BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:15 PM

How about the land that Jews have occupied for millennia?

Going to give back the NOW Arab land that was taken from the 820,000 Jews forced out of Arab nations in 1948?

Going to give back the West back areas that were populated by Jews until they were driven out in 1948?


Or is it that you won't apply to Jews what you demand for the Palestinian Arabs whose families were among the 640,000 that fled Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 03:25 PM

"who continue to add Palestinian territory"
How about the land that the Arabs have occupied for millenia?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:46 PM

"who continue to add Palestinian territory"

Which Palestinian territory would that be?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:39 PM

Zionism was coined by Nathan Birnbaum in the 1890s. It meant "the national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the land of Israel.
(Jews Virtual Library, an American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (online),
From Haaretz, a Jewish website- "The belief that Israel belongs to the entire Jewish people." A long discussion of the meaning. It discusses the Law of Return; a concession is to a "Palestinian state" and the hope that it would have a similar law.
However, the area of the Palestinians is slowly being eroded away by the current leaders of Israel.

MGM says the aims of Zionism have been fulfilled- not so in the minds of Israel's leaders, who continue to add Palestinian territory and hope for its eventual addition to Israel.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 02:02 PM

Dr.Tawfik Hamid is an Islamic thinker and reformer and one time Islamic extremist from Egypt. He was a member of a terrorist Islamic organization, J.I., with Dr.Ayman Al-Zawaherri who later became second-in-command of Al-Qaeda. Some twenty five years ago he recognized the threat of Radical Islam and a need for reformation based upon a modern, peaceful interpretation of classical Islamic core texts.

Dr.Tawfik Hamid: stop exploiting Palestine as wedge against Jewish Israel

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 01:56 PM

Still not clear what you men by "Zionism", Stringsinger. Unlike all the rest of that list, is is no sort of religion, and never was. So what do you mean by it? I don't believe you have the slightest idea what it has ever meant; nor that it means nothing now, as it has been consigned to history, its aims having been fulfilled.

Try Wikipedia. Also see my recent post on the other current Israel Small Hope thread, 6 Jul 0744 a.m

And then please stop using it -- it has become, insofar as it has any current referent at all, one of those boo-words to disguise antisemitism; which I presume is not what you mean to convey.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:59 PM

Radical Islam, Zionism, Christianity, Buddhism, Catholicism et. al. are nutty to being with.
They're all in the same box. They all have history of bloodshed, torture and enemy posing.
Some are more pronounced today then they have been historically but they all come from
the same root. Evangelism, and fanaticism.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:47 PM

Hello Michael.

Are you coming out to play?

Got some model soldiers you can play with. We can make a mosque out of a jelly mould and two asparagus spears and surround it with the soldiers.

A school bully once said he was never going to talk to me again. His family then left the area, and you know what? Spooky this...    He never did speak with me after that..(!)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 12:41 PM

Sorry -- only just come across this from Jim from a few days back --

=========================================================
"by denouncing the person and his opinions as "right wing"
We are both liberal at flinging names at each other - I usually supply mine with information to back them up, which you invariably ignore - or with responses such as 'not my job to come up with answers guv"
Take responsibility for the effects of your hate Mike - you're quick enough at telling others we should no better.
==========================================================

What 'effects' of what 'hate' precisely, Jim do you want me to take responsibility for? What form should this "responsibility" take? A barefoot pilgrimage to Mecca? Don't expect they'd let me in, do you?

Or what?

Some 'information to back up the opinions' expressed above, please? Together with some elucidation of what exactly they are or what you want me to do? I have quoted the whole of the part of the post addressed to me; but can make no progress in working out precisely what it means -- What you are accusing me of? Or what you expect me to do about whatever it is?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 02:46 PM

President Obama.

"We have seen Europeans sympathetic to their (militants') cause travelling into Syria and may now travel into Iraq, getting battle-hardened. Then they come back," Obama warned in an interview that aired Sunday on the US broadcaster ABC.

These combatants "have a European passport. They don't need visas to get into the United States," he told "This Week."

"Now, we are spending a lot of time, and we have been for years, making sure we are improving intelligence to respond to that.

"We have to improve our surveillance, reconnaissance, intelligence there. Special forces are going to have a role. And there are going to be times where we take strikes against organizations that could do us harm."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 02:40 PM

No it is not.
See my full answer on the other thread where you duplicated the same question.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 01:44 PM

IS THIS ABOUT RELIGION?
jIM cARROLL

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 12:59 PM

"Not according to Carroll and his fellow apologists who maintain that the Islamists constitute a handful of misguided individuals and their religion has nothing to do with it."
Religion has nothing to do with it - the war is being fought over who should rule over the area
From the Reuters report - on which this is based.
"Religion, many analysts say, is being deployed as a weapon to galvanize rival interests, but is taking on a virulent sectarian life of its own, sometimes escaping the control of those wielding the weapon."
Ireland was a conflict divided into sectarian groups - nothing to do with religion, just which particular group should be in charge.
Nowhere is it being suggested that religion is the reason for the war.
If you haev nothing further than this... I'll go ad get me dinner
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Brian May
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 06:00 AM

Good God, do I detect support for the phenomenon I've been trying to highlight for the last few years? So perhaps I'm not a closet racist bigot after all . . .

I AM glad, just to reiterate, WE (citizens of Europe and now just about everywhere else too) ignore this at their (our) peril.

It's not a 'scare story', it's happening.

Awareness is a major step forward - what does the old adage say? The Devil's greatest achievement is convincing people he doesn't exist. I'm not religious, but this is very similar.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 06:46 PM

The advance of ISIS has ended over a thousand years of Christian worship in Mosul—the latest chapter in the long decline of Christianity in the Middle East.

Last Sunday, for the first time in 1600 years, no mass was celebrated in Mosul. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) seized Iraq's second largest city on June 10, causing most Christians in the region to flee in terror.

The Daily Beast

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 06:42 PM

"...she's also correct in her response."

Not according to Carroll and his fellow apologists who maintain that the Islamists constitute a handful of misguided individuals and their religion has nothing to do with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:58 PM

Guardian 28 minutes ago

"Suspected Islamists sprayed gunfire at worshippers and torched four churches on Sunday in a village close to the town from where more than 200 schoolgirls were kidnapped, according to witnesses.

At least 30 bodies were recovered but more were still being found in the bushes, where people from Kwada village had been hiding, said a member of a vigilante group that has had some successes in repelling attacks.

Nigeria Chibok
"They killed dozens of people and burned houses after attacking worshippers," survivor Mallam Yahi said by telephone from Chibok town."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/29/boko-haram-islamists-kill-dozens-attack-churches-chibok-nigeria

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:38 PM

(Reuters) - Eight rebel fighters have been crucified in Syria by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) because they were considered too moderate, a monitoring group said on Sunday.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which relies on contacts on the ground in Syria, said the men were crucified on Saturday in Aleppo province. It added that their corpses were still on view.

The Observatory said clashes between rival Islamist groups in Syria had killed around 7,000 people since January, as militants from ISIL try to strengthen their grip on territory.

The infighting has complicated the insurgency and drawn in foreign fighters.

ISIL, a radical al Qaeda offshoot group, has captured areas on both sides of the Iraqi-Syrian border after seizing the Iraqi city of Mosul on June 10 and sweeping towards Baghdad.

In Syria, ISIL has battled with groups such as the Nusra Front, al Qaeda's official Syrian wing, in the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad which started with pro-democracy protests but has descended into civil war.

The Observatory, an anti-Assad group which tracks the violence, said the vast majority were killed in explosions, including car bombings and suicide attacks. It monitored the infighting in seven provinces.

It said ISIL had executed the eight men in Aleppo province for belonging to more moderate groups. The men were crucified in the town square of Deir Hafer in eastern Aleppo and would be left there for three days, it said.

The men were accused of being "Sahwa" fighters, the Observatory said, a term ISIL uses to refer to rival combatants whom it accuses of being controlled by Western powers.

ISIL also crucified another man in the province in al-Bab town near the Turkish border, it said. He was pinned up for eight hours as a punishment for giving false testimony but survived the ordeal, the Observatory said.

ISIL, a rebranding of al Qaeda in Iraq which fought American forces during the U.S. occupation, has been disowned by the al Qaeda leadership, partly because of its brutality and indiscriminate attacks.

The group has alienated many civilians and opposition activists by imposing harsh rulings against dissent, even beheading its opponents, in areas it controls.

ISIL follows al Qaeda's hard-line ideology but draws its strength from foreign fighters, battle-hardened from Iraq.

The military gains by ISIL have highlighted how the conflict in Iraq is intertwined with the civil war in Syria, where more than 160,000 people have been killed.

On Saturday, Islamist rebels fought back in Syria's border town of Albu Kamal, challenging the hold of ISIL.

ISIL fighters had appeared to be consolidating their hold over Albu Kamal during the week when the local leader of the rival Nusra Front pledged allegiance to them.

ISIL, which wants to create a severe Islamic state that straddles international borders, controls much of Syria's eastern oil-producing Euphrates River region.

Its lightning gains in Iraq's Sunni Muslim northern and western provinces over the last three weeks mean ISIL now commands a large cross-border expanse of land.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 02:11 PM

Fighters in Syria and Iraq have announced the establishment of a "caliphate", referring to the system of rule that ended nearly 100 years ago with the fall of the Ottoman empire.

In an audio recording distributed online on Sunday, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) declared its chief Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as "the caliph" and "leader for Muslims everywhere".

Baghdadi is believed to be the leader of ISIL, which announced that it is now called "The Islamic State".

According to the statement, the new caliphate stretches from Iraq's Diyala province to Syria's Aleppo.

"The Shura (council) of the Islamic State met and discussed this issue (of the caliphate)... The Islamic State decided to establish an Islamic caliphate and to designate a caliph for the state of the Muslims," said ISIL spokesman Abu Mohammad al-Adnani.

"The words 'Iraq' and 'the Levant' have been removed from the name of the Islamic State in official papers and documents," Adnani said, describing the caliphate as "the dream in all the Muslims' hearts" and "the hope of all jihadists".

Al Jazeera's Imran Khan reporting from the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, said that a caliphate is effectively an Islamic Republic led by one leader, regardless of national boundaries.

With the announcement, the armed group is declaring that they are now legitimate, declaring the caliphate as the "true muslim state", he said.

The announcement might bring up problems with other Sunni fighters in Iraq, who are fighting the central government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and not fighting for the caliphate, our correspondent said.

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 12:50 PM

". . . what's your point?"

My point is this: except for the fact the lady is likely just a bit to the right of Ronald Reagan, she's also correct in her response.

No one has died and left you boss, Jim, so tuck in your horns and engage your brain before you start shoving with your mouth. Her talk/response addressed the topic of this thread. That topic is Islamic radicalism. Have a nice day.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 11:31 AM

Being a Muslim is being part of Islam - which you persistently target with your diatribes

Completely false accusation.
I have never even criticised Islam.
You have to lie about me because nothing I have actually posted can be used against me.
you are being nasty and dishonest Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 07:41 AM

" It's sure to be unpopular."
An American commentator addresses a non- Muslim audience with unsubstantiated claims (from groups like the CIA - who are part of the problem) and receives a standing ovation - what's your point?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 06:33 AM

Another viewpoint.

PS It's sure to be unpopular.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 04:22 AM

"by denouncing the person and his opinions as "right wing"
We are both liberal at flinging names at each other - I usually supply mine with information to back them up, which you invariably ignore - or with responses such as 'not my job to come up with answers guv"
Take responsibility for the effects of your hate Mike - you're quick enough at telling others we should no better.
"It is nothing to do with Islam. "
Being a Muslim is being part of Islam - which you persistently target with your diatribes
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:49 AM

Troubadour, that phrase was in the question.
I was just quoting back Don's question that I was answering.
I did not insert the word.

Don knew I did not believe religion was an issue because I had just made that clear with this post.

Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 Jan 11 - 06:43 AM

Don, on 24th January (2011) I said about this issue "It is nothing to do with Islam. "
I do not "see the problem as a Muslim one,"
I have always said specifically that it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:19 AM

No, actually, Jim, I don't. My point, as I am sure you appreciated, was that denying the right of someone to express an opinion simply, as you appeared to be doing, by denouncing the person and his opinions as "right wing", as if that were a knockdown preclusion of his proceeding to any further argument, was a foolish way to go on; and invited and deserved no more response than "Go away yourself, Lefty."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Jun 14 - 03:06 AM

"Go away yourself, "
Don't you just wish?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 09:06 PM

"As you say, no particular religion is implied by "Pakistani."
Jim's claim that I impugned Muslims is shown to be a lie."

""Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency""


People will no doubt draw their own conclusions as to why that word was included in your statement of belief!

I have drawn mine, and believe little, if any, of your output on subjects involving race, culture and religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 03:32 PM

"you are a permanent blockage to serious discussion on this forum with your ultra-rightism
Now, please go away
Jim Carroll"
.,,.
Go away yourself, you lefty ½·wit.

Don't, in fact. Place wdn't be ¼ so amusing without your undigested lefty poopoobum ɷ. Just a bit of good nachered tit-4-tat [or bollox-4-bollox?].

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 09:18 AM

Another cop out?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:21 AM

Islam is a sick religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 07:46 AM

Ian, you are not above abuse of that level.
I remember at least one remark made to Keith by you, which was even worse on rather similar subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 07:26 AM

Jim approved and offered support.
Thanks Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 05:27 AM

Err.. Not Musket above. Moderators, can you check IP again?

I can wind Keith up quite adequately without assistance thank you.

I can come out with abuse of individuals who deserve it all day, but the comment above is repugnant on just about every level there is.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 04:57 AM

You've had the arguments - Keith - deal with them
No more of your black holes - you are a permanent blockage to serious discussion on this forum with your ultra-rightism
Now, please go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 04:23 AM

"Islamisation of Britain"??
Where did that come from?

They were people who had been radicalised.
None claimed British racism as their motivation.
I have never heard a radicalised person give that as a reason.

You have tried and failed to make a case for "deeply racist" Britain many times.
It is not.
You can find so many reports on racism because we care about it so much.
Britain is a deeply tolerant and welcoming country.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 03:08 PM

"I have seen all the 7/7 bombers videos, the 21/7 ones, the Glagow ones"
I have seen all the 7/7 bombers videos, the 21/7 ones, the Glagow ones...
Then perhaps you'd be better watchig The Hooro channel if that's what turns you on.
Can you prduce any quotes from these declare the holy war you and your mate are so obsessed with - I doubt it?
These had nothing to do with Islamising Britain, and nobody has ever claimed they had.
They wer retaliation for what was happening to Muslims throughout the word - Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan Guantanamo - and holiday camps like Abu Graib and Camp Xray.
The current lot is different in the sense that Syria started as part of the Arab Spring protests and the world abandoned the people there and left a hole for fundamentalists to fill.
It would never have happened if Syria had been an oil producing country because the U.S. along with their British poodle would have been in there like a shot, U.N, veto or not.
"I believe them."
Course you do - after all, there might be a few "qualified historians" or "experts" among them to hide behind.
Why believe a couple of loudmouthed soldiers and not all the British Muslims who say they have been persecuted - no answer was forthcoming, so I ask again:
"How about all those who have persistently claimed to have been persecuted and made feel less than human all their lives - do you believe them?"
Muslims are obviously liars according to you as there is no wide-scale racial persecution - how do you tell the liars from those telling the truth?
One thing is certain - if there is any inter-racial or sectarian strife (as predicted by Eunuch Powell all those decades ago - you and your buddies will have been in the forefront in causing it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 02:10 PM

You have no idea what they "all cited" any more than the rest of us have.

I have seen all the 7/7 bombers videos, the 21/7 ones, the Glagow ones and all the ones that have come out of Syria, and others from thwarted attacks.

They all cited foreign policy and events overseas as their motivation.
I believe them.
They should know.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 02:03 PM

Considering UKIP haven't indicated any policies in detail other than immigration curbs and Britishness, I tend to agree with David Cameron on this. Closet racists.

Nick Griff*n needs to go to spec savers. But mocking the afflicted isn't becoming of me, is it Michael?

Michael?

Hello?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:36 PM

TOLERANT BRITAIN 2010
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:30 PM

POLICE RECORDED HATE CRIMES IN 2013
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 01:01 PM

"but I believe that the problem is worse in comparable countries."
Whether this is true or not (we only take responsibility for what happens in our own country) it has nothing to do with what is under discussion, which is the effect that British racism has, or might have, on Muslim youth.
"I think that this country is a beacon of tolerance."
'Course you do - pity the facts don't back you up.
"Britain is a deeply racist country."
One third to a quarter of the population admiring to holding and expressing racist opinions indicate that this is not far off the mark - address that fact - you never have.
I qualified my statement by saying that I believe that racism to be passive, which I do.
"I think that is false and shows your own prejudice and bigotry."
I've just given you my reasons for my opinion - work it out for yourself before leaping by the "prejudice and bigotry" barrier - aI have no reason to be either - I am British, as are most of my family.
"I think that is false and shows your own prejudice and bigotry."
I have no idea why they do, or if they do, I only know a handful of them have said they do.
I get as much hate from you as I do from the most vociferous of them - perhaps it's time you looked at your behaviour if you want to find reasons?.
Address the possible reasons for radicalisation - so far you have either denied them or ignored them.
You have no idea what they "all cited" any more than the rest of us have.
Simple fact of life - brutalise and debase people for long enough and they will swipe back at you - despite claiming to be a "Christian" you are a prime example of that brutalisation, so if somebody takes a pop at you, don't be surprised.
How about all those who have persistently claimed to have been persecuted and made feel less than human all their lives - do you believe them?
PERSECUTION IN BRITAIN
The Rigby killers were hardly rational individuals - you are very selective in accepting what they say and didn't say.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 12:41 PM

Just to say that someone who can't see any difference between BNP & UKIP is long overdue a visit to Specsavers...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 12:13 PM

Jim, of course there are racists in Britain, but I believe that the problem is worse in comparable countries.
I think that this country is a beacon of tolerance.
A couple of years ago you stated that "Britain is a deeply racist country."
I think that is false and shows your own prejudice and bigotry.

What do the radicalised give as their reason for wanting to kill us.
In all the martyrdom videos, and the strutting Rigby killers at the scene, not one accused us of racism.
They all cited foreign policy and events overseas as their motivation.
I believe them.
They should know.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 11:16 AM

"How do you mend the fence when the people the other side prefer to leave it broken?"
That is an assumption you have no evidence for.
Muslims have shown themselves more than ready to fit i with British society and identify as being British - any fences have been erected by your crowd - particularly the ones with the tattoos and shaven heads, who have made the lives of ordinary people - particularly women and children - miserable and dangerous.
You may not be among those who pour petrol through letterboxes, but your hate-mouthing are little different than theirs, if slightly (though not much) more articulate.
You are sounding more and more like the B.N.P. and Ukip every time you post.
Please don't tell my I should be ashamed of myself before taking a long, hard look in the mirror.
I assume there are no examples of my or anybody's ""defending what's going on".
You appear to have as little self-respect and honesty as Keith
The same should be all yours Mike
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:35 AM

How do you mend the fence when the people the other side prefer to leave it broken?

Just asking.

I mean, I know there are lots of them who say this lot have got it wrong & that isn't what the Book means when it talks about Ummah & Jihad and all that. But why are they any more authorities on the matter than that Anjem Choudary monster, who was all for 9/11 & 7/7 & the Croydon killers, who's a solicitor and 'scholar' too so presumably knows as well as they do & his views carry just as much weight as the obliging Mandy Rice-Davieses of the MCGB & such?

OK; I've made my points: so I'll shut up. For now, anyhow... Enough of banging my head against this particular wall -- mended or not.


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:28 AM

Something for GUEST,Musket - Date: 27 Jun 14 - 09:49 AM:

http://www.engvid.com/reading-comprehension-understand-what-you-read-in-english/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:18 AM

Guest Musket 09.49 isn't any Musket I know.

If the moderators could check IP I'd be grateful.

"Kinda whip ass". I don't speak in a foreign language thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:12 AM

"I'm not in the 'solutions' biznis."
Then you should take more responsibility for casting aspersions on entire communities
"Meanwhile you and your lot go on defending such goings-on as rubricated above"
I ask again defending what and how?
You are pretty free with your accusations, but more than reticent in substantiating them
Who is defending what and how are they defending it?
Substantiate your accusations or you are lying - which makes you no better than yours friend.
"suggestions of others" that I have "rejected or ignored"
It has consistently been suggested that "mending fences" with the Muslim community is far more preferable than attacking it - as you and yours insists on doing.
Put up or shut up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 10:00 AM

"...neither of you have attempted to come up with a solution of your own and have rejected or ignored the suggestions of others."

"I ask again - what do you propose to do about 'the enemy within' as you have painted them?
Jim Carroll"
.,,.

What sort of 'solutions' do you suggest that I come up with then, eh, Jim? And why should I be expected to? I'm not in the 'solutions' biznis. The fact that I can see a church by daylight doesn't imply any obligation on my part to find 'solutions' if it turns out there's dry rot in its timbers or woodworm in its pews. Some problems, for that matter, are allowed to drift to a point where there aren't any 'solutions'.

Meanwhile you and your lot go on defending such goings-on as rubricated above; vaguely denouncing these enormities as nothing but regrettable-but-only-to-be-expected results of our iniquitous ways of carrying-on; perhaps to be just a little bit deplored, to be sure, but ultimately all our own silly fault at that, for preferring some aspects of the way we have always done things to the modi operandi of some quite recent arrivals on our shores who are used to doing things differently elsewhere so think it reasonable to insist that we adjust our ways to their requirements or they will hack us to death publicly in the streets of our own cities..…

What, and where, for that matter, are all these "suggestions of others" that I have "rejected or ignored"? Show me one.

Oh, what's the use?