Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ralphwiggum

War against terror

Recommended Posts

Hi all

The police witness statements and photographs from the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes have been leaked to ITN.

They clearly show several things:

* Shoot to killl to protect was sanctioned on two suspected terrorists living at the block of flats where Jean Charles de Menezes lived

* Jean Charles de Menezes was not properly observed on leaving the the block of flats that were under police surveilance. The officer with that task was going to the toilet as Jean Charles de Menezes left the flat and so did not send video to Gold Command nor was he able to record Jean Charles de Menezes face to do a proper ID. So the officer passed on that the man needed to be looked at.

I would suggest this was the starting point for the error and that a video ident should have been the next and most important task instructed by Gold Command comment by Walker

* Jean Charles de Menezes walked to the bus and nothing in his observerd manor was believed to be grounds for suspicion

video ident should have been the most important task instructed by Gold Command comment by Walker

* Jean Charles de Menezes was not wearing a buky jacket he was wearing a tight denim jacket that was unbuttoned

* Jean Charles de Menezes Got on a bus to stockwell tube and nothing in his observerd manor was believed to be grounds for suspicion

video ident should have been the most important task instructed by Gold Command comment by Walker

* Jean Charles de Menezes entered the tube station in a normal manner and exhibited no suspicious activity

video ident should have been the most important task instructed by Gold Command comment by Walker

* Jean Charles de Menezes did not vault the barrier and did not run into the station. In fact he used a normal purchased ticket and stopped to pick up a free Metro News Paper walked down the escalator.

video ident should have been the most important task instructed by Gold Command comment by Walker

* Gold Command idented as one of two terrorist suspects and shoot to kill to protect was sanctioned on Jean Charles de Menezes

* Jean Charles de Menezes on reaching the bottom of the escalator ran to a waiting train (normal we all do it) and was not chalenged by police until sat in a seat on the train.

* Jean Charles de Menezes was shot while sat in the seat and restrained by a policeman.

Critical Error Path

It would there for seem obvious that critical path of errors could be summarised as follows.

* Insufficient personnel on watch to ensure breaks could take place at the OP

* Failure to set or use proper ident procedures (should be ident positive track and capture, ident negative ignore, or Ident unknown follow up ident needed usualy these are colour codes)

* The OP gave back a report that person leaving the flat needed to be looked at. This may have lead the Gold Command to have in their head that an Ident positive had been given.

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge at or on the way to the bus stop

* Insufficient video surveilance at or on the way to the bus stop

* Insufficient video ident at or on the way to the bus stop

(For those who do not understand video ident it is simply using the short time a subject is in a camera to get a positive ID cameras are good for this as you can speed up slow down and stop and reverse them trying to do it by eye in a short time is quite hard. Facial Recognition software can also be applied allthough this can take some time)

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge on the bus

* Insufficient video surveilance on the bus

* Insufficient video ident on the bus

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge on the bus

* Insufficient video surveilance on the bus

* Insufficient video ident on the bus

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge on leaving the bus (the golden oportunity)

* Insufficient video surveilance on leaving the bus

* Insufficient video ident on leaving the bus

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge on the way to the tube station

* Insufficient video surveilance on the way to the tube station

* Insufficient video ident on the way to the tube station

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge at the entrance to the tube station

* Insufficient video surveilance at the entrance to the tube station

* Insufficient video ident at the entrance to the tube station

* Failure of Gold Command to give the commands to rectify the situation

* Failure to chalenge on the escaltor of the tube station

* Insufficient video surveilance on the escaltor of the tube station

* Insufficient video ident on the escaltor of the tube station (allthough at this point I think it would have been to late)

Clearly failures took place at the Gold Command Level

There were planning failures and the language used in Ident needs tightening up.

It should also be mentioned that fire arms officers were tracking Jean Charles de Menezes down the escaltor when they saw him run to the train at this time they were given sanction to shoot him.

At least one unarmed survielance officer was on the train at the same moment as Jean Charles de Menezes this officer heard the armed officers shout from the escaltor and then restrained Jean Charles de Menezes against his chair.

It then appears that the fire arms officers were unsighted as to Jean Charles de Menezes chest area as another officer was restraining him with his body. Having had the sanction from Gold Command that the person was a terrorist and with no access to visual confirm on a likely suicide bomb strapped to the mans waist he then killed Jean Charles de Menezes in the chair.

I will not link to the article as it contains pictures of Jean Charles de Menezes dead in the train and blood on the seat he was shot in.

Those who wish to find it do a search for ITN in News on Google for today.

What a mess

Sadly Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Economically, you are no longer the largest economy and market.

Don't mean to spoil the fun, but what do you mean by that? Are you referring to collective economies (eg. EU) being larger?

Yepp. The IMF puts the EU nominal GDP at $13,926,873M and the US nominal GDP at $12,438,873M. (src). I think that the world bank has somewhat different numbers.

Of course, it can be argued that you can't count the EU as a single economic unit. But then again, you shouldn't sum up the 50 US states either. The EU economy is de facto more integrated than the US one - at least on a macroeconomic level.

As for market size, well, it's a question of number of consumers. The EU has a total population of 457 million while the US has a population of 297 million.

A solid argument that can be made for the US is that there are far more large pan-American companies than pan-EU companies. In the Forbes Global 2000 list (2000 largest corporations in the world), the US holds about 36% while the EU holds about 28%. But hey - the EU is a brand new project. We've just managed to convince the French that there are other languages and cultures than the French one and the Germans that they can do quite well, without invading anybody tounge2.gif

Anyway, I'll stop here, as this really doesn't have much to do with the war on terror.

A final note might be that in terms of foreign policy and military power America is far stronger than Europe. While we may see a common European foreign policy in the future, a strong military can probably be ruled out. There simply isn't any interest today, which I suppose given our history is not such a bad thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

Vladimir Putin.

Imagine what if OBL was smarter and had an entire, non-democratic, country at his disposal.

I don't think Putin is a communist. He is just a totalitarian, and has no communist political views. I think Russia is destined to become totalitarian again, simply because, culturally, it likes to have strong leaders; liberal leaders are scorned and I don't know of any that have been accepted by Russians.

Considering that putin is more of a pragmatic person than a foaming ideologue id say authoritian would be a better choice of words than totalitarian.

Quote[/b] ]

If you're looking for communism as still a threat, however, you've got Chavez in Venezuela who is slowly reforming Venezuela to look like Cuba. If there was a communist threat it would come from Latin America.

At least he was elected unlike those thugs CIA tried to strongarm to power. mad_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]

Plus it's legal (no idea why?)

"We should outlaw communism because they outlawed dissent.. oh wait."

Lot of the worst 3rd world regimes were champions of the anti-communist ideology but hardly had any regard for any kind of rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@EiZei

With the left-winged goverments in europe it is obvious I was joking. However why is nazism outlawed in any form, yet communism isn't? Was Uncle Joe better then Hitler?

Was Soviet Union a smaller murderer then Hitler's Germany?

1. Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1934-39) 13,000,000 (the purges)

2.Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII)

And if we add:

3.Mao Tze Dong (China, 1966-69) 11,000,000 (cultural revolution)

Then the body count is totally overturned.

Facism was about war of tribes, communism - war of classes.

Communism, however, is not treated as a threat and has many symphatisers, while nazism or facism causes mass hysteria.

Anyways - any ideology that does not leave space for pluralism should be outlawed.

(Can anyone deny that?).

Communism forbids personal possesion - which is normally branded as one of human rights. Also communism - once it gets to the top - leaves no space for pluralism.

A non-communist in a communist country is a public enemy as he simply doesn't fit into its system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,17:38)]
Quote[/b] ]Anyways - any ideology that does not leave space for pluralism should be outlawed.

(Can anyone deny that?).

And who is going to define that? Isnt banning those ideologues not leaving any room for pluralism?

Quote[/b] ]

With the left-winged goverments in europe it is obvious I was joking. However why is nazism outlawed in any form, yet communism isn't? Was Uncle Joe better then Hitler?

Was Soviet Union a smaller murderer then Hitler's Germany?

Last time I checked nazism was banned in Germany and France only. huh.gif

Personally I think people should be allowed to practice this kind of fucked up ideologues as long as direct violence is not encouraged. Banning does not serve any practical use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,16:38)]@EiZei

With the left-winged goverments in europe it is obvious I was joking. However why is nazism outlawed in any form, yet communism isn't? Was Uncle Joe better then Hitler?

Was Soviet Union a smaller murderer then Hitler's Germany?

Probably because Communism had a strong middle/upper class intellectual support base, and fascism was mainly lower class skinheads; therefore it would have been harder to ban Communism, plus most western communists have very different views to soviet, maoist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Personally I think people should be allowed to practice this kind of fucked up ideologues as long as direct violence is not encouraged. Banning does not serve any practical use.
Personally I agree.

Checked? Where? In Wikipedia?

In Poland You can go to jail for promoting facism. Of course there is no chance to have a legal group or party with pro-facist elements in their statute - you get delegalised. Svastika is not banned like in Germany, yet It is not a liked symbol, even among some circles due to the country's history.

Quote[/b] ]plus most western communists have very different views to soviet, maoist.
Western communists are eastern's center. There are real hardcore commies in east europe.

Should moderate nazism be allowed? The one which claims it doesn't want violence, but the intelectual form of nazism that "trough peacefull means" would lead to arian domination? Nazism had its supportters among Americas richest people durring WW2. Skinhead nationals are even now often used by some politicians to perform actions for them. We've had cases of that in Poland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,16:38)]@EiZei

With the left-winged goverments in europe it is obvious I was joking. However why is nazism outlawed in any form, yet communism isn't? Was Uncle Joe better then Hitler?

Was Soviet Union a smaller murderer then Hitler's Germany?

Probably because Communism had a strong middle/upper class intellectual support base, and fascism was mainly lower class skinheads; therefore it would have been harder to ban Communism, plus most western communists have very different views to soviet, maoist.

Quite so. I have yet to meet a western communist that had admired stalin (some very few oddballs did admire mao for some reason (!crazy_o.gif)) while lot of the neo-nazis hardly bother to hide their admiration of Hitler.

Quote[/b] ]

Nazism had its supportters among Americas richest people durring WW2.

Well, nazism is perfectly legal in the US of A so.. wink_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]

The one which claims it doesn't want violence, but the intelectual form of nazism that "trough peacefull means" would lead to arian domination?

Should moderate nazism be allowed?

It is, just look all those populist right-wing parties sprouting all over europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]It is, just look all those populist right-wing parties sprouting all over europe.
Uh... sorry. That's right. And the attempts to re-write the history.

In central-eastern europe we do have populists, but not the type that is so right-winged. Actually we have left-winged populists claiming to be right-winged.

Eastern europe's righ/left-wing and cener are shifted far to the left in comparison to west europe. And in US a right-winged populist would be seen as a left-winged commie.

There are - like I mentioned - real communists still alive east from the EU borders. I've heard there is some communistic party in France, but i'm not sure if they are that extreame left-winged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

The one which claims it doesn't want violence, but the intelectual form of nazism that "trough peacefull means" would lead to arian domination?

Should moderate nazism be allowed?

It is, just look all those populist right-wing parties sprouting all over europe.

All those populist right-wing parties are nazi and striving after aryan domination? Hehe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,18:47)]In central-eastern europe we do have populists, but not the type that is so right-winged. Actually we have left-winged populists claiming to be right-winged.

Eastern europe's righ/left-wing and cener are shifted far to the left in comparison to west europe. And in US a right-winged populist would be seen as a left-winged commie.

Let's take some of BNP's (a typical new wave populist party) policies under review as an unscientific example:

* The repatriation of all illegal immigrants. (NOT communist)

* The introduction of a system of voluntary, financially-aided repatriation for existing, legally-settled immigrants. (NOT communist)

* The repeal of all equalities legislation, regarded as reverse discrimination. (NOT communist)

* Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union and the pursuit of protectionist economic measures. (kind of communist maybe but just about any non-mainstream populist party wants this)

* The restoration of corporal punishment for "petty criminals and vandals" and the restoration of capital punishment for "paedophiles, terrorists and murderers". (NOT communist)

* The reintroduction of national service and the requirement of people completing national service to maintain an assault rifle in their home (NOT communist)

That sort of thing hardly seems communism in disguise. They may have some unrealistic welfare promises that may sound left-wing to some but the main message still seems to be light skin good dark skin bad / our country good other countries bad. These people are way beyond left/right scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct.

Only since when Britain became an  eastern europen country?

Or at least an eastern-central european?

Politically it 100% belongs to western europe.

The understanding of terms is different.

For example in WE a party that has "people's" in its name has to be left-winged, while in Poland it means it is a right-winged pro-agral party.

The point is when I say that there are still communists in eastern europe I mean people like hardcore Marxists in Russia and former Soviet Union.

[edit]You had missed Andrzej Lepper visiting USA.

He's an example of a left-winged populist claiming to be right-winged.

While in USA he is labeled under left-winged as he opposed WOT, protested against Guantanamo etc.

We also have a party called League of Polish Famillies which has a strong socialist sentiment and wants to drown a lot of cash for social care, while they are declared religious nuts.

We do not however have a right-winged party with a right-winged program.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,19:17)]Correct.

Only since when Britain became an eastern europen country?

Or at least an eastern-central european?

Politically it 100% belongs to western europe.

All the examples I have seen so far have been following pretty much the same pattern. Of course my knowledge of eastern/central european populist parties policies is somewhat limited due to the language barrier. wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I am really wondering how representitive is Sophion Black for the USA population.

   I'd hope he isn't represenitive of the USA's population, he's obviously a teenager with out a clue. Even if he isn't represenitive, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans are morons any way.

Quote[/b] ]A while ago I would have expected such ravings only from the village idiot but there seems to be a consistent flood on the internet of ignorance,Euro phobia and blindlessly rallying behind Bush all mighty.

    I see the same thing, at the same time I also see a consistent flood on the internet of ignorance,yank phobia and blindless rallying against the United States just for the sake of of rallying against them.

    Sophion black is an obvious fool and ideologue, but I really can see no distinction between him and those such as the phony bundeshwar guy. At some point the bickering needs to stop, imagine if Europe and the United States would just unite and focus all the effort they waste bickering at one another into fighting the war on terror. There is the chance that the war would probably be half over by now.

     My long term prediction is complete and utter defeat for the west. The islamic fascist are united and have a clear goal, the dominance of their brand of Islam and the destruction of all other beliefs. The west on the other hand is divided and has no clear goal, Americans and Europeans have no clue what they are fighting for and have no willingness to fight. The west will do as it always has done, bicker and fight amongst them selves like the curs they are.

      All that said the war on terror is it commonly called probably will not end in our life time. It's not like the "terrorist" will all the sudden have victory and we'll all be reading the Koran and saluting green flags over Washington,Berlin,London, and Warsaw. It'll be a long drawn out ordeal, in which the west will die and wither slowly in the end.  

   This TS Elliot quote sums up how I feel the west will lose.  

 This is the way the world ends Not with a bang but a whimper -TS Elliot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]The islamic fascist are united and have a clear goal, the dominance of their brand of Islam and the destruction of all other beliefs.
Huh?? United? We have no base to assume that for example palestinian extremists, chechenyan mujahedins and AQ are in any way united. Their goals are also different. The islamic movement is unorganised, just as Islam itself is. Also not every insurgent/terrorist/freedom-fighter whi is muslim is an islamist.
Quote[/b] ]It'll be a long drawn out ordeal, in which the west will die and wither slowly in the end.  
Killing few thousants of citizens is in no way threatening to country itself. Terrorism might prove effective when the terrorers demand for example some questionable territory and the game is not worth it. Yet when it comes to defending your own soil no ammount of strikes will make people surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]All that said the war on terror is it commonly called probably will not end in our life time. It's not like the "terrorist" will all the sudden have victory and we'll all be reading the Koran and saluting green flags over Washington,Berlin,London, and Warsaw. It'll be a long drawn out ordeal, in which the west will die and wither slowly in the end.

Decades of terrorism or long drawn out conflicts with middle eastern countries (that they couldn't win anyway) will just make people in the west hate muslims and islam, not encourage its growth.

Muslims aren't just going to start poring out of the middle east through Turkey and into europe for some giant clash of civilisations, if the war on terror becomes a long drawn out ordeal, with lots of terrorism and western retaliation against organisations in the middle east or countries they operate out of, you'll see racial and religous segregation and politicans will start pandering to it sooner or later, so I don't really think we'll see an Islamic Republic of France or Great Britain or anywhere else.

Besides, in a 100 or 200 years, won't all the oil in the middle east be used up? Theres not a whole lot point being there if we don't get anything from the region.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]I'd hope he isn't represenitive of the USA's population, he's obviously a teenager with out a clue. Even if he isn't represenitive, that doesn't change the fact that the majority of Americans are morons any way.

I wouldn't say morons.Americans today just show human nature in present context.And what is consistent in history and in present is that the population mass has a tendency to be mislead.

The population mass also has a tendency to rally behind it's leader.When that leader promotes fear and hatred the population will also fear and hate.While the situation is quite more complex it only takes this too feelings to achieve a collosal effect of mass ignorance,desinformation and to point out enemies wherever is that that you wish.

Quote[/b] ]I see the same thing, at the same time I also see a consistent flood on the internet of ignorance,yank phobia and blindless rallying against the United States just for the sake of of rallying against them.

Quite the contrary.If you would like to draw sides it's more like a distinct minority who suffers from yank phobia is often conspirative and rallies against the Unites States just for the sake of rallying against the USA.

The flood is of people against Bush is consistantly argueing with logical arguments and the huge difference is that it has a pattern of being right.

-Don't invade Iraq it will strech your resouces uselessy from the War on Terror.

-Iraq doesn't posess Weapons of Mass Destructions

-Iraqi won't treat you as liberators throwing candy and flowers at your pass.They will fight fiercly against your occupation.

-At the moment you invaded Iraq it had absolutley nothing to do with the war on terrorism

-A consequence of invading Iraq will be refilling the terrorists ranks.

Quote[/b] ]If Europe and the United States would just unite and focus all the effort they waste bickering at one another into fighting the war on terror.

You mean by Europe coming forward imidiately after 9/11 to express complete support for USA and announcing itself an ally that will help you as best as it can?Or by NATO taking control of the mission in Afghanistan?

Because if you want that to happen,guess what it already did.

You were in a very comfortable position and had all the sympathy and support from Europe.Then TBA had to fuck everything up and invade Iraq.Al-Queda was weakend before you invaded Iraq they took the beating of their life in Afghanistan at the cost of 49 US soldiers if I remember corectly.

Quote[/b] ]There is the chance that the war would probably be half over by now.

There is a chance.But you forgot to mention the following conditions.All of the terrorists around the world,be they in sleeping cells or actively comiting suicide missions at the sight of "Europe and USA stoping the bickering between them" would have panicly gathered in Al-Quadistan-a flat deserted area where the brave allied EUSA could have encircled them holding each other's arms and ship them all over to Gantanamo welcome.gif

Quote[/b] ]My long term prediction is complete and utter defeat for the west.The islamic fascist are united and have a clear goal, the dominance of their brand of Islam and the destruction of all other beliefs.

Bullshit.The islamic foreigners are to few to count more then 10% in the hotest battlefield of them all-Iraq.They have no military experience,can't shoot straight and besides straping a suicide belt on themselves are basicly useless.I predict that when USA will retreat from Iraq,the islamic militants will be hunted by the Ba'athists and supressed to the silence they rose from.

Quote[/b] ]All that said the war on terror is it commonly called probably will not end in our life time. It's not like the "terrorist" will all the sudden have victory and we'll all be reading the Koran and saluting green flags over Washington,Berlin,London, and Warsaw. It'll be a long drawn out ordeal, in which the west will die and wither slowly in the end.  

Tell me one thing.Forget Berlin,Washington,London and Warsaw.Just how exactly do you imagine one small nation succumbing to their will.My own country Romania.Do you think the government will dissolve itself,the army will drop it's weapons realising that.OMG,while the terrorists have little to no military experience,are active in small cells of no more then a dozen men..They can kill 20 of us.....in a bus...We can't put up with that  rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all

The Descrepancies between what actualy happened in the shooting to death of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July and what spin was put out by the police uncorrected are thoroughly described in this article from the BBC please follow the link to the full article as I cannot mimic the easy to understand layout in the forum.

Quote[/b] ]Police shooting - the discrepancies

Leaked documents from the independent investigation into the shooting of a man whom police mistook for one of the London Tube bombers, suggest key differences between the original police and witness version of events and subsequent reports.

The documents reportedly form part of the probe by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is refusing to comment while its inquiry continues.

Here is a comparison of the details made public in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, on 22 July, at Stockwell Tube station in south London, with those that have emerged from the leaked documents...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4158832.stm

Basicly most if not all of the police story put out by Sir Ian Blair was complete tommy rot. In fact I am hard put to find a word from Sir Ian Blair's intial statement that was true.

Sadly Walker sad_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 17 2005,18:53)]Killing few thousants of citizens is in no way threatening to country itself.

No, but assimilation might do the trick. If you on one hand have a liberal society that accepts anything, including those that want to abolish it and on the other hand you have a group with their own ideas and who do not share the liberal world view, then the latter will win.

The idea there, which I don't necessarily agree with, is that through peaceful immigration and through far higher birth rates, Muslims can overtake the westerners, and introduce their system of values here.

While on paper, it might seem like a logical conclusion - they immigrate, and our values allow them to keep their values. This is not reciprocal, so once they outnumber us, bye bye western liberalism.

The flaw in that theory is that it assumes two things:

1) That the west will idly stand by and be radically changed.

2) That the immigrants will insist on keeping their values, regardless of anything.

The first point doesn't add up in historical context. It's not the first time we've been preaching peace love and understanding while doing something completely different. If history has shown anything it's that we Europeans and our descendants (Americans et al) are homicidal maniacs who are willing to go to extreme lengths to get things our way. And we are still doing it - killing to impose our value system, claiming that it is the only noble and civilized one. It used to be saving all those poor savages around the world and convert them to Christianity, and today we're converting the poor Iraqi savages to democracy. And in both cases taking resources and using them as part of our grand world geopolitical plan. And domestically? Hehe, sure we are true to our liberal views.. as long as it doesn't cost anything. Of course, once we feel threatened then we're arresting, deporting and harassing ..um brown people.

You see, the western liberalism is a luxury that comes with adequate distribution of wealth. The first factor is money, and the second factor is a fairly equal distribution of it. If you have poor people and large social inequalities, you need a conservative system. You need an authority that will keep the pesky poor people from doing the unpleasant things like they did in Russia in 1917. A strong political system and a strong religious system is a very good way of solving that problem. Revolt against the existing order of things and you'll go to hell, to jail or both.

Which brings me to point number two and why all of the above is rubbish. The problem lies in the conservative perception that values form a society while in fact it is the other way around - the current society forms your values. It is not a coincidence that the most religious countries in the world are generally the most religious ones. They need a conservative social order so the whole thing doesn't come apart. So why is America, a rich place far more conservative than Europe, a similar rich place? Quite simple. Remember those pesky poor people? Those that may get some silly ideas? They are very much still there in America, but not all that much in Europe. Social differences. In America you have a large rich middle class, but you also have a large amount of poor people and a solid amount of ultra-rich people. In Europe, you don't have that many ultra-rich, but you don't have the really poor either. So you don't have to worry about the pesky poor people doing things to upset the order of things, and hence you don't need the conservative order.

So what does this have to do with Muslims? They are perceived to be the type who might upset the order of things so hence the calls for a more conservative model, which promotes Our Valuesâ„¢. The problem with this perception is as I said earlier that that it is a load of rubbish. The values they might have are a result of their social conditions, original and current. With good integration, the problem goes away and those coming originally from Muslim countries become just as liberal as the rest of us. And while seldom mentioned, we're not talking about a small minority here. There are millions and millions of ex-Muslims in Europe and America who are just as secular and liberal as the general population.

So, bottom line, when the Muslims around the world develop more fair social systems, get more money etc, they'll be just as secular as we in the west are, and the differences in values will be minimal. Mind you, this takes time - a few generations have to pass, just like it had in our case (and the process here is far from complete as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]but I really can see no distinction between him and those such as the phony bundeshwar guy

If you got a personal problem with me send me a pm you smarthead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are not afraid

That was what I believed from the first day Senior Walker. Sure the terorist attack on the world Trade Center was a incredible event and loosing around 3000 inhabitants due to a single act must shake a nation.

However the real attention and fear was built up by the media and politics which both created more than just an ordinary Publicity Campaign. With our western sales experience we know how to properly promote and merchandise events. "war" and "evil enemies" always sells best, not to speak about a foreign suspicious religion behind it.

A stupid wave that kills tripple the amount can not compete. Nature is a boring enemy. What doesnt sell doesnt deserve investments. Therefore the new Tsunami detection system isnt realy worth funding.

This message "I am not afraid!" should not be send to Al Quaida but to the Media and our governments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why should we be?

We're not affraid of drunked drivers.

Quote[/b] ]According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 17,013 people died in 2003 in alcohol-related collisions, representing 40 percent of total traffic deaths in the United States.

Alcohole abuse

Quote[/b] ]125,000 die prematurely of alcohol abuse.

Smoking

Quote[/b] ]473,000 die prematurely from tobacco-related illnesses; 53,000 of these are nonsmokers.

Psychoactive drugs

Quote[/b] ]5,000 die from psychoactive drug treatments.

or ecological issues and veterinary mistakes

Quote[/b] ]60,000 are killed by toxic environmental pollutants or contaminants in food, water, or air.

4,000 die from eating contaminated meat.

That's in US only.

Compared to 9/11's 3000 it's a genocide.

Smoking kills 473,000 with absolutely no political impact, so why would we be affraid of a mere 3000 homicides?

Basically that's why I think there is absolutely no threat to western civilisation. Few thosants should have no impact on our way of thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@ Aug. 18 2005,13:41)]Basically that's why I think there is absolutely no threat to western civilisation. Few thosants should have no impact on our way of thinking.

Good night. Sleep tight.

Quote[/b] ]THE FUTURE OF TERRORISM

What al-Qaida Really Wants

By Yassin Musharbash

If there is anyone who might possibly have an inkling as to what al-Qaida are up to, it is the Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. He has not only spent time in prison with al-Zarqawi, but has also managed make contact with many of the network's leaders. Based on correspondence with these sources, he has now brought out a book detailing the organization's master plan.

There must be something particularly trustworthy about the Jordanian journalist Fouad Hussein. After all, he has managed to get some of the the most sought after terrorists to open up to him. Maybe it helped that they spent time together in prison many years ago -- when Hussein was a political prisoner he successfully negotiated for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to be released from solitary confinement. Or is it because of the honest and direct way in which he puts his ideas onto paper? Whatever the reason, the result is that a film which Hussein made about al-Zarqawi has even been shown on al-Qaida affiliated Web sites. "That showed me that they at least felt understood," the journalist says.

Even for an Arab journalist it is no easy matter getting in touch with al-Qaida's inner circle. Nevertheless, Hussein, who is based in Amman, Jordan, has succeeded in turning his correspondence with the terrorists into a remarkable book: "al-Zarqawi - al-Qaida's Second Generation."

If you meet Hussein, as you might when he is relaxing in Amman's Café Vienna, you see he is calm and laid-back, without any of the glamour of a secret service spy. But what this small, slim man has to report is nothing less than the world's most dangerous terrorist network's plan of action: al-Qaida's strategy for the next two decades. It is both frightening and absurd, a lunatic plan conceived by fanatics who live in their own world, but who continually manage to break into the real world with their brutal acts of violence.

One of Hussein's most sensational sources for the book, according to what he told SPIEGEL Online, was Seif al-Adl. The Egyptian terrorist, who is suspected of taking part in the attacks on the American Embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, has a ransom of US$5 million on his head from the FBI. Secret services suspect that al-Adl is now in Iran.

To prove that he really has had contact to al-Adl, Hussein includes in the first two pages of the book a copy of a hand-written letter the wanted man sent to the author. In the original document, which is 15 pages long, al-Adl describes the disagreements between al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden during the Afghanistan war. "Statements from Seif al-Adl have also crept into the chapter on al-Qaida's strategy," explains Fouad Hussein.

An Islamic Caliphate in Seven Easy Steps

In the introduction, the Jordanian journalist writes, "I interviewed a whole range of al-Qaida members with different ideologies to get an idea of how the war between the terrorists and Washington would develop in the future." What he then describes between pages 202 and 213 is a scenario, proof both of the terrorists' blindness as well as their brutal single-mindedness. In seven phases the terror network hopes to establish an Islamic caliphate which the West will then be too weak to fight.

<ul>The First Phase Known as "the awakening" -- this has already been carried out and was supposed to have lasted from 2000 to 2003, or more precisely from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in New York and Washington to the fall of Baghdad in 2003. The aim of the attacks of 9/11 was to provoke the US into declaring war on the Islamic world and thereby "awakening" Muslims. "The first phase was judged by the strategists and masterminds behind al-Qaida as very successful," writes Hussein. "The battle field was opened up and the Americans and their allies became a closer and easier target." The terrorist network is also reported as being satisfied that its message can now be heard "everywhere."

<ul>The Second Phase "Opening Eyes" is, according to Hussein's definition, the period we are now in and should last until 2006. Hussein says the terrorists hope to make the western conspiracy aware of the "Islamic community." Hussein believes this is a phase in which al-Qaida wants an organization to develop into a movement. The network is banking on recruiting young men during this period. Iraq should become the center for all global operations, with an "army" set up there and bases established in other Arabic states.

<ul>The Third Phase This is described as "Arising and Standing Up" and should last from 2007 to 2010. "There will be a focus on Syria," prophesies Hussein, based on what his sources told him. The fighting cadres are supposedly already prepared and some are in Iraq. Attacks on Turkey and -- even more explosive -- in Israel are predicted. Al-Qaida's masterminds hope that attacks on Israel will help the terrorist group become a recognized organization. The author also believes that countries neighboring Iraq, such as Jordan, are also in danger.

<ul>The Fourth Phase Between 2010 and 2013, Hussein writes that al-Qaida will aim to bring about the collapse of the hated Arabic governments. The estimate is that "the creeping loss of the regimes' power will lead to a steady growth in strength within al-Qaida." At the same time attacks will be carried out against oil suppliers and the US economy will be targeted using cyber terrorism.

<ul>The Fifth Phase This will be the point at which an Islamic state, or caliphate, can be declared. The plan is that by this time, between 2013 and 2016, Western influence in the Islamic world will be so reduced and Israel weakened so much, that resistance will not be feared. Al-Qaida hopes that by then the Islamic state will be able to bring about a new world order.

<ul>The Sixth Phase Hussein believes that from 2016 onwards there will a period of "total confrontation." As soon as the caliphate has been declared the "Islamic army" it will instigate the "fight between the believers and the non-believers" which has so often been predicted by Osama bin Laden.

<ul>The Seventh Phase This final stage is described as "definitive victory." Hussein writes that in the terrorists' eyes, because the rest of the world will be so beaten down by the "one-and-a-half billion Muslims," the caliphate will undoubtedly succeed. This phase should be completed by 2020, although the war shouldn't last longer than two years.

A Serious Plan?

But just how serious is this scenario? "Al-Qaida makes no compromises," says the book's author Fouad Hussein. He obviously believes that this seven-point plan could well become the guiding principle for a whole range of al-Qaida fighters. Hussein is far from an hysterical alarmist -- in fact he is seen as a serious journalist and his Zarqawi book is better than most of the reports in Arabic on the subject. Only last year, the journalist made a film which was received with great interest and was shown on the German-French TV channel arte. In it he provided deep insights into al-Qaida's internet propaganda machine.

Nevertheless, there is no way the scenario he depicts can be seen as a plan which al-Qaida can follow step by step. The terrorist network just doesn't work like that anymore. The significance of the central leadership has diminished and its direct commands have lost a great deal of importance. The supposed master plan for the years 2000 to 2020 reads in parts more like a group of ideas cobbled together in retrospect, than something planned and presented in advance. And not to mention the terrorist agenda is simply unworkable: the idea that al-Qaida could set up a caliphate in the entire Islamic world is absurd. The 20-year plan is based mainly on religious ideas. It hardly has anything to do with reality -- especially phases four to seven.

But that doesn't mean that we should simply discount everything that Hussein has uncovered. A few of the steps in the agenda are plausible. The idea that Syria will become a focus for the Mujahedin is regarded by experts as highly likely. "Close ranks, concentrate on getting more recruits, set up cells," was the call to the "Mujahedin in Syria" which appeared on one Web site at the beginning of August. From the point of view of the jihadists, Israel and Turkey are also fairly logical targets for an escalation of the confrontation. "Al-Qaida views every fight as a victory, because for so long Muslims didn't have any weapons at all," says Hussein. He may not be far off. As for Jordan, al-Qaida leaders such as al-Zarqawi, have already made attacks on the country. They have also stated on numerous occasions that Jerusalem is the real target.

Equally, the idea that in the future al-Qaida could increasingly become a movement that attracts young frustrated men, is hardly a theory plucked out of thin air. The terror network puts a lot of effort into its propaganda -- assumedly in order to expand its support base.

Attacks on the West: a Means to an End

What is interesting is that major attacks against the West are not even mentioned by Fouad Hussein. Terrorism here cannot be ignored -- but it seems these attacks simply supplement the larger aim of setting up an Islamic caliphate. Attacks such as those in New York, Madrid and London would in this case not be ends in themselves, but rather means to a achieve a larger purpose -- steps in a process of increasing insecurity in the West.

Nowadays, it is harder than ever to truly understand al-Qaida: the organization has degenerated into branches and loosely connected cells, related groups are taken in, and people who hardly had anything to do with al-Qaida before, now carry out attacks in its name. It is hard to imagine orders which come right from the top because Osama bin Laden spends all his time struggling to survive. At the same time, the division between foot soldiers in the organization and sympathizers is becoming increasingly blurred. It is all too easy to fall prey to disinformation -- al-Qaida also excels in this area. Even Hussein's scenario should be judged skeptically.

His book should therefore be read for what it really is: an attempt to second guess how al-Qaida terrorists think, what they really want and how they propose to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Funny that a jewish person would talk about a grand conspiracy involving all people of a certain faith.

To quote the rotten library: With all due respect to everyone involved, you can't throw a rock into a crowd of Muslims without hitting someone whom all the other Muslims consider a heretic." How the hell Al-Qaeda is going to sweep away many many many years of ethnic, religious and national divisions?

Just about every half-arsed gang of lunatics (red brigades, neonazis etc.) have some kind of world-domination plan to put an end all "non-believers." Why is this any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×