1
   

One event changes attitude in UK-----how strange

 
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 04:34 pm
kitchenpete wrote:
We need to understand how the marginal factions within Islam have the need to protest in this manner. I am quite comfortable that the vast majority of muslims in the UK are opposed to these actions. One of the most positive elements of the aftermath of the events of 7/7 is how the muslim population has voiced the same concerns as the non-muslims. The peace-loving muslim is one of our best means to identify the potential bomber.


Welcome to the discussion and I compliment you for taking the trouble to read the entire thread before jumping in. I also compliment you on the general "unruffled' tone of your post......it seems to go well with the general response of other Londoners. You are very tolerant of the bombers even though you do condemn their methods but I suppose some of your tolerance comes from many years of observing IRA activities.

What I couldn't determine from your post was whether or not you support the proposed tough measures suggested by your PM and your Home Secretary in response to the bombings.

I would also like to know whether you agree with some who believe that the preachers of hate within the Muslim community should be identified and removed, either by detention or deportation. Would you support the idea that these extremist proponents of the strictist interpretation of the Koran are responsible for the indoctrination of disillusioned young Muslims and their transition into suicide bombers.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 05:24 pm
IMHO, I think the British will do the right thing under the circumstances; remove the radicals.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 05:43 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
IMHO, I think the British will do the right thing under the circumstances; remove the radicals.


Do you think we should do the same here?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 05:54 pm
Or...just lock them up and throw away the key. :wink:

Scholar Is Given Life Sentence in 'Virginia Jihad' Case

By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: July 14, 2005

ALEXANDRIA, Va., July 13 - An influential Muslim scholar, whom prosecutors called a "purveyor of hate and war," was ordered on Wednesday to spend the rest of his life in prison for inciting his young followers in Northern Virginia to wage war against the United States in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The scholar, Ali al-Timimi, was defiant to the end, telling a federal judge as he was about to be sentenced that he considered himself a "prisoner of conscience" who was being persecuted for his strong Muslim beliefs.

"I will not admit guilt nor seek the court's mercy," Mr. Timimi told a hushed courtroom filled with more than two dozen Muslims who have rallied around him. "I do this simply because I am innocent."

The federal district judge hearing the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, ordered the life sentence grudgingly, saying she was bound by federal guidelines.

While Judge Brinkema said there was significant evidence that Mr. Timimi had incited his followers toward violence, she said she considered the prison terms mandated by the guidelines under four counts of the conviction to be "very draconian." She said she had no choice but to impose the life sentence after refusing a defense request to set aside the guilty verdicts.

Mr. Timimi, an Iraqi-American cancer researcher who lectured at a mosque in Northern Virginia and circulated his religious writings on the Internet, is the most prominent Muslim prosecuted in connection with what federal prosecutors have labeled the Virginia jihad network.

Prosecutors portrayed Mr. Timimi as a spiritual and intellectual leader of the young men in the network, as they traveled to foreign training camps and prepared to wage a holy war in defense of Islam by playing paintball and gathering weapons and explosives.

Gordon Kromberg, the lead prosecutor in the case for the Justice Department, called Mr. Timimi "a purveyor of hate and war" in court on Wednesday.

"Al-Timimi hates the United States and calls for its destruction," Mr. Kromberg said in urging lifelong imprisonment. "He's allowed to do that in this country. He's not allowed to solicit treason. That's what he did. He deserves every day of the time he will serve."

At one 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. And 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.

Defense lawyers for Mr. Timimi argued that his language, while offensive to many, was free speech protected by the First Amendment. At Wednesday's hearing, the defense lawyers used that argument and others in seeking to have the judge set aside the guilty verdicts handed up by a jury in Alexandria in April.

The jury convicted Mr. Timimi on charges of conspiracy, attempting to aid the Taliban, soliciting treason and soliciting others to wage war against the United States, and aiding and abetting the use of firearms and explosives. The last charge carried a mandatory life sentence.

Judge Brinkema said she found the free-speech defense "unpersuasive" and refused to throw out any of the verdicts.

"This was not a case about speech; this was a case about intent," she said, specifically Mr. Timimi's intent to incite others to commit crimes against the United States.

She said the testimony "did strongly support" the legitimacy of the verdicts.

Several Muslim supporters of Mr. Timimi wept as the life sentence was imposed. Mauri Saalakhan, a leader of a Maryland human rights group called the Peace and Justice Foundation, which supports Islamic causes, said outside the courthouse that the sentence was "a tragedy not just for Dr. Timimi but for all of us."

Edward B. MacMahon Jr., one of the defense lawyers, described Mr. Timimi as "a gentle man" and said he was "not a criminal," but Mr. MacMahon acknowledged that the life sentence was the only possible penalty once Judge Brinkema refused to throw out the convictions.

Mr. Timimi delivered to the court an impassioned and often eloquent speech that lasted nearly 10 minutes, touching on Greek and Roman philosophy, religious history and the United States Constitution.

Quoting Aaron Burr, Mr. Timimi said the idea that a cancer researcher like himself would incite his followers to violence was the stuff of "crudities and absurdities." He said that he and other Muslims had been "denied justice" for speaking about controversial religious ideas and that his prosecution reflected an abandonment of an American tradition of protecting individual liberties.

"And that which is exploited today to persecute a single member of a minority," he said, "will most assuredly come back to haunt the majority tomorrow."

Lawyers for Mr. Timimi, who had been free on bond since days after his indictment in September 2004, sought to have him remain out of custody pending his appeals, but Judge Brinkema refused the request.

"It is time," she said in ordering him into custody.

Mr. Timimi thanked the judge, then flashed a smile and waved to relatives in the courtroom as he was led away.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 06:38 pm
rayban, The justice system of the UK and the US are not similar, and trying to apply similar type of imigration laws would not work in the US. After all, we have Gitmo.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 07:59 pm
let me preface my comments by stating that i'm no financial whiz and i don't know much about the petroleum industry from personal experience.
i do like to read, watch CNBC ( usually about 3 - 4 times a day for 5 - 10 minutes at a time ) and i nose around in the stock market news a bit - without having amassed a fortune in the process.
i guess i fall into the category of people of which it is said : "if you are so smart, why aren't you rich ?".

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

foxfire wrote in part : "According to my petroleum/mechanical engineer son (Conoco-Phillips), there is no deficiency of oil. There is a severe deficiency in refining capacity and that is why a gallon of gasoline is so high".

i would say that's probably a fair assessment.

steve wondered why the oil giants are not investing more money in exploration and refineries.
here is where my "wisdom" from listening to CNBC and looking at the stock charts of the major oil companies gives me some idea.
in the last two years the stocks of most oil companies have performed very well, but if one looks at the preceding three years - 2001 t0 2003 -
it shows that many oil company stocks did rather poorly. i understand part of the reason was the glut of oil that came on the market during those years.
one might compare it to the price of a bushel of wheat - if there is a bumper crop the price goes down and farmers may make less money with a large crop than with a small crop at high prices.
i guess it's the old supply/demand situation.
i've heard often enough that the "inflation adjusted" price of a gallon of gas is lower now than it was in the early '80's (i know that doesn't exactly cause happiness for motorists filling up).
it seems that the oil companies feel that they are now in a position to catch up and sock away some money - and make investors with oil stocks happy.
(i remember reading the book "up the organization" some years ago. one of the stories dealt with hertz car rental considering opening up a discount car rental, until one of the executives - of polish background, the book stated - said rather loudly : "let's not piss into our own soup !".
it seems that right now the oil companies don't want "p... into their own soup" by bringing on extra supplies).

foxfire might want to ask his son if he can add some meat to our discussion of this subject, or someone who has a better knowledge of the petroleum industry that i might want to contribute.
in the meantime ACCELERATE SLOWLY and ease up on the gas pedal ! hbg
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 09:02 pm
hbg, The cost of building more refineries is very expensive, and there is no assurance they will pay off in the future. Your assumptions are correct; oil companies got burnt in the past, and they're not willing to invest heavily in refineries to get burnt again in the future. We'll just have to live with the fluctuation in fuel prices based on supply and demand.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 10:06 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
rayban, The justice system of the UK and the US are not similar, and trying to apply similar type of imigration laws would not work in the US. After all, we have Gitmo.


The justice system of the UK and US are not similar.........

Now that is interesting........would you like to rephrase that?
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 10:10 pm
JW....thanks for posting that article. That's the only way we can win......remove the preachers of hate, one by one.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 10:32 pm
I'm not so sure a rephrasing is necessary. When the US thinks an individual is a terrorist, they send them to Gitmo. The UK will send them to their original cultural home country.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2005 10:33 pm
The US has the Patriot Act (just renewed, btw), and the Brits do not have anything resembling the Patriot Act.
0 Replies
 
goodfielder
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 12:19 am
Perhaps not at the moment but don't forget the Diplock courts, internment and Long Kesh in NI. Yes I know it's historical but hopefully Guantanamo will be history soon as well. Even the most benign democracy is capable of great cruelty to protect itself.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:26 am
JW posted in the above article
Quote:
The federal district judge hearing the case, Leonie M. Brinkema, ordered the life sentence grudgingly, saying she was bound by federal guidelines.


I hope we get rid of judges who would grudgingly pronounce a maximum sentence on those convicted of mass murder or those who intentionally incite mass murder. I want judges who would pronounce such a sentence with conviction and confidence.

In a separate post,
Hamburger repeated Steve's question why more isn't being invested in oil refineries and exploration. My son, among others, looks for ways to increase refining capabilities in existing refineries, but the restrictions against expanding capacity are mind boggling and, more often than not, prohibitive. The oil companies have millions and billions they would invest if allowed to do so.

There have been no new refineries built in decades purely because the environmental regulations (and lobbies) prevent new refineries from being built and it is simply too costly to fight the endless chain of lawsuits that ensue when they try. The existing refineries are all working at maximum capacity which means that any maintenance shuts down critical supply and that also is upping the cost at the pump.

Oil exploration is pretty much at a standstill because the environmental wackos don't want more or any drilling in places where the oil is, despite the fact that the Alaska pipeline, offshore drilling, and existing refineries have proved to be safe, clean, and efficient with no environmental disasters whatsoever.

Meanwhile the population and demand continues to grow.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 06:45 am
You completely misunderstand the situation Foxfyre. The problem is not the lack of refining capacity or the lack of exploration (or even of transportation...there's not enough tankers at the moment, and certainly not environmental regulations) the problem is geology.

The oil companies are not bothering to look for oil they know does not exist. Likewise they have not been investing billions of dollars in building new refineries to refine the extra non existant oil. Geology not economics is the ultimate factor in oil supply. Over the years the oil companies have used the best brains and the best techniques to find oil. We know (according to Dr Colin Campbell of ASPO) where 90% of the world's oil is. Unless you believe that oil is of abiotic origin (as apparantly some Russians do) oil is found only in certain locations and associated with particular rock strata. No matter how hard you look, you wont find oil if you're looking in the wrong place. (This might seem blindingly obvious, even patronising, but its amazing how many people fail to grasp this.) The unsurveyed areas of the earth are likely to yield only about one tenth of the oil that we already know to exist. This basic fact explains why the peak era for oil exploration was in the 1960s, and also the low level of exploration activity now despite the much higher demand for oil.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 09:19 am
Steve, California is a huge consumer of oil, and one of the problems identified by the state utility commission is the fact that rolling blackouts may shut down a refinery for up to three weeks. When supply doesn't meet deman, we all understand the consequences.
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 01:24 pm
rayban1 wrote:
From what your very efficient police dept has learned about the 4 bombers, it is evident that those who preach hate in your Muslim enclaves are to blame for the transition of well to do young Muslims from peaceful young people to lunatic bombers. You should be doing what WE SHOULD be doing here in this country........monitoring every prayer meeting with Arabic translators and identify those who preach hate. After they are identified, they should be removed and jailed or held in custody like the terrorists at Gitmo where they can be interrogated. 'We should then insist that Pakistan close every Madrassa school and then blow it up.

If we could identify and isolate every Imam and anyone of influence who preaches hate, perhaps the Muslim religion could be returned to the moderates. It is clear that the moderates can not take it back because of the intimidation they face from the fanatics.

If we don't get serious about eliminating the preaching of hatred, we will continue having random terrorist bombings and hollow, meaningless arguments like those I have witnessed on this thread.


I posted this on July 17th, just 10 days after the first London bombing, and was soundly criticized as a bigot and several other names not fit to print. The links below are to articles that support my position. Have any of my critics changed their perception of reality now that the bombers have struck again but apparently without the expertise of the guy who departed the day before 7/7 and returned to Pakistan where he has been arrested. He has been identified as the mastermind of the first bombings.

Before I post the articles I am reminded of a quote by one the more famous philosophers, Schopenhauer, saying that Truth passes through 3 phases:

First it is ridiculed

Second it is violently opposed

Third, it is recognized as being self evident

Could it be that the truth about the preachers of hate has passed through all three phases so quickly?
l

The title of this article: Nothing will change until Musharraff closes the militant madrassas of Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/22/opinion/22friedman.html?

This one is by Tom Friedman and is titled: Giving the Hatemongers no place to hide:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0722/p01s01-woeu.html

This one is titled: The Sidewalks where terror breeds


This article is written by a retired Army Officer who taught counterinsurgency at a military school
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 01:35 pm
Sorry about that, I stretched the page with two long URLs.....how can I correct it>

rayban
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 01:43 pm
you can hit 'edit post' and replace the links using the 'url' button.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
rayban1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 02:17 pm
Cy

Please give it to me step by step after hitting the URL button
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Jul, 2005 02:21 pm
let's see.

Ya hit the URL button

Then a little window shows up saying 'enter URL here' and you will paste the link into that window and then click ok

Then another window shows up saying 'enter text of link here' and then you put in a description of your link. It ends up looking like this.

Hope that helps!

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:41:55