Terrorist Plot in Britain Foiled

watchman

New Member
Terrorist Plot in Britain Foiled

http://thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=2945

British police arrested nine men suspected of plotting a gruesome terrorist attack in Birmingham, England, on January 31. The Iraqi-style abduction plot involved kidnapping a British Muslim soldier and videotaping his subsequent beheading. This marks the second major terrorist plot in Britain foiled in recent months. While these busts are a credit to the effectiveness of Britain’s counterterrorism agencies, they also demonstrate grim realities for Britain.

First, it is clear that homegrown terrorists are bent on spreading terror in Britain. Only six months ago, British and Pakistani authorities broke up a plot for terrorists to wreak destruction on 10 transatlantic flights leaving London. Before that was the July 7, 2005, multiple suicide bombing in which 52 Londoners were killed. That same month an attempted follow-up bombing resulted in the arrests of six men.

This latest plot also shows that some terrorists are ditching large-scale operations to avoid detection. There was no need for the suspects to acquire weapons or explosive devices. The only thing the terrorists needed to complete their task, besides a knife and a video camera, was a “hit list” of British Muslim soldiers and a date. Still, had the plot succeeded, it would have been disastrous for Britain. As Stratfor reported, “Despite the simplicity, a gruesome attack of this nature would be as effective—perhaps even more so—as a subway or airplane bombing in spreading fear among the British population. If the plotters were successful, and the tactic were adopted by other cells, the discovery of headless bodies at seemingly random locations around the country could easily lead to mass hysteria” (January 31).

Finally, though the plot did fail, it will likely help polarize British society further. According to Agence France Presse on February 2, tensions have risen in Birmingham. While British police distributed 5,000 leaflets insisting Muslims weren’t being unfairly targeted, the chairman of Birmingham Central Mosque compared Britain’s anti-terror raid to Nazi Germany telling the German people the Jews were a threat. Although he encouraged Muslims to remain calm, his comments served to further alienate Muslims and encourage their radicalization—which, as Stratfor noted, is one of the Islamist terrorists’ goals in the UK.

For more information on growing tension within British society, read “The Sickness in Britain’s Heart.” :(
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
So what message are these people trying to spread? Is it that to be a good Muslim you can't be part of British Society, including being part of the country's armed forces? Or is it to just alienate Muslims from the rest of the population in order to bring about a response that will anger young Muslims even more? It almost seems to me that these terrorists are seeking to widen the divide between Muslims and others. They surely can't think their actions are going to win anyone over to their point of view, whatever that is! :confused: :(
 

Scorpius

New Member
Muslims are obviously told not to kill Muslims,but I don't know whether beheading is allowed for executing Muslims serving with Non-Muslim armies(who most of the time work against Muslim interests).
 

Rich

Member
It almost seems to me that these terrorists are seeking to widen the divide between Muslims and others. They surely can't think their actions are going to win anyone over to their point of view, whatever that is!
Seems?? That is exactly what they are trying to do. Not just that but they are trying to widen the divide in the Islamic world as well. Their "point of view" is you either come along to their vision of their religion or you are put to the sword. Think about it? Who has killed, probably 99%, of Muslims in recent history? The answer isnt "Irish Catholics" I assure you.

Muslims are obviously told not to kill Muslims,but I don't know whether beheading is allowed for executing Muslims serving with Non-Muslim armies(who most of the time work against Muslim interests).
What "interests" are these? And how is a Muslim serving in Britain's army working against them? And the implication of this statement is that its OK to kill non-Muslims and OK to behead Muslims who dont toe the line?

These terrorists have already had great success in changing the foreign policy of entire nations. Just look at the Madrid bombings and how Spain changed their policy to support America and the coalition of the willing. After the bombings there was a surge of anti-Americanism eventually forcing change in the government of Spain. Over months however the reality of the situation emerged, tho long after anyone still cared.

As we did pre-9/11 Spain had stupidly allowed itself to become terror central in Europe. Tho they weren't as dumb as we were, "fly but not land or take off":unknown , their internal policies created an environment where numerous fundamentalist cells were allowed to operate with impunity. Al Qaeda has always had a strategy of splitting the enemy and in Spain it worked beautifully. To this day I bet many Spanish believe George Bush was responsible for those bombings.

To separate Britain from America would be their biggest coup ever. Their ability to fracture what is probably the greatest Alliance in history would show you just how much global reach these characters have. England herself has many cells operating inside her borders, as do many European countries. And while you have to admire the sophistication of these terrorists I believe they underestimate the Brits if they think that lopping a few heads off will cause them to join Osamas side.
 

Grand Danois

Entertainer
The bombings in Madrid didn't oust the Spanish govt or cause anti-Americanism. What destroyed the Aznar Govt was blatantly and embarrasingly trying to obfuscate the event to the electorate on the eve of the elections.

The bombings brought to the fore the controversy of the Iraq War, and the encumbent govt made a tremendous error by trying to play the ETA card on what was obviously an Al Qaeda attack.
 
Last edited:

Scorpius

New Member
And the implication of this statement is that its OK to kill non-Muslims and OK to behead Muslims who dont toe the line?
yes kind of.I mean say a liberal Muslim of a Non-Muslim nation and a Non-Muslim American of the same nation tries to force Muslims of a Muslim country to do their biddings like changing laws,lifestyle,etc.if they interfere its allowed for the Muslims of the Muslim nation to take 'tough' action but I don't know whether it includes beheading.
scholars agree Muslims are not allowed to serve Non-Muslims to kill Muslims without a good reason(speaking from religious point of view) but this incident is different.
this is relatively quite a new topic.no much thought has been given;but I will try to find out more about this and the Muslim point of view.

What "interests" are these?
outline the interests of the US in the region,the real ones,not democracy and human rights but the real stuff.and I hope I will be able to show you how different Muslim 'interests' are.
one I can think of is that Muslims are conservative while the US wants them to be liberals.

eh,hang on are these posts even allowed?
 

Rich

Member
The bombings in Madrid didn't oust the Spanish govt or cause anti-Americanism. What destroyed the Aznar Govt was blatantly and embarrasingly trying to obfuscate the event to the electorate on the eve of the elections.

The bombings brought to the fore the controversy of the Iraq War, and the encumbent govt made a tremendous error by trying to play the ETA card on what was obviously an Al Qaeda attack.
Yes, that was part of it. The Aznar Govt. had great success governing as a party that stood strong against the ETA. And since the ETA had such a history of bombings in Spain wasnt that the logical first choice as the offenders? Tho I agree they tried to make political capitol painting the ETA as responsible, just as their opposition made Political capitol out of Al Qaedas responsibility. There was a reason Anzar tried so hard to pin it on the ETA and that reason became apparent when his government was voted out.

My points are however still valid. Al Qaeda did bomb Madrid to force out of office a government they viewed as hostile to them. There was an anti-American backlash, and there was a backlash against supporting the American led war on terror. For all intents and purposes, using an act of terror, Al Qaeda did change the national policy of Spain. Even much of the government. Theres no way you can say it was just Anzar trying to pin it on the ETA that got him kicked out. Al Qaeda picked its target well, and timed it well, they knew the Spanish public could be manipulated into an anti-American position.

As a political tool "anti-Americanism" can be very useful in controlling Euro-public opinion. When they sit in their tea houses and coffee shops throughout Europe do you think the people there are talking about Al Qaeda or about America and American policy? If these Internet forums are any indication I'd say the Euro-coffee chats are pretty one sided.

I can link a lot of evidence to support my position but really dont feel like it. This portion of this paper sums up what I'm saying. Were both right actually I'm just saying my position was the stronger dynamic and that Al Qaeda brought a change of government, and change of policy, with an act of terror. And the backlash left us Yanks befuddled, "We didnt blow up the damned trains!!!"

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/15/1079199157067.html?from=storyrhs
Despite the arrest of five suspects, it will be some time before definite responsibility for the bombings can be assigned. But the expectation, already strong, is growing that proof will be found against al-Qaeda or an organisation connected with it. Spaniards are seeing March 11 as their September 11. Sunday's vote suggests much of their anger against the terrorists is being directed at the Government. They blame it for either placing them in danger, or failing to protect them, or both.

This development is a blow to the United States. However unpalatable, the decision of the Spanish people is made. It means the US now must fight the perception that acts of terrorism are capable of turning its allies against it. To see Spain turn away is especially galling for President George Bush. He has made much of Mr Aznar's courageous example, standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the US despite overwhelming popular opposition to Spanish involvement in Iraq. Now that Mr Aznar has been rejected by his people, Mr Bush must look anxiously at America's other European allies. There is no sign that either Britain or Italy will waver - but nor was there any fear about Spain on that score, until last Thursday's atrocity and the election three days later.

In Australia, the issue of what makes a country a target for terrorists has been little discussed since the Bali bombings. The Prime Minister, John Howard, says Australia's involvement in the Iraq war has not increased the risk of a terrorist attack here. As Mr Howard says, no country should adjust its foreign policy in the face of intimidation by terrorists. That, however, is not the last word on a subject which, since the deadly blasts in Madrid and the aftershock of the Spanish elections on Sunday, will reverberate around the world for some time to come.
 
Top