Salaam
Dave pointed out we are quick to criticise, but slow to offer solutions.
So I would like to take the time to give tips to help fight terrorism.
Give your suggestions. If I like them, I will add them.
I have divided this into two sections.
So far:
[b]For the Authorities[/b]
1. Accept the problem
2. Accept the causes.
3. Be truthful.
4. Ask for help.
5. Involve the muslim communities in some trust initiatives.
6. Hold open forums for ideas.
[b]For Muslims[/b]
1. If you are aware of possible action, report it.
2. Make sure your friends are not being preached to by unruly elements.
3. report those elements.
4. Do something to channel the frustration in a positive manner.
5. Make [u]good[/u] arguments against futile measures.
perhaps we could assasinate those whom we know to be preparing or trainning suicide bombers.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
Or maybe rather tell the cops that someone is planning attacks.
ummm and how would u know when the attacks were takin place! :?
Thats a good point, those in the know would probably be those involved, but my answer to Irghfhfhfhaans (soz couldn't remember the spelling) post comes from Qibla's lecture in Glasgow about terrorism, about how the intelligence services know where these extremists and terrorists (the key personalities too) are, but choose not to take them out( even tho they can) to further their (i.e. the government) own agenda. Therefore maybe we could do the clean up job instead.
Gentleness and kindness were never a part of anything except that it made it beautiful, and harshness was never a part of anything except that it made it ugly.
Through cheating, stealing, and lying, one may get required results but finally one becomes
If you look through the London Bombings thread you'll find that I've said much the same thing.
People always mouth off about dodgy stuff that they're planning.
What national precautionary actions would muslims be kosher with?
It seems like over here they object to everything with little or no explanation.
I am definitely sensitive to abuse, governments are wicked things and most surely would use muslims to spy on each other if they had the chance.
But there has to be compromise between the two so that rational policies aren't abandoned to the detriment of the public good.
Is there [i]anything[/i] in Tony Blair's anti terror measures that muslims feel comfortable with?
I wouldnt imagine ppl to be as thick as that, but then u get all sorts.
You do.
No-one seems to appreciate the value of secrecy.
1 - Banning Al- Muhajiroon
2 - Er...
3 - That's it!
lol... that's a start I suppose.
Are there any preventative policing matters muslims could accept?
How about the paradigm of law enforcement - are muslims comfortable with making the target "islamic/middle eastern terrorists" or just keep it open to "terrorists"
Yeh i suppose esp. if its ppl in their teens they probs be burstin to tell what their mates what they up2....
But really the govt. has to work from the root of the problem, what has caused this much hate in these terrorists in order to carry out these acts, once the root is found the solution will follow, but a lot of the ppl involved i,e govt are not willing to take blame and admit they are wrong.
Recent leaked policy documents show that policy makers know of the problems and possible solutions.
But the gov (Tony Blair) is not willing to publicly admit causes and propose real solutions because of political reasons.
If Blair says that Muslims in Britain are disillusioned then he has to admit that the Iraq War contributed to this.
If Blair proposes measures that favour British Muslims economically and academically etc then he risks alienating other minorities and making things worse for Muslims by increasing resentment towards them from the majority white populace.
I doubt changing labels will have much effect.
'Islamic' is not a good word to use in this context anyway. The terrorists are not [i]of[/i] the religion. That is to say they are not legitimate representatives of Islam.
'Middle Eastern' too is not good. Pakistan is not a Middle Eastern country. Even though some Yanks think it is.
Any other suggestions.
When muslims talk about ending the "root causes" of terrorism, and that western policy in the middle east is to blame, and then talk about changing policy toward Israel or democratization to nonmuslims this sounds like appeasement.
That's a lot of the problem.
Coupled with muslims' rejection of anti terror actions, and offering no real immediate strategies to deal with it - non muslims get the impression that muslims are not concerned or even sympathetic with terrorism.
I see your point.
But if Isreal/Palestine issue was sorted that would be no bad thing. Everyone would benefit. Same as if 'open governement' was encouraged in the Middle East.
Everyone's a winner, not just Muslims.
and if blair cant be a man and actually admit then he aint gona get anywhere with tackling terrorism. shame on that monkey!
But many anti-terror proposals do victamise Muslims and reduce civil liberties for all citizens.
Surely existing laws can be used to stop bombings and to prosecute those who carry out bombings.
You have my attention,
Nonmuslims do not always understand these to be goals when the Muslim community talks about changing foreign policy in the middle east. In the context of ending the roots of terror it is assumed by the nonmuslim community that the Muslim community wants what the terrorists want. "They are angry about this - we agree it is legitimate to be angry about this but we think what terrorists do is wrong - but lets give them what we want because its a good cause despite their terrorist actions"
Consequently nonmuslims see the muslim agenda to be abandon Israel and let islamist regimes pop up all over the middle east.
Much of it is a matter of context.
Although in theory many antiterror measures inconvenience everyone they do tend to effect muslims the most. Consequently nonmuslims who believe that they are sacrificing small liberties for security as equally as muslims. When muslims protest this is seen as "not being on the same team"
Nonmuslims see terrorism as a new threat that cannot be defended against with conventional methods - thus they are willing to sacrifice small liberties to do so.
I can't see why it is so hard for people to accept the causes of errorism can be legit, even if the actal actions are not.
Look at the Beslan seige. It was for chechyen freedom. While the act was wicked, the wanting of freedom is accepted by all.
And I have now divided this into two parts. see my first post.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It would then help if Western govs stopped directly associating the Israel/Palestine issue with 'Al Qaeda-esque' terrorism. If they spoke about the need to resolve the ME issue as a matter of .... I don't know... international obligation, prevention of conflict, upholding international law etc.
Tricky issue.
And in practice most of these measures are unworkable.
Like ID cards. They say they will prevent terrorism. What? will it say 'terrorist' under 'occupation'?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Gov talking points (or soundbites as they are known here) about 'new kind of threat' do not help. Govs actively and purposely exagerate the the threat so that their populace accepts ever more infringements on liberties.
Much of it is spite. If I came and killed your family for catalonian independence - despite the fact you probably have never met a catalonia and might not be familiar with their plight, you wouldn't be sympathetic.
Further if you give the terrorists what they want you are validating them - and there is the fear that whenever somebody wants something they could just resort to terrorism to get it.
And often what the muslim community considers to be a "just cause" is not necessarily agreed upon by the nonmuslim community - that situation is the most dangerous because it means the muslim community is agreeing with the terrorists who claim to act in their name, against the nonmuslim community.
It's hard to not think in terms of "them" in such situations.
To a nonmuslim it's impossible to distinguish varying degrees or kinds of terrorism when it originates from the middle east. Nonmuslims definitely want peace in that region, however they see the muslim position as asking too much, and are distrustful of the muslim and middle eastern community given the constant warring of the arabs against the Israelis
Those kinds of arguments are the best to make since it casts muslims in the light of concerned citizens taking an active interest in the national defense.
It further divorces muslims intentions from terrorist intentions in the mind of nonmuslims.
Well the media can help there.
All Israeli raids are in retaliation to Palestinian attacks.
All Palestinians attacks are unjustified murder, with no prior violence from Israelis.
That is what the TV says...
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
But seemingly no such distrust of the Israelis. :?
Gives us something to work towards.
Certainly - but consider that politicians feed off of the emotions of the largest voting block. In the American instance a very angry swath of Americans that sustained a massive attack. We are not used to those kinds of casualties and even less used to them on our own lands. They might exaggerate the threat but the nonmuslim public is quite attentive to what they have to say.
Pages