British police find martyrdom video

[DoYouEverWonder]

August 12, 2006

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,5213007,00.jpg
Terror's white convert: Abdul Waheed, 21, changed his name from Don Stewart-Whyte six months ago


BRITISH police claim to have found a "martyrdom video" in which one of the 24 British Muslims arrested over an alleged plot to destroy up to a dozen passenger aircraft sets out his reasons for joining the planned suicide attack.

British officials said the damning evidence had been found in the home of one of the suspects, who include a 23-year-old biochemistry student and a Heathrow security guard with an all-areas access pass.

The guard was in his airport uniform when he was arrested and led away in handcuffs.

The suspects are mostly of Pakistani origin but two are white converts to Islam. Abdul Waheed, 21, changed his name from Don Stewart-Whyte six months ago after growing up as the son of a Conservative Party official.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20099057-601,00.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. It's a video he made of himself

in which he "sets out his reasons for joining the planned suicide attack". No, it's not a video about what happens in Muslim countries.

Terrorists are frequently people with a good life ahead. They are not people who think their own life isn't worth living; they are just devoted to their cause. See ,for instance, this artilce by a man who has made the most in depth study of suicide bombers: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1838199,00.html

[Oversea Visitor]

4. So by that defination they come from

rich country :rofl:

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. You think access to a video camera means you come from a rich country?

Someone can lend them a camera.

The analysis of suicide bombers is far more detailed than "they could afford to record a video".

Here's a description of the book:

Caveat: the book's conclusions do not hold for terrorism in general (8-9). Pape distinguishes among demonstrative terrorism, which seeks publicity, destructive terrorism, which seeks to exert coercion through the threat of injury and death as well as to mobilize support, and suicide terrorism, which is involves an attacker’s actually killing himself or herself along with others, generally as part of a campaign (9-11). Three historical episodes are introduced for purposes of comparison: the ancient Jewish Zealots (11-12; see also 33-34), the 11th-12th-century Ismaili Assassins (12-13; see also 34-35), and the Japanese kamikazes (13; see also 35-37). There was no suicide terrorism from 1945 to 1980 (13-14). Modern suicide terrorism began in Lebanon in the 1980s (14), followed by cases involving the Tamil Tigers (July 1990), Israel (1994), Persian Gulf (1995), Turkey (1996), Chechnya (2000), Kashmir (2000), and the U.S. (2001) (14-15). Five campaigns were still ongoing in early 2004, when Dying to Win was being written (15-16). Traditional explanations focus on individual motives, but fail to explain the specificity of suicide terrorism (16-17). Economic explanation of this phenomenon yields “poor” results (17-19). Explanation of suicide terrorism as a form of competition between radical groups is dubious (19-20). Pape proposes an alternative explanation of the “causal logic of suicide terrorism”: at the strategic level, suicide terrorism exerts coercive power against democratic states to cease occupation of territory terrorists consider homeland, while at the social level it depends on mass support and at the individual level it is motivated by altruism (20-23). “The bottom line, then, is that suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation” (23).

Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Neither

Pakistan or UK is an occupied country :shrug:

So this then muddle the issue of why?

Is it religion?
If so when did religios terrorism start?
What motivate them?
What cause such motivation?

We live in a time of madness.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. Pakistan does claim to be occupied, in Kashmir

The UK terrorists say they act 'in solidarity' with other Muslim countries that are occupied - Iraq, Palestine, perhaps Kashmir and Chechnya.

[Oversea Visitor]

8. So hence

the terrorism is cause by the occupation of muslim countries.

And in this respect there are 1 billion or more muslims in the world.

If the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan then is the cause of terrorism.

Would then not if the occupation of these country stop then risk of terrorism would be reduce.

I think one can spend a zillion and yet not solve the problems of terrorism if the root cause is not resolve.

By your reasoning the 1 billion muslims are fertile ground for recruitment of terrorist.

In other words wait for them to pop.

But of course bush solution is to brand them Islamic facaist or whatever words he invented :crazy:

[muriel_volestrangler]

9. These particular cases, yes

Not all terrorism, or suicide bombing, is related to Islam - the Tamil Tigers being the obvious current example. Yes, Bush's speech talking about "Islamic fascists" was stupid. He and his speechwriters often are.

[AngryAmish]

21. I heard interviews with the author before

Why did they attack US interests during the 90s when we did not have a military occupation of Iraq and Afganistan? Well, Bin Ladin wanted to depose the Saudi gov't and considered any US troops there an insult to the "holy" peninsula. This is the deal for these fanatics -- if you arte not a Muslim you are to be converted or killed if you live on any inch of land that was once occupied by Muslims. Including Spain.

[SquireJons]

27. Not True

There are large communities of Jews and Christians throughout the Arab and Persian countries. This issue isn't about religion itself, it's about European/American occupation and domination of countries in that part of the world. Israel is seen as a colony for European (white) Jews, and between France, Britain and the U.S., the muslim people have had very little in the way of real self determination since WWI. We arm Israel with the latest weapons and either overthrow or prop up governments in the region, depending on how compliant these governments are to U.S. / European policies.

The only way to end 'Muslim Fascism' is to leave the region alone, and let them control their own natural resources. But that's not going to happen any time soon.

[Marie26]

28. That I don't believe at all.

They aren't in Moveon.org & they're not pacifists. There was terrorism before the occupation of Iraq & Afganistan, and there'll be terrorism after. To a certain extent, it is about the US aggression & domination of that region, but that isn't all of it. The US has been dominating & manipulating countries around the world since at least the Cold War. But when was the last time you heard of Chilean terrorists? There must be some reason why the Muslim world specifically seems to be a hotbed of terrorism against the US. And that missing reason is religion. Religious fundamentalism makes people believe crazy things & do crazy things. These plotters were British citizens, & many were educated & well-to-do. The common link between all these suicide bombers is that they fell into a radical Islamic group that preached hate. Religion inspired these men, and that won't change. If the US withdrew all forces from the area tomorrow, Isreal returned all occupied terroritories, & nations had self-determination, there'd still be terrorism. Radical Islamic terrorists have acted against secular regimes in the region as well. Basically, they want to create Islamic fundamentalist states throughout the region, & won't be content until that happens.

[SquireJons]

38. True, but...

It's a matter of acceptance. The methods of people we call terrorists are at least condoned by a large segment of the arab/muslim population due to western interference in regional affairs. Add to that the fact that autocratic regimes and Israel are propped up by these same western governments and you get a lot of resentment. If the scenario you described came true, there would be an immediate change in public sentiment, and within a generation (probably a lot less), the situation would stabilize and Islamic terrorism toward the west would disappear. In it's place would emerge two large Islamic countries, one Sunni and the other Shia. They might start fighting each other, but that's another topic.

You seem to embrace the idea that Muslims are inherently more violent, because they are more devout in their religion. I don't accept that notion. Christians seem far more violent to me, both today and historically. But that doesn't mean we are going to start bombing their cafe's and airplanes. The only thing that would cause that would be if we were suddenly being repressed by them, which is an unlikely turn of events.

[fedsron2us]

10. How about narcissicism as a motive ?

Surely blowing yourself along with hundreds of bystanders is the ultimate form of attention seeking behaviour. It would appear that most of those alleged to have taken part in the latest plot in Britain had never been on the receiving end of 'foreign occupation'. Instead they seem to be young individuals who feel ignored, marginalised and alienated from the society in which they live. It is anomie masquerading as religious fanaticism. These individuals have far more in common with nineteenth century European anarchist bombers than they would ever dare admit. Interestingly this latter group do not rate a mention in the article on the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism even though they were probably the modern founders of the whole concept of terrorism.

edit for typo

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. So far many of the real terrorist attacks

have been carried out by groups like this. Usually, they have been 'infiltrated' so it makes you wonder who is really behind these attacks. Like in the Miami case, where without the FBI infiltration there would have been no plot.

[fedsron2us]

13. Like vampires the modern state and its opponents all feed

off the doomed idealism of the young who are all too easily conned into throwing away their lives on worthless causes. There is a real global power game going on out there but most of those doing the dying are simply dupes. This murky world was captured over a century ago in fiction by Conrad in his book the 'Secret Agent'. Once you start looking closely at these things it is never entirely clear who is pulling the strings. In Russia in the early years of the 20th Century the anarchist Terror Brigade carried out numerous bombings and the murders of some leading politicians. It was ultimately revealed that their leader and organiser, Yevno Azev, had always been working for the Russian state.

[Judi Lynn]

19. That story certainly dropped like a rock!

They must have been surprised that no one seemed to buy it after they went to all that trouble to set them up.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Marie26]

31. They're still in jail, though

and held without bond w/the flimsiest of charges.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Possibly - were you listening to "Any Questions" today or last evening?

Someone on the panel put forward that theory too. I'm not sure exactly how alienated they are - I thought that was normally used to describe 'loners', rather than those who strongly identify with a particular group rather than the majority. The typical things said about the 7/7 bombers were that people were surprised, since they seemed to have normal lives.

Did the anarchist bombers assume they would get killed in a bombing, or was it just that there was a risk (bomb going off when they're too close, being caught by armed police, etc.)? I think the book (I haven't read it) is only about situation you can really call 'suicide'.

[fedsron2us]

14. No I hate 'Any Questions'

The anarchists bombers of the nineteenth century did not always blow themselves up with their victims but they did seem very careless about their fate. They rarely sought to evade capture, often preferring to die in shoot outs with the police. The chapter on the 'Idea and the Deed' in Barbara Tuchmans book 'The Proud Tower' gives a fascinating insight into their world. Anyway the whole definition of a 'suicide mission' and 'martyrdom' is open to interpretation. Plenty of soldiers in the First and Second World war volunteered for operations where there was only a remote possibility that they would survive. Some members of the Soviet army outside Moscow even went into battle against the Germans without guns. To suggest that somehow the level of sacrifice made by modern suicide bombers is exceptional does not really stand upto much examination. It is just another tactic of war. The idea that all those engaged in such activities are driven by a single motive such as 'foreign occupation' is also a bit simplistic. I suspect that those who carry out such attacks in Iraq really have very different reasons for laying down their lives in this manner than young Muslims in Britain

[Briar]

18. I heard it

within minutes I was asking, "Why are these white, middle aged, middle class people being asked for their opinions on something they obviously have not one single worthwhile clue about." Or perhaps they were never outraged and revolted by blatant injustices against which no conventional redress could succeed. It seems reasonably easy to persuade young men and women to take up arms against an enemy when the struggle is presented as a life or death one started by someone who hates your values. Those young men and women then seem to find it reasonably easy to do the job of killing the "enemy" despite the risk to civilians all around, even at the risk of their own lives. I don't see much difference, to be honest. Since the very notion of killing another person is anathema to me, my objection starts at the "taking up of arms" stage anyway. That's the rubicon which is crossed - after that, it's all about death and killing, whether the truth of the matter is faced or dressed up in fancy ideological mythology.

[fedsron2us]

26. Is their 'outrage and revolt' really that much different from that

expressed by the anarchists, who witnessed the grinding poverty and injustice that was endemic in late 19th Century capitalist society in Europe and America ? They were just as convinced that the society in which they lived was rotten to the core and felt equally justified in the use of acts of violence to try to bring it down. Many were also alienated, disappointed men who through personal circumstances had a grievance against the society in which they lived. Like now, the perpetrators of the deeds of bloodshed were often inspired by idealogues and preachers, whom they rarely met, and who almost never took part in the actual killing. Similarly, then as now, there were many in the state who were only too happy to exploit the panic caused by the 'terrorism' to prop up morally dubious governments and to clamp down on all forms of opposition regardless of whether they espoused violence or not. What I find worrying is that the 'anarchist' threat of the 1890's and the early 1900's seems in retrospect to be one of the harbingers of the First World War. Is the 'Islamic' threat going to play the same role ?

[AngryAmish]

22. Bingo!

[Marie26]

30. More like the

Columbine shooters than Yassir Arafat? I think you've got it.

[lumpy]

32. Interesting article, thanks

Interesting that religion is not the motivating reason for terrorist acts. It is reaonable that the relentless historical invasions and politico/economic meddling in Mideast countries is a prime reason for this sort of undercover warfare. Historically, similar terrorist tactics were used during Europe's birth pangs.

[soothsayer]

3. Donny Jihad! Son of a british pol, eh? Must be proud of one

another

[The_Casual_Observer]

15. I guess this is sufficient reason to throw the world into a panic.

And smear the shit out of Lamont.

I wonder what role the infiltrator(s) of that group played in encouraging that video.

In the mean time, I won't hold my breath waiting see evidence of those magical binary explosives that nitwit slacker guy apparently was ready to use in 48 hours.

[unda cova brutha]

16. this video will be proven to be a fake in time

along with this whole fake story about the so called muslim terrorists.

does anyone besides me think it is a bit odd timing that this "terror threat" came just 2 days after the repubs got their asses kicked in the elections? This was all a plan made up by *, rove and the other neo cons and they got *s lapdog blair to go along with it to make us "scared" of terrorists.

There is no terror threat, only the threat by the evil * empire who is doing all they can to make muslims look bad.

[OKthatsIT]

17. Nope...not for 1 second will I be spoonfed Bush-Blair Intel

[OKthatsIT]

20. LOL..even the Toronto Star calls it a trumped-up story

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1155333028220&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Did you mean to link to an opinion peice in the Star?

Because your link goes to a news story about this. There's nothing there saying the story is "trumped up", apart from one man who "works nearby". That's hardly the paper calling it "trumped up".

[happyslug]

23. Why fake it?? When you can rely on young men's bravado?

This "plot" sounds more and more like a group of young men (Older teenagers, or in their early 20s) who started out talking about Al Queda and what they would do for the "Fight" and "Plan" took off on its own. Somehow the British intelligence found out about it (or even formulated it) and then arrested the young men. My question did any of these young men actually purchased a ticket? I can see them buying the items to see if they will work (i.e. experiment at home to show each other how they would do "it"). The key is did they buy tickets? Many may have passports to go back to the "old country" (The suspects were all born in the UK, but that does not mean they have not go back with their families to their parent's home, thus many will have passports).

I am sorry, this "plot" is sounding more and more like a bunch of men outdoing each other in their bravado more than an actual plot.

[Marie26]

29. Could be.

That seems to be all the dreaded "Miami 7" plot was. One difference here is that they apparantly went to Pakistan to receive bomb training from Al-Queda, & also received funds from Al-Queda to purchase the tickets. If that's true, I'd say this went beyond bravado to an actual organized, motivated conspiracy to commit terrorism.

[happyslug]

33. If True, I just don't buy it.

First 24 planes is TO MANY to maintain security. Look at 911, it was LARGE at 20 people, ALL OF WHOM CAME TO THE US FOR THE OPERATION. 24 people (One per plane, which is NOT what happen on 9/11 which was five per plane). Now for this type of operation you do NOT need complete Control, so one person can do it, but it would be better if there was at least two per plane.

My guess, is IF the suspects went Pakistan and IF they saw Al Queda in Pakistan, Al Queda supplied them with money but more as diversion than as a real effort. Notice I use the term IF. If I was Al Queda I would suspect them to be a US or UK mole, and NOT deal with them at all, or if I did it would be at a minimal level. I am sorry, this sounds to quick for a Al Queda plan. Not enough time for Al Queda to feel confident that these people are really true believers instead of a CIA Mole.

[Marie26]

37. We'll see

I tend to think it's true, based on the wide range of British intelligence, security experts, & Al-Queda experts who see a pattern here. That's very different from the Miami 7 case, which was basically laughed at. They've arrested 24 people, but many of those people could simply be witnesses or tangential figures here. Who said it was one person per plane? I thought the plan was to have 2+ people on each plane to mix the chemicals together. If they did go to Pakistan & did receive Al-Quada training, I'd say it's pretty certain that they were actual terrorists w/an actual plan. It doesn't matter so much what Al-Quada's motives may have been - it shows these suspects' motives. I do believe they were planning a Bojinka redux scheme to bomb multiple planes.

However, I agree that the US is not being honest here. All indications were that this bombing was not imminent, & the British wanted to continue surveillance. I think the US pushed to end the investigation so that Bushco. could get some reflected glory. They created a rumor of an American connection when there isn't one. And the TSA's response was a hysterical over-reaction, or perhaps a brilliant plan to stoke Americans' fears. But you can see through the hysteria w/o denying the bombing plan as well, IMO. Terrorists have attacked before in Britain & the US, way before Bushco. took power. They have their own agenda, seperate from the Bush Administration. IMO, this was a real terrorist plot, overblown to an extreme by the Bush Ad. & the media.

[lgn19087]

25. Anyone

who buys this crap will be proven painfully naive soon. Just wait...I gurantee it, these guys will slowly, one by one, be released. Not only that, I bet they're released with a nice wad of cash to compensate them for their "troubles". Blair is just a lapdog of Bush, who is just a lapdog of Rove and Cheney. They're the ones really behind this.

[Amonester]

34. Good point... Bliar is at 23%, Chenious at 1?%, Bu$h at ??%

What if? Karl?!? (Again...)

It ain't like lil' piggy's never done "it" before!

And in the OP, why is it that most terrariss wannabe come from "Conservative" families?

(Conservatives??) Ummm...

Why?? It seems like they can't show their kids to respect other peoples' right to live in peace, or to just observe the law... They just cannot.

[tblue37]

35. Now this is scary:

"British officials said the damning evidence had been found in the home of one of the suspects, who include a 23-year-old biochemistry student and a Heathrow security guard with an all-areas access pass.

The guard was in his airport uniform when he was arrested and led away in handcuffs."

[drduffy]

36. Seems that some DU'ers

still start off from the presumption that the government ... UK & US & Israel ..... tells the truth. Better to start from the assumption that whatever they are saying/selling is pure bullshit unless -proven- otherwise. 'Proven' by somebody with some independence from the primary fascist governments involved. We still have sheeple here.