Do you have a link to this as I have had a look online but can only find the opposite. Many Mosques are being warned to maintain there CCTV due to vandalism, especially after the murder of Lee Rigby. As I say I only had a quick look so if you could point me in the right direction.
So the CCTV is there to prevent attacks on the mosques not to prevent the mosques' attendees from attacking everyone else?
So the CCTV is there to prevent attacks on the mosques not to prevent the mosques' attendees from attacking everyone else?
I would assume the camera's cover the area surrounding the mosque as well or it's pretty pointless having them? Have their been many people attacked by people leaving a mosque, again a quick look online didn't bring any up. Quite a lot came up about attacks on Mosques after 9/11 and the murder of Lee Rigby though. You may know of people attacked though?
So now you can't distinguish between innocent Muslims and terrorists without being labeled an apologist?
Par for the course on threads like this.
I haven't seen any posts on this thread where anyone has expressed support for Isis, been making excuses for them and such like, but if we don't want all Muslims locked up in internment camps or deported anywhere, think any Isis members who return here should be properly tried in court instead of just being taken behind Tesco and shot, then we are apologists for terrorism.
So the CCTV is there to prevent attacks on the mosques not to prevent the mosques' attendees from attacking everyone else?
Probably, but that's the same with CCTV on churches and Temples, CCTV in shops and offices. They are there to protect the buildings and the people inside, surely?. Do Tesco only have CCTV because they think their employees are going to attack their customers?.
The CCTV will in reality have a dual role, in that CCTV evidence can be used against the attacker from the Mosque, or indeed Tesco.
I will say that all this does make me feel very sorry for the majority of genuine peaceful Muslims that reside in the UK going about their daily business and working hard.
The one good thing about getting rid of extremists in this country (which is what I think they should do) is that they can carry on with life without negative suspicion etc.,.
Does that include the 750,000 who had "sympathy" for the London bombers?
Does that include the 100,000 who thought the London bombers were entirely justified?
Does that include the 700,000 who believed muslims didn't even carry out the London bombings at all but the government did instead?
Does that include the one million who agreed that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".
Does that include the 16,000 who believed Western society should be overthrown using violence?
Does that include the 1,600,000 who wouldn't inform the authorities if they believed an imam or other religious person was trying to radicalise young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West?
Does that include the 800,000 who wouldn't inform the police if they were aware of an impending terrorist attack?
Does that include the 210,000 who believe suicide bombings in Britain are acceptable?
Does that include the 2,300,000 who wanted the Danish cartoonist prosecuted?
Does that include the 2,000,000 who think anyone "insulting Islam" should be prosecuted?
Does that include the 570,000 who "respected" Osama Bin Laden?
Does that include the 1,200,000 who want Sharia Law introduced into parts of the country?
This isn't 'moderation' in any shape or form. It only appears that way when thrown into contrast with the extreme Islamic barbarity that we see elsewhere in the world. If these views were held by any other group (e.g. the antagonism towards free press or freedom of speech, the respect for Bin Laden, the desire to overthrow Western culture) then that group would be labelled as 'extremist'. Instead they get called 'moderates'. I would suggest that only a very small percentage of British muslims are genuinely moderate in their beliefs.
Taji Mustafa – who is known for touring of British university campuses delivering lectures to young, impressionable students – gave a speech at a Friday mosque sermon last month in which he claimed:
"Why is it that the [Muslim] armies have not moved? Is it that we don't have armies? Is it that we are cowards? No, no, no. This Islamic nation has been blessed with men, with women, with faith, with people who long for martyrdom, with people who want to be the descendants of Saladin... Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan – we could drown this place. But what we have today is rulers who have abandoned the Quran."
While counter-extremism experts have been warning about Hizb ut-Tahrir and the likes of Mustafa for years, the British government has been unable to proscribe the group for fear of being slapped down by the European Court of Justice.
Probably, but that's the same with CCTV on churches and Temples, CCTV in shops and offices. They are there to protect the buildings and the people inside, surely?. Do Tesco only have CCTV because they think their employees are going to attack their customers?.
The CCTV will in reality have a dual role, in that CCTV evidence can be used against the attacker from the Mosque, or indeed Tesco.
The point I was making was: if the muslim communities can't get rid of the extremists then how do you suggest we do it ourselves when many of the communities are a closed shop to outsiders?
Does that include the 750,000 who had "sympathy" for the London bombers?
Does that include the 100,000 who thought the London bombers were entirely justified?
Does that include the 700,000 who believed muslims didn't even carry out the London bombings at all but the government did instead?
Does that include the one million who agreed that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".
Does that include the 16,000 who believed Western society should be overthrown using violence?
Does that include the 1,600,000 who wouldn't inform the authorities if they believed an imam or other religious person was trying to radicalise young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West?
Does that include the 800,000 who wouldn't inform the police if they were aware of an impending terrorist attack?
Does that include the 210,000 who believe suicide bombings in Britain are acceptable?
Does that include the 2,300,000 who wanted the Danish cartoonist prosecuted?
Does that include the 2,000,000 who think anyone "insulting Islam" should be prosecuted?
Does that include the 570,000 who "respected" Osama Bin Laden?
Does that include the 1,200,000 who want Sharia Law introduced into parts of the country?
This isn't 'moderation' in any shape or form. It only appears that way when thrown into contrast with the extreme Islamic barbarity that we see elsewhere in the world. If these views were held by any other group (e.g. the antagonism towards free press or freedom of speech, the respect for Bin Laden, the desire to overthrow Western culture) then that group would be labelled as 'extremist'. Instead they get called 'moderates'. I would suggest that only a very small percentage of British muslims are genuinely moderate in their beliefs.
All the percentages left from these polls can stay in the UK and continue to live happily ever after.:D
What I meant from my post is that not all Muslims in the UK have extreme views and shouldn't be looked upon as the enemy. I am against Muslims here wishing to change the face of the UK with their own laws etc. Or anyone inciting hatred towards the West or its people. This should not be tolerated but has been and the leniency has gone on for too long, which is now rearing its ugly head but not all Muslims are to blame for this. That is my point.
All the percentages left from these polls can stay in the UK and continue to live happily ever after.:D
What I meant from my post is that not all Muslims in the UK have extreme views and shouldn't be looked upon as the enemy. I am against Muslims here wishing to change the face of the UK with their own laws etc. Or anyone inciting hatred towards the West or its people. This should not be tolerated but has been and the leniency has gone on for too long, which is now rearing its ugly head but not all Muslims are to blame for this. That is my point.
I agree that all muslims aren't to blame. The part I take issue with is the idea that the vast majority of muslims are 'moderate' in their religious and cultural beliefs. It is simply not true and all the polling bears witness to that.
You say that you're against muslims wanting to change the UK with their own laws, but this is exactly what a very large minority wish to do. It's not just the province of 1% or 2% at the extreme end of the spectrum.
The point I was making was: if the muslim communities can't get rid of the extremists then how do you suggest we do it ourselves when many of the communities are a closed shop to outsiders?
I think my (rather long) post earlier in the thread puts forward some of my own ideas which also cover that problem.
But if we start to treat the entire Islamic communities in the UK differently to the rest of the country, start to impose some draconian measures on them we do not impose on others, then I don't see how that will make them become more trusting of the police and security forces and make them more likely to integrate. It will make them even less likely to co-operate, integrate and pass on intelligence and such like surely?.
Our sometimes heavy handed approach and racial profiling of young black men over the years hasn't been very successful at fostering good relations between the police and black youths and their communities has it?. Relations between those communities and the authorities are worse than they have ever been.
So what makes you think any similar approach will work with the various Islamic communities if it didn't with black communities?.
A whole of life tariff is reserved for the most dangerous in our society, most notably murderers. We need to prove murder. Locking people up for life even when we cannot prove their crime is worthy of that sentence, isn't an option. Like it or not, it's a very basic rule of our legal system, and is one of those things that makes us far, far more civilised and superior to the extremists.
And also leaves us vulnerable to bombers and murderers and far far deader than the Islamists.
We could have estate of emergency legislation specifically to deal with jihadists. Perhaps fhey won't come back home if they face life in prison.
But we can debate all we like, we will be overtaken by events. The next Islamist atrocity on British soil will have consequences that I fear will be overwhelming and there will be no more debating.
I agree that all muslims aren't to blame. The part I take issue with is the idea that the vast majority of muslims are 'moderate' in their religious and cultural beliefs. It is simply not true and all the polling bears witness to that.
You say that you're against muslims wanting to change the UK with their own laws, but this is exactly what a very large minority wish to do. It's not just the province of 1% or 2% at the extreme end of the spectrum.
Well this is where the government should have stepped in and not have allowed the ideas to be entertained. The fact that they have been allowed to incite hatred in their free speech demo's should have had massive consequences (British soldiers burn in hell etc) Demands for Sharia Law etc.,Outrageous!!. It is the governments leniency that has let matters spiral out of control.
No different to allowing a naughty child carry on and on until it always gets its own way and usually ending up with disastrous consequences.
I think my (rather long) post earlier in the thread puts forward some of my own ideas which also cover that problem.
But if we start to treat the entire Islamic communities in the UK differently to the rest of the country, start to impose some draconian measures on them we do not impose on others, then I don't see how that will make them become more trusting of the police and security forces and make them more likely to integrate. It will make them even less likely to co-operate, integrate and pass on intelligence and such like surely?.
Our sometimes heavy handed approach and racial profiling of young black men over the years hasn't been very successful at fostering good relations between the police and black youths and their communities has it?. Relations between those communities and the authorities are worse than they have ever been.
So what makes you think any similar approach will work with the various Islamic communities if it didn't with black communities?.
Sorry, I'm getting some mixed messages here. On the one hand I'm being told that it's not up to the muslim communities to help sort this out and on the other I'm being told that they should be co-operating and passing on intelligence. If the muslims should be co-operating then clearly it's not being as effective as it could or we wouldn't have 2000+ over in Syria and Iraq fighting to create an Islamic State. Many of them don't trust the police anyway.
I agree that stop and search measures on black youths haven't been helpful but when the black youths are committing so many crimes in London it's difficult to know what workable options there are. It would be lovely to live in La-La-Land where everyone is 'the same' but that's not how the real world operates.
Sorry, I'm getting some mixed messages here. On the one hand I'm being told that it's not up to the muslim communities to help sort this out and on the other I'm being told that they should be co-operating and passing on intelligence. If the muslims should be co-operating then clearly it's not being as effective as it could or we wouldn't have 2000+ over in Syria and Iraq fighting to create an Islamic State. Many of them don't trust the police anyway.
I agree that stop and search measures on black youths haven't been helpful but when the black youths are committing so many crimes in London it's difficult to know what workable options there are. It would be lovely to live in La-La-Land where everyone is 'the same' but that's not how the real world operates.
Who said it isn't up to the Islamic communities to sort out?.
It is up to the police, the security services AND the Islamic community to sort this out.
That's not true. What was said is that it requires a collaborative effort from Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims alone can not sort this problem out as ISIS are killing Muslims.
I've seen a fair number say it is not something that only the Muslim communities can sort out on their own, it needs co-operation between the Mosque and community leaders, the security services and the police.
I don't think I've seen anyone say the Muslim communities don't need to do anything. But if anyone did say that, then they are wrong.
I agree that all muslims aren't to blame. The part I take issue with is the idea that the vast majority of muslims are 'moderate' in their religious and cultural beliefs. It is simply not true and all the polling bears witness to that.
You say that you're against muslims wanting to change the UK with their own laws, but this is exactly what a very large minority wish to do. It's not just the province of 1% or 2% at the extreme end of the spectrum.
I agree with this.
There's also a tendency in these debates where some people choose to assume that extremist is a synonym for terrorist, and then "refute" your argument by proclaiming if there were that many "extremists" around we'd be having bombs going off every week, but we don't, so you're wrong.
It's very tiresome.
Who said it isn't up to the Islamic communities to sort out?.
It is up to the police, the security services AND the Islamic community to sort this out.
That might be the unrealistic expectation by those moaning about muslims who will never stop moaning about muslims but muslims never said they will self police themselves. It can't be done.
Most people of any background will know or be acquainted with a few hundred people at the very most. How on earth could any muslim know what millions of other muslims are doing and around the country?
That might be the unrealistic expectation by those moaning about muslims who will never stop moaning about muslims but muslims never said they will self police themselves. It can't be done.
Most people of any background will know or be acquainted with a few hundred people at the very most. How on earth could any muslim know what millions of other muslims are doing and around the country?
I don't think that means what you think it means.
It isn't up to Muslims to police themselves, it is up to Muslims to work WITH the police, the security services and other agencies for a common goal of tackling extremism within their community,.
As for the second paragraph, that's correct. Any person, Muslim or not, might know what their close and friends and family are doing. Although most likely might only know what a subset of them are doing. They most certainly will not, and cannot know what millions of others around the country are doing. How is that wrong?.
It isn't up to Muslims to police themselves, it is up to Muslims to work WITH the police, the security services and other agencies for a common goal of tackling extremism within their community,.
As for the second paragraph, that's correct. Any person, Muslim or not, might know what their close and friends and family are doing. Although most likely might only know what a subset of them are doing. They most certainly will not, and cannot know what millions of others around the country are doing. How is that wrong?.
The FM who wrote that seemed to think the muslim community couldn't police itself even if it wanted to, particularly in the bizarre last paragraph where they used the excuse that a muslim in Birmingham wouldn't know what the other three million were up to anyway (which you then indeed correct by talking about friends, family, fellow worshippers, etc. suggesting that they can indeed police themselves if they wanted to). Of course they can't cover every possibility but muslim communities are in a vastly better place to police themselves even than the police.
Comments
So the CCTV is there to prevent attacks on the mosques not to prevent the mosques' attendees from attacking everyone else?
I saw some pics yesterday, I think it was the Telegraph too, and the one that was a DJ in his former life looked very similar to me as well.
I would assume the camera's cover the area surrounding the mosque as well or it's pretty pointless having them? Have their been many people attacked by people leaving a mosque, again a quick look online didn't bring any up. Quite a lot came up about attacks on Mosques after 9/11 and the murder of Lee Rigby though. You may know of people attacked though?
I suspect none of the two reasons mentioned are the sole reason for the CCTV, it's for the protection of all.
Par for the course on threads like this.
I haven't seen any posts on this thread where anyone has expressed support for Isis, been making excuses for them and such like, but if we don't want all Muslims locked up in internment camps or deported anywhere, think any Isis members who return here should be properly tried in court instead of just being taken behind Tesco and shot, then we are apologists for terrorism.
Skin tone, ridge of nose and bone structure, small in height compared to Mr Foley, slight squint in right eye.
Previous form of tweeting a pic holding a severed head in Raqqa, Syria!
Presumably where the hostages were being held.
Probably, but that's the same with CCTV on churches and Temples, CCTV in shops and offices. They are there to protect the buildings and the people inside, surely?. Do Tesco only have CCTV because they think their employees are going to attack their customers?.
The CCTV will in reality have a dual role, in that CCTV evidence can be used against the attacker from the Mosque, or indeed Tesco.
Does that include the 750,000 who had "sympathy" for the London bombers?
Does that include the 100,000 who thought the London bombers were entirely justified?
Does that include the 700,000 who believed muslims didn't even carry out the London bombings at all but the government did instead?
Does that include the one million who agreed that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".
Does that include the 16,000 who believed Western society should be overthrown using violence?
Does that include the 1,600,000 who wouldn't inform the authorities if they believed an imam or other religious person was trying to radicalise young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West?
Does that include the 800,000 who wouldn't inform the police if they were aware of an impending terrorist attack?
Does that include the 210,000 who believe suicide bombings in Britain are acceptable?
Does that include the 2,300,000 who wanted the Danish cartoonist prosecuted?
Does that include the 2,000,000 who think anyone "insulting Islam" should be prosecuted?
Does that include the 570,000 who "respected" Osama Bin Laden?
Does that include the 1,200,000 who want Sharia Law introduced into parts of the country?
This isn't 'moderation' in any shape or form. It only appears that way when thrown into contrast with the extreme Islamic barbarity that we see elsewhere in the world. If these views were held by any other group (e.g. the antagonism towards free press or freedom of speech, the respect for Bin Laden, the desire to overthrow Western culture) then that group would be labelled as 'extremist'. Instead they get called 'moderates'. I would suggest that only a very small percentage of British muslims are genuinely moderate in their beliefs.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/danielpycock/danpycock/956/what-do-british-muslims-think-of-the-uk/
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/291
http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/religion/survey+government+hasnt+told+truth+about+77/545847.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jun/23/uk.religion
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/22/UK-HT-Spokesperson-Says-Muslim-Armies-Rise-Up
The point I was making was: if the muslim communities can't get rid of the extremists then how do you suggest we do it ourselves when many of the communities are a closed shop to outsiders?
What I meant from my post is that not all Muslims in the UK have extreme views and shouldn't be looked upon as the enemy. I am against Muslims here wishing to change the face of the UK with their own laws etc. Or anyone inciting hatred towards the West or its people. This should not be tolerated but has been and the leniency has gone on for too long, which is now rearing its ugly head but not all Muslims are to blame for this. That is my point.
I agree that all muslims aren't to blame. The part I take issue with is the idea that the vast majority of muslims are 'moderate' in their religious and cultural beliefs. It is simply not true and all the polling bears witness to that.
You say that you're against muslims wanting to change the UK with their own laws, but this is exactly what a very large minority wish to do. It's not just the province of 1% or 2% at the extreme end of the spectrum.
I think my (rather long) post earlier in the thread puts forward some of my own ideas which also cover that problem.
But if we start to treat the entire Islamic communities in the UK differently to the rest of the country, start to impose some draconian measures on them we do not impose on others, then I don't see how that will make them become more trusting of the police and security forces and make them more likely to integrate. It will make them even less likely to co-operate, integrate and pass on intelligence and such like surely?.
Our sometimes heavy handed approach and racial profiling of young black men over the years hasn't been very successful at fostering good relations between the police and black youths and their communities has it?. Relations between those communities and the authorities are worse than they have ever been.
So what makes you think any similar approach will work with the various Islamic communities if it didn't with black communities?.
And also leaves us vulnerable to bombers and murderers and far far deader than the Islamists.
We could have estate of emergency legislation specifically to deal with jihadists. Perhaps fhey won't come back home if they face life in prison.
But we can debate all we like, we will be overtaken by events. The next Islamist atrocity on British soil will have consequences that I fear will be overwhelming and there will be no more debating.
Well this is where the government should have stepped in and not have allowed the ideas to be entertained. The fact that they have been allowed to incite hatred in their free speech demo's should have had massive consequences (British soldiers burn in hell etc) Demands for Sharia Law etc.,Outrageous!!. It is the governments leniency that has let matters spiral out of control.
No different to allowing a naughty child carry on and on until it always gets its own way and usually ending up with disastrous consequences.
Sorry, I'm getting some mixed messages here. On the one hand I'm being told that it's not up to the muslim communities to help sort this out and on the other I'm being told that they should be co-operating and passing on intelligence. If the muslims should be co-operating then clearly it's not being as effective as it could or we wouldn't have 2000+ over in Syria and Iraq fighting to create an Islamic State. Many of them don't trust the police anyway.
I agree that stop and search measures on black youths haven't been helpful but when the black youths are committing so many crimes in London it's difficult to know what workable options there are. It would be lovely to live in La-La-Land where everyone is 'the same' but that's not how the real world operates.
Who said it isn't up to the Islamic communities to sort out?.
It is up to the police, the security services AND the Islamic community to sort this out.
Quite a number of FM here actually.
Either way, clearly it's not working.
It's not up to the Muslim communities to sort out on their own by 'policing their community'.
That's not true. What was said is that it requires a collaborative effort from Muslims and non-Muslims. Muslims alone can not sort this problem out as ISIS are killing Muslims.
I've seen a fair number say it is not something that only the Muslim communities can sort out on their own, it needs co-operation between the Mosque and community leaders, the security services and the police.
I don't think I've seen anyone say the Muslim communities don't need to do anything. But if anyone did say that, then they are wrong.
I agree with this.
There's also a tendency in these debates where some people choose to assume that extremist is a synonym for terrorist, and then "refute" your argument by proclaiming if there were that many "extremists" around we'd be having bombs going off every week, but we don't, so you're wrong.
It's very tiresome.
That might be the unrealistic expectation by those moaning about muslims who will never stop moaning about muslims but muslims never said they will self police themselves. It can't be done.
Most people of any background will know or be acquainted with a few hundred people at the very most. How on earth could any muslim know what millions of other muslims are doing and around the country?
I don't think that means what you think it means.
It isn't up to Muslims to police themselves, it is up to Muslims to work WITH the police, the security services and other agencies for a common goal of tackling extremism within their community,.
As for the second paragraph, that's correct. Any person, Muslim or not, might know what their close and friends and family are doing. Although most likely might only know what a subset of them are doing. They most certainly will not, and cannot know what millions of others around the country are doing. How is that wrong?.
The FM who wrote that seemed to think the muslim community couldn't police itself even if it wanted to, particularly in the bizarre last paragraph where they used the excuse that a muslim in Birmingham wouldn't know what the other three million were up to anyway (which you then indeed correct by talking about friends, family, fellow worshippers, etc. suggesting that they can indeed police themselves if they wanted to). Of course they can't cover every possibility but muslim communities are in a vastly better place to police themselves even than the police.