BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

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

Can't wait..

zzzzz

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: 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: 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: 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 - 08:36 PM

There you go again. Make the distinction.

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: 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
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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Stringsinger
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 11:20 AM

Unfortunately for Egypt, the army and the people are "not of one hand" as professed.
A truly secular democracy can't be created by military domination and the Arab Spring is out the window for the moment.

Islamic radicalism, as abhorrent as it is, is being fueled by reactionary forces within its ranks,
the reaction to pressure from the religious West.

It's nutty but understandable. The solution is to not give credence to the radicals in Islam, Judaism, Christianity, or any other religious ideology that uses force and violence to achieve their proselytizing aims.

That includes Islamic countries, Israel, the US and any other country that defends

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

It doesn't include Israel as you claim, String. Judaism is not a "proselytising" religion. On the contrary, it regards itself as a sort of private club that doesn't seek to recruit new members. If anyone wants to convert to it [eg for matrimonial motives], it is made extremely difficult for them.

You would convince much more if you would avoid such scattergun accusations against all religions, when you adduce a category into which one of them will just not fit.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 11:29 AM

"'[They] asked us in Swahili whether we were Muslims. My husband told them we were Christians and they shot him in the head and chest.'

Anne Gathigi, Mpeketoni resident"

Check news to do with Kenya.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 11:34 AM

"so much for "evidence""
Rather deal with facts Corporal Jones, the risks tend to be in the minds of the volume squatting xenophobes.
Speaking of which:
"Ah. Poor Mr Rigby just had a sudden access of terminal hayfever, then?"
As much as yo and yours would wish it otherwise, the actions of a couple of extremist nutters has nothing to do with the Islamic campaigns taking place in the middle east and there is no indication whatever that there is either the desire or the intention to spread them to Britain.
Don't suppose either of you pair of clowns would care to comment on the West's role in helping to foster and spread fundamentalisn - no - thought not!!
Jim Carroll
BTW
Yes Corporal - I did confuse the two Bashir's - happy to admit to a mistake, unlike...!!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 11:43 AM

"Don't suppose either of you pair of clowns would care to comment on the West's role in helping to foster and spread fundamentalisn - no - thought not!!"
.,,.

Might well be happy to comment if I had the least idea what you were referring to here, Jim. What sort of 'fundamentalism' do you allege that 'the West [who in 'the West', precisely?] is helping to 'foster & spread'? And where?

Perplexed in the extreme as to what your point is.

Could you clarify, perhaps? Then I might consider 'commenting'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 12:01 PM

Richard, I have never conflated Islam and Islamism.
I objected to Musket doing so.
I also never "implied Islam should apologise for Islamism."
You make these things up.

Jim, the Brits fighting in Syria and now Iraq are with Jihadists groups and mainly ISIS.
None, or at least very few are with the Syrian Rebel Army who do not use foreign fighters.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 01:43 PM

Jim, you often do paste jobs from The Times, but you somehow missed this one.
I am not a subscriber so I got it from another favourite of yours, Russia Today.


Terror alerts, 9/11-style bombings and murders of British citizens will soon come to London's streets, according to chilling threats from UK citizens fighting alongside Islam's most violent terrorist group operating in Syria and Iraq.

The threat comes from British nationals fighting for the Sunni militant group calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL/ISIS) in Syria. According to the Sunday Times, they promise that after they're done there, Britain is next. The message comes from three such fighters, all youngsters in their teens and twenties.

According to the Times, these aren't regular disenchanted youths at all: one is a 20-year-old hacker from Birmingham, who once stole Tony Blair's details and posted them online, later serving time for an unrelated violence charge.

The "black flag of jihad" will fly over Downing Street, Junaid Hussain warned on June 4, spelling out the horrors to come. He's been fighting in Syria for over a year now.

Another, 19-year-old Muhammad Hassan, from Portsmouth, was a student at a prestigious school. He warned on Twitter that if the US doesn't cease threats over drone strikes on ISIS positions, 9/11-style attacks on America would follow.

The third, also from Portsmouth, promised a "killing spree" of British citizens if he were ever to return to Britain.

Among his other offenses, Hussain has also been seen posting bomb-making advice on the internet, as well as tips on how to smuggle explosive devices through airport security.
http://rt.com/news/166128-isis-jihadists-threaten-britain/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 01:49 PM

"Jim, the Brits fighting in Syria and now Iraq are with Jihadists groups and mainly ISIS."
The ones fighting in Syria are doing to make up for the fact that the Syrian people were abandoned to the mercies of long term mass murderer \(and British friend and trading partner) Assad.
There are no figures to show how many are fighting in Iraq - all there is is unsubstantiated speculation - and there is certainly no indication whatever that any of them would prove a threat to Britain when and if they return.
It's the oldest stunt in the world to stick a label on those who go off and fight for inconvenient causes - those who fought fascism in Spain were labelled 'dangerous Bolsheviks' and were rewarded with MI5 records for their efforts.   
Bet the other braindeads are glad you're back Keith - hadn't you realiised you'd taken the communal brain with you when you went?
"Could you clarify, perhaps?"
See a few postings above (16 Jun 14 - 05:51 AM)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 02:06 PM

If you read my previous post you will see that there are good indications that they will attack people here next.

Britain and the West has been providing support to the moderate groups from the start, and they would have won by now but for Iran and Hezbollah fighting for Assad.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 04:15 PM

"If you read my previous post you will see that there are good indications that they will attack people here next."
Your information comes from 'Russia Today' which you've already rejected out of hand several times when it has been put up by others - can't have it both ways chappie!
As I said, empty rhetoric, no threats and no reason to believe such blow-hard statements made by testosterone fizzing young men (to borrow a phrase) should be taken in any way seriously.
There are a million and a half docile Muslims in Britain who have been recognised as the most ready ethnic community to integrate and be recognised as British in British society.
The number of terrorist incidents in Britain to date have been miniscule
as compared to:
ATTACKS AGAINST MOSQUES
I realise it's pissing in the wind bu WHERE'S YOUR PROOF - perhaps you have an "expert" or a "historian" tucked away somewhere that you haven't told us about?
"Iran and Hezbollah fighting for Assad."
If Britain, the US and the UN hadn't chickened out, and if some of these hadn't sold weapons, chemicals for weapons, and riot control equipment the fighting wouldn't have been left to inexperienced groups of volunteers and Assad would heve been banged up as a war criminal long ago.
And please don't tell me you've expressed your sympathy for the Syrian people - you proposed selling him riot control equipment.
What's the betting if Assad wins he'll be welcomed back into the International community and Britain will be selling him arms again - that nice Mr Cable said they would   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 04:39 PM

Apparently the only threat to Britain according to Hague (William not Field Marshal) it to our oil prices - now that might get Britain and the US involved - humanitarian considerations haven't.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 04:39 PM

It is from Sunday Times which you so often produce long paste jobs from.
How come you let this one go?

Russia Today, which you also like linking to, is just quoting it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 04:45 PM

And, Assad gets his arms from Russia, China and Iran.
He would not take non-lethal riot gear as a gift.
He only uses lethal weapons, supplied by Russia, China and Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Jun 14 - 06:30 PM

'kinell Mither, you have Alzheimer's now? It's not up to Muslims to apologise for Islamists. I have noticed one recent condemnation by a material Muslim community leader of Islamist atrocities. I would have expected a flood.

KtheA - not only can you not think, you cannot read - or remember. Since time immemorial you have conflated Islamist atrocities with defects in Islam. And perhaps you would kindly remind me where I said that you said that Muslims in general should apologise for Islamists. I said that Mither implied that.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 01:27 AM

Stringsinger:
"Islamic radicalism, as abhorrent as it is, is being fueled by reactionary forces within its ranks, the reaction to pressure from the religious West."

Laughable.

Christmas:
Those two nutters, both converts to the "Religion Of Peace", were at great pains during the execution of Lee Rigby to proclaim to all who could listen that -

1: They were "Soldiers of Allah"
2: That they were carrying out his will
3: That "we" {British Public} could expect more of the same
4: That they sought martyr status through killing the enemies of Islam.

Pray tell how has the big, bad West helped to foster and spread fundamentalism? By not being compliant victims perhaps?

Nice to see your double standards at work again Christmas regarding sources when quoted by you having to be taken as the "be-all-and-end-all" of any argument, but when the same sources conflict with your point of view they must be dismissed out of hand. That does have its own little "silver lining" though - from now on if you quote anything from either the Sunday Times, the Times or from Russia Today in your interminable lengthy "Cut-n-Pastes" we can just dismiss it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:01 AM

Bridge. I'll have a pint of what you are on.

Material Muslims? What? Do you mean the ones working in textile sweat shops in Leicester?




On other matters. I posted a hello and welcome back to Keith and the moderators deleted it. Typical.....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:44 AM

Richard, I thought you meant me.
Sorry.
However, Since time immemorial you have conflated Islamist atrocities with defects in Islam

That is completely untrue.
I have NEVER done that.
I have never once even criticised Islam.

Jim, Sunday Times piece quoted by RT.
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Defence/article1422787.ece
You subscribe so you must have known it was genuine.
You must have read it yet you continued to posts that there was no reason to believe such things.
You are a dishonest man.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 04:15 AM

Wild claims of young men (three in this case) involved in battle that they will go home and change the world are as old as warfare itself and are not to be taken seriously - the million and a half Asian Britons who have settled and a part of British life (when racist bigots such as yourself allow them to) are evidence enough of that.
The reality of British life today is an overwhelming passive and peaceful British Asian population happy to accept British laws and respect the customs.
These people find themselves constantly under attack from the thuggish elements of indigenous British society using views such as yurs and your little band of brothers to justify their thuggishness.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 04:59 AM

All demographics are mostly law abiding, but none more-so than others, and remember the prison statistics please.

We do know that we have "several thousand" Islamists here who regard ordinary people as legitimate targets, and hundreds with Isis and similar Jihadi groups in Syria and Iraq, committing unspeakable atrocities and who will return bringing their murderous skills and experience with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 05:03 AM

Wild claims of young men (three in this case)

The ST highlighted this as a serious issue and a real threat.
They produced a small example typical and representative of the many.
That is how it is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 05:11 AM

BBC yesterday.

Speaking at his monthly news conference, Mr Clegg (well know Islamophobe??) said the conflicts in Syria and Iraq were clearly linked.

"The horrific crucible of violence in this bloody civil war in Syria undoubtedly is acting as a generator of violence and extremism which not only spills over to other countries in the region but also unfortunately poses a very direct threat to the safety of British citizens on the streets of Britain too," he said.

The risk of Islamist Jihadists trained in Syria returning to the UK intent on violence was the "number one security issue" facing the government, he added.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 07:03 AM

Musket's contribution on another thread thread about Catholics:

"I suppose, although I wouldn't wish to see it as a defence, that when you are force fed your morality by priests and nuns all your life, complicity has a diminished responsibility aspect to it.

Complicity means you never challenged the criminals as they claimed their right under their God, whilst reminding you he is your God too.

Deep ingrained superstition, the fuel of corruption.

Time for Voltaire methinks;

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

Same generalisation and observation relate equally for Muslims Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 08:14 AM

" remember the prison statistics please."
The figures are connected to rising criminality - not terrorist activity, and the reasons for this rise has already been discussed, here and in the press - it is oly the extremist rags, incited by Zioning Gatestone who have attempted to link them to Islamism - and, of course, you and yours.
"We do know that we have "several thousand" Islamists here who regard ordinary people as legitimate targets"
This profound quote, presented here as your own, is directly taken from a statement made by the head of MI5 last October, which has nothing to do with what is happening in Syria or Iraq.
They and you have yet to produce a single shred of evidence of this having anything to do with a plot to Islamise the West.
"the conflicts in Syria and Iraq were clearly linked."
Of course they are, and despite allusions to a threat to Britain, they have no connection to Muslims here
Rather they date back to the facts covered in the article I provided earlier (still uncommented on by you and yours) dating these disputes back to the West's support of of Islamic radicals to support their own aims.
These are territorial disputes and power struggles in the Middle East, not unlike those taking place between Israel and Palestine
They are no indication of a plot to replace Christianity with Islam in the West
Any threat to Britain comes from these conflicts (including the Israeli/Palestinian dispute) taking on international proportions, and the greatest threat of this happening is from those powers with nuclear capability.
One intriguing development is Iran's offer to support the West in Iraq, should the necessity arise - I seem to remember that Iran is an Islamic State.
Jim Carroll   

More from the same source as the previous historical information.

SHIA AND SUNNIS FUELING POWER STRUGGLE THAT THREATENS IRAQ'S VERY EXISTENCE
Michael Jansen
Analysis
A MILITANT ATTACK ON BAGHDAD COULD LEAD TO A FULL-SCALE WAR AND REGIONAL UNREST
Reported massacres of Shia soldiers and civilians in cities and villages captured by the radical Sunni Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (Isis) are meant to prompt Shias to retaliate against Sunnis, while Shia clerics are making Shia volunteers swear loyalty to their sect on the Koran before deploying against Isis forces. The actions of both sides are fuelling a sectarian power struggle that threatens the very existence of Iraq. Although they share Islam's basic beliefs and practices - the profession of faith, alms-giving, fasting during Ramadan, and the Mecca pilgrimage - a political divide opened between Sunnis and Shias after the death of the prophet Muhammad in 632.

DIVIDE OVER SUCCESSION
Sunnis felt that his successor should be elected from among his "rightfully guided" companions. Shias argued that Ali, the prophet's cousin and son-in-law, and his descendants should succeed because they had a direct line to God.
Ali was anointed as the fourth caliph in 656 but was assassinated by fanatics in 661. His son Hussein was killed in battle at Kerbala in Iraq.
The anniversaries of these killings and the deaths of their successors are regularly commemorated by Shias, keeping alive resentment and reinforcing the 1,400-year-old split, which developed spiritual as well as political dimensions.
While 85 to 90 per cent of the world's Muslims are Sunnis, three countries have majority Shia populations: Iran, Iraq and Bahrain. Lebanon and Pakistan have significant Shia minorities.
During most of the modern period, Iraqis of all classes bridged the sectarian divide. Tribes had both Shia and Sunni members and often wed children from the sects to cement unity. Relations were exemplified by close co-operation during the 1920 revolt against British rule. Both communities staged demonstrations calling for independence and an Arab government.
That spring, an iconic battle at the town of Fallujah involved fighters from both sects. (A national symbol, Fallujah was subsequently levelled by US forces in 1991, 2003 and 2004 and is now occupied by Isis and its Sunni allies.)
To combat secularism among Shias, senior clerics founded the Dawa party in 1957. During the 1970s, Dawa campaigned against the ruling
Baath Party and, backed by Iran's revolutionary clerics, launched an insurgency that precipitated the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. During this conflict, Baghdad had the support of Sunni powers and the West. But during the 1991 and 2003 wars on Iraq, the US backed the Dawa-dominated expatriate opposition, which took power during the US occupation and systematically destroyed the frayed fabric of Shia-Sunni co-existence.
Sunnis were disenfranchised, denied entry to the army, police and civil service, detained and cleansed from mixed urban districts. Protests during 2012-2013 were put down violently by the Dawa-dominated government of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki.
In response, Sunni tribes¬men and former army and police officers have joined the Isis offensive.
A threatened attack on Baghdad could trigger a full-scale sectarian war in Iraq, prompt Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran to intervene on opposing sides, and lead to Sunni-Shia bloodletting across the Muslim world.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 08:28 AM

"the conflicts in Syria and Iraq were clearly linked."
Of course they are, and despite allusions to a threat to Britain, they have no connection to Muslims here

Apart from the hundreds of Muslims from here who have joined Islamist Jihadi groups in those places, and who are committing terrible atrocities in the name of Islam and are pledged, "The "black flag of jihad" will fly over Downing Street, Junaid Hussain warned on June 4, spelling out the horrors to come. He's been fighting in Syria for over a year now.

Another, 19-year-old Muhammad Hassan, from Portsmouth, was a student at a prestigious school. He warned on Twitter that if the US doesn't cease threats over drone strikes on ISIS positions, 9/11-style attacks on America would follow.

The third, also from Portsmouth, promised a "killing spree" of British citizens if he were ever to return to Britain. "

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:07 AM

Terribulus asked this question of me in the other thread. My answer was wrongly deleted but its enough that we ask moderators to be volunteers without ascribing them wit and intelligence...

Yes, they do. Considering I have never said anything against Catholics, I doubt I would ever say anything against Muslims. (See my diagnosis in Latin above for the next sentence.)

The problem is, that you and your mates think that defending normal people who happen to be Muslim means being soft on terror.

You do it on purpose for your own neocon agenda.

Pathetic.

Keith sees where reporters, looking for trouble, find it just like they used to in Belfast and tries frightening everybody with it.

What do you suggest? Grabbing a nurse and making a video of her condemning foreign violence whilst pretend soldiers wearing balaclavas and silly parachute with wings badges point rifles at her, with a Union jack backdrop? Make sure today's copy of The Sun is prominent so security forces can verify she is still alive on that date, won't you?

Perhaps embracing neighbours rather than sneering at them might be a good start. Perhaps noting that most of the war against radical terrorists is being done by Muslims.

"Oh look! Musket defends UK Muslims. He must be soft on terror and he doesn't understand it like we do..."

You could always scour google for some more snippets eh? Make sure you don't accidentally cut and paste any about how it is Muslims fighting the war on terror. After all, it would be harder to hate your GP if you did.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

"nd who are committing terrible atrocities in the name of Islam and are pledged"
The tit-for tat atrocities that are taking place in the Middle East are part of what is happening there and have been for a long time.
Assad has been wiping out the people of Syria for some years now - the west tut-tutted and decided to do nothing about it.
The atrocities in Iraq started way before the present conflict, Falujah, Abu Graib, the use of drones....
AMERICAN ATROCITIES IN IRAQ
It appears that they are only a problem when it is young militants carrying them out.
No-one is excusing atrocities, whoever commits than, just pointing out that "terrible atrocities" appear to be part of modern warfare ad attributable to all sides.
You have given three examples of threats to Britain - yet it is people like you and your friends, along with your counterparts in the BNP, Ukip and every other shitty extremist group who has and continues to represented a threat to Muslim people as a whole with your racist genaralisations and your outpourings of hate.
The facts are simple - there are a million and a half Muslims in Britain.
Unless you send them all back from where they (or their parents - or in some cases, grandparents) came fro, or open up internment camps throughout Britain - or maybe even embark on "a permanent solution" to the Muslim problem, we have to live with that fact.
As things stand at present, British Muslims are a natural ally, they represent a friendship to be fostered and built on, as a matter of self-preservation, if humanity doesn't grab you, as it obviously doesn't.
The last thing Britain needs at the present time is a bunch of mouth-frothing hate merchants goosestepping their way through British society and stirring up disquiet and mistrust.
The world lost its chance with assisting those who wished to bring about democratic change through the Arab Spring - we are seeing the results of that in Syria at the present time.
Lets hope that this isn't repeated in Britain because mof hand-in-the-air morons like you and yours.
You want a "terrible atrocity -
BRITISH JUSTICE FOR MUSLIM
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 12:09 PM

You both appear to be denying what the security services tell us.
Also journalists in Syria.
Also the chief of the Syria Free Army.
Also our government.

Cleg, deputy PM and leader of our most liberal and tolerant party said, (BBC yesterday) "The risk of Islamist Jihadists trained in Syria returning to the UK intent on violence was the "number one security issue" facing the government, he added."

"number one security issue" facing the government"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 12:19 PM

BBC today.

He (David Cameron) also pledged to do everything he could to protect people from UK nationals fighting alongside Jihadi militants fighting in Iraq and Syria if they return to the UK.

"No-one should be in any doubt that what we see in Syria and now in Iraq in terms of Isis is the most serous threat to Britain's security that there is today," he said.

"The number of foreign fighters in that area, the number of foreign fighters including those from the UK who could try to return to the UK, this is a real threat to our country," he said.

"That means stopping people from going, it means arresting people who are involved in plots, it means focusing our security, our policing, our intelligence effort on to that area of the world, on to those people."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 01:02 PM

And who are dissenting from this view?
Well there is you two, and, errrr, that's it!

Not the opposition Labour Party.
Not any political party.
No journalist or any media outlet.
No representative of any organisation representing any Muslim community.
No single mosque or Imam.
Not the Jihadists themselves.

No-one but you two posturing numpties.
Two ignorant, ill-informed and out of touch with reality loons.

You have produced nothing in support of your view because there is nothing.

Or can you suggest one single reason why anyone's response to you two should be other than pointing and laughing?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 01:33 PM

Produce your threat from jihadists, and if there is one, produce your solution to it
Simple as that.
So far you have reverted to statements of bravado from a handful of young volunteers and your old usual panel of experts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 01:46 PM

Produce your threat from jihadists

Turn on the news Jim.

I have no solution.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:22 PM

CNN yesterday.
UK police say they made 40 arrests for Syria-related offences in the first three months of this year, almost double the number of the entire previous year.
Richard Walton, head of Scotland Yard's counter-terrorism command, warned last year there were signs these recruits could be turned around to launch attacks in the UK. "I don't think the public realizes the seriousness of the problem," he said. "The penny hasn't dropped. But Syria is a game-changer."

Has your penny dropped yet Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

"Has your penny dropped yet Jim?"
What penny - what were the arrests for - what are the threats - car bombs, terrorist attacks - what, and for what purpose.
You have been given my solution - about 5 postings up -
Sytop demonising the British Muslim population with your disgusting "cultural implants" and treat them as the friends they have proved they could be if they wer given a chance.
Like all you hate merchants, you deal only in smoke and mirrors.
By the way
"Two ignorant, ill-informed and out of touch with reality loons."
You, once again, are the only rabid-rouser left waving your swastika for the British people - your mates appear to have pissed off and left you to it and you''ve once again filibustered the vast majority of opponents who have argued against you throughout, into silence - your good ol' "infallibility" coming through for you again.
Unless you come up with something more than your racist rhetoric, you are alone with nothing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:01 PM

There is no doubt that all extremists are a danger to world peace.

There is no doubt that the current spate of Islamic radicals across the globe are in the forefront of extremism.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of ordinary Muslims, just like the vast majority of everyone else in the world, are not extremists.

There is no doubt that Keith is right that there is a serious threat.

There is no doubt that Jim is right that it does not come from ordinary people, of whatever religion.

There is no doubt that Jim and Keith will continue to argue regardless of the fact that they are both right.

Lovely post on another thread by Ed T (Thanks Ed) quoting Sheryl Sandberg. Well worth repeating here -

"I learned that effective communication starts with the understanding that there is MY point of view, (my truth), and someone else's point of view (his truth). Rarely is there one absolute truth, so people who believe that they speak THE truth are very silencing of others. When we realize and recognize that we can see things only from our own perspective, we can share our views in a nonthreatening way. Statements of opinion are always more constructive in the first person "I" form. The ability to listen is as important as the ability to speak. Miscommunication is always a two way street."

DtG