Spying on Muslims

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/6353035/Anti-extremism-scheme-spying-on-muslims.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/16/anti-terrorism-strategy-spies-innocents

Is this to be condoned in a free country, or a necessity taking into account the present situation?

[bunkmoreland]

Good answer to cheeris,ahmskunnirt ;-) Some people dont know when it goes over their head ;-) May i ask what you're particularly "skunnirt" about in general?

[Kromovaracun]

"No, not necessarily. But it was understandable due to the nature of the threat. And what was the alternative at the time? Nothing, it was all they could do. Well, I suppose they could have done nothing at all but I suggest that this would not have been the wisest move by our security services do you?"

But it didn't work (as you admit). You can't praise the pragmatism/realism of something and then admit that the policy you're basing your argument on didn't work - the whole point of pragmatism in politics is doing what works.

Why do you talk about 'doing nothing'? Do you think the police are just sitting on their hands? As far as I'm aware, they've discovered and broken numerous plots in the past few years largely by old-fashioned police work. It's not an alternative between spying and doing nothing.

And forgive me if this is wrong, but I get the distinct impression from your post that you're implying that police don't allready target Muslims or those in the 'profile' you describe, and that this policy will change that. Which is also untrue.

I'm all in favour of being realistic and practical against terrorism. But as you've identified the problem of the Muslim community not rooting out its extremists/suspected terrorists (I have to confess I'm not entirely sure of the exact extent to which that is true, so I'm taking your word for it), I'd suggest that alienating them even further likely won't solve it.

[anotheoldgit]

TCL-MUMPING
"the sad fact is that in this terrorist threat situation, all Muslims are suspect."
Using that logic, all men are suspect paedophiles and rapists.

Since it has been reported recently men are not the only sex that can be paedophiles, and since we must assume that only men are rapists then your assumptions are only a dodgy 50% right.

Taking this on board until an identity can be placed on a particularly member of a sex, then yes all persons of that sex are suspect.

Perhaps the Muslims should consider themselves lucky only to be spied upon, during the 2nd World War all Germans, Italians and Japanese were interned.

[TCL-MUMPING]

Are there Muslim terrorists in Ulster planting bombs in Ulster? I think not. Would you welcome the security forces spying on every Ulster man and woman?

[birdie1971]

I fail to see the problem with this policy. Just ask yourself two simple questions...

Q1: Which group of people are predominantly planning and executing the vast majority of terrorist atrocities?

A1: Muslim men.

Q2: Bearing in mind the answer to Q1, which group of people should the security services be spending the majority of their time investigating?

A2: ….

Anyone?

Kromovaracun - “... as you've identified the problem of the Muslim community not rooting out its extremists/suspected terrorists... I'd suggest that alienating them even further likely won't solve it.”

No it won't 'solve' it. But you cannot address the issue of religious extremism without alienating other Muslims. It's impossible. Muslims view any perceived attack on another Muslim as an attack on their religion. If the majority of terrorists were white, clean shaven middle-aged men then I would have to expect that I was going to be routinely stopped and possibly investigated.

Would I enjoy this? No, I most certainly would not.

Would I understand it and consider it a necessity given the threat from terrorism? Yes I would.

After all, it's less inconvenient than being dismembered in an explosion caused by someone who honestly believes that death is preferable to life.

[birdie1971]

By the way, anyone reading this and wondering if I'm making up the “Undercover Mosque” story can view the documentary here...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843 />
And its sequel here...

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/culture/watch/v15811168JWdSd5sq

Interestingly, West Midlands Police didn't like the first programme and tried to prosecute Channel Four, claiming that by showing the programme, various criminal offences had been committed. They complained to Ofcom but their claim was rejected. Undaunted, they took Channel Four to the High Court – and lost spectacularly. Primarily because there was no case to answer as the documentary had, “accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context”.

Not surprisingly, plod didn't complain about the sequel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_Mosque

[birdie1971]

Sorry, the first link should look like this...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2515587181120245843

[flip_flop]

In reference to your 2 questions birdie, both of which I have asked myself and others in the past, for the life of me I can never understand why people struggle with the fact - and it is a fact - that both answers are Muslim Men.

Why is that so/too difficult?

On my summer holiday this year we went to Kefalonia, and airport security was an absolute nightmare. We, dad (late 30s), mum (mid 30s), daughter (5) and son (8 months), were pretty rigorously searched - I even had to tear open a sealed carton of baby milk and take a swig from it.

Now, are a family of four off for a two week break to Greece really likely to blow-up a plane? Really?

I personally don't see what's wrong singling out those more likely!

But that is racist I hear those of a Guardian disposition nasally whining - but they'd be wrong. If it has been reported that a dog has bitten somebody, you wouldn't start looking for cats.