Mi5: Al Queda Planning "Mass Casualty" Terror Attacks Against Britain

http://www.ibtimes.com/britains-mi5-chief-warns-al-qaeda-syria-planning-mass-attacks-west-1778220

Quote :

Al Qaeda militants in Syria are plotting attacks to inflict mass casualties in the West, possibly against transport systems or "iconic targets", the head of Britain's MI5 Security Service said on Thursday.

This, following the recent attack in France. Quite a fucked up little world we're living in.

I watched O' Reilly on FOX last night.

Now if he was in charge of pushing buttons....

bitchcraft wrote:

I watched O' Reilly on FOX last night.

Now if he was in charge of pushing buttons....

Then the whole world would be fucked.

Remember when he wanted to send an Avengers/Expendables-esque team of mercenaries to the Middle East to wipe out ISIS?

I'm probably one of the few pussy-ass liberals who thinks O'Reilly is a bright man (setting aside his misunderstanding of how tides work). I just don't care for the shit that FOX makes him read on his show.

I'd be surprised if they weren't so thids is hardly surprising. In a way we've been lucky here not to have more attacks beyond July 7th. We hear from time to time of MI5 foiling attacks (there were recent arrests in my home town on terrorism charges). Trouble is, to borrow Stanley Baldwin's words pre-war: "The bomber will always get through."

It's pretty fucked if it does happen, but I'm also wondering why MI5 have said this. I was under the impression that London is constantly under high alert for terrorism, and part of terrorism is the fear component. So why give the terrorists power by instilling fear in the public, especially after the recent incidents?

Pretty fucking disturbing news. Will be giving TfL a miss for the time being, though I don't use public transport that much these days.

Do we have a thread for the recent attacks in Paris?

Largo's Shark wrote:

Do we have a thread for the recent attacks in Paris?

I was going to make one, but I didn't feel like reading an apologist screed from Abu Bakr al-Aspergi.

I take offence to that. I have never posted anything to that effect. The only thing that I have done "wrong" is hold an opinion that is different to yours. And I find it strange that when discussing an event related to freedom of speech and freedom of expression, you would happily censor any opposing opinions.

Let me be completely clear on this: I think that you are wrong. I think your solutions are dangerous, and that in the long term they will cause more problems than they solve as they will only breed more religious extremism and deprive others of their liberty for the sake of protecting your own. In the end, you're just like every other dedicated conservative - you made up your mind about the progressives long ago on an unrelated issue. Your dislike of us has nothing to do with our ideas, and everything to do with the way we dared to oppose you.

To anybody else who considers themselves to be a conservative voter, please know that I have no problems discussing these events with you. All that I ask is that you show the same courtesy that I extend to you - that you do not assume that I am the enemy simply because I hold a different opinion.

EDIT: Deleted, can't be bothered arguing with some 40 year old virgin while Jews are being murdered by his immigrants of choice.

I didn't say that at all.

In fact, all I remember saying is that we should address the problem posed by radicals by identifying people who are at risk of becoming radicalised, since we know that the likes of IS target certain individuals, figuring out why that is the case, and then taking steps to prevent it without making them feel as if they are being targeted unfairly. We can bring about an end to the threat of radicalisation by preventing it from taking hold. It's the same way that you deal with a street gang.

So, where, exactly did I say "I want the mass importation of Jew-hating neanderthals who think women need to be stuffed in burqas"? Could it be that you are putting words in my mouth to undermine me? And if so, how is that an example of the Western progress that you seek to conserve?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

In fact, all I remember saying is that we should address the problem posed by radicals by identifying people who are at risk of becoming radicalised, since we know that the likes of IS target certain individuals, figuring out why that is the case, and then taking steps to prevent it without making them feel as if they are being targeted unfairly.

Already done, many times, here's an example.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-people-join-isis-psychology-terrorist-1680444

But your suggestions of dealing with it are at best, and for want of a better word, simplistic.

But far more likely to succeed than bombing them or locking them up.

Mass deportations should work a treat too.

As it stands, however, it's Jews who are fleeing nominally liberal states such as France and Sweden in numbers one would've expected to see seventy years ago. 'Course, back then much of Europe was, coincidentally, under the heel of a rather well-known Islamophile.

Surely you see the irony in calling for mass deportations of a religious group, then juxtaposing that against Hitler's actions.

Your solutions - be it bombings, arrests, deportations or whatever - might have short-term benefits, but in the medium- and long-term, it's only going to inspire more radicalisation. And the radicals don't need to be based in one country to wreak havoc on that country.

The Right's (the predictably, France's Front National's) dogged insistence on controlling immigration as an answer to extremism is simplistic, in my view. Most of these 'mujahid' fighters are second or third generation immigrants. That ship's already sailed, mate.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Surely you see the irony in calling for mass deportations of a religious group, then juxtaposing that against Hitler's actions.

I'm not calling for genocide (I'll leave that sort of stuff to imams). Nor am I saying that all those born into the Islamic faith need to be forced out. So no, nothing in common with that bloke whose book is a best-seller in the Islamic world.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Your solutions - be it bombings, arrests, deportations or whatever - might have short-term benefits, but in the medium- and long-term, it's only going to inspire more radicalisation. And the radicals don't need to be based in one country to wreak havoc on that country.

My solution is not bombings. If you knew my views on international relations, you'd know I'm in favour of secular regimes in the Middle East rather than clerical fascism of the Muhammadan variety. The West - from Zbignew to Hilary- has done its best to ensure the lunatic latter has beaten out the former whenever they came into conflict. The fellow in France went and fought with the people the West is foolishly arming in Syria (yeah, yeah we're only arming the "moderates" but the not-so-moderates somehow find a gun here and there too).

I would be more than happy for the West to largely butt out of the Islamic word if they reciprocated.

I'm not sure what the long-term problem would be if those Muslims who preferred a traditional Islamic lifestyle lived amongst like-minded people, rather than in the decadent West where we have the freedom to draw cartoons and Jew-murder went out of fashion in 1945. And, simultaneously, if the West were to end its adventurism in the Islamic world, surely there'd be no excuse for these sorts of attacks as - according to the Left - it's Western foreign policy that inspires jihadism.

Well, the first problem with that statement is that you're presenting a fundamentalist version of Islam - one where women are forced to wear the burqa - as "traditional", which I think 95% of Muslims would disagree with.

The second problem is that you're presenting every Muslim with a choice: live here according to our values, or live there where you can practice your "traditional"/fundamentalist faith. That sounds like Hobson's choice to me - abandon their faith to live here, or practice it and subject themselves to oppressive regimes. How long before that becomes a policy of assimilation? If the French held a snap election tomorrow, Marine Le Pen would stand a realistic chance of victory, and you know that that is the direction she would go in eventually.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

Well, the first problem with that statement is that you're presenting a fundamentalist version of Islam - one where women are forced to wear the burqa - as "traditional", which I think 95% of Muslims would disagree with.

I'm quite aware that the burqa is not the norm in every region of the Islamic world. Islamic fundamentalism is not just about wardrobe choices.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

That sounds like Hobson's choice to me - abandon their faith to live here, or practice it and subject themselves to oppressive regimes.

Is there a reason why you assume a majority Muslim country would inherently have an oppressive regime?

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

How long before that becomes a policy of assimilation?

I'm trying to find the negative here. What's wrong with assimilation?

CJB wrote:

Is there a reason why you assume a majority Muslim country would inherently have an oppressive regime?

I'm just following your logic - that these countries would be a place for Muslims to practice "traditional" Islam. Except that your idea of "traditional" Islam is actually radical Islam.

Quote :

I'm trying to find the negative here. What's wrong with assimilation?

Let's ask the indigenous Australian population. I'm sure they have nothing but fond memories of being forced to give up their cultural practices, undergoing the trauma of being separated from their communities and their land, and effectively being told that the only way to survive is to immediately abandon their ideals and conform to somebody else's values for somebody else's sake. Nothing but fond memories.

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

I'm just following your logic - that these countries would be a place for Muslims to practice "traditional" Islam. Except that your idea of "traditional" Islam is actually radical Islam.

Muslim countries can practice whatever flavour of Islam they like. They can be as oppressive or as liberal as they like. It's none of my concern.

Quote :

Let's ask the indigenous Australian population. I'm sure they have nothing but fond memories of being forced to give up their cultural practices, undergoing the trauma of being separated from their communities and their land, and effectively being told that the only way to survive is to immediately abandon their ideals and conform to somebody else's values for somebody else's sake. Nothing but fond memories.

Apples and oranges. The Greeks and Italians who immigrated to Australia - a more apt example - assimilated quite well decades before Multiculturalism became state policy. Oddly they had no need for "de-radicalisation."

Your example doesn't work as the indigenous people in this instance are the Europeans themselves.

So that's your argument, is it? Forced assimilation is okay because of a semantic difference?

#1 I didn't really see the need for a new thread on this topic. If we create a new thread every time a Muslim commits a terrorist attack, this forum will have a million threads about the same topic. It's safe to say a thread devoted to the subject of Islamic terrorism won't have any problem staying current and relevant.

#2 "Radical Islam" is a redundant phrase. The radicalism is already implied, and should be assumed, whenever the word "Islam" is brought up.

#3 The MI5 warning is essentially useless. I could've said everything that the Director said and I don't have the benefit of his security clearance. It should go without saying that at any given time, somewhere on the planet Muslims are plotting terrorist attacks against Europe and the U.S. Tell us something we don't know! If the CIA and MI5 are able to tell us ISIS and Al-Qaeda are planning "massive attacks" on the West, how come they can't stop them? Why do they issue these vague, generic warnings?

bitchcraft wrote:

I watched O' Reilly on FOX last night.

Now if he was in charge of pushing buttons....

Brigitte Gabriel is sort of the Lebanese version of Jeanine Pirro: she's ferocious. She appears on FOX News a lot (and I think on O'Reilly), but I've linked to a clip from a forum she participated in where she absolutely eviscerates a Muslim woman's argument that the majority of Muslims are both peaceful and being stereotyped. Once she gets rolling, there's no stopping her, but she makes a lot of sense:



If you have politicians like this woman up in Congress, they might actually get things done. She's like a pit bull; she takes no prisoners.

Gravity's Silhouette wrote:

The radicalism is already implied, and should be assumed, whenever the word "Islam" is brought up.

By that logic, I should assume that every post you make contains bigotry.

bitchcraft wrote:

Prisoner Monkeys wrote:

In fact, all I remember saying is that we should address the problem posed by radicals by identifying people who are at risk of becoming radicalised, since we know that the likes of IS target certain individuals, figuring out why that is the case, and then taking steps to prevent it without making them feel as if they are being targeted unfairly.

Already done, many times, here's an example.

http://www.ibtimes.com/why-do-people-join-isis-psychology-terrorist-1680444

But your suggestions of dealing with it are at best, and for want of a better word, simplistic.

People keep throwing out the phrase "radicalized Muslims", but I think that's the wrong way to view it. There's not a long, torturous intellectual journey to make from being a "moderate Muslim" to a "radical Muslim". The base teachings and beliefs of the Islamic religion are already oppressive and backwards; it doesn't take much to go from "moderate Muslim" to a  Muslim who will gun people down, or blow up buildings and cars, or crash airplanes into skyscrapers. These "radicals" are simply taking the basic teachings of Islam and following it to its expected conclusion: violence.

That's why I reject the notion that a 'few radical extremists have hijacked the Islamic faith'; that's not the case at all. The truth is mainstream, "moderate" Muslims either agree with these "radicals" or are too scared, cowardly and politically correct to take steps to combat the cancer that is growing in their midst.

And how many Muslims do you actually know? Your comments remind me of those made by someone else on another forum I am a member of, and despite his strong convictions, it emerged that he had never had a conversation with a Muslim before.

Because reading your post, you haven't actually said anything except "I think Muslims are bad".