Detention and interrogation of terror suspects at Guantanamo bay as excuse for terror and Obama and others buy into this non senses to smear Bush, for ideoloical reasons, and forceful anti-terror tactics

From AFP

Mr Obama views Guantanamo, which conjures up images of water-boarding and other alleged torture, as a prime symbol of Bush-era war on terror excess that only serves as a recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.

[White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told CNN's State of the Union program on Sunday] "Are they willing to listen to others in the national security arena that have told us and will tell them and have, quite frankly, told the public that Al-Qaeda recruits young people to do harm, to try to blow up airplanes, to blow up themselves and kill others, they use that [Guantanamo Bay detention camp] as a recruiting tool?"

---

Source: AFP

---

Comments: Guantanamo is being used as a lame excuse for terrorism by Islamic terrorists and their liberal and left-wing apologists.

Why don't these liberals and left-wingers fight the Islamic terrorist lies and excuses, instead of giving in and trying to shut down Guantanamo that saved lives.

The real reason Obama and the liberal-left attack Guantanamo is to smear George W Bush for ideological reasons (political reasons) and paint him in a negative light, in order to make themselves look good (Bush and his supporters bad. We, his opponents, are good.), when in fact they are being naive and morally bigoted. They only care about terrorists and dangerous criminals. Not about innocent people and  victims.

The real reason Islamists attack Guantanamo is because they hate any strong action being taken against them and to portray such strong actions as bad, so that only ineffective actions will be taken against them.

---

Some previous similar or related stories:

UK to lessen some anti-terror laws, reviewing others

For similar or related stories posted after this article (if any), copy the title of this article and paste it in the search box on top of the page and click search or click on the 'Lables' below.

WkikLeaks: US and Karzai say UK 'not up to the task' in Afghanistan and ‘made a mess of things’ according to ‘dismayed’ U.S. General Dan McNeil

Daily Mail reports that,

President Hamid Karzai contemptuously dismissed UK forces as ‘not up to the task’ of securing the Taliban stronghold [of Helmand province], cables released by WikiLeaks have revealed.

And U.S. General Dan McNeil, who led Nato forces in the war zone in 2007-08, claimed to be ‘dismayed’ that Britain had ‘made a mess of things’.

Ian Sadler, of Exmouth, Devon, who lost his son, Trooper Jack Sadler, 21, when his Land Rover hit a mine near Sangin in 2007 said:

‘We weren’t up to doing the job. The soldiers were, but they didn’t have the support of the Government, and they still don’t have the full support.’

Hillary has made an apology for those comments.

Source: Daily Mail (UK)


Comment: Can we trust Hillary's apology? We will have to wait until the next leaks to find out but judging from what was revealed in the current leaks, she probably was just being 'diplomatic'.

Here is a previous comment regarding the British

This is symptomatic, especially of the British among the rest of the wishful thinkers, who in their immature and childish psychology, naively and arrogantly think that being 'nice' will solve everything. (There were reports that British troops were replaced by the Americans in Musa Qala, Helmand province, Afghanistan, after their be 'nice' approach didn't work, with Marine commander Lt. Col. Michael Manning saying, "They didn't pursue the Taliban," "We'll go after them." There were also earlier claims by US General Jack Keane and Col Peter Mansoor that the Brits left in disgrace and defeat from souther Iraq after a similar approach failed and handed the place over to Islamic extremists and as a result, among other things, '45 women were killed by the militia for "un-Islamic" behaviour'. So being nice to terrorists is not nice to their victims. The French intelligence even claimed their own capital has been taken over by the Islamists and called it 'Londonistan'. The British are only hard on other British and non-British who speaks out against Islamic extremism as the recent example of 'anti-terror' police John Larkin shows.)


Some previous similar or related stories:

UK's MI6 'intelligence' conned by impostor claiming to be Taliban's Mullah Mansour – “naive” Westerners “excited so quickly” about peace talks

Problem of Asian (MUSLIM PAKISTANI?) gangs luring and sexually abusing young White girls in Northern England but PC authorities won't admit

Obama and anti-war defeatists blamed for emboldening terrorists in Afghanistan where minorities want US to stay

For similar or related stories posted after this article, copy the title of this article and paste it in the search box on top of the page and click search.

For even more similar or related stories, click on the 'Labels' below.

UK to lessen some anti-terror laws, reviewing others

 UK is set to reduce pre-charge detention of terror suspects from 28 days to 14.

 Ed Balls, the Labour party's shadow secretary, said they got the balance on civil liberties wrong when they were in power by trying to increase the length of detention to 90 and then 42 days. He said they suffered damage to their reputation as a result. 

 But he added that "it was really hard. We had these massive terror threats, we had the plots" and they "acted and got the resources in and updated our legislation."

 Control orders introduced in 2005 that place terror suspects under close supervision are also under review over complaints that it was too harsh.


Source: BBC


Comment: Some people still have not woken up the new reality of Islamic terror. This is an age of Terror. Laws and measures should be there before they are needed and not made as a knee-jerk reaction in the aftermath of some terrorist atrocity.

 Concerns about civil liberties could be addressed by clearly restricting these forceful measures to the fight against terrorism and not used in other areas. This way the rest of the population unconnected to terror can remain untouched by them.

 As Pakistan's Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said, terrorists "offers no quarter, obeys no law and holds nothing sacred." They kill and main innocent civilians deliberately, and yet some people are more concerned about their 'rights' than the life of their victims.

 There is also a need to watch out for terrorists and their supporters pretending to be 'Human-yeah-Right' activists to infiltrate the system and work from the inside, as it was in the case of Arab-Israeli human rights activist Amir Makhoul who has pleaded guilty to spying for enemy of Israel.


Similar or related stories:

The law is an ass: Somali pirate boat captured and blown up but pirates released unpunished

Plans to allow 'race-based' searches by the police in Britain canceled over fears of 'racial' profiling (But Islam is not a race)

NYC 'Human right' commissioner Omar T. Mohammedi did not reveal his CAIR past - he once proposed “discredit” the critics campaign

ISLAMIC TERROR 101: A case study in race-card, victim-card, blaming victims & isolated explanations, using UK 'anti-terror' police John Larkin

Detective Superintendent John Larkin of the West Midlands counter-terrorism unit told BBC Radio 5 Live that²

In some areas, we have evidence that once they have gone and the high-profile policing of the event has occurred, there's fertile ground for those groups who would come in to encourage people to have this reality - this is the way white Western society sees us¹

And that's a potential recruiting carrot for people and that's what some of these radicalisers look for - they look for the vulnerability, for the hook to pull people through and when the EDL have been and done what they've done, they perversely leave that behind.¹

 He also claimed that [The following is not a direct quote by him but only as reported in the Daily Mail]

there is evidence that violence or damage towards Muslim property associated with the protests encourages extremist retaliation afterwards² 

 The English Defence League (EDL) was formed last year after Islamists protested against British soldiers returning from tour of duty, calling them “murderers” and “rapists.”³

 They have carried out numerous anti-extremism demonstrations, some of which have

often turned violent with clashes breaking out not so much between the EDL and Islamists, but with the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter).³

 Nick Lowles, from the anti-racist group Searchlight told the Guardian that

"For the [Muslims Against Crusades] the presence and activities of the EDL prove how white British society is the enemy. For the EDL the Islamist extremists are proof of the violent nature of Islam. They are two sides of the same coin of hate."⁴

 In reply to Larkin, EDL leader Tommy Robinson sarcastically said that they could not have been responsible for all of 9-11, 7-7 attacks on London, the 17,000 terror attacks since 9-11 and “1,400 years of history, where Islam's been at war with non-Islam.”^1,3

 He explained that,

The root cause of the problem is the Koran, it's Islam and no one has got the balls to admit it and say it and talk about it. We will.³

The problem is when someone takes a 7th century book and tries to implement it in its barbaric way.³ [Emphasis and hyperlinks added]

Sources: 1. BBC, 2. Daily Mail (U.K.), 3. International Business Times 4. The Guradian (U.K.)


Analysis: Larkin engaged in the now well know 'blame game' and used 'race card' - "this is the way white Western society sees us" - and 'victim card' - "violence or damage towards Muslim property" - as an excuse for terrorism. He also made a 'blame the victim' argument by blaming victims of terrorism speaking out in protest and calling for action as causing terrorism.

 Non-Muslim White Britain can not however use the exact same reasoning and use the race card - 'this is the way Muslim Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians sees us' - or - victim card -'brutal and sadistic terrorism against civilians, including women and children' to justify even mere protests.

 This shows that Muslims can be angry and aggrieved for even minor issues, but non-Muslim victims can not feel the same way for deadly major issues like the murder of civilians by terrorists. It is a typical double standard that privileges Islamic supremacists and deny non-Muslims the same rights.

 It is good to see that Robinson seems to have recognized the 'isolation' or limited 'context' strategy that tries to portray each cases of terror on it's own and isolated in a narrow limited micro-context, like the protests. He made an excellent counter reply by showing the 1,400 year long trend of Islam in the macro-context.

 The problem of Islamic terrorisms is not isolated or related to this or that particular issue. Instead, it is part of a bigger picture. Out-of-context and localized explanations fail to consider this fact.

 As it had been argued before in a previous article here, such explanations can be challenged at the micro level. But they can also be challenged by showing macro-level trend where there will be violence and conflict but for different reasons.

 Race and the West can be eliminated to show that terrorism exists even then. The clashes in Nigeria have nothing to do with race as both the Christians and Muslims there are Blacks. The persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan or Indonesia by Muslims have nothing to do with the White race or the West. It is also the same for Muslim on Muslim violence all over the world as well.

 In the 'victim-card' case, Christians victims in those countries mentioned before are suffering from daily violence, discrimination or terrorism from Muslims. Yet they do not become radicalized or extreme and join terror groups – since there are none to join.

 This shows the fallacy of the 'race card' and the 'victim card' explanations.

 Take away race and you will still see Muslims fighting other Muslims or non-Muslims of the same race. Look at non-Muslims victims of Muslim persecution and you won't see them using it as an excuse for terrorism like the Muslims do.

 This quote by Walter Rodgers from a previous article posted here illustrates the point clearly.

Bernard Lewis, the renowned Princeton scholar of Islam, has called attention to the Arab tendency to play “the blame game.”[Emphasis added]

He notes Arabs traditionally blamed the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks, the colonial powers, and now the Jews and the Americans for everything that has gone awry

 As for Lowles, he made the tired old 'moral equivalence' argument that equates the victim with the perpetrator. It is an improvement on 'blame-the-victim' argument from Larkin but is still false.

 Even if EDL and their opposition are the same as he claims, the Islamic extremists started it all and caused the formation of EDL. He confuses cause with effect. The effect will disappear once the cause of it is eliminated.

 If there was no Islamic extremism, there would be no EDL. But if there was no EDL, there would still be Islamic extremism. It was already there before the formation of EDL and it exists in other places where there is no EDL.

 Finally, if Larkin is concerned about violence at demonstrations, he should also focus his attention on the left wing pro-Islamic extremists who contribute to it. And of course even if the protests were entirely peaceful, there would still be Islamic extremism as he well knows.

 Larkin may modify his argument and say that EDL and other anti-Islamic extremists do not cause extremism but make the situation worse.

 But even then, free speech and the right to protest should not be sacrificed to appease extremists. Instead, Muslims should learn and accept that in a free and open society, people have the right to challenge and criticize them. There is no place for Sharia blasphemy death penalty laws or hypersensitivity that gets offended by everything and quickly turns to terrorism.

PS: There is no need to agree with EDL's actions for the arguments made here to be valid. Even if EDL was wrong, the arguments here against excuses for terrorism would still hold.


Related story: EDL Leister protest, stones bricks thrown at them, Rabbi will join next protest

Similar stories:

ISLAM 101: A must read article by Bob Siegel refuting tired old politically correct myths about Islam - Share it!

(Bad) Muslim psychology: The blame game

Deadly dysfunctional Muslim culture, past, present, future, and why democracy and modernization fail

Plans to allow 'race-based' searches by the police in Britain canceled over fears of 'racial' profiling (But Islam is not a race)

  Currently the British police may stop and search, or

target suspects only on the basis of 'reasonable suspicion' they are involved in or plotting a crime.

They could not target specific groups - such as focusing on Muslims in the event of an apparent threat from Islamic extremists.

 But changes were proposed which says

while officers 'must take particular care' not to discriminate - there 'may be circumstances where it is appropriate for officers to take account of an individual's ethnic origin in selecting persons and vehicles to be stopped'.

Officers would have had to be responding to some form of intelligence, but not specific to the person involved.

 This proposal was dropped over claims that it would be discriminatory and amounts to racial profiling, and fears of abuse and breaking EU and UK laws.


Source: Daily Mail (U.K.)


Comment: It is ridiculous that Muslims can not be targeted in an event of a terrorism threat coming from within their community. This is not just with Muslims. If there was a threat from Christians then they too should be targeted as well.

 The issue of race or ethnicity, and religion also needs to be separated. Islam is neither a race nor an ethnicity. Terrorists come from all races and other backgrounds.

 Profiling also need not be based solely on race as Brigitte Gabriel argued, citing it's use in Israel. 

 And non-Muslims, such as Juan Williams, who is Black and has written books on the civil rights movement in the U.S., recognized this, and paid for it by being sacked from NPR by the PC censors.

 The PC elites appear not to want to name the Islamic threat and so are deliberately confusing it with race, to the advantage of terror supporters using the race card.

 Watch this space. When the next terrorist atrocity happens, they may regret it, or not, and say it shows the need to be even more PC, like the Dodos.


Similar or related stories:

Israeli style passenger profiling would make airlines safer than the new TSA checks, says terrorism expert Brigitte Gabriel

The law is an ass: Somali pirate boat captured and blown up but pirates released unpunished

Muslim censorship: Journalist Juan Williams fired for expressing worry of Muslims on planes