Indigo Jo Blogs

Lavon Affair, and operation Northwoods. If you search for these terms you will find that it was a conspiracy by some governments to create false flag operations. It is not inconceivable that there similar conspiracies now...and a desire by certain groups to ferment war and a re-organization of the middle east. It is so obvious that this is going on...it must be the Zionist owned media which still insists on 'denial'

Certain Anglo/American establishment figures (usually Israel-firsters) will pick up on the "slags dancing around" comment and present it as "proof" that UK/US policy has nothing to do with terrorism, so there's no need for them to change. It allows them to continue to perpetuate myths such as Iranians, like Iraqis before them actually want to be bombed into freedom and are ingrates if they don't!

The fact that one group of terrorists used morality, rather than the Iraq war, as an excuse to kill large numbers of people then does not mean that there are plenty of young men willing to do the same now.

You say this based on what Yusuf?

The Muslim Brotherhood, Jama'at-e-Islami, Hizb-ut-Tahreer and even Hamas are not al-Qa'ida, whatever the influence of Muhammad Qutb's writings on the young Osama bin Laden.

Is Al-Muhajiroun also Al-Qaida or not? Because they seem to have moved from one to another.

but the reason why Palestinians would want to kill Israelis is well-understood.

What about vice-versa then? Do you 'understand' those reasons too?

Hardly "intelligent and educated". The leader of the London tube bombers had reached the dizzying heights of classroom assistant- a useful and rewarding job, but not one demanding a powerful intellect or high qualifications. The others were drop-outs or unsuccessful students, dependent on their families for work and support or- as with Richard Reid or Jermaine Lindsay- converts from criminal backgrounds.

Indeed, many of them seem to have lived in a strange fantasy world. Anthony Garcia called himself that in the hope it would help him become a male model and when he failed to do that took up islamic fanaticism, and there is as much envy as hatred in the "slags dancing in nightclubs" remark. One reason for their hatred of "the west" may have been the fact that theyt weren't getting what they thought were the perks of living there. It's also interesting that just as they had no staying-power when it came to making a career in "the west" they also had no staying-power in learning islam. Instead of the tedium of learning arabic, learning large chunks of prose, seeing what fustian commentators thought certain passages meant, the steady slog of becoming a believer, all of them decided to take the fast-track to paradise by becoming martyrs.

They'll probably get on quite well in prison; they seem to be sort of people who need absolute certainty and want someone to tell them exactly what to do or else.

Lavon Affair, and operation Northwoods. If you search for these terms you will find that it was a conspiracy by some governments to create false flag operations.

In France there were terrorist attacks against Arabs by a "Zionist" group called the Mouvement d'Action et Défense Masada, which was really not Zionist at all, but neo-Nazi...

I have to agree with a few things you have said. Even though I am a Muslim and am upset with the direction of Western society and the consumerism and moral decay, I do not think this is a motivating factor for terrorism coming from the Muslim community ( although it is a factor in Islamic movements domestic platforms in Muslim countries).

I also agree that some Muslims attribute large-scale al-Qaeda types of attacks to non-Muslim conspiracies (usually being either Jewish or a CIA affair) because they just can’t fathom a Muslim who would want to do such a thing. For years I never understood when people talked about Muslim terrorists because I had met thousands and had never met anyone who favored terrorism that wasn’t directed towards Israel (which is problematic in and of itself). One thing that I have had a problem with is people who simultaneously praise large-scale terror attacks such as 9-11 and 7-7 and say they were conspiracies and at this stage of the game it is time to realize that there are a few in the Muslim community who are willing to commit such acts and there is a larger number who will support them.

First, is the West decadent? Arguably, yes. Decadence, to me, is not simply to behave immorally, but to fail to act morally. Everyone does naughty things! But the peoples of the global North - Muslim and non-Muslim - are failing to do some very important things: like change their consumerist leisure-centred lifestyles in order to prevent global warming and end the grotesque exploitation of the global South. It's not as if these problems are unknown. Ignorance, if it exists, is willful.

Second, if I wanted to find out whether decadence played a part in motivating 'terrorists', speculating media drongos wouldn't be my starting point, personally. Perhaps Omar Nasiri's 'Inside the Global Jihad' might be a better place to start.

The peoples of the global North - Muslim and non-Muslim - are failing to do some very important things: like change their consumerist leisure-centred lifestyles in order to prevent global warming and end the grotesque exploitation of the global South. It's not as if these problems are unknown.

Isn't manmade global warming just a propaganda weapon invented to attack the West?

The backers of the theory of manmade global warming believe that a warming of the earth's climate will lead to catastrophic desertification of the world. How come the Islamic Golden Age (800 - 1200 AD) basically coincided with the Medieval Warm Period - when according to the warming = desertification hypothesis, the Muslim heartlands (dry at the best of times) should have been so extremely arid as to be uninhabitable?

Isn't manmade global warming just a propaganda weapon invented to attack the West?

But the global warming campaign is mainly coming from the West. Thatcher was it's first major political advocate in Britain I understand. The conspiracy theory I've heard is that it's a way of stopping development in Africa so that the inhabitants can't use their natural resources for themselves.

Thersistes - you may well have provided the most succint analysis of these retards yet. That comment should be made compulsory reading to all policy makers, think-tanks and government officials, and not a few Muslim community leaders as well.
I think you need to be put right nelow George on my potential Muslim list.

About Arab al-Qaeda terrorists (especially Egyptians), I've heard it said that "Lots of of them are very highly educated, but the corrupt statist nature of the economies in their home countries means that there are no suitable jobs for them to do. That's why they get disillusioned and become easy prey for the terrorist recruiters."

Yusuf, you've ignored my question:

Is Al-Muhajiroun also Al-Qaida or not? Because they seem to have moved from one to another.

Sunny:

I don't know if al-Muhajiroun are al-Qa'ida or not. Certainly, from what I've read on the news, they make out to be fellow travellers and in agreement with their "jihad". Whether they are a party to it, I have no idea.

As for your other two questions:

(1) I said that based on the fact that the "Crevice" plot happened three years ago, and was being discussed as if it was happening now. The London bombings have happened since then, and you cannot assume that people's general attitudes are the same before a major event like that and after, and after the passage of much time as well. Another reason is that western society has changed: for example, fashion has changed, and the skimpy clothing which was ubiquitous no longer is. Not that people changed their habits to appease Muslims; they did it for their own reasons.

(3) I was not talking about me, or about the rights and wrongs of it. The point was this: Muslims (and others) can understand what motivates Hamas bombers, but may have more difficulty understanding why someone would deliberately hit non-hostile targets, particularly in or around Muslim neighbourhoods as with two of the London bombs, which is why they blame it on conspiracies (the fact that people demand answers from Muslims who had nothing to do with it may also drive some people into this denial attitude as well).

Yusuf, I ask the question around Al-Muhajiroun because the line that seperates each group is not as clear as you may like to think. People have moved from Hizb ut-Tahrir to Al-Muhajiroun, that is a fact.

AM are also highly sympathetic to AQ's violent methods... so there may be more transfer there.

What's the evidence AGAINST the escalator of extremism theory? (though I agree each group is diff and treated as such)

1) Another reason is that western society has changed: for example, fashion has changed, and the skimpy clothing which was ubiquitous no longer is.

This is a really poor point. If your compassion for others is based on whether they wear skimpy clothes are not, then you're a pretty crap Muslim aren't you?

2) can understand what motivates Hamas bombers, but may have more difficulty understanding why someone would deliberately hit non-hostile targets

Hamas regularly hit pizza parlours and restaurants. Are they not non-hostile targets? Or do you believe every Israeli is a legitimate traget?

Sunny, the evidence agaisnt the "conveyor-belt" theory is in the statistics. HT probably have hadthousands of members worldwide. Al-Qaida have had thousands of men join their ranks, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq. The numbers of Al-Qaeda that had previously been involved with HT are statistically insignificant. In fact, is there any evidence that ANY HT members then went on to become Al-Qaeda (or linked)operatives? Yahya Birt's blog addresses this issue in more detail. The issue of Palestinians bombing Israeli civilians is quite clear as to why it would be understandable. They're motivated by a desire to avenge the deaths, dispossession, torture or humiliation of their people at the hands of "the other". Something that has been done throughout history by people unable to defend themselves against the standing army of an invader. The Indians of the Americas did the same thing, as did the Aborigines of Australia, both a nuisance to the foreign settler populations that had to be dealt with through genocide. As is usual from Western Islamophobes, you attempt to equate understanding to support. Yusuf never claimed that every israeli is a legitimate target for death. Some Muslims probably do, bt Yusuf doesn't answer for them.

Something that has been done throughout history by people unable to defend themselves against the standing army of an invader. The Indians of the Americas did the same thing, as did the Aborigines of Australia...

Or even the British in World War II, who before D-day bombed German cities in order to take the war back to the enemy...

The numbers of Al-Qaeda that had previously been involved with HT are statistically insignificant. In fact, is there any evidence that ANY HT members then went on to become Al-Qaeda

Is this supposed to be intelligent analysis? What does statistically insignificant mean when it takes 4 people to blow up London's tubes out of 1.6 million British Muslims. That is also a very small statistic.

And yes, two people previous arrested, including Babar, were involved with HuT.

I'm not in favour of banning HuT, I just haven't read a good argument against the converyor belt theory.

They're motivated by a desire to avenge the deaths, dispossession, torture or humiliation of their people at the hands of "the other". Something that has been done throughout history by people unable to defend themselves against the standing army of an invader

Here is the problem: 'the other side' can use the same argument whether you like it or not. How many times have surrounding Muslim countries tried to destroy Israel? they still do. Don't you think they feel victimised, and use that same theory to justify oppressing Palestinians?

I like people to have consistent standards, not one for themselves and another for the "other side".

As is usual from Western Islamophobes, you attempt to equate understanding to support. Yusuf never claimed that every israeli is a legitimate target for death

I'll let the Islamophobe slur slide since people like you use it like you eat hot dinners.

I asked Yusuf for his answer not you. He can answer for himself can't he?

Here is the problem: 'the other side' can use the same argument whether you like it or not. How many times have surrounding Muslim countries tried to destroy Israel? they still do. Don't you think they feel victimised, and use that same theory to justify oppressing Palestinians?

That's one reason why the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is so horrible, because both sides have good cause to view themselves as victims.

Sunny, the "conveyor belt" (or escalator if you prefer) theory doesn't need an intelligenmt analysis as it's self-evident. An conveyor belt by definition takes an item, or in this case a person, along a fixed route or process to a finished article or location. Since virtually nobody who's stepped on to the HT belt has come out at the other end as a terrorist the idea doesn't hold up in terms of reality. Were the two people arrested who had links to HT actually CONVICTED of anything in terms of actual terroist acts such as the 7/7 bombings? George - you're absolutely right and makes Sunny's queries about the Arab-Israeli conflict irrelevant except as an academic exercise. The fact is the conflict is intractable as neither side accepts they're wrong and it will probably only end with total victory of one over the other. Unlike the white settlers to the Americas who could count on an unlimited pool of their own people to continually boost their numbers, the Israelis only have technological advantages to stave off their destruction - but not the ability to eradicate their enemies entirely.

Since virtually nobody who's stepped on to the HT belt has come out at the other end as a terrorist the idea doesn't hold up in terms of reality.

Maybe Islamism is like drug-taking. A typical heroin addict started with marijuana, but a typical marijuana smoker is unlikely to become a heroin addict.

Unlike the white settlers to the Americas who could count on an unlimited pool of their own people to continually boost their numbers, the Israelis only have technological advantages to stave off their destruction - but not the ability to eradicate their enemies entirely.

The Israelis have the ability to eradicate their enemies - what they're lacking is Härte and a willingness to take action that even the Americans would find sickening...

I don't know George, if you look atthe sort of men that have become terrorists (from the West) they come from pretty diverse backgrounds and I just don't see a conveyor belt at all. They all seem to jump on to the Al-Qaeda bandwagon from completely personal circumstances which don't seem to have any common thread, or at least not one that could be put down to an organised group such as HT. The Israelis don't really have the ability to eradicate their enemies as such, they're nuclear arsenal could destroy Muslims civilisation (and I know most Westerners would use that term loosely in any discussion about Islam) but they would still have countless enemies inhabiting the radioactive rubble. Whereas the white settlers to the Americas and Oz could push the natives to extinction due to their far smaller numbers.

and I just don't see a conveyor belt at all. They all seem to jump on to the Al-Qaeda bandwagon from completely personal circumstances which don't seem to have any common thread, or at least not one that could be put down to an organised group such as HT.

you're basing this on personal views rather than any proper analysis.

Both Omar Sharfi, who blew himself up in Israel: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lifeandstyle/education/student/news/article640346.ece

and Muhammed Babar, were linked with HuT http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/public/article695074.ece

The exampl who had an association with HT doesn't count as a proper analysis to me. As it is just these two individuals out of probably thousands who have been members of HT at some point, HT can't be described as a conveyor belt that churns out terrorists. The Babar individual claims he joined HT during the first Gulf War but there's no evidence from this article that it was his time spent with HT that led to his turning terrorist. Many people from the hard-right of the Conservative Party get disollusioned and end up joinging the NF and BNP. Yet nobody would countenance the idea that the Tories are a conveyor belt of fascism. People join certain groups because it may have a superficial appeal to them, but then find their needs are not met so move on to another group that they think does (or start their own group as seems to be a common phenomenon amongst Muslims). I don't see how the original group are then held responsible for the direction ex-members go. If anything, the fact that they moved on would seem to exonerate the original group for not being sympathetic enough to terror.

So 2 people out of a group of 10,000 gives you meaningful statistics??

2 out of 10,000 is not even epsilon(ε). Ask a student of maths what epsilon is.

Except it's not 2 out of 10,000. The category 'successful suicide attacks on Israel' has a less than two hundred members. The category 'successful or attempted suicide attacks in Europe' has less than that.

For a small group of 10,000 to be represented in both of those categories even once is extremely unlikely to be a matter of chance. Two proven cases makes it a statistical impossibility, at least hundreds of millions to one against.