‘Terrorism works’ Islamic preacher told students at UK University

[Chaz Sexington]

Chaz for prime minister.

Tough choice between Chaz and Clarkson lol. Same cabinet though lol

You need to run for government

Good to see there's some sense left in Britain! (H)

 

[ajt09]

Good to see there's some sense left in Britain! (H)

As long as you don't forget your bizarre stories commitments for FM Base matey lol

 

[Fish Hunter]

You definitely lost your national sentiment, when you call your self Abdur Raheem Green and promote terrorism. I think this guy deserves to be locked up for treason. This guy is good stuff for the fascists parties, I guess Geert Wilders is happy to use this material to spread fear in the heart of people.

For the first, you can't compare the two kinds of warfare. The wars in the Middle East where our soldiers, by accidents a few times kills innocent people because they are in the firing line, is not the same as bombing random innocent people at purpose.

For the second, when a nation is medieval-like, it is our duty to free and teach the people of that nation to become civilized by introducing new laws and innovative ideas to develop a country into a modern nation. We can't tolerate that women is getting stoned to death for being raped that is inhumane. Religion must have less power.

For the third, they must learn to tolerate other people as we tolerate them.

For the fourth, they could learn something of Atatürk. It is probably the best that ever happened Turkey. Sad he died so young.

 

[Brian]

You definitely lost your national sentiment, when you call your self Abdur Raheem Green and promote terrorism. I think this guy deserves to be locked up for treason. This guy is good stuff for the fascists parties, I guess Geert Wilders is happy to use this material to spread fear in the heart of people.

Dont see where he promotes Terrorism and also he probably had no hand in his name. Your slightly racist if you say his name means he isnt British and people wonder why they turn to terrorism, btw Its funny how one becomes a terrorist and others become heroes but meh lets not get into that (I am not saying Terrorism is right just saying its a false term given to some people when it applies to much more)

 

[Jak]

Dont see where he promotes Terrorism and also he probably had no hand in his name. Your slightly racist if you say his name means he isnt British and people wonder why they turn to terrorism, btw Its funny how one becomes a terrorist and others become heroes but meh lets not get into that (I am not saying Terrorism is right just saying its a false term given to some people when it applies to much more)

Nelson Mandela anyone?

 

[Fish Hunter]

Dont see where he promotes Terrorism and also he probably had no hand in his name. Your slightly racist if you say his name means he isnt British and people wonder why they turn to terrorism, btw Its funny how one becomes a terrorist and others become heroes but meh lets not get into that (I am not saying Terrorism is right just saying its a false term given to some people when it applies to much more)

In an indirect way:

“His rational [sic] is, we are going to keep on killing your women and children until you stop killing our women and children. How do you argue with that?” said Green in his speech.
The other thing is that it seems that terrorism works. We certainly have precedent,” he added.

He is trying to get supporters that way. It would be pretty hard to promote terrorism by yelling: "Allahu Akbar and death to the infidels!"................ You agree? He agrees that terrorism is alright as long as we have troops stationed in their country.

I am not racist by the way. I didn't say he wasn't British, I just said that he lost his love to his homeland and it's a very sad story...

 

[curtis290]

They provoke us, which causes us to retaliate which just provokes them further which leads to them further attacking us. It's just an infinitely recurring cycle until someone wins, since neither side is willing to give in. Hence why it breaks down once someone doesn't behave as the terrorists would like. And given the fact there's many more people in the UK, US armies etc. with far better equipment and resources, with advancing technology rates - If there's a winner, surely it's more likely to be us. So it's still not really 'successful'. I'd class a success as being Spain pulling out of Iraq after the Madrid bombings, the UK and US aren't going to give in to any terrorist threat soon, so it's just needless, unjustified irrational violence by religious extremists.

But that's exactly what they want in this case, so it is effective in that it achieves its objectives. Terrorist groups want to incite warfare between the West and Islamic countries/societies since it gets them recruits, money, power, and importance and justifies their existence. We have a lot of people in the West who want the same for the same reasons. But of course terrorism comes in many different forms for many different reasons and often times it's difficult to draw the line between terrorism and resistance. Sometimes it's effective in accomplishing its objectives, sometimes its not. I didn't read anything other than the OP but it doesn't necessarily sound like he's condoning terrorism, it totally would depend on the context. When he said there was precedent for its success he's right, obviously there have been times in history when it has worked. When he said "you can't argue with that" he might have been simply stating that bin Laden's rationale seems very reasonable to a lot of people in the Middle East (which is the truth) without making any type of value judgement on it (or maybe he condemned it). I'd like to see the the speech itself before we jump to conclusions.