BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 May 14 - 06:18 PM

What is a shame is that people like you try to close down debate on our forum by the use of nasty, intimidating abuse against anyone who dares post something you do not want to be read.

Keith, I could well agree with the sentiment, if it were true. Do you really believe that Musket has any influence whatsoever on this debate? Do you believe I have? Or you? Do you really think that an obscure forum on folk and blues music has any effect on anything?

As Michael Winner nearly used to say. Calm down, it's only a forum...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 May 14 - 06:08 PM

"Gee, FW, I seem to remember the U.S. and Britain flocking to Iraq and Afghanistan to wage war on Muslims." - GregF

Did you?? I remember a series of indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets by an international terrorist group whose leader demanded that the entire population of the USA convert to Islam, shred their Constitution and their Bill of Rights and live in accordance with strict Sharia Law (Refer to and read the Fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 and in 1998). That attack falling inside the geographic area defined by Article 6 of the NATO Charter meant that Article 5 of the same charter could be invoked - hence in October 2001 a handful of US Special Advisers backed up by Special Forces Units from NATO assisted the Northern Alliance in running the Taleban and their Al-Qaeda "Guests" out of Afghanistan and over the border into Pakistan the country in which both were created (As far as I know the Taleban leadership continue to hide out there to this day).

While the forces of several nations (For several read 49) are present inside Afghanistan I do not believe that they went there to wage war on Muslims per se - they went there to fight alongside Afghans who happen to be Muslims (Let us call them the ANSF) who represent the security forces and police forces of a democratically elected and internationally recognised Government of an Islamic (Muslim) Republic against certain insurgent elements who are also Muslims.

In Iraq IIRC it was the secular national socialist (Nazi) Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein who refused to conform to the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement his own generals signed to suspend hostilities in March 1991. As those terms and conditions were not complied with ANY of the original combatant powers could deem the ceasefire as having been violated and would therefore be at liberty to resume hostilities to enforce compliance - so - nothing whatsoever to do with killing Muslims at all.

Christ on a bloody bike. Revisionism personified. We kill a hundred thousand Iraqi children in the 90s with our impoverishing sanctions and about ten times more innocent civilians with our illegal invasion in the noughties, yet it's Saddam who's the Nazi. The same Saddam who had no WMDs, remember? Who exactly was it who told us all the lies, Teribus, old chum? We spend fourteen years in Afghanistan on the initial pretext of getting Al Qaeda out and succeed (as any bloody fool could have predicted) in driving them into bandit country just over the border in Pakistan, where they just wait for us to bugger off, which we will, before resuming control, and we call it "the war on terror". Your post is a demonising load of old bollocks, which saddens me all the more as I have absolutely no time for Saddam, his ilk, the Taliban or for Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it seems you have no time for the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:55 PM

... mind you, though, O-Musky-One, I am greatly impressed by your wit & erudition as instanced there: far above your usual level of such attributes...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:50 PM

This thread's subject is "Islamic radicalism."
The actions of an Islamist group is the lead news item world wide, but it must not be mentioned here!
If you do quote our most liberal, tolerant and left-leaning publication reporting the event, in Comrade Musket's collective, you are a "bigot" and should be "ashamed. Fucking ashamed!"

What is a shame is that people like you try to close down debate on our forum by the use of nasty, intimidating abuse against anyone who dares post something you do not want to be read.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:40 PM

Musket

No

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:30 PM

Of course, if Michael's wit went further than weird HTML and references to luvvies, he'd notice that it is one thing to read a post and another thing entirely to speculate why they put it.

Unless of course you are fully tuned in to Keith's little world.

You'd have to renounce your lack of belief though, it is the common thread to Keith's bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:24 PM

Would it be possible to change the thread title to 'UK-poster radicalism . . .'?

(Sounds like children arguing with each other, proudly standing with feet firmly planted in the air and vicariously pleading for someone, anyone, to proclaim how smart/intelligent you are, how incisive, how witty. OK, you're all smart/intelligent, incisive and witty. Thank to the Great Spirit that for the most part you stay off music threads.

( Here you go, with warm personal regards. )

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:24 PM

Oh dear. As it's you Michael, I feel the urge to say something witty and erudite.






Fuck off.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 05:18 PM

McMusket: I could scarcely believe it; so I have looked again.

And, yes ~~~

really must congratulate you on the most stupid post I recall ever having read on this forum (0256)... including a peculiarly gratuitous 'fucking' which grossly diminished what conceivable effect so fatuous a post might just have had.

& as for that conceited catachresis of a "Rational" sobriquet you see fit to award yourself to head your last post ~~ in a pig's - um, ahem - evacuatory orifice, my good fellow...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Rational Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 04:43 PM

No Keith. The terrorists should be proud of you and The Guardian.

They rely on fools repeating their bullshit and turning gullible idiots against decent law abiding people who enjoy their faith in the same way you do.

Well done.

What was the point of repeating it? To show people how irrelevant it is? Or was it to perpetuate fear and distrust within our own communities?

I hope you have no mirrors in your house.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 14 - 04:32 PM


Inflammatory speech aimed at fools to stoke up hate of decent Muslim people.
The Guardian has a pecuniary interest in selling scares but to repeat it at face value? You should be ashamed of yourself Keith. Truly fucking ashamed.

The speech was made by the leader of Boko Haram.
I now must be ashamed of quoting the Guardian quoting a criminal?
The Guardian should not print it and no-one should repeat it?
The whole thing should be hushed up because it is an contradicts your dogma?
Stalin would be proud of you Musket!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 14 - 04:16 PM

"Then they predictably insist the actions of the Taliban, Al-Qaida, Boko Haram and the jihadi terror groups based in Pakistan are an aberration from true Islam.

But here is the problem.

Many of kidnapped school girls are Christians.

Both the exegesis of the Qur'an and reading of the Hadith literature speak of sex slavery of non-Muslim female POWs both during and after the life of Prophet Mohammed.

Instead of being courageous and saying while such commandments and permissions may have been valid in the seventh century, they are no longer applicable in the era of the nation-state and human rights, leaders of my community choose doublespeak."

Muslims must denounce Nigerian kidnap outrage

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:59 PM

"Britain was against military intervention then."
Yet the same Britain went into Iraq, it sold equipment and ammunition to Assad, Gadaffi and continues to sell it to all these nasty extremist Muslim states.
I have little doubt it will happily go into the Ukraine if H.M.V. on the other side of the pond whistles
" you and I were the only backers here."
Don't you dare associate my name with yours - your crocodile tears for the people of Homs included defending the sale of sniper ammunition, armoured cars and water cannon and proposing the sales of even more - as you said at the time "even democracies have the right to keep order" (or some gibberish of that sort).
It later extended to defending chemicals which could well have been used in the manufacture of chemical weapons - give us a break Keith - when it comes to defending atrocities, you are way out on your own.
I suggested that the UN should intervene - Britain voted against it - I then suggested that the more powerful democracies might intervene, as they had done in Iraq, Afghanistan - or where it was in their political or economic interests to do so - no takers there either - you can hardly wonder that the Islamist star is on the rise when the people have been totally abandoned by the West.
I describe myself as a pacifist (sort of) because I realise that pacifism is idealistic in today's world.
My father was a pacifist (sort of) yet he went and killed Spaniards because he believed that what was happening in Spain heralded something far worse - he got branded by British Democracy as a "premature Anti-Fascist by the forces of law and order and became unemployable in his home city for the next decade and a half.
I have no "mates" here- just people I either agree or disagree with.

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:56 PM

Inflammatory speech aimed at fools to stoke up hate of decent Muslim people.

The Guardian has a pecuniary interest in selling scares but to repeat it at face value? You should be ashamed of yourself Keith. Truly fucking ashamed.

Terrorists rely on idiots to help spread their bush fire. Happy are you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:48 PM

Guardian yesterday.



"Women are slaves. I want to reassure my Muslim brothers that Allah says slaves are permitted in Islam," he added, in an apparent reference to an ancient tradition of enslaving women captured during jihad, or holy war.

Speaking in northern Nigeria's Hausa language during a rambling hour-long speech, he threatened further attacks on schools and warned the international community not to get involved in Nigeria. Shekau has previously called western education "a plot against Islam" and urged his fighters to kill students and teachers.

"I will marry off a woman at the age of 12. I will marry off a girl at the age of nine," he said at another point in the video.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: pdq
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:30 PM

Yep, the Islamists have made a huge mistake this time.

Kidnapping 300 teenage girls and selling them to the international sex trade because the simply wanted to go to school like the boys do?

This will unite the world against Radical Islam and wake-up many of the fence-sitters.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:25 PM

Jim,
It should have been one carried out by the UN - Britain was one of those who opposed intervention when he was in the process of committing war crimes
Britain was against military intervention then.
You were in favour of again sending Western troops into an Arab land.
You recently described yourself as a pacifist!

When the British and US governments wanted to intervene over chemical weapons, you and I were the only backers here.
All your mates lined up with UKIP and the Tea Party opposing it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 14 - 02:19 PM

Today.
In a speech to parliament Mr Cameron earlier condemned the kidnapping as "an act of pure evil."

He said: "This is not just a Nigerian issue; it is a global issue.

"There are extreme Islamists around our world who are against education, against progress, against equality and we must fight them and take them on wherever they are."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 14 - 12:54 PM

"Which is, as they say, where we came in, is it not?"
Just responded to this on the Gerry Adams thread -as my mother used to say To quote my mother (at the risk of having her accused of being a tom by Terminus again) "You don't boil cabbages twice" .
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:57 AM

Well, I don't know, Ian. What they say about "adding to the gaiety of nations"?

〠~M~〠

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:48 AM

Good job I don't go and punch our local vicar on the nose in retaliation for those Christian militants in Uganda then.

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:43 AM

Sorry - scrub that. I was getting confused with the Gerry Adams thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:39 AM

The post of Jim's to which I was replying there appears to have vanished. What is going on?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 11:37 AM

But surely, Jim, the degree of toxicity of the mix will depend on the particular demands made by its precepts and injunctions on the particular religion's followers. We have been into all this. Ms Hirsi Ali [& I follow her here] believes these to be more aggressively based in Islam than in others. Which is, as they say, where we came in, is it not?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 14 - 10:58 AM

they are active in the promulgation of a fairish number of them

Uh-huh, ~M~, Which could also be said of the U.S & a host of other so-called "Christian"[sic] nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 14 - 10:56 AM

T-bird, I ain't going to go around with you on this yet again. The American invasion of Iraq was founded on falsified BuShite intelligence and outright lies & eagerly championed by your U.S. lapdog Prime Minister.

While the forces of several nations (For several read 49) are present inside Afghanistan

Yep- and they've produced absolutely nothing except piles of dead Muslims on both sides- strike that- they've also accomplished the waste of untold billions of dollars..

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 May 14 - 10:40 AM

"Some would argue this is not the "real" Islam. Does it really matter what real Islam is when its true followers cannot stand against those who use religion to commit genocide?"

from this article.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 07 May 14 - 10:03 AM

"Gee, FW, I seem to remember the U.S. and Britain flocking to Iraq and Afghanistan to wage war on Muslims." - GregF

Did you?? I remember a series of indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets by an international terrorist group whose leader demanded that the entire population of the USA convert to Islam, shred their Constitution and their Bill of Rights and live in accordance with strict Sharia Law (Refer to and read the Fatwas issued by Osama bin Laden in 1996 and in 1998). That attack falling inside the geographic area defined by Article 6 of the NATO Charter meant that Article 5 of the same charter could be invoked - hence in October 2001 a handful of US Special Advisers backed up by Special Forces Units from NATO assisted the Northern Alliance in running the Taleban and their Al-Qaeda "Guests" out of Afghanistan and over the border into Pakistan the country in which both were created (As far as I know the Taleban leadership continue to hide out there to this day).

While the forces of several nations (For several read 49) are present inside Afghanistan I do not believe that they went there to wage war on Muslims per se - they went there to fight alongside Afghans who happen to be Muslims (Let us call them the ANSF) who represent the security forces and police forces of a democratically elected and internationally recognised Government of an Islamic (Muslim) Republic against certain insurgent elements who are also Muslims.

In Iraq IIRC it was the secular national socialist (Nazi) Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein who refused to conform to the terms and conditions of the ceasefire agreement his own generals signed to suspend hostilities in March 1991. As those terms and conditions were not complied with ANY of the original combatant powers could deem the ceasefire as having been violated and would therefore be at liberty to resume hostilities to enforce compliance - so - nothing whatsoever to do with killing Muslims at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 10:01 AM

Nobody sez ALL of them, Greg. But if you deny that they are active in the promulgation of a fairish number of them, then you are even more of an idiotic ostrich than I thought.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 May 14 - 09:16 AM

You betcha, FW Keith - the source of all the world's problems: them flockin' Muslims again!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 14 - 08:59 AM

It is a fight for control of Syria between pro and anti Assad forces.
It should have been one carried out by the UN - Britain was oe of those who opposed intervention when he was in the process of committing war crimes
It seems from the news today that Britain has been guaranteed Syria as an arms customer for the foreseeable future
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 08:45 AM

I'm not a great Rattigan admirer in general, much prefer Coward; tho I think The Browning Version a very good play & Harlequinade one of best-ever comedies. But it was just that he invented an archetypal "Aunt Edna", a lady matinée-goer, whom he made it his endeavour never to risk offending as a matter of policy.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 May 14 - 08:44 AM

Sunnis flock to Syria to fight against the government, and Shia to fight for it.
It started as a rising against the government, but it became a holy war between the sects.

The rebels almost had Damascus before Hezbollah, now they have lost even Homs.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 14 - 08:30 AM

Sorry Mike Missed some of that - that Secondary Modern education again - and I ever really got on with Terence Rattigan.
Must try harder.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 08:16 AM

I got the hyperbolical irony, Jim; my reply likewise ironic -- tho with just maybe a soupçon of Socratic 'know thyself' as undertone! I agree that we are often too mutually abusive, & have been trying to tone down that aspect of our discourse; as, it is my impression, have you likewise. A tendency to be welcomed & persisted in, yes? Would you take it amiss if I suggested that your posts addressed to others might sometimes be more effective if less animadvertive? As I have recently repeated, I determined several years ago that my posts would contain no usages that could have offended even Terence Rattigan's 'Aunt Edna'; and I have never regretted this.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 07 May 14 - 08:00 AM

Great to see world finally on to Boko Haram/Brunei Sharia - and media/govt/people, make sure you keep pretending the central problem isn't Islam.

    -Bill Maher

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 14 - 07:47 AM

"Sunnis flock to Syria and Iraq to wage Jihad against Shia."
This is an appalling distortion of the situation in Syria
Vlunteers cross the border into Syria to oppose Assad simply because the U.N. and the rest of the world has stood by and watch him slaughtering his own people - Britain's role has been to oppose intervention and sell Assad the wherewithal to make chemical weapons and riot control equipment to quell opposition.
It has nothing to do with religion - it is a continuation of the Arab Spring protests.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 May 14 - 07:37 AM

It was an ironic comment Mike - I've never burned printed material in my life, whether I disagreed with it or not - it goes against my principles as much as I am sure it does yours.
It saddens and upsets me that we don't seem to be able to discuss our differences rationally and without abuse - but that is not solely my fault - you have to take your share in that one.
Of course I wouldn't dream of burning any of our collection of Folk Mags - I've digitised and archived most of the stuff that interests me and they are all bequeathed to I.T.M.C. when we join the Choir Invisible - happy to let you have copies of anything you might be interested in - remember those articles by Fred Dallas and the mysterious 'Speedwell'?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 May 14 - 06:24 AM

"must dig out some old Folk Reviews I have been intending to burn for some time now"
.,,.,.
Just come across this from Jim a few days back whose significance I didn't quite appreciate at the time. But do just consider, Jim, whose practice it has ever been to burn the works of those whose opinions they do not share.

& reflect!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 06 May 14 - 10:13 PM

And don't forget the crusades.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:22 PM

Sunnis flock to Syria and Iraq to wage Jihad against Shia

Gee, FW, I seem to remember the U.S. and Britain flocking to Iraq and Afghanistan to wage war on Muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:15 PM

Hard to believe we're back to the subject of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:28 PM

"Sunnis flock to Syria and Iraq to wage Jihad against Shia."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:10 PM

In Syria, thousands of Muslims have gone on Jihad, including hundreds from Britain.
Jihad in this context means holy war.
Sunnis flock to Syria and Iraq to wage Jihad against Sunnis.
Shia Muslims from Iran and Hezbollah are waging Jihad against the Sunni majority in Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 14 - 01:03 PM

The Irish troubles were about rule by Dublin or London, not religion."
By making the six counties a Protestant dominated sectarian state - they became a struggle between Catholic (the oppressed minority) and Protestants (the oppressor majority)
That is no different a situation than any other (Holy War)
GUEST,LK867 makes the point perfectly "he" had no trouble with anybody else's religion - which does not alter in any way, that if he fought for National independence, he would be fighting Protestants.
If Ireland was not a sectarian war, then neither is what is happening in the world today.

"This article considers the claim that the conflict in Northern Ireland was irreducibly religious. After a brief account of the history of the Northern Ireland conflict, the different arguments and counter arguments that bear on the role of religion in causing and sustaining the conflict are considered. An examination of the relationship of Islam to terrorism and the events of 9/11 provides a comparative perspective that is used both to identify similarities and differences between the situation in Ireland and elsewhere and to distinguish and discriminate between different ways in which religious sanction is given to violence. The implications of our findings are then explored with regard to our understanding of the Northern Ireland conflict and with regard to our understanding of the nature of religion more generally."
Taylor and Francis

YOUR FAVOURITE HISTORIAN

I have made a point of asking ever Muslim I have talked to how they feel about other religions - they have all, without exception given similar answers to that given by GUEST,LK867.
You can't have it both ways - is what is happening in the Islam is a holy war - then so was Ireland
If Ireland was not a religious conflict, then there is no religious threat from Islam -take your pick
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 14 - 12:57 PM

Greg, everyone else has always known about the sectarian divide.
Your ignorance amazes me yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 May 14 - 12:24 PM

How much hard evidence do you need for the sectarian division in that country?

Hard evidence of any sort relating to any topic has never been known to have any effect whatsoever on FW Keith- no point confusing him with the facts.

I'm surprised you haven't realized that, Troubadour.

That pig ain't ever gonna sing.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:40 AM

I have no prejudice Musket.
You were wrong about paramilitaries mostly being church-goers.
The Irish troubles were about rule by Dublin or London, not religion.
Look at the murals.

May we return to the subject now?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:39 AM

Surely the more moronic Islamists also favour the death penalty for homosexualtiy, don't they? Just saying.

PS - although those Islamists from Boko Haram who denounce the idea that the world is round as "Unislamic" must surely be amongst the dimmest of dimshits.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:33 AM

Looks like naughty people get to go to church after all Keith.

Possibly to get justification for their deeds from sanctimonious bigots eh?

The pulpit of a church, just like the raised dais in a mosque can be a pretty powerful place to feed ideas.

I'd possibly take the opportunity to have a good long think if I were you Keith. And this time, don't just rearrange your prejudices.