BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 06:04 AM

So you meant me.
I have been opposed to capital punishment my whole adult life, so nothing is "on record" and you have made the whole thing up.

What does it say about you that you cannot make a case without lying Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 06:15 AM

"So you meant me."
Who said that?
Your principles - like Easter - are a moveable feast anyway - depending on what suits at the time.
Are you sure it's not just a guilty concience that makes you think it was you I was referring to.
Go away - you nasty little man
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 06:47 AM

You said I well know it is on record.
I don't.
You said it is a contributor with a holy book.
So that is me, Eliza, Joe, Jack or Pete.
Why not just name them Jim?
Answer, because it is all your made up shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 07:48 AM

Paranoia rules OK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 10:10 AM

Greetings from a WiFi available in a cafe. (If Scotland becomes independent will the little fat buffoon spend some of the oil billions he reckons he will have on getting a phone signal in Fife?)

Arguing the message differences in the bible and Q'ran just shows the level of debate in this rather repugnant thread.

Mind you, nice to pop in and have a good laugh at Keith's philosophy.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 11:51 AM

The major deaths in the U.S. are not from Islamist extremists but our own gun toting
society, gun violence being an epidemic. Much of the terrorism in the US comes from
terrorist organizations such as pseudo-militias, many of which are Tea Party inspired.

Islamic terrorism is not a major problem in the US despite the militarization of the police force and unwarranted data mining of fearful politicians and government functionaries such as James Clapper.

Jim is right about paranoia which put us into the cold war, Iraq, Afghanistan and keeps our military sending drones into Pakistan and Yemen which enable Al Quaeda to gain more
recruits and create a bogey-man.

Drones have not stopped Al Quaeda or terrorism in other countries, why?, because drones are a form of terrorism.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 05:19 PM

Where is that "like" button?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 06:18 PM

The best site I have yet read concerning muslims and terrorist acts.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_waronterror78.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:10 AM

This is not about USA, but you have lost about 3500 people to Islamists since 2000.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:17 AM

Jim.
one contributor here is a keen advocate of the good ol' practice (capital punishment) and would happily adapt whatever his holy book says to fit it in to his outlook on humanity

Who is this nasty person??
You say I "know well" his record, but I have no idea!
I am certain you have made it all up.

If there is such a person, name them.
If there is not, admit it.

It is not fair to allow suspicion to fall on the very few people of faith who contribute here.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:39 AM

"Who is this nasty person??"
Mind your own business and stop trying to provoke an argument
You have shown better than any that self-proclaimed Christians are more than happy to ignore the teachings of their beliefs when it suits them to do so, which is the whole point of this debate - I've never met a 'Christian' who expresses your inhuman views.
There is no "suspicion" - it is a fact of all religions
No more 'black-holes' - that's what you were warned.
Guest#'s pie chart makes fascinating reading and Stringsinger says all that needs to be said about U.S. terrorism.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:01 AM

Sorry, Jim. This is not a post intending to be quarrelsome about the main issue -- we both know where we differ as to that. But your injunction to Keith to "mind his own business" as to whom you referred to in the aggressive post he quoted is thoroughly misplaced. It IS his business; it is all our "business" to know whom you meant by such a scurrilous accusation. Anything posted on this forum is, indeed, the "business" of any member of it; so I can't imagine quite what you thought you meant by that foolish rejoinder. So put up or shut up -- or somebody's Fairy Godmother might turn some nasty little toad into something even nastier!

☤~M~☤

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:03 AM

What is posted here is all our business.
You posted an accusation, in the most disparaging terms, against a "holy book" person.

As you acknowledge it can not be me as I have opposed capital punishment all my life.

That only leaves Eliza, Joe, Jack and Pete.

It is not me provoking an argument, it is you making accusations that are lies.

Name the person or withdraw the lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:11 AM

In fact, Jim, you are getting much too prone to telling people to "mind their own business" -- first it was your politics which were nobody's business [what a daft thing to assert on a political thread!]; now it's whom you are making scurrilous accusations against which are nobody's business but J Carroll's.

As I said above, Jim, I think you are on the point of losing it. Take care, please, for crying out loud. We could ill spare you, even just as a troublesome, provocative catalyst adding zest to the threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:21 AM

"So put up or shut up "
No I won't Mike - I have no intention of dredging up all the discussions on Capital punishment that have taken place on this forum, in which contributors to this thread (not just the four named) have participated in, in order to present you and Keith with a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card from your Islamophobia.
You want me to qualify my statement - then how about responding to those you have studiously ignored.
My general point remains - all religions contain teachings which are bypassed out of convenience or to suit personal secular situations - you might start with "Thou shalt not kill".   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:28 AM

I have no intention of dredging up all the discussions on Capital punishment

But you did do exactly that Jim!
Why will you not name the "one contributor here is a keen advocate of the good ol' practice (capital punishment) and would happily adapt whatever his holy book says to fit it in to his outlook on humanity"????

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 04:54 AM

You have my answer Keith - no more black holes - not with you - not with anybody.
My remark stands and my opinion on religious hypocrisy stands - make of it what you will
You, of all people, with your "Muppets" and "swine" and "lefties" and "the pack", have left yourself no high ground to stand on when it comes to swingeing accusations - as have I said many times, piss of and stop attempting to create diversions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:06 AM

I find it cowardly to make hints and allegations to smear someone and then backpedal by not naming them. Not that it is any of my business...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:12 AM

Never mind our "Islamophobia", as you call our dislike of some sections of that faith's murderous ways: you are a making a great fool of yourself spreading so much Jimophobia. You really seem to be making yourself less than Flavour Of The Mudcat Month with your hints & innuendos, followed by your pusillanimous withdrawals when challenged. If they are none of our business, then why did you post these allegations. Anything posted on this forum becomes the business of it members. If you don't want to be taken up on it, then don't post it, you silly fellow.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:35 AM

Muppets" and "swine" and "lefties" and "the pack"

I call my grandchildren "muppets" when they are silly.
It is an endearment.
"Pack" is a metaphor for acting together in a group like wolves do.
"Leftie" is neutral and descriptive. I am "centre/rightie."
"Swine" I would never say.
You made that one up Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:54 AM

" as you call our dislike of some sections of that faith's murderous ways"
Your attack is on Muslims Mike - not extremists.
"If they are none of our business, then why did you post these allegations"
As a near-to-home example of religious hypocrisy - for no other reason.
Keith's list is a pretty fair example of his hypocrisy
It is not necesary for me to identify the individual concerned to make the general point - perhaps you'd like to dispute that point rather than diverting from it?
You have as much right to know who it is as you have of knowing the details of my politics - precisely none.
Keith really should report the fake poster who keeps posting statements like arguing with us is "casting pearls before swine" - this sort of thing has happened far too much to him - it makes him look like an arrogant megalomaniac.
Great to know he regards everybody else on this forum with "endearment"
Hypocritical moron.
"Not that it is any of my business."
'Tisn't Dave - though it happens constantly on this forum
Jim the Muppet

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:55 AM

" I am "centre/rightie.""
Centre!!!!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 07:31 AM

"Not that it is any of my business."
'Tisn't Dave - though it happens constantly on this forum

I was not referring to you, Jim, I was referring to an anonymous person who I do not need to name because everyone knows who it is. Why are you responding to something that is none of your business? Do you just argue for the sake of it?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 07:38 AM

Sultan of Brunei launches new Islamic penal code that will eventually include stoning, amputation and flogging as punishments.

AlJazeera

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:32 AM

Dave
Is you have chosen to choose sides in all this- I seem to remember your reluctance in refusing to qualify your accusations of my setting oner member against the other - or do I have the wrong feller
We all equal in choosing what we qualify and what we don't, but in the opinion of your particular "pack" (see Keith's "metaphor") - someare more equal than others
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:53 AM

The only side I ever chose, Jim, is reason. I agree that there is no need to tar the whole of Islam or anyone else with the same brush. I disagree with your assertion that you did not besmirch the 'good people of Lewes' with your wild accusations elsewhere. I agree that other religions may be as bad. I disagree that these are causing the same amount of damage as Islamism is at present. I like your sense of right and wrong but do not like the underhand tactics you have chosen to fight your battle. I can see that I am about to become 'the enemy' and therefore incapable of reason so I fully expect the full force of your wrath soon. No problem. I can ignore it. Maybe in the same way that you promised not to get involved in these arguments again. And I do hope that your current inability to see how your arguments seem to be self-defeating is as a result of the rage you obviously feel rather than something more serious.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:56 AM

Mind you, nice to pop in and have a good laugh at Keith's philosophy.
Gee TC.
You can only be referring to my opposition to capital punishment.
I take it you are for it.
Right TC?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 09:09 AM

I could never live in a terror state. Notwithstanding that through business I have right of residency in one.

The appalling botched execution in Oklahoma is in sharp relief to concerns that other countries may put sharia law (conciliation by elders) into effect.

A parliamentary debate is being staged (that won't go ahead, it's just to make a point) that we should break diplomatic relations with The USA till they learn to stop terrorising their own citizens. Torture, inhumane killing...   There are blokes in Pakistan who don't understand why the civilised EU countries put up with them whilst berating Russia for being odious.

Still. God bless America. / Allah Akbar. What's the fucking difference?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 09:12 AM

I'd surely want to have my life controlled by people who are stuck in time thirteen centuries ago. I think these may be the prototype fundamentalists of whom we should be wary.

These types of Muslim are no one's friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:20 AM

I read an article last weekend that said that a VAST majority of violent religious attacks in the US are carried out by Christians attacking Jews. Why aren't we having a thread about radical Christian terrorism?

There were a few thousand people killed in the WTC attacks. The response was to kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan - almost none of whom had anything to do with terrorism. Many of our leaders described these wars in religious terms.

Since the WTC attacks, the Dept of Homeland Security has spent hundreds of billions of dollars protecting us from terrorists. During that time 600,000 Americans have been killed by other Americans with guns. By the usual definition, the NRA is a terrorist organization. So are the governments of the UK and the US. We are the rogue nations.

It is easy to say that the governments of Muslim countries are bad because they kill their own citizens over religious beliefs. The government of the United States has an ever-increasing list of gun laws that make it easier and easier to kill other Americans. Punitive religion-based laws abound here. By the same arguments used against Muslim countries, we have a violent Christian regime in place. It is dedicated to world domination and uses mass killing to achieve its goals.

The United States claims to want peace in the world and is the world's largest manufacturer and seller of weapons of war. We are, by exact definition, war mongers. The UK as well.

Wouldn't it be nice if we stopped worrying about which religion violent, gun-toting people belong to and start worrying more about the fact that they are gun-toting and violent?

John P

P.S. This thread would be a good bit more interesting if MtheGM, Keith of Hertford and Jim Carrol, and the few others who engage with them, would stop talking about each other. Please, please, please stick to the discussion and leave your insults ad name calling out of it. The most effective response to being attacked is no response at all. It takes two to tango. Every time you type a post, please pause before sending it to see if your words are about the subject at hand or if they contain insults directed at another person in the discussion. I don't know if any of you are saying anything pertinent, since you've ensured that I scroll past your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:28 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:31 AM

So, tell us GUEST, if the US and UK are the real terrorist organizations why is it that millions of refugees from Islamic countries are seeking refuge in theses countries and not the other way around. Curious minds would like to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: pdq
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:31 AM

The subject of this thread is the rise of Radical Islam.

Here is a part of the text that GUEST.# linked to...


"While many Muslim organizations in the West expend considerable effort portraying themselves as victims of Western "Islamophobia", very little is said by those groups about the fact that many of the countless victims of Islamic terrorism are Muslims themselves. There are certainly no public protests by organizations like CAIR in recognition of those Muslims murdered and maimed by Muslims, though they are quick to cite the number of civilians accidentally killed by US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (though Reinsford notes that while 225 Iraqis were killed in collateral damage incidents in 2006, there were 16,791 Iraqi civilians killed by Islamic terrorists that same year).

Reinsford says that the skewed perspective of ignoring the toll Islamic terrorism takes on Muslims stems from a failure by Muslim leaders to recognize the glaring problems that are resident in the heart of their own community:

Yes, most of the victims of Islamic terror are Muslim, yet there is very little outrage on the part of the Islamic world to terror, relative to, say, a Muhammad cartoon or an "insult to Islam" by a public figure. What does this tell us about the priorities of Islam? In fact, sympathies for terrorists run much higher than many people realize. Even those that do truly disagree with violence (and there are many) somehow avoid taking any sort of responsibility for ending it by convincing themselves that it has nothing to do with Islam. Obviously it has everything to do with Islam, and the unwillingness on the part of Muslims in the West to provide moral leadership against Islamic extremism will ensure that the terror continues for a long time."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 10:51 AM

"The only side I ever chose, Jim, is reason."
"And Brutus is a reasonable man" as Shakespeare nearly said.
You would say that, wouldn't you.
I don't consider it "reasonable" to make direct, specified and named accusation of playing one member against another and then refusing to back it up with examples - but there again - I'm only one of the "Muppets, "swine", "liars"..... and certainly have no claim to being "infallible" or "always right" - I leave all that to the upper echelons.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 11:04 AM

Explicatory drift:

I am the one who occasionally uses the word 'swine', for the particular reason that I think this forum greatly spoilt by much of the unrestrained obscenity of many posts; so I avoid the likes of "cunt" & "fuck" and "fucking", my equivalents of which are generally such as "scoundrel" or "villain"; "damn"; "bloody". "Swine" is about the ultimate epithet I will permit myself when really driven to anger. I would urge that, compared to the generality of what appears here, Jim is being rather disingenuously prim & pernickety in denouncing it as so very unacceptable.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 11:04 AM

I don't consider it "reasonable" to make direct, specified and named accusation of playing one member against another and then refusing to back it up with examples

Is this an accusation against me, Jim? If so, for heaven sakes, say so. Why do you insist on disguising everything to the extent that people do not actually know what you are referring to? And also, if so, please provide, as per your instructions, examples of the same.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 11:50 AM

"Is this an accusation against me, Jim?"
I thought it was you with whom I had the altercation recently when I was accused of setting one member against another - if it wasn't, I apologise unreservedly.
Mike
Unlike you - I have no reservations on the used of 'bad language' - whatever that means
I do dislike the term "c***" because of its sexist connotations, but apart from that, my only reservation is the over-use of such language, not because it offends me, but I believe overuse neutralises it
Being disingenuous is on your side here - I'v known you to use the words you claim to object to n occasion - I was somewhat taken aback at being called a "c***" by you during one of your hissy-fits.
My objection to Keith's epithets were in his arrogant dismissals of the opinions of all those who disagree (usually everybody) with him using those terms - not the terms themselves.
I seldom use "bad language" in anger to anybody on this forum, other than to Keith, whose stupid arrogance make our fucking cat swear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 12:27 PM

I have no recollection of such an altercation, Jim, so apology accepted. I am still puzzled by your posts and have no idea who or what you are referring to times. I think everyone would be happier if communications were clearer and understood by all.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 12:28 PM

...and do you not think it would be wiser to get your facts straight before flinging accusations around?

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:22 PM

Can you place the occasion, Jim? In my first year on the forum, 2009-10, I succumbed to the prevailing customs, & used such terms. If I ever called you a cunt, it must have been way back then; because I have, I asseverate, not used such language here since. Like you, not for any moral motive, but because, like you, I feel that overuse of such terms robs them of any effect, and drags down the whole atmosphere of the forum. It is all too redolent of my acutely boring National Service all those years ago. But, unless you can find a specific context any time within, say, the past 3-4 years, then I feel you may be confusing me with someone else. I just have not used such terminology on this forum within that time-frame, I am confident.

If you do find I have lapsed to that extent, then I shall of course immediately apologise.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 02:33 PM

Hey TC,
Mind you, nice to pop in and have a good laugh at Keith's philosophy

We agree about capital punishment, so what views of mine made you laugh.
That is the only view I have expressed here.
Perhaps you were just being a TC TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 03:09 PM

"Can you place the occasion, Jim?"
I can't Mike - I can only remember that it came around the time you called someone else a Jackanapes - after which, I was willing to forgive you anything (balmy days!)
There really is no need to apologise - we all lose our rag on occasion -
and I have to say it surprised me at the time.
It's just one of those words I find difficult to cope with.
The rest, I have no problem with - as I said, I'm a great fan of 'The Merry Muses' and Wilmott's poetry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 03:14 PM

Sorry - missed a bit
"and do you not think it would be wiser to get your facts straight before flinging accusations around"
I'm pleases you accepted my apology, though I would have preferred it with a little more grace - these arguments are unpleasant enough without adding to it by trying to score points
It was a genuine mistake and I would have preferred a genuine acceptance of my apology - to some people here, apologising is "grovelling".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 03:33 PM

It was a genuine acceptance, Jim. Sorry if you got the impression it was ungracious. The tagged on bit was purely by way of friendly advice and I am puzzled as to why you thought I was point scoring. I try to speak plainly on the internet so as not to be misunderstood. That often means using the fewest amount of words that I can get away with. If it seems terse or unfriendly that is unintentional.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 03:39 PM

Hey Bobad!

I'll tell you why you can't understand how "millions" are trying to get into The UK and US from Islamic countries.

It's because they aren't.

Go and ask Keith what TC means then wear your badge with pride.


Keith. What are you talking about? TC?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:14 PM

I can't make it any plainer TC.
You said my "philosophy" made you laugh.
What philosophy TC?
My only expressed view here was on capital punishment.
I oppose it.
You are being more of a TC than usual TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:18 PM

I am going to start referring to people as UD and not let them know what it means.

Bunch of UDs

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:32 PM

According to Wiki,
" In 2005, more people from Islamic countries became legal permanent United States residents — nearly 96,000 — than in any year in the previous two decades.[12][13] In 2009, more than 115,000 Muslims became legal residents of the United States.[14]"

According to Huffington Post,
"Figures from the 2011 census show that the Muslim population in the UK has substantially risen between 2001 and 2011 from 1.5 million to almost 3 million. This now takes the proportion of Muslims from 2% of the population to 5%. In some towns, Muslims make up almost 50% of the population, and in large cities like London and Manchester they make up around 14% of the population."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:45 PM

I know, Keith. Still not saying what UD is though. It's a secret.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 05:56 PM

So, tell us GUEST, if the US and UK are the real terrorist organizations why is it that millions of refugees from Islamic countries are seeking refuge in theses countries and not the other way around. Curious minds would like to know.

And curious minds here would like to know why you have such a curious mind. In your case, a peculiar mind. A mind that encompasses mythology as fact. Is pete your uncle?