WAR: France ejects 12 Islamic 'preachers of hate'

This kind of hatred talk about the West is the start of all fundimentalist actions they create and provide dangerous models for the young. This is where people begin to start thinking of blowing things up because they have this negative input that excuses them to do so. They should get together and attack the army rather than civillians but because normal people are second class infidels then we do not mean that much to them in their brainwashed eyes. But then again people said Tony Blair would bring the War back home if he attacked Iraq.
But to be honest the fundimental extreamists thoughts were always in these people's hearts it was just a matter of excuse to become a mayrters for the sake of heavenly duty frees.

I agree with the above but our Labour goverment have compounded the problem by allowing a so called open border policy and our crackpot asylum system that makes us the laughing stock of the world. all the bad guys that any terror group ever needed are all here, this could turn into another Balkans problem, there is a genuine fear in peoples hearts right now.The IRA had bombs but at least we all knew they just wanted attention the new kids on the block want to destroy our way of life AND US TOO

All the melodramatics and fear mongering aside. We have to approach this problem in a balanced manner. Its all well and good leaning on radical muslims because of what they are doing to disenfranchised muslim youth. But, as mentioned before, it will only compound and shift the problem.

We should quite rightly gag preachers of hate (both secular and religious). The UK is quite capable of doing this legally with the religious and racial hatred laws we have/will have. We dont need to expel any one, which to me is counter productive because ones expelled they will preach even more hate and with renewed vigour.

Whilst cracking down on the inciting preachers we should be addressing the reasons why the youth are becoming disenfranchised as well. This is no easy feat and is more important than any other aspect of our homeland security. Its quite simplistic to say but, A happy country is a secure country.

We should work to give dienfranchised youth (of all origins) a well defined choice and stake in our countries. We have problems with yob culture which is probably more destructive in lives/property terms than terrorism is.

We should clearly show a path whereby a youth can get involved with their community and have a stake in its future. Then the attractiveness of martydom reduces.

Pushing them further and further into a corner and giving them no other options but to react violently will not solve the problem without killing all muslims. Its just not possible any other way without giving them an alternative direction to follow.

Yes the French actions help French society in the short term. But in the long run it will create larger problems.

The basic problem with the French government and all western governments is that just tossing a few out of the country is not going to do the job.

No matter what the so called "peaceful" muslims say, until they take a more active role in denouncing the "radical" muslims , they are all subject to scrutiny. It doesn't matter how much they holler and scream racism.
The general populations of these countries will never except them as regular citizens.

The more liberal people will want to wring their hands and worry that they are being insensitive, but until we all wake up and demand accountablity from the muslim leaders we are going to keep hearing about hate spewing speaches being preached at these mosques.

I have to say that I am fairly surprised at the reaction to this thread......

I as well have to say that I believe that it is necassary to remove from circulation individuals deemed unsundry. To determine who is against us and therefore identified as an enemy to our way of life.

Ironically, the words I cast in black represent how truly grey the situation is, as opposed to the black and white nature of my statements......for this reason...

Who decides who is on board with what? And before you go detailing precisely for me how plain and simple an incitation for terrorism, consider that "Muslim" and "Islam" have already been associated with the term "terrorist." One term evokes the image of the other and in a population that encourages ego-centricity, (read: assumptions and generalizations abound for mainstream news communicae's). What that means is regardless of any disclaimer to the contrary, people are still going to react adversly, relatively speaking, to those who have been associated with Islam......because of what they have heard and what they have equated it with.

And consider a possibililty should this become acceptable across the board in all 'democracies'.........all the Islamic terrorists are purged from our society and everyone leads happy and normal lives......until something else happens that distingiushes heavily from the accepted standard of living.......and someone else gets the short end of the stick.......remember the Wild West? Outlaws and bandits were the poster boys then and we lost the right to carry a weapon around in public..........

I know I'm walking a fine line here......I do not agree with hate and all that rot.....but the point I was alluding to in the beginning of this post was that the decision to make a huge imposition upon someone who was just expressing his extreme position....(let's not start a discussion on the danger of words; I'm well aware of it)....is a decision that has to be made by someone. Who's to say where the line gets drawn? If someone is vehemently opposed to a certain action of the state, happens to be Muslim, and communicates the opinion with stuanch and unbridaled fury sans the actual intention to take any hostile action runs the risk of being lumped in with the true bad guys.........

The obvious inferrance that can be drawn insinuates that vocal dissent is looked down upon..........

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
With regard to the human rights issue, I would say that the right of the majority to live peaceably outweighs the rights of certain individuals to incite terrorism.

Agreed......to an extent. First of all, 'incite terrorism' really needs to be omitted as a qualifier. Don't mean to be a nitpicker Grady, but the terminology has become a buzzword with immediate and indistinct connotations. And second of all, certain individuals is a variable at this time due to the considerations I posed prior......vehement dissent in some circles could qualify for this action to be initiated.....unacceptable in my opinion.

Originally posted by SeekerOf
The terrorists' strategy for generating additional European recruits is simple: launch vicious attacks and count on the resulting harsh government crackdown to alienate the local Muslims.

This is an important quote and one I'll keep for future reference. The bad guys understand the importance of manipualting and influencing the public opinion.....so the defense we should be inspired to employ is intelligence and dissernation....rather than elimination.....context applied when necassary.

MemoryShock, your justified reservations over this new move of ejecting those preaching hatred can be tempered with the involvement of our courts. The arbitrary and summary judgments issued by the likes of Musharraf should be avoided like the plague.

We should also press our lawmakers into clearly defining the criteria that makes a preacher cross the line from dissent to incitement of violence. Its always going to be a subjective exercise, but not an impossible and unworkable one. And it should be incitement of violence and not "hate" as we should be allowed to hate whatever we choose. Its the violence that is unnacceptable, not the hatred.

To throw my hat into the ring on what constitutes incitement of violence, I would class it as clearly and as simple as possible.

Incitement of violence, to me, should be: the expressing of personal opinion that directly leads to, the contemplation of, or carrying out of a violent act.

Some Immam saying that "The Western public is a legitimate target in the War on Terror" is completely distinct and separate to "I beseech you all to attack Western civilians as they are legitimate targets".

Until the above hypothetical Immam crosses the obivous red line of dissent to incitement they should be left alone.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Taking unprecedented anti-terrorism steps, France announced that between now and the end of August, a dozen Islamist 'preachers of hate' will be deported.

Kudos to France and Pakistan who is taking similar actions by throwing them out of the country. It is about time every country did the very same thing.

I say take away anyones citizenship that promotes hatred especially those that support the Wahhabi fanatics of Islam and throw them all out of our countries. It is better to have them outside our borders then inside where they could potentially recruit home grown radicals.

While they are at it they can bannish those activists that are against doing this at the same time.

subz.....all I have to say is excellent points.

I think that the realization of distinction between hate and violence is definately an itchy position......if you'll recall the rules of logic, indignancy at connotation can be an acceptable motivator for the direction of an arguement, despite the fact that it's fallacious as hell. Yet that is precisely what we are seeing here.....connotation directing not only legislation, but also having notable affects on public opinion.

I agree that the task may not be impossible. After all, legalese is predicated on technicality. However, the major hurdle that exists is truly the population and their capacity to grasp the distinction....but then again, that is why we frequent this site....

I know of only one policy against these people - firmness, arresting them, punishing them, penalising them, in Madrid, London, New York, everywhere. We must never allow ourselves to give them the satisfaction of a division between us," he said.
Nicolas Sarkozy, French Interior Minister, quoted from poster’s source.

France has a history of 'this type of action' as does Germany and Italy. I do find it odd that the nation which has proved to be the ‘kindest’ and very tolerant of Muslims as a whole (even according to the European Muslim community) is the one nation which has been attacked most frequently internally and whose generally once 'tolerant' citizens were the target

I agree with France on this one fully, just a few years ago perhaps I would argue the other side....

France has recently expelled a number of Muslim prayer leaders whom it considered to be a dangerous influence on France's five million Muslims
BBC, May 2004

France tries to soften local style of Islam
By Peter Ford, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

Officials there have deported two allegedly radical clerics, leading a Europe-wide crackdown....
CSM, May 2004

....advocate hate later mate!

.

Originally posted by subz
We have to approach this problem in a balanced manner.

Gee why does this reponse not surprise me! You disliked the fact I agreed with what Pakistan did and now you are doing the same here.


Just pray tell kind of balanced approach are you suggesting? The fanatics do not do things in a fair and balanced manner, so why should we?

"Drastic Times Call For Drastic Measures" In this situation that we are currently faced with, we need to take extreme actions or we may be doomed. And no one wants that do we?

Originally posted by MemoryShock
subz.....all I have to say is excellent points.

A why thank you

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I think that the realization of distinction between hate and violence is definately an itchy position

Maybe for the general public, but not for our courts and judges.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
if you'll recall the rules of logic, indignancy at connotation can be an acceptable motivator for the direction of an arguement, despite the fact that it's fallacious as hell. Yet that is precisely what we are seeing here.....connotation directing not only legislation, but also having notable affects on public opinion.

What the public thinks is not a severe problem. Its when our politicians also start drinking from the chalice of bigotry that we run into these nightmarish scenarios. We need our lawmakers to author clear, fair and unequivocal laws and then let the courts implement them (i.e. control orders being implemented by a politician). We can then solve this problem of subjectivity.

Originally posted by MemoryShock
I agree that the task may not be impossible. After all, legalese is predicated on technicality. However, the major hurdle that exists is truly the population and their capacity to grasp the distinction....but then again, that is why we frequent this site....

Again, the general populations attitudes and bigotry is not of high consequence because good incitement to violence laws can curb that also. Its when our politicians allow themselves to author and implement bigotted laws themselves that we have severe problem.

Basically our politicians have dropped the ball and they are allowing knee jerk over-reactions to become law. This solves nothing and we should not tolerate or advocate more of it.

[edit on 30/7/05 by subz]

Originally posted by shots
Gee why does this reponse not surprise me! You disliked the fact I agreed with what Pakistan did and now you are doing the same here.

Hey calm down, theres no need to take swipes. Im allowed to voice my opinion in more than one thread, arent I?

Originally posted by shots
Just pray tell kind of balanced approach are you suggesting? The fanatics do not do things in a fair and balanced manner, so why should we?

Well instead of running the risk of completely wasting our efforts at stomping out terrorism I think a solution that actually works is worth considering. You can stomp on people all you want, you wont change their frame of mind. Infact you will most likely make them hate you more. Thats fine if you are prepare to kill all those whom you dont like. Sound familiar? Germany 1939 any one?

OR with a balanced approach you can continue to stomp on those terrorists and those who incite violence against us WHILST providing alternatives to the reason these people are resorting to violence in the first place.

This involves giving them a role to play in their communities. If you can do this you will not see the same people blowing up their fellow citizens.

This involves listening to any greivances they may have. They dont like whats happening to the Palestinians? Then listen to it and clearly make an effort to address their concerns. They are citizens of this country too and our politicians do work for them. They should listen to what they have to say.

Now you can call me a bleeding heart liberal all you like but your advocating of forcibly removing all foreigners who come here and use our mosques will not solve a jot.

A little excericse here. If some one said to you "Jump up and down on the spot or I'll deport you" what would you do? Agree and do it? How about if they said "Jump up and down on the spot or tell me why you wont jump up and down on the spot". Would you just lash out violently regardless or would you tell them why you wouldnt jump up and down on the spot?

We have to give people choices and lead them into a situation we can handle. We can handle public discourse into why they are angry. We cannot handle them wanting to blow themselves up. Your method makes people angry, mine tries to defuse the situation.

Originally posted by shots
"Drastic Times Call For Drastic Measures" In this situation that we are currently faced with, we need to take extreme actions or we may be doomed.

And no one wants that do we?

And you can also "jump out of the frying pan and into the fire". Drastic times call for measured reactions, not over reactions. Over reactions and more drastic measures can cause even greater and larger problems further down the line.

Myopic measures such as deporting any one we deem to be a threat will not stop terrorism. How can it?!

Originally posted by subz
Maybe for the general public, but not for our courts and judges.

Yet public opinion is what drives our legislation. The courts and judges implementation, rather than institution. And given the fact that some we as individuals, even those of us in a professional capacity, are prone to popular opinion, it stands that rulings can subsequently be effected by such factors.

This is not to say there is rampant corruption, or even that I disagree. This is to point out the underbelly of the system and where I spend a lot of my time.......pondering the social ramifications broad spectrum as well as individual.

Originally posted by subz
We need our lawmakers to author clear, fair and unequivocal laws and then let the courts implement them (i.e. control orders being implemented by a politician). We can then solve this problem of subjectivity.

I admire your distinction of the problem. But subjectivity is something that will invariably be contended as long as this system is in place.....inherent in a reality that divides it's population into political factions.

But I do think that there has to be a way to saturate the problem.....and the clarification and understanding of words and labels and all the tools of propaganda(intentional or not, they still apply) are the key.

Originally posted by subz
Basically our politicians have dropped the ball and they are allowing knee jerk over-reactions to become law. This solves nothing and we should not tolerate or advocate more of it.

Agreed......

Subz says:
Now you can call me a bleeding heart liberal all you like but your advocating of forcibly removing all foreigners who come here and use our mosques will not solve a jot.

The way you worded that sounds like you are an Islamic is that a correct or
wrong assumption? Just want to make sure one way or the other before I reply to what you said subz

It's good to see the excellent discussion going on within this thread. Subz you make some excellent points as always and, as usual, I agree with your viewpoint; however, sometimes I think you're a little to idealistic and prone to downplay the frustrations and very human reactions attendant with actually doing the things you propose. MemoryShock seems like he's been down in the muck associated with implementing such things, so I tend to want to go along with his tempered comments.

Your last question concerning deportations is rhetorical, but I would have to say that although such deportations may not solve any problems, they may buy time to begin implementing real solutions.

My thoughts on a couple of points made here:

Originally posted by SeekerOf
The terrorists' strategy for generating additional European recruits is simple: launch vicious attacks and count on the resulting harsh government crackdown to alienate the local Muslims.

Some here are too concerned with the second part of this statement, alienation, without addressing the first part, them launching vicious attacks.

Which brings me to my second point. Disenfranchisement. The youth that are carrying out these attacks have chosen to be disenfranchised; many of them refuse to become assimilated into our society. In fact, many of them believe that it is a tenet of their faith to attack us at every turn.

Any muslim that wishes to become part of our society can do so. So luring them with a carrot is a waste of time. The ones we have to worry about are the ones who have only one purpose: to kill every last one of us.

France has taken a good step here. If the disenfranchised youth see that their violent ways will not be tolerated, they will be more prone to become part of the "franchise".

Originally posted by jsobecky
My thoughts on a couple of points made here:

Originally posted by SeekerOf
The terrorists' strategy for generating additional European recruits is simple: launch vicious attacks and count on the resulting harsh government crackdown to alienate the local Muslims.

Some here are too concerned with the second part of this statement, alienation, without addressing the first part, them launching vicious attacks.

Which brings me to my second point. Disenfranchisement. The youth that are carrying out these attacks have chosen to be disenfranchised; many of them refuse to become assimilated into our society. In fact, many of them believe that it is a tenet of their faith to attack us at every turn.

Any muslim that wishes to become part of our society can do so. So luring them with a carrot is a waste of time. The ones we have to worry about are the ones who have only one purpose: to kill every last one of us.

France has taken a good step here. If the disenfranchised youth see that their violent ways will not be tolerated, they will be more prone to become part of the "franchise".

Excellent points, I totally agree. Note I did not edit your quotes just to make sure it lost no context.

Just this after noon CNN carries a coverstation on this very subject between two Senators one was Rep. Bobby Jindal (LA) sorry I missed the name of the 2nd but they plan on attacking this very issue in the US real soon. Seems like Saudi Arabia has been supplying over 100 mosgues with hate literature right here in the US and they want that stopped.

It was a very informed exchange and both agreed that action is needed. They mentionedThis Document it is in PDF format so you need Adboe Acrobat to view

Very informative in its own. After reading just portions of it I too agree that they should be thrown out of the US even more so then I did earlier today. It is time for ALL countries to take the very same action, as you said handing them a carrot will not work. Don't believe me download it and read some portions. What I saw made we want to it is truly sad to think that this type of hatred is allowed to be used in the US and perhaps other countries as well.

[edit on 7/30/2005 by shots]

[edit on 7/30/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
The way you worded that sounds like you are an Islamic is that a correct or
wrong assumption? Just want to make sure one way or the other before I reply to what you said subz

Well im not a muslim if thats what you mean. Does it really matter any way?

I refered to them as "our mosques" because they are built in my country and I see those mosques as part of the British makeup. Not separate to it. Much the same way as Stonehenge is our herritage, not the druids Did that make sense?

Also Astronomer68, I freely admit im idealistic. Maybe its part and parcel of my age (sunny side of 25 here lol). But since when has pragmatism and cynicism been something to strive for? Whats the point if we dont hold our ideals above all the muck you refered to? I believe setting the bar as high as we can, as a society, will stem mediocrity and ensure we dont make short sighted mistakes. Being pragmatic means acting in what the circumstances call for whilst not giving much thought to the over all situation. Whilst being idealistic cuts through the crap and defines a final target and aims for it.

If our politicians were idealistic and shaped our laws and policy around such ideals then I argue that we wouldnt be in this mess at the moment.

No Israel, no land grabbing for oil, no animosity between East and West. But we'll never know because no one dares play the idealist

[edit on 30/7/05 by subz]

Originally posted by subz

Well im not a muslim if thats what you mean. Does it really matter any way?

No offense, but I just wanted to make sure because if you were yes it would have made a differance. I had thought if you were it would explain why you were saying what you were. You see I had read the article mentioned above before I made my last post to you. After I read it I now feel even more strongly in favor of this action then I did earlier today. Read it or at least some portions and perhaps you may just change your mind. I know it made me just sick to learn the the Saudi's are as bad as they are yet our governments calls them an ally. The Saudis are the one funding these types of what they call religous schools when in fact they are nothing but training camps to overthrow our way of life and style of governing.

Did that make sense?

Yes it did but I thought it would be better to ask first then assume anything on this end. I do not want to offend anyone that is why I asked first.

[edit on 7/30/2005 by shots]

[edit on 7/30/2005 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
Yes it did but I thought it would be better to ask first then assume anything on this end. I do not want to offend anyone that is why I asked first.

If you dont want to offend any one why is it necessary to ascertain whether im a muslim or not? Just say what you want to and it should be fine whether im a muslim or a blonde haired, green eyed C of E

Also I want to clarify that I understand these people need to be dealt with. There are many people preaching violence and it has to bloody well stop. I happen to think that the best way of gagging this malcontents is to use our courts and jail them. Not ship them off to some other country, let them fester and allow them the chance to launch attacks at Britain and her interests around the globe.

You must think I want to see these violent morons left alone. Nothing could be further from the truth. Where you and I differ on this topic is how you go about shutting these evil men up. You think expelling them will work, I dont. I think we should imprison them.

Also where exactly could we expell British citizens to? Which country is going to accept them? I think any country that accepted them would probably be labelled part of the Axis of Evil and bombed by a scant coalition the following spring

[edit on 30/7/05 by subz]