Yes, it was a regular part of Abu Hamzas lesson plan at the Regents Park Mosque until we booted him out.Anyway, the internet has got all the recipes and most of the stuff can be bought in regular stores.Unfortunately, the world isn't short of lunatics who'll have a go.
The funny part is the Indonesian police were denied access by school administrators and students. Let me see, let's pretend that a private school from the Church of England had an explosion and the students and administrators told police they could not access the site... somehow this isn't working.
Maybe yahoo news mentioned Al Qaida because nobody in the States has ever heard of Jemaah Islamiyah?
Best to look at local news sources if you want more accurate, unbiased, and in depth coverage. Try The Jakarta Post or the Jakarta Globe if you want to learn a bit more about Indonesia MM.
Are you really trying to lecture me on Violent Islamic Organizations? You have a lot of experience working cunter-terrorism do you?
"Maybe yahoo news mentioned Al Qaida because nobody in the States has ever heard of Jemaah Islamiyah?"
Yeah, people in the States are just stupid. Fortunately the world has intelligent people from Europe and Australia to keep us straight.
Don't you find it exhausting to be this consistently condescending?
The reply by SBE was 7 months ago but I know what you mean, terrorism makes my blood boil too.
I remember the Irish touring around the U.S. cities rattling their tins to collect money ostensibly to help the poor oppressed Irish when in fact the money was going to fund PIRA armaments to kill British soldiers.Didn't see much in the way of American Intelligence putting out the facts then.
You'd be surprised, American intelligence organizations worked with the Brits fairly closely, it was some American POLITICAL leaders (sadly, with IRA sympathies) that were not so cooperative. I come from Boston, and southy was ethnically Irish and sympathies for the IRA there ran strong. But not with me. I despise political violence that is not controlled by the state.
But my objection to SBEs post wasn't specifically about terrorism as it was about her pompous and obnoxious response. It seems that anti-Americanism is the one prejudice left in the west that is politically correct.
Fair answer Madmac.I'm sure many Americans were aware of what was happening at the time and I have personal experience of your Int people supplying vital intelligence to the UK (at a price-but that's life.No objection to that.) You are probably right that the pro-IRA political lobby was strong in those days.Saying that it's true to say it made my blood boil to see those collections.
"I despise political violence that is not controlled by the state."
So MADMAC, presumably you condone illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are "state controlled". You would also presumably condone the murder of innocents in Ireland by British troops because they were "state controlled".
sayadian, you can call American policy makers what you like (pro-IRA or otherwise). I am grateful to them for helping to bring about some form of peace (though not ideal) on my island.
P.S. I am no IRA-sympathiser but, as usual, when people speak about this they are misinformed and forget the part Britain played in the conflict.
#9 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738
It is important to understand that, if you subscribe to rule of law, then you subscribe to the notion that the state has the authority to use violene for political ends and only the state has that right. That doesn't mean that you have to support the employment of that violence every time the state uses it.
Indeed, while I disagree with your assertion that the invasion of Iraq was illegal, I did disagree with it. But understand that I can disagree with something on moral or practical grounds, and it's still legal. I disagree with abortion and on a personal level have a moral problem with it, but it's legal (at least where I was born and raised) and I think the law should be respected.
The invasion of Afghanistan can't be called illegal by any measure, so I don't know how you are determining that (unless you subscribe to the new definition which requires UN sanction to be legal).
Sayadians objection was the non-state violence perpetrated by the IRA. I object to that too. The IRA became a group of criminal thugs rather rapidly. They were not accountable to the people they were supposedly representing. The Westphalian state system has it's obvious flaws, but we have to remmember what brought it about. Political violence isn't about morality, and when people lose sight of that, they begin to start justifying behavior that inexorably becomes extremely destructive.
'I am grateful to them for helping to bring about some form of peace'
Yes, they were able to do so because they were the only ones who had any influence over the murdering gangsters known as PIRA. The fact that America experienced the consequences of terrorism (The Twin Towers atrocity ) probably had a lot to do with the cutting of funds to the PIRA which consequently meant they had little choice but to go to the negotiation table.
BTW. It is often forgotten that the British army first entered Northern Ireland in the 60's to protect Catholic communities.Granted,bad thing happened e.g. Bloody Sunday but as Madmac often and rightly points out soldiers are not policemen. Since then I hope lessons have been learned.
Also, don't forget the people who were supposed to be the protectors of the Catholic community were indiscriminate killers whose real interest was to protect their illegal and profitable operations e.g the drug trade. Enniskillen was typical of these barbaric people.Both Catholic and Protestants were killed on that day. The most shameful and damning result is that men like Martin McGuiness and Gerry Addams are now 'respectable' politicians whilst in a just world they would be imprisoned.
Lack of American funds flows to the IRA was not, IMO, one of the primary reasons for the coming about of the peace process. I believe the main one was that the British Army had infiltrated the IRA to such an extent that it had become a barely functioning entity with much decreased operational capacity.
I believe the drug trade angle has only really took off since the formation of the dissident groups who object to the peace process, the RIRA and CIRA. From my knowledge of events, I do not recall seeing or reading anywhere the PIRA had a big angle to drugs back in their heyday. However, I do agree that, for the most part, they were "murdering gangsters".
While the actions of McGuinness and Adams have been despicable, I'm sorry but I find it hard to say much better things about Tony Blair or George Bush, for example. At least, in some ways, Adams and McGuinness's stated rationale was a United Ireland, defending their people from colonial occupiers etc. Whereas B and B simply invaded a foreign country, and butchered 500k people all in the name of oil contracts. And MAC, it was an illegal war by all reasonably accepted barometers. I can grant you Afghanistan, given that they were sheltering OBL and his cronies. However, Iraq had no link whatsoever to state-sponsored terrorism, certainly not of the kind that George Bush wanted to believe. It is interesting to note that on 14th September 2001 (3 days after you know what), Bush stated to one of his policy advisers that he wanted to "pin" 9/11 on Iraq when there was no evidence whatsoever of any link and there remains nothing. Clearly a combination of finishing off Daddy's work and the oil angle.
#12 chinarocks has been a member since 17/6/2011. Posts: 738
Well, surprisingly enough a dislike of McGuiness and Addams does not automatically make me an admirer of Bush or Blair.In fact, I think Blair should share the same fate as the former.Not only did he lie to the British people, he sold out his own country for American (Bush) gold and for that I will never forgive him and would like to see him put on trial.As far as Bush is concerned I agree his actions were perverse at the least.
'Colonial occupiers' is a phrase I've heard many times before and unless we start with the policies of Oliver Cromwell it's a long and complicated argument.From the time of Cromwell Ireland was seen as a back door to 'Papist' invasion and as such it suffered.Obviously 16th century values can play no part in our vision of Ireland now.Times and attitudes were more cruel and Machiavellian.
I also did not support the invasion of Iraq and, to repeat myself, abhor Blair's wicked self-interest when it came to supporting it.
As far as a United Ireland is concerned there are a large majority of Protestants in the North who have and always will oppose it.
The best thing that has happened to this divide has been the creation od a United Europe since it has made sectarian divisions less of a political football. Of course they exist, as they do to a lesser extent in Scotland,.but the EU has made it less relevant. Much has been achieved, such as a non-sectarian police force and hopefully the idiots who are again trying to stoke the fires of sectarian violence will not succeed.