This board has been a little to quiet for while.

Is it time that Bush and Blair who is a close friend and confidant of Bush were tried for War Crimes?

Do you think the use by the American Administrations of renditions are War Crimes and committed with full knowledge of American and British leaders ie. Blair and Bush and they are ultimately responsible?

Also in the aftermath of the illegal invasion of Iraq are should their action seen to be as the provocation for the rising toll of British, American and Iraqi deaths.

As a result of the military intervention in Iraq do you think you are safer in Britain to-day?

Do you think one should expect government leaders and ministers who have been responsible for massive foreseeable casualties should visit the hospitals to meet the casualties they have produced directly or indirectly by their actions?

I believe that 'this terrorism' will not cease until long after the western countries have stopped their terrorist activities in the middle east and remember that 1 Arab life is worth as much as 1 US (or GB) life. The recent tactics used in Lebanon, to wantonly bomb civilians and the nations infrastructure in such a disproportionate way is testament to how US and UK condone the killing of innocents.

Just think how the US would have reacted if the UK military bombed the hell out of Northern Ireland in response to the numerous IRA bombings in the UK? They certainly wouldn't have backed the UK military to do this.

The military need these escapades to test their new weapons. Watch Farenheit 9/11 for an insight into who and how the US benefit from military activities abroad.

When all civilian lives are guaranteed protection, then we shall be able to walk safely in the UK, without fear of retalitory suicide bombings.

REF 637 - I couldnt agree more.
We should do our bit and accept immigrants as should all developed countires. Bending over backwards and getting fu***d, however is going a little to far.
If they are not happy here and do not with to meld with the locals, then there is a perfectly good plane and the airport heading home.
This whole situation has gone beyond a joke, the politicians who have always been to scared to make a decision, are now so paranoid, its bordering on the ridiculous.

It seems everyone is to scared to be honest in case they are percieved as racist.

Aye, won't be long before Rumsfeld and the hawks have their way - a US friendly dictator in Iraq. Seen it all before, the Shah in Iran etc etc.

The door is open for anyone to leave the country if they don't like conditions in UK. Otherwise vote for change.

Vote for someone that can think for themselves and doesn't agree to anything the US says or does.

Long live the military. Fund israel, but only for them to buy US arms.

Above all else ensure oil supplies for the US, and make sure military contracts go to companies that will line the pockets of the ruling party.

Yes, we've seen it all before.

Who are you going to vote for? Cameron was in favour of the war in Iraq and still is as was much of the Conservative party (Ken Carke was opposed to it).

It appears to me they are all the same. Say anything to get elected, promise the earth, then go off and do their own thing. But, somehow they all get an invite to have poodle lessons over the pond!

Who could we really vote for?
Is there really anyone who could get into power and would then make a decision. based on whats right and not on what politically correct?
I'd love to hear if there is one.

Me too...

The whole racism thing from a few posts ago leads to a very interesting debate.
If a club that is solely to promote white people is racist, then why is the black police officers association not so?
If I say that my friend is a jock, or a taff, or a paddy, yank,etc.etc. am I likely to offend anyone and be called racist? I doubt it, as it is usually taken in exactly the vein it was said.
Why should I complete forms that ask me if I am white. Surely I am coloured. If I was white I would be an albino!! What is racist about the term black and not about the term white?
Why can I say that certain religions are barking mad (moonies), a pain in the arse (witnesses who knock on my door twice a week), or suspect in some other way, yet other religions I have to avoid any questioning of lest I be branded racist (and probably banned from these boards).
Why can the newspapers print stories and derogatory items about "Brits abroad" or "Brit lager louts", yet be shut down for ever if they used a shortened version of the countries name to discuss cheating in the cricket by Pakistani players (alleged).
I can hear the cries now of certain terms being derogatory. But brit, to me, conjours up images of moaning people complaining that the fish and chips in benidorm are not like they are in scarborough, or drunken 19 year olds vomitting outside a club in ibiza. To then call me a brit is somewhat derogatory.
I can here the defence of black only organisations coming out as positive discrimination, but all discrimination is negative to someone!!
So here is the problem. Barwoni, for instance, may be the least racist guy in the world, but since his views are considered unkind or impolite, he can be safely labelled as racist. how then do the concerns of many, about the perception of Britain slowly losing any identity, and becoming a joke state that has no convistions, lest it upsets another race, get addressed.
I might wish to say (though lets be clear - its not my view), that the UK would be better off if we stopped any immigration and rounded up everyone with no right to be here and sent them packing. This might be a valid concern of 10's of thousand of people, but if every time someone says it they are roundly abused and shunned from society, how will their concerns be expressed. They have a right to an opinion, however distasteful.
I believe, very firmly in democracy. For democracy to work, all views must be aired, right or wrong, in order that issues may be addressed fully, for the benefit of the majority. To silence people because their views are distasteful is the bigger crime, yet we embrace it daily. We marginalise them and force them into violence to be heard. This is the argument put forward by those seeking to understand the terrorists, why does it not fit the BNP?
I know this post will attract venomous responses, i am ready for it, but I am so concerned that we are sleepwalking to disaster.
Discussing the war, I had the "might is Right" argument thrown at me. Just because we are stronger does not give us the right to dictate to anyone else. It is a pity the middle class PC brigade do not live much closer to their own dictat.
Of you go, guys, abuse me as a racist.
Alan

Austin,

I think if for the last 12mths if the electorate were able to vote Blair in himself out of power they would have done so. I am not sure whether he is soiling the patch for Brown or has been a Tory mole or plant since he was elected to parliament.

Why he isn't ostracised from the labour party sooner than later I do not know.

H6,

I must start taking my tablets again as I tend to agree with the sentiments in the first 2-3 paragraphs.

I see nothing wrong and I think it is sensible to discuss racism, racial differences, Gender differences etc.. But not in order to value one more than the other but to recognise there are differences. It is done in medicine where certain "disorders" or "differences" are found in one race or gender and not in another.

I think it is reasonable for a group to form on what ever bases they wish to and to congregate on those bases as long as their actions do not lead to harm or abuse of themselves or others.

But when it comes to the Term British, personally I baulk at it and refer to my nationality.

Looking dodgy, Fred. we agree on something!!
Of course there are differences between races. Much of the problems in modern society are down to a very strange habit of trying to disguise this fact.
Thinking about it, locally we seem to have a dual approach to this. The differences shown by being White and british are looked on as an embarassment. Christmas is played down, St. Georges day is unheard of and English and British flags are almost banned!! This never stops our council sponsoring events to celebrate various hindu, muslim or seikh festivals to embrace diversity.
Very strange.
alan

If the BNP did not have leaders and members who are anti -semitic, and whose members were responsible for unprovoked attacks on people of NON WHITE SKIN.
( see channel 4 documentary or type bnp into google)
If they were able to prove that their policies and views were not responsible for actions taken by the brixton nail bomber or others into committing acts of terror.
If their leadership did'nt flaunt with groups like the KKK.
If they actively sought to tackle social disharmony instead of seeking to inflame it in areas such as bradford and oldham.
if they did any of these things , they yes, i'd happily welcome open debate about them and their policies.
Somehow I think it'll be a cold day in hell, before any of that happens.
They are and have always been nothing more than thugs in suits.

And theres the problem, WD.
We have a Muslim parliament and Muslim groups but we can copy and paste any of your accusations against the BNP onto their name, yet still we listen to them and give them a voice.
I do not support the BNP, but if we listen to and debate with one set of extremists, then surely sauce for the goose...................
If Muslim groups had leaders and members who were not anti christian and jew, whose members were not responsible for unprovoked attacks on non-muslims (bradford race riots)
If they were able to prove their policies and views were not responsible for actions taken by July 7th terrorists or others in comitting acts of terror
If their leadership didn't flaunt with the likes of the Taliban
If they actively sought to tackle social disharmony instead of seeking to inflame it in areas such as Bradford or Oldham (or that mosque in London where the guy with the hook preached), then yes I would happily welcome open debate about them and their policies.
Somehow I think the same.
I am not brandishing a magic wand that makes all muslims terrorists and racist. But neither am I saying those who support the BNP because they see it as the only way to redress a balance they percieve as swinging wildly away from their interests are all racist thugs.
As I said, sauce for the goose......................
Alan

Dying for Islamic beliefs is 'just' Monday August 21, 02:01 AM

A firebrand Islamic academic, who has said he is prepared to be a suicide bomber, told a Muslim rally that dying for your beliefs was "just".

Dr Azzam Tamimi told the 8,000-strong crowd in Manchester that standing up for your beliefs was the "greatest act of martyrdom".

The self-styled Hamas sympathiser and adviser said Tony Blair and George Bush were not pursuing a path which was "just and fair". He said the government was attempting to make the war on terrorism a war on Islam.

Dr
Tamimi, 51, was speaking at the ExpoIslamia convention at the Manchester Evening News Arena.
The Palestinian, who now lives in London, denied Hamas was a terrorist group, despite it being banned in the UK.

He said: "The greatest act of martyrdom is standing up for what is true and just. Martyrs are those who stand up and stand up in defiance of George Bush and Tony Blair. You stand up to them and you say desist. Stop this injustice. Stop this oppression. We are Muslims in Europe, not European Muslims. Being fair and just means finding the middle path. The middle path is not rubbing shoulders with Tony Blair and George Bush. They say we are in difficult times. I tell you, we are in the best of times. We must just have confidence in ourselves.

"Just stand up and defend what is right."

The crowd erupted with cheering and applause when he said that Israel had been defeated by Hezbollah. He continued: "Hamas is making sacrifices for you. We tell this government Hamas is not a terrorist group. It is elected by the people of Palestine. We are not terrorists. We are defenders of the truth. Fighting those who invade Muslims is a just cause. The government is trying to turn the war on terror into the war on Islam."

Dr Tamimi had previously said, during the course of a BBC interview, that he was prepared to be a suicide bomber if the opportunity arose.

The day-long convention featured a number of high profile Muslim speakers, including the secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari and former Sunday Express journalist, Yvonne Ridley, a Muslim convert who recently upset Jewish groups with her comments on Israel. This is the fifth time the ExpoIslamia convention has been held in the UK.

http://express.lineone.net/news_detail.html?sku=330

The Real 2006
'Iraq Body Count'

Iraqi civilians killed this year by Islamic Terrorists
7,762

Iraqi civilians killed collaterally by Americans
59*

A Muslim on an airplane chanting "Allah Akbar"... what's there to worry about? This very self-absorbed, 27-year-old Muslim man says he can't understand why fellow passengers found his audible prayers unnerving. Islam is the Religion of Peace, after all.

The Sunday Times August 20, 2006


If you want sharia law, you should go and live in Saudi
Shahid Malik, the Labour MP, explains why he told fellow Muslims that if they dont like Britain they should pack their bags


Scotland Yard described it as a plot to commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale. John Reid concurred: The terror threat to the public was unprecedented, the biggest that Britain had ever faced.
As it transpired, there was nothing melodramatic about these descriptions. It was to be a terror spectacular beyond our worst nightmares, involving blowing up a dozen aeroplanes in mid-air over the Atlantic Ocean, with the wilful massacre of more than 1,000 innocent men, women and children.



Last Tuesday, after a 90-minute meeting with John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, to discuss the challenges of extremism and foreign policy, I emerged and was immediately asked by the media whether I agreed that what British Muslims needed were Islamic holidays and sharia (Islamic law). I thought I had walked into some parallel universe.

Sadly this was not a joke. These issues had apparently formed part of the discussion the day before between Prescott, Ruth Kelly, the communities minister, and a selection of Muslim leaders. I realised then that it wasnt me and the media who were living in a parallel universe although certain Muslim leaders might well be


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2320096,00.html

h-alan-6.
the muslim parliament is a joke. Who exactly do they represent? I don't recall ballot papers comeing through my door.I've yet to meet a muslim who does'nt agree with this.
As for community leaders- please.
If any muslim group has actively sponsored terrorism etc then it should be a banned oprganisation- as per the watch list.
if there are individuals who have actively spread terrorism doctorine then they should be dealt with under 40 or 41 of TACT.
Only be being able to rise above this petty name calling and blame culture, will a way forward be found.
I don't blame the bloke who sells me my newsparer or runs the local 7-11 for the 9-11 attacks or what happened on 7/7. But reading posts by BAWONI, you would think that all muslims are really evil and invclined to slit your throat at the slightest provocation, or want to take away your rights and freedoms and impose their own standards. When all most of them want is a job, a roof over their heads and a quiet life- like the rest of a decent society.
. This ignorance and acceptance of stereotypes is part of the problem.
You don't see the news networks showing interviews with the average muslim 'joe'.
It's always some crazy wierdo. I wonder why that is?????????

All religion is stupid. My god is just as stupid as yours.
This is the message that all churches/mosques/synagogues should be spreading.

As for the question of should bush or blair face war crimes- Who cares anymore.
***********we're all too busy blameing our neighbours*******************

Tweenie!!
Thats just the point I was making!!
Of course the BNP has its share of violent and intolerant idiots. It also has its share of respectable law abiding citizens, fed up with the softly softly hand wringing approach that allows Captain Hook to preach hatred for years.
The papers quickly show meetings of the BNP where people say racist things or commit racist acts, but they don't show the "average Joe".
I don't blame the BNP for "Pakki-bashing" in Bradford. By the same token, I don't blame Islam for 7/7. If one is due our respect as a choice of lifestyle, then both are. The claims abound that if we do not listen to, and adjust our lives to the Muslim community, then of course there will be terrorist outrages. So I make the counter claim that is equally valid. If we do not let the disaffected whites who feel their own agrievences speak out, then of course there will be race outrages.
Are we all not one species, thinking and reacting in a similar way. To treat groups differently truly is a racist approach, but the approach to extreme white groups is to shout them down and label them. Call them names and ban them. The approach for the extreme ethnic movements is to give them a disproportionate voice and try to understand, and where possible adapt.
Unlikely. Sad. But true.
Alan

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 21, 2006
Violent Remarks
British Law Against Glorifying Terrorism Has Not Silenced Calls to Kill for Islam
By SOUAD MEKHENNET and DEXTER FILKINS
LONDON, Aug. 20 From his home on the northwest edge of this city, Muhamad al-Massari runs a Web site that celebrates the violent death of British and American soldiers. It is visited by tens of thousands of people every day, he said.

Mr. Massari maintains the Arabic-language site, tajdeed.org.uk, in the face of a strict new law aimed at curtailing violent speech and publishing. Just last week, the Council of Holy Warriors, a group affiliated with Al Qaeda, posted a declaration on the site praising a suicide bombing in Iraq that killed or wounded 55 people.

If you kill our civilians, we kill your civilians, Mr. Massari declared during an interview.

Mr. Massaris Web site, and his public remarks, appear to violate of the Antiterrorism Act of 2006, which makes it a crime to glorify or encourage political violence. Inciting violence has long been illegal here but the new rules, drawn up after the London subway and bus bombings in July 2005, are intended to be much tougher.

The laws underlying assumption is that speeches and publications by Britains more extreme Islamists may play a role in leading disgruntled young men toward violence. In addition to banning speech that encourages terrorism, the new law also criminalizes reckless speech that may have the same effect.

Yet despite the antiglorification law, and an array of other measures approved since last summers bombings, Islamist leaders like Mr. Massari persist, some of them declaring it the duty of British Muslims to kill in the name of Islam.

Some British leaders are beginning to publicly question why such clerics are allowed to continue. Last week, David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, chastised the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair for failing to enforce laws intended to make it more difficult for political extremists to operate.

In remarks to the press, Mr. Cameron, a possible successor to Mr. Blair, accused the government of failing to follow through when the headlines have moved on.

I do not believe that our government is doing enough to fight Islamist extremists at home or to protect our security, he said. Why have so few, if any, preachers of hate been prosecuted or expelled, with those that have gone having done so voluntarily?

In addition to curtailing political speech, the British government outlawed 15 militant groups, most of them Muslim. It took a sterner attitude toward Islamists who had preached violence in the past, barring one well-known Syrian-born cleric, Omar Bakri Mohammed, from returning to the country. Earlier this year, it secured the conviction of Abu Hamza al-Masri, the countrys most militant cleric, for soliciting murder and racial hatred.

Yet for all those actions, the new measures do not appear to have silenced those either praising or calling for violence in the name of Islam. Some Islamist preachers have carefully scaled back their language, even if, in context, the meaning seems clear.

On Sunday, speaking before 8,000 followers in Manchester, Azam Tamimi extolled the glories of suffering for the faith.

The greatest act of martyrdom is standing up for that is true and just, Mr. Tamimi said. Martyrs are those who stand up in defiance of George Bush and Tony Blair.

The remarks by Mr. Tamimi, one in a line of Islamist scholars and clerics to address the Manchester crowd, were the latest in a series of carefully worded public statements by British Islamist leaders that seemed aimed at testing the limits of the new law. In the Islamic world, martyrdom means sacrificing ones life, often violently, for the faith.

Others, meanwhile, have carried on as before, speaking in support of political violence or publishing tracts that do the same.

One of them is Atilla Ahmet, leader of the Islamist group Supporters of Shariah. In meetings with supporters and in interviews, the British-born Mr. Ahmet speaks freely about what he considers the necessity for violent action, both here and abroad, to avenge what he considers unjustified attacks on Muslims abroad.

You are attacking our people in Muslim countries, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, Mr. Ahmet said, referring to the British and American governments. So its legitimate to attack British soldiers and policemen, government officials, and even the White House.

Mr. Ahmet, a 42-year Briton of Cypriot descent, went on to include bank employees as legitimate targets because they charge interest, which he says is in violation of Islamic law.

Mr. Ahmet said he is aware of the new law, but that he could not shirk his duty to defend Islam, which he believes is under assault by Britain and the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. He says he often addresses his followers, who he says number 3,000.

If you are going to kill a Muslim, then I will do everything in my power to kill you, he said.

Mr. Massari, the Web site operator, said he approved of violence against British and American soldiers in Iraq, as well as against most of the governments in the Middle East. He said, for instance, that it is legitimate for Iraqis to kill Tony Blair, the same with Bush.

The posting on his Web site about the Iraqi bombing said of the attackers, We ask God to accept our brothers as martyrs.

Mr. Massari makes several distinctions that he says insulate him from being deported or prosecuted by the British government. He says, for instance, that he does not post any material on the Web site himself; he lets his members do that, most of whom sign up anonymously. The other important distinction, he said, is that he does not call for violence in Britain.

It does not appear that British law makes such distinctions. The law on the books defines terrorism as violence, or the threat of violence, to influence a government or further a political or religious cause. It does not limit the application of the law to targets in Britain.

Some legal experts here say the British law is so broadly drawn that it may encompass speech that is not necessarily intended to promote terrorism.

A group of Britons of Pakistani descent arguing loudly on a street corner about British or American policy in Iraq, for example, could conceivably be prosecuted under the law, said Gareth Crossman, director of policy for Liberty, a nonprofit legal organization in London.

Its an extraordinarily vague statute, Mr. Crossman said. No two people can agree on what the law means.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Crossman said, it is hardly surprising that no one had been arrested under the law.

Asked why no one had been arrested or prosecuted for encouraging terrorism, a spokesman for Scotland Yard, the national police force, declined to comment.

The Bush administration, under laws toughened after the Sept. 11 attacks, has prosecuted a number of people for encouraging terrorism.

In one of the more high-profile cases, a Muslim scholar in northern Virginia, Ali al-Timimi, was sentenced to life in prison in 2005 for urging his young Muslim followers to wage war against the United States overseas.

At a dinner meeting on Sept. 16, 2001, Mr. Timimi told some of the men in the group that it was their Muslim duty to fight for Islam overseas and to defend the Taliban in Afghanistan against American forces, according to testimony at his trial. In an Internet message in 2003, he described the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia as a good omen for Muslims in an apocalyptic conflict with the West.

In Britain, some experts say they believe the difficulties in the law will be worked out in practice. Indeed, almost no one here is predicting that the recent attacks and plots described by the government will be the last, least of all the Islamists themselves.

Anyone who supports Tony Blair, said Khalid Kelley, an Irish-born convert to Islam, is not a civilian.