BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 10:10 AM

"no evidence that even the most extreme of fundamentalists have any intention of extending their campaign to the West in general or Britain in particular."
.,,.,.

Ah. Poor Mr Rigby just had a sudden access of terminal hayfever, then?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 09:26 AM

"There is no evidence that even the most extreme of fundamentalists have any intention of extending their campaign to the West in general or Britain in particular."

Really Christmas?? I would have thought that the complete opposite is the case - so much for "evidence", now let us talk of risk, probability and likelihood of extreme fundamentalists trained up and "blooded" in Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria coming back and putting all that experience into "good" use shall we?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 09:19 AM

"General al-Basheer" (the war criminal of Darfur)

Spot on as usual Christmas - you've scored yet another "own goal" - You've got the wrong man

Here is the right one:
The General al-Bashir referred to by Keith A

As far as I am aware this chap has never been near Darfur.

NOT this one:
The incorrect General al-Bashir seized upon by Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 05:51 AM

Interesting historical commentary on 'fundamentalism' in this morning's Irish Times
Jim Carroll

THE WEST BEARS SOME RESPONSIBILITY FOR RISE OF FUNDAMENTALISM ACROSS REGION
Michael Jansen: Analysis
Western hostility to secular nationalism has helped radical groups flourish
The cross-border conflict waged by the radical Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (Isis) is blowback from a policy of promoting fundamentalists that has been adopted for more than half a century by western powers and their regional allies as a counterweight to secular Arab nationalism.
Secular nationalism is the force that liberated most of the Arab world from British and French colonial rule. In most Muslim countries there were both secular and fundamentalist liberation movements but, in all the states, secular nationalists won the freedom struggle and took power.
The West has been antagonistic towards them not only because they opted for independence but also non-alignment during the cold war. They also adopted a strong stance against Israel, the creation and ally of the West.
Presidents Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Hafez al-Assad of Syria (and now his son Bashar), Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Ali Abdul-lah Saleh of Yemen, as well as Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, were demonised as the We¬st's chief regional antagonists.
Unfortunately, these leaders and secular nationalism failed to deliver stability, good government or development, and exposed their regimes to domestic and external destabilisation.

BENEFICIARIES
The main beneficiaries of western hostility to secular nationalism have been the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928 under British rule, and radical jihadi groups like Isis.
The western promotion of fundamentalists was complemented by the Saudi policy of seeking converts for its deeply conservative religious ideology (Wahhabism) by building mosques, training clerics, and financing ultraorthodox Salafi factions and militias. The Saudis stepped up their efforts after Tehran tried to export its 1979 Shia "revolution" to the Arab world and the Soviet army occupied Afghanistan.
Following its 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US ensured exiled fundamentalist Shias took power. Washing¬ton's argument was that Iraq's Shia community, the country's largest, was disadvantaged during the rule of the "Suhni regime" headed by Saddam Hussein. However, this was a mischaracterisation of his regime, which was not Sunni.
Hussein and his family were Sunni but the government was secular nationalist. The majority of ruling Baath Party members were Shias and the key ministries of oil, foreign affairs, defence and industry were headed by Shias.
Leading figures of the Syrian Sunni Muslim Brotherhood were granted refuge in western countries and have dominated organisations opposed to the Assad regime, including the internationally recognised Syrian National Council.
The Syrian regime is accused of being "Alawite", dominated by the heterodox Shia sect that accounts for about 12 per cent of the population. This again is a mischaracterisation. The Assad family is Alawite but 68 per cent of positions in government are held by Sunnis, 20 per cent by Alawites, 7 per cent by Christians and 4 per cent by Druze. Sunnis also form the majority of members of the ruling Baath Party and soldiers in the arm;
It would be ironic if the West now turns to secular nationalists as the alternative to fundamentalists, particularly the radicals on the march in Iraq and Syria who plan to expand across the region and elsewhere from their "Islamic emirate" in these countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 03:49 AM

Oh I do Bridge, I do....

Your post is confusing. Just because I compared you to Keith A Hole of Hertford, the logic doesn't follow that you can compare me to him...

Plenty of Muslims shout condemnation at Islamism, as we must use the term I suppose. The Muslim fighter pilots in Pakistan are presently being rather loud and shouty if missiles are anything to go by. The Iraqi army aren't exactly in tune with it either...

To say that lots of Catholics condemn Tuam but not state that lots of Muslims condemn Islamist violence doesn't do your normally sincere (if sometimes daft) approach to these threads any favour.

I may pass the port, but by asking Muslims to apologise for terrorists, you seem to be passing the book.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 03:38 AM

"fundamentalist Islamic Brits are better getting themselves killed in Syria or Iraq,"
There is no evidence that those leaving Briatain to fight in Syria are 'Islamic fundamentalists' - the war, which has been described as a civil war, developed from 'The Arab Spring'
Despite being Britain's trading partner, Assas is a mass murderer and a war criminal and he is still in charge of Syria, so describing the fight against him as 'Islamic fundamentalism' misses the point.   
We only have the word of "General al-Basheer" (the war criminal of Darfur) that many of those fighting elsewhere are from British - and, as this quote comes from our own resident war crimes denier, we have no idea of the numbers and the origins of any of the fighters.
That it is better that those who are should be killed rather than return home and extend their cause into Britain is hysterical 'volcano-squatting' in the extreme.
There is no evidence that even the most extreme of fundamentalists have any intention of extending their campaign to the West in general or Britain in particular.
This gets more and more Dr Strangelovish by the minute.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 03:06 AM

Looks like the port is affecting your reading, Mither.

Mainstream Muslims have nothing (in respect of Islamism) to apologise for. It would be nice to see them condemn it as a distortion of the faith (even if religious "faith" is a generally pretty silly thing).

Plenty of modern Roman Catholics seem to be condemning the infanticide and cruelty of the Tuam Bon Secours nuns.

Islamists and jihadists (in the old fashioned sense of the word) have much to apologise for. It's just that they won't do it.


Your conflation of them with modern Muslims is about as daft as KtheA's.


Sounds as if you should choose your preferred solicitors more carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 08:56 PM

"Will you give an example of one such "weird view?"
Confident prediction, no."

There are plenty, but even when you are proven to have lied by quoting your own posts back to you, you flatly deny what everybody can see to be true.

So what's the bloody point?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 08:52 PM

"Those who become obsessed with the source at the expense of the value of the information therein are showing themselves to be closed minded"

This is an implicit assertion that there are no sources whose output is either suspect, or downright valueless.

And that is an indefensible assertion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 08:42 PM

"When Bobad and I were critical of Islamism he insisted that was an insult to all Muslims."

Much the same as the standard response by yourself, Bobad and your other hangers on, to criticism of the Israeli government, claiming that it is criticism of the Jews, and therefore antisemitism.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 08:36 PM

There you go again. Make the distinction.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 08:28 PM

"This is the group that is taking control of large parts of Iraq including major cities, as well as Syria, and is said to threaten the whole region."

Would you not agree that fundamentalist Islamic Brits are better getting themselves killed in Syria or Iraq, than killing others here in the UK?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 05:30 PM

Twat. You said:

"Islamist is a term that criticises all Muslims." No it isn't. It criticises the extremists because that is the only true catchment of the term.

You said: -

"As a word it most certainly does.

The relationship is what it is and how it is perceived, but the term makes quite clear that people wish to disassociate crimes in the name of religion with ones in the name of this particular religion.". You might have expressed that better. In fact your words are close to gibberish. But "Islamist" and "Islam" are not the same, except to the same mentality that confuses paediatrician with paedophile.

You said: -

"Where you made a general link and I pointed out (as I reckon I may have done on the thread you have linked to) that Islamist is an affront to Islam as it makes a connection that is never made when Christians say Jesus told me to polish my guns.

I, like most decent people, am uncomfortable with the term Islamist as describing radicalisation of a superstition when it is, as all religious affairs, using gullible people to fight your battles for you. Only Muslims get to have terrorists named in their image.

Islamism has nothing to apologise for. It isn't in the business of apologising. Put back into the context you just brought your own quote out of, you were inferring that Islam has much to apologise for, and that is your true character boy..."

That is gibberish too. "Islamist" distinguishes the extremists from other Muslims. It is the precise opposite of conflating the two. What KtheA and other critics of all things brown do is FAIL to make the distinction. As in the thread title.

I also must express incredulity at your assertion about "most decent people". The converse is the case. Decent people distinguish the extremist.

Then you say "Islamism has nothing to apologise for. Rubbish. There is much it MUST apoligose for – whether or not it is prepared so to do.

Your assertion about naming in image must also be challenged. I assume you have heard of the Lord's day remembrance Army. Other religions have their terrorists – and if you bother to look you will see that they are referred to as Xtian militias.


Keith implies that Islam must apologise for Islamists – that is his conflation. It is not a general conflation.

Methinks less port with the cheese next time.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 03:17 PM

I have already made it clear that IMHO equating Islamists with all Muslims (or vice versa) is a matter of bigotry - usually based on fear of all other religions than one's own, or, sometimes, a religion held predominantly by persons of a different skin colour from one's own.

For the purposes of this thread, its intitulation by reference to "Islamic Radicalism" rather than "Islamist radicalism" seems to carry such a smear, possibly intentionally. So do many comments on this thread from a particular coterie.

To my mind, it is proper to distinguish Islamism from Islam, the former being an extremist set of beliefs that use "jihad" in an old fashioned sense, while the mainstream ( I might accept "modern reformist" rather than "mainstream" view of the latter is that "jihad" properly refers to the internal struggle to improve oneself.

I therefore cannot follow Mither's view above that reference to Islamist atrocity or unacceptable belief is a smear on all Muslims.

Care to expand, Mither?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 Jun 14 - 01:32 PM

Muslim reporter describes being ridiculed at the Texas GOP convention

Heba Said, a senior at the University of Texas at Arlington, is the opinion editor of the school paper, The Shorthorn. The 22-year-old said she applied for media credentials and attended the convention hoping to share with her readers what it was like to sit in on panel discussions with delegates.

Instead, Said writes, "I discovered a cult-like hatred that is simply disgusting." From her report:

    As I walked through the halls, people stopped in their tracks and frowned and shook their heads at me. Panelists threw the word "Islamist" around as if it were perfectly OK, and one man even asked if I felt alone at a meeting. I was referred to as "you people" and "y'all Muslims" more times than I can count. The worst part was the way delegates looked at me, as if I were something to fear when I approached them.

Tea party star Ted Cruz made an appearance and snapped pictures with supporters. Said wanted to capture a few photos of the U.S. senator from Texas as well, but instead she had to worry about being profiled by police.

    I found five police officers behind me, hands on holsters watching me intently. Armed with a press badge and an iPhone, I turned to them held up my media credentials and asked if I could help them with something, as my heart tried to escape my chest. They did not respond but broke up into groups of two and continued watching me. If I was the biggest threat at that convention, then I must be seriously underestimating myself.

During a session on ways the GOP can bolster efforts to reach religious minority groups, Said finally spoke up and asked about their interest in Muslim voters.

    After discussing with one candidate whether there were Muslim outreach plans, I almost didn't feel like I was allowed to be American, as if what he said stripped me from my American identity. He asked me where I was from. When I responded, "Texas," he asked me where I was really from, as if there were no way it could possibly be from Texas.

"On my mom's side I'm thirteenth generation American," she told Yahoo News.


http://news.yahoo.com/muslim-reporter-claims-she-was-ridiculed-at-the-texas-republican-convention-213308817.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 03:25 AM

Can't wait..

zzzzz

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

Back on Monday.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 03:00 PM

In a letter to The Times (£), General al-Basheer, chief of staff of the supreme military council, the commanding body of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), said the "majority" of foreign ISIS fighters were from the UK, with others from France, Germany and Belgium.

He said: "We, the Syrian people now experience beheadings, crucifixions, beatings, murders, outdated methods of treating women, an obsolete approach to governing society. Many who participate in these activities are British."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/syria-britons-largest-group-isis_n_5392505.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:54 PM

What has to happen to an individual to surrender himself to blind, thoughtless group dramatization?

The Brits who have gone to fight for ISIS seem to be ordinary lads who were brought up and went to ordinary schools here in UK.

It is said they are some of the most violent Jihadists even in ISIS.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:50 PM

What has to happen to an individual to surrender himself to blind, thoughtless group dramatization?

Joining the Republican Party, for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:42 PM

I argued elsewhere that psychosis--of the kind that leads an individual to do massively destructive, unthinking acts--is an individual phenomenon, and that although there are mass psychoses, such as are taken advantage of by groups like Al Qeda and ISIS, that each individual falls under their thrall for his or her own reasons, or individual aberrations of thought.

A body of doctrine used to form a group, whether Al Qeda or Boy Scouts, has no inherent capacity for harm. Using such a doctrine (or a badly twisted and altered version thereof) is, however, often an attractive way for someone bent on psychotic acting-out to rationalize or justify their destructive acts. Whether it is a mass shooting by some deeply alienated white punk in Oshkosh, or a bomber in Dublin or in Kabul, I believe the rationalizations used have little to do with the actual pressures that drive a person into flaming anti-social psychosis and destruction.

But I am really curious what it is that draws individuals to subscribe to mass dramatizations, to share hatred and buy into fabrics of venemous mythology that inform them to do harmful things.

What has to happen to an individual to surrender himself to blind, thoughtless group dramatization?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:31 PM

For comparison Musket, I accused you of equating Islam and Islamism.

I provided a post where you quoted one of mine with the two words transposed.
I provided a quote of you ridiculing me for saying there was a significant difference.
I linked to the discussion so that your statements could be seen in their original and intended context.

You can not substantiate your accusation with anything, and just revert to calling naughty names we all learned in the playground.

No contest.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:23 PM

Jim, governments have diplomats and intelligence services that give them special knowledge.
Musket, you should not make accusations against another member that you can not substantiate with even one single example.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 11:15 AM

Click on the blue text that says "From: Keith A of Hertford" Quite a library...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 11:06 AM

"Will you give an example of one such "weird view?"
"Governments know better."???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 10:58 AM

You alone have ever made that link Musket.

If you can not produce a single example of a weird view held by me, why say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 09:15 AM

As a word it most certainly does.

The relationship is what it is and how it is perceived, but the term makes quite clear that people wish to disassociate crimes in the name of religion with ones in the name of this particular religion.

Just because those on the left, whatever that means, see this, we capitalist super rich bastards see it too...

Just sanctimonious bigots who seem to have won the term then. We seem to be stuck with a word that sounds suspiciously like a term that means something else entirely.... mmm. although BBC Radio 4 World at One today pointed to Islamist forces being a threat to Muslims in Iraq. At least they are defining and explaining. After all, simple folk already make the link, as can be seen on this and other threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

"It seems that when it comes to issues of Islamism in Britain, some parts of the left lose their moral compass, and seem incapable of combining simultaneous positions – that it is possible to be critical towards theocratic ideology and activism, whilst also defending Muslims against bigoted assumptions of collective responsibility."

Left Foot Forward

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 06:51 AM

"Islamist is a term that criticises all Muslims."

Uh oh, I'm beginning to question the high opinion you have of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 01:28 AM

Brilliant. see ? "You can't blah blah"

The style alone urges you to keep prodding him.

My only disappointment is, as ever, that Keith hasn't leaned the word context yet.

Mind you, my earlier reply has been removed which is a wee bit of a pity. All that serves to do is bugger up the right of reply. Not that replies get you anywhere. Our Keith has always preferred his own truth to the truth of others.

Just to keep him happy. Islamist is a term that criticises all Muslims. See? It wasn't hard. On one level the term means a radicalisation based on the teaching of Islam and on another it means terrorist and on another it means slur all Muslims into the first two levels.

Keith just hasn't got a ladder to get between the levels. Th

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:58 PM

Musket,
Why does he keep up this "I've found something on the internet that backs up my weird views so you are all liars and I'm perfect."

Will you give an example of one such "weird view?"
Confident prediction, no.
You can't.
Right Musket?


Dave, Bobad and I criticised Islamism as Richard has just done.
Musket rebuked us for it.
He said to criticise Islamism was to criticise all Muslims.
Look for yourself.

He ridiculed us saying, "Getting a bit desperate aren't we? "Err.. I didn't say Islam, I said Islamism, which is sooo fucking different, I'm going to point and laugh at you for being thick!" "

To support that he claimed to have downloaded a quote from "The British Council of Mosques" that backed his view.

It would be scary if mainstream Muslims did back that, but putting the quote into Google just produced Musket's post, and there is no such thing as The British Council of Mosques anyway.

He made it all up to support his ignorant failure to grasp the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:55 PM

You have never shown any factual basis for your statements of "bullshit"

Hardly, BSB. But assuming, for the moment, that it were true, you have shown repeatedly that you don't want to be confused with the facts, so what would be the point of my plying you with facts?

I have presented my sources...

Rerely.

...and you have failed to dispute the facts

I dispute your opinions and accusations and wild flights of fancy such as your repeated "anti-Semitic" trope. You don't post "facts".

Oh - and its "horseshit", not "bullshit"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:45 PM

It's a sign of intelligence to be able to evaluate information independently of the source.

Eggzackly. Hence my posting of link to info on source.

Its also a sign of intelligence to know the source's bias before you read, or accept uncritically what they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:02 PM

Bobad, we may disagree on some things but

Those who become obsessed with the source at the expense of the value of the information therein are showing themselves to be closed minded

is probably the single best line I have come across in ages.

Thanks for that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 04:30 PM

"PS: I assume you believe that the Gatestone Institute is a disinterested outfit with no agenda?"

Don't ass-u-me. Do you not believe that every site on the internet or every news source or interest group has an agenda? Just like the posters on this site, including you, have an agenda. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to evaluate information independently of the source. Those who become obsessed with the source at the expense of the value of the information therein are showing themselves to be closed minded.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:24 PM

Cute Greg, very cute.....but I don't think you are fooling too many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:16 PM

A "modest" proposal from yesterday's (London) Times.
Jim Carroll

FAITH SCHOOLS ARE DIVISIVE. LET'S GET RID OF THEM
A state education should celebrate all religions equally. Churches, synagogues and mosques can teach the devout
When I was a teenager I was fascinated by the Jewish boarding school a few fields away from our house. The local children barely ever saw any orthodox pupils leave their citadel. Occasionally they would ask us to buy them pork scratchings at the local garage, which they would eat illicitly by the river.
Theirs was a different world. Girls and boys didn't swim together. They couldn't even turn on a light bulb on Saturdays; they performed no Shakespeare because he was considered antisemitic; and they had hours of Hebrew each week.
Still I rather wanted to go there: it had amazing sports and music facilities and was only five minutes from home. But I couldn't because, my parents explained, I wasn't Jewish. Instead I went to a school a bus ride away, which was once run by Anglican nuns but now catered for every denomination. We had the occasional church service with a few beautiful hymns, there was an option to be confirmed and pupils could wear discreet crosses or headscarves. My friends were Church of England, Plymouth Brethren, Catholic and Jewish. We learnt about every faith and I went to bar mitzvahs as well as confirmations. It showed me a wide and tolerant world.
So I have always felt uneasy about fervently religious schools. They seem to teach exactly the opposite of what education should be about — to give pupils all the facts and allow them to discover their beliefs for themselves. The issue resurfaced when my husband was a governor of our local school which had a large
If we had Muslim or Catholic NHS hospitals there'd be an outcry
number of pupils from Morocco. An imam was trying to stop the pupils from drawing pictures or playing sport together. The head teacher was desperate and Christian parents began to complain that their children were being excluded. The local authority eventually intervened and the imam, who was in Britain illegally, was deported.
Twenty years later I feel even more strongly that that there is something disquieting about faith schools. We. accept them because they often achieve great results and have good discipline, something that has been missing from the British state education system recently. There are so few excellent schools, the argument goes, that we must protect those that excel, however they do it.
This is partly why the schools caught up in the Trojan Horse row, which were secular but prioritised Islam, were allowed to continue without much scrutiny — their grades were generally good.
It is also partly why, I suspect, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Michael Gove have all chosen faith schools for their children. They like the ethos and the results.
But it is an anomaly to allow publicly funded schools to choose their intake, overtly or covertly, on religious background only. No other state-funded institution is exempt from the Equality Act. There would be an outcry if there were exclusively Jewish, Catholic or Muslim NHS hospitals.
The French with their new charter for secularism in schools have been too aggressive, banning the wearing of hijabs and crosses and preventing discussion of religion. But in America, a more religious country than Britain, they have a system set up 50 years ago whereby schools cannot proselytise or promote one religion, but children's differing faiths are celebrated and accepted.
In Britain we could do the same. Nearly 16 per cent of children attend schools that select on religious identity. Instead of encouraging more faith schools as the Department for Education is now doing, we should gradually phase out religious selection in state-funded
No creed should make girls, gays or non¬believers feel inferior
establishments. High morals and good discipline shouldn't be the preserve of the devout.
There is no reason why schools that are not faith-based cannot be every bit as good as those that are. Part of the reason that faith schools excel is because their exclusive entry precludes many children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Church of England schools admit 10 per cent fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than live in their catchment area, RC schools admit 24 per cent fewer, Muslim schools 25 per cent and Jewish schools 61 per cent.
I want my children to enjoy discovering Hinduism and Jainism as
well as the stories from the Koran and the Bible —they are all now part of Britain's broader culture.
In our fragmented society schools can be one of the few ways to bring people of differing cultures together and encourage inclusiveness. In Northern Ireland, where schools have long been divided on religious grounds, the effects have been coruscating. We need to teach children empathy, tolerance, respect for others and the importance of a cohesive society where everyone's beliefs and views are valued as long as they don't impinge on others. The best place for this is at school. Girls, gays or non-believers should not be made to feel inferior by any creed. Education should be the enemy of rabid extremism because it should encourage children to question and think for themselves.
Devout parents can still teach their children at home about their own beliefs; they can enrol their children at Sunday classes, hold Shabbat dinners or take the family to their mosque.
But schools should abide by the words of Thomas Paine, the philosopher who argued against institutionalised religion more than 200 years ago: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:02 PM

"I said Islamism, which is sooo fucking different"
You have long established when yo made your claim of "all male Pakistanis" that as far as you are concerned they are all and one to you.
You confirmed the fact when you described the current opposition to Assad as "a war between two Muslim factions"
Describing what is essentially part of the 'Arab Spring' is dishonest in the extreme.
When the world refused to intervene to stop Syria's massacres, Muslims stepped in.
Britain voted against intervention - the British Secret Service would make those who are doing "a threat to our way of life" wouldn't they just?
As far as you are concerned, when Muslims stand up in their own defence they become 'Islamists' and are a threat to Britain - the basis of your argument throughout all these arguments - "they all look the same to me".
"Keith is ten times the debater you will ever be"
'Course he is Mike - he is, just like God, on your side.
He is an appalling, infantile and often self-confessed ignotant debator who persistently makes up his 'facts' - but as long as they are the right 'facts'......
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:00 PM

See, Boo - now you're getting your knickers ina twist because I supplied information on the source of one of your ubiquitous cut-n-pastes. I made no statement as to whether it was bullshit or God's Honest Truth.

You need to stop reading into things and seeing things that aren't there.

Although the latter may illuminate where you get some of your information.

But rant on, if it makes ya happy.

PS: I assume you believe that the Gatestone Institute is a disinterested outfit with no agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 02:21 PM

An informative backgrounder on ISIL (formerly ISIS - The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria now The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reflecting their broadened ambition in the region) and it's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from Aljazeera.


The fierce ambition of ISIL's Baghdadi

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:58 PM

You know Greg, I really don't get you sometimes. You always try to discredit information or opinion that doesn't conform to your ideology simply because it comes from someone who doesn't conform to your ideology. That makes you come across as as much of an idealogue as are the extremists. For instance in the piece I excerpted what part of that paragraph do you have a problem with?

That ISIS is a terrorist group?

That they are an offshoot of al-Qaeda? - Read this from NBC News (if they are on your acceptable source list).

That they are planning to take their jihad to Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula? - there is a source provided for that info

That they have captured large parts of Syria and Iraq? That's all over the news today.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:52 PM

I have no doubt about the facts, Keith. What I do doubt is that Musket 'did not understand the difference'. That was your interpretation.

Musket - ST=Sanctimonious Twat. Stick to TC. Us gnomes of limited intelligence have enough problems without learning new acronyms. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:34 PM

GregF,

You have never shown any factual basis for your statements of "bullshit"

I have presented my sources, and you have failed to dispute the facts with other than YOUR statement that it was bullshit. Not one item of evidence that anything I have posted was not as I have stated.

You are a proven lying scumbag racist asshole, from your own posts.

As long as you continue to post your worthless opinion as fact, and denigrate factual presentations as bullshit, you have nothing to contribute to intelligent conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:24 PM

Different standards being applied depending on whether they agree with you are a sign of bigotry .

It are?

And your continued making stuff up and posting it as fact, BSB, is a sign of idiocy. Or duplicity. Or both.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:20 PM

Yet when someone brings out a description of a far-left site in a far-right site, YOU declare it bullshit-


Different standards being applied depending on whether they agree with you are a sign of bigotry .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:18 PM

Make up their minds about what?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:17 PM

Truth in advertising, Boo. People should have enough info on the source to make up their own minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:15 PM

GregF is using a ( far-left) propaganda site to point out a (far-right) propaganda site.

You know, the sort of thing that he declares "Bullshit" if anyone see does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:09 PM

What's your point Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 12:34 PM

Eh Dave?

ST?

Out of interest, Musket doesn't have integrity, he leaves that to the people writing his script.

Funnily enough, I work on the basis Keith is intelligent, which is why I don't understand when moderators delete my usual assessment of him, as it has to be satire.

The catch 22 is that if Keith is intelligent, why does he do it? Why does he keep up this "I've found something on the internet that backs up my weird views so you are all liars and I'm perfect."

Mind you, "perfect" got caught by Joe Offer posting as someone else apologising to Keith...

I love it when he does his school swot routine, because I can't believe he isn't conscious of it....