BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 07:34 AM

Jim, if I was a racist I would post racist views and you would not have to trawl back years to find one post that is not in the least racist anyway.

Everyone is sick of you making the same tired old accusations.
You do it because you can not argue your case.
If you could, you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:42 AM

It might be revealing to ask a non-radicalised muslim around and ask his opinion sometime. It's a bit like discussing racism when you're not on the receiving end - about the only thing I know is that I don't know, the more I learn the worse it seems, all that the legislation has done is drive the racism underground, making it harder to get a grip on and so more entrenched. I'm being careful to differentiate between equality in entitlement, disadvantage and racism, in passing, so I'm not buying into any sense of corrective reverse discrimination.
Of late, discrimination also works the other way, blacks using non-existent racism as a defence against their own faults. That too is racist, sadly, so it's not as if it's a one-way street.
Perhaps this is thread drift, that the question was of radicalisation. But the problem is that when the only way out of an unendurable situation is radicalisation, everyone loses: the real answer is to constinue to offer a way out of the corner, through tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:26 AM

According to Musket, prefixing a statement with 'as a Christian...' implies moral authority. I do not see how that conclusion can be drawn. In a conversation about education I might say 'as a retired teacher...' Simply to contextualise what I wish to say and, perhaps, to establish my credentials. If I were to indicate that I was speaking as a Christian it would indicate no more than my attempt to present a Christian view. I do not see how I could claim any moral superiority. If others choose to confer such authority on me that is a matter for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:09 AM

"just accepted what eminent people said of their own culture."
Bollocks - you made that up, good Christian that you are - it doesn't matter anyway. it's racist, and it's exactly the racist/religious smear that gets petrol poured through letter-boxes by your BNP friends
You put down their tendency to pedophilia to their religious driven culture - can you not stop lying for one minute?
Sorry Mike - can't agree
These discussions can only be wailing walls if we can't discuss them in their full context.
Keith's regular trick is discuss whatever he wants, wherever he wants, then, when he runs into trouble, too try to close that particular avenue by crying 'thread drift'.
He has been quite prepared to discuss this up to now, then, when he became mired in his own distortions, he tries to divert attention away from it.
He once desperately tried to do this on a chemical weapon (I think) thread, then himself drifted off into something completely off topic - when challenged, his reply was "thread drift happens".
Christian - 'I've shit them!' as they used to say in Liverpool
Not suggesting you are doing that, but he certainly is.
I'm afraid Sabra/Shatila will come up again and again as an example of one of the great atrocities brought about by a religion-driven regime - apologies in advance.
Off to sunny Waterford for a few days - have fun!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:06 AM

I dunno. The liberal use of the word eminent is as frequent as your wearing your religion on your sleeve. Both put there to denigrate those who disagree with you.

So don't be surprised when disagreeing leads to finding you disagreeable.



Michael. Voltaire certainly is relevant to this thread and as ever, all religion based activity.

"Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:53 PM

I did not refer to their religion at all, and just accepted what eminent people said of their own culture.
If that is the worst you can put up against me, in all these years, how bad can I be?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:51 PM

Ah ~~ thanks for that info re the Voltaire biographer, Jim. I had heard of her by pen-name only, and hadn't come across theory that the attribution to Voltaire was a gloss of hers. Thanks for this info: no knowledge ever unwelcome.

As to "telling you where or whether you can write" anything. I think it reasonable to challenge your apparent assertion that any thread can be arbitrarily led off in any direction at the whim of any contributor to it, which seemed to me to be asserted in your "these threads go wherever the contributors choose to take them". If that is not what it implies, then what is? And it still appears to me a most questionable claim, liable to lead to infinite confusion. I can't really feel that challenging it in any way constitutes "telling you what or where you can write".

Does it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:37 PM

"'Defend to death' was said by Voltaire first, I believe."
I believed so until comparatively recently - apparently it is incorrectly attributed to him but Ms Hall was the originator of the saying apparently.
EVELYN BEATRICE HALL
Must write to Q.I.
"I stated repeatedly that their religion was not in any way relevant,"
Being Muslim refers to a religion - being a Pakistani is a reference to national origins, Male refers to gender, ergo all male Muslim Pakistanis being culturally implanted with a tendency to bed underage girls is an attack on an entire communities race, religion and gender - Three at a Blow, as the folk-tale would have it - doesn't come any more all-embracing than that.
You have yet to produce one single "eminent person" who made such a statement, and if you produced a thousand, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the fact that it is deeply racist, sectarian and inflammatory - such stuff are holocausts made of.
Your hiding behind your so-called Christianity is as revolting as your "historians" and your "experts"
Your disgusting views bear not the slightest resemblance to any genuie Christian I have ever met, including virtually all my friends and neighbours here, and a considerable number of my family.
I honestly believe you would have to fill in an application form to become a member of the human race - and you would almost certainly be turned down.
If what you state as your views represents anything resembling a religion, it is very easy to see where fundamentalism; Christian, Jewish, Muslim...., comes from.
You are a one-off head-banger Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:54 AM

Glad to give satisfaction, Mr Jack-a-Napes.

'Defend to death' was said by Voltaire first, I believe.

Cheers

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:27 AM

Musket, I have never said "As a Christian..." implying any superiority.
I did say that I belong to a Church that abhors and confronts racism, but that is not what you accuse me of.

You and Jim both attack things I have never said, and never would say, because you have no answer to what I actually do say.

Jim,
Ho hum - you a#have described all Male Pakistani Muslims as being culturally implanted to have sex with underage women
That is an attack on both the religion and the adherents to that belief

No.
I stated repeatedly that their religion was not in any way relevant, as you know because I have put it in front of you.
I only said I believed what was being said by eminent people of that culture, about their own culture.
I made clear it was not my own opinion, and indeed that I knew nothing about that culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:32 AM

You are entitle to comment on what I write Mike - you are not entitled to tell me where and whether I can write it
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Evelyn Beatrice Hall was once heard to remark.
Hmm - Jackanapes again - you really do turn me on sometimes!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:30 AM

Keith just said he never attacks people for their religion or faith.

Yet is known for saying "as a Christian....." Which infers a moral superiority. Although when I say that as a person who likes a decent Pinot I abhor bigotry, he can't see that it is the exact same thing.

Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:36 AM

Not sure what your last four words supposed to mean, Jim. As a member of this forum -- not a 'Guest' or any such, but a properly constituted and recognised member -- I am perfectly entitled to comment on any point made in its discussions. It is, in fact, my 'business' to do so. It's what I joined it for. So what do you mean by telling me to "mind my own business"? That is precisely what I am doing, you impertinent little jackanapes, you. How veryveryveryvery bloodybloodybloodybloody DARE you! Be off with you, and mind yours elsewhere, you conceited young idiot!

~M~

(teeheeheeheehee.......)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:27 AM

"Repeating the lie does not make it any less of a lie Jim."
Ho hum - you a#have described all Male Pakistani Muslims as being culturally implanted to have sex with underage women
That is an attack on both the religion and the adherents to that belief
Mike
Once again, by confining the discussion to extremes, you are attempting to isolate Islamism as the major threat while at the same time, precluding discussion on other religions.
Islamic extreme radicalism is a threat.
So is a regime attempting to establish a one-religion state by force of arms.
The fact that that state has nuclear capability makes it a major threat to us all - God with a bomb.
I bloody well know of the injustices of enforced extremist religion, just as I know of the injustices of all religions, when they are allowed to afflict them - which, in some cases, is at this moment.
You are applying your sliding scale in order to demonise one religion, while at the same time demanding that we concentrate on that religion and ignore the rest
You seem hell-bent on not allowing us to discuss Islamic extremism in the context of its root causes.
Feel free not to do so yourself, otherwise, kindly mind your own business
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:30 AM

"attempting to present Islamic radicalism as not only evil and dangerous, which it most certainly could be, but as unique, which it is definitely not."
.,,.
Seriously, Jim. Certainly not uniquely so -- I don't think anyone is asserting that -- but most arguably the most so. I know about Jim Jones & those loonies in Kansas & the Rev Mr Moon & his Unificators; about Shatila; and so ad ∞; & deplore them all as much as you do. But you have yet to name any actual present-day sovereign state ruled by any other system than claimed Koranic authority, in which people are stoned to death for what are not even offences in most places in the world; where young women are publicly given 100 strokes of the cane on the bare buttocks for being seen out in public with someone who is not an immediate relation, or because a veil has slipped to show too much face ...

I could go on, as you know. But I invoke Hegel again: this is not merely a quantative, but a qualitative difference, between this "Faith" & any other you can name. How can you urge that the fact that the Israelites stoned adulterers to death in the days of King David, & even as 'recently' as the days of Jesus Christ, or that the Holy Office burned 'heretics' in C16, is any "whataboutery" justification for their going on performing such stonings to this very day in Malaysia and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

How?


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:22 AM

I have never attacked any religion nor any person for their faith.
Repeating the lie does not make it any less of a lie Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:06 AM

You, Keith, Boo-Boo and Brucie have all made a point of targeting Muslims on this forum - you have all studiously avoided the fact that Islamic radicalism is an example of a religious extremism that has occurred at one time or other in one form or another, wherever any particular religion has gained political influence, and is still a factor in connection with the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist religions today.
Keith in particular has gone to racist and cultural extremes to attack on single religion, while, at the same time defending the behaviour of a State that declares itself Jewish and has resorted to military aggression atrocities to expand the boundaries of that State.
He has also attempted to absolve his own claimed religion (I've never met a Christian so devoid of humanity as he appears to be) from any wrongdoings, declaring that the abuses that are happening in Christian countries have nothing to do with religion.
Between you, you are attempting to present Islamic radicalism as not only evil and dangerous, which it most certainly could be, but as unique, which it is definitely not.
Islamic radicalism is a part of a larger picture, much of which has nothing to do with religion anyway.
Unless we are allowed to discuss it in its full context, we are only left to shake our heads in disapproval of the behaviour of one religion and ignore that of all the others.
Israel irrelevant to religious fundamentalism - you have to be joking.
Sabra/Shatila remains one of the most horrendous examples of an atrocity committed by a state acting in the name of religion, certainly in my lifetime - and Israel can chalk up a number of other examples of such atrocities to its (credit?).
If I am being patronising, perhaps you aren't the intelligent and principled individual I've come to regard you as - I stand corrected.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:00 AM

No need to be "circumspect", Musket. Never suggested I was. I simply made the point that, becoz one person, of any demographic, may be a nice guy, it doesn't follow that they all are -- whether they happen to be related or not. I think you are over-labouring this perfectly simple point.

Jim, following your kind permission, in your assertion that "As far as I am concerned, these threads go wherever the contributors choose to take them", I would like to take this opportunity right here & now to offer ❤iest congratulations to my team, Arsenal, on winning the FA Cup. If I had the energy, I would now proceed, by your kind & emphatic leave, to add this statement to every thread on the forum! I would add that Zoe Wanamaker is my favourite actress, while I am about it.

Anyone else got any more mnemonic irrelevancies to contribute, according to this now explicitly formulated Jim·Carroll·Principle of anything goes and to hell with the integrity of the thread?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 03:38 AM

I never said I was trying to talk to you Michael. I just couldn't hear the entertaining waffle you were coming out with.

Mind you, from time to time it isn't so much entertaining as disturbing. Are you REALLY circumspect regarding any Muslim you come across in case they have a relative with a rucksack?

Presumably you clench your sphincter if you come across an Irishman in case his uncle is a priest. Or even worse, a Christianist radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 03:10 AM

Sorry, Jim; but I think you are plain wrong in this instance. It is not "censorship", nor is it "arrogant[ly] proprietorial", to request the courtesy of sticking substantially to the point in a thread, rather than hijacking it to ride a hobby-horse that one [ie you in this instance] has ridden to death in umpteen posts elsewhere, and where there are plenty of other places to continue to exercise it if you really insist on persisting in it. This thread is not about Israel, except by a most marginal train of thought; but plenty of others are; and these would be the places to go on making these points of yours: thus letting those who want to discuss "Islamic radicalism..." (quite large & significant enough a topic to be permitted to proceed without obsessive irrelevancies, or at best marginalities, obstructing the process) to get on with doing so.

So just, if you would be so good, stop being so insufferably patronising with your

"Please don't disappoint me further in following him up his censorship road.
He is certainly not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket; you really should know better"


and just stick to the point at issue in the thread.

Thanks again...


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 02:50 AM

"Thread drift is thread drift"
Wha.....?
My comment is addressed at Keith's attempts to once again steer the discussion away from the awkward bits and into his comfort zone - it has been his regular practice as long as I have had anything to do with him on this forum
His statement
"It was not an invitation to rehash a hundred arguments.
If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere."
I have become extremely tired of his arrogant proprietorial behaviour and have warned him about it on numerous occasions.
As far as I am concerned, these threads go wherever the contributors go wherever the contributors choose to take them, and whoever attempts to prevent them from doing so is indulging in censorship.
I would be extremely disappointed to learn that you were supporting him in his efforts.
Examples of Zionist, Christian, Buddhist, Bush Baptist... whatever fundamentalism will, and should be part of all these discussion, which are essentially about the misuse of religions for other purposes.
Much of the problems of Muslim fundamentalism today rise directly from the problems of the Middle East, and ring-fencing Israel as a no-go area in these discussions is to exclude a major player in the conflict.
A massacre of 3,500 unarmed Muslim refugees by a different sect of Muslims, facilitated by a Zionist influenced state is an example of religious fundamentalism gone viral.
That massacre, along with Keith's blanket support for its facilitators, is perfectly valid for discussion here.
Please don't disappoint me further in following him up his censorship road.
He is certainly not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket; you really should know better.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 01:12 AM

Oh, come on Jim, don't be so touchy & so disingenuous. Thread drift is thread drift: & altho we all sometimes follow a train of thought which momentarily throws a thread off-track, that is not the same as doing what you are so clearly doing here, which is deliberately to introduce a vaguely related topic which is a well-known obsession of your own with the obvious purpose of hijacking the thread so that you can obsessively rehearse it for the n℔ time, knowing that Keith will rise to it & the Show will again run&run. Now for crying out loud stop going on about The Iniquities Of Israel, which are only marginally related to the avowed topic of this thread, & take your anti-Is stuff, if you must, to the BDS thread.

I am not trying to 'censor' you or whevs; merely requesting you to act with reasonable courtesy to let others get on with this thread, which is on a topic just as significant to some as the misdeeds of Israel are to the all-important J Carroll.

I am thanking you...

Best Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:22 PM

"If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere."
Not fucking thread drift again Keith
Whenever oyu get into trouble - out comes the blue pencil
Will you never learn Keith - we discuss whatever we wish around these subjects - you have no authority here - stop manipulating discussion
Just a reminder - your mentor introduced Israel into this discusssion half a lifetime ago and it has been mentioned 177 times to date - it's a little obvious to wait till now to cry 'foul'
You really are a ham-fisted censor
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:12 PM

TWO JEWISH ANTI-SEMITES (no doubt!!)
(including a 'lying'Jewish nurse)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 01:44 PM

Whoops - (sorry again Mike)
What tou appeart t be saying is that none of the politicians believe it - the war crimes and human rights organisations throughout the world have condemned it - you have been given the evidence for this over and over again and have chosen to ignore it and hide behind the opinions of self-serving countries like Britain, who followed the US into an illegal war, and is little more than their gofer.
You have still to produce a single shred of evidence of anybody actually supporting the massacre, and it turns out that even the Yanks were conned into believing the lies - you've had that fact too
"...the date of this Resolution you cite...."
6th Nov 2012
Easly traceable.
You might try this for how the world views Israel
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 01:33 PM

" it was disputed and that no democracy believes it."
It was disputed by Israel - you have produced no other evidence of anybody else supporting it.
The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) December 2012 - easily traceable.
You might try this for an international view of the Middle East situation
WORLD PUBLIC OPINION
"that no democracy believes it."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 12:49 PM

The resolution was TO ACCORD PALESTINE NON-MEMBER OBSERVER STATE' STATUS IN UNITED NATIONS

You kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it.
It was not an invitation to rehash a hundred arguments.

If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 12:29 PM

Not, mind, that I can see what point you are making here, thruout. Denunciations of Israel are often deserved and all very well; but we have had, and have one ongoing at this very moment, innumerable threads on the topic. What the hell do you reckon it has to do with the avowed subject of this thread, for which cast your eyes ½" upwards?

Drift is sometimes entertaining, and where would we all be without that incomparable ongoingoingoingoing Keith'n'Carroll Show!!!!!

But now & then, as here, a drift into somebody's obsessive King·Charles·Head ultimately just becomes tiresome.

So could we maybe get off Israel and on to Islamic Radicalism? Maybe? Just for a bit? Pretty Please!

Oh, go on!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 12:21 PM

Jim -- Would you please tell us

a. the date of this Resolution you cite

and

b. its precise wording [or, if very lengthy, a reasonable digest of its purpose]?

Without this info one sees no significance in the figures you quote whatseover.

Thank you ····

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 11:01 AM

Politicians supporting Israel
Jim Carroll

Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations

The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 11:00 AM

No accusations there about Israel massacring refugees.
If Israel did such a thing, decent countries like Ireland would shun them, but they don't because it is bollocks.

They do criticise Israel's policy over Gaza, and the fence, but they do not accuse of massacres or war crimes because they know it is bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:56 AM

No reason why you should hear me, Ian. I wasn't talking to you, just ABOUT you...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:18 AM

Ireland's current relations with Israel
Alan Shatter is the minister who has just been forced to resign, incidentally
Jim Carroll

"2000s[edit]
In 2003, the Irish government opposed the building of Israel's security wall in the West Bank.
According to WikiLeaks, following the 2006 Lebanon War, Ireland prevented the United States from moving military equipment destined for Israel through Shannon Airport.[9]
2010s[edit]
On 19 January 2010, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh a senior Hamas military commander was assassinated in Dubai by a team of eight suspected Mossad officers who used counterfeit European passports, including Irish passports.[10] The Irish government responded by expelling a staff member of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin.[11] Ireland subsequently delayed an EU-Israel agreement which would involve allowing Israel to access sensitive information on EU citizens, and demanded that Israel tighten its data protection laws.[12]
On 5 June 2010, an Irish humanitarian aid vessel MV Rachel Corrie heading for Gaza, was intercepted and seized by the Israeli Navy.[13] This caused political tension between Ireland and Israel.[14] [15]
On 25 January 2011, Ireland upgraded the Palestinian envoy in Ireland to that of a full embassy which resulted in the Irish Ambassador to Israel being summoned. Israel announced that it "regrets" the decision.[16]
On 4 November 2011, the Irish ship MV Saoirse carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza was intercepted by the Israeli Navy in international waters. The Navy boarded the ship, took those aboard in custody and towed it to Ashdod. In response, Irish Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore stated that the Irish government do "not agree with [the Gaza blockade], (...) regard it as contrary to international humanitarian law in its impact on the civilian population of Gaza, and (...) have repeatedly urged Israel to end a policy which is unjust, counter-productive and amounts to collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians."[17]
On 16 November 2011, unnamed sources from the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed that "Ireland (is the) most hostile country in Europe" and was "pushing all of Europe's countries to a radical and uncompromising approach". An unnamed official argued that "the Irish government is feeding its people with anti-Israel hatred" and that "what we are seeing here is clear anti-Semitism." An official from the Irish Foreign Affairs Department announced that "the Government is critical of Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. It is not hostile to Israel and it is clearly wrong to suggest as much," he said. "The notion that this Government is or would be trying to stoke up anti-Israeli feeling is untrue. We are not hostile to Israel. We are critical of policies, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories. These are not the same things".[18] Israel's ambassador to Ireland was reported as distancing himself from claims of Irish anti-Semitism.[19]
In early 2012 the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a "cultural boycott" of Israel, as a result of which Irish music group Dervish (band) cancelled a proposed tour of Israel, citing "an "avalanche of negativity" and "venom" directed towards them." [20] This online campaign was officially condemned by Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter [21] and Irish Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore [22]
In 2013, Alan Shatter, minister of Justice, Equality and Defense said, while visiting Israel, that "Ireland is a friend of Israel. We have a government in Ireland that wants a deeper engagement. But we also have a government in Ireland that is committed to the peace process."[23]

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:06 AM

Sorry Michael, I can't hear you above the noise.

OY! JIM! KEITH! KEEP THE BLOODY NOISE DOWN. I CANT HEAR MICHAEL GET HIS ARSE ROUND HIS TIT!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:57 AM

"The Irish government do believe it either."
No they don't, but if they did, so ******* what?
Answer the statements that have been by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch - or maybe the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Oly an Establishment arse-licker moron would hide behind politicians nowadays - they are all a bunch of self-serving crooks.
The Irish Government for Christ's sake - we've just had another minister forced to resign and he has been forced to hand his now illegal retirement kick-back to charity.
They are all crooks - if crooked politicians and culprits claiming their innocence is your best shot, you have nothing
None of them have expressed support for Israeli atrocities - if they have - where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:07 AM

a belife in the Little People

Musket believes in the Little People, but he thinks they are of no consequence.
(Whither England thread.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:03 AM

It is disputed by Israel alone
No.
The Irish government do believe it either.
Nor do the rest of the EU, or Scandinavian governments, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada,.................

Now please, if we must discuss Israel yet again, can we deal with one issue at a time?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 08:32 AM

"Jim, you kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it."
It is disputed by Israel alone - it has transpired since that America was implicated in it, and politicians have not commented on it or way or another - just followed America in giving their blanket support for Israel in whatever they do.

US INVOLVEMENT

America has found it necessary to used its UN veto over 100 times to prevent condemnation of Israel - their position in doing so has made them no different from the Russian and Chinese support of Assad - six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Nobody gives a toss what politicians do - it is totally out of our control and they speak for nobody but themselves and their personal interests.
Only you choose to hide behind them - as you chose to hide behind "experts" and "historians" in the past.
Israel has been condemned throughout the world by independent Human Rights and War Crimes investigators - that is what matters, not the Freemason-like bunch of politicians.
"all religions as being evil and worthy of demonization."
Get it right fellers - when religion is left as a matter of personal choice it is as harmless as a belife in the Little People - it is those that would use those beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Jew... who are in need of demonisation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 14 - 08:06 AM

And besides, there are those among us who consider all religions as being evil and worthy of demonization.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 07:50 AM

As Bobad says...
... and are also unable to distinguish between religions who are benign, even tho as absurd as all religions are, and those whose activities are based on violent proselytisation and a definded mission to wage war, whether literally or merely ideologically, on all others.

Islam is one of the foremost examples of this latter type; and its real adherents would, & indeed do, despise any who claimed to be their co-religionists who asserted otherwise.

So to refuse to distinguish between religions, as eg Musket self-glories in doing, as equally ridiculous, without taking into account their various stances with regard to missionising, proselytisation, opposition to the rights of expression or practice of other religions, literal application in today's world of the more extreme injunctions of the original founders [stonings, death for apostasy, floggings for adultery, which means any sex SFAICS] -- such denials of any distinctions constitute, I say again, the thoughts & actions of fools.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 14 - 07:23 AM

"People who choose to demonize an entire religion based on their own prejudices will likely continue to do so no matter what anyone says or what facts get in the way."

I don't see anyone here demonizing an entire religion. What I see being demonized are those who commit atrocities in the name of their religion and their defenders who apparently are unable to distinguish between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:46 AM

Jim, you kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it.

Instead of just responding to that you now want to restart the debates about Bedouin and all the other propaganda that has been shown up for what it is so many times.

Amnesty has criticised most countries, and Israel's neighbours much more than Israel, but if we must discuss Israel let's do one issue at a time.

Israel was only indirectly responsible for that massacre.
No-one was "indicted as a war criminal" as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:24 AM

You have been give all this before - you choose to ignore it.
You have just been give a load more - you choose to ignore that.
Amnnesty, Human rights Watch, on the spot reports - all ignored.
The huge researched document on Sabra/Shatila - ignored.
You have never responded to accusations of Israeli terrorism with anything other than Israel's denials.

Moving Bedouins about like pawns - they have no right to live on lands they have occupied for decades.
onto a toxic site - it wasn't toxic   
Chemical weapons - not chemical
Inequalities in Israel - non existent, despite masses of research, including the definitive 'Inequality Report', which was so definitive you claimed it was too much to be expected to read.
You have lied and distorted your way though all these arguments and you dare call those who don't believe you "gullible saps"
You are not even good at this.
Your arguments are totally void of all humanity and logic
Christian my arse
Where is your evidence for any of this shit?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 05:16 AM

The Irish government are not "puppet politicians" of some global Zionist conspiracy.
Nor are the rest of the EU, or Scandinavian governments, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada,.................

They are well informed, and not taken in by all the lies and propaganda like you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 05:12 AM

The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported
Really?
Where, apart from Russia Today?

I have no "case" about Sabra-Shatilla except that Israel's version stands up to scrutiny and should not be dismissed.
Reputable "eye witnesses" tell lies about Israel.
Remember those good nurses on the Mamara who "saw" Israelis throwing bodies into the sea, yet every single person on the ship was subsequently accounted for.
There were no bodies.
I doubt the nurses made the story up.
The activists gave it them.
That is what they do, and the gullible saps like you lap it all up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:26 AM

"Are you serious Jim?!"
Who do you people think you are?
You ignore evidence by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses to massacres, Israeli soldiers, ex Israeli Secret Service heads..... and a whole host of other people who have stood out against Israeli fascism, and think you can cherry-pick and reject evidence to their terrorism as you see fit.
Between the gang of you, you drag up 'evidence' from Muslim Watch, White Supremacy, Zionist Gatestone, suspected Israeli war criminals...
Your entire case on Sabra/Shatila is based on Israel's claim that they didn't do it.
Israel is a terrorist state that has been protected from prosecution by over 100 U.S. vetoes.   
Who the **** do you thing you are?
Israel is a terrorist state - your sole defence of it is they say they didn't do it and that their puppet politicians haven't criticised them.
The Russian newspaper article is s straightforward report of Amnesty's statement on possible war crimes by Israel
The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported
The main contents of the Guardian article have been removed for because the copyright has run out - the headlines state it all.
If you are going to take over David Irvine's char on behalf of Israeli atrocities, you are going to have to put more thought int it than this
Jim Carroll
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

This from the Guardian - in full:
By Inna Lazareva, Tel Aviv 9:07AM GMT 27 Feb 2014
Israel has reacted angrily to a report by Amnesty International which accused it of being "trigger happy," saying that the study showed bias and a "skewed logic".
Amnesty has accused Israel of a "callous disregard for human life" after it documented the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years.
The 87-page report, entitled "Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank" was published on Thursday and details what it described as "excessive force to stifle dissent and freedom of expression" since the beginning of 2011. The report documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands "who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life."
In the report, Amnesty International goes as far as to accuse Israel of "war crimes and other serious violations of international law" against Palestinians. The report notes that more Palestinians living in the West Bank had been killed last year than in 2012 and 2011 combined, and said that more than 8,000 Palestinians - including 1,500 children - have been wounded by rubber bullets and tear gas since 2011.
"The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers- and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators - suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International.
Israeli officials have heavily criticised Amnesty's report as a "public relations stunt" "removed from reality", "unverifiable" and inaccurate.
Daniel Taub, Israel's Ambassador to the UK, said: "Amnesty's obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights."
The Israeli Embassy in London said in a statement "Amnesty is in need of an urgent reality check".
Between 2011 and 2013, there were 247 people injured by rock throwing, while "scores of Israelis have been victimised by shootings, stabbings, and other forms of terror, none of which Amnesty sees fit to mention in its report", noted the Embassy.
"The report brings together carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically-motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts", said the Israeli Embassy.
Hours after the report was published, Israeli forces killed a 24-year-old man that they were seeking to arrest, after he refused to turn himself in. Soldiers in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit bulldozed part of Muataz Washaha's house after a standoff lasting several hours, and opened fire. His body was found shortly after.
An Israeli military statement said that Washaha had been wanted for "suspected terror activity" and that the forces, which later found an AK-47 assault rifle in the house, were operating under the premise that he was armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:26 AM

"Are you serious Jim?!"
Who do you people think you are?
You ignore evidence by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses to massacres, Israeli soldiers, ex Israeli Secret Service heads..... and a whole host of other people who have stood out against Israeli fascism, and think you can cherry-pick and reject evidence to their terrorism as you see fit.
Between the gang of you, you drag up 'evidence' from Muslim Watch, White Supremacy, Zionist Gatestone, suspected Israeli war criminals...
Your entire case on Sabra/Shatila is based on Israel's claim that they didn't do it.
Israel is a terrorist state that has been protected from prosecution by over 100 U.S. vetoes.   
Who the **** do you thing you are?
Israel is a terrorist state - your sole defence of it is they say they didn't do it and that their puppet politicians haven't criticised them.
The Russian newspaper article is s straightforward report of Amnesty's statement on possible war crimes by Israel
The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported
The main contents of the Guardian article have been removed for because the copyright has run out - the headlines state it all.
If you are going to take over David Irvine's char on behalf of Israeli atrocities, you are going to have to put more thought int it than this
Jim Carroll
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

This from the Guardian - in full:
By Inna Lazareva, Tel Aviv 9:07AM GMT 27 Feb 2014
Israel has reacted angrily to a report by Amnesty International which accused it of being "trigger happy," saying that the study showed bias and a "skewed logic".
Amnesty has accused Israel of a "callous disregard for human life" after it documented the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years.
The 87-page report, entitled "Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank" was published on Thursday and details what it described as "excessive force to stifle dissent and freedom of expression" since the beginning of 2011. The report documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands "who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life."
In the report, Amnesty International goes as far as to accuse Israel of "war crimes and other serious violations of international law" against Palestinians. The report notes that more Palestinians living in the West Bank had been killed last year than in 2012 and 2011 combined, and said that more than 8,000 Palestinians - including 1,500 children - have been wounded by rubber bullets and tear gas since 2011.
"The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers- and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators - suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International.
Israeli officials have heavily criticised Amnesty's report as a "public relations stunt" "removed from reality", "unverifiable" and inaccurate.
Daniel Taub, Israel's Ambassador to the UK, said: "Amnesty's obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights."
The Israeli Embassy in London said in a statement "Amnesty is in need of an urgent reality check".
Between 2011 and 2013, there were 247 people injured by rock throwing, while "scores of Israelis have been victimised by shootings, stabbings, and other forms of terror, none of which Amnesty sees fit to mention in its report", noted the Embassy.
"The report brings together carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically-motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts", said the Israeli Embassy.
Hours after the report was published, Israeli forces killed a 24-year-old man that they were seeking to arrest, after he refused to turn himself in. Soldiers in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit bulldozed part of Muataz Washaha's house after a standoff lasting several hours, and opened fire. His body was found shortly after.
An Israeli military statement said that Washaha had been wanted for "suspected terror activity" and that the forces, which later found an AK-47 assault rifle in the house, were operating under the premise that he was armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 May 14 - 02:21 AM

Faith. The art of believing what cannot be proven. I'm sure most American Muslims will happily apologise. Apologise for fellow Americans that is.

I watched Billy Connolly's two part documentary on death the other week. It included an Islamic funeral service in a town, I think in California but I may be wrong (tell you what, I'll say it definitely was, then Keith will find out where and correct me) and two things occurred to me.

1. It gave free services for those families who could not afford a funeral.

2. Many families using their services weren't Muslim, including some poor Jewish families.

This multi denominational approach and community feel brings out the best in The USA, whilst the loud mouthed idiots show decent people in a bad light. I think the inference was that only Christians carried rich v poor to the grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 14 - 09:24 PM

Leila Hatami, acclaimed Iranian actress and the first Iranian woman to sit on the jury of the Cannes film festival was denounced as a sinner by hardliners and targeted by a petition that she be sentenced to one to ten years imprisonment and flogging for pecking the octogenarian festival director Gilles Jacob on the cheek.

The Daily Beast the site that thinks Muslims have to jump through hoops to have people view their religion "more favorably".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jeri
Date: 23 May 14 - 07:46 PM

The Daily Beast thinks Muslims have to jump through hoops to have people view their religion "more favorably". People who choose to demonize an entire religion based on their own prejudices will likely continue to do so no matter what anyone says or what facts get in the way. Enough Muslim religious leaders and average folks spoke out after the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists, and those determined to be stupid remained stupid. "Stupid" doesn't respect facts or honesty.

Now I have to go back to the Daily Beast, because the article "Muppets And The Politicos Who Love Them" sounds fascinating.