Umm, dude. It's Notorganic. 'cha expect?

The inconsistency of people's positions has quite a lot to do with what 87 is talking about.

If anything its the opposite I reckon. Can't seem to discuss anything regarding islamic extremism without the token "it's a small minority" card or you get labeled an islamphobe. The Catholic church however, well its pretty much open slather. Seems to be limited social boundaries in regards to making generalized criticism of Catholics.

The "small minority" card completely avoids the problem. London is a broken community, apartheid is in full swing. Particular areas of London are becoming home to particular ethnicities, and nobody is mixing.

We are talking about mass immigration into a country with finite jobs, finite infrastructure to maintain these people. All this while virtually outlawing on any discussion on the matter as talking about immigration or an English apartheid winds you up under the racial discrimination act equivalent for "racial hatred." This, while muslims who call for Sharia and burn poppies are protected under free political speech, WHILE the human rights act prevents us from deporting foreign criminals! In the UK, there is a feeling of one law for us and another for them.

People are angry, and to blurt out the word islamaphobe is to simply shift aside the problem.

Ken, you make a good point but the assumption is that none of these people can function in society. Something needs to be done to stop these ethnic pockets, slums and segregation.

The BBC is reporting that the man in the now infamous video is Michael Adebolajo, a second generation Nigerian immigrant from a devout Christian family who converted to Islam after leaving College. Apparently he was questioned in 2010 but deemed to not be "an immediate threat".

Muslim Council for Britain condemns attacks (click me)

:roll: :roll:

Edited by 433: 23/5/2013 11:22:21 PM

Russell Brand ‏@rustyrockets 11m
That bloke's a nut. A nut who happens to be Muslim. Blaming Muslims for this is like blaming Hitler's mustache for the holocaust.

How deluded can Russell Brand be

Pretty deluded. But in this case he's on the money.

I'm not sure his analogy works :lol:

Editor's note: Frida Ghitis is a world affairs columnist for The Miami Herald and World Politics Review. A former CNN producer and correspondent, she is the author of "The End of Revolution: A Changing World in the Age of Live Television." Follow her on Twitter: @FridaGColumns.

(CNN) -- When a man with hands drenched in blood stands just feet away from the body of a person he just hacked to death, still holding the murder weapons, we want to believe he must be crazy. How else can our minds grasp the evidence that someone would carry out an act of such inconceivable brutality?

We don't yet know all the details surrounding Wednesday's killing in London. But the fact is we have seen this type of attack before, and even before one of the suspects started ranting to passers-by, we had a pretty good idea what to expect. This killing of a young British soldier was not an act of insanity. It was part of a pattern that has struck in many parts of the world before. This was the product of extreme Islamist radicalism we have all come to recognize.

Frida Ghitis
Some will rush to blame Muslims or Islam for what happened, but it's important to be clear and not to mince words.
Islam is not the enemy. Muslims are not the enemy. Terrorism is not the enemy.

The enemy is the radical Islamist ideology that justifies any atrocity committed for political motives. The enemies are the people who promote this dogma and encourage others to engage in actions that offend and assault our humanity -- and theirs.

As information started trickling in from London, the familiar phrases started emerging, confirming our initial suspicions and no doubt disheartening Muslims who would like to see their religion stop having any association with these atrocities. Witnesses said they heard the two men shouting "Allahu Akbar" as they worked to dismember their victim. They say one of them breathlessly declared "By almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone."

A similar attack happened a few years ago in Amsterdam. The Dutch filmmaker and columnist Theo van Gogh was assassinated and nearly decapitated by a Muslim radical angered by van Gogh's work criticizing Islam.

The London murderers apparently justified their butchery as resentment over Western troops fighting in Muslim lands. "Muslims are dying daily," the man with the bloody hands said. But before accepting that argument at face value, consider that radical Islamists have found other reasons to slaughter those who offend them. And the threshold for triggering brutality seems rather movable.

The Islamist radical who murdered van Gogh, Mohammed Bouyeri, used a knife to pin a letter to his victim's body, explaining his actions and threatening to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an ex-Muslim and friend of the director, who remains a fierce critic of Islam. The letter is a screed against Jews and an attempt to intimidate anyone who speaks critically of Islam.

Islamist radicalism provided the twisted justification for the Boston Marathon bombings, for the videotaped decapitation of journalist Daniel Pearl, for the shooting rampage of Maj. Nidal Hassan, who killed 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas. And let's not forget 9/11, the crown jewel of murderous achievements.
Their political/religious ideology has motivated killers in Madrid, London, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, as well as Syria, Nigeria, Indonesia and Iraq. The creed that demands murder, sometimes murder-suicide, for perceived offenses against Islam and against Muslims constitutes a threat to societies at large, not just to Westerners and non-Muslims. In fact, a study finds that Muslims are its most numerous victims.

While police were still working the crime scene in London, British Prime Minister David Cameron said the attack was probably an act of terrorism.
The question of whether this particular incident falls under the label of terrorism is not particularly useful. We will hear discussions about whether the perpetrators belonged to a larger organization or were, instead, "lone wolves" or "self-radicalized." In the end, the purpose was political intimidation, and inciting fear was its political objective. For what it's worth, that's terrorism. But that does not identify the enemy that must be fought.

The killing in broad daylight in London's Woolwich neighborhood belongs in the category of Islamist radical attacks, the same that brought 9/11, the Boko Haram massacres in Nigeria, restaurant bombings in Tel Aviv, night club killings in Bali, street explosions in Baghdad, hotel bombings in Amman and many other massacres in many countries. Each incident has its own peculiarities, its own list of grievances. But they all contain the same explosive ideology.

Most Muslims strongly oppose this kind of brutality. But a recent Pew poll showed significant minorities favor actions such as suicide bombings "in defense of Islam." A troubling 29% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide bombings can be justified, so do 40% of Muslims in the Palestinian Territories, 15% in Jordan and 18% in Malaysia.

The "defense of Islam" means different things to different people. Extremists have killed to defend Islam from modern westernized culture. They have killed women for daring to go to school. The victims often have nothing to do with the alleged offense. The Tsarnaev brothers' victims in Boston had nothing to do with the offenses that angered their killers.

An important element in the fight against this pernicious, callous enemy is a campaign to undermine the ideology's appeal within Muslim communities everywhere.

There is much work to do, particularly by the vast majority of Muslims who reject extremism, by their leaders who must be pressured by all of us to make the ironclad case that nothing, nothing in the world, justifies the kind of viciousness that assaulted our senses in London and has done so in too many places for too many years.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/23/opinion/ghitis-ideology-hacking-death/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

No problem here, the guy just happened to be Muslim.


Edited by iridium1010: 24/5/2013 02:25:12 AM

Notorganic, do you watch the Borgias:D

Between the worsening economy and the unintegrated migrants, Europeans are leaving Europe in droves. Can't say I blame them.

I agree with both comments

I don't know what this means

Fucking great TV show.

-PB

The assumption is there because of unrestricted immigration, can we really blame people for making it? Britain is a tinderbox ready to ignite. Then again, it always was.

It does. Mostly because one has nothing to do with the other.

In that regard yes, it does. A better and perhaps more relevant one would be "blaming the holocaust on the fact Hitler was white"

True, but that's not funny. Not that this is funny anyway.

Well...some of the reactions are (looking at you, Poly) but that's about it.

British MP Bob Stewart has demanded foreign-born preachers of hate should be "put on a plane". Yeah, because that worked out so well for America...

Didn't realize that Brand was intending to be funny. I usually can never tell :lol:

There's something seriously wrong with Poli, I'm amazed he's still on the forum.



I agree, people like that asshole calling for sharia law in Australia should be deported and not be protected by freedom of speech.

The Australian born/raised cleric that is pretty much the laughing stock and/or shameful monkey on the back of the Australian Muslim community?

Where are you going to deport him to?

Somewhere in the Middle-East?

I hope you didn't misinterpret my post as an attack on the Muslim faith.

:? I agree with notor here (someone call hell and ask them if it's snowing).

You can't deport someone just because they have a disagreeable opinion. Especially not an Australian-born person.

If they want to live in a country governed by Sharia law, there's plenty of countries in the middle east they can move to, but we can't forcibly remove them.

Yeah its a tricky one, i mean some of these radicals might be australian born, but do they really call themselves Australians.

ASIO reported up to 200 Australians fighting in Syria and as many as 100 fighting for Al-Nusra, i hope these guys are kept a close eye on when/if they return to Australia.

Anyway, the solution is here my freinds.

That's the problem that (I think) KenGooner was eluding to about troubles in England. Pussybitching like that :lol:

C.I.A. to Focus More on Spying, a Difficult Shift

By MARK MAZZETTI
Published: May 23, 2013


WASHINGTON — For more than seven years, Mike — a lean, chain-smoking officer at the Central Intelligence Agency’s headquarters in Virginia — has managed the agency’s deadly campaign of armed drone strikes. As the head of the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorism Center, Mike wielded tremendous power in hundreds of decisions over who lived and died in far-off lands.

But under a new plan outlined by the Obama administration on Thursday, the Counterterrorism Center over time would cease to be the hub of America’s targeted killing operations in Pakistan, Yemen and other places where presidents might choose to wage war in the future. Already, the C.I.A.’s director, John O. Brennan, has passed over Mike, an undercover officer whose full name is being withheld, for a promotion to run the agency’s clandestine service.

It is a sign that Mr. Brennan is trying to shift the C.I.A.’s focus back toward traditional spying and strategic analysis, but that is not an easy task.

Arguably, no agency has changed more in the years since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks than the C.I.A., and no agency could be affected more by the new direction of the secret wars laid out by American officials on Thursday.

More than half of the C.I.A.’s work force joined the agency after 2001, and many of those new officers have spent the years since almost exclusively on the work of man-hunting and killing.

Some American officials and outside experts believe it could take years for a spy agency that has evolved into a paramilitary service to rebalance its activities.

“There’s a huge cultural and generational issue at stake here,” said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior C.I.A. official. “A lot of the people hired since 9/11 have done nothing but tactical work for the past 12 years,” he said, “and intellectually it’s very difficult to go from a tactical approach to seeing things more strategically.”

The C.I.A. is not getting out of the killing business anytime soon. Although Mr. Obama did not specifically mention the C.I.A. drone program in his speech, he said that the United States would continue to carry out strikes in the “Afghan war theater”— which American officials have long considered to include Pakistan, a country where the C.I.A. has carried out hundreds of drone strikes. Mr. Obama indicated that these strikes could go on for more than a year and a half, until the end of 2014, when most American forces are to be out of Afghanistan.

Obama administration officials said this week that some drone operations would shift to the Pentagon, particularly those in Yemen, where the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command is already running a parallel drone program. And, they said, the “preference” for the future is for all drone operations to be run by the Defense Department, rather than the C.I.A. While C.I.A. officers and analysts will continue to play a role in any drone operations run by the Pentagon, the White House plan is for the Defense Department to assume control over all drone operations in less than two years.

American officials said that one of the biggest challenges facing the C.I.A. is to take a large group of case officers who have spent more than a decade trying to hunt terrorists in war zones and retrain them to spy in countries like Russia, China and other so-called hard targets — difficult environments where governments are hard to penetrate and many C.I.A. operatives are under constant surveillance. Spying on the streets of Moscow might involve less physical danger than working in Karachi, Pakistan, or in Sana, Yemen, but trying to recruit Russian sources and to outwit Russian intelligence officers requires a subtlety that spies have not always practiced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In an embarrassing case last week, the Russians detained a young man in Moscow who they said was a C.I.A. officer trying to recruit a Russian official to spy for the United States. Video images of the man, Ryan Fogle, showed him wearing a shaggy blond wig under a baseball cap and revealed an assortment of items he was said to be carrying — including a compass, a street map of Moscow and a second wig. The images portraying an amateurish American spying effort played in an endless loop on Russian television.

Beyond the drone campaign, the C.I.A. over the past decade built large stations in Kabul and Baghdad, populating them with hundreds of young clandestine officers, many of whom were serving on their first overseas tour. The way C.I.A. officers operate in war zones — hunkered down much of the time behind large concrete walls and driving through cities in armored vehicles — is often the antithesis of the tradecraft used in noncombat areas, where spies need to blend into the local population.

Mr. Brennan, who spent decades in the C.I.A. as an intelligence analyst, also faces a significant challenge in widening the aperture of the CIA’s analytical work — which has also been consumed by the counterterrorism mission since the Sept. 11 attacks.

“A lot of things that pass for analysis right now is really targeting,” said Michael V. Hayden, a former C.I.A. director. “There has to be a shift in emphasis.”

In 2011, as popular revolutions spread through the Arab world, White House officials were critical of C.I.A. analysts for what they saw as a failure to keep up with the rapidly changing dynamics of the revolts. During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Mr. Brennan made a veiled reference to this criticism.

“With billions of dollars invested in C.I.A. over the past decade, policymaker expectations of C.I.A.’s ability to anticipate major geopolitical events should be high,” he said in a written response to questions posed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. “Recent events in the Arab world, however, indicate that C.I.A. needs to improve its capabilities and its performance still further.”

Even though Mr. Obama made it clear on Thursday that America’s shadow wars would continue, it is obviously the hope of the White House that the C.I.A.’s role on the front lines of those wars will gradually diminish — and that the C.I.A. can adapt as the administration tries to refocus its foreign policy away from Middle East and counterterrorism and toward other parts of the world.

As Mr. Lowenthal, the former top C.I.A. official put it, “China isn’t going to allow us to fly drones over their country.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/plan-would-orient-cia-back-toward-spying.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

The problems in England are born not just from Islam and racial segregation, but also the English obsession with socio-economic hierarchy.