Terror Suspects Named
The terror posts below (see here and here) have been updated numerous times. Here’s one point I don’t want you to miss — the names of some of the terror plot suspects:
Umir Hussain, 24, London E14
Muhammed Usman Saddique, 24, London E17
Waheed Zaman, 22, London E17
Assan Abdullah Khan, 22, London E17
Waseem Kayani, 28, High Wycombe
Waheed Arafat Khan, 24, London E17
Cossor Ali, 24, London E17
Tayib Rauf, 21, Birmingham
Ibrahim Savant, 26, London E17
Osman Adam Khatib, 20, London E17
Shamin Mohammed Uddin, 36, Stoke Newington
Amin Asmin Tariq, 23, London E17
Shazad Khuram Ali, 27, High Wycombe
Tanvir Hussain, 24, London E10
Umar Islam, 28, (born Brian Young) High Wycombe
Assad Sarwar, 25, High Wycombe
Abdullah Ali, 26, London E17
Abdul Muneem Patel, 17, London E5
Nabeel Hussain, 21, Waltham Forest
(Via Allah.)
Smith and Chan are two of the most common names in the world. Yet I notice that not one of the alleged terrorists are named Smith or Chan.
This is strange.
Chris from Victoria, BC (9824e6) — 8/10/2006 @ 11:11 pmBREAKING NEWS: Terror arrests in the U.K….
Unknown parties involved; moderates and/or Presbyterians implicated.
UPDATE: Turns out they're all British.
The Unabrewer (7f1332) — 8/11/2006 @ 12:17 am…
Other names not on the list: Mary Margaret O’Malley, Luigi Benvenuti, Sven Olsson, Kumiko Yamamoto …
Chuck (61528f) — 8/11/2006 @ 1:00 amBritish democracy has failed! There should be no breeding grounds for terror in a democracy! Regime change in the UK, now! I’m Bush’s poodle, Tony Blair, and I approve this message.
Tony "Poodles" Blair (51f1c3) — 8/11/2006 @ 1:26 amGob smackingly vile religious bigotry, I’d say. What is the point of this post other than to highlight the fact that the suspects are pretty much certainly moslem.
Stop trying to fuel the fires of an anti-moslem backlash.
/nutroots
doug deeper (3875b9) — 8/11/2006 @ 4:52 amLet they all pay for their deeds! Bloody maniacs!!!
Josh Hallett (8b8ed3) — 8/11/2006 @ 5:05 amHmm. I detect a pattern here…
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/11/2006 @ 5:08 amYou mean… they didn’t catch Rivka Mermelstein?!?!?
the friendly grizzly (251a9f) — 8/11/2006 @ 5:17 amNo, they didn’t catch Rivka Mermelstein — but the whole thing was Mr Mermelstein’s fault, ’cause the Joos control the US and UK governments.
Dana (3e4784) — 8/11/2006 @ 5:20 amWith the exception of Shamin Mohammed Uddin, it looks like this “under 30 club” needs to never see the light of day, (due process considered).
Of course if the Brits had a public hanging of these ‘Islamic Fascists’ it will all be Bush and Blairs fault for causing all this. (leftish meme)
“Gob smackingly vile religious bigotry, I’d say. What is the point of this post other than to highlight the fact that the suspects are pretty much certainly moslem.
Stop trying to fuel the fires of an anti-moslem backlash.”
Doug, you really got to git off the kool-aid and get a dose of reality.
“The jihadist skirmishes burning around the world are flaring into a larger firestorm in the summer of 2006, a situation that will surely intensify as we approach the fifth anniversary of the attacks of September 11, 2001.”
complete story in the NY Sun
“Fuel the fires” my *ss. They, (the ‘Islamic Fascists Muslems’) lit the fire on 9/11. It just hasn’t been put out. YET
Rovin (b348f4) — 8/11/2006 @ 7:26 amIsn’t that just like the damned Irish to go and do something like that?
MikeD (5337ef) — 8/11/2006 @ 7:59 amIt’s all Rivka Mermelstein’s fault!…
Well, the bobbies might not have caught him, Mr Mermelstein possibly being a Mossad agent who was tipped off, but it was obviously Mr Mermelstein’s fault, tricking those poor, unsuspecting Britons (they were clearly of Anglo-Saxon descent) into doin…
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 8/11/2006 @ 8:09 amOh, I get it now. Middle Eastern terrorists have Middle Eastern Names, so why doesn’t the media just call it that way? And why doesn’t security just focus on those with Middle Eastern names, and then we can save time looking at those with names like, oh, I don’t know…
Asinistra (ee4de5) — 8/11/2006 @ 8:25 amTimothy McVeigh
Ronan Maclochlain
Edward O’Brien
Judith Ward
Shoko Asahara
Yoshihiro Inoue
Renato Curcio
Margherita “Mara” Cagol
Alberto Franceschini
Rudi Dutschke
Oscar Ramírez Durand
Abimael Guzmán
The lovely Asinistra doesn’t seem to understand that the concept of profiling, as bad a name as it has amongst our liberal friends, actually works.
If you’re looking for terrorists who are attacking the West because they have disagreements based on Middle Eastern policy and religion, then no, it doesn’t make much sense to be looking for O’Briens.
However, I’d say that Asinistra has provided a valuable service here: she has explained just why our liberal friends don’t “get” the war against Islamic fascism. To them, to admit and understand that it really is a war against Islamic fascism is to admit that yes, people with Arabic sounding names are more likely to be our enemies than the grizzley’s Rivka Mermelstein.
And we can’t have that, can we?
Dana (3e4784) — 8/11/2006 @ 8:34 amOkay, Dana missed it. How many others will take the bait?
Asinistra (ee4de5) — 8/11/2006 @ 9:19 amNo, Dana didn’t miss it; he recognized some of those names.
But Timothy McVeigh, first name on that list, was not part of a huge movement motivated by hatred. He wasn’t exactly a loner, but pretty much of one. The few people who sympathized with his political positions aren’t really out there plotting (seriously) to blow up buildings or (seriously) to overthrow the government, regardless of what fantasies they might have held.
While I’m sure you don’t understand this, there’s a war on, and while not all Arabs or Muslims are our enemies (just as not all Germans were our enemies during World War II), the place where we are going to find our enemies is primarily among the Arabs and the Muslims. Yoshihiro Inoue might have been a terrorist in Japan, but that does not mean he was the kind of threat we face today.
Dana (3e4784) — 8/11/2006 @ 9:29 amDana, today’s terrorist is tomorrow’s wining & dining in DC Gerry Adams. You want to fight terrorists or you want to fight Muslims?
Asinistra (ee4de5) — 8/11/2006 @ 10:13 amAsinistra: yes.
Dana (3e4784) — 8/11/2006 @ 11:05 amAsinistra might not understand a flip answer, so I guess I’d better explain it. Islam today, in it’s Islamic fascist mode, is an aggressive ideology seeking to expand its influence by force and terror; those people need to be fought. An Islam which is not trying to expand by force and terror is perfectly acceptable, and doesn’t need to be fought, save perhaps on the intellectual level.
Were we seeing two separate Islams, the peaceful Islam on one hand and the aggressively expansionist on the other, there’d be a real reason to differentiate between them. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today: Islam today, as it is led by the Islamic fascist leaders, has enough of the Islamic world involved in the aggressive version that you might as well say, on a practical level, the fight is against Islam.
Dana (3e4784) — 8/11/2006 @ 11:10 amIt’s all Rivka Mermelstein’s fault!…
Screw you guys – Im going home
Rivka Mermelstein (6a100c) — 8/11/2006 @ 11:54 amIn the name of multiculturalism, please don’t point out the Middle Eastern-sounding names of these terrorists! I mean, just because we hear endlessly that Timothy McVeigh was white or that the few abortion clinic bombers were Christian doesn’t mean we want to stereotype now, does it?
sharon (03e82c) — 8/11/2006 @ 12:07 pmIt’s interesting to note how many of asinistra’s list of names are still living, or were living after they committed their various “Minuteman” acts (to borrow from Michael Moore).
Therein lies a qualitative difference. It is one thing to stop a “typical” terrorist—it’s not that different from stopping a criminal, insofar as few are prepared to commit suicide. Baader-Meinhof, Weathermen, McVeigh, all might’ve been willing to risk death, but none were prepared to act in such a way that guaranteed death.
In this regard, it’s interesting to note that the original Bojinka plan apparently involved the terrorists riding a multi-leg journey, getting off the plane at some point while leaving their bombs onboard. This time around, the bombers would’ve been onboard (all the flights were apparently direct flights).
It’s something else entirely when you’re dealing with someone who’s prepared to commit suicide in order to grapple you down with them. Would the Brits be dealing with Gerry Adams if there was some chance that, at a meeting between him and the British PM, he might detonate a bomb? Would the IRA be a viable partner if they had regularly suicided at Protestant churches and day care centers?
Lurking Observer (ea88e8) — 8/11/2006 @ 2:47 pmGeeze, Dana, you mean they’re not showing you “two separate Islams” on FOX? Maybe that’s your effin’ trouble, booby. Surely I can’t be the only one who drifts through this cozy little crackhouse who actually has daily contact with Muslims who I get to see working, studying, playing, and out on the town with the wife and kids. Why don’t you step out of your racist box for a minute. Contemplate, if you can, someone from another part of the world who, in that thrilling rightwing formulation, hates us and wants to kill us. (They’re there, you know–booga-booga!). Maybe he’s an unrepentant Bolivian Marxist and he’s gotten a bit weary of taking out his grudges on jungle targets and wants to get up on the big stage. And he hears, much to his delight, that some frothing gringos have convinced those who should know better that this PC stuff is for wimps and if we’re really serious about combating global terrorism we should just start racial profiling. Wow, says our señor, what a great time for a humble Humberto like me to sneak on through and blow something up.
Oh, yeah, argues the Pontificator chorus, but at least the Bolivian’s not going to blow himself up like those crazy jihadists…or…or like. I know! Like those crazy Jap kamikaze pilots. They hated life too before they started making us dvd players and 4-wheel drives.
Yeah, kids, and maybe that’s why they were able to pull off Pearl Harbor. We were too busy looking out for someone named von-Tojo.
By the way, counselor, how helpful would it have been to chase after the Night Stalker using racial profiling? Richard Ramirez, I dare say, would probably still be carving his way through your neighborhood while you guys were searching for some loser white guy.
Asinistra (02bb24) — 8/11/2006 @ 4:54 pmDana, Asinistra certainly does appear to have an anger problem when debating with female commenters such as yourself.
It’s similar to the anger toward women which assistant devil’s advocate has revealed in his comments.
Anyhow Dana, you’re correct to assert that profiling works, however, you must keep in mind that Asinistra—like his good buddy assistant devil’s advocate—doesn’t wish to see the USA & Israel defeat the Islamo-fascists.
He wants to see Israel destroyed, and he’d much rather gawk at Paris Hilton wearing a burka, rather than a bikini.
It’s kind of like asking the San Francisco Giants fans to choose which of the Dodgers pitchers they’d like to see pitch against them—they’re naturally gonna select the weakest Dodger pitcher.
It’s the same with profiling—profiling works, Asinistra knows it, and that’s why he’s opposed to it—because he wants us to fight Islamo-fascism with our weakest weapons.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/11/2006 @ 5:48 pmAsinistra wrote:
It’s always amusing to see our liberal friends assume that, if you disagree withe their worldview, you must get your news from Fox. 🙂 ‘Fraid not, A; my usual source is The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Do I know any Muslims? Yeah, kind of do; a man with whom I worked for over a year is a Palestinian Arab, an immigrant from Jerusalem, who is married to an Israeli Jew. I’d trust him not to try to blow up anything, but I also know that he was smart enough to get out of that hell hole and start getting Westernized — as are the Muslims you “get to see working, studying, playing, and out on the town with the wife and kids.”
There certainly are Arabs who aren’t the least bit interested in killing anybody, and there are plenty who don’t believe the words of the Hamas Covenant, which calls for the destruction of Israel. But even if they are not the numerical minority (and that isn’t a concession; it’s an acknowledgement that no one really knows), they are the political minority, their peaceful intentions completely lost in the cacophany of violence, violence caused by Arabs, in the Middle East.
Everyone is looking at what is going on in Lebanon these days. Well, if you will recall (and I bet you can), less than two weeks before Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers, Hamas captured an IDF soldier — and the Israeli’s response was strong and forceful. Unless you think that Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is a complete idiot, you must realize that he knew, in advance, that capturing two IDF soldiers was going to bring a military response from Israel. He also knew, given that Hezbollah hides within the non-combatant population, that civilians would get killed. (He might have misunderestimated just how strongly the Israelis would react.)
Hezbollah set up, deliberately, a military conflict they knew they could not win militarily, perhaps counting on the response of
milquetoastsliberals that all violence is wrong, and be shocked, shocked, that some innocent civilians were getting killed. But Sheikh Nasrallah knew he was endangering non-combatants, and di so deliberately!You probably won’t, but I’d suggest that you read Michael Smerconish’s book Flying Blind:How Political Correctness Continues to Compromise Airline Safety Post 9/11. You don’t find terrorists by doing close screening of blue-haired little old ladies!
Oh, but that would be profiling, wouldn’t it? Horrors!
Dana (71415b) — 8/11/2006 @ 6:48 pmThe Desert Rat wrote:
You know, when I went to high school, there were, in a small Southern school, five other Danas — and they all used the girls’ bathroom. I, on the other hand, did not.
I did, however, date a girl named Dana — once — just because of her name! 🙂
No offense was taken, by the way.
Dana (71415b) — 8/11/2006 @ 6:51 pmSorry, Dana, you’re a regular poster here, and I know you’re the fellow who is a lawyer back east.
I apologize for the gender mix up—while I was typing out my post, I got distracted, and when I resumed, I was thinking Sharon was writing your posts (she also posted above), since she is typically the one who stands up to the angry, unhinged rants of “assistant devil’s advocate,” “actus,” and “Asinistra.”
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/11/2006 @ 8:15 pmI’m trying to figure out at what point “profiling,” i.e., figuring out which people are the ones commiting certain crimes, became a terrible thing to do. Are there decent, hardworking Arabs? Yep. But of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. over the last 30 years, how many of them were muslim Arabs? The vast majority of them. Given history, it’s just plain stupid to sneer at the idea that muslim Arabs seem more bent on killing Americans than Welsh protestants from Texas. But believe me, when Welsh protestants start blowing themselves up, flying airplanes into buildings, screaming, “Death to America!” I won’t mind getting “profiled” one bit. And screw that “we gotta understand why they hate us” shit. What we need to understand is that there are people who want us dead. The only way to deal with that is to crush them or start answering the call to prayers 5 times a day.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/11/2006 @ 10:24 pmBritish democracy has failed! There should be no breeding grounds for terror in a democracy!
Er, we caught them before they were able to committ the terrorism. You have to read the new stories from the top down and not start from the bottom and then stop halfway through.
See, in a democracy, the government works to stop terrorism. Meanwhile in dictatorships aligned against the West, they either support the terrorism or are “failed states” and cannot prevent those acts.
Sorry to throw more than one idea at a time at you at once.
EricH (b96bba) — 8/12/2006 @ 3:30 pmMaybe that’s your effin’ trouble, booby. Surely I can’t be the only one who drifts through this cozy little crackhouse who actually has daily contact with Muslims who I get to see working, studying, playing, and out on the town with the wife and kids.
And this means that 99% of today’s terrorist are somehow not radical muslim’s, right?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/12/2006 @ 7:17 pmWhen the suspects in a murder in Philly are young black men who run drug gangs, the cops don’t spend a lot of time frisking 57 year old white women, looking for the murder weapon. That’s perfectly logical, and the type of reasonable discretion we’d expect from the police. When the source of terrorism aimed at the West is almost exclusively from Arab and Muslim sources, why should political correctness lead us to suspect little blonde girls from Sweden?
Asinistra might point out that the terrorists could recruit some Anglo-Saxon sympathetic thinker, a George Galloway type, to carry a terrorist weapon, and such is within the realm of possibility.
But possibility isn’t the same thing as probability, and I don’t see the names of any Finns on the list of suspects.
Dana (a90377) — 8/13/2006 @ 7:03 amWhy doesn’t the left, which is so supportive of multiculturalism, understand that there are cultural differences?…
A Patterico reader styling himself Asinistra took exception to my statement on Patterico’s site:
Common Sense Political Thought (819604) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:02 amIslam today, in it’s Islamic fascist mode, is an aggressive ideology seeking to expand its influence by force and terror; those people need to be…
No, Asinistra is not going to point out that jihadists might recruit George Galloway or Cindy Sheehan or…whoa, moi (?!!??) to do their dirty work for them. But as a liberal I do feel compelled to point out the multicultural dimension of terrorist attacks on the US and US interests over, let’s say, the last 30 years. Unless you are inclined to narrowly define a terrorist attack as any act of violence committed by a Muslim, you’ll find in most any reputable data base on terrorism that it comes in a virtual Benneton array of colors: Filipinos, Colombians, Japanese, Africans, Anglos. So, I come back to the same question: You want to fight terrorism or you want to fight Islam? Back in the day when “99%” of the terrorists attacking the British were radical Catholics, the Brits were at least smart enough not to declare war on Catholicism.
But, oh if they had, what a time they would have had with the Pontifcators and the vast rightwing beyond.
Asinistra (02bb24) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:16 amBack in the day when “99%” of the terrorists attacking the British were radical Catholics, the Brits were at least smart enough not to declare war on Catholicism.
Strawman.
You liberals are incapable of “arguing” (that’s in quotes as you can do no such thing) without creating strawmen or lying.
you’ll find in most any reputable data base on terrorism that it comes in a virtual Benneton array of colors: Filipinos, Colombians, Japanese, Africans, Anglos.
Care to link us to one?
The Ace (8d7f7b) — 8/13/2006 @ 9:01 amI’d like the link that talks about what “99%” of terrorists are.
actus (6234ee) — 8/13/2006 @ 9:49 amAsinistra wrote:
That’s because the problem wasn’t Catholicism, but Irish nationalism. The theological differences between Catholicism and Anglicanism are actually pretty small (do you know the difference between transsubstantiation and constubstantiation?), and the real problem was an old historical division which manifested itself along the lines of Catholics and Anglicans in Ireland. The struggles weren’t religiously motivated so much as denominationally separated.
With the Islamic fascists, religious differences play a huge role. We could argue, probably inconclusively, for a long time as to whether various interpretations of Islam create or simply help fuel the Islamist movement, but it could not be (reasonably) concluded that Islam isn’t a serious point of demarkation for the Islamic terrorists — and they are the ones who are the problem today.
Heck, look at the list of the arrested terrorists. Yeah, they all had Arabic-sounding names, and they were all (supposedly) Muslims. But they were also all living in Britain, mostly from neighborhoods and families that have money and live decently by British standards, and certainly better than Palestinians or Iraqis live. It wasn’t grinding poverty or an authoritarian regime that motivated these guys!
I understand the liberal urge not to assign blame to groups, and the reluctance to do anything that might stereotype the innocent Muslims along with the guilty. But if you don’t understand that the problem with terrorism is very much a problem with Islamic terrorists, you are lying to yourself.
Dana (a90377) — 8/13/2006 @ 10:10 amWell said, Dana.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/13/2006 @ 2:14 pmThat’s because the problem wasn’t Catholicism, but Irish nationalism. – Dana
I don’t believe that’s accurate Dana. The strife between the groups in that fight was almost always described as religious in nature rather than arising from nationalism.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/13/2006 @ 2:57 pmPsyberian, it is true that the strife was frequently described in terms of Catholic vs. Protestant. That doesn’t change the fact that strife really was about nationalism, not religion.
Xrlq (51d90f) — 8/13/2006 @ 3:08 pmPsyberian, while the two sides were Catholic and Protestant, religious denomination was not what was animating the conflict—it was nationalism, just as The Ace, Dana, and Xrlq have skillfully asserted.
You also stated that “99 % of those who attacked Britain were radical Catholics.”
They may have been Catholics, but their Catholicism was not animating their attacks on Britain—their Irish nationalism was.
They also just happened to be Catholics, because, well, most Irish were.
Those who were attacking Britain were radical NATIONALISTS, not radical Catholics.
Furthermore Psyberian, you asserted that if England ‘had’ declared ‘war’ on the Catholics,
“…what a time they would have had with the Pontificators and the vast rightwing beyond.”
I don’t know why you associate Catholics with the “rightwing beyond,” especially in regards to a Britain-Ireland conflict.
Do you perceive Ireland’s Catholics as rightwing ??
If so, that will come as a huge surprise to Ireland.
It would also come as a surprise to the GOP in America, who have been working for decades to lure Catholics from the Democrat party.
Among American Catholics, there are Americans across the political spectrum…just to name a few, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, deceased activist Cesar Chavez, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Sen. Pat Leahy, Sen. John Kerry, Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as William F. Buckley,….and Pat Buchanan, whom I have determined is no longer of this planet.
On top of that, in modern history, there has never been a worldwide “Pan-Catholic” movement which sought to transcend the idea of the nation-state, as exists in Pan-Islamism.
And the whole ‘fear-factor’ about JFK in 1960 that if elected President, he might favor the Vatican over the US Constitution was proven to be rubbish.
And there are various nations throughout the world where Catholicism is the leading religion, however, those nations run the ENTIRE political spectrum. (Such as Poland, Italy, Ireland, Spain, and Mexico.)
In the defense of your position regarding the Britain-Ireland conflict, I think what you’re doing is trying to substitute a theoretical notion of a “Pan-Catholic” movement in place of the “Pan-Islamist” notion which to a reasonable extent, DOES exist.
In fact, look at how often Islamic fundamentalists such as Bin Laden, or Ahmajenidad do play upon the notion of Pan-Islamism.
Those of us who believe we have no choice but to fight Islamic-fascism are NOT declaring “war on all of Islam.”
First of all, let us be clear, the Islamo-fascists declared war on us.
We are merely fighting a defensive war, and it is against the fundamentalists which seek to transcend all notions of the nation-state, and replace it with one-world Sha’ria Law—the ultimate expression of “Pan-Islamism.”
Unfortunately, the so-called moderate Muslims wield so little power as compared to the Bin Ladens among their religion.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/13/2006 @ 5:33 pmThat’s an excrutiatingly key point…the fact that the moderates wield very little influence among Islam.
And it’s something the Lefties are having difficulty grasping—and that’s dangerous for everyone.
Perhaps what Psy is referring to is the fact that Protestant Britain subjugated Catholic Ireland for hundreds of years. Most of those Protestants (and most loyal to the crown) wound up located in the northern provinces, which is the part that is still part of Great Britain to this day. Like the old Ottoman Empire, in which Christians and Jews were treated as “lesser” than Muslims, so, too, were the Catholic Irish treated as “lesser” by the British government. To my knowledge, Britain didn’t have the system whereby the crown took the first born sons, converted them to Anglicanism, then sent them back to fight and kill their parents as happened under the Sultan. Nor were the daughters of the Irish sent to become part of the harem of the British crown. That’s quite a difference.
But the war there was most definitely nationalistic. The Irish wanted complete independence for the island from Great Britain. Perhaps the difference in religion was as much a difference in culture as anything, for it was the Protestant Irish who thrived while the Catholic Irish were subservient.
Perhaps this was the point Psy was making, but I really have no idea. 😛
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/13/2006 @ 6:44 pmDesert Rat, what are you smoking? I didn’t claim most of what you wrote about in your last comment. (My only comment – before this one – on this thread was #38.)
I went to Ireland once. Before traveling there, I decided to find out more about the conflict there. The problem was mainly religious differences. If it became “nationalistic,” I believe it may have ended up that way since the members of each religious sect moved to their own territory through the years.
But labeling their motivations “nationalistic” begs the question anyway in this context since the term explains little or nothing. OK, say for the sake of argument that they’re nationalistic: the same could be said of the North and South in the U.S. Civil War. But the differences between the warring factions were more than just about a “turf war” as “nationalism” seems to suggest.
Also, if religion was not the main issue there, then the people involved with the conflict should have been informed of that, since (as I recall) they always talked about religion when they were interviewed about the source of the conflict.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/13/2006 @ 7:34 pmPsyberian wrote:
One would think, then, that having researched the subject, you could tell us what the religious differences were between the Catholics and Anglicans in Ireland that were so great that they were killing each other.
As a cradle Catholic, I could go to an Anglican service and spot the differences right away, but I’d bet that Southern Baptists or Methodists or heathen savages unfamiliar with the two denominations who walked into each would be unable to figure out the differences. And I can’t see Catholics and Anglicans killing each other over the differences between transubstantiation and consubstantiation!
The conflict dates back to the thirteenth century, and King John. In the early seventeenth century King James and William of Orange fought the Battle of the Boyne, and the Battle of Limerick followed. These were about political power, not about religion, although much of the political battle was about English lords (Anglicans) wanting to take control of Catholic Church lands in Ireland.
Dana (a90377) — 8/13/2006 @ 7:55 pmDana, you’re the one making an odd claim that is not the accepted explanation. So I think the burden of proof resides with you.
Can you find anyone interviewed who was involved in the conflict and explained that the problems weren’t about religion?
I don’t remember all the details, but I remember both sides putting religion at the forefront of the problems there. I specifically recall reading or hearing “The Catholics are marching again” about some issue or another – I believe it was abortion. And they were going to protest in hostile territory – down streets where people would resent it.
Psyberian (dd13d6) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:09 pmMuslim is not a color.
Muslim is not a race, either. Why do you conflate the two?
Pablo (08e1e8) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:27 pmPsyberian – the Troubles involved religion, but were not primarily theological …
They were over such things as whose laws should govern in the country …and who should get to govern …
At the time of partition in Ireland, the 6 Counties of the North were 95% Protestant … at that time, in the North, a Catholic could not vote, could not own real property, could not work in certain jobs, and so on … in spite of that, Catholics migrated into the North from the South because they wanted their kids to have a better chance in Life than if they stayed in the South …
Later, a lot (possibly all, I’m not sure) of the anti-Catholic extreme laws were repealed – and the Catholics are up to 40%+ of the population in the North …
What many in the US don’t realise is that in little things and big things, the North and South were very different …
NO abortion in the South – it was a crime … full stop …
Until 1975, it was illegal simply to possess contraceptives … in 1975, the Dail (the Sourthern Irish Parliament) passed a law which legalised “the possession of contraceptives for personal but not for commercial use.” … so – Joe Law-abiding-citizen can now possess contraceptives in the South, but it’s illegal to sell them to him … how many in the US want to live under *that* particular law ?
Psyberian – how does it sound to you ?
Alasdair (48477d) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:28 pmEgads, I did it again for the second time in this long thread—I got interrupted by a peripheral matter, resumed typing my comment, and thereby ended up confusing the comments of 2 different persons.
My apologies, Psyberian, it was actually ASINISTRA who made those 2 quotes, not you.
That makes better sense, because while I generally disagree with you, Psyberian, Asinistra is more likely to make the angry rants which I mistakenly attributed to you.
It appears my post even ‘misled’ Sharon(her comment # 41) as well.
Desert Rat (d8da01) — 8/13/2006 @ 8:53 pmI think Alasdair gives a better take on the Irish vs. English conflict. To be sure, the sides divided up along religious lines, but that was more because the Irish govt supported Catholicism and the British govt was Protestant. There was probably (I’m not sure) some attempt to convert all the Catholics to Anglicanism, but certainly not in 100 years or so. Whereas the Muslim extremists who are blowing up themselves, cutting off heads, etc., do believe in pan-Islam and desire for everyone to live under Sharia.
And, yes, I thought Desert Rat was responding to something by Psy. Sorry if it wasn’t the case.
sharon (63d8f8) — 8/13/2006 @ 9:03 pm[…] This is, of course, always possible. However, let me remind you of some of the names of the folks arrested in connection with the most recent terror plot. See if any of them sound like “our ordinary conception of terrorists”: Umir Hussain, 24, London E14 […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » Sometimes Terrorists Look Like Terrorists (421107) — 8/13/2006 @ 10:43 pmPsy wrote:
Psy, what I’m telling you, as have others, is that the fault lines are demarked by religious affiliation, but the problems are political, not religious. I had thought you were more sophisticated than to fall for the simplistic lines of the media.
But, I’ll provide you with more help: this is about Oliver Cromwell’s oppression of Catholics, due to political reasons, and here is an article about more recent times.
Dana (1d5902) — 8/14/2006 @ 6:13 pmSigh (no pun intended)
Asinistra (ee4de5) — 8/15/2006 @ 10:53 am