like an army, and I'm sure the Israeli army who were not able to militarily defeat them would not quibble with the description that they are an army.

And in anycase, this discussion is about whether actions are classified as 'terrorism' or not. Fighting against the army of a declared enemy (who also views you as an enemy) is not terrorism.

I don't see why government sanction changes this view - or am I missing another point you are making about Hizbollah (who happen to have members of parliament, but I take your point that the fighters aren't part of the Lebanese army).

Cheers,
Shafique

Hizbollah as I understand it are fighting for the freedom of Palestine, so why do they have such a force in a secular state like Lebanon?

French "resistance" - less than 30,000 people from a country of over 30m at the time, don't get me started on the war dodgers.

scot1870 wrote:Hizbollah as I understand it are fighting for the freedom of Palestine, so why do they have such a force in a secular state like Lebanon?

French "resistance" - less than 30,000 people from a country of over 30m at the time, don't get me started on the war dodgers.

Nope - Hizbullah of Lebanon are fighting for the liberation of Lebanon, the fighters are Lebanese.

You didn't say whether you considered the French resistance as 'terrorists' or 'wrong' because they weren't a government sanctioned army.

Cheers,
Shafique

The liberation of what? A secular democracy????? Yeah, those folks need saving. Oh, and if the fighters are 100% Lebanese my name is Mohammed.

The French "resistance" have a romantic name in Europe, they did next to nothing to counter the German war effort and are irrelevant. They were terrorists of the most ineffective kind - they were "freedom fighters" in a country that didn't think its own freedom was worth fighting for.

But, getting back to topic, why are Muslims targetting countries they have no heritage with attacks? And, more pertinantly, why are they fighting so much between themselves if it's a religion of peace?

scot1870 wrote:The liberation of what? A secular democracy????? Yeah, those folks need saving. Oh, and if the fighters are 100% Lebanese my name is Mohammed.

The French "resistance" have a romantic name in Europe, they did next to nothing to counter the German war effort and are irrelevant. They were terrorists of the most ineffective kind - they were "freedom fighters" in a country that didn't think its own freedom was worth fighting for.

But, getting back to topic, why are Muslims targetting countries they have no heritage with attacks? And, more pertinantly, why are they fighting so much between themselves if it's a religion of peace?

You are avoiding the question I asked - were the French resistance fighters 'terrorists' or wrong for carrying out attacks against the German Reich and Vichy Government (and not being an army). Is it really that hard to say 'no'?

Hizbollah have been successful in driving Israel out of most of occupied Lebanon - they were formed when Lebanon was occupied by Israel, and did manage to push Israel out of most of Lebanon.

Israel still holds at least 9000 Lebanese in custody and still occupies sovereign Lebanese territory.

Whether or not there are 'Davids' or 'Stevens' or 'Kevins' fighting in Hizbollah's ranks, does not change the legitimacy of a fighting force who is trying to liberate Lebanon and Lebanese. I therefore do not see what your first sentence is getting at.

Your objections seem to be:
- Hizbollah is not an 'official' army
- There may be foreign help given to Hizbollah (I suspect you mean Iranian support)


Given the second point is a new one you bring up - why would it be wrong for a foreign power to help the occupied over throw the occupation forces - did you object when the Mujahedeen were given funds and training to fight the Russians?

Cheers,
Shafique

Clarification:

I don't personally think Hizbollah were wise to capture the soldiers and give Israel the excuse to launch last year's war. However the point here is whether the Hizbollah attacking Israeli soldiers can be termed 'terrorists' - my argument is that they are not 'terrorists'.

Cheers,
Shafique