Saturday, August 23, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

by Guardian

Thanks to Mark Hudson for the link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/22/channel4.islam?gusrc=rss&feed=uknews

Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Three months after Dispatches: Undercover Mosque won a police apology and libel damages, Channel 4 has announced it is returning to the subject in Undercover Mosque: The Return.

Earlier this year West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service paid out a six-figure sum to Channel 4 and Undercover Mosque Hardcash, the independent producer responsible for the documentary, after falsely accusing the programme of misleading viewers.

The documentary, an undercover investigation into extremism in mainstream British mosques, featured preachers calling for homosexuals to be killed, espousing male supremacy, condemning non-Muslims and predicting jihad.

Last August, West Midlands police referred the critically acclaimed programme to media regulator Ofcom and, in conjunction with the CPS, issued a statement saying the words of three preachers featured had been "heavily edited" so their meaning was "completely distorted".

However, Ofcom cleared Channel 4 and Hardcash of any TV fakery and ruled they "dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context".

The two companies subsequently launched their libel action.

It has now emerged that the same Hardcash production team have revisited the subject to "see whether extremist beliefs continue to be promoted in certain key British Muslim institutions".

In the new documentary, a female reporter attends prayer meetings at an important British mosque which claims to be dedicated to moderation and "dialogue with other faiths".

According to Channel 4, "she secretly films sermons given to the women-only congregation in which female preachers recite extremist and intolerant beliefs".

In one scene, as hundreds of women and some children come to pray, a preacher calls for adulterers, homosexuals, women who act like men and Muslim converts to other faiths to be killed, saying: "Kill him, kill him. You have to kill him, you understand. This is Islam."

Channel 4 also said that in the same mosque, "the reporter visits the bookshop and discovers books and DVDs still on sale, promoting extremist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic and intolerant messages".

The undercover reporter also "films inside a key Saudi-funded Muslim organisation, which claims to promote tolerance and integration yet distributes literature which promotes intolerance for non-Muslims, an extreme version of sharia law and teachings which support discrimination against women".

In addition, Undercover Mosque: The Return also "investigates the role of the Saudi Arabian religious establishment in spreading a hard-line, fundamentalist Islamic ideology in the UK - the very ideology the government claims to be tackling".

A former Foreign Office minister tells Dispatches he thinks the government should take a stronger line on the issue.

The film also includes interviews with Islamic academics who condemn messages of intolerance and segregation and warn of the impact they will have on British society.

Dispatches: Undercover Mosque: The Return will air on Channel 4 on September 1 at 8pm.

� To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.

� If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".

Posted: Saturday, August 23, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 921 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #235654 by Stafford Gordon on August 23, 2008 at 11:03 am

'Allow 'allow 'allow, what do we have 'ere?

Better call a copper!

Oh, no, perhaps not.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

2. Comment #235658 by mordacious1 on August 23, 2008 at 11:12 am

Eeet ees a reeligion of peace. Oh, and keeel the infidel.

Other Comments by mordacious1

3. Comment #235664 by qomak on August 23, 2008 at 11:22 am

Well I just watched parts of the undercover mosque and found it a bit lousy.

Not that I find surprising that extremism can be preached as mosque, but the problem is the documentary is almost entirely composed of soundbits (very often one sentence long, i.e., about 6-7 words). That is a bit unsettling.

There is plenty of redundancy as well. The narrator mentions "extremism is taught in these mosques" then we are cut to very short clips of imams preaching violence. What they could do is to delete the narration and include more quotation. If the quotation is convincing then the narration contains no extra information. This type of lousy editing is what annoys me when it comes to this type of documentary.

Hopefully, in the second one they will fix these issues.

Other Comments by qomak

4. Comment #235670 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 11:29 am

I've got a good bet with a friend I can guess a couple of the commenters in the next 50 posts.

Heh, it's an area for concern, and I'm still trying to educate myself in this area.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

5. Comment #235671 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:29 am

quomak I find it interensting that you have more problems with the cuts and narration of the clips, than, say, with statements like "Burn down the stores of the Hindus, and as for the Jews, you must kill them physically"

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

6. Comment #235674 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 11:30 am

bingo

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

7. Comment #235675 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

By the way, I honestly cannot compete. I admit I'm not clued up as I need to be here.

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

8. Comment #235679 by al-rawandi on August 23, 2008 at 11:35 am

Fanusi,

ANd shove needles into the gums of homosexual dental patients.

That was a gem.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

9. Comment #235683 by Layla Nasreddin on August 23, 2008 at 11:44 am

Channel 4 also said that in the same mosque, "the reporter visits the bookshop and discovers books and DVDs still on sale, promoting extremist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic and intolerant messages".

The undercover reporter also "films inside a key Saudi-funded Muslim organisation, which claims to promote tolerance and integration yet distributes literature which promotes intolerance for non-Muslims, an extreme version of sharia law and teachings which support discrimination against women".

It's the "Saudi influence" bit that interests me most. I've bought Saudi Qur'an translations and some other books filled with rather...regressive attitudes towards women and "the kuffar" (infidels), all of which were freely and openly available at online Islamic stores, even from ones located in the UK. (I'm probably on some terrorist watch list by now because of all my purchases from weird overseas Islamic stores, sigh.) I've seen these books (along with works by Mawdudi and Qutb) freely available to be borrowed at the local mosque library, though of course I have no idea how many people actually READ them.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

10. Comment #235687 by Vinelectric on August 23, 2008 at 11:52 am

Fanusi

Just to let you know that at least one person has noticed that qomack never said that he is more worried about the program's editing than those extremist statements.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

11. Comment #235717 by dpsych on August 23, 2008 at 12:33 pm

I would like to suggest we counter all this religious nonsense by send in the Evangelical Pastafarians to establish more Churches (Bowls) of The Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be upon it). Begin by offering Communion [spaghetti and garlic bread which become the body and sauce of FSM(sauce be upon it)] to the homeless and hungry. Such pastalatizing could enormously expand the "faith". How could grape juice and crackers compete?

Other Comments by dpsych

12. Comment #235718 by tieInterceptor on August 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Looking forward to another undercover mosque, the first one was a real eye opener.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

13. Comment #235719 by V'Ger on August 23, 2008 at 12:37 pm

What is the point of this show?

Everybody is well aware that there are many mosques that teach fear and hatred, and promote murder and violence. And most people are smart enough to know that even those that claim not to directly teach the same - just disguise it with other language.

That's what you get from people who revere a book which proclaims non-believers to be worthy only of conversion or death... and not to mention the obsession with The Prophet 'Peadophile Mohammed!

Other Comments by V'Ger

14. Comment #235722 by kkelly on August 23, 2008 at 12:39 pm

13, Because everybody is NOT well aware, and those who are aware yet deny it for political reasons can get away with their distortions until everybody is.

Other Comments by kkelly

15. Comment #235736 by Vaal on August 23, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Let's hope that the "preachers of hate" are prosecuted this time, not the journalists putting their lives at risk exposing their foul doctrine, and who are actually doing their jobs as investigative reporters.

I was appalled at the police trying to prosecute the messenger last time, instead of trying to address this cancer of hatred. Or is it OK as long as it is your religion? Talk about a "getting out of jail free card".

I expect no lessons have been learned since the last time, as politicians and the police are hamstrung by the fear of being labeled as Islamophobic and/or racist.

I thought there were laws in this country to incarcerate people for inciting murder, and for hate speech. Why are these not being used against these demented clerics, and if they are foreign, why are they not being deported?

EDIT: I regard being described as a "kuffar" as offensive as any racist statement.

Other Comments by Vaal

16. Comment #235737 by DamnDirtyApe on August 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Its Dispatches on Channel 4, V'Ger. They do this kind of stuff all the time. They're pretty lefty kind of reporting on stuff. They can be rather sensationalist, but frankly, they just want to raise awareness about questionable things. What exactly those things are can vary, but this one looks right on the money.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

17. Comment #235740 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Vin, we are talkng about a documentary that journalist risked his life to make. Did I hear any complaints about what he uncovered? No. Did I hear whines about the presentation? Yes.

Layla the things is that all of that is just plain orthodox Islam. This wasn't cooked up by the Wahabis.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

18. Comment #235751 by Border Collie on August 23, 2008 at 1:45 pm

Maybe one of you guys could put a link on this site so we kuffars over here across the pond can enjoy bad editing also.

Other Comments by Border Collie

19. Comment #235758 by catskill on August 23, 2008 at 1:56 pm

dpsych

Your post is genius! Hilarious!

p.s. - I am sure the quote "Burn down the stores of the Hindus, and as for the Jews, you must kill them physically" was probably just taken out of context, right? Pfft....

Other Comments by catskill

20. Comment #235760 by Duff on August 23, 2008 at 1:58 pm

Kuffars of the world, UNITE!!

I'm afraid the kuffars of the world outnumber, and certainly out think, the primitive religious tribe which wishes to drag us back into the 11th century.

Those goatherds want to kill the kuffar? Bring it on, Pal.

Other Comments by Duff

21. Comment #235761 by AllanW on August 23, 2008 at 2:01 pm

If you are interested, follow these links;

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/dispatches/undercover mosque/158390#fold

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/nov/19/channel4.ofcom

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/

The last link is to the Ofcom site and the detail of their ruling. Makes very interesting reading. Go to the section on 'Undercover mosque'.

Other Comments by AllanW

22. Comment #235763 by chewedbarber on August 23, 2008 at 2:03 pm

I was appalled at the police trying to prosecute the messenger last time

I agree, I don't see any reason why a rational person would hate the messenger. I wonder if anyone outside the KKK has fought to prosecute the creators of any of the multitude of documentaries depicting their hateful bullshit.

Youtube (Border Collie)--

Other Comments by chewedbarber

23. Comment #235767 by AllanW on August 23, 2008 at 2:07 pm

'I was appalled at the police trying to prosecute the messenger last time'

Yeh but it cost a large payment to Channel 4 and the documentary producers from the West Midlands police and Crown Prosecution Service to atone for their mistake. Now if they would just do something about the hate-speech evidenced in the mosques I'd begin to believe they might just have learned a thing or two. Not holding my breath though, multicultural blinkering is still the rationale du jour for those services ...

Other Comments by AllanW

24. Comment #235770 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Duff, that's the spirit!

There are a boatload more infidels than Moslems and we will win in the end. It's just a question of whether we can do it without regression to total horror.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

25. Comment #235826 by thrutraffic on August 23, 2008 at 4:52 pm

Unfortunately, John McCain my have been right. The US and a whole lot of other countries may really be spending the next 100 years fighting in the middle east.

While you young uns is over there me and your thinker grandaddies will be taking care of a little fundie problem back here at home. :-)

Other Comments by thrutraffic

26. Comment #235828 by Ian Bamlett on August 23, 2008 at 4:57 pm

This is good. They might have relaxed thinking the first undercover mosque was a one off. Now they should get the message, 'we are watching you'. On the other hand... if all we do is watch and not actually do anything, why should they care?

Other Comments by Ian Bamlett

27. Comment #235837 by Nova on August 23, 2008 at 6:14 pm

Last August, West Midlands police referred the critically acclaimed programme to media regulator Ofcom and, in conjunction with the CPS, issued a statement saying the words of three preachers featured had been "heavily edited" so their meaning was "completely distorted".

However, Ofcom cleared Channel 4 and Hardcash of any TV fakery and ruled they "dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context".

It's amazing how the Muslims media defence is powerful enough to corrupt the police. This is a complete travesty. These monsters are filmed saying atrocities, but people have been so brainwashed into believing the native culture is is always at fault, that it is the film makers that must have been at fault. The police tossed out the allegations against these Muslims on grounds that there wasn't enough evidence that they weren't taken out of context. Yet they accuse the film makers of taking them out of context on the word of Muslim extremist puppet organizations! The pervasive idea that the Muslims are almost never at fault, the cultural natives mostly are, strikes again. I notice, though, that while Ofcom said the film "dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context", these men are still not being charged! This has been swept under the rug and these monsters roam free! What consolation is it to us that there are a handful of truly good Muslims when there is such a mountain of extremists?

Other Comments by Nova

28. Comment #235840 by kraut on August 23, 2008 at 6:46 pm

What I cannot understand for the life of me: Why are those preachers not prosecuted and kicked out of the country?

It is one thing to espouse disagreement, but it is another to incite the followers to murder.

Give those bastards the boot, plain and simple.

Other Comments by kraut

29. Comment #235862 by felandath on August 23, 2008 at 9:14 pm

Fanusi / Vaal - Great to see u guys as usual!

Did u guys see Christpoher Hitchens get interviewed on Al Jazeera by Riz Khan? He lays the smack down on Al Qaeda and predicts their imminent demise in Iraq. Heres the link -

http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/08/21/christopher-hitchens-on-al-jazeera-with-a-dipshit-amateur-demagogue-and-minor-us-cult-leader/

He basically says that Al-Qaeda will self destruct because of their own inanity. It gives me cause for optimism that the radicals are just too damn radical for their own good. And good people will see thru their evil ideology and prevail in the end. Or so I hope.

Cheers.

Other Comments by felandath

30. Comment #235908 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 10:50 pm

The problem, felandath is that this isn't just al-Qaeda, it isn't just this gang or that gang - it's the whole damn dar al-Islam, that's the problem.

Even the statistics of that lickspittle Islam sycophant John Esposito put the numbers who supported 9/11 at nearly two hundred million (plus another three hundred who 'kinda' support it). And here's a little factoid that makes it appear it could be even worse:

On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, "Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?" A whopping 49.9% answered: yes. And the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida. In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.

It's minor details like this that make me extremely skeptical about the ridiculous idea that we can permit the continued settlement of Muslims in our countries. This is a constituency that is far, far larger than anything Adolf Hitler had to draw on.

EDIT: *swears a blue streak* Thanks for the link; I just got to the point where this pretentious windbag from Washington is saying that it's "un-Islamic".

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

What I cannot understand for the life of me: Why are those preachers not prosecuted and kicked out of the country?

Oh, kraut, haven't you heard that such a course of action would be unacceptable, intolerant? Be prepared to be told it by a few self-righteous windbags.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

31. Comment #235918 by felandath on August 23, 2008 at 11:19 pm

@Fanusi,

I agree with you Man. Like I have said before I don't care about Islam but I do care about the Muslims. If there is a way that they can integrate effectively and tolerantly into the community this must be encouraged. The same with an interpretation of the Quran that permits cherry picking.

Sadly neither seems even a remote possibility just yet. Also we need to differentiate between those actively engaging in Taqiya and those that are just plain out ignorant about what the Quran espouses. Just to give a benefit of the doubt I'd say that most Muslims belong to the second category.

I remember having a conversation with u about Sufism. I have a very dear Sufi friend of mine, who comes across more as a Budhist Hippy Panthiest! If all Muslims could be that way, wouldn't the world just be a better place??

Cheers.

Other Comments by felandath

32. Comment #235920 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:34 pm

I agree with you Man. Like I have said before I don't care about Islam but I do care about the Muslims. If there is a way that they can integrate effectively and tolerantly into the community this must be encouraged. The same with an interpretation of the Quran that permits cherry picking.

*nods* Which is what I've been saying all along. I mean ex-Muslims tend to be first-rate people: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Wafa Sultan, Ibn Warraq etc. The best aid for those Muslims who are not lost to evil is to give these nutcases the boot.

I remember having a conversation with u about Sufism. I have a very dear Sufi friend of mine, who comes across more as a Budhist Hippy Panthiest! If all Muslims could be that way, wouldn't the world just be a better place??

Well, yes, there are those kinds of Sufis - the 'hippies of Islam' - but there are another kind: al-Ghazali, who crushed all scientific inquiry. Tabandeh, who wrote against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. There's even a Sufi Jihad army in Iraq.

Sorry, but short of either utterly attenuated faith, or a clean break with it, the problem still remains. Your friend sounds more like a 'Muslim-for-Identification-Purposes-only' Muslim. That's good; that's close to apostasy.

EDIT:

Though these guys seem on the level:

http://www.sufimuslimcouncil.org/extremism.php

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

33. Comment #235923 by thewhitepearl on August 23, 2008 at 11:45 pm

"We hate the kuffarr, we hate the kuffarr, not a single person here who is of Islam loves the kuffarr whether they are from the UK or the US"

Enough said. Sorry this is where "respect of religion" really needs to draw the line.

"Muslims shouldn't be satisfied living in other than the total Islamic state"

Ship them all off to Saudi Arabia then. Really.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

34. Comment #235925 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:52 pm

*nods* Exactly, twp

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

35. Comment #235928 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:00 am

Fanusi,

No. I really mean it. If there was a way to prevent any more muslims from entering into the United States, I would be all for it.

The only problem being, what if the "muslims" coming in, didn't really subscribe to Islam and were trying to escape it? Although I'm sure that is a minority.

At this point I do believe that people of the muslim faith should be prevented from holding any sort of political office or power of any kind.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

36. Comment #235931 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:09 am

twp,
Oh, so am I. Trust me, I completely agree.

The only problem being, what if the "muslims" coming in, didn't really subscribe to Islam and were trying to escape it? Although I'm sure that is a minority.

Well, we have six million apostates every year in Africa. Consider what they risk, I'd say they're more than welcome to come over.

At this point I do believe that people of the muslim faith should be prevented from holding any sort of political office or power of any kind

Again, you're pushing at an open door with me. I'd say that the priority at the moment though is keeping Muslim preachers out of jails.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

37. Comment #235934 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:22 am

Again, you're pushing at an open door with me. I'd say that the priority at the moment though is keeping Muslim preachers out of jails

Yes, I have agreed with you in the past on that thought. But where do they go? If they break the law at this point there is nowhere for them to go but jail. What to do? Ask what religion they are, if they say muslim, send them to a "terrorist camp"?

Right. Let's pretend for a moment that muslims are not granted permission to enter a country that is "non-islamic". How would you then distinguish between a real apostate and a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Although I am sure if we ever reached that point the Islamic territories would have their own border patrol.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

38. Comment #235939 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:34 am

I'll take that in reverse order, if I may:

Right. Let's pretend for a moment that muslims are not granted permission to enter a country that is "non-islamic". How would you then distinguish between a real apostate and a wolf in sheeps clothing?

Well, it's really rather simple. You know how, when you try to get on a plane you have to answer alot of dumb questions? The point about those is that, if something turns out to be up, you can be charged with lying to an official. Same thing with asylum applications.

You can ask about their religious-political affiliation, and if they are apostates they have to claim refuge from religious persecution. Then they either need to keep a very low profile (if they are wolves in sheeps clothing) or face deportation and loss of citizenship when it comes out that they've lied about their application. Simple and straightforward.

Well, when Britain was dealing with the Northern Ireland troubles, there was the Long Kesh for IRA goons, so that's option 1. Option 2 is to expel this lot. Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

39. Comment #235942 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:39 am

Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

What a brilliant idea. It will be bad enough putting to death people who want to be martyrs for a cause, but just imagine what you will stir up if a less-than-perfect legal system wrongly puts to death an innocent.

There is no question you have considerable knowledge, but your "solutions" are little more than Richard Littlejohn-style rants.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

40. Comment #235943 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:41 am

What a brilliant idea. It will be bad enough putting to death people who want to be martyrs for a cause, but just imagine what you will stir up if a less-than-perfect legal system wrongly puts to death an innocent.

Oh? And what about when Abu Hamzas new mujahideen converts get out of jail and kill fifty, sixty, a hundred innocents?

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

41. Comment #235945 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 12:43 am

Comment #235943 by Fanusi Khiyal

Oh? And what about when Abu Hamzas new mujahideen converts get out of jail and kill fifty, sixty, a hundred innocents?

Killing people is naughty. We have a legal system to deal with people who kill.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

42. Comment #235946 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:48 am

Well, when Britain was dealing with the Northern Ireland troubles, there was the Long Kesh for IRA goons, so that's option 1. Option 2 is to expel this lot. Option 3, which I do reserve for incitement to jihad terrorism or being complicit in such acts, is death.

Option One would work, of course that would be costly and be another tax issue (among other issues) here in the states. Perhaps it would work in the UK. I think option two gets my vote. Option three I am very weary about because I am against any form of death penalty.

Now on to the apostate issue, to sum up I do agree. But after my last post it did dawn on me, that if Islamists were not allowed citizenship into other countries that were not Islam already in nature, they would indeed have border patrol of their own. I'm sure that if they realised an individual was trying to obtain citizenship in another country they would be trying to leave the muslim faith, ergo be put to death.

If that were the case, I'm sure we would be running more "underground railroads" for apostates, rather than sitting at the border questioning them. I'm sure it would be a balancing act. I could be wrong.

Any way is everything that you have stated on this thread so far, the opinion that you had a few weeks ago? I mean in regards to all of the bad press you were getting?

EDIT for clarity

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

43. Comment #235949 by Laurie Fraser on August 24, 2008 at 12:51 am

Fanusi, if you go with option 3 for those who incite terrorism, then Bush, Cheney and Rice would be the first on the tumbrils. :)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

44. Comment #235951 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 12:56 am

Option three I am very weary about because I am against any form of death penalty.

I believe you mean 'wary'. But let's leave that aside for the moment.

Now on to the apostate issue, to sum up I do agree. But after my last post it did dawn on me, that if Islamists were not allowed citizenship into other countries that were not Islam already in nature, they would indeed have border patrol of their own. I'm sure that if they realised an individual was trying to obtain citizenship in another country they would be trying to leave the muslim faith, ergo be put to death.

If that were the case, I'm sure we would be running more "underground railroads" for apostates, rather than sitting at the border questioning them. I'm sure it would be a balancing act. I could be wrong.

It's an interesting point. There are ways - real ways - to lean on these governments. We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever. Anyway, that's something for discussion. I'd welcome your input.

Bear in mind that this is part of a number of things I'm advocating, including a campaign of ferocious and principled cultural imperialism.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

45. Comment #235953 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 12:59 am

Steve, exactly how to you put to death an innocent person caught commiting acts of jihad terrorism?

Especially if their aim is to be a martyr? If one such muslim would survive an act of suicide during a jihad terrorist strike, what are the chances of them denying it?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

46. Comment #235956 by Laurie Fraser on August 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

Come come, wp - you're being disingenuous. You know what Steve meant. ;)

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

47. Comment #235958 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 24, 2008 at 1:06 am

*dryly* Oh, Laurie there is no doubt about what Steve meant - to be an irritating self-righteous pest (look at the asinine 'naughty' comments).

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

48. Comment #235962 by Laurie Fraser on August 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

A bit harsh, Fanusi - I think Steve's point is fair, considering the propensity of the legal system to fuck up. If a "supposed" terrorist was executed, then turned out to be innocent (we had a case recently where that scenario, without the execution factor, nearly eventuated), then there'd be hell to pay. Besides, capital punishment is barbaric anyway.

Other Comments by Laurie Fraser

49. Comment #235963 by Steve Zara on August 24, 2008 at 1:13 am

Comment #235951 by Fanusi Khiyal

We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever.

Sometimes one does not need to argue - just quote.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #235964 by thewhitepearl on August 24, 2008 at 1:14 am

Touche. But since you brought it up, wary or weary would describe my feelings toward the death penalty in association with extreme jihad terrorists.

There are ways - real ways - to lean on these governments. We could make it very clear, just to take one example, that we are willing to embargo a country that doesn't knock that off - or seize it's oil fields, or whatever

Leaning on an Islamic government already pissed off they are pratically banned from inheriting other countries. An automatic issue raised in my mind is they aren't dumbasses. If you really want to boil it down to the best government system (when it comes to control) they have it in the bag. Masters of manipulation and control. They believe Allah is on their side, how can we lean on them in a way that won't ignite a serious war? When push comes to shove I wonder if they can really be pressured to knock anything off that occurs on their side of the fence.

I'm not sure if I made myself very clear. I might have to touch back on that.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

Reload Comments | Back to Top