UK fails to tackle home-grown terrorism: Pakistani officials

event horizon Are you sure that quote isn't from Moses?

shafique ^ :lol: Words of wisdom indeed. Cheers, Shafique viking-warrior Bora Bora ^^^Well said. event horizon

ISLAMABAD: Senior Pakistani sources have accused Britain of failing to do enough to tackle home-grown terrorists and maintain they are falsely being blamed for harbouring extremists plotting to attack the UK.
A senior Pakistan diplomat told the Guardian that his country was being treated as a ‘whipping boy’ by Britain. The terrorists, including those convicted on Monday for the airlines plot, were ‘born and brought up’ in Britain, not Pakistan, he said.
The diplomat also stressed the Pakistani intelligence tipped the UK off about the plot, saving 1,500 lives aboard seven transatlantic jetliners and thwarting al-Qaeda's biggest attack on the west since 9/11.
British and US counter-terrorism officials believe that terrorists in Pakistan played a central role in the airlines plot. On Monday, three people were convicted of conspiring to explode liquid bombs on planes heading from London to North America, and a fourth was found guilty of conspiracy to murder.
Counter-terrorism officials in the UK believe the plot was put together on Pakistan's border with Afghanistan, with a fixer linking al-Qaeda with the terrorist cell based in London and High Wycombe. Some belonging to the cell went to Pakistan for training.
In a calculated move, a senior Pakistani diplomat in London hit back, saying: ‘Sometimes, for our British friends the truth is bitter. We have somehow turned out to be a whipping boy; there is a long history to that. The British need to search their own house. Britain has to take responsibility and they have to look into the issues which are driving these youth to extremism, which is third-generation British – they weren't born and bought up in Pakistan.’
In December, the prime minister, while on a trip to Pakistan, expressed in public Britain's fear of terrorists being seemingly out of the reach of Islamabad. ‘Three-quarters of the most serious plots investigated by the British authorities have links to the al-Qaeda in Pakistan. Our aim must be to work together to do everything in our power to cut off terrorism,’ said Gordon Brown. His claim, however, angered Pakistan. The senior diplomat said that in all seven plots no Pakistani person was involved. ‘Yes, a Briton of Pakistani origin, but a third-generation born and bought up in Britain. We don't agree with Brown's claims that three-quarters of these plots originate in Pakistan. We don't have a magic wand to turn these people into extremists. These people were born in Britain, taught here, bred here.’
The diplomat also claimed the plotters would have succeeded in blowing up the planes if it had not been for Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency: ‘It was Pakistan that informed Britain about this plot…we tipped them off, it was our security agency that tipped off the British…the British authorities are very much indebted to Pakistan. We had a major role in unearthing this plot. Had it not been for Pakistan [it] would not have been unearthed.’

shafique Ah - I love the humour - including a photo of Rauf who escaped from Pakistani custody after being allowed to go and pray alone in a mosque! Nice one! :lol: Of course Pakistan is a haven of peace and free from terrorist attacks etc - Britain is a far greater threat from terrorism, both attacks and the recruitment and training etc. I guess you are also a fan of Alice in Wonderland, as well as the tele-tubbies? Cheers, Shafique event horizon I think it should speak volumes that shafique has not addressed the quotes from the Pakistani official who said:

Britain has to take responsibility and they have to look into the issues which are driving these youth to extremism, which is third-generation British – they weren't born and bought up in Pakistan.’

‘Yes, a Briton of Pakistani origin, but a third-generation born and bought up in Britain. We don't agree with Brown's claims that three-quarters of these plots originate in Pakistan. We don't have a magic wand to turn these people into extremists. These people were born in Britain, taught here, bred here.’

It's also interesting that an Iraqi official who visited Britain's mosques three years ago, arrived at the same conclusion as our truth-telling Pakistani friend:

THE Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq has claimed mosques in Blackburn are more extreme than in his home country, according to an MP.
The shock comments were allegedly made by Dr Barham Salih, who visited the town as a guest of Jack Straw in 2005.
He is reported to have told a Conservative MP: "I am not surprised that you British are facing so many problems with extremists after what I saw in those mosques in Blackburn.
"What I saw...would not be allowed here in Iraq - it would be illegal."
The comments have angered mosque leaders in the town, who have branded them "a load of rubbish".
The Lancashire Telegraph has sent a fax to Dr Salih via the Iraqi Embassy in London asking him to explain his views.
Shadow culture minister Tobias Ellwood said Dr Salih was speaking to him at a dinner party in Baghdad in November.
Mr Ellwood made the claims during a Westminster debate about terrorism.
Speaking after the debate, Mr Ellwood said: "I know Jack Straw well, but my eyebrows raise when you have a very senior Iraqi leader make comments like that.
"I do not believe these comments can be dismissed out of hand.
"I was absolutely shocked.
"He went inside the mosques, and said literature he saw would be illegal.
"He was quite clear.
"The comments are only directed at a very small proportion of mosques in the UK - the vast majority of Muslims wouldn't want to be labelled."
Salim Mulla, of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, reacted furiously to the comments.
He said Dr Salih spoke positively about what he had seen when they spoke during his visit.
Mr Mulla said: "We are going out of our way to bring the community together.
"Nobody is working harder than us at breaking down barriers.
"For Dr Salih to make these sort of comments is not very helpful at all.
"I don't know where he's coming from.
"He was very co-operative when he visited, and took lots of photographs.
"How many incidents have we had in Blackburn?
"He is talking a load of rubbish."
Dr Salih, a Sunni Muslim, was elected in January 2005 to Iraq's first democratically-held elections in 50 years.
During his visit to Blackburn, in the run up to the 2005 general election, he told an audience at Audley Community Centre not to vote against Mr Straw, then foreign secretary, because of the war in Iraq.
Coun Mulla said he could not remember which mosques Dr Salih had visited.
Mr Straw could not be contacted for comment.

/
I think this boils down to whose views are more credible - a Pakistani anti terror czar who says they are fighting against terrorism and, indeed, have lost many soldiers and government workers in the fight against the Taliban (which are supported directly or indirectly by Britain's Muslim community: and are betraying their own country by fighting for the Afghan Taliban ) an Iraqi politician who has first hand account to the extremism being preached in some of Britain's mosques or shafique. shafique So you are fan of Alice in Wonderland and believe Britain is a greater hotbed for what you would call 'Islamic terrorism' than Pakistan!? ;) A cursory look at the stats will show whether Bradford or Peshawar has had more terrorist bombs - but then again, why let actual facts get in the way of a story eh? Fair enough - if you want to believe this - I just thought I'd give you some credit and assume you were in on the joke. As for Pakistani officials wanting to divert attention.. as Mandy Rice-Davies once said 'he would say that wouldn't he' :) Also - you have to make up your mind (I'm sure you can, if you try hard enough) - you once started a thread about Muslims in Britain advertising in Pakistan about the truth about Islamphobia in Britain - that by and large the media etc portray Islam in a positive light and don't peddle the Orientalist Islamophobic views that some here still persist in believing. You will recall I said it was a good initiative - perhaps the Pakistani official was irked that the British Muslims were educating Pakistani nationals about the reality of life in the UK? Then you chose to not agree with the move - even though I agreed that the media wasn't, in-fact, Islamophobic when it came to describing the religion of Islam - for media and politicians have rightly pointed out that Islam's teachings are peaceful and terrorism has no part in it. (This is in stark contrast to what you believe, I know, but it is a fact that this is what the media and politicians have said - I can only imagine how it must irritate you to think that these views of Islam are all wrong and you are right... 'little Johnny is the only one walking in time.. all the others are out of time') Cheers, Shafique event horizon I guess one must choose who to believe - an official from a country widely regarded as a haven for Islamic terrorists or the Pakistani diplomat.
I think the quotes speak for themselves, but it should say something that shafique has not bothered to contest them:

and they have to look into the issues which are driving these youth to extremism, which is third-generation British – they weren't born and bought up in Pakistan.’
...
The senior diplomat said that in all seven plots no Pakistani person was involved. ‘Yes, a Briton of Pakistani origin, but a third-generation born and bought up in Britain.

:wink: shafique

event horizon wrote:
I guess one must choose who to believe - an official from a country widely regarded as a haven for Islamic terrorists or the Pakistani diplomat.

Indeed - thanks for making my point exactly.
One can be a sheep or one can use one's faculties. If you want to believe that Britain is a greater hotbed for terrorism than Pakistan, you really must also be very selective when you read even Fox News!
But let me quote Jesus:

Matthew 7:3-5 (New International Version)
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Cheers,
Shafique

1 Dubai Jobs .com The First Place to Find a Job in Dubai
shafique

event horizon wrote:
If you recall, I acknowledged I confused one massacre for another. I'm more than happy to fess up to a somewhat trivial mistake

Finally. Phew - see it wasn't hard.
In reality, you never did admit you made a mistake - even when I gave you the opportunity and proposed that you were confusing two different accounts. On the contrary you gave the excuse that you didn't have access to your books and would look up the reference in due course.
But - hey, as I said - no issues now - we all make mistakes.
You say it was a trivial mistake - I'll take you at your word then that you consider it a trivial matter. You mistakenly thought a small skirmish was a 'massacre' - but hey, the moral is that one shouldn't really trust what one reads on these Orientalist sites! ;)
I also see that you consider the Bible's accounts of James the Just to be accurate despite what Kung says above - about the Bible being fudged by Pauline Christians to support their views. But we have a thread discussing the historical accuracy of the Bible in the religion forum .. so
Back to this topic - Pakistan trying to blame the UK, a funny joke right?
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon If you recall, I acknowledged I confused one massacre for another. I'm more than happy to fess up to a somewhat trivial mistake (unlike claiming that James and the Jewish Christians opposed *preaching* to Gentiles then claiming you never said this and really meant the opposition was over Gentiles following all of Jewish law - even though I had repeatedly explained this to you).

and said I had mixed up that even with James the Just's opposition to Paul's teachings relating to Gentiles.

I agree, you believe this. James actually agreed with Peter over this issue - but this has been explained to you to death (although initially, you were once again unaware of the Jerusalem council).
Now, getting back on topic... shafique Pretty much strayed off topic now - but hey, happy to correct your misunderstanding and take you up on your challenge of answering unanswered questions. You say you will give your answer after I give mine - so let's see whether you follow through. (I fully expect it will another 'all mouth no trousers' result - but hey I live in hope!)

event horizon wrote:
- But I do happen to know what I'm talking about when I give quotations and don't tend to post extracts which contradict my arguments (eg quoting Kung who says the Bible has contradictory verses to support your opposite view)
Ooops, my mistake then.

Yep.

event horizon wrote:

I guess that you never claimed that Paul 'persuaded' Peter to convert Cornelius in Acts 10 even though Paul is not even mentioned (and even though Peter's ministry to Gentiles begins earlier in Acts, but I think that's too complicated for this discussion)???

You guessed right - I never claimed that. I had the impression you were quite young - but perhaps you are getting confused in your old age?? Hmmm.

event horizon wrote:

Curiouser and curiouser.
- You never did get round to explaining this - but then again, perhaps you still think you are right despite it being only a figment of your imagination.
Yes, I agree. Someone has some splainin to do.

Glad we agree on the 'someone'. You promised to come up a reference for the ficticious 7000 massacred by Amr, the first one you gave (Kennedy) did not - so it appears this is another case of 'all mouth no trousers' (losing count of these now).

event horizon wrote:

Why don't you start first and I'll try t remember the answer I gave to you the first time around?

Ok - I didn't say anything about Peter and Cornelius. I did say that Peter objected to Gentile conversion and then corrected myself when I got the Biblical quote which said that other apostles objected to Peter mixing with Gentiles and said I had mixed up that even with James the Just's opposition to Paul's teachings relating to Gentiles. This led us to the difference between Jewish and Pauline Christianity - and thanks to the quote from Kung - he says more eloquently what I said many times (that the Bible was fudged by the Pauline Christians):

Another notable quote from Kung - page 15 of Women in Christianity:
- For today we know that the history of theology and the church, too, was predominantly written by the victors at the expense of the losers - along dogmatic or church-political lines. The losers in this kind of traditional church history are not just individual 'heretics' who have been rehabilitated by more recent histiography.
  Whole areas of Christianity were losers, like the Jewish Christians who, as we saw, for the most part were already being regarded as heretical in the second and third centuries.

So, I await your answer about the 7000 supposedly massacred by Amr. It wasn't in Kennedy or the source he used (Muslim conquests of Egypt, IIRC).
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon

But I do happen to know what I'm talking about when I give quotations and don't tend to post extracts which contradict my arguments (eg quoting Kung who says the Bible has contradictory verses to support your opposite view)

Ooops, my mistake then. I guess that you never claimed that Paul 'persuaded' Peter to convert Cornelius in Acts 10 even though Paul is not even mentioned (and even though Peter's ministry to Gentiles begins earlier in Acts, but I think that's too complicated for this discussion)???
Curiouser and curiouser.

You never did get round to explaining this - but then again, perhaps you still think you are right despite it being only a figment of your imagination.

Yes, I agree. Someone has some splainin to do. Why don't you start first and I'll try to remember the answer I gave to you the first time around?
: ) shafique

event horizon wrote:
Are you sure that quote isn't from Moses?

:lol:
Nice one!
But I do happen to know what I'm talking about when I give quotations and don't tend to post extracts which contradict my arguments (eg quoting Kung who says the Bible has contradictory verses to support your opposite view) ;)
So, I take it you were in on the joke that the Pakistani official was making all along..?
edit - which reminds me, you quoted Kennedy in relation to an alleged massacre of 7000 by Amr ibn al As - a claim when looked up in Kennedy didn't pan out and it appears that the figure was plucked out of thin air. You never did get round to explaining this - but then again, perhaps you still think you are right despite it being only a figment of your imagination.
(And Kennedy, in 'Great Arab Conquests', also contradicts eh's view of the Islamic conquests as his book shows that massacres were rarities and not the norm Ikka/eh believes)
But I digress...apologies ... thanks for the laugh though.
Cheers,
Shafique event horizon I see that shafique has confused two different historical events (similar to how he confused passages clearly written in Paul's epistles and thought they must have been the writings of another apostle, etc). Perhaps shafique can clarify what he meant by his comment that the massacre of a village was 'a small skirmish'? shafique

event horizon wrote:
I see that shafique has confused two different historical events (similar to how he confused passages clearly written in Paul's epistles and thought they must have been the writings of another apostle, etc). Perhaps shafique can clarify what he meant by his comment that the massacre of a village was 'a small skirmish'?

I take it we agree that the Pakistani official was making a joke then?
You should really start a new thread in the religion forum to deal with my 'mistake' ;)
I confess, perhaps it is my memory that is faulty and it was a 'massacre' after all and it was just your 7000 figure that was a mistake - but let's see review the evidence first. If I recall, you said that 7000 were massacred in Bahnasa, yet this figure you now say was a mistake.
It will be good to establish how many civilians killed constitutes a massacre - or whether the clearing out of a village is a massacre. There are other examples where some dispute the word 'massacre' being applied - let us see if we can get a consensus here between us eh.
Cheers,
Shafique