Current affairs Serious incident in Woolwich

[mjmooney]

Crappy bass, too.

[Eames]

Gotta love those crazy EDL types.....

 

http://www.scotsman.com/news/odd/misread-celtic-flag-sparks-edl-anti-islam-response-1-2945656'>Island/Islam confusion

 

 

Although THIS is my personal favourite

 

Edited May 28, 2013 by Eames

[8pints]

I wonder if it's the band or the Narnia Lion?

[BOF]

The band's biggest (only?) hit is certainly apt.

[choffer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/27/york-mosque-protest-tea-biscuits

A York mosque dealt with a potentially volatile situation after reports that it was going to be the focus of a demonstration organised by a far-right street protest movement - by inviting those taking part in the protest in for tea and biscuits.

Around half a dozen people arrived for the protest, promoted online by supporters of the EDL. A St George's flag was nailed to the wooden fence in front of the mosque.

However, after members of the group accepted an invitation into the mosque, tensions were rapidly defused over tea and plates of custard creams, followed by an impromptu game of football.

A young member of York mosque displays his message. Photograph: Ann Czernik

Leanne Staven, who had come for the protest, said that she had not come to the mosque to cause trouble but because "We need a voice". "I think white British who have any concerns feel we can't speak freely," she said.

"Change has been coming for a long time and in light of what happened to that soldier in Woolwich there have to be restrictions on people learning extremist behaviour and it has to stop."

Mohammed el-Gomati, a lecturer at the University of York, said: "There is the possibility of having dialogue. Even the EDL who were having a shouting match started talking and we found out that we share and are prepared to agree that violent extremism is wrong.

"We have to start there. Who knows, perhaps the EDL will invite us to an event and the Muslim community will be generous in accepting that invitation?"

Ismail Miah, president of York mosque, added: "Under the banner of Islam there are very different politics: democratic politics, the far right, left, central, all over. You can't target a whole community for what one or two people have done.

"What they've done in London is for their own reasons but there's no reasoning behind it from an Islamic point of view."[\Quote]

Edited May 28, 2013 by choffer

[Eames]

I found another picture on image search that CISCO Ironport won't let me look at but its an EDL banner that reads

 

RESPECT ARE LANGUAGE - LEARN ENGLISH or somesuch cobblers.

[peterms]

One view on the government's plans for countering radicalisation.

 

One of the world's leading terrorism experts has branded the government's proposals to muzzle Islamist hate preachers and crack down on violent extremism in the wake of the Woolwich attack as "a waste of time".

 

Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA operations officer who worked with the Afghan mujahedin in the late 1980s, says that "a good [counter-extremism] policy should be based on an understanding on what's happening on the ground.

 

"The notion that there is any serious process called 'radicalisation', or indoctrination, is really a mistake. What you have is some young people acquiring some extreme ideas - but it's a similar process to acquiring any type of ideas. It often begins with discussions with a friend."

 

Sageman, the author of Leaderless Jihad and Understanding Terror Networks, has analysed 500 terrorist biographies and tells the Huffington Post UK that prime minister David Cameron and home secretary Theresa May's plans to counter extremism in the wake of the Woolwich murder - including the creation of a new Tackling Extremism and Radicalisation Task Force (TERFOR) made up of senior ministers, MI5, police and moderate Muslim leaders - "are very much a waste of time".

 

Banning free speech isn't the solution, he argues. "These [extremists] need to be confronted and shown how ridiculous some of their views are; by banning them you are giving them some cache and suggesting that they're really important and dangerous."

 

"People focus on the 'preacher of hate'.. but often the discussion is often much more mundane. It's among the people who surround you, who you spend most time with."

 

Concentrating on the so-called preachers of hate, says the former CIA officer, "won't achieve much", especially as his research suggests they tend not to be "directly implicated in any of the [major] plots or attacks. They are in the business of propaganda and showing that they are important. And the government is giving them a platform to show how important they are - even though they're not really involved [in terror plots]."

 

According to Sageman, there is a "two-step process" in the turn towards violence: "First, you join this political protest, discursive community. These are the guys who feel they're not being listened to. That protest [achieves] nothing and they then decide to escalate; there is a process of escalation. Sometimes, they have a feeling of moral outrage about something that's happening and they'd like to do something about it. They [then] reject the political protest community."

 

"The guys who often turn to violence think guys like Anjem Choudary and Omar Bakri Mohammed are clowns. Because [the latter] just talk, talk, talk, and don't do anything."

 

The forensic psychiatrist says he can't be sure what "triggered the attack" on Drummer Lee Rigby but argues that it has "almost nothing to do with mental illness". Violent extremists are "outraged, they want a sense of meaning, they want a sense of significance.. We need a much more complex and subtle view of why, at the extremes, some people turn violent within any kind of political protest movement".

 

"Banning the political process", as opposed to "banning the violence", according to Sageman, is the wrong move. "Political protest is the enginee of progress in liberal democracies."

 

In the past, David Cameron and other senior political figures have endorsed the so-called 'conveyor belt' theory of radicalisation; the prime minister told a security conference in Munich in 2011: "As evidence emerges about ... those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by what some have called 'non-violent extremists', and they then took those radical beliefs to the next level by embracing violence."

 

Sageman, who has also advised the New York Police Department and testified in front of the 9/11 Commission, describes such a view as "nonsense" and says there is little empirical evidence for such a 'conveyor belt' process. "It is the same nonsense that led governments a hundred years ago to claim that left-wing political protests led to violent anarchy."

 

Overall, the former CIA officer says, "the [al Qaeda] threat is fading. You don't have the kind of large plots of the [2004 fertiliser bomb plot] variety.. The movement has been degraded. These loners, or duos, aren't controlled by larger number of people who will bring them to their senses." But, as a result, "you are going to have more of these kind of [lone wolf] attacks."

 

He adds: "Governments, by overreacting, may actually bring back the [original al Qaeda] movement".

 

In recent days, senior figures from across the political spectrum have condemned attempts to link the attack in Woolwich to the the UK military's involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. The mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said on Monday that the problem of extremism couldn't be solved by entering into "some debate or discussion about British or American foreign policy".

 

Sageman disagrees: foreign policy is a major factor. "If you listen to the video of that guy, Michael Adebolajo, he very much says it is because of the [Afghan] war. At what point are you going to start listening to the perpetrators who tell you why they're doing this? The same applies to the videos of the 7/7 bombers. At some point you have to be grounded in reality."

 

Since the Woolwich attack, there have been calls from politicians and pundits alike for mosques to 'do more' to tackle so-called radicalisation and violent interpretations of Islam - despite strenuous and widespread condemnation of the attack by Muslim community leaders and imams. Mosques are "irrelevant" to this debate, claims Sageman. People don't acquire extreme views in mosques, he argues, and "it's not the moderate Muslims who turn to violence. They're the wrong guys to talk to. Those young kid who turn to violence hate moderate Muslims more than the EDL [English Defence League] do. The [radicals] think those [moderate] guys are total traitors."

 

The religion of Islam isn't what motivates terrorists, or turns them violent, argues Sageman, but Islam does give them "a sense of identity.. a vehicle for them [to use] to protest over what they feel is unjust".

 

As for Muslims being asked to apologise for, or condemn, terrorist acts supposedly committed 'in the name of Islam', Sageman is scathing: "Does your Conservative Party have to apologise each time the [far right] does something nasty? You're asking the same thing of the Muslim population."

 

The terrorism expert and author says his own research suggests extreme views are often acquired "on the internet or in face to face interactions between friends", rather than in mosques or Islamic centres. "It is much more complex" than journalists or politicians assume, he tells HuffPost UK.

 

So what advice would he give the British government? "The priority for the government right now is.. to study what's happening on the ground, as opposed to just giving out soundbites.. stop being brainwashed by this notion of 'radicalisation'. There is no such thing. Some people when they're young acquire extreme views; many of them just grow out of them. Do not overreact - you'll just create worse problems."

 

So should the state do nothing? Sageman advocates a combination of monitoring and surveillance, on the one hand, and political engagement, on the other. "You basically need to monitor these kids and make sure they move on with their lives."

 

But at the same time, he says, "these kids have to be brought within the system. They need to feel like they're relevant."

 

 

[tonyh29]

 

 

Although THIS is my personal favourite

 

No problem with exposing them for the idiots they are but Photoshop isn't the answer

 

original is below if anyone is remotely interested in the truth

 

 

It's a dangerous game when people take the internet at Face value , the EDL and EDF thing that went viral was actually a joke to show how people can easily get confused , that EDF even fell for and commented on , before deleting it once they realised they had been "had"   ... however it didn't stop dozens of friends posting it on Facebook and it even making Sky news  ...

 

as I say lets expose these people , but lets do it on the merit of their argument (or lack off) rather than look how stupid they are because the interweb told me

 

 

 

Edited May 28, 2013 by tonyh29

[omariqy]

Well said Tony.  Although I half expect them to make mistakes like that!

 

peterms - interesting article.  I must say from my experience, which I would argue is more than most on here, I have not seen any hate preachers.  You get the odd occassional Imam who is out of touch where his talk is all centred around issues that the older generation face or have faced, that is not relevant to the younger generation.  Maybe some people prey on this.  I dont know.  I have not seen it.  What there definitely is, is a complete distrust of the UK government, especially its foreign policy.  Muslims see themselves as one Ummah, a nation or community, a community which takes higher priority then nationality.  Depending on your view on the matter, this is either a bad thing or a good thing.  One thing is for sure though, we have to repsect the law of the land wherever we are.  Obviously, unless that law conflicts with the essence of our Faith. 

[bickster]

Muslims see themselves as one Ummah, a nation or community, a community which takes higher priority then nationality.  Depending on your view on the matter, this is either a bad thing or a good thing.  One thing is for sure though, we have to repsect the law of the land wherever we are.  Obviously, unless that law conflicts with the essence of our Faith.

How can you see yourselves as one nation when just like Judaism and Christianity there is more that one branch of the religion?

I'm curious as to how that can possibly work, especially as in other parts of the world the local dominant sect persecutes the other?

[tonyh29]

One thing is for sure though, we have to repsect the law of the land wherever we are.  Obviously, unless that law conflicts with the essence of our Faith. 

 

 

I can't think of actual specific examples  but would that statement not be a little contradictory  ?

 

Only example I can think of is say France where they banned the wearing of a hijab in public  .. is that the kind of thing you mean ?

[omariqy]

I am speaking from purely a 'Sunni' perspective, which is the majority.  I cannot speak for some of the other sects.  In essence, there should be no sects and no differences.  It should be one sect.  As I am sure you aware, differences between individuals has led us (Muslims) to the path we are at now.  It shows the weakness of the faith currently imo.  The fact that sects persecute each other and the fact that there are so many different sects.  I personally don't believe in sects.  Nor will I judge someone who interpretates things differently to myself.  IMO, that is not my place.

[maqroll]

 

 One thing is for sure though, we have to repsect the law of the land wherever we are.  Obviously, unless that law conflicts with the essence of our Faith. 

 

Shouldn't social policy trump religious zealotry in secular states?

[omariqy]

 

One thing is for sure though, we have to repsect the law of the land wherever we are.  Obviously, unless that law conflicts with the essence of our Faith. 

 

 

I can't think of actual specific examples  but would that statement not be a little contradictory  ?

 

Only example I can think of is say France where they banned the wearing of a hijab in public  .. is that the kind of thing you mean ?

 

Yes.  The nikkab is not compulsory at all.  The hijjab has some basis in being compulsory because of the rules what should and should not be covered.  In fact most would agree it is compulsory.  Again goes back to my point about the complexity of the Arabic language.  If you take the English translation of everything then no doubt you will pick up the wrong intended meaning at some point. 

 

There can of course be conflict.  Thankfully England is such a nation that many Muslims are able to adhere to both laws.

[peterms]

I must say from my experience, which I would argue is more than most on here, I have not seen any hate preachers.  You get the odd occassional Imam who is out of touch where his talk is all centred around issues that the older generation face or have faced, that is not relevant to the younger generation.  Maybe some people prey on this.  I dont know.  I have not seen it.

 

I am reminded of a similar comment from Mehdi Hasan, here.

 

Yet conventional wisdom still says the religion of Islam is behind violent extremism and radicalisation; that Muslims don't do enough to denounce terror; that imams and mosques incite hate and holy war. As is so often the case, the conventional wisdom is wrong. I have been a Muslim all my life and visited mosques across Europe, North America and the UK. Never, not once, have I come across an imam preaching violence against the West or justifying the murder of innocents.

 

 

 

[villaajax]

 

 

@Bill_Hicks_RIP  Two EDL did nazi salutes at London demo. EDL now saying they shouldn't be tarred with same brush as 2 idiots. Irony overload!

 

Nazi salutes seem to be a regular thing at EDL events.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pedant  ..... bloke/ bird  in the beige jumper has used the wrong arm

 

 

To be fair I think he's just waving. 'Cooee'.

[omariqy]

I would agree with that.  Many times I see people in media comment on this issue.  People who have never visited a mosque in their lives.  Or not many anyway.  Take Rupert Murdoch the other day for example.  I am not doubting that there is an extremist element present.  Obviously there is.  I believe it is even more miniscule then the media portrays.  Muslims who live in Britain are concerned about their family, community,  work, day to day issues.  These are what Imams tend to focus on.  In my experience anyways.  Obviously the issues of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria etc comes up often.  Mostly people are encourage to pray for the innocent across the world, try and do as much as we can through charity.  If we really want to make changes then there is a politcal system in place that you are able to participate in. 

[Eames]

Although THIS is my personal favourite

No problem with exposing them for the idiots they are but Photoshop isn't the answer

original is below if anyone is remotely interested in the truth

It's a dangerous game when people take the internet at Face value , the EDL and EDF thing that went viral was actually a joke to show how people can easily get confused , that EDF even fell for and commented on , before deleting it once they realised they had been "had" ... however it didn't stop dozens of friends posting it on Facebook and it even making Sky news ...

as I say lets expose these people , but lets do it on the merit of their argument (or lack off) rather than look how stupid they are because the interweb told me

II laugh at your facts and accuracy. Mine wa a good point well made. (and funnier)

[tonyh29]

Although THIS is my personal favourite

No problem with exposing them for the idiots they are but Photoshop isn't the answer

original is below if anyone is remotely interested in the truth

It's a dangerous game when people take the internet at Face value , the EDL and EDF thing that went viral was actually a joke to show how people can easily get confused , that EDF even fell for and commented on , before deleting it once they realised they had been "had" ... however it didn't stop dozens of friends posting it on Facebook and it even making Sky news ...

as I say lets expose these people , but lets do it on the merit of their argument (or lack off) rather than look how stupid they are because the interweb told me

II laugh at your facts and accuracy. Mine wa a good point well made. (and funnier)

The only point you made was that you got duped by a photoshopped image

[Ikantcpell]

I don't know what's more offensive, the Nazi salute or the Manyoo hat. 

 

The manyoo hat by far..