I've edited my last post but I'll repeat. I have three sources, none credible on its own, so it's a probably. In any case they all reference Bild am Sonntag.

Is this one of your sources http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85555 ?

Is this another one http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5997.htm ?

No, but well done finding it.

I saw [url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=85566]this[/url] on Arutz Sheva while I was there.

This [url=http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Security/5997.htm]article[/url] has something that Khan might be interested in.

Quote:

The Mossad office in London received advance notice about the attacks, but only six minutes before the first blast, the paper reports, confirming an earlier AP report As a result, it was impossible to take any action to prevent the blasts.

That's exactly what I just said, Irfan. Anyway the end bit reminds me:

"The Mike's Place attack killed three people, Ran Baron, 24, Yanai Weiss, 46, and Caroline Dominique Hess, 29. The bombing was carried out by two terrorists, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, who were recruited by Hamas in Britain and affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement in Gaza, where they stayed before carried out the murder."

The International Solidarity Movement included Tom Hurndall, who you brought up on another thread.

"100" wrote:

That's exactly what I just said, Irfan.

I should have read your post more carefully, apologies.

No worries.

"100" wrote:

That's exactly what I just said, Irfan. Anyway the end bit reminds me:

"The Mike's Place attack killed three people, Ran Baron, 24, Yanai Weiss, 46, and Caroline Dominique Hess, 29. The bombing was carried out by two terrorists, Asif Mohammed Hanif and Omar Khan Sharif, who were recruited by Hamas in Britain and affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement in Gaza, where they stayed before carried out the murder."

The International Solidarity Movement included Tom Hurndall, who you brought up on another thread.

... wot exactly are u trying to suggest 100? (btw more than one person has asked u to be less ambiguous in your posts - we'd appreciate it if u acknowledged that.)

just because two members of hamas happened to be affiliated with the International Solidarity Movement, doesnt make the latter a terrorist organisation, and tom hurndall was in NO WAY a terrorist.

Aasiyah,

Take your first point and, keep it.

Take your second point and stop putting words in my mouth. My meaning is the ISM are dishonest, support terrorists and put innocents in danger zones. You say I'm calling Hurndall a terrorist, having asked me what I was saying. I'm not happy with you.

"100" wrote:

Aasiyah,

Take your first point and, keep it.

Take your second point and stop putting words in my mouth. My meaning is the ISM are dishonest, support terrorists and put innocents in danger zones. You say I'm calling Hurndall a terrorist, having asked me what I was saying. I'm not happy with you.

well i'm sorry, but i suppose then u should understand other members' frustration of having to read a completely ambiguous post - if u have a point, come out and make it; otherwise we are free to make assumptions...

deleted

yashmaki,

People still get mixed messages from Muslims but, my experience is if you make the effort you get to see some of the spectrum of any community, and then it's clear to me that however much they might like to, Muslims do not speak as one on religion, politics or anything else. I get funny looks, too, and people say stupid things, even a skinhead shopkeeper that just 'knew my type' and didn't want my business (think was just a pack of ciggies or something). One of those things. I don't think there's trouble around the corner, but something brewing maybe for a few years time that we want to cool off if we can. Britain's good. It's how I was feeling about jihad a few years ago, too. Maybe I need to learn to hang with people like Gerroff, I wasn't exactly open. We want to be understanding through the national press what's going on in Bethnall Green, Oldham etc, and campaigning for cooperation and respect (not RESPECT) above all else. The alternative campaign is 'fear of other' which retards free voting and can only work to exclude the BNP one election at a time. My two cents.

Aasiyah,

I make very detailed and extensive posts because some of what I say is detailed and extensive. Unquestionably when I'm cutting through crap I make some mistakes, but no, you are not especially free to make assumptions except in the sense you're free anyway. Your assumptions aren't that innocent you shouldn't give yourself carte blanche to have them, while you're explaining something isn't clear to you. It's easy to switch between intellectual and casual and pick on that, and it doesn't suit you to pretend anti-intellect.

Sorry what I said was not clear to you in the first place.

khan,

Just to underline, I was all intense on you and it lasted several pages and now in your favour a report is lending credulity to what you said. My other points now stand relative to that.

My flatmate and his brother Dan have been upset by this. Dan's ex was declared missing but she has now been identified as one of the victims. The strange feeling for me hearing about it, is not that the new information changes matters much, but that defeating this is urgent.

salaam

excellent article by Karen Armstrong:

[b]The label of Catholic terror was never used about the IRA
Fundamentalism is often a form of nationalism in religious disguise
Karen Armstrong
Monday July 11, 2005
The Guardian [/b]

Last year I attended a conference in the US about security and intelligence in the so-called war on terror and was astonished to hear one of the more belligerent participants, who as far as I could tell had nothing but contempt for religion, strongly argue that as a purely practical expedient, politicians and the media must stop referring to "Muslim terrorism". It was obvious, he said, that the atrocities had nothing to do with Islam, and to suggest otherwise was not merely inaccurate but dangerously counterproductive.

Rhetoric is a powerful weapon in any conflict. We cannot hope to convert Osama bin Laden from his vicious ideology; our priority must be to stem the flow of young people into organisations such as al-Qaida, instead of alienating them by routinely coupling their religion with immoral violence. Incorrect statements about Islam have convinced too many in the Muslim world that the west is an implacable enemy. Yet, as we found at the conference, it is not easy to find an alternative for referring to this terrorism; however, the attempt can be a salutary exercise that reveals the complexity of what we are up against.

We need a phrase that is more exact than "Islamic terror". These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur'an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.

Like the Bible, the Qur'an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.

We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings "Catholic" terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.

In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.

Because it is increasingly recognised that the terrorists in no way represent mainstream Islam, some prefer to call them jihadists, but this is not very satisfactory. Extremists and unscrupulous politicians have purloined the word for their own purposes, but the real meaning of jihad is not "holy war" but "struggle" or "effort." Muslims are commanded to make a massive attempt on all fronts - social, economic, intellectual, ethical and spiritual - to put the will of God into practice.

Sometimes a military effort may be a regrettable necessity in order to defend decent values, but an oft-quoted tradition has the Prophet Muhammad saying after a military victory: "We are coming back from the Lesser Jihad [ie the battle] and returning to the Greater Jihad" - the far more important, difficult and momentous struggle to reform our own society and our own hearts.

Jihad is thus a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence. Last year, at the University of Kentucky, I met a delightful young man called Jihad; his parents had given him that name in the hope that he would become not a holy warrior, but a truly spiritual man who would make the world a better place. The term jihadi terrorism is likely to be offensive, therefore, and will win no hearts or minds.

At our conference in Washington, many people favoured "Wahhabi terrorism". They pointed out that most of the hijackers on September 11 came from Saudi Arabia, where a peculiarly intolerant form of Islam known as Wahhabism was the state religion. They argued that this description would be popular with those many Muslims who tended to be hostile to the Saudis. I was not happy, however, because even though the narrow, sometimes bigoted vision of Wahhabism makes it a fruitful ground for extremism, the vast majority of Wahhabis do not commit acts of terror.

Bin Laden was not inspired by Wahhabism but by the writings of the Egyptian ideologue Sayyid Qutb, who was executed by President Nasser in 1966. Almost every fundamentalist movement in Sunni Islam has been strongly influenced by Qutb, so there is a good case for calling the violence that some of his followers commit "Qutbian terrorism." Qutb urged his followers to withdraw from the moral and spiritual barbarism of modern society and fight it to the death.

Western people should learn more about such thinkers as Qutb, and become aware of the many dramatically different shades of opinion in the Muslim world. There are too many lazy, unexamined assumptions about Islam, which tends to be regarded as an amorphous, monolithic entity. Remarks such as "They hate our freedom" may give some a righteous glow, but they are not useful, because they are rarely accompanied by a rigorous analysis of who exactly "they" are.

The story of Qutb is also instructive as a reminder that militant religiosity is often the product of social, economic and political factors. Qutb was imprisoned for 15 years in one of Nasser's vile concentration camps, where he and thousands of other members of the Muslim Brotherhood were subjected to physical and mental torture. He entered the camp as a moderate, but the prison made him a fundamentalist. Modern secularism, as he had experienced it under Nasser, seemed a great evil and a lethal assault on faith.

Precise intelligence is essential in any conflict. It is important to know who our enemies are, but equally crucial to know who they are not. It is even more vital to avoid turning potential friends into foes. By making the disciplined effort to name our enemies correctly, we will learn more about them, and come one step nearer, perhaps, to solving the seemingly intractable and increasingly perilous problems of our divided world.

· Karen Armstrong is author of Islam: a Short History

Source: Guardian

Revival Editor,

Irfan posted that a couple of pages back. To my mind they are waging a battle defined ideologically around the lines of a clash of civilisations, Islam vs World. However since many Muslims emphatically don't subscribe to it, Armstrong's point is obviously very important, that non-Muslims mustn't fall into the trap of World vs. Muslims. It is more like World vs. Barbarians. However to come up with a name I thought accounts for the ideology I proposed 'Islamic Supremacist Terrorism', which no more suggests all Muslims than White Supremacist suggests all whites or Black Supremacist all blacks, I assert.

salaam

simple question: why cant terrorists be called just terrorists.... why is a religious group or the religion brought in to it? whether anyone it is doing it in the name of religion or not? a terrorist is aterrorist . full stop

what really hacks of everyone is, IRA are not called christian terrorists, BJP or hindu extremists are not called hindu terrorists, jews who carry pout terrorism are not called jewish terrorists...but when muslims do terrorist attacks then its islamic terrorism and muslim terrorism- what hypocricy, double -faced coddswollop is that?????

wasalaam

salaam

and another issue..
[b]what is terrorism?[/b]

shock and awe in iraq is not terrorism?
killing thousand of innocent civilians in Iraq is not terrorism?
flattening afghanistan to the dark ages is not terrorism?
killing thousand of innocent civilians in Afghanistanis not terrorism?
israel completely knocking down 1000's of palestinian homes is not terrorism?
what about statet terorism which Israel is fully guilty of and the world knows of it but hasnt got the guts to mention?

so one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

some say osama is a terrorist, some say he is a freedom fighter.
some say palestinians are terrorists, some say they are freedom fighters
some say Bush and Blair are making peace and establishing democracy, some say they are terrorists.
some (well one man does) say sharon is a man of peace, many others say he is a terrorist.

The bottom line is whatever the west, bush, blair does its ok, acceptable, justified...and whatever the muslim world, freedom fighters, mujahids fighting oppression and occupation do- they are wrong and are terrorists because the west, bush , blair and western media say so!

wasalaam

"100" wrote:

To my mind they are waging a battle defined ideologically around the lines of a clash of civilisations, Islam vs World.

Really?

I remember when Abu Hamza's old website was up (may still be) and his lectures had very little mention of the west. Ninety-nine percent of the serious hate literature (not just random propaganda) on there was aimed at the governments in the arab countries particularly Saudi Arabia as well as the muslim scholars who legitimise their rule (Saudi Wahhabis in particular).

Almost all of the literature was aimed at proving that according to Islam the rulers in the arab countries had to be overthrown. I didn't even see much attention paid to ethnic muslim conflicts like Kashmir and Chechnya.

This idea that these salafi qutbis are obsessed with the west is really a media creation and maybe an understandable one. The damage done to western cities is insignificant next to what they've done in Egypt and Algeria and Syria.

Revival Editor,

I don't know why you just identified it as the Muslim world and apparently sympathised when your prior argument was it's all terrorism and Muslims shouldn't be implicated. A quick definition that probably isn't comprehensive: action to maximise damage to infrastructure or a civilian population usually intended to place pressure on governing authorities as opposed to interstate warfare declared by recognised authorities, defensive action or strategic missions. That doesn't mean all war is right or even better. However we face a threat of Islamic Supremacist Terrorism.

In any case the IRA were called Irish terrorists. They were Irish and Ireland was their catchment. Al Qaeda are Muslim terrorists and Muslims are their catchment. The same sensitivities come up again and again and it's ridiculous. It is correct to know the allegiance of the terrorists.

I understand the pain. I should think that's how most Irish Catholics feel about the IRA. Still your arguments are at odds and I don't think they're constructive.

Salaf,

Did I mention the west? I've read your point. I'm sticking to mine. The whole of it, not just the bit you quoted.

"100" wrote:

Salaf,

Did I mention the west? I've read your point. I'm sticking to mine. The whole of it, not just the bit you quoted.

Is it really neccessary to deeply analyse who they may or may not be.

Why can't we just see them as some satanic force that fell out the sky like the Nazis did.

100,
as usual ur missing the point

and of course u ignored half of my post...especially when i mention Israel...

ur quick to come out with Islamic supremacist terrorists...which is codswollop

but quick to highlight ira are not christian terrorists, and israeli state terrorism is not jewish/zionist terrorism or any mention of hindu terrorism.

ladin and co are hiding behind religion, like the zionists, like bjp hindu fundamentalists, like christian terrorists ie oklahaoma bomber

as u know islam in NO WAY promotes or teaches terrorism....no matter what any group, individual says....
so u shud be saying bin ladin and co are terrosits, arab terrorists or people hiding behing religion...but u dont...u say what media is saying...terrorist +muslim=Islamic terrorist, or in ur case islamic supremacist terrorist......

I disagree.

Salaf,

No. And the Nazis didn't fall out of the sky. And something else. It's been said.

"100" wrote:

I disagree.

Salaf,

No. And the Nazis didn't fall out of the sky. And something else. It's been said.

Intense

Quote:

[size=18]London bombers 'were all British'[/size]

After a day of intensive police activity, detectives say at least one of four suspected London bombers died in last week's Tube and bus blasts.

Security sources said it was likely three men whose belongings were found at the scenes are dead - there is a question mark about the fourth bomber.

Explosives were found in Leeds and Luton after a series of dawn raids.

The BBC's Frank Gardner said it was unlikely the men - who police believe were all British - acted alone.

It appears our youth have been involved in last week's horrific bombings - nothing in Islam can ever justify the evil actions of the bombers
Sir Iqbal Sacranie, Muslim Council of Britain

He said the bombers - one of whom is thought to be as young as 19 - must have had assistance "from outside", perhaps from an expert who would have left the country before the bombs went off.

The men were captured on CCTV arriving together in London by train.

At least three of the suspects are believed to be British men of Pakistani origin who lived in West Yorkshire.

Police said they had arrested a relative of one of the four suspects in Yorkshire and taken them to London for questioning.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4676577.stm]BBC[/url]

The London attackers are all suspected to have been suicide bombers.

They were all British-born.

They were all between 19-22.

They were of Pakistani descent.

This raises serious issues.

Our community has f***ed-up big time.