Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Muslim family kicked off plane in London after passenger complains watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    realistically its a lot less than 1%
    Every survey shows way more than 1% support doctrinal violence as a means of dealing with certain issues.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bokkex)
    "They were taken off and questioned because someone reported that they were looking at illegal isis material on their phone"

    A few questions how did the person know it was isis material? Did the person who reported it speak arabic ? If not how did they make that assumption , was it because the text was not in english or because the people reading it were brown ? And lastly lets make the assumption these people understood arabic (they didnt ) is it now illegal to read arabic in public?
    I must admit to not having read the past 7 pages of this thread. Has there been further information which suggests the allegation was due to Arabic text? Because the article certainly did not.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Yes, it seems very common to confuse different things.

    "Opposition to Islam = Anti-Muslim bigotry"
    You say that as if I agree with this.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Every survey shows way more than 1% support doctrinal violence as a means of dealing with certain issues.
    Yet most people in the country aren't opposed to the US's use of violence as a means of dealing with certain issues


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    In a lot of these cases (like the Disneyland one, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-david-cameron) they originally claim the reason they were "targeted" was solely "Because my name is Mohammed / I wear a hijab". And then later we find out there was a more substantial reason

    I wonder if that will be the case here too? It is unfortunate if innocent Muslims are subject to some heightened scrutiny, but such are the times in which we live. Mistakes will be made. It's not like they were sent to a gulag or anything.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    So you're telling me that if the West had not "interfered" with the M.East, it would be paradise on Earth? :lol:
    The reason ISIS is mass raping and enslaving the Yezidi is because of "Western interference", naturally.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    Won't be long until Muslims will be forced to wear bright yellow cresent moons stitched into their clothes by the looks of it...
    Nah, that's not going to happen. It really is pretty obnoxious when Muslims claim they are being treated as the Jews were in Nazi Germany.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dez)
    You're hundreds, perhaps thousands of times more likely to be killed in a car crash
    Nope. When you look at the number of fatalities in France from terrorism in the last 12 months (over 200), and the number of car accident fatalities (around 3000), it's nothing like "thousands of times more likely". Both are leading causes of death in France
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zamestaneh)
    - Broke up the caliphate of the Muslims (Ottoman Empire) into tiny fragments
    It was the Turks who decided to end the Ottoman monarchy and the caliphate. As for "breaking" it up, what they did was end Turkish Ottoman imperial control of provinces to which they had no right. Bemoaning the end of the imperial Turkish caliphate doesn't exactly reassure me that you're not an extremist

    Arabs arent even united when they speak the same language
    The US and UK speak the same language and broadly share the same culture but are not united. There is no rational reason all these countries should be under a single state other than the hunger amongst some Muslims and Arabs to have a great and powerful Islamic state. In other words, imperialistic desires.

    Help establish a Jewish state
    Typical Islamic conspiracy mongering / victimhood crap. Jews were one-third of the population of the Levant, they were fully entitled to have their own state. The British tried to prevent that happening, and in fact armed and trained the Jordanian Legion which was one of the major belligerent armies.

    The United Nations (with the British voting No) decided to partition it so the Jews (who are the original indigenous inhabitants), with one-third population, would get around one-third of the land or equivalent value, and the Arabs would get two-third or equivalent value (considering agricultural yields and so on). The Arabs decided to reject this settlement outright and invaded. They lost. You can't resort to violence and then complain about the outcome when you lose.

    -Intervening in the Iranian Revolution
    Mossagegh was more than 50 years ago. This is a huge reason why the Islamic world is so backward; instead of grappling with their problems and trying to progress, they blame all their problems on history and stew in their victimhood.

    Arming other dictators generally because it suits them e.g. Saudi Arabia.
    The West just can't win with you people, can it? When it has friendly relations with Arab states, it gets attacked. When it has unfriendly relations with dictatorial Arab states (like Saddam's Iraq), it gets attacked. The reality is that you despise the West and so you will take any excuse to attack it.

    As for Saudi Arabia, the West has sold it weapons for self-defence and to which it would have a right whether it was democratic or dictatorial. The fact of the UK selling the Saudis modern fighter-jets has no actual bearing on their system of government; a modern jet fighter like the Typhoon is not what keeps that regime in power.

    Destroying infurstructure and governments and leaving power vacuums in countries e.g. Iraq, Libya.
    In the case of Iraq, the Iraqi despotism was a threat to the entire region. It repeatedly committed genocide, invaded its neighbours, used chemical weapons and oppressed the Shi'a majority. The West went in and removed the Sunni dictator and allowed the Shi'a majority to finally engage in democratic governance.

    It's extremely unfortunate that Islamic sectarian forces, on both sides, tried to undermine this and put their sectarian Islamic hatreds above Iraq's national interest. In any case, the US stuck around to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq, reducing the violence by 90%, then left when they were asked to leave by Iraq's democratically elected government. In any case, once ISIS is defeated Iraq will still be democratic and with the new concessions for Sunni/Anbari autonomy, will likely be much more peaceful. That, in my view, is a much better outcome than Iraq now being run by Qusay Hussein, or maybe having disintegrated in a civil war comparable to Syria's.

    In the case of Libya, a murderous dictator faced widespread rebellion and it looked like he was about to engage in a genocidal massacre of perhaps the entire population of Benghazi. The West, given its capabilities and Ghaddafi's repeated provocation and attacks on the West in the past, decided not to allow Ghaddafi to proceed with that massacre. Again, it's unfortunate that so many groups in Libya preferred their own selfish ends and to fight with each other for power rather than working together for the national good.

    Funding and training Osama Bin Laden and other groups
    It is genuinely pathetic and obnoxious how Islamic conspiracy theorists are so ignorant of the history of that region. The US never funded and trained Osama bin Laden. It provided pretty much no funding to the "Afghan Arabs", almost all of their funding for combatant groups was funneled through Pakistan to the indigenous mujahideen, to help them fight to get rid of the Soviet occupiers.

    It's just like when these uneducated conspiracy idiots talk about how the US "funded the Taliban", when in fact the Taliban didn't even exist until the mid-90s which was years after the US had pulled any support from Afghan combatant groups. And in fact, Osama bin Laden only really began his hatred of the West after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and threatening of Saudi Arabia. bin Laden asked the Saudi king not to allow "kuffars" on pure, sacred "Islamic" soil and said he would provide forces to defend Saudi Arabia from Saddam Hussein. The Saudi King sensibly declined bin Laden's help and agreed to allow 200,000 American troops in to defend the kingdom from Saddam Hussein. bin Laden never forgave that slight of Saudi Arabia willingly consenting to have US troops defend them against another Arab Muslim state. Hardly an episode from which you can claim the US comes out worse.

    In the 1980s, the US provided materiel and cash support to native mujahideen groups to help them get rid of the Soviet occupier. They did this with the support of pretty much the entire Sunni Muslim world, and that cause was about as widely supported in the Sunni Muslim world as the Sunni rebels in Syria are now.

    So pretty much all of your cavalcade of grievances above simply confirm that you are yourself, fundamentally, an Islamic supremacist and extremist and in your geopolitical aspirations are not that different from Al-Qaeda
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Nope. When you look at the number of fatalities in France from terrorism in the last 12 months (over 200), and the number of car accident fatalities (around 3000), it's nothing like "thousands of times more likely". Both are leading causes of death in France
    This is poor mathematics.

    The past number of deaths by factor x is of no indication of how likely it is to kill you.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    britain specifcally came up with the idea of 'arab nationalism' which eventully morphed into wahabist islamism
    That's not true at all. It's true that the British stoked up Arab consciousness during World War I and encouraged various tribal groups and the Hashemites to take up the sword against the Ottomans. The British helped Saudi Arabia come into being, but the House of Saud were already the rulers of much of that area as the Emirs of Nejd, and had been alternately fighting and being supported by the Sublime Porte in Istanbul.

    The founder of the House of Saud, the Emir of Diriyah Mohammed bin Saud, made an alliance with Muhammad bin Abdul-Wahhab (the founder of Wahhabism) in the 1740s. That relationship, between the temporal Sauds and the clerical Wahhabis has been in place for more than 250 years, and even back in the 18th century Wahhabism was all about "purifying" Islam and getting rid of foreign, Jewish and Christian influences.

    You also have to take into consideration that true "Arab Nationalism" really only became a force under Nasser, and was essentially a quasi-socialist / revolutionary ideology that was supported by the Soviet Union, and practiced by Nasser, by the Ba'athist ideology created by Michel Aflaq and practiced by the Ba'ath Parties of Syria (under Hafez al-Assad, father of the current dictator) and Iraq (under Saddam Hussein). Britain was a major opponent of pan-Arabist nationalism / Arab socialism (the UK made war on Egypt in 1956 after it nationalised the Suez Canal, and Nasser also made war on the UK protectorate of Aden / Yemen, though to his own great cost). These really had nothing to do with Saudi Wahhabism, and certainly not a British creation

    i agree regarding the wests meddling in iran
    Though it was more than 50 years ago, in no way justified the 1979 Islamist takeover and to an extent it is cited today is merely an excuse for whatever imperialist policy the Iranians try to assert onto the Middle East, whether in Lebanon, Syria, Palestine or Yemen.

    the jews were entitled to a homeland in ME as much as muslims were. thats what islamic world cant get head around. the arabs were given their land and reunited with their holy land mecca by the brits too
    Agree, 100%. Also, many people are not aware that despite the Balfour Declaration, by the 1920s the British had turned emphatically against Zionism and did everything they could to restrict Jewish return to their homeland. In fact, in the 1948 war, one of the major belligerent combatants on the Arab side, the Jordanian Legion, was armed and trained by the British and led by British officers. The Egyptian Army had quite modern British equipment and the Egyptian Air Force had Spitfires (which at the beginning was more advanced than anything the Israelis had). There were even dogfights between Royal Air Force spitfires based in Egypt and Israeli Air Force aircraft when they crossed paths.

    Despite all the conspiracy theories about how the evil British kuffar dispossessed the poor Palestinians (most of whom left their own homes of their own accord, many of them motivated by propaganda broadcasts by Arab radio telling them that the Jews were going on rape/murder rampages. The Palestinian radio stations thought it would provoke the Arabs to anger and resistance, instead it caused many to flee), the fact is that the British voted no at the UN for the partition (unlike the US, Australia, Canada, France and the Soviet Union who all voted Yes) and in many ways obstructed the creation of the State of Israel.

    The Israelis in the beginning in 1948 really had no support from any major power; they had to buy arms on the black market, and to equip their air force had to buy second-hand Czech-built copies of the Messerschmitt Bf-109 (ironic, that). It was only in the early 1950s that they started to get support from the French (and bought up surplus arms from all countries). After the 1967 war the French completely dropped their support for Israel, and it's only then that the US became Israel's major ally and supplier.

    agree regarding arming dictators
    It should also be kept in mind that most of the arms we sell to countries like Saudi Arabia are arms which they would be entitled to buy whether they were democratic or not, and which are mainly used for national self-defence (you can't use a Typhoon jet to oppress the people, really).

    Furthermore, if we didn't sell them they would get them from the Russians or Chinese, and I'd rather we got the profits, the jobs and the influence.

    agree regarding bin laden
    The US never funded or trained Bin Laden. The US, through Pakistan, supported the native Afghan Mujahideen. The "Afghan Arabs" (Arabs who went to Afghanistan to fight) were mainly supported by donations from other Arabs. The US didn't "create the Taliban" either. The Taliban didn't exist until the mid-1990s, long after the Soviet Union pulled out and the US ceased supporting any Afghan groups.

    but you forget scores of other islamist groups that the uk and usa funded and turned a blind eye to in the past, ie those based in pakistan and afganistan and operation cyclone.
    As mentioned above, the Afghan Arabs particularly those under Abdullah Azzam and operating through the Peshawar Services Bureau were not supported by the US or UK. The accounts from the time is actually that the CIA officers thought bin Laden was weird, or dangerous, or both, and certainly not to be trusted or supported.

    also a failure to crackdown o islamists operating out of the west itself for last 20 years
    On that we are in agreement
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    This is poor mathematics.

    The past number of deaths by factor x is of no indication of how likely it is to kill you.
    Obviously you don't understand statistics and probability.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Obviously you don't understand statistics and probability.
    I understand that the probability of something occurring does not depend on past events

    All you've done is show that if you picked a random death in the last 12 months, it has a whatever chance of being terrorism or a car crash.
    The nature of these threats is constantly changing, and not totally random either.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Nope. When you look at the number of fatalities in France from terrorism in the last 12 months (over 200), and the number of car accident fatalities (around 3000), it's nothing like "thousands of times more likely". Both are leading causes of death in France
    i) Dez was quite clearly referring to airline terrorism, not terrorism in general.

    ii) Your restriction of the comparison to 'France in the last 12 months' is an incredibly blatant selection bias.

    iii) No, neither are remotely "leading causes of death in France". Various types of cancer, strokes, cardiovascular diseases and more all have yearly death tolls in the tens of thousands.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    That's not true at all. It's true that the British stoked up Arab consciousness during World War I and encouraged various tribal groups and the Hashemites to take up the sword against the Ottomans. (...)
    an excellent summary

    thanks
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dodgypirate)
    How is it irrational?

    We're living in a real fear of terrorism... sure the passengers got it wrong in this case, but that doesn't mean it's an "irrational" fear.
    considering the thorough security checks at customs, I highly doubt there was a bomb, so yes, they were acting irrationally. And falsely claiming that they were texting in Arabic is not a rational decision, just a bigoted way to get them off the plane.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    https://twitter.com/assedbaig/status/768522653548310528 what actually happened. They were reported because one of them was sending a WHATSAPP MESSAGE-which wasn't even in Arabic like the person who reported them claimed
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    How moronic would you have to be to report someone for even reading arabic on a phone? Nevertheless defend such an action.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.