BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Brian May
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:59 AM

Much as I dislike Tony Blair as someone who's caused as much aggravation as he's mitigated, however, I find myself agreeing with him on this statement:

"In significant and controversial intervention, the former Prime Minister suggested that, as a result of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, governments in Europe and America had become "curiously reluctant to acknowledge" Islamic extremism."

I seem to remember taking a fair bit of flak on this forum for being a 'racist bigot' et al for pointing this out a couple of years ago.

The 'West' ignores this threat to our lifestyle at our peril. Until governments and institutions get 'unafraid' to call a spade a spade (no pun intended) and stop pussy-footing around when dealing with RADICAL Muslims and CRIMINAL Muslims, we are going to remain 'curiously reluctant' to acknowledge and deal with the threat.

In that statement I am referring only (NB - ONLY) to the law-breakers, inciting or carrying out attacks, grooming young girls etc etc, NOT the vast majority of peaceful and law-abiding folk of ANY religion, colour or creed.

It does seem that when the word 'Muslim' is added to the sentence, it suddenly all gets far more complicated for our government both central and local including Law Enforcement agencies.



OK, PC do-gooders brigade . . . your shout . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 06:15 AM

I thought you were into home made guitars, star gazing and saving badgers?

Not all badgers, just the radicalised bastard ones eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Brian May
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 07:21 AM

Ho ho ho, you are a wag . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stu
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 07:29 AM

Another kipper.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 08:43 AM

" curiously reluctant to acknowledge" Islamic extremism.

You're kidding, right?

Here in the US we're fed fear-mongering "Muslims gonna get yo momma" nonsense on a daily basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Brian May
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:18 AM

Not my words Greg, the ex Prime Minister (the one extracted from George W Bush's ass) . . . the current UN Middle East envoy.

It's not so much fear-mongering as acknowledging the problem. There is a current investigation into whether radical islam is infiltrating the education system in Birmingham (ours).

It would appear 'the system' is finally waking up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 09:45 AM

I think fifteen schools are being investigated.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 10:28 AM

Do keep in mind that these are allegations, not facts at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 10:29 AM

True, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 12:01 PM

Non-believers can now be executed in Saudi Arabia.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 12:54 PM

So what, Greg? Are these the only factors to be considered? Is the fact that Fusilier Rigby is dead an 'allegation'?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:07 PM

"Is the fact that Fusilier Rigby is dead an 'allegation'?"
A statement by those concerned was made on the BBC pointing out that the present investigations have nothing whatever to do with terrorist attacks - nothing that hase been stated since has changed that statement.
"law-breakers, inciting or carrying out attacks, grooming young girls"
Warnings by politicians, police and the judiciary have consistently insisted that none of these are in any way connected with being a Muslim; in fact, they all have warned of the danger of the actions of a tiny handful of fanatics being used by extremist bigots.
The official survey on the link between Islam and these crimes confirmed this and gave the same warnings.
Using the corpse of a dead soldier as a soapbox for prejudice seems to indicate that some people didn't take a lot of notice of those warnings.
Sam old same old, it would appear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:20 PM

Same old same old    Jim Carroll   , it would appear............



"Using the corpse of a dead soldier as a soapbox for prejudice" --

Oh dear: how pathetically facile, if don't take into account how he came to be dead. Complications following a bout of hay fever, was it? If disapproval of hacking an innocent passer-by to death for none but self-defined 'ideological' reasons is to be defined as 'prejudice', then it can only be by someone with scant conception of what 'prejudice' actually is.

I'm 'prejudiced' against rapists too, as it happens. And 'prejudiced' against fraudulent bankers' And 'prejudiced' against the person who burgled my cousin's house a few years ago & shat on the floor before leaving as a calling card.

And, particularly 'prejudiced' against apologists for all these, who will dismiss reasoned disapproval as 'prejudice'.



Same old same old    Jim Carroll   , it would appear.

AY

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:24 PM

The words in the link "...unsigned and unverified document..." suggest that there isn't as yet much solid evidence. But all schools have to be inspected regularly, and having myself suffered Ofsted Inspections, there isn't much that gets past their scrutiny. They interview parents, staff, community members, ancillary workers, pupils, managers, the lot. If they're any good at all, they'll spot any anomalies in the school's systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:32 PM

No Mike - it was religious fanatics wot dunnit, not the Muslim peopel as a whole - nasty thing, religious fanaticism, whoever carries it out.
Nearly as bad as the bigotry that condemns an entire culture for the crimes of a few criminals.
Good job you haven't an irrational fear of spiders, otherwise we'd all be overrun by flies.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 01:50 PM

Who alleged that an entire people was responsible? But an entire ideology as widely interpreted by those agreed by adherents to be authorised to do so might just be a different matter. It's called Sharia, Jihad, Ahmadiyya, among other things. Quite widely accepted it appears. Have you heard about it?

Of course, if asked what he thinks of the late Mr Rigby being 'the late', no doubt Mr Carroll would make all sorts of noises of generalised disapproval. And to think he has accused me of 'lip-service' before now, in relation to the most acute disappointment of my whole life, the betrayal of all my generation's hopes and aspirations by the present administration of the State of Israel.

For shame, James

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 02:52 PM

First God made idiots. That was for practice. Then it made school boards.

Mark Twain

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:04 PM

"But an entire ideology as widely interpreted by those agreed by adherents to be authorised to do so might just be a different matter"
As democratic as that huh?
What exactly are you proposing - that we should ship them all back, like your old matey Eunuch suggested - or nowadays, Marine's new beau, Farrago?
Ot maybe tattoo a number on their arms - that should do it, don'cha think.
You're a bigot Mike - and one that should know better.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:25 PM

Given the proximity in time of Camermoron's sudden addiction to bible-thumping to B.Liar's attempts to rustle up a new crusade, I'd say the Xtian fundagelical right-wing loonies and megalomaniacs are on the march in the UK. Worrying. The mentally ill in positions of influence and power.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 03:44 PM

The mentally ill in positions of influence and power.

They always have been, Richard. Anyone who thinks that they can run a country and govern people cannot be mentally stable. A better idea would be to vote for who you would think best suited to perform these tasks. If they don't want to do it, all the better!

Back to the thread. It does say Islamic radicalism. Just a hint for those who think it is anti Islam. I don't believe it is. It is anti radicalism. I think Brian could have as easily started a thread about Christian radicalism or Communist radicalism. They are all as bad as each other. He would have got the same reaction. But probably from different people.

Just my opinion of course.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 04:58 PM

Radicalisation is ugly. It is wrong and it is dangerous.

It is not a product of Islam. It is a product of politics. What you can't get by the ballot box, get by telling thugs they are doing God's work.

The problem as ever is that many people are shallow enough to believe what they are told if they are also told God wants them to do it too. Witness the so called jihad. Also note the Anglican Church in Uganda supporting death sentence for being gay.

Voltaire yet again. Those that can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

There are over 65 million people in The UK. Less than a million go to church , yet our Prime Minister wants to piss off non Christians even more. Rational people can and will ignore the cynical political posturing but other people with a different imaginary friend will feel isolated and threatened.

Well done Cameron. You and your tambourine rattling idiots show the ugly side of religion, regardless of flavour. Make no mistake, Bliar's intervention was planned to pounce on Cameron's Jesus kick. Party politics are nothing when it comes to trying to drag us back to a superstitious dark age.

Fuck 'em. All of 'em.

Subject: ADD: Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues (Dylan)
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:06 PM

So what, Greg? Are these the only factors to be considered?

So what, ~M~?

So all this hysteria is based on a single anonymous letter, no facts, no verification, no documentation, no nothing.

Seems to me that ol' Tailgunner Joe McCarthy had more evidence of his nefarious and dastardly Commie plots.

Thus, I think its a good place to enter the following: simply read "Muslim" for "Commie", "Communist" and "Reds":

Talkin' John Birch Paranoid Blues
by Bob Dylan

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue
I didn't know what in the world I wus gonna do
Them Communists they wus comin' around
They wus in the air
They wus on the ground
They wouldn't gimme no peace . . .

So I run down most hurriedly
And joined up with the John Birch Society
I got me a secret membership card
And started off a-walkin' down the road
Yee-hoo, I'm a real John Bircher now!
Look out you Commies!

Now we all agree with Hitler's views
Although he killed six million Jews
It don't matter too much that he was a Fascist
At least you can't say he was a Communist!
That's to say like if you got a cold you take a shot of malaria

Well, I wus lookin' everywhere for them gol-darned Reds
I got up in the mornin' 'n' looked under my bed
Looked in the sink, behind the door
Looked in the glove compartment of my car
Couldn't find 'em . . .

I wus lookin' high an' low for them Reds everywhere
I wus lookin' in the sink an' underneath the chair
I looked way up my chimney hole
I even looked deep down inside my toilet bowl
They got away . . .

Well, I wus sittin' home alone an' started to sweat
Figured they wus in my T.V. set
Peeked behind the picture frame
Got a shock from my feet, hittin' right up in the brain
Them Reds caused it!
I know they did . . . them hard-core ones

Well, I quit my job so I could work all alone
Then I changed my name to Sherlock Holmes
Followed some clues from my detective bag
And discovered they wus red stripes on the American flag!
That ol' Betsy Ross . . .

Well, I investigated all the books in the library
Ninety percent of 'em gotta be burned away
I investigated all the people that I knowed
Ninety-eight percent of them gotta go
The other two percent are fellow Birchers . . . just like me

Now Eisenhower, he's a Russian spy
Lincoln, Jefferson and that Roosevelt guy
To my knowledge there's just one man
That's really a true American: George Lincoln Rockwell
I know for a fact he hates Commies cus he picketed the movie Exodus

Well, I fin'ly started thinkin' straight
When I run outa things to investigate
Couldn't imagine doin' anything else
So now I'm sittin' home investigatin' myself!
Hope I don't find out anything . . . hmm, great God!


Copyright © 1970 by Special Rider Music; renewed 1998 by Special Rider Music

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:16 PM

I am not "proposing" anything, Jim. Not my job to propose. Simply pointing out an intractable problem with which we are saddled, and to which there may well be no solution to be 'proposed'. One can never start anywhere but here. I am, however, I freely admit, pessimistic about the future, glad that I shall not be around when this particular brood of chickens comes home to roost; and that I have no children to fret about.

Meanwhile, congratulations on the crack about numbers tattooed on arms (as on the arms of my first cousins once removed from Bucharest, you mean?). Of a cheapness which few but the egregious Carroll could have achieved. Well done again!

And you call me a bigot. Well a good laugh to go to bed on is always something to appreciate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Apr 14 - 05:22 PM

For clarity, that should have been "first-cousins-once-removed"; ie my father's first-cousins, not my own first-cousins who on one occasion got taken off somewhere -- altho, as you will gather, some of these did! One of them survived. My grandmother got a letter from her in Roumanian in late-1945. Never knew exactly what happened to the others.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:03 AM

"I am not "proposing" anything, Jim"
And you're "not" doing it very well Mike, just stirring up hate and suspicion by inviting people to share your own private "volcano"
Jim Carroll
"as on the arms of my first cousins once removed from Bucharest, you mean"
Don't know that one Mike - I do remember the one on the arm of my girl friend's mother though
She used to show it to people in the hope that it would never happen again.
Small chance, it would appear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:11 AM

Well, there might be a volcano or there might not. I shan't know, nor will my descendants as I am childless. Time will tell, is all. But if you deny the possibility of such a volcano, threat, whevs, it seems obvious to me you are living in a fool's paradise. I genuinely hope you are the one who is right. But I doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:30 AM

" Time will tell, is all. But if you deny the possibility of such a volcano, threat"
Of course I deny it - Muslims living in Britain are identifies as the most law abiding and industrious group entering the country - stated over and over again by the powers that be, who have all recognised, or at least, paid lip-service to their contribution to British society.
Personally, if I had the (totally unwanted) choice of choosing my neighbour - if it came down to you (who I have never met) or any of the many Muslims I have met - no competition.
But dig out some old Folk Reviews I have been intending to burn for some time now
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:33 AM

Sorry - correction - wrote it rather emotionally, I'm afraid
Should read "Must dig out some old Folk Reviews"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:44 AM

Seems like the Birmingham schools "infiltration" is a hoax. Ho hum.

Good letter in today's Grauniad that points out that Blair would have been arrested had his statement about uniting with Russia against militant Islam been turned around and made by an Islamist urging a united Islam to fight western extremists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:57 AM

I don't think anyone has said that Muslims are a threat, Jim. The threat is radicalism from any quarter.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:16 AM

It is a relief to hear that the Birmingham story was a hoax, but I cannot find anything about it.
Can you share your news with us Steve?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:19 AM

Returning to the speech, how can we be sure that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely wrong and there is no threat to peace and stability?
What reassurance would yo give to the people of Nigeria say?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:34 AM

"The threat is radicalism from any quarter. "
Absolutely Dave - it's been my argument all along
Religion (any religion) and politics is a toxic mix and any religious organisation that gains a toe-hold in the running of a country or any of its temporal institutions, will invariably exploit that influence for their own purpose.
Following the clerical abuse revelations here in Ireland, there is now a fascinating battle taking place over what influence the Church should continue to have over the education system.
One person's 'radicalism' is often another's 'devoutness'.
No child should ever be taught to look down on those of other faiths - many, even most are by their various religions - Christianity being a 'front runner' in the "forgivness" stakes.
I was told here not long ago that I was being "prayed for" for my being a sinner - gives one a warm feeling, does't it (or maybe you are one of the unluck ones who doesn't have anybody praying for you)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:37 AM

who doesn't have anybody praying for you

I'm beyond redemption already, Jim!

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:51 AM

It's all over the news. Just google Birmingham schools hoax. Do bear in mind that my post reflected the current state of play in that I used the word "seems".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:57 AM

By far the biggest threat to peace and stability came from Bush and Blair. Millions killed or maimed, millions impoverished, millions radicalised, millions now living in insecurity, and all based on their lies. Turned out to be somewhat more than just a threat, actually, millions would say.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 08:34 AM

Steve, all I can find are a few individuals who claim it is a hoax.
I think the authorities are still taking it seriously, some schools have been put in special measures over it, and the police investigation continues.

It is a bit premature to state "Seems like the Birmingham schools "infiltration" is a hoax." but let us hope you are proved right.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 08:46 AM

I should be interested in some takes on Aayan Hirsi Ali. In particular, in view of his constant repetitions of how Islam is all peacefulness & sweetness & light and it must have been just accidents that befell the Towers & Rigby & the Dutch director Van Gogh & such, from Mr Carroll; especially in re trhe last 5 lines quoted below. (This is a born Muslim woman, remember).

extracts from her wikipedia entry

Ayaan Hirsi Al (born 13 November 1969) is a Somali-born American (formerly Dutch) women's rights and atheist activist, writer and politician who is known for her views critical of female genital mutilation and Islam. She wrote the screenplay for Theo van Gogh's movie Submission, after which she and the director both received death threats. He was assassinated.

On Palestinians: "I have visited the Palestinian quarters in Jerusalem. Their side is dilapidated, for which they blame the Israelis. In private, however, I met a young Palestinian who spoke excellent English. There were no cameras and no notebooks. He said the situation was partly their own fault, with much of the money sent from abroad to build Palestine being stolen by corrupt leaders".

In an interview in the London Evening Standard, Hirsi Ali characterizes Islam as "the new fascism": "Just like Nazism started with Hitler's vision, the Islamic vision is a caliphate — a society ruled by Sharia law – in which women who have sex before marriage are stoned to death, homosexuals are beaten, and apostates like me are killed. Sharia law is as inimical to liberal democracy as Nazism." In this interview, she also made it clear that in her opinion it is not "a fringe group of radical Muslims who've hijacked Islam and that the majority of Muslims are moderate. [...] Violence is inherent in Islam – it's a destructive, nihilistic cult of death. It legitimates murder."

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 08:55 AM

"Hirsi Ali characterizes Islam as "the new fascism":"
She also is a strong supporter of religious genital mutilation - sorry - don't get your point.
You can always find a supporter for your case and use it to make your argument if you ignore the facts.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:03 AM

Apologies - misread her profile - she does not support genital mutilation, but she does condemn it as practiced by Muslims and Jews alike
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:08 AM

Putting Ms Ali in context - from the "Antisemitic" Economist
Jim Carroll

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Enlightened intolerance
Apr 16th 2014, 16:08 by M.S.
Timekeeper
EARLIER this month Brandeis University rescinded its offer of an honorary degree to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Somali-born women's rights activist, saying its officials had not been fully aware of some her more scathing remarks on Islam. Conservatives have accused Brandeis of muzzling Ms Hirsi Ali and bowing to Muslim pressure groups. Liberals have wondered how the university could possibly have overlooked Ms Hirsi Ali's condemnations, not just of radical Islam, but of Islam as such. At the risk of coming off as a postmodern multi-culti squish, it seems to me that this discussion suffers from a lack of cultural context—but not the cultural context you're thinking of. The way Ms Hirsi Ali talks about Islam strikes American liberals as strangely intolerant, but it has its roots in the prevailing discourse on religious freedom and Islam in the country where Ms Hirsi Ali first began seriously tackling these issues: the Netherlands.

As Ms Hirsi Ali noted in an interview on Fox News, the most-cited of her objectionable statements on Islam came in a 2007 interview with Reason magazine. In that interview she said it was necessary to "defeat" Islam and that "we are at war with Islam", including in the military sense of the word. In another 2007 interview, with the London Evening Standard, she called Islam "the new fascism" and "a destructive, nihilistic cult of death". Characterising an entire religion in this way is considered entirely beyond the pale in educated American society; while some small right-wing or evangelical Christian organisations demonise Islam as an enemy, mainstream conservatives, and for that matter neoconservatives, characterise only radical Islam as a threat. Actually, bigotry against Muslims in America is common enough, but the public expression of such prejudice by figures of authority is taboo. Wholesale condemnations of existing religions just aren't done in American politics. Once-open prejudices against Catholics and Jews were gradually wrung out of the public sphere in a process that started in the 1940s and was essentially wrapped up by the 1970s. The explicit consensus in America is ecumenical and strongly pro-religious, and Americans generally sense that when they single out one faith and aggressively criticise its spiritual content, they're violating a national ethical code.

This is not quite the case in the Netherlands, where Ms Hirsi Ali developed her feminist critique of Islam and served as an MP for the centre-right Liberal party. To recap her story: Ms Hirsi Ali came to the Netherlands in 1992, fleeing an arranged marriage in Kenya. She was granted refugee status and ultimately a Dutch passport, and earned a master's degree that led her into outreach work with Muslim immigrant women, initially in affiliation with the Labour party. Her politics shifted steadily rightward, due in part to the repression of women she saw in immigrant communities and in part to the September 11th attacks. In 2004 she made a deliberately provocative, rather surreal short film decrying Muslim oppression of women with the bomb-throwing TV director and personality Theo van Gogh; in response, a young Muslim extremist murdered Mr van Gogh. With her extraordinary charisma and impressively elegant Dutch, Ms Hirsi Ali was ultimately invited to run for parliament by the centre-right Liberals, and served from 2003 until 2006, when a scandal over her immigration status (she admitted to having concealed her name and lied about other details) led the hard-line interior minister to revoke her Dutch passport. She moved to America shortly thereafter, taking a job at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. (The affair, incidentally, precipitated the fall of the Dutch government.)

Returning to the theme: while the way Ms Hirsi Ali talks about Islam sounds extreme to the American ear, it doesn't sound as extreme to the Dutch ear. To take the most obvious example, Geert Wilders, the leader of the far-right Party for Freedom (PVV), has been calling for banning the Koran since 2007. To legitimate this sort of language, Mr Wilders has advanced the novel claim that Islam is not a religion at all, but a totalitarian ideology. Of course, Mr Wilders leads the farthest-right party in the Dutch political landscape, one with which most Dutch parties have refused to cooperate. Nevertheless, most Dutch citizens don't see Mr Wilders' PVV as an extreme-right party. This is incomprehensible to Americans: a party that calls for banning the Koran and terms Islam a totalitarian ideology seems by definition extreme-right in an American context. Yet intelligent, tolerant mainstream Dutch and Americans can go back and forth on this question in utter bafflement.

And Mr Wilders doesn't exist in a vacuum. He launched the PVV in 2006, after dropping out of the Liberal party just when Ms Hirsi Ali was becoming one of its biggest stars. A few years earlier, Pim Fortuyn, the flamboyantly gay populist politician, had blazed the trail for such language by terming Islam a "backward religion". Beginning with Mr Fortuyn's rise in 2001, Dutch politics was seized by an impulse to cast off "politically correct" taboos on negative characterisations of (mainly Muslim) immigrants, and to "name the real problems" of crime, failure to integrate, and suppression of the rights of women and gays among immigrant communities. Ms Hirsi Ali's sharp anti-Muslim language did not spring out of nowhere; she was part of this broader shift in Dutch politics and political language.

At a deeper level, while the Netherlands has long been renowned for, or even defined by, its religious tolerance, the Dutch variety of tolerance is not the same as the American one. For example, I've repeatedly encountered non-religious Dutch who see no difference between a religion and a belief or opinion, and feel that religions therefore don't deserve any kind of special consideration, be it in terms of schooling, of exemptions from public rules and duties, or of conversational deference or respect. That view may be shared in certain emphatically atheist quarters in America, but it seems much more widespread in the Netherlands. To some extent this may be rooted in the much lower level of Dutch religiosity; 21% of Dutch believe in God, against 61% of Americans, and Dutch religiosity declined markedly from 1991-2008. And while Americans who do not actually go to church often nevertheless identify with some denomination on a family basis, Dutch who do not believe or worship tend to describe themselves simply as having no religion. One sometimes gets the sense that non-religious Dutch are so alienated from religious tradition that they lack empathetic understanding of what belonging to a faith is like.

But then, the bargains entailed in the Dutch tradition of religious tolerance have always worked differently than those in America. From the late 19th century to the 1960s, the Dutch hewed to a social system called "pillarisation", in which the country's Protestant and Catholic communities lived, studied and voted in largely segregated blocs, each with their own schools, newspapers, and political parties. The socialist movement formed a third, non-religious bloc. The blocs were often openly disdainful of each other, and it's not surprising that the Dutch tend to be more willing than Americans to bluntly criticise the substance of others' religions, just as they might criticise a political ideology. Even in the 17th century, when the Netherlands became a haven for religious refugees from the 30 Years' War and the Inquisition, tolerance was largely seen as a pragmatic virtue, good for business, so long as those with alien faiths kept their houses of worship out of sight. One might look even further back: many of the Netherlands' firmest critics of religion belong to the country's strong Humanist movement, which traces its roots to the atheistic or pan-theistic philosophy of that greatest apostate of Amsterdam's Jewish community, Baruch Spinoza. The intellectual historian Jonathan Israel makes Spinoza the model for what he terms the "radical" wing of the European Enlightenment, which totally rejected religious authority, in contrast to more moderate figures such as Descartes; and one can hear some echoes of Spinoza in Ms Hirsi Ali's uncompromising turn away from, and finally complete rejection of, her native Islam.

The interview in which Ms Hirsi Ali called for a "war" on Islam came in 2007, just a year after she had left the Netherlands. In deciding to rescind its offer of an honorary degree to her, Brandeis was in part drawing a line between the kind of discourse on religion that is acceptable in mainstream American intellectual life, and the kind that has arisen over the past decade and a half in the Netherlands. The university was not silencing Ms Hirsi Ali; it still invited her to come to the university to "engage in a dialogue". As Isaac Chotiner puts it, the "controversy isn't about shunning someone from polite society. It is about giving a person an honorary degree." Asking Ms Hirsi Ali to speak to students at Brandeis is a great idea; giving her an honorary degree as part of graduation ceremonies suggests that Brandeis thinks calling for a war on Islam is an acceptable statement within the bounds of normal political and social discourse. The fact that such statements are not welcomed in American public discourse is one reason why the American model of integration and tolerance works better than the Dutch model, and why the Netherlands continues to be wracked by tensions over Islam and integration—years after those tensions forced Ms Hirsi Ali herself to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:38 AM

Seems like the Birmingham schools "infiltration" is a hoax.

DAMN! Imagine my surprise.......

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:42 AM

http://rt.com/news/radical-islam-uk-schools-678/

The story is over six weeks old. Does anyone know what the national school authorities--if indeed anyone's aware who that is--have done so far?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM

Cocked up there rather, didn't you, Jim? Glad you noticed your own booboo before it had to be pointed out to you. No pun intended in first word of this post, but I am opposed to Gentl Mutltn for both sexes also.

Had read that Economist piece before. Thoroughly equivocal and evasive & fence·sitting in tone IMO. So do you think Brandeis was right to have withdrawn their offer of an Hon Degree over something she had said 6 years before they offered it in the first place, which they must have known about if they had done the most minimal research into their putative candidate? If not, then, why dear me, who could possibly have got at them to change their minds, I wonder?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 10:29 AM

Apropos of the hoax, obviously all the politicos, school inspectors and sundry anti-Muslims are gonna throw their hands in the air and admit they've been duped, aren't they? Yeah, That's what'll happen. Yeah. Sure thing.




Alternatively, it'll all just....quietly....fade....away....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 10:49 AM

So you dismiss it?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:04 AM

Daily Telegraph this week.
"Khalid Mahmood, the (Muslim) Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, said the allegations of a plot were credible.
"There is most definitely a plot by a small group of individuals and the plot actually affects the majority of the Muslim community in Birmingham," he said."

"The alleged plot by Islamic radicals to take control of a series of schools in Birmingham is the product of a little-understood power struggle between Muslim denominations, Mr Straw, the MP for Blackburn said."

"An anti-Semitic preacher who sympathises with Al-Qaeda was invited to address students at Park View school, Department for Education inspectors found.
At least six of the 18 schools said to be involved in the plot will be failed by Ofsted, a measure which normally leads to them being placed in special measures and their leadership team replaced."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10778465/Muslims-must-accept-Britains-Christian-values-says-former-Home-Secretary.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:08 AM

"Cocked up there rather, didn't you, Jim?"
Don't gloat Mike - it doesn't become even you.
I'd looked her up when you mentioned her first, time time ago and mis-read her profile then, but realised that my interpretation didn't make sense, so I took the trouble to re-read it.
I'm not really surprised that you don't hesitate to make political capital from it, even though I corrected my mistake - I might have been in the past, but not now
Perhaps a couple of typooss might help you make your case.
I go along with what much of she says, but I find her Islamophobic tone far more likely to antagonise that to convert and can see why her doctorate has been revoked.
Still don't get your point - sorry.
Jimmm Carolll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:38 AM

Some figures from Antisemitic Gallup
Islamophobia league
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:43 AM

Is the UN Envoy an Islamophobe in your opinion?
(Just asking. Not arguing)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 11:49 AM

" it was religious fanatics wot dunnit, not the Muslim peopel as a whole "

This would characterize and include Saudi Arabia with King Abdullah's support.

The same fanaticism could be applied to Christianity as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM

Can't remember any UN ambassador declaring war on Islam as the lady did
Just answering - not arguing
"The interview in which Ms Hirsi Ali called for a "war" on Islam came in 2007"
No need to really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 01:56 PM

Oh, come on Jim, anyone would draw attention & say haha -- 'gloat' if you must; that's a bit of disingenuous capital-making a bit desperate
even for you!.

"Still don't get your point - sorry.
Jimmm Carolll".

What 'point' don't you get, Jim? Can't see how I could spell out my position more clearly. It was laid out in full in two posts on a sometime thread [the Unarmed soldier one, IIRC -- yes; have just checked, 10 & 12 June 2013]. If I haven't made my 'point' sufficiently clearly for you, then turn those up. With dreary predictability, you called them 'racist' I seem to remember; but of course they are not: make much same point as Ms Hirsi Ali's conclusion, in fact.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 02:01 PM

So you dismiss it?

No, Keith- we dismiss YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 03:03 PM

Really can't be arsed Mike - your volcano squatting says everything that needs to be said as does Ms Ali's "war" on Islam ".
Notice that you ignored Ms Ali's comments on Jewish genital mutilation (or should that be multlation - give you something to talk about) though (or should that be tough?)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:22 PM

No I bloody did NOT:

"24 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM
Cocked up there rather, didn't you, Jim? Glad you noticed your own booboo before it had to be pointed out to you. No pun intended in first word of this post, but I am opposed to Gentl Mutltn for both sexes also."

Be ashamed, you nasty slanderous little swine, Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:27 PM

... and lazily assertive too: "can't be arsed" to do anything to answer the stupid bloody questions that you ask, can't you. Ohhh diddiwiddiwiddums den!. You really are beneath contempt.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 05:04 PM

Gee, personal attacks and it's not yet 40 posts into the thread. What a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 05:27 PM

Room full of arguers and no one corrects that number? Pfffft.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:36 PM

More probably, if defamatory, to be libellous than slanderous.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 06:41 PM

Is the UN Envoy an Islamophobe in your opinion?
(Just asking. Not arguing)

Depends on whether you take into consideration the numbers of killed Muslims he's directly responsible for. If you do, then he is, and I'd agree.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 24 Apr 14 - 07:08 PM

"the betrayal of all my generation's hopes and aspirations by the present administration of the State of Israel"

Michael, would you please explain what you mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 12:41 AM

michaelr: In my youth, young Jews would join explicitly Zionist youth movements with grandiloquent Hebrew names (Habonim = The Builders; Hashomer Hatzair = the Young Watchman, Mizrahi - Eastward, &c): sort of scout movements with camps & Hebrew singing & dancing & so on; to emphasise Jewish identity and work tirelessly for the Zionist aspiration of a modern state for Jews in their historic biblical homeland, in their different ways [they had political variations]. We envisioned a state which would bring the modern world to the Mid-East, at peace with its Arab neighbours, governed by enlightened governments, the whole state being run on the sort of benevolent share-&-share-alike characteristic of the kibbutz movement, by then some ½-C old, the socialist basis of the then Israeli commonweal --

wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

And look what we have now. Totalitarians oppressive of their minorities, in a constant state of war with their neighbours, establishing settlements with pure perversity in land which means further friction when there is plenty of land elsewhere [the Negev hardly settled as yet], which involves destroying the resources & livelihoods of the unfortunate displaced minority populations of ordinary people just trying to live their lives ---

I could go on. The frustration induced by this bloody-minded awkwardness & intransigence & aggression constitutes, as I say, one of the greatest disappointments of my entire life.

Hope that clear.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 12:48 AM

I would add for emphasis, in that last bit

"frustration and acute sense of betrayal"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:23 AM

... and yet whenever I express all this, Carroll has the bloody all-fire intolerable impertinence to dismiss it as 'lip-service'. What the hell does he think he knows, the insufferable self-righteous little lefty prig!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:45 AM

"Lefty" is not a term of abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 01:51 AM

Maybe not, Richard; but there is often an element of, as I say, self·righteous priggishness involved in the urging of the views which the word subsumes.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 02:05 AM

... that air which Kingsley Amis summed up so cogently in "Why Lucky Jim Turned Right" [1967], as "joining in the massed choir of half-a-million voices crying in the wilderness".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 02:57 AM

I apologise for not noticing your comment on genital mutilation - my dipping into this 'discussion' - shouldn't multi-task - i'm no good at it.
Still doesn't change any of the facts about what we are discussing - nor does it alter the fact that you have now resorted to a somewhat childish McCarthyite personalised rant rather than respond to facts.
In which case, a suggest you take your Ukip closet fascism and stick it.
Have a good day.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:53 AM

Pray explain or expound as to "McCarthyite personalised rant". Regret have not the remotest idea as to which part of what I have posted this description might refer.

"doesn't change any of the facts about what we are discussing"

Agree with that right enough: deaths of Fusilier Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Ali Akbar Tabataba'i, Hitoshi Igarashi, Meir Kahane, et al; Pakistani exploitation of vulnerable young females, &c &c - all certainly remain incontrovertible 'facts'.

Thank you for your apology, which is appreciated.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM

"the insufferable self-righteous little lefty prig!"
What my politics are is none of your business and has nothing to do with what I say - I am not a member of any particular party - I have no political line - I haven't voted in a general election of well over a decade.
If anything, I am a humanist (with a small h) and a pacifist (with reservations).
Some time ago you bent over backwards to find my politics - no doubt to use a a smearing substitute for argument - I declined, to no avail - you have decided to use a fictionalised construction of my politics as a substitute anyway - your kind always do.
So feel free to continue your "McCarthyite personalised rant", though you need no prompting from me - your kind never do
" Fusilier Rigby, Theo Van Gogh, Ali Akbar Tabataba'i, Hitoshi Igarashi, Meir Kahane, " are all examples of Islamic extremism.
Perhaps you'd like a list of examples of Christian or Israeli, or Buddhist - or any other type of religious or nationalist extremism - and will I be allowed to attribute those examples to entire national or cultural groups.
Come on Mike - give us a break - you used to be (or at least seem to be) better than this garbage.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 05:28 AM

Depends on who shouts Lefty! And who hears it Bridge...

As to the subject. I give up.

Islamic fundamentalism is a sign of the dangers of nurturing religion. Nothing to do with Muslims. Nothing to do with any identifiable group. It is an inevitable result of perpetuating superstition in modern society.

A pox on all their houses.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 05:49 AM

How would you know Mither - tory-lite!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:10 AM

Oh, come on, Jim. You might not have any formal party affiliation, but it's idle to deny that your views are far more representative of a left-inclined position than any other. I suspect that, if any other interlocutor suggested any different, you would be resentful & annoyed.

As to those other faiths you mention. Well, Judaism is specifically and explicitly non-proselytising -- a club which, far from seeking new members, makes it difficult for any who want to to get in. The founder of Christianity did indeed declare himself the way and the life and said that none came to the father but by him; but he did not then go on and say that his followers therefore had a duty to kill any who failed to recognise this, and later accretions [Crusades, Inquisitions] constituted aberrations from, rather than followers of, his teachings.

The Koran, otoh, as Aayan Hirsi Ali points out, does enjoin the duty of Jihad and of militant proselytisation. Such activities are specifically imposed by its founder's own words on all true followers of his faith. I have ref'd two previous posts of my own which spell out my specific objections to allowing that faith to gain a worldwide foothold. If you are too idle, "can't be arsed", to follow them up, that's your problem. But it doesn't render militant Islamism any less of a threat to the world, or make this law-abiding majority any less, as any Islamist will tell you, departers from the true teachings of The Prophet. Just hope your descendants will not fall victim to those who do take his teachings and his commands seriously. I shall have none, so what do I care?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:28 AM

Since when was being a dirty rotten stinking capitalist anything to do with Tory Bridge?

Only one of us two has ever voted Tory in their lives. Would the readers wish to guess which of is it was?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:54 AM

And all v well to chuck terms like 'garbage' around; but if your "can't be arsed" isn't a perfect instance of the old "mind's made up, do not confuse with facts please" bromide, then I reckon it will do till a better one comes along.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:18 AM

Returning to the speech, how can we be sure that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely wrong and there is no threat to world peace and stability specifically from militant Islam?

What reassurance would you give to the people of Nigeria say?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:36 AM

Just received my copy of this week's Spectator. One sentence from its first page Portrait Of The Week feature: "Brunei delayed,'due to unavoidable circumstances', the introduction of laws imposing death by stoning of adulterers and the severing of limbs for theft". New laws, you will note; not old ones which just happen to survive. Wonder what those 'unavoidable circumstances' could have been, or how long the 'delay' will be. Not holding breath.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:42 AM

Well FW Keith, conversely How can we assume that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely RIGHT?

Or for that matter, how can we be completely sure the sun will come up tomorrow?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:50 AM

No-one has suggested he was right at all Greg, but you all seemed to dismiss his message as somehow irrelevant.

How can we be sure that the UN Middle East Peace Envoy is completely wrong and there is no threat to world peace and stability specifically from militant Islam?

What reassurance would you give to the people of Nigeria say?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 08:56 AM

BBC 24 April 2014 Last updated at 22:38 BST

The UN estimates more than 50,000 people have fled the violence in Nigeria and crossed into neighbouring Niger.

Boko Haram's Islamist militants have intensified their violent campaign, killing over 1,500 people since the start of this year alone, according to human rights groups.

Most recently, they are suspected to be behind the mass abduction of more than 200 school girls.

Ibrahim Tidjani is a Koranic teacher, who crossed into Niger with his family and some of his pupils at the end of April last year, after his village, Manguno, was raided by Boko Haram fighters. Sixty people were killed in the attack, including his father and brother.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 09:14 AM

What Blair actually said,
"Former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has described radical Islam as the greatest threat facing the world today."

I expect he meant to say that CofE was a close second.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11182225

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 09:35 AM

Are you sure that is what he meant to say? After all, CofE is a religion. Why would he add a religion to a statement about a terrorist philosophy? He didn't say Islam, Judaism or Pastafarianism for that matter.

TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 10:33 AM

My politics is no business of yours even if your assessment is accurate
And is has no relevance to this or any discussion unless you want to take your McCarthyism to it's logical conclusion and demand an oath of allegiance to 'St Margaret' before making a contribution here.   
If my views on humanitarian issues - the basis of my contribution to these threads - are your interpretation of "being a leftie", fair enough.
I've met a number of Lefties down the years - I don't recall many of them being racist bigots, most have been humanitarians and pacifists - many of them were the Jews I talk about who were my friends when I lived in Manchester.
Despite the efforts of Mrs Pinochet, "lefties" have points of view and the right to express them, here on Mudcat and elsewhere - that is, until your lot come banging on the door one night to take those of us who disapprove to take us away, as happened in Maggie's "wonderful example to true democracy", Chile.
Maybe I should reconsider my present political apathy and go and joi something
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 10:43 AM

Mainstream Islam?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:19 AM

"My politics is no business of yours"
.,,.
Of course they are, Jim. They are a primary factor in the matters we are discussing; how can we do so if they are not to bed taken into account?

Who is trying to restrict whose freedom of speech around here, I should like to know?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:31 AM

Mind you, Jim, your arguments are getting a bit strange and scattergun. Suddenly your King Charles's Head, the late Baroness Thatcher, has put in an appearance. Now what you imagine she has to do with all this, from beyond the grave, I cannot conceive. Not working up to one of those funny old tantrums of yours, are you? You know how worried we all get for you...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM

And I still haven't made out quite how Senator McCarthy managed to infiltrate our discourse, either! Who else are you going to drag irrelevantly into your denunciations of me for no perceptible reason? Otto von Bismarck? Titus Oates? Snoopy and the Red Baron? Brutus & Cassius? Bill Brewer Jan Stewer Peter Gurney Peter Davie Dan'l Whiddon Harry Hawk, Lord Peter Wimsey...?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:02 PM

"Of course they are, Jim. They are a primary factor in the matters we are discussing; how can we do so if they are not to bed taken into account?"
I take this to be some strange impenetrable joke - or are you seriously confirming that all discussions have to be preceded by revealing ones politics - or religion - or maybe date-of-birth?
Beats responding to the points, I suppose.
Stupid boy!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:33 PM

The Hotshots!

Took me ages to sit there and recall who sang Snoopy vs The Red Baron.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM

Mr. Blair fails to mention that the only country ever to use nuclear weapons is the US.
Not only that, he is discounting religious radicalism in all the other sects as well.
As someone who supported the bombing of Iraq on false pretenses, he is hardly
credible as a harbinger of Muslim doom.

It must be mentioned that militant radical Christianity is a threat to the US and the world, those radicals that are now engaging in violence in the US South and West.

An attempt to accuse lefties of bias and dismiss any of their arguments because you don't agree with them is a McCarthyist tactic.

Also, we mustn't rule out the Jewish extremists such as Meyer Kahane and the Jewish Defense League, obvious radical religious terrorists.

Radical religionists, no matter what their persuasion have been responsible for wars and hatred since they are guided not by human concerns but have been brainwashed by dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 05:26 PM

You "reveal your politics" with every post you post, Jim; and then get all hoity if anyone notices.

You have also voluntarily asserted your religious position iirc. Want to withdraw that info as being suddenly confidential, like your "Top Secret" politics?

We don't happen to be discussing your date of birth. But if it became an issue, I presume you would mention it, not declare vehemently that it was no-one's biznis but yours, Captain Mainwaring. You wouldn't get many prezzies that way either, would you?

What the hell is the matter with you? I really think you must have flipped at last...

~M~
dob 12 v 32

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 25 Apr 14 - 07:22 PM

Thanks for clarifying, Michael.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 03:23 AM

See the letter in this morning's The Times, "Pakistani justice", from the All Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of religion or Belief.

Let me revert, yet again, to the constant accusation, from Jim et al, that I must allow that "it was religious fanatics wot dunnit, not the Muslim peopel as a whole". I have never accused "the peopel as a whole" as being directly involved, or even approving. The point which he will not get is that it is THE FAITH itself, to which these 'peopel' subscribe, that specifically and explicitly lays on them the duty to perform these acts; and his "fanatics" are simply the ones who do as their Prophet bid. There is no other major religion whose founders even suggested such injunctions, so any few, like Westboro Baptists &c, who embrace such activities, are not obeying any thing laid down by their faiths.

But Muslims who do so are, even if those do not constitute the whole, or even the majority, of the Faith's adherents. So it is the Faith itself, and its explicit teaching, with which I take issue; not just "the peopel". It, not they, constitute(s) the threat to the world, and any who can't see it are ostriches. And they who think it unfair to point this out are foolish -- I still often recall with a chuckle Richard's taking me to task for being "more critical of one religion than others"!

Can Jim et al really not get this?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 03:24 AM

The politics of any individual posting to this forum can only be of any interest to those who with to use it as a diversion from adult argument, such as your good self.
I can remember no specific posting I have ever made which "reveals" my own - though I'm sure you are able to jog my memory.
Bringing my imagined political leanings up and now attempting to instigate a debate around them is a pretty clear indication of the paucity of your own arguments.
If you equate "leftie" with being appalled by human rights abuses, opposing sectarianism and race hatred and being prepared to speak out on these issues, I'll just have to take your word for it and bear it in mind when the next election is due.
It really is none of your business and if your weren't as desperate as you seem to be to divert attention from your own hypocritical and extremist outlook on life, you would know it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 04:00 AM

Cross posted
It is not "the faith" but how that "faith" is interpreted by individuals and groups who wish to use it for their own purposes or to back up their own fanaticism.
All "faiths" are capable of being misinterpreted and misused - the Christian one being among the front runners.
Judaism in the hands of fanatics is on display every time you read about what is happening in Israel.
Buddhist fanatics are attempting to bring about holy war in Myanmar - I've always been told that Buddhism is synonymous with 'Peace'.
One of the features of Muslim life in Britain is its passive and law-abiding nature - a fact you Islamophobe volcano-squatters have continued to deliberately ignore.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is because all British Muslims have abandoned their "faith"?
We know that the handful of Muslim criminals involved in underage sex have abandoned their "faith" , which forbids them having sex outside marriage.
If it was a question of "faith", Britain, with its million to a million and a half Muslim population would have long ago bee plunged into religious warfare and its streets would have long bee "rivers of blood" as Eunuch predicted all those years ago.
You appear more and more like him every time you put finger to keyboard.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 04:08 AM

Mither: -

(a) Wrong Fred
(b) The Royal Guardsmen.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 06:28 AM

I've made my point and see no purpose in repetition.

Adieu, thread,

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 10:48 AM

All major religions have built into them misogyny, hatred or strong condemnation of other religions, intolerance to homosexuality/lesbianism. While not specifically part of this discussion, I wonder why these things are so seldom mentioned?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM

Because it is bollocks?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:12 PM

Because it is bollocks? <>/I>

Nope. Try again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:24 PM

If you accuse my church and my religion of any of those things then you talk bollocks, but that has been discussed endlessly on countless threads and I will not discuss it with you on here.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 12:39 PM

If you accuse my church and my religion of any of those things then you talk bollocks

Nope. Try again. This time with sentience.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 01:02 PM

"Is the UN Envoy an Islamophobe in your opinion?
(Just asking. Not arguing)"

No! Not REALLY?

He WAS the one who knew in 2002 that Bush was manipulating the evidence and still went with him into two wars in Muslim countries.

But he he isn't an Islamophobe.............MUCH!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Lighter
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 01:05 PM

> it is THE FAITH itself, to which these 'peopel' subscribe, that specifically and explicitly lays on them the duty to perform these acts.

Actually it's only a particular radical interpretation of the faith - read into it by the zealots themselves - that lays on the "duty" to commit acts of terror.

If not, they wouldn't be a small minority among overwhelmingly law-abiding Muslim population.

As we all know, the bible contains passages that, ripped from context, zealously emphasized, or absurdly overinterpreted, suggest that homosexuals must be stoned to death, that slavery is fine, and that conversion by the sword is A-OK. ("I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.")

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Apr 14 - 07:44 PM

Does your church approve of gay marriage, Keith, or just gay "marriage"? Women bishops??

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:58 AM

And have a look too at Janice Turner's op-ed in Saturday's Times: just some unisdputed facts about actions of Islamic governments in Nigeria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, & jiggery-pokery in Birmingham schools. Here are just two sentences from many one might have pull-quoted:-

--At a mixed school in southern Afghanistan, two teachers were executed for refusing to stop educating girls. Their pupils were forced to watch--

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:43 AM

"At a mixed school in southern Afghanistan, two teachers were executed for refusing to stop educating girls"

Christianity ?

Buddhism ?

Judaism ?

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

And I think it a point worth making, in response to all these "It's only a small minority" pleas, that several of the Sharia states -- N Nigeria, Pakistan, parts of Malaysia, Syria -- are democracies; they hold elections, and these administrations have been elected by a majority vote. NB that when Israel did hand back the Gaza area [to which I agree they had no legitimate claim] to Palestinian Arab control, the population expressed their gratitude by overwhelmingly electing a Hamas government at the first opportunity; leaving Israel with a hostile enclave at its heart, which proceeded to bombard kibbutzim within range with ballistic missiles. I regret that I don't find this "only a minority" argument an overwhelminglyly convincing one.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:46 AM

My church approves of gays Steve, and we have gay priests and bishops and many, many gay members.
It just has a millenia old definition of marriage that it is not ready to change yet.

We have had female priests for years and bishops soon.
Females form more than half our congregations and we run our Church how we want to.
Outsiders are entitled to their opinion of course, but what has it to do with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:49 AM

millennia

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 05:14 AM

"It's only a small minority"
Which is not the point
The point is that you choose to target Muslims living in Britain and depict them as a threat - the Enemy Within, as did Eunuch Powell before you
Part of Muslim teaching is that, if Muslims live in non-Muslim countries, they should respect national beliefs and adhere to national laws – which exactly describes the behaviour of British Muslims.                     Those you and your 'volcano-squatting (surely a candidate for the next Olympics) friends have chosen to denigrate.
Sharia Law is open to misinterpretation and abuse, as are any aspects of any religion – it has become the bigot's Sword of Damoclese..
Sharia Law

"My church approves of gays Steve"
C of E toleration of gays
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 09:04 AM

Jim, your link to sharia law is screwed up. I think that is what you meant to post.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 11:34 AM

The problem is that the majority of Muslims are just like you and I as are the majority of Christians, Buddhists, Jews, Hindus and the plethora of other religions that exist. But there are some who commit crimes in the name of their religion, whatever it is. But there is a prevalence of crimes being committed in the name of Islam at present and those crimes are the ones that seem to do most harm to everyone. I do not know if Michael is right about the teachings of that religion being any different from the teachings of other religions. I have never read the Koran and I have no intention of doing so. I am not saying that Jim is right either and all is sweetness and light in the Muslim community as a whole. There is a discrepancy between actuality and perception that needs to be addressed. I am sure that when another bogey man comes along the anti - and pro - Islamist factions will fade away.

How about we make one now? I think that Martians are to blame for all the worlds ills. Them green bastards with their secret brain rays, infiltrating every aspect of life make my blood boil. I think I will write a stiff latter to the Daily Mail. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 11:49 AM

"I am not saying that Jim is right either and all is sweetness and light in the Muslim community as a whole."
I'm not Dave - I have no time for any religion, and I run a mile at the idea of any to them having political influence.
I do say that those who have moved to Britain have fitted in and are law abiding citizens.
They have been recognised as such and have been cited as being the most ready, of all British immigrants, to embrace British laws.
I asked what the alternatives Mike et al were proposing concerning immigrants - forcible or 'voluntary' repatriation - ghettoisation - I raised a few hackles with the suggestion of tattooed numbers on their arms - can't see why - indicting an entire population for the actions of a few leads to the same thing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM

indicting an entire population for the actions of a few leads to the same thing

And yet, Jim on another thread you indicted 'the good people of Lewes' for the actions of a few. I did not answer on that thread because it had nothing to do with it but maybe this is the place to discuss how you differentiate between the two.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:16 PM

"those who have moved to Britain have fitted in and are law abiding citizens."
,..,
Many indeed. Probably most -- but majorities can be swayed when the climate moves in their instinctually conditioned direction, remember. And those who take the teachings of their prophet seriously, proselytise, convert, & come up with such results as the British-born converts who killed Mr Rigby, can hardly be held to conform to the above description. Yes, I know they are a small minority. But it doesn't take many to make an impact ~~ it took 4 [or was it 6?] to knock the WTC down. And when these few are driven by the perverse teachings of and injunctions of this particular faith's version of holy writ, the impacts are going to be considerable. I am mocked for mentioning a volcano on which I think we sit. It will not, most likely, erupt in the few years I have left. But those who deny its very existence, or even the very possibility of such an existence, are, I repeat, IMO living in a fool's paradise; and I hope it will not be themselves, if young enough, or their immediate, or even a generation or two off, descendants [of whom I shall have none so I should coco], who will be caught in the eruption.

OK; so sneer. Like I should care.

You'll learn...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:25 PM

In Canada, we have more than one million Muslims. They work in all branches of society.
Only one that has been in the news has radical beliefs, and I believe that he is up for deportation.

Here in Calgary (metro population 1.2 million), we have a Muslim mayor, Naheed Nenshi, who has been re-elected recently, with little opposition.
He is a graduate of the school of government at Harvard University, and before becoming mayor, was a professor of business at a local college.
He is typical of Muslims here, many in the professional or technical fields. Some of the women work in home care, others in banks, etc.

Unfortunately, Muslims in Canada face discrimination. There is high unemployment (especially Quebec) among young Muslims, even those qualified with university degrees.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:34 PM

Blair was talking about Islamism, which has thousands of adherents in Britain but globally is a movement dedicated to the overthrow of democracy and the imposition of Islamic rule under the Sharia by force and terror.
It is killing people now in numerous countries.
Its only goal is to bring the whole world to Islam by any means.

I have met many Muslims but not yet one of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 02:37 PM

I might add that in Canada many university-educated Muslims are driving taxis, or work at jobs below their education levels, because of discrimination.
Home care for the elderly and infirm, low-paid although the work is hard and requires driving to several patients a day to give care, employs mostly African immigrants.
In Calgary, many of the home care workers are from the horn of Africa.
Discrimination extends to Christians with dark skin.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 03:13 PM

"And yet, Jim on another thread you indicted 'the good people of Lewes' for the actions of a few."
I indicted those who watched it happen without doing anything about it - those who added their own happenn'orth to the proceedings - the organisers of that event and the police who could have, but didn't prosecute bcause what happened wasn't serious enough.
I could have added, those who carried an effigy of the news reporter who gave Firle a bad press, in the Lewes parade the following year.
Not forgetting the Mudcatter who suggested that there was a "reason" for what happened - there can never be a "reason" for such behaviour - not given the situation of Travellers in these islands.
I go along with Fred's description of the sectarian behaviour that goes on down there - we have similar demonstrations coming up in the (British Province of) Ireland shortly - just when we thought it was going to be safe to get back into the water.
I don't blame the people of Lewes, Sussex, or the South of England - I blame the fundamentalists - just as I do the Islamic fundamentalists.
"but majorities can be swayed when the climate moves in their instinctually"
Then you have to give a reason why such a thing might happen giving the present situation - and you have to give an opinion on what should happen instead of your "nuffin to do with me guv" stance.
We know what is likely to happen if Farrago and his (now established) 'Narsty Nazis' have their way.
Lovely cartoon in the Sunday Times this morning showing a B.N.P. member with a begging bowl with a note saying "Put out of a job by Ukip".
You are a middle-class version of Alf Garnett Mike; I suppose its too late in life for you to hunt out the sandwich board the old feller in Oxford Street used to carry saying "The End of the world is nigh".
I get more waves of hate from you and yours than I ever did from my Muslim, black and Irish neighbours all rolled into one
A bit of a disgrace really
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 04:01 PM

Jim, you have just said, amongst other things,

I indicted those who watched it happen without doing anything about it

and

I don't blame the people of Lewes

But your post on the thread concerned was

it isn't too long ago that the good people of Lewes were burning a caravan full of 'Pikeys' at their annual bonfire festival.

It is there for you to refresh your memory if you like. Re: 'Bacup Nuters and Racism' From: Jim Carroll Date: 24 Apr 14 - 04:03 AM.

Now, nowhere in that statement do you only indict the people who watched it happen and did nothing. You did indict 'the good people of Lewes' as a whole.

I fully understand if it was a mistake to tar those good people with the same brush and, if so, you should say what you said is not what you meant. The statement you made was a typical Daily Mail style headline. You cannot say, on the one hand, that we can only blame the extremists, which I fully agree with, and then go on to say 'the good people of Lewes were burning a caravan full of pikeys.'

I am not trying to argue just for the sake of it here either. I am just saying that you cannot say one thing and do another without people picking up on it.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 04:13 PM

But it doesn't take many to make an impact ~~ it took 4 [or was it 6?] to knock the WTC down.

And it took just two (wanna clue: their surnames both begin with B...) to misuse this event, to lie to us all, to slaughter or maim a million Iraqis and tens of thousands of Afghanis, and to make orphans of a million more and impoverish the lives of tens of millions more and to make those tens of millions live for over a decade, a decade still without end, in fear and insecurity. Amazing, Michael, how western imperialism can cleanse the mind of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Lighter
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 04:36 PM

Religions are as good or as bad as the people in charge of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 05:51 PM

Islamism

That sumthin' like Darwinism, Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 05:53 PM

No Greg.
Only a complete fuckwit would ask that.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 06:04 PM

"and you have to give an opinion on what should happen instead of your "nuffin to do with me guv" stance."
.,,.
I wish I knew what should happen; what could practically be done about it. Cheap sneers about how I must want numbers tattooed on arms are merely provocative, not any sort of argument. But we are, I repeat, living over a volcano brought in by a Trojan Horse (you must admit a fine mixed metaphor, whatever else!). And what is to be done about this pit we have dug for ourselves, (third item for the mixture!) in practical terms, I simply do not know. The fact is that one can not start from anywhere except where one is. As usual, old Will has the best words:

O, Time, thou must unravel this, not I;
It is too hard a knot for me to untie.
(Twelfth NightII.2.39-40)

I just wish to god I could think of something to be done about it.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 06:12 PM

Define "Islamism" Keith - off the top of your head, no looking it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 06:23 PM

Quite sidestep, I think, from "Islam" to "Islamism" or "Islamist".

If you fancy doing some useful research, Keith, try figuring out who funds Boko Haram (and the helicopter drops of food and fuel into its camps), and why Nigerian military action against its known encampments seems - er - a bit hard to detect, and why the Nigerian government is doing sweet Fanny Adams about rescuing a bit over 200 schoolgirls (observant Islamic schoolgirls) who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Apr 14 - 06:40 PM

Re cracks about "middle-class Alf Garnetts". Alf Garnett was a racist. I am not a racist, and do not welcome into our midst a strong demographic who manifestly are.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 09:30 AM

Richard, the army dare not venture into parts of the North.
Why not explain what you mean about Boko Haram?

Greg, I explained to meaning to Musket on the persecution thread, and I have defined it here too.
Look it up here or elsewhere if you are confused.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 11:12 AM

"I am not a racist,"
As good as - as you say, Islam is not a race - if it were you would be a "send 'em all back where they cone from" (only cure for your particular phobia, as far as I can see) out-and-our racist.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 11:19 AM

Look it ["Islamism"] up here or elsewhere if you are confused.

I'm not the one that's confused, FW Keith, if your posted "definition"[sic] is any indication.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 11:51 AM

I am so sorry Greg.
Do please correct it for me, and share you superior wisdom with a lesser creature.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 02:59 PM

Do please correct it for me, and share you superior wisdom...

To what end, Keith? You're not saying that facts would change your mind, are you? By everything you've ever posted on this forum such is demonstrably NOT the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 03:13 PM

Every religion has its radical elements predicated on violence.

Islam in its inception supported science (Al Hazen).

At one point in history, Islam was enlightened, they were scholars creating algebra,
scientists, budding astro-phyicists and leaders of an open society. Today, they've been taken over by dogmatic and violent fundamentalists.   

Darwin never founded a religion but based his findings on Evolution through empirical science, leading the way to understanding modern medicine which has saved countless lives.

Darwin's ideas have been modified over the years as scientists discover carbon dating, dendrology to determine the beginnings of earth, animal behavior, and have lead to the discovery of DNA. Darwin's breakthrough enabled us to live better lives through understanding human chemistry and biology.

Blair converted to Catholicism which may in his case influenced his dislike of Islamic fundamentalists, aside from the anti-human propensities. Blair, as a spokesperson for
England has to acknowledge that GB too had its share of fundamentalists that wreaked havoc on the rest of the world, notably in India.

One of the by-products of religion is that it encourages discrimination and fundamentalism
in its adherents against outsiders, women, and non-believers.

For every WT destruction there exists another Oklahoma bombing.

A critical view of religion needs to be taken to show how it breeds violence and most wars.

Instead of being afraid of the violence of religion, it would serve better to understand the psychological implications of this anti-social behavior and reveal it to the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 03:30 PM

Oh dear Greg.
How humiliating for you.
You asked me for a definition when I have already given two.
Who but what you call a "fuckwit" would do that!

You deride my descriptions as those of a fuckwit, but you can not actually identify any innaccuracy, and you can not actually provide a better one.

Only a complete "fuckwit" would be that pathetically inadequate Greg.

What a useful contribution you do make Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 04:14 PM

but you can not actually identify any innaccuracy, and you can not actually provide a better one.

Actually, I CAN & quite easily. But, per 28 Apr 14 - 02:59 PM above, I can't be arsed, since it would have no effect on you in any way shape or form.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 05:20 PM

So you could if you wanted to, but you won't.
Really?
Pathetic Greg.
Laughable.
Ha ha.
All you are good for is calling rude names.

Like "FUCKWIT!"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 05:26 PM

Stringsinger,
Every religion has its radical elements predicated on violence.

I am not sure that is true, but I am sure that there is only one movement dedicated to imposing a religious government on everyone in the world by terror and violence.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 05:57 PM

I tried to make a link but I haven't got the time.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/non-muslims-carried-out-more-than-90-of-all-terrorist-attacks-in-america/5333619

I think too many people here are wrapped up in their beliefs and ideologies. The link provides a few facts which I'm sure will be cherry-picked to support various arguments. However, there they are.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 06:43 PM

Now, there ya go again, Guest - introducing them pesky facts. FW Keith ain't gonna ba happy with you...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 08:58 PM

I am sure that there is only one movement

You may be SURE, FW, but you are - as usual - WRONG.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Apr 14 - 11:48 PM

There is, however, [how often must I say it?] only one who can point to justification, and indeed obligation, in its holy writings for such an intention.

If you think otherwise (apart from Jesus's "not peace but a sword", which needs to be taking in conjunction with the then current fact of the Roman occupation) then please point it out.

Meanwhile, the Suras enjoining the duty of Jihad and/or militant proselytisation are legion. "The word jihad appears in 23 Quranic verses...Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God"...Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims" - Wikipedia

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 01:57 AM

Greg, after attacking my description of Islamism, you prove to be unable to find any fault with it and unable to come up with a better one.
What does that make you Greg.

Now you say I am wrong that there is only one movement dedicated to imposing a religious government on everyone in the world by terror and violence.

So Greg, identify another one.

Confident prediction-you have made a fool of yourself yet again.

All you are any good at is calling people ugly names.
Like "Fuckwit" Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 02:13 AM

I am given to understand that the modern usage of "jihad" refers to the internal struggle for self-improvement, not violence against non-muslims.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 03:13 AM

"I am given to understand that the modern usage of "jihad" refers to the internal struggle for self-improvement, not violence against non-muslims."
Not so modern Richard - the term is debatable - some writers compare it with 'Crusade'.
Fundamentalists take it as a justification of violent action, just as fundamentalist Christians have used Christian scriptures (plenty of them if you care to look) to justify violence.
Try Googling "Peaceful Jihad" - makes for fascinating reading.
It's one of those buzz words for bigots.
There's a fascinating debate going on at the moment in the letter pages of The Irish Times regarding the Christian view of Capital Punishment.
I know that at least one contributor here is a keen advocate of the good ol' practice and would happily adapt whatever his holy book says to fit it in to his outlook on humanity
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 03:56 AM

I doubt very much that there is any such person here Jim.
Will you name this person?
Confident prediction-no.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 04:09 AM

Guest#
USA is not the world.
No really!
Many countries are fighting an Islamist insurgencies and many more are in fear of one.
USA is not.

Given that, I estimate that 98% of deaths due to terrorism in USA in 21C are down to Islamists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Apr 14 - 04:31 AM

No need Keith - its all on record - as you well know
Now go and talk to someone else - you have no place in my thoughts - and few others' - I would guess.
Your career as a troll is a thing of the past
Jim Carroll

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?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:25 PM

Pete's his dad.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 06:27 PM

Thought so. Two cheeks of the same arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 07:25 PM

"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.""

Might this be because there are egregious examples of terrorism being exercised in what you refer to as "the West"? What do you think that the Muslim community thinks about drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen? Or the destruction of Iraq?

As I see it, there is an unwillingness to provide moral leadership against Christian and Jewish extremism among those who practice those "faiths".

I don't condone Muslim terrorism or anyone else's but Islam doesn't have a corner on that market.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:12 PM

unwillingness on the part of Muslims in the West to provide moral leadership against Islamic extremism

PeeDee, I'm sure they'll tackle it long before the "Christians"[sic]in the west provide moral leadership against fundagelical lunatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Apr 14 - 08:28 PM

Yep. Just made a saint of a pope who did sod all about rampant child abuse on his watch. You won't catch me in heaven.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 04:09 AM

What do you think that the Muslim community thinks about drone warfare in Pakistan and Yemen?

If they are thinking people, they will know that Islamists are slaughtering Muslims on a scale that makes anything and everything else trivial.
They will know that the drones are targeting those killers and hindering them in their murderous campaigns.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:27 AM

If they are thinking people, they will know that Islamists are slaughtering Muslims on a scale that makes anything and everything else trivial.

What, like the Holocaust? Like the killing of hundreds of thousands in Iraq in a war caused by us? Like the Second Congo War (five and a half million dead, for those who've never heard of it)? Like Rwanda? Like Stalin? Like the Khmer Rouge? The Chinese civil war? First Word War? All these are "trivial" side-by-side with Islamists slaughtering Muslims?

Do have a little think occasionally before you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:38 AM

I did not mean since the dawn of time Steve.
Muslims kill Mulims in Iraq in daily bombing and shooting atrocities that no-one even bothers to report any more.
Iraqis go on Jihad to Syria to kill Muslims for Assad alongside Isalmists of Hezbollah busy doing the same.
Sunni Jihadist travel to Iraq to shoot and bomb the Shia Muslims there, and also to Syria to kill Assad's Hezbollah, Iranian and Iraqi allies.

The poor wretched people dream of getting away to our lands as Bobad correctly stated.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:40 AM

Rhetorical question Steve.

That's why TC explains so so much....




In terms of perhaps injecting some reality into the debate, Islam has no hierarchisation. The term "they" demonstrates naivety of the first order. A bit like the excellent TCism in another thread where a certain someone said there was never any Christian equivalent of Islamism.

That's the derogatory definition meaning terrorism, not the more accurate meaning, "of Islam."

Keep praying TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:43 AM

Then that qualification should have been in your post. Without it, your post stands as a downright lie which seems intended to paint Islam as black as possible. One has suspicions, knowing as one does your track record.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:44 AM

That was to Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:59 AM

Steve, in my post I spoke of it in the present tense.

TC, you lie about me again, and of course you can refer to any group as "they."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 07:09 AM

And Steve, I do not have a "track record" except for being smeared.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 07:52 AM

"They will know that the drones are targeting those killers "
The use of drones is now being condemned worldwide as acts of terror.
Surveys in US universities have calculated that their use is not only killing civilians but also increasing acts of terrorism.
It is alienating Muslim countries, even those who support action against terrorism.
The US Government has blocked debates on civilian casualties
Surveys among US citizens have produced figures revealing that nearly half those questioned believe them to be terrorist acts.
One little known fact is that the first use of drones was by Israel in Lebanon and the Israeli and US Drone manufacturing Industries is quite likely to become the new industrial kid on the block
Winning the hearts and minds of the Arab people with the use of Drones is about as likely anybody taking Keith seriously
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 08:27 AM

The radicalism of a religion to push a political/empire agenda is itself nothing new. Presenting the Umayyad Caliphate, Part Deux.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 09:31 AM

The use of drones is now being condemned worldwide as acts of terror.
Which governments Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 12:28 PM

"Which governments Jim?"
Try some of the human and war crimes rights groups reporting from all round the world
It's no wonder that nobody takes you seriously.
And address the rest of the posting with the research and the reported results of the attacks on people who are otherwise supportive of fighting terrorism - not to mention those U.S citizens who have condemned the actions
And the US governments efforts to hide casualty figures by quashing debate on it.
If   If you take your nose out of the arses of the Governments of the world - all who have economic and financial interests in keeping on the right side of America, you would realise the wave of opposition to U.S. behaviour.
Now the production of Drones has entered the market-place, the Arms Industry being what it is, we are a hairsbreadth from having these weapons sold to extremist states - Bahrain is one of the West's favourite customers at present - now there's a thought
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:03 PM

There are many Mudcat members who see nothing wrong with the use of drones by police and other such authorities. Their reasoning is that if you have nothing to hide then why worry. They frequently use the term tinfoil hat.

As for which governments have condemned or voiced reservations about the use of drones to kill people, a quick Google found the following:

'EU Parliament proposes a ban refers drone strikes as "unlawful."

Strasbourg - European Union Members of Parliament condemned the use of drones in targeted killings in a vote of 534 to 49. The vote proposing a ban referred to the drone strikes as "unlawful."'

from

http://www.popularresistance.org/landslide-vote-in-european-union-condemning-u-s-drone-use/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:20 PM

Ah - but is it a "qualified" Parliament?
Sorry - in joke - followers of Keith's career as a war crimes appeaser and atrocity apologist will get it!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:23 PM

Uterine Device! That's what it must mean.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:38 PM

Stanford NYU report
one
two
three
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 May 14 - 02:45 PM

Utterly Disastrous?

Urban Decay?

Uncle Desmond?

Unnatural Development?

........ ........?????

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 03:15 PM

UD Ledbetter?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 05:31 PM

The use of drones is now being condemned worldwide as acts of terror.
So, which governments?
Any EU governments?
Scandinavian?
Which?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 May 14 - 05:38 PM

Much more mundane I'm afraid. Think 2001 A Space Odyssey.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:13 PM

When it comes to slaughtering Muslim people, Islamists beat drones many, many times over, and drones are targeted at those killers.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 01 May 14 - 06:59 PM

Yes, Keith, the drones are. However, they are killing more innocent civilians than terrorists. You had an answer to some of which governments are not in favor of drone warfare. Allow me to repeat:

'EU Parliament proposes a ban refers drone strikes as "unlawful."

Strasbourg - European Union Members of Parliament condemned the use of drones in targeted killings in a vote of 534 to 49. The vote proposing a ban referred to the drone strikes as "unlawful."'

from

http://www.popularresistance.org/landslide-vote-in-european-union-condemning-u-s-drone-use/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 May 14 - 09:41 PM

Don't confuse FW Keith with facts and truth, Guest. He has a hard time dealing with reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 01 May 14 - 10:58 PM

There is at least one country that is for drones:

Yemen asks U.S. for drones to fight al Qaeda

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:23 AM

So the use of these weapons is OK if the politicians agree to them - do we have that right?
You have the facts about them - you have their effects - you have the public response to them - you have the research on them - you have (some of the) facts on civilian casualties - you even have the response of the people of Yemen on them Boo-Boo - but it's OK if that nice Mr Cameron (and possibly in the near future, that nicer Mr Farrago) gives them the nod.
Nothing new there then Keith - after all 'Politicians rule - OK'.
Inhuman prat!!
Jim Carroll
YEMEN

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 02 May 14 - 03:17 AM

Yes, drones do kill innocent civilians. So do terrorists, many times over. Neither are right and justifying one with the other is a ludicrous argument. However, given the choice of targeted bombing and indiscriminate bombing I think the former is the lesser of two evils. Neither should exist but, sadly, they do. Until people learn to live with each other they always will. And I think there are prime examples of people who cannot live with each other on here!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 03:22 AM

I know about the EU.
I asked about governments.
When I posted that EU Parliament had voted against oil drilling in the Arctic, I was reminded, rightly, that the body is irrelevant.

The overwhelming majority of people here have no idea who their MEP is or what they stand for.
The debates are not even reported here because everyone knows they are meaningless and pointless.
They just a talking shop.

The use of drones is now being condemned worldwide as acts of terror.
So, which governments?
So, which governments?

However, they are killing more innocent civilians than terrorists.
How do we know?
The Taleban supply the reports.
Their only defence against the drones is to make us believe that.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 03:43 AM

"The Taleban supply the reports."
And the US suppresses the supports - so they are obviously significant
The Stanford report bears out that not only are the civilian casualties significant but the bombing is having the effect of escalating terrorism.
The "Governments" are in hock to the U.S., and if they weren't - there' is always the veto to fall back on.
F*** the Governments - they are all a bunch of self-serving shysters when it comes down to it.
The truth of the matter is coming from the independent human rights groups - and from surveys from the inside the US.
Legality of Drones
JIm Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:09 AM

So, when you said "condemned worldwide as acts of terror." you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments.

I am sure there are individuals and groups on both sides of the argument, so your statement was wrong.

Meanwhile the massive industrial scale slaughter of Muslims by Muslims goes on unabated such that the effects of all the drones in the world pale into insignificance in comparison.
Indeed, there is no comparison.
It is a distraction to obscure the real issue facing the world right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:18 AM

Extracts from Jim's Yemen link.
"Drone strikes are never the solution. It is a tactical band-aid but it can be quite an important one if you don't want to see planes dropping from the sky in the West," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College.

The drones' main success has been to severely limit AQAP's movements and ability to hold territory as it did back in 2011.

"When they move from A to B, they have to think 100 times. They've lost their freedom," said Mustafa Alani, a security analyst with close ties to the Saudi Interior Ministry.


Yemen's interior ministry said 55 militants were killed on Sunday alone, which would make it the biggest strike against al Qaeda militants since at least 2012.

It said three of those killed were leading members of al Qaeda. Yemen said 10 al Qaeda militants were killed in Saturday's attack.

A senior security source said investigations were being carried out into the identities of those killed, but confirmed that "leaders in the organization" had died.

Rumors have been swirling that those killed include AQAP leader Nasir al-Wuhayshi and Saudi bombmaker Ibrahim al-Asiri, especially after several eyewitness reports emerged that at least one helicopter had landed after a late Sunday night strike in the restive southern Shabwa province.

Tribal sources told Reuters on Sunday that five suspected militants were killed in that attack.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:33 AM

"you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments."
And the European Union is made up of what exactly - boy scout groups?
The Governments refuse to give the facts - it is not in their interests to do so.
The U.S. has actively suppressed discussion on the facts - it is in their interests to do so.
A British Government lied and breached international law in order to support the U.S. - it was in their interests to do so.
Nothing has changed since the illegal invasion of Iraq.
Reports from around the world - U.S. Canada, the Arab States, Britain, Australia, Ireland...... all condemning the Drone attacks as illegal - and producing researched documentation to prove they are
The landslide victory in the European Union make it official that Europe condemns the use of Drones - how many countries is that?
"It is a distraction to obscure the real issue facing the world right now."
The drones are not a distraction - they are a major part of the problem; they increase terrorism - researched; they alienate otherwise friendly Arab States - researched; they slaughter innocent civilians in their thousands - researched (as far as the U.S. will allow the figures to be made public)
Here we are again Keith versus humanity in his support of US atrocities and the poodles who appease them.
Why do we feed this moronic troll?
He'll be bringing out his "experts" and "historians" next.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 May 14 - 04:56 AM

Whether or not 'moronic troll' is a rational or reasonable description, Jim, I would point out that you are his main -- indeed practically his only -- 'feed'!

So don't do it and he won't respond.

Simples!

〠~M~〠

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 05:40 AM

"So don't do it and he won't respond".
Yes - unfortunately he will - and I'm not his only feed Mike
But thanks for the advice - there's enough there for everybody to be going on with - which was my only point in posting on this anyway - "pearls before morons trying to provide him with facts (to quote his own phrase - nearly)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:52 AM

From your own link Jim.

" it (drone strikes) can be quite an important one if you don't want to see planes dropping from the sky in the West," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College."

I don't want to see planes dropping.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 02 May 14 - 12:24 PM

'So, when you said "condemned worldwide as acts of terror." you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments.'

You mean the same governemnts who assured the world that Iraq had WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:53 PM

I don't want to see planes dropping.

Much more likely to see pigs flying, FW. Your tenuous grip on reality is sliding into psychosis.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 May 14 - 02:56 PM

I didn't say it Greg.
It was that other FW, Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 05:49 PM

AMNESTY
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:18 PM

"From your own link Jim."
I don't want to see innocent civilians being slaughtered by of ineffectual and illegal terrorist 'counter-terrorism (sic)'
Jim Carroll

Also from my link

Five. Retired high-ranking military and CIA veterans challenge the legality and efficacy of drone killings
Retired US Army Colonel Ann Wright squarely denies the legality of drone warfare, telling Democracy Now: "These drones, you might as well just call them assassination machines. That is what these drones are used for: targeted assassination, extrajudicial ultimate death for people who have not been convicted of anything."
Drone strikes are also counterproductive. Robert Grenier, recently retired Director of the CIA Counter-Terrorism Center, wrote, "One wonders how many Yemenis may be moved in the future to violent extremism in reaction to carelessly targeted missile strikes, and how many Yemeni militants with strictly local agendas will become dedicated enemies of the West in response to US military actions against them."
Recent polls of the Pakistan people show high levels of anger in Pakistan at US military attacks there. This anger in turn leads to high support for suicide attacks against US military targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 May 14 - 06:41 PM

'So, when you said "condemned worldwide as acts of terror." you did not mean by the people who actually have the facts, the governments.'

You mean the same governemnts who assured the world that Iraq had WMDs?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 02 May 14 - 07:09 PM

Messages recovered from Osama bin Laden's home after his death in 2011, including one from then al Qaeda No. 3, Atiyah Abd al-Rahman reportedly, according to the Agence France-Presse and the Washington Post, expressed frustration with the drone strikes in Pakistan. According to an unnamed U.S. Government official, in his message al-Rahman complained that drone-launched missiles were killing al Qaeda operatives faster than they could be replaced.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 14 - 03:45 AM

So what have we got so far
Attacks on civilian areas that are killing non-combatants (good o' 'collateral damage').
The US refusing to reveal figures on what those casualties are and suppressing attempts to debate the issue in Congress.
Surveys showing that, rather than controlling terrorism, these attacks are escalating it.
The same reports are pointing out that the attacks are almost certainly a breach of both international laws and those on human rights abuses - in fact, acts of terrorism themselves.
World-wide condemnation of the attacks by human rights groups and war crimes observers, including Amnesty International - Britain appears to be the only Nation actively supporting them by providing information on the targets of the attacks - colluding in what appears to be a war crime (as Guest.# points out - back to the balmy days of WMD).
As well as this, there is a growing 'Drone' manufacturing industry, straining at the leash and complaining that it is not been given enough support to allow it to reach its full potential.
When it does, we can look forward to Drone sales to whoever has the wherewithal, so if that nice Mr Assad can hold out for long enough, perhaps he might be able to get his hands on some and bring 'normality' back to Syria - that nice Mr Cable has already told us that the arms industry isn't particularly fussy about who the British armourers sell weapons to.
If all this wasn't enough - the Drone attacks have Keith's blessing - what more can we possibly need to help us identify an atrocity?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:42 AM

From your own link Jim.

" it (drone strikes) can be quite an important one if you don't want to see planes dropping from the sky in the West," said Magnus Ranstorp, a terrorism expert at the Swedish National Defence College."

I don't want to see planes dropping.
Do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 May 14 - 04:55 AM

A thread about terrorism and Keith manages to slip in a party political protest about the European Parliament.

Well done. Fancy standing in Newark?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:16 AM

You have the facts Keith - legal, humanitarian and tactical, stuff your 'expert' opinions and answer them if you want to start making an intelligent contribution to this discussion - otherwise - troll off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:26 AM

Musket, Jim thought that an EU vote implied approval by EU governments.

Jim, you have provided no "facts," "legal, humantarian and tactical."
Just a few individuals' opinions that are not shared by governments.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 May 14 - 07:30 AM

No dialogues Keith remember what you have been told
Respond to the researched facts by Stanford and Amnesty or go away and let the rest of us have a go.
You are not saying anything - just filibusting by ignoring what is being said by others
Go away
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 07:40 AM

The Amnesty link shows a girl who looks like Malala, the child shot in the head for being a girl and wishing to go to school.

Children, their teachers and ordinary Muslim people are being killed in horrifying numbers by the people who the drones target.
The numbers killed by drones are trivial in comparison.

Neither Stamford nor any other Westerners can go to the tribal lands and find the truth about who the drones kill.
It is in the interest of the Taleban, who control those areas absolutely, to exaggerate civilian casualties and conceal activist deaths.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 14 - 09:53 AM

Dear me, Keith

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 02:09 PM

Tragic, but what relevance Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 May 14 - 02:26 PM

"(CNN) -- U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan have killed far more people than the United States has acknowledged, have traumatized innocent residents and largely been ineffective, according to a new study released Tuesday.
The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%."

from

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:23 PM

Do you think any of them have been to see?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 03 May 14 - 05:37 PM

You answer questions with questions, so I see no need to be involved with you at all. Keep well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 May 14 - 06:09 PM

Not quite, Guest. To be fair, Keith answers questions with irrelevancies and bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 07:47 PM

"Meanwhile, the Suras enjoining the duty of Jihad and/or militant proselytisation are legion. "The word jihad appears in 23 Quranic verses...Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God"...Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims" - Wikipedia"

WOW! 41 times in 23 verses out of a total of 6346 verses!

You're right Mike! It's the Q'ran, with its obsession with jihad, which we need to fear.

Or maybe it's just the few lunatics, like the killers of Lee Rigby and the TWENTY Saudis who were involved in the destruction of the WTC.

Over reacting? Naah! of course you aren't.........MUCH!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:13 PM

"I did not mean since the dawn of time Steve."

There you are Steve! Will you be told?

If it happened more than ten minutes ago, it's not a valid subject for discussion on KeithBook!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:20 PM

"And I think there are prime examples of people who cannot live with each other on here!"

Absolutely Dave, and some on this forum too!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:22 PM

Dammit! the second half was meant for elsewhere.

Should read Absolutely Dave!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 03 May 14 - 08:38 PM

"Musket, Jim thought that an EU vote implied approval by EU governments."

Borrowing Greg's FW, who does Keith think were the participants in that EU vote?

Representatives of the governments which are EU members, that's who!

And as representatives, Keith is stupid enough to believe that they haven't voted according to the wishes of those governments!

No surprise there then!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 14 - 10:42 PM

http://dronewars.net/6-who-has-drones/


For anyone interested in the history of drones go to


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_unmanned_aerial_vehicles#Vietnam_War:_Reconnaissance_Drones

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 14 - 03:43 AM

EMPs are not government representatives.
Probably because that is what YOU called him, Mr (I'm always polite) K A of H
That is false too.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 May 14 - 03:56 AM

Indeed, our MEPs are directly elected in separate elections from the General Elections to Parliament, and are not appointed by Parliament or the Government; so they do indeed represent their electorates, not the UK Government. There will be a Euro-Election in a couple of weeks time, Thur 22 May.

~M~

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

"Keith is stupid enough to believe that they haven't voted according to the wishes of those governments!"
In the end it doesn't matter anyway - the fact that the Pro-Atrocity contingent (PAC has a fine ring to it) here refuse to respond to independent reports from Amnesty and other groups throughout the world puts US support exactly where it is - in the hands of the clique of US poodles and dependents who will support (or, in this case) stay silent on whatever their bosses choose to do.
The Only Government actively supporting the US is - guess who - Britain, whose security forces are helping pin-point 'terrorist' targets
The US refuses to release civilian casualty figures and has suppressed discussion on them, which indicates they are significantly high enough to be a damning feature.
The Taliban claims are certainly exaggerated, but they are also incomplete; the organisation (sic) is made up of dispirit groups with no central body and no means of collecting and assessing them, so they represent a tiny pin-prick of what is happening.
In 2011, the official estimate of civilian casualties was between 3 and 9 - independent calculations from Columbia Law School calculated there were between 72 and 155, a discrepancy of 2,300 per cent - information from within the US itself
The use of Drones has escalated in the last three years.
The US is involved in the mass murder of civilians and it is being actively supported by Britain - no change there, of course.      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 14 - 04:25 AM

I should have added - these figures - just as the reports from Stanford and Amnesty, will be ignored by the PAC
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:03 AM

To put those "exaggerated" estimates into perspective, that number of Muslims are killed by Muslims, in Syria alone, not just every day but every afternoon.

The people targeted have the blood of countless Muslims on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 04 May 14 - 07:22 AM

Here we go again.

If somebody else is worse, what we do is perfectly fine, eh Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 14 - 07:42 AM

Just putting it into perspective.
Muslims are being slaughtered on a truly horrific scale by other Muslims.
The drones are targeted at some of the very worst killers.
Child killers.
School burners.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 May 14 - 08:03 AM

Child killers.
School burners.
This might well be the drones you are referring to - there are no indications of who the victims are - the US has made certain of this.
You have the studies on the efficacy of the Drones from independant sources - your only way around them is to ignore them
You have the percentage claims of civilian casualties - you ignore them too
You have the legality of their use - you ignore that
You have the likelihood of them going onto the open market and sold to the poeople to claim are "Child killers and school burners (though t you were talking about the Israelis for a minute - that s what they do) - you ignore that
It really isn't surprising that you are as ignorant as you often claim you are.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 14 - 03:50 PM

Is Islam a religion of peace, or body pieces?
It's the later I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:17 PM

As the idea of Muslims killing Muslims seems to be a theme here, perhaps it just shows that Islamism, as Keith terms most terrorism, isn't about Islam anyway?

Perhaps it's about power , territory and control after all ?

No need to be sanctimonious about being a fucking Christian then eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 14 - 05:20 PM

If somebody else is worse, what we do is perfectly fine, eh Keith?

He stole that one from BullshitBruce. Can't even be original in his idiocy.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 May 14 - 06:47 PM


As the idea of Muslims killing Muslims seems to be a theme here, perhaps it just shows that Islamism, as Keith terms most terrorism, isn't about Islam anyway?

Islamists are very intolerant.
They do not believe that anyone except there own kind of Muslim deserves to live.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 May 14 - 09:30 PM

Why is it, do you think, Musket, that FW Keith refuses to acknowledge that Christians[sic] killing Christians[sic] has stacked up more corpses than Muslims killing Muslims?

Or that Christians[sic] killing members of every other reliion on the face of the earth results in a still larger pile of corpses?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:05 AM

A relative (by marriage, I hasten to add) is training to be a vicar. He is slightly concerned to have to study a module which is there to demonstrate that the Q'ran is evil. He asked if there is any study of the less savoury aspects of the bible.

This is common or garden Church of England for fuck's sake!



Still, good on him for questioning what is to me preaching intolerance. Not that he agrees with me. I told him the role of a vicar isn't to believe in all that nonsense, but to ensure the punters do.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:15 AM

"Islamists are very intolerant."
All religious zealots are intolerant - Christianity has a centuries old history of torturing and burning non-believers and leading churchmen in the Christian Churches (not necessarily zealots) have stated that they would do so again if the same circumstances prevailed.
Muslim communities, especially those in Britain, are extremely tolerant and are recognised as being so.
During my thirty years in London, I would far sooner have discussed religion, politics and race with any of the many Muslims I met than with many of the indigenous Londoners I associated with - taboo subjects to be avoided like the plague.
I assume you will continue to ignore the facts about the use of the remote killing machines (Drones).
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 14 - 07:39 AM

So, GregF,

You ran out of duct tape for the guinea pigs again???

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 05 May 14 - 08:06 AM

"Why is it, do you think, Musket, that FW Keith refuses to acknowledge that Christians[sic] killing Christians[sic] has stacked up more corpses than Muslims killing Muslims?"

Because most of them died some time ago, and Keith prefers to ignore anything that happened before the current rise of terrorism, due to the actions of the West interfering in the Middle East

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 14 - 08:20 AM

Love you too, BullshitBruce. But can't you come up with a new form of abuse? The old one is getting stale & boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 05 May 14 - 08:23 AM

You are the one specializing in abuse- but those poor guinea pigs can't post here.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 08:35 AM

Troubadour, in recent centuries, when did Christians kill each other for religious reasons?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 14 - 09:02 AM

Inter-Christian differences within the British Isles have led to a massive loss of life throughout the 20th century - particularly in the twenty years from the end of the 1960s
Religious conflicts continue to be a major stumbling block to peace talks in Northern Ireland and if bigots like yourself have your way
If bigots like yourself have your way, this will continue to be the case - what on earth are you on?
Go and look in the mirror if you want to see British religious warfare
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 10:02 AM

Really Jim?
I thought the Troubles were about having a united Ireland or leaving the North as part of UK.
Are you telling us that the bombings, shootings and rioting were about if transubstantiation actually happens during mass, the need for confession etc.

I think that it was just convenient but not accurate to label the communities Catholic and Protestant.
Nationalist and Unionist is better, and the combatants Republicans and Loyalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 14 - 10:33 AM

"I thought the Troubles were about having a united Ireland or leaving the North as part of UK."
Britain divided Ireland on a sectarian basis, leaving the Protestants in charge - since 1922 this has remained the major cause of death, disturbances and persecution in the British part of Ireland.
"No Popery" has been a prominent feature of the violent sectarian demonstrations there and church leaders such as Paisley have made the Troubles holy warfare for since independence
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 11:23 AM

There were lots of Protestants in the Republican movement back then.
It was never a religious conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 May 14 - 11:51 AM

No Keith. Sectarian violence just isn't Christian, is it?

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:00 PM

The Irish Troubles have always been about home rule, not religion.
Is that the only example you can think of?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 14 - 12:41 PM

SEGREGATION IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Religious division has been a formalised feature of Irish life since the Treaty of Union in 1801
It has adversely affected the lives of Catholics since that period, restricting their rights to own property and hold public office - including the right to teach.
It was written into the newly partitioned Northern Ireland in 1922 and restricted Catholics from voting in elections
Open prejudice against Catholics kicked off the Civil Rights marches in the 1960s - the fact that the Protestant 'forces of law and order' backed the Protestant majority, leading to bloody retaliation against the marchers, led directly to 'The Troubles'.
Inter-religious Christian prejudice and violence has been the longest running active warfare on this planet.
Read a book
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:02 PM

So... If it contains Muslims it is religious violence. If it contains Christians it is about territory.

Go and take a tablet Keith. You know what the nurse said.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:08 PM

The conflict in Ireland is indeed about politics not religion.
Did you ever hear IRA make any religious claims?
They wanted a united Ireland not a ban on condoms.

Any other examples?
Real ones?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:19 PM

Here is the History of the Troubles as told by Sinn Fein.
No mention of religion.
It was and is political.
http://www.corksf.20m.com/about.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:36 PM

You have the facts of religious segregation in the North of Irland and its effect on the people there - as I said - the most continuous form of religious warfare on the planet - and still alive and kicking after two centuries
The fact that you will continue to ignore this fact is par for the course for you - if it isn't Muslim - it isn't religious warfare.
"when did Christians kill each other for religious reasons?"
You have your answer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 01:51 PM

The Irish troubles were not a religious conflict.
The fighting was about home rule.
Sinn Fein makes no mention of religion in in its story of the struggle.

Guardian today.
"On 14 April, Boko Haram stormed an all-girl secondary school in the village of Chibok, in Borno state, then packed the teenagers, who had been taking exams, on to lorries and disappeared into a remote area along the border with Cameroon.

The brazenness and brutality of the school attack shocked Nigerians, who have been growing accustomed to hearing about atrocities in an increasingly bloody five-year-old Islamist insurgency in the north.

"I abducted your girls. I will sell them in the market, by Allah," Boko Haram leader Abubakar Shekau said in the video, according to AFP, which is normally the first media outlet to get hold of Shekau's videos.

Boko Haram, now seen as the main security threat to Africa's leading energy producer, is growing bolder and extending its reach. The kidnapping occurred on the same day as a bomb blast, also blamed on Boko Haram, that killed 75 people on the edge of Abuja and marked the first attack on the capital in two years.

The militants, who say they are fighting to reinstate a medieval Islamic caliphate in northern Nigeria, repeated that bomb attack more than two weeks later in almost exactly the same spot, killing 19 people and wounding 34 in the suburb of Nyanya."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:06 PM

Funny how all those on one side of the divide go to mass and all those the other side to Presbyterian churches.

Fucking huge coincidence eh?

What about the posts about Muslims killing Muslims? Or is that different because they are ignorant savages and don't understand?

zzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: pdq
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:10 PM

Of the Top 21 violent conflicts now going on in the world, 20 are caused by Muslims.

Only the Sri Lanca problem is not. It incvolves the territorial takover of a soverein country (mostly Buddhist) by ethnic Indians (Hindu, so it is both ethnic and religious).


HERE THEY ARE:

1. Afghanistan Extreme radical Fundamentalist Muslim terrorist groups & non-Muslim Osama bin Laden heads a terrorist group called Al Quada (The Source) whose headquarters were in Afghanistan.

2. Bosnia Serbian Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic, Muslims

3. Cote d'Ivoire Muslims, Indigenous, Christians

4. Cyprus Christians & Muslims

5. East Timor Christians & Muslims

6. Indonesia, province of Ambon Christians & Muslims

7. Kashmir Hindus and Muslims

8. Kosovo Serbian Orthodox Christians, Muslims

9. Kurdistan Christians, Muslims Assaults on Christians (Protestant, Chaldean Catholic & Assyrian Orthodox). Bombing campaign underway.

10. Macedonia Macedonian Orthodox Christians & Muslims

11. Middle East Jews, Muslims, &Christians

12. Nigeria Christians, Animists, & Muslims

13. Pakistan Suni & Shi'ite Muslims

14. Philippines Christians & Muslims

15. Russia, Chechnya Russian Orthodox Christians, Muslims. The Russian army attacked the breakaway region. Muslims had allegedly blown up buildings in Moscow. Many atrocities have been alleged.

16. Serbia, province of Vojvodina Serbian Orthodox & Roman Catholics

17. Sri Lanka Buddhists & Hindus Tamils

19. Thailand: Pattani province: Buddists and Muslims

20. Bangladesh: Muslim-Hindu (Bengalis) and Buddists (Chakmas)

21. Tajikistan: intra-Islamic conflict

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 02:29 PM

The paramilitary killers do not attend any kind of church Musket.
The Muslims killing Muslims today are Shia killing Sunni because they are Sunni, and vice versa.

Here is the link to today's Guardian piece.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/05/boko-haram-claims-responsibility-kidnapping-nigeria-schoolgirls

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:08 PM

Didn't realize Procul Harum had relocated to Africa. Will they be releasing a new CD any time soon, FW?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:32 PM

The oldest ongoing holy war n the world
Jim Carroll

PENAL LAWS - REPEALED 1920
RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION IN THE UK
18TH AND 19TH CENTURY IRELAND
The division of Ireland
Throughout the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century more and more Irish groups began fighting for their independence. But the Protestants who lived in the northern part of the island wanted to stay with Great Britain.
in 1922 the island was divided. Six, mostly protestant, counties in the north stayed a part of the UK. The rest of the island , mostly Catholic, became the Irish Free State and an independent republic in 1949.
Up to 1972 Northern Ireland was allowed to rule itself . During this time the Catholics, who lived in the Protestant province had no easy life. They did not have the same rights and opportunities that the Protestants had. They were discriminated against in all aspects of life. They barely found jobs, got less money from the government and were often harassed by the police.
The Troubles
In the late 1960s riots broke out between Protestants and Catholics in Belfast and Londonderry. The violent decades that followed became known as "the Troubles".
At the beginning of the 1970s The British government sent soldiers to Northern Ireland to restore peace and decided to rule Northern Ireland directly from London.
Events escalated when 13 unarmed demonstrators were shot during a protest march in the streets of Londonderry on January 31, 1972. The incident became known as "Bloody Sunday".
Both religious groups started to build up paramilitary organizations. On the Catholic side the Irish Republican Army (IRA) carried out attacks on Protestants in the North. It wanted to force the British out of Northern Ireland and create a single Catholic state on the island. On the Protestant side the Ulster Defence Association and others terrorized the Catholic population living in Ulster.
In the 1980s the IRA started attacking the British in England. They planted bombs in London, kidnapped and killed high-ranking officials. Activists were arrested and thrown into prison. During the 80s some of them died during hunger strikes.
In the 1990s the British government started working on a peaceful solution to end the Troubles. In over 30 years of violence over 3,000 people were killed in the conflict.
The peace process
As time went on both sides realized that violence could not lead to a solution in the conflict. The British and Irish governments tried to get political and paramilitary sides to the conference table. In addition, the IRA promised to end all violent activities. Finally, talks ended in a historic agreement signed on Good Friday 1998.
NORTHERN IRELANDS HOLY WAR
1960S

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 May 14 - 03:34 PM

Keith, do you not fancy changing your name? Gender reassignment not required.

Keithy and Jim


:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 14 - 04:18 PM

The war in Ireland was about home rule not religion.
Sinn Fein is quite clear about that, and I will say no more about it.

Greg, that was so funny about 1500 people murdered since January and 200 schoolgirls dragged away to be raped and sold.
People take that kind of shit too seriously right?
Just human misery and despair.
Laugh it up!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 May 14 - 05:22 PM

Must say, Greg, with all moderation, that I think your levity (03.08 pm) was a little misplaced on this occasion.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 May 14 - 10:05 PM

Oh, and ~M~, see if you can get thru FW Keith's skull the number of innocent civiliand blown off the face of the earth by U.S. drone strikes, for a start.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:23 AM

Are you ****** mad - generation after generation of Ireish people fighting a nationalist cause/
The buzz word throughout all the Irish struggles was "freedom" - a major part of which was religious freedom.
Anti-Catholic Britain imposed the Protestant religion on Ireland from the time of Elizabeth I.
The religion was forced underground and was forbidden to be practiced under the threat of death and a price was put on a priest's head.
Fanatical Protestant armies destroyed churches and slaughtered parishioners and clergymen.
The Penal Laws prohibited Catholics from owning land and holding public office - they were stopped from teaching it and the native language.
Right into the 20th century, laws on property ownership were a major part of national oppression.
When the country was partitioned, religion became a barrier int taking part in the running of the northern counties - much of the disturbance there was religion based - the Penal Laws were not actually repealed until 1922.
Obtaining employment, running businesses and holding political office was a matter of what religion you were - the National struggle in Ireland was inextricably linked with religious freedom - all this was a cause of on-running violence and oppression in the North, long after the establishment the 26 County Republic.
The history of British laws in Ireland forbidding Catholics to buy land meant that they were the poorest section of the population
With the setting up of the partitioned North, the laws imposing a minimum property qualification meant it was largely the Protestants who could vote
1969 RIOTS
The Troubles that began in the 60s was a continuation of what had gone before and the oppression that was being resisted by the Civil Rights Movement was as much a religious as an economic one - when religion is used to facilitate oppression, that is inevitable
You talked about "every dog in the street" knowing..." ask anybody what the Irish problem is and they will say "Catholic versus Protestant".
The violently aggressive marches that are about to take place are religion based.
Even in my own experience as an apprentice in 1960s Liverpool, my employment on the docks during times when work was slack, depended on what religion I could claim to be - if the Catholic firms had work - I worked, if the opposite was the case, I didn't - right up to forty odd years ago.
In the North of Ireland and in Cities like Glasgow and Liverpool, that remained the case until even more recently.
When it comes to religious oppression - the Muslim religion are totally new kids on the block - Christianity has a track record of religious oppression that can not hope to surpass.
If you want to see religious fanaticism at its most extreme - take a look in the mirror.
You are now into your 'Islam is the only oppressor mode' and no other religion counts - sick-sick-sick.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 06 May 14 - 02:57 AM

Keith says paramilitaries don't go to church. Funny how on one side they went to mass in order to reflect their community and on the other they kept voting Rev Ian Paisley to fan flames.

No. Paramilitaries don't go to church Keith. Just normal people like you eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:59 AM

Oh, I see that Boko Haram has now been allowed a mention. Many Nigerians are I gather concerned that the funding it has, which enables it to have in many cases better weaponry than Nigerian government forces, could only come from Western sources with an interest in destabilising Nigeria - in order the more completely to control Nigerian oil and other resources. John Kerry is openly lusting after Nigerian resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 14 - 03:59 AM

Yes Musket.

Jim, the IRA was fighting for a united Ireland, not a war against Protestantism.

From "The History Of Sinn Fein and Irish Republicanism." on the SF site I linked to yesterday.

"We are dedicated to the reunification of our Country through political representation and through the election of our members by the people, and for the people of this Island regardless of race or creed.

Modern Irish Republicans trace their political origins to the movement of the United Irishmen (and women, lets be politically correct here as women fought in these battles too!)of the 1790's. The United Irishmen took their inspiration from the French Revolution and fought to break the political connection between Ireland and Britain, believing that only an independent Ireland could guarantee equality and prosperity for the Irish people.
Most leading figures of the United Irishmen were Presbyterians and a key part of their programme was unity between Irish people of all religions and none in the cause of liberty."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 May 14 - 05:37 AM

Fascinating reading how Keith feels religion has no bearing in Northern Ireland but blames a religion where Muslim people are in fights for land, power and influence.

Tell me, do you think that Christianity is above all that? Don't you think that Islam is exactly the same? Aren't both variants of imaginary friend a front to get ignorant peasants to do the fighting for those who gain from it?

Do you think Christians have some moral higher ground than Muslims?

Where do decent respectable rational people who don't believe in any of that nonsense fit in your ranking system?

True to fucking form.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 May 14 - 05:51 AM

"Jim, the IRA was fighting for a united Ireland, not a war against Protestantism."
Same thing
Protestantism enforced laws excluding Catholics from having any influence in Northern Ireland theirs was a holy war
It was no different in any way to what is now happening in Muslim countries, or in Israel, for that matter, those in charge are using religion to gain and hold office.
In both cases, it is power that is the driving force, not religion.
The Zealots, in both cases, may take their religion to extremes, but in the end, it is wealth and influence which is the driving force.
Your fanatical hatred of Muslims is beyond belief
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 06 May 14 - 05:58 AM

"I think that it was just convenient but not accurate to label the communities Catholic and Protestant."

Every city in Northern Ireland is divided into Catholic (i.e. Christian) areas, and protestant (i.e. Christian) areas. During the troubles, people died for just being in the wrong place, and youngsters were beaten up for falling for someone of the other faith.

Abuse was screamed at small children who had the misfortune to go to school by crossing the opposing side's territory. Orange parades had to be stopped by police action from being used to aggravate the Catholics by marching through their areas.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 14 - 06:24 AM

Richard, I have been referring to the situation in Nigeria throughout this thread, but despite the title certain people insisted on talking about drones and Ireland instead of "Islamic Radicalism"!

You are being very gullible to believe the propaganda that Boko Haram, like everything bad in the world, is the fault of the evil West.

Al Jazeera two weeks ago,
" The movement has established supply routes and funding sources. Caches of recovered Boko Haram weapons have been traced to Libya, and Ansaru, at least, has established links with AQIM and Al-Shabab. "
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/23/boko-haram-s-rootsinnigerialongpredatethealqaedaera.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 May 14 - 07:41 AM

Keith - I merely report what some Nigerian contacts say. And where are the helicopters coming from? Where the weaponry that is more modern and costly than that of the army? Can ALL that money be coming from bank robberies, blackmail, and nomads? It may not be impossible, but it is implausible.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 06 May 14 - 08:16 AM

The Ku Klux Klan are strongly Christian. So are most black people in the U.S.

Abortion clinic bombers are strongly Christian. So are many health care workers and patients.

People who kill gay people almost all self-identify as Christian. Many, many gay people are Christian.

The majority of religious attacks in the U.S. are Christians attacking Jews. Is that close enough to Christian on Christian? No Muslims there.

They all claim to be doing their terrorist acts in order to save or protect Christianity.

John P

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May we return to the subject now?

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

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

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

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

That pig ain't ever gonna sing.

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

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

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

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

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

YOUR FAVOURITE HISTORIAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunnis flock to Syria and Iraq to wage Jihad against Shia

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

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

And don't forget the crusades.

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

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

& reflect!

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

    -Bill Maher

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

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

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

from this article.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

zzzzzzz

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

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

〠~M~〠

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guardian yesterday.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Carroll

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

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

But here is the problem.

Many of kidnapped school girls are Christians.

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

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

Muslims must denounce Nigerian kidnap outrage

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


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

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

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

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

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

Well done.

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

I hope you have no mirrors in your house.

TC

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

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

And, yes ~~~

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

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

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

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






Fuck off.

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

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

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

( Here you go, with warm personal regards. )

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

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

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

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

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

Musket

No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 08 May 14 - 02:56 AM

This is why I put what I did. Keith has form.

What is the point of just slipping in quotes? Where is the exploration of why they exist?

In this case, it would appear to be to demonise Islam rather than point out how a religion is being used as a front yet again. Keith's insistence that religion plays no part when both sides are Christian yet does when Muslim is abfuckingsurd.

Anyway. If Bridge is reading this. Did you notice he called me Comrade Musket? Hope for me yet eh ?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 03:54 AM

Dave, that was not my point at all.
A BS forum on a folk site has zero significance outside the site, but I was referring to our site.

I posted a quote from an Islamic radical on a thread about Islamic radicalism.
Musket wanted discussion of it suppressed.

As I said, he used nasty, intimidating abuse.
Ordinary, decent people are dissuaded from participating by that.
I think the arrival of people like him and his methods are culpable for the decline in our forum.

I would be interested in your view on that.
I know that Musket is clever and funny, and I enjoy reading the banter between the two of you, but his vicious, bullying intimidation is a separate issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:15 AM

No Keith. I am not a bully.

If you had courage of your conviction, you would come out fighting, but what you type isn't debate. You stifle debate then accuse others of doing so. It's so bleeding obvious, only you can't see it.

You talk of suppression, then talk of my "arrival" in "our" website.

Two things to take into account. The last post you sent was the very first one, mine also. There is no previous and no long term membership badge. A first post by anyone is as valid as your umpteenth.

Now who's stifling debate?

You find friendly quotes on the internet and shout liar! at anyone who dismisses them.

Now who's stifling debate?

You call blatant homophobia by others "unfortunate" but seek to ridicule those who question it.

Now who's stifling debate?

You make comparisons of my seven years or so of posting with your own period in order to give credence to your arguments.

Now who's stifling debate?

You come out with the most outrageous comments that would silence a room through embarrassment and then complain when it is challenged.

Now who's stifling debate?

You call yourself decent.

Now who's taking the piss?







TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:42 AM

I'd like to test the assertion that (impliedly many) of the kidnapped schoolgirls are Xtian. AFAIK the school that was primarily raided is an Islamic school and the pupils there were observant and in Islamic dress.   This I have from some Nigerian friends one of whom went to university not far from the school.

What MAY come out of this, when Boko Haram attack more Yoruba, is a tribal war. The majority (not all, but, I am told, a majority) of Boko Haram are Fulani. Keith will have a handle on the colonial history but AFAIK the three main tribes at the colonial time were Yoruba, Ibo, and Hausa. When rule was handed over on decolonialisation the Hausa got most of the plum jobs and power. The Fulani got, I think, the shitty end of the stick. Hence, perhaps, their search for a pathway to power - but none of which explains the sources of their funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:43 AM

"Christ on a bloody bike. Indeed Steve - OK then care to take me to task on any of the factual content of my post? I won't hold my breath, as both you and I know that were to enter that arena I would rip you to bits.

Revisionism personified. ??

1: "We kill a hundred thousand Iraqi children in the 90s with our impoverishing sanctions and about ten times more innocent civilians with our illegal invasion in the noughties, yet it's Saddam who's the Nazi."

Couple of points here Steve, lets start with a question:
"Exactly how did we kill a hundred thousand Iraqi children in the 90s?"

You mentioned sanctions, but as we all know now, those sanctions were totally ineffectual and as ruler of the country didn't Saddam have some part to play in this? I mean that during this period of what you emotively refer to as an era or "impoverishing sanctions" while Saddam could not import medicines and food which were permitted he did manage to:
- import 384 rocket motors;
- build 34 Presidential Palaces (All lavishly appointed);
- start up and run a WMD programme for VX agent;
- illegally export oil to the tune of billions of US$ each year.

Don't know about you Stevie but if blame was the game I'd say that under such circumstances then the buck stops firmly with Saddam - not the big bad west.

So we killed "ten times more" than a hundred thousand in the "noughties" did we Steve - PROVE IT - Iraqi records put the total number at ~150,000 - i.e. those buried, those admitted to hospital for treatment, death certificates, etc, etc. If you want a good rundown on the unlikelihood of there ever having been anything close to one million Iraqi dead then visit IraqBodyCount.org they have an extremely good critique of the batch sample estimates that claimed such ridiculous figures (Why ridiculous? Here is an example of deaths from a concentrated bombing campaign - between 1939 and 1945 over 12,000 aircraft dropped 1.3 million tons of bombs on Germany and that managed to kill 635,000 people - yet "rational" Steve Shaw thinks that the US with only 385 aircraft in the space of six months killed over a million - ludicrous - it doesn't even withstand even the most basic critical scrutiny)

As far as who killed who in Iraq:
Total death toll = ~150,000
Killed nation-wide by US/MNF/Iraqi Security Forces = ~33,000
Killed nation-wide by AQII/Ba'athist insurgents/Sectarian Militias/Foreign Jihadists/Criminal Gangs = ~117,000
In Southern Iraq total death toll = 3,344
Killed by British Forces = 124
Killed by rival Shia sectarian militias and criminal gangs = 3,220

The Ba'athist Party in Iraq Steve was formed in 1947 as a pan-Arabist national socialist party - The party embraced nationalist, racist and a populist paramilitary culture similar to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party, the term Nazi is German and stems from "Nationalsozialist". If you are simply too thick to read the history and see the parallels then too bad.

2: "The same Saddam who had no WMDs, remember?"

If you believe that the invasion in 2003 had anything to do with Saddam Hussein HAVING WMD then you were successfully duped by MSM. Perhaps you should have read what the likes of UNSCOM, Blair and Bush actually said as opposed to what the papers said they said. Perhaps you should have read the 34 points detailed in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (Outlining the detail of the terms and conditions agreed at Safwan in March 1991 that Saddam Hussein refused to fully implement).


3: "Who exactly was it who told us all the lies, Teribus, old chum?"

WHAT LIES - OLD CHUM?? That Iraq MAY HAVE unaccounted for WMD? As stated by UNSCOM? As stated by Blair? As stated by George W. Bush. They BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD and Saddam himself admitted that he worked very hard and very deliberately to create precisely that impression - Hell even Dr. Hans Blix believed in the summer of 2004 while he was writing his book "Disarming Iraq" that Saddam had WMD

4: "We spend fourteen years in Afghanistan on the initial pretext of getting Al Qaeda out and succeed (as any bloody fool could have predicted) in driving them into bandit country just over the border in Pakistan, where they just wait for us to bugger off, which we will, before resuming control, and we call it "the war on terror".

Al-Qaeda and their Taleban hosts were driven out of Afghanistan back over the border into Pakistan (The birth place of both organisations) in 71 days in 2001.

Liked your rather fanciful take on the Taleban "resuming control" - Between November 1994 and October 2001 the Taleban backed to the hilt by Pakistan's Government, Army and Intelligence Services failed to defeat 35,000 men of the Northern Alliance. Since July 2013 the ANSF has been responsible for national security in Afghanistan, the Taleban to date have not beaten them once. Come January 2015 the Taleban will face a 354,000 strong ANSF made up of the same men they couldn't defeat between 1994 and 2001. Pakistan reliant on foreign aid and not wishing to upset the Chinese, or the Americans will do as they are told.

5: Rather than being "a demonising load of old bollocks" my post is based on extremely well documented fact, and while I am delighted to hear that you have "absolutely no time for Saddam, his ilk, the Taliban or for Al Qaeda" it would appear that you are fully prepared to stand on the sidelines wringing your hands and saying how terrible things are you are fully prepared to merely just let them carry on as normal. Fortunately, for the people of both Afghanistan and Iraq, neither the President of the United States of America or the Prime Minister of the UK were prepared to just stand by and watch. It seems that not only have you no time for the truth - you would appear not to be able to distinguish the truth if it jumped up and bit you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:12 AM

Musket, I have only reported lying when someone has unequivocally lied.
All the things you accuse me of are false.

Most ordinary, decent people would prefer not to be the subject of an attack on their character.
Most ordinary decent people do not like to be called "cunt" "bigot" "fuckwit" etc. and will tend to refrain from expressing opinions that may bring such abuse down on them.

Ordinary decent people would deal with expressed views they disapprove of by pointing out the flaws, not by vicious, intimidating verbal bullying of the other person.
That is what you and others have brought to our forum, and I believe it has a bearing on the dwindling number of contributors and threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:25 AM

Returning to the subject of the thread, Guardian today makes this report.
I post it because it provides up to date information on the impact of Islamic radicalism.
I hope that is permissible.

"The US president, Barack Obama, said the kidnappings and murders in Nigeria, as well as the war in Syria and other conflicts, showed man's "darkest impulses".

The latest insurgent attack in Nigeria targeted the town of Gamboru Ngala. Gunmen burned buildings and fired on civilians as they tried to flee. The Nigerian senator Ahmed Zanna put the death toll at 300, citing information provided by locals."

"A medical officer in the Cameroon army, which has reinforced security at the border, said it believed more than 200 were killed in town. "Some of the bodies were charred. It was horrific. People had their throats slit, others were shot," he said."

"Boko Haram is holding 276 girls after a raid on a school in Chibok on 15 April, and a further eight girls aged between eight and 15 taken in an overnight raid on a village on Monday, also in its stronghold in north-eastern Borno state."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/boko-haram-massacre-nigeria-gamboru-ngala

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:35 AM

I would be interested in your view on that.
I know that Musket is clever and funny, and I enjoy reading the banter between the two of you, but his vicious, bullying intimidation is a separate issue.

Thanks for asking. It is in your favour that you did ask rather than assume there is some sort of collusion between members as others do.

I don't find it intimidating. Abuse? Yes, but obvious and generic. Calling someone the type of names mentioned are the equivalent of A-Team violence. It looks like the real stuff but everyone gets up and walks away. I have been called all the same and worse and it has never put me off. Maybe it is me being thick skinned but it all washes over me or I give back as good as I get. The only time I felt there was real abuse towards me was when someone began to poke fun at a genuine aural disability my wife has. I trust the moderation team to know the difference between invective and real hurtful bullying.

I also think it is all getting rather silly. I know you have some good points to make, as does Jim, as does Musket, as does Steve. I have communicated with all of you both privately and publicly and know that you are all reasonable and reasoning people. I have argued against each one as well. I know I am not right on everything but I do hope that I have a balanced opinion on most things. In fact, I have got shouted at, not that that matters, for not coming down in favour of one of you on occasions. How about everyone just states their opinion, once, provides one counter argument for or against the opinions of others and then calls it a day? I have been as guilty as most of going on and on (and on and on and on). We all like the sounds of our own voices but let's give it a rest for a while, eh?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:42 AM

Dave, you and I may not feel intimidated, but I think others are.
The abuse serves no other purpose than to dissuade people from expressing their views, so why condone it and why not condemn it?

Richard, it was always clear that some of the abducted children were Muslims, and I do not believe anyone has claimed or implied otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:44 AM

"vicious, intimidating verbal bullying of the other person."
Harassing, misrepresenting, openly lying and fillibusting are equally examp;es of verbal bullying.
I have no doubt that you are now going to indulge in one of these to tell use you have never been guilty of any of them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:50 AM

I got as far as unequivocally lied. You called a liar on many occasions and I wasn't lying, so not much point in reading any further.

If I called you a fuckwit, I apologise. I normally reserve that as a term of endearment, and I wished to insult you. As your method of debate only ever either entrenches your weird view of the world or rearranges your prejudices, insults are the only tool left in the box. Reason certainly doesn't work, as I unfortunately found out the first time you waded in on a discussion I was part of.



Dave. I enjoy shouting. That much is obvious. I will shout till early c20 views no longer form c21 society. Glad you agree it is abuse. I prefer counter abuse if I'm to get picky, and it isn't me, as you probably know from our own correspondence, but self satisfied idiots who think the world should fit in their petty sectarian pockets are going to bring me out shouting.

Each and every time.

By the way Keith. Keep up. It isn't Comrade Musket, it's dirty rotten stinking capitalist Musket. See Al & Bridge for details.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:53 AM

Sorry - that should have been directed at Dave and referred to Keith's behaviour on this forum.
I did not mention his constant attempts to manipulate discussion with constant claims of "thread drift" and attempts to invalidate the arguments of others because we don't live in Britain or haven't been members for long enough.
More lies eh?
When it comes to "verbal bullying" he is in 'world class', only his the Uriah Heep kind rather than the bluster that Musket indulges in
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:03 AM

so why condone it and why not condemn it?

Not condemning it is not the same as condoning it. I have done neither as it is not an issue for me. Other people can fight their own battles.

Jim, I am confused. You said

Harassing, misrepresenting, openly lying and fillibusting are equally examp;es of verbal bullying.
I have no doubt that you are now going to indulge in one of these to tell use you have never been guilty of any of them.

Followed by

Sorry - that should have been directed at Dave and referred to Keith's behaviour on this forum.

If it was directed at me are you saying that I am guilty of these things?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:11 AM

It is not an issue for me either Dave, but I will condemn it.
It is unpleasant, unnecessary and is likely to discourage participation and debate.

Musket, I called you a liar when you claimed to have heard on BBC of Christians in Nigeria attacking a Muslim school, killing children and feeding them to pigs.
Neither BBC nor any other agency has any such story reported, so you made it up.
Also, when you claimed to have downloaded a quote that Google could only find in your post, and you claimed it came from an organisation that does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:19 AM

It is unpleasant, unnecessary and is likely to discourage participation and debate.

Unpleasant? Personal opinion.
Unnecessary? Probably, but so is Morris Dancing.
Likely to discourage participation? Has anyone who really wants to join the debate been discouraged? I don't think so.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:21 AM

"Likely to discourage participation? Has anyone who really wants to join the debate been discouraged? I don't think so."
Personal opinion.
The forum is dying.
Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:25 AM

That the use of obscene swear words is offensive is an opinion but a very widely held one.
I doubt the Mudcat people are different in that respect.
Many do not want to be Mudcat people anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:44 AM

Keith, but you seem to believe that Mudcat is 'dying' because of Musket's bad language? Well, sorry, but I do not think that is a widely held opinion. Do you not think that the constant outages, the slow responses and alternatives such as Facebook have more to do with it? If it is in fact 'dying' it is a very slow death and has little to do with what goes on below the line.

That the use of obscene swear words is offensive is an opinion but a very widely held one.

Far from the truth in many areas. Ever visited Glasgow? Or Dublin? Or Salford?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:56 AM

The forum isn't dying, just your influence without question.

And that by the way is a healthy thing.

As I said, I have never lied. I sent a link to an archived intranet site once by mistake and you have thrown it in my face ever since. If ever I need to question whether I am being over harsh, that brings me back to reality.

Funny how my car radio is BBC, either 2 or 4. Presumably World at One like telling tales.

Funny how your "widely held" excuse, usually concerning swearing or opposition to gay marriage and other religious nonsense is rarely shared on this dying website.

Fuck shit bollocks arsehole vicar bum cunt

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:56 AM

That was not what I asked, Keith. I think we know that many or most or maybe all of the kidnapped girls are Muslim. I wanted to test the apparent assertion that a significant number were Xtian. AFAIK only some of the last 8 might have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:58 AM

"If it was directed at me are you saying that I am guilty of these things?"
No Dave - I am not, and once again I owe you an apology - I came into this half cocked - still not good at multi-tasking.
My remarks were addressed to Keith's behaviour here - I misread your contribution.
Keith's last-man-standing behaviour had killed thread after thread - he is legendary for it.
He has been reported for the way he behaves and for a small instant, he actually manged to control it - now - like Arnie - he's back with a vengeance.
As for discouraging participation - I wouldn't like to be a Muslim in his presence - as an Anglo-Irishman, I have had a slight glimmer of how it must feel.
If he is right in his belief that this forum is dying - he is largely the cause of it; perhaps he might consider sending flowers to the funeral and ******* off to let us to mourn our dead.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:07 AM

No problem, Jim - As long as I know :-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:09 AM

Dave, if something is both unnecessary and offensive, it is not worth preserving.
If you look at recent threads about Mudcat, you will see that many people are repelled by the more abusive nature of posting in recent times.

Musket, I have never had any "influence" and have always represented a minority viewpoint here.
I just enjoy the debate, but people like you are spoiling it for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:12 AM

Dave, if something is both unnecessary and offensive, it is not worth preserving.

Are we back on the Britannia 'nutters debate?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:13 AM

Richard.
"The Christian Association of Nigeria published a list on Sunday of 180 Christian girls – about two-thirds of the total 276 – among the missing."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/boko-haram-massacre-nigeria-gamboru-ngala

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:47 AM

Some background on Boko Haram from the NY Times:

Explaining Boko Haram, Nigeria's Islamist Insurgency

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

BTW Musket, I never called you a liar over the intranet link.
It was the made up quote supposedly downloaded from the site of The British Council of Mosques.
It does not exist so you could not have given a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:21 AM

And then he wonders...

Then he asks people to look upon him all sweet innocent and hurt.

Aw. Poor little bugger.

By the way, I didn't say you have influence. Clapton forbid that anyone other than your pet worm and Michael on his less coherent days takes you seriously.

Read what I type.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:49 AM

I am not hurt in the least.
Naughty names!

I object to the debates being spoiled.
Instead of challenging someone's view, you call them naughty names and pretend they have said things they have not.
It ruins it.
It turns people off.
If you are incapable of saying why you disagree, go away and think until you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:52 PM

Abduction of Girls an Act Not Even Al Qaeda Can Condone

By ADAM NOSSITER and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKMAY 7, 2014

ABUJA, Nigeria — As word spread like wildfire on Twitter and Facebook that Nigerian militants were preparing to auction off more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls in the name of Islam, a very different Internet network started quietly buzzing too.

"Such news is spread to taint the image of the Mujahedeen," wrote one dubious poster on a web forum used by Islamic militants whose administrator uses a picture of Osama bin Laden.

Boko Haram, the cultlike Nigerian group that carried out the kidnappings, was rejected long ago by mainstream Muslim scholars and Islamist parties around the world for its seemingly senseless cruelty and capricious violence against civilians. But this week its stunning abduction appeared too much even for fellow militants normally eager to condone terrorist acts against the West and its allies.

"The violence most of the African rebel groups practice makes Al Qaeda look like a bunch of schoolgirls," said Bronwyn Bruton, an Africa scholar at the Atlantic Council in Washington. "And Al Qaeda at this point is a brand — and pretty much only a brand — so you have to ask yourself how they are going to deal with the people who are doing things so hideous even the leaders of Al Qaeda are unwilling to condone them."

Boko Haram is in many ways an awkward ally for any of them. Its violence is broader and more casual than Al Qaeda or other jihadist groups. Indeed, its reputation for the mass murder of innocent civilians is strikingly inconsistent with a current push by Al Qaeda's leaders to avoid such deaths for fear of alienating potential supporters.


Whole article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:50 PM

Yes Greg, they are currently the most extreme group, which is why they are being given most attention.
Why are other groups less extreme?
"a current push by Al Qaeda's leaders to avoid such deaths for fear of alienating potential supporters. That was the subject of the dispute that led to Al Qaeda's recent break with its former affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria."

What does that say about ISIS?

On this site, Israel tends to get more attention than much LESS extreme states.
Curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 14 - 08:16 PM

Well, Teribus, owld lad, nice to see you putting in all that effort, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that you are anything other than a typical western revisionist ultra-right wing imperialist. Possibly with a bit of Christian evangelist thrown in for all I know. There are millions just like you in the US who have been similarly duped (hey, I don't even know whether that's where you live). I suppose you think men didn't land on the moon either. Not for one minute am I suggesting that Saddam was anything other than an evil, despotic bastard, and it saddens me that I have to keep on reprising that with eejits like you (who couldn't rip a bloody teddy bear to pieces, by the way, you insolent git). So Al-Qaeda killed 3000 in one attack, but we managed to kill "only" 150,000. Wow, that's all right then! And a hundred thousand Iraqi kids died in the 90s, all down to him, when we put the screws on, yet that didn't happen in the 80s when he was our big mate. Yeah, right! Nothing like a bad conscience, eh! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: LadyJean
Date: 08 May 14 - 11:23 PM

I knew a group of Iranian students in college. They were the nicest bunch of people! They were Muslims, but the girls dressed like everyone else, except that they favored bright colors. They didn't drink, but they could still party! I wonder what they're doing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 14 - 03:04 AM

LadyJean - I too knew a group of Iranian students in college. They too were the nicest bunch of people! They too were Muslims, but I don't have to wonder what they are doing now - They were all imprisoned and killed by Khomeni and his Revolutionary Guards.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 14 - 09:47 AM

Actually, most of the Iranians I knew at uni and later at the College of Law were blokes, and the MOST determined coxemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 07:23 PM

Boko Haram and the Kidnapped Schoolgirls
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
May 8, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET

"How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as "Islamophobes" than to stand up for women's most basic rights? Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers?

I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women's most basic rights. Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their midst who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war.

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it."

The Wall Street Journal

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:10 PM

Whilst I similarly lament the absence of a central condemnation by Islam of what's going on in Nigeria (I suppose Islam has no Pope, but even having a Pope doesn't seem to help Catholicism to condemn in much of a hurry the rape of thousands of children or the removal of hundreds of Italian Jews to death camps), I demur strongly at your use of the word "jihad". Yes, I was very nasty there to Catholics, most of whom would want nothing to do with the disgusting activities of a minority of their clergy. Similarly, the vast majority of Muslims would want nothing to do with the actions of those thugs in Nigeria. So let's be reasonable and let's stop tarring anti-Islamic actions with an Islam brush. Raping children has nothing to do with mainstream Catholicism. I may be an atheist but I'm fair-minded enough to admit to that. In the same way, abducting little girls has nothing to do with mainstream Islam. So cut the "jihad" crap, right?   
.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:20 PM

"So cut the "jihad" crap, right?"

Tell that to the jihadis.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:26 PM

Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more

You betcha, BooBad! Just so soon as peace-loving "Christians"[sic] resist, denounce and abjure the proselytizing and antics of the fundagelical"Christians"[sic] by way of an example.

These same "Christians"[sic] might also oppose the ongoing U.S. drone assassinations of civilians and the state of perpetual "pre-emptive"[sic] war the U.S. is engaged in.

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril.

Now that's just the type of overblown, hysterical anti-Muslim bullshit we've come to expect from you, Boo.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is also a Fox News[sic] professional bloviator and lunatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:33 PM

But MOMMY the Christians do bad things too so we shouldn't criticize the Islamists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:33 PM

So let's be reasonable and let's stop tarring anti-Islamic actions with an Islam brush

BooBoo? Reasonable? That's a joke, right, Steve? Please tell me yiu meant it as a joke.......

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:39 PM

I said nothing about "Islamists" (whatever definition you are applying to that term today) BooBoo. Nor did I say anything about not criticising Boko Haram or defending them. Nor did I engage in the standard toddler defense you use to excuse Israel.

Do try to keep up, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 09:04 PM

"Here is a paragraph from chapter four of the Qur'an, as translated by the most formidable Islamist scholar of the 20th century, Syed Maududi:

"And forbidden to you are the wedded wives of other people, except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war): This is the Law of Allah." In his explanation, Maududi goes to great lengths to justify and explain the rightfulness of such rape of non-Muslim POWs.

There are references in the Hadith (sayings of Prophet Mohammed) where sex with enslaved non-Muslim women POWs is discussed in detail.

We Muslims have a choice.

We either develop the maturity to say, such Islamic injunctions do not apply anymore, or we can keep on driving fast-forward in reverse gear, and every time we hit an obstacle that appears in our blind spot, we can blame it on "Islamophobia".

Tarek Fatah: Muslims must denounce Nigerian kidnap outrage

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:35 AM

Greg, your link referred to ISIS as a group that did not disown the violence of Boko.
They are Jihadists, many from this country. Two British members were killed in Syria just this week.

Many are now deploring the delay in reacting to the kidnapping.
Boko have killed tens of thousands in recent years with no reaction at all outside Nigeria.
Just a few months ago they attacked a boys school and just killed all the boys.

I reported it on the Christian Persecution thread, the premise of which is that Christians are being persecuted to extinction in many places and no-one cares.
No-one seemed to care about that.

Greg, has any other religion spawned an international movement equivalent to Islamism, whose goal is the destruction of democracy and the imposition by force of Islamic rule and Sharia Law?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:39 AM

BBC February
"At least 29 students have been killed after suspected Boko Haram militants attacked a boarding school in north-east Nigeria.

The BBC's Will Ross in Lagos says the remote school in Yobe state was attacked overnight when students were in their dormitories.

All the victims were teenage boys and 11 others were seriously injured. Most of the school was burned to the ground.

Islamist militants have attacked dozens of schools in north-east Nigeria.

Last September, 40 students were killed at an agricultural college during another night-time raid.

Teachers at the school in Buni Yadi said the gunmen gathered the female students together before telling them to go away and get married and to abandon their education."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26338041

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:04 AM

Any evidence of a link between lads from here going to fight in Syria and the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria?

Your whitewash brush of "Jihad" is rather appalling Keith.

My great uncle joined the international brigade and fought in Spain, his passage paid by a church group. Does that make him related to making homosexuality a crime in Uganda?

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:16 AM

Yes Musket.
The link is they are both Islamist groups whose members describe themselves as Jihadists.

Tell us again that story you made up about Christians attacking a school and feeding Muslim children to pigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:17 AM

You said it happened in Nigeria.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:27 AM

Independent Yesterday
"Boko Haram is a militant Islamist group based in the northeast of Nigeria, north Cameroon and Niger.

The group's official name is Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, which in Arabic translates as: "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad"."

International Business Times. February.
"Syria: ISIS Jihadis Strangle Girl to Death for Breaking Sharia [GRAPHIC IMAGES]"http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-isis-jihadis-publically-strangle-girl-death-not-conforming-sharia-islam-graphic-images-1436502

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:53 AM

Look, all religions are evil, and Boko Haram and ISIS are cunts - but these "Islamists" are as much the enemy of less extreme Muslims as they are of the rest of the world. The conflation of this sort of Islamism with Islam in general makes dealing with this sort of Islamism much harder. Having said that it does seem to me that there is a lot wrong with Sharia law - as far as I know what it is - in general (some bits are good, like the attitude to interest) and in the way that even moderate Islam treats women as second-class. But one cannot begin to hope that moderate Islam will come to fit more comfortably with the world if one merely assumes that Boko Haram illuminates moderate Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:58 AM

these "Islamists" are as much the enemy of less extreme Muslims as they are of the rest of the world.
I agree, and also note that Jihadists in Syria and Iraq are fighting a purely inter-Muslim holy war.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 06:57 AM

When are these morons going to come to terms with the fact that in the mann, these are not religious conflicts, but disputes over territory and political power, and atrocities are not confined to one side - all wars take place with claims of "God on our side"
"Many of the attacks by the anti-balaka involved shocking brutality: a Muslim nomadic cattle herder told Human Rights Watch she was forced to watch as anti-balaka fighters cut the throats of her three-year-old son, two boys, ages 10 and 14, and an adult relative – all the Muslim males in the cattle camp. A man tearfully described escaping from anti-balaka attackers, only to watch in horror from a hiding place as they proceeded to cut the throats of his two wives, his 10 children and a grandchild, as well as other Muslims they had captured.
A Muslim woman told Human Rights Watch that she was outside cooking at 5 a.m. when the anti-balaka came and attacked their home: "They began to cut my husband with their machetes on his side and his back, and cut his throat. After they killed him, they set our house on fire, and threw his body on the fire, together with my son's. They ordered my 13-year-old boy to come outside and lie down, and then cut him two times with a machete and killed him."
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

38,000 Muslim civilians were slaughtered by Christians in former Yugoslavia.
These are wars for territory and influence - religion is a flag some of them fly under, and, as in all wars, they are as bad as one another.
Syria is a disgusting example of what happens when nothing is done by the "civilised" nations (sic) - it was a war against Assad's atrocities (backed by UK and American support) and remains exactly the same - those now opposing Assad making up for Western inaction.
It is not surprising that Britain voted against intervention against their old ally and trading partner.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:11 AM

Parliament outvoted the government, even though all 3 parties were in favour of intervention, as were both US parties.
Only UKIP and the Tea Party and all Mudcat apart from us two were against.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:05 AM

Jim, about your two examples of Christians persecuting Muslims.

Bosnia. The British Army defended the Muslims and brought peace.
Small cheer?

CAR.
After years of peaceful co-existence, Muslims seized power and began massacring Christians. What you report is the backlash which can not be defended but it was those massacres that caused the hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:17 AM

Funny way to say sorry keith...

After all, the feeding of bodies to pigs would, if it were Muslims doing it to Christians rather than the other way around, something you would be shouting from the rooftops...

Just because an account from an aid worker doesn't make The Daily M*ail doesn't mean you can breathe a sigh of relief for your precious church...

Perhaps when you stop calling me a liar for noting the account, (the truth of which I never put forward one way or another, I leave calling stories "truth" to you and your prejudices) you might get a more measured response than TC.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:19 AM

"Parliament outvoted the government"
That's what I said - Britain refused to intervene.
Those opposing Assad at the present time, whatever we might think of their religion and politics, are in fact freedom fighters, ad it is a characteristic of ultra-rights like yourself to pass off freedom fighting as terrorism - its as old as Hereward the Wake.
Putting a war against a serial torturer and mass-murderer just about confirms your 'ultra-rightness'.
"all Mudcat apart from us two were against."
You persist in this lie - giving me the opportunity once more to point out that you, despite all your Uriah Heep hand-wringing for the murdered of Homs, not only opposed intervention ("we can't ber expected to fight everybody's wars" or some such garbage) , but you actually expressed support for Assad by apporoving of Britain having supplied armoured cars, tear gas, water cannon, sniper rifle bullets (which you mistook for rifles, but still condoned them) and other anti-personnel equipment - the last time we argued about it, that remained your position.
You topped that by defending the sale of chemicals which quite likely added to the chemical weapons he used on Syrian civilians.
Like it or not, you really fell out of the closet as a pro-Assadite on that occasion.
Back to the main point - Christians are just as capable of slaughtering those of other religions when it suits them; sometimes it has been actually about religion - on this occasion it is about political of disputed territories.
I used to have the old newspaper cutting reporting the Pope blessing the bombs being sent to kill the people of Abyssinia.
Funny old thing, religion!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:45 AM

Musket, You claimed to have heard BBC report Christians attacking a Muslim school in Nigeria, killing the children and feeding them to pigs.
There is no trace of such a story on BBC or any other news site, and no-one else has heard of any such atrocity because you made it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:51 AM

Jim, unlike you I did not think it sensible for Western troops to intervene in another Arab land.
Obama's proposed limited strikes over chemical weapons were only supported here by we two.
Britain's 3 parties, US 2 parties and Holland's party in France were with us, UKIP and the Teas with Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:57 AM

"Jim, unlike you I did not think it sensible for Western troops to intervene in another Arab land."
So that's why you proposed ssad be sold equipment to kill and suppress the Syrian people?
Please don't attempt to associate your open appeasement of human rights abuses to my opposition to it again.
Whatever I might be, you are a rightist turd.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:04 AM

BBC today.
"Mrs Obama, who was speaking ahead of Mother's Day in the US on Sunday, said the girls reminded her and her husband of their own daughters.

"What happened in Nigeria was not an isolated incident. It's a story we see every day as girls around the world risk their lives to pursue their ambitions," she said.

She cited the Pakistani schoolgirl and campaigner Malala Yousafzai, who was shot and wounded by the Taliban for speaking out for girls' education. "

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:39 AM

Describing the situation in Nigeria as a holy war is totally dishonest.
The present problems date back to it being granted Independence in 1960, exacerbated by the end of the Cold War - it is a dispute for territory and political control - not an Islamic holy war, as our resident Islamophobes claim.
Not to say that Islamists aren't involved or aren't committing atrocities - but it has nothing to do with being a Muslim.
Why do you turdules - especially those maggots who describe themselves 'Christian' but represent paganism at its worst, turn a human tragedy into an attack on someone else's religion?
Jim Carroll
Culturally, Nigeria is a multitribal system in which every tribe wants to excel or suppress the other, so they are not on the same level playgrounds. Every person in politics is regionalized and people are capitalizing on that. Once leadership is zoned in the country, one cannot expect to get the best, but Nigerians are trying to live with what they presently have. There are more than 300 different tribal groups in Nigeria, all of which belong to the political definition "Nigerian" but are distinct from one another in terms of cultural practices. Added to this are economic disparities among the various groups, as well as potential for conflict on religious grounds, especially between the long-established Muslim population and the rapidly growing Christian sector.
THE PRESENT NIGERIAN CONFLICT

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:52 AM

Boko Haram say they are fighting a Holy War.
Wall St. Journal 2 days ago.
But little attention has been paid to the group's(Boko Haram's) formal Arabic name: Jam'at Ahl as-Sunnah lid-da'wa wal-Jihad. That roughly translates as "The Fellowship of the People of the Tradition for Preaching and Holy War." That's a lot less catchy than Boko Haram but significantly more revealing about the group and its mission. Far from being an aberration among Islamist terror groups, as some observers suggest, Boko Haram in its goals and methods is in fact all too representative.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579549603782621352

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:05 PM

From the Richard Dawkins Foundation:Innovating for a Secular World

"Ayaan [Hirsi Ali] is a fellow with the Future of Diplomacy Project at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School. She is also a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, currently researching the relationship between the West and Islam. Her willingness to speak out for the rights of women, along with her abandonment of the Muslim faith, continue to make her a target for violence by Islamic extremists. She lives with round-the-clock security.

A few weeks ago, Ayaan and I had a long conversation about her critics and about the increasingly pernicious meme of "Islamophobia"—which our inimitable friend Christopher Hitchens once dubbed "a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:43 PM

"Boko Haram say they are fighting a Holy War."
Maybe - but this is a tiny and extremist part of a larger picture
You have consistently presented these conflicts as Holy Wars - they are not.
Muslims have been fighting in Syria in opposition to the Assad regime's despotism - thyey are prominent in doing so because the rest of the world couldn't give a toss.
The Muslims in Syria are freedom fighters, but your sick manipulation has made what is happening there a "Holy War".
Once again, you are leeching off the deaths of innocents to feed your bigotry.
The same with Nigeria - a conflict between disputing tribes which has been going on since at least 1960 - not a holy war, but a fight for political and territorial influence - nothing to do with religion.
By your sick logic, the war in Afghanistan is a Holy War between Muslims and Christians.
Is this the way your particular religion has brought you up to behave as a Christian?
I don't know any Christians whose religion resembles your twisted bigotry.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:54 PM

The word, according to the Anglicans - but maybe they aren't your type of 'Christian.
Jim Carroll.
"According to a report by a high level Christian-Muslim taskforce comprising the World Council of Churches (WCC) and the Royal Jordanian Aal Al Bayt Institute (RABIIT), while the violence between Christians and Muslims in Nigeria is the worst between members of the two faiths since the Bosnian war of 1992-1995, the sectarian conflict is driven by poverty, inequality and injustice."
BEYOND RELIGIOUS TENSIONS

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

"UNICEF condemns the decision to allow the public flogging of 17-year-old Bariya Ibrahim Magazu in the northern Nigerian State of Zamfara on Friday, as punishment for becoming pregnant outside of marriage.
Bariya, who cannot read or write, was apparently not aware of her right to appeal her sentence and was not provided with adequate legal counsel. Her case has provoked a torrent of criticism from within Nigeria and around the world - not only because the girl testified that her pregnancy resulted from rape, but because of the fundamental violation of human rights that flogging represents. Bariya was lashed with a cane 100 times on Friday." Unicef Press Release 2010
.,,.,
Oh yes, of course, Jim. Nothing but tribal conflict tore that poor girl's buttocks to shreds. Nothing whatever, of course, to do with this occurring in the Islamic part Of N Nigeria where Sharia Law applies.

God, but you can be an obstinate hidebound know-it-all holier-than-thou fool when the fit comes on you...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:19 PM

I doubt an interview with an aid worker becomes BBC editorial, but who am I to tell .

After all, according to Keith, I tell lies. So.. Where do we start.. Still got that court order out on you Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:24 PM

"Oh yes, of course, Jim. Nothing but tribal conflict tore that poor girl's buttocks to shreds. "
As I said - and as you choose to ignore, there are extremists involved in all these conflicts - you are getting as good as Keith with your crocodile tears wept for beaten Children on the one hand, while ignoring the killing of three-year olds by Christians.
They are ugly, vicious wars carried out by thugs - of all denominations.
Good job it wasn't British soldier hacked to death by a Muslim nutter or we'd have needed Noah to pull us out of the deluge.
My poit is that whatever they might be, they are not Holy Wars, as your little volcano-squatting cabal would have them to be.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:25 PM

along with her abandonment of the Muslim faith

Gee, Boo- ya think that may be one of the reasons she's a Fox News Nutcase & says the extreme, hysterical, nonsensical things she does??

Like many a "former _______________" (drinker, smoker, Scientologist, whatever) she's simply intoleranty of anyopne who hasn't "seen the light".

Your knowledge of human nature is sorely lacking.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:37 PM

But it wasn't 'extremism', for crying out loud, Jim; it was the action of the legal, democratically elected government, working within the teachings and precepts of the professed and established state religion. Isn't that just the sort of point you can never get into your hidebound ☠!

Oh, what's the use!...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:52 PM


I doubt an interview with an aid worker becomes BBC editorial, but who am I to tell .
Such a story most certainly would.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:05 PM

"Your knowledge of human nature is sorely lacking."

Gee Greg I wonder who should I think would have more credibility when it comes to knowledge of matters Islam - someone who was once an adherent of the faith, renounced it and is now a fierce opponent of it where it comes to matters of women's rights and some of it's more violent aspects as practiced by Muslim extremists or some folk music enthusiast on an internet folk music forum......hmm, that's a tough one, let me give it some thought......NOT!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:10 PM

"But it wasn't 'extremism', "
I seem to remember six million reasons why not to trust "legally elected governments"
As for them working within the precepts of "the professed and established state religion" all religion is open to misinterpretation and misuse - does't make them Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or anyting - just extremism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:24 PM

For the record Boko Harem came into existence in 2002 - Islam is how old exactly?
I hav no problem in describing this mob as extremist nutters - you ant your team are targetting Muslims.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:37 PM

"But it wasn't 'extremism', "
I seem to remember six million reasons why not to trust "legally elected governments" ...
.,,.
Well done, Jim: it was you who obeyed Godwin's Law and made this inevitable comparison... But 'extremism', however defined, carries an overtone of small fringe splinter groups. Totalitarianism in government is another thing entirely.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 May 14 - 12:59 PM

Gee Greg I wonder who should I think would have more credibility

You missed the point entirely, Boo, or, more likely, you're simply ignoring it. Try re-reading 10 May 14 - 01:25 PM

when it comes to knowledge of matters Islam

We're not discussing "matters Islam", Boo - we're discussing extremists.
Not that would stop you tarring all Muslims with your usual Islamaphobic brush.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:16 PM

"Well done, Jim: it was you who obeyed Godwin's Law and made this inevitable comparison.."
Ad it's you who consistently refuses to see the comparisons Mike
Blame the Muslims - blame the Jews - it's all the same foetid bigotry as far as I'm concerned, and in both cases, it kills people.
The difference appears to be that you choose to choose a 'special case' for one while indulging in bigotry against the other.
You appear to be able to live with that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:25 PM

Nice eh?

A recent episode of the Hamas-affiliated television program Pioneers of Tomorrow featured a disturbing combination of talking bee mascot and a discussion of shooting Jews — all of them.

Hamas TV for kids: Let's shoot all the Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:46 PM

Hey, Boo! Let's shoot all the Muslims, instead. Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 14 - 02:56 PM

Be all that as it may, Jim: I still maintain that the use of the term 'extremist' of the actions and policies & established forensic systems of a legally constituted government, internationally recognised as such, is an emotive and tendentious dislocation of the language. And would urge you to recollect the steps thought necessary to moderate the activities of the one you cited in reply last time I made this point. And then appreciate how ill-considered comparisons & analogies are liable to turn around and bite you on the bum. Or do you really think similar reactions would be appropriate to curb the activities of the adultress-stoners and rape-victim caners? Or if not, then what is your point precisely?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 12 May 14 - 09:22 AM

"Not that would stop you tarring all Muslims with your usual Islamaphobic brush."

Islamophobia - "a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 14 - 09:23 AM

Previous GUEST post was me.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 14 - 09:42 AM

to manipulate morons

Well, Boo, seems to have manipulated YOU alright.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 09:45 AM

"is an emotive and tendentious dislocation of the language"
You appear to be attempting to censor the way I put forward my point of view
I'm not being abusive - I don't believe I am being offensive - I am merely making comparisons I believe to be valid.
I find it offensive that anybody should undermine an entire ethic or cultural group by lumping them in with the extremists
I find it offensive that you, and others refuse to respond to questions of what you feel should happen to these people who make you uncomfortable.
I have yet to ask you not to express the opinions you have, nor would I dream of doing so
Comparisons with Nazism have come from within Israel, as have the use of the term, "Apartheid State".
You put down my objection to Keith's "cultural implant" accusation as "a misunderstanding on my part" - it seems you are happy to defend extreme language if it fortifies your own opinions.
You have persistently sneered at my concern for racism and my efforts to have it toned down on this forum and you have shown yourself quite capable of abuse in response to things you don't agree with.
Perhaps when you begin to show some awareness of the effects irrational xenophobia such as yours has on the lives of people who, in the main, appear to be peaceable and law-abiding, maybe you might have some claim of consideration for your own sensitivities.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 14 - 09:58 AM

"Well, Boo, seems to have manipulated YOU alright."

Yeah right Greg - you're the one throwing the word around....doh!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:05 AM

Does anyone condone that Hamas TV clip?
Is it ever right to brainwash kids with such hatred?
Is it not a crime against the children targeted?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:18 AM

This is what passes for entertainment on Gaza's state run TV channel. I can only imagine the reaction if the tables were turned and Israel's state TV were to promote such treatment of Palestinians to young children.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:23 PM

Can't engage well with all this. Largely because I can seldom get into Mudcat at all at the times I'm free to try. However, this from Jim is, to me, the only honest way to see these things:

When are these morons going to come to terms with the fact that in the main, these are not religious conflicts, but disputes over territory and political power, and atrocities are not confined to one side - all wars take place with claims of "God on our side"

Nobody ever fought a war for God. Wars are never about something as trivial as that. It behoves us all to cast aside our favourite theories and tendentious notions and look for the real reasons wars are waged. Jim nails it here. The people who kidnapped those poor girls may well be hiding under some assumed, perverted definition of Islam, but they are, most decidedly, not Islamists. Nothing in Islam permits or would condone the atrocity they are committing. They are thugs, and let's not glorify them by calling them something else, especially when to do so would suit rather well our own political or religious predilections.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:41 PM

Aye, brainwashing kids. Good job kids aren't allowed in churches till they are adults and can decide for themselves whether to feel guilty for being themselves. We don't allow brainwashing here do we? We don't have an Education Secretary allowing cults to set up schools and teach nonsense alongside science.

zzzzzzz

I notice on the news a right wing skinhead is standing outside mosques in Bradford shouting at people going in and trying to force bibles into their hands.

A bit of a bugger this Islamic radicalism. Not like decent normal Christians eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 14 - 06:51 PM

"Hey, Boo! Let's shoot all the Muslims, instead. Right?"

In view of all the stupid posts that have appeared on Mudcat I would have to say that this one is right up there with the stupidest - congratulations Greg - you're the champ!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 14 - 07:11 PM

In view of all the stupid posts that have appeared on Mudcat I would have to say that this one is right up there with the stupidest - congratulations Greg - you're the champ! M

Sorry, Boo- can't acept the honor, since it was in response to YOUR post "lets shoot all the Jews".

Or have you forgotten that one already, Champ?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 May 14 - 08:03 PM

Sublimely nice post, Musket. Now will you please agree with me that it was a complete arse that a Liverpool team containing six English blokes plus one Welsh bloke were pipped by a petrochemical team containing one English player (the bloody goalie fer chrissake) which has been bought with 640 million quid...?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 May 14 - 08:37 PM

So Greg did my post of an example of Islamist hate against Jews, on a thread entitled "Islamic radicalism", offend your delicate sensibilities because you are in denial of the issue or is it because you are unable to understand the distinction between Islam and Islamism? Or is it because the target of the hate is Jews? In any case I will be posting many more examples of Islamic radicalism so if you don't want your delicate sensibilities offended I am giving you fair warning. In the meantime chew on this from my Muslim friend, Tarek Fatah:

This is Hawa Abdo This is her new name. We don't know her original name because her enslavers have forcible converted her to Islam and given her a new name.

She is just one of the nearly 300 Christian girls abducted and then enslaved as sex slaves for the jihadi goons of Boko Haram in Nigeria.

Next time an Islamist strokes his beard and flaunts the claim, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, this child will come to mind.

Disgraceful conduct not just by the Boko Haramis, but the entire Muslim world and specially its leadership and also those hiding behind the burka of 'moderate Muslim' label.

Tarek Fatah

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 12 May 14 - 08:50 PM

Until such time as I see the real Imams speak against atrocities, I will be left to conclude they agree. After all, it's just talk, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:14 PM

Take it up with the Pope or the heads of the various Protestant denominations, Guest. Let me know how you make out.

In the meantime chew on this

Hey, Boo- in the meantime, kiss my arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:00 AM

Musket, if you watched that clip you would not compare it to what churches mosques and temples do.
Does anyone condone it?

Jim,
When are these morons going to come to terms with the fact that in the main, these are not religious conflicts, but disputes over territory and political power,

Why the gratuitously abusive "moron" insult?
Radical Islam is engaged in the most brutal indiscriminate killings to bring down democracy and impose Islamic rule under the Sharia.

So it is about territory, power AND religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 03:02 AM

And tea with the vicar isn't?

The Archbishop of Canterbury stated the other week that if the church supported equality for gay people, he would lose his influence in Uganda.

And we can't have that, can we?



After all, Christianity is a hierarchical concept, whereas Islam isn't. The post by guest# above demonstrates the general ignorance of people towards other cultures. Just about every Imam in The UK deplores the abuse of their creed by criminals but even if that made enough interest for newspapers, it still wouldn't influence the terrorists because Islam has no equivalent of the Archbishop, the Pope or the Noodly one.

Liverpool on the other hand tend to have hard luck stories and cobwebs in their trophy cabinet. Did you know Mr Shaw, that Sheffield Wednesday picked up silverware this season? Just saying like...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 03:17 AM

"Why the gratuitously abusive "moron" insult?"
When the moron I am addressing stops behaving like one and stops insulting our intelligence
Until such time, it isn't gratuitous - it is merely returning tit for tat.
"Radical Islam is engaged in the most brutal indiscriminate killings"
Not it is not - peop;e throughout the world are engaging in various fights for political and territorial power under the banner of Islam - just as we in the West have engaged in the same type of conflicts "for God, King and country" or "with God on our side"....
That there are religious nutters seeking to make capital out of this is undoubted, but we have our own pseudo-nutters, like yourself, who are engaging in your own Crusades to prove that 'those who kick with the other foot' or who come from 'somewhere else', or 'don't live like us' are an evil force and a threat to 'our way of life'.
You have had a summing up of what is happening, in Nigeria, for instance, from Christians on the ground there; the fact that you have chosen to ignore what they, and many others, have to say about these conflicts, is par for your own so-called Christian course.
Holy wars per se exist only in the heads of religious or pseudo-religious fanatics - "It's all in the mind, you know", as the Famous Eccles used to say.
The religious hate against Jews is echoed by similar hate by and against all religions somewhere or other in the world - you are one of those hate merchants, with your appalling "cultural implants".
Take your fanaticism and hatred somewhere else and let us live in peace.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 13 May 14 - 03:55 AM

Any religious radicalism is hateful. I watched the News last night and felt sad to see the young Nigerian girls at a school in the North. They were wearing silly gingham veils wrapped round their heads and shoulders, in that heat. I've seen such lovely African brightly-coloured clothes on girls elsewhere, but the fundamentalists insist these lassies must cover every inch of themselves. Sad and twisted ideas.
Then, far worse, an item about female genital mutilation in Egypt. Muslims there almost all insist on this evil procedure for girls between 11 and 13. They euphemistically call it 'circumcision' but that barely begins to describe what is done. The item concerned deaths from infection and kidney failure. A chap spoke to camera saying that all women are lustful and must be 'circumcised' to stop them 'running after men'. A women declared her daughters would be 'done' when the time came. Where is this justified in any religious text? It makes me feel quite sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:48 AM

I do not believe that even that Nazis pushed such hatred at small children.
That clip represents something uniquely appalling.
Very you children being taught that killing Jews, "all of them" is a laudable ambition for a young child.

The Archbishop of Canterbury stated the other week that if the church supported equality for gay people, he would lose his influence in Uganda.
No he didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:18 AM

"I do not believe that even that Nazis pushed such hatred at small children."
Don't be so ******* stupid - the Nazis - they portrayed all Jews and Gypsies, men, women and children, as genetically degenerate and gassed them - it doesn't come more hateful than that.
If you care to find modern equivalents of how Muslims are portrayed, take a look at some of the sites you've supported in the pat - Muslim Watch, for instance.
The BNP and their predecessors, who deliberately targeted and attempted to infiltrate schools with their foul propaganda isn't too bad a British comparison of such hatred 0- not forgetting, of course, Eunuch Poewll's 'Rivers of Blood' speech (and the support it got.
The facilitating of the Sabra/Shatila massacre by the Israelis (and your support for that obscenity by describing it as merely "seeking out the enemy") falls well within a comparison.
Race and cultural hatred breeds an inhumanity that prompts these appalling statements, and pretending it they are confined to one single culture, religion or race is part of that humanity.
What kind of hate-pills are you one?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:28 AM

Have you watched the clip?
What is your view?

(And why the lie that I have supported any site?
Trying to discredit again, but not what I actually say.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:39 AM

The Nazis killed Jews, but it was never openly discussed, and certainly never put to children as a good and fun thing to do.

In this respect, Hamas out-Nazis the Nazis.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:48 AM

Until such time as I see the real Imams speak against atrocities, I will be left to conclude they agree. After all, it's just talk, right?

Hmm. Pius XII oversaw the removal of hundreds of Italian Jews to death camps and the expediting of the escape of Nazi war criminals to South America, and there's even talk of maybe making him a saint. Not much "speaking against" there, was there, and that was just the tip of a hundreds-of-years-old antisemitic iceberg.

Good to watch, though, Liverpool, eh, Musket?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:56 AM

You supports Muslim Watch's list of Mulim "atrocities" without qualification, demanding that we prove they were wrong
What is happening in Nigeria is the work of a group of fanatics.
Nazi atrocities were perpetraed by a Government who were voted into office
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:27 AM

Not true Jim.
I distrusted the claims and took the trouble to check a sample of them.
I honestly was unable to find a single false claim, AND NEITHER COULD YOU OR ANYONE ELSE!

Now, did the Nazis ever put propaganda to very young children (5-6) that killing Jews ("all of them") is good and fun?
What is your opinion of the Hamas clip?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 06:52 AM

I repeat.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said that if his church supported gay marriage, he would lose influence in Uganda.

You can't change facts by denying them Keith.

If his church was about love thy neighbour, he'd put people above his own size of club.

Even his own predecessor said his comments were unfortunate. He back pedalled slightly in his article in yesterday's Independent, but not enough to upset the dangerous religious cranks propping up disgraceful governments.

Christianist radicalism anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:10 AM

Musket, here is the actual quote from the Telegaraph to whom he gave the interview.
"In an interview with The Telegraph, the Most Rev Justin Welby says that the Church had probably caused "great harm" to homosexuals in the past — but there was not always a "huge amount" that could be done now to rectify the situation.
Although indicating that he was sympathetic to calls for the Church to publicly honour gay relationships, the Archbishop says that it is "impossible" for some followers in Africa to support homosexuality. In the interview, the leader of the Anglican Church, which has 77 million followers globally, speaks movingly of the persecution faced by Christians in parts of the world. He indicates that the Church must not take a step that would cut off these groups, most of them in the third world, however much this angers parts of society in Britain"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:18 AM

Over the past few weeks, The Telegraph has been given unprecedented access to the Archbishop after his first year in office. In the interview, he speaks in detail about the dilemma he is facing over gay marriage — and the influence of recent visits he has made to Africa over the issue.
"We are struggling with the reality that there are different groups around the place that the Church can do — or has done — great harm to," the Archbishop says. "You look at some of the gay, lesbian, LGBT groups in this country and around the world — Africa included, actually — and their experience of abuse, hatred, all kinds of things." But he says: "We must both respond to what we've done in the past and listen to those voices extremely carefully. Listen with love and compassion and sorrow. And do what is possible to be done, which is not always a huge amount."
The Archbishop adds: "At the same time there are other groups in many parts of the world who are the victims of oppression and poverty, who we also have to listen to, and who find that issue an almost impossible one to deal with.
"How do you hold those two things [in balance] and do what is right and just by all? And not only by one group that you prefer and that is easier to deal with? That's not acceptable." In the interview, the Archbishop speaks of his pain at travelling to South Sudan in the aftermath of a massacre of dozens of Christians. He speaks of crying with his wife while watching a mass burial in Bor. On Thursday, the town was the scene of another atrocity when at least 58 people were killed in an attack on a UN base.
However, even in the midst of the horrific situation witnessed by the Archbishop, the local religious leaders asked about homosexuality – making clear that if blessings of gay marriage were allowed to proceed then they would not accept his help in future.
"I do believe passionately that unity is something we have to maintain," the Archbishop said privately soon afterwards. "I may be wrong, but I also believe that to take a step that means that people who desperately need our help — and who we can help — can't take it, feel in their own culture that it is impossible to be helped by us, is something that we can't easily do."
In previous public statements, he appeared to indicate that if the Church did bless gay marriages this could lead to Christians being targeted in Africa.
However, the Archbishop now says that his previous position was misinterpreted, and denies that he is effectively being blackmailed. "What I said is that I have been in places where that has been the reason given for attacking people," he says. "Now, as I said then — and this is where there was misinterpretation — that doesn't mean that you don't do certain things. That would just be giving in to that kind of terror.
"It would be moral blackmail. You can't say, 'We're not going to do X, which we think is right, because it will cause trouble'. That's ridiculous."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:26 AM

"Now, did the Nazis ever put propaganda to very young children (5-6) that killing Jews ("all of them") is good and fun?"
Even worse - they put forward the argument that the Jews were a threat to the German people and the vast majority of the people accepted that argument and turned their backs while they did what they did.
Many of the German people knew of the existence of the extermination centres and did nothing.
Youngsters flocked to join the Hitler youth and anti-Semitism was ann inbuilt feature of German education
"No single target of nazification took higher priority than Germany's young. By 1937, 97% of all teachers belonged to the National Socialist Teachers' Union. Every member of this union had to submit an ancestry table in triplicate with official documents of proof. Courses and textbooks in Nazi schools reflected the aims of Hitler. Of the topics that teachers were required to treat, the most important was racial theory and, by extention, the Jewish problem. In The National Socialist Essence of Education, a German educator wrote that mathematics was "Aryan spiritual property; .. an expression of the nordic fighting spirit, of the nordic struggle for the supremacy of the world..."[1] An example of racial propaganda in a math problem is the following: "The Jews are aliens in Germany--in 1933 there were 66,060,000 inhabitants in the German Reich, of whom 499,682 were Jews. What is the per cent of aliens?"[2]"   
PRE-WAR GERMAN EDUCATION
This wasn't a backward, Third-World African country fighting starvation-class poverty amid battles for territorial and political dominance, It was one of the strongest and most advanced nation in he world.
How dare you compare as being worse the behavior of a group of sick fanatics in the process of manipulating people with that of a super-power fighting for world dominance
Sick moron
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:29 AM

Watch the clip and give your view.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:40 AM

Where is this justified in any religious text?

BINGO! So maybe this ISN'T about Islam after all, eh, but a cultural norm??

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 07:52 AM

Islamic radicalism transcends cultures.
Its operates in Asia, Middle East, Africa, Europe,......
The common factor is terror for the purpose of destroying democracy and imposing Islamic rule and the Sharia by force.
Take away the religion, and what is left?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 14 - 08:32 AM

You've got that exactly backwards, FW - not surprising, of course, for someone who has his head up his arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 08:40 AM

So, allowing for paraphrasing, I did read it rather than dream about it after all.

I repeat. The Archbishop would rather appease homophobic thugs than gave empathy with decent people.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 09:57 AM

No he didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 10:06 AM

Oh... Is that my third lie then Keith?

Add it to your tally eh?

TC


By the way, you should have said "wouldn't" not "didn't" if you are replying to my previous post TC.





VTC

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

VTC, quote the quote and there can be no dispute.
He did not say what you accuse him of saying.

I gave you the actual quote.
Ask Officer Dibble TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:03 PM

Quote which quote? The original article, the article he wrote the other day in a different newspaper? The guarded apology on PM Reports? You gave an extract, minus any context as usual.

Or the many articles by decent people who were appalled at his weasel worded patronising excuses for putting power and influence over any moral stance.

He's supposed to be someone that gullible shallow people look to for moral guidance for crying out loud. Saying he wants to accept gay people as equals is far cry from declaring that they are, and that is in his power. Rewrite the fucking bible if necessary. About time the evil disgusting bits were deleted anyway if fools insist on using it as a weapon.



ETC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:07 PM

"Take it up with the Pope or the heads of the various Protestant denominations, Guest. Let me know how you make out."

No better, Greg. But it still doesn't address The Silence of the Imams.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:14 PM

"No better, Greg. But it still doesn't address The Silence of the Imams."
All churches will attempt to cover their arses when it comes to abuses within their own religions - you don't have to look further than the current child abuse or Magdalene Laundries to find a couple on our own doorsteps
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:22 PM

That is so-so in terms of accuracy, Jim. Please see the link.

Imams who have spoken against terrorism within Islam.

That said, the fact someone else does it too makes it neither more nor less right or wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:28 PM

Musket, I gave the actual, original quote you referred to.
If you want more context, Google the text and see it all.(Telegraph links do not work.)
You said the more recent Independent quote was a backpeddle, but I can provide that too if you wish.

If you produced the actual quote there could be no dispute, but clearly the truth is not good enough for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:31 PM

Will no-one express a view on the Hamas clip?
Will anyone even admit to seeing it?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:44 PM

The truth is what he said. He can't support all people being equal in case he loses members and influence in countries where governments, aided and abetted by his church, persecute their people.

It's simple enough.

Even simple enough for his own predecessor to distance himself from it.

If he has any shame, any moral conviction whatsoever, he should say that everybody has a right to be married and all marriage has the same value, and those who say a God is agin it are abusing the concept of God in the first place.

But he won't. He says nice things to gay people in the same way I say nice things to my dog.

Insignificant little hypocrite. No need to disestablish the church, it is marginalising itself without the help of rational people.

Why worry about Islamic radicals when even one of the least radical Christian cults can't bring itself to see others as equals? Islamic terrorists may have guerrilla tactics to further their cause, but CofE have votes in the upper house. Politicians go around saying this is a Christian country. Fucking scary or what?

At least his predecessor got it right. A post Christian country. You can't ignore your heritage and inheritance but as Clement Atlee said, you don't need the mumbo jumbo.


TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 May 14 - 12:55 PM

Back to your trash can TC.

Any comment on the Hamas clip?
Any comment on the terrified girls forced to convert to Islam?
Does that not suggest a religious dimension?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:04 PM

Of course, too, Muslims are not a monolithic/united group.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:48 PM

"Any comment on the Hamas clip?"
The source for this report is a film clip put up on Utube put up by The Middle East Media Research Institute, a Zionist group founded by an Israeli ex-Security officer.   
MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE
What reports there are, are based on that clip
Virtually all the press reports on it are carried by extremist outlets such as Washington Free Beacon, Bare Naked Islam, Sistah Tolja, The daily Caller, The Raw Story, Uncovering Sharia.... by and large, the world press has ignored it, with the notable exception of The Guardian, which carries only an account of someone condemning it - no substantiation of its being genuine.
Its almost certainly a fake.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:56 PM

So, Jim, the Hamas charter is a fake?


And the quote from the Qu'ran is a fake?


And nothing else you don't want to hear is a fake?


I will assume that you answered three times in the affirmative, so you don't need to respond here.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 14 - 01:58 PM

Sorry, that should be


And ANYTHING else that you don't want to hear is a fake?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:27 PM

We've been through interpretations and out-of-context misinterpretations of the Quran - the Bible - and any holy book you care to name.
I'm suggesting that the film was fake - do you have any evidence of its authenticity, other than the extremist sources that covered it?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:34 PM

Feel free to find your own Arabic translator and provide us with a "different" transcript.

You have NEVER proved that any of the "quotes" or claims YOU have posted were true- so how can you demand that we prove it? Are you insisting on a different set of standards for what you post than you will accept from those you disagree with?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:49 PM

We can assume that you have no way of ascertaining that the programme was real then
The report is five days old - perhaps you can explain why the world press chose to ignore it then - where was the good ol' pro-Islam Daily mail when you needed it?
Come on Brucie - this type of stunt is hyped out regularly and quite often swooped on by your crowd of fanatics - where is your authentication that it is the real thing?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:54 PM

Jim,

HERE is the Arabic ( in the video)- check it out yourself.


http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=11384

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 14 - 02:58 PM

And here is part of the Hamas Charter.

"Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware." From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? "And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper." Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: "The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)
"


So, by their OWN words they renounce peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 13 May 14 - 03:01 PM

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/07/world/middleeast/israeli-official-points-to-incitements-by-palestinians.html?_r=0

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 May 14 - 04:05 PM

Palestine Media watch - an Israeli research unit
Still no authenticate souece for the film

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 May 14 - 05:41 PM

Its OK Jim, BBruce is just having another bout of serial postarrhoea. 'This too, shall pass' - of course there's some dispute whether the phrase originated with Persian Sufi poets or the ancient Hebrews......

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:41 AM

1:   "Just about every Imam in The UK deplores the abuse of their creed by criminals but even if that made enough interest for newspapers, it still wouldn't influence the terrorists because Islam has no equivalent of the Archbishop, the Pope or the Noodly one."

Now that is odd Musket. I haven't heard of one single fatwa being issued by ANY Imam against these criminals {Boko Haram} who quote the Qur'an in justification for their murders, abductions, rapes and selling of children into slavery. Perhaps you have?

2: " The BNP and their predecessors, who deliberately targeted and attempted to infiltrate schools with their foul propaganda isn't too bad a British comparison of such hatred"

Any substantive evidence to back this up or is it just more shit that you have made up?

Enoch Powell's speech?

" For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions"

Many would say, and many could argue, that that is exactly what has happened.

" Powell recounted a conversation with one of his constituents, a middle-aged working man, a few weeks earlier. Powell said that the man told him: "If I had the money to go, I wouldn't stay in this country… I have three children, all of them been through grammar school and two of them married now, with family. I shan't be satisfied till I have seen them all settled overseas."

A sentiment now commonly felt and practiced.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 02:06 AM

Why bring a Tory / Unionist politician into it?

Powell was a committed Christian, to use his own words, but what his unfortunate " rivers of blood" has to do with anything is beyond me. Almost every Muslim in this country is as British as me and was born here.

I'll ask the Imam on our hospital chaplaincy team why he hasn't issued a fatwa shall I ?

It's possibly because he is law abiding and fatwas are inflammatory statements if used willy nilly or used to with violence in mind. Do you even know what a fatwa is? Most impressionable young British Muslims going to Syria are being urged by their mosques as it is.

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 May 14 - 02:40 AM

"Why bring a Tory / Unionist politician into it? "
Powell was an extremist who was even too extreme for his own Party - anything he had to say had to be measured by that fact.
The Pakistani communities in Britain were surveyed last year and found to be, of all immigrants to Britain, the most prepared to settle in Britain and the most ready to be identified as being British   
MUSLIM INTEGRATION INTO BRITAIN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 05:42 AM

No issue with examining Powell Jim. Other than a plaque outside a local hospital commemorating his laying of the foundation stone when a health minister , he has no influence outside of far right thugs and their apologists, who misinterpret him anyway.

The interesting thing about this thread is that before anyone tries to have a serious debate about what few here, me included, could begin to understand, look at the OP. The thread was set up to goad respectable people. It's full of "not the good Muslims who do as they are told but the other bastards" rhetoric.

Rather appalling really.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:29 AM

So, Jim,

We can now ignore all your posts, as none of them are from truly neutral sources,just Pro-Palestinian propaganda.

Greg,

You are STILL out of duct-tape? Maybe you need to move up the chain to a larger animal.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:39 AM

"this type of stunt is hyped out regularly and quite often swooped on by your crowd of fanatics - where is your authentication that it is the real thing?
Jim Carroll


YOU continue to judge others by what YOU do.


I gave the link to the VIDEO- GET YOUR OWN TRANSCRIPTION of the Arabic, and show us that it is not what is on the site. Otherwise, YOU are making an accusation without any basis.

Just make sure it is a NEUTRAL source, and not one of your Anti-Israeli propaganda sites.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:46 AM

Jim, would that Hamas clip be shocking if it is genuine?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:49 AM

Here is the same claim from Der Spiegel.
Reputable enough?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wipe-out-the-jews-anti-semitic-hate-speech-in-the-name-of-islam-a-553724.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:51 AM

ANYTHING that Jim disagrees with is "propaganda"-

Anything that he wants to be true is by definition so.


Just ask him.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 07:57 AM

Jim, you asked why daily mail had not picked it up.
Fox News did. Here is the same clip.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/05/09/terror-tv-for-tots-hamas-show-has-child-vowing-to-shoot-jews/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:04 AM

The same clip in The Spectator.
It must be genuine Jim.
Care to comment?
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/douglas-murray/2014/05/hamas-tv-teaches-children-to-kill-all-jews/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:11 AM

Are the actions of Boko Haram in accordance with Islamic Sharia?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:35 AM

I can find not commentary there, bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 08:53 AM

It's a video Richard, do you not see it?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:01 AM

Is murder of your children in accordance with the bible?

zzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:17 AM

So tell us about those Christians murdering their children in accordance with the Bible - I can't seem to find any commentary on that.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 10:36 AM

I wouldn't know. I'm not a Christian. A bit like those who rattle on about Islam as if they know The Holy Q'ran.

Another TC.

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 11:06 AM

"A bit like those who rattle on about Islam as if they know The Holy Q'ran"

The people in the links I provided are practicing Muslims who know the Quran very well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 11:08 AM

Any comment on those girls being forced to convert and change their names, or Hamas teaching pre-schoolers that killing Jews (all of them) is a good and fun activity?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:13 PM

Any comment on girls being forced into "white slavery" by "Christians"[sic], FW?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:20 PM

Interesting piece in the Guardian earlier this week

Muslim scare stories

Of course, it could be that the liberal press are under the influence of Islamic radicals while all the proper English papers tell you nothing but the truth :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:37 PM

None of those stories have been taken up here.
Just real ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 14 May 14 - 01:43 PM

Ask Keith. He is a self styled expert on truth.

Possibly because he's a Christian or space cadet or whatever.

I'm just a liar so don't ask me.

By the way, Heckmondwyke Ragged a School are having a Muslim crucifixion event tomorrow night. Keith said he has some tickets if anyone wants them.

Or possibly I may have made that up.

I think....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 02:22 PM

"This man fought against Muslims and threw a grenade in this place."

Muslim crucifixion

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

Have you noticed the hilarious aspect of this thread, which is about awful actions..

People admitting they are religious and then having a pop at religion.

You're all capable of judging your actions, and when you need the crutch of scripture to justify what you couldn't justify otherwise, the only difference is degree.

Decent church goers who don't judge other religions need an apology from those who see other religions as being inferior to their own particular cult.

Fight the good fight eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 May 14 - 06:58 PM

Yes, rather good that Guardian piece, Dave. Could have been aimed directly at Keith, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 14 May 14 - 09:21 PM

Could have been aimed directly at Keith, eh?

The good folks at the Guardian wouldn't waste their time directing anything at FW Keith - or BooBad, or BSBruce for that matter.

An obvious exercise in futility.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 14 May 14 - 10:28 PM

Hey Greg I know you really love me but you're just too shy and modest to admit it. There's a good chance I'll be passing close to your hood this weekend as I traverse northern NY state on my way to Vermont. If you're not averse to it maybe we can meet up for a brew or two and duke out our differences at your local watering hole. Let me know.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 May 14 - 02:21 AM

Why do you say aimed at me Steve.
Only the child abuse story has been raised here and not by me.
In that discussion I said over and over again that religion played no part.

This thread is about radicalism not just religion.
Any comments about Boko or Hamas.

Steve, you said I compared Hamas to Nazis.(Mudcat Language thread)
They do not have the ability to kill large numbers of Jews, but have advocated it, including to their very young children.
Do you deny or challenge those facts?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:21 AM

Dear Keith

The time and motion team have finished evaluating your performance and can now assist you in improving your efficiency.

In order to save time, have the following pro forma phrases ready on your clipboard to populate your posts, it will save you lots of time and effort.

"Do you deny or challenge these facts (insert any stereotyping snippet from the internet that supports your pompous opinions on anyone and anything outside of your narrow views.)"

"You can't because you are a liar."

"Please Mr Moderator. That liar insulted me."

"TC". (Saves me the effort of putting it.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 14 - 08:34 AM

Sudan woman gets death sentence for apostasy

Judge orders Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag to be hanged for apostasy and given 100 lashes for adultery, prompting protests.

Al Jazeera

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 15 May 14 - 10:44 AM

AlJezeera??

Nothing but an Israeli propaganda machine… According to Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 11:30 AM

This is what happens when religion has political influence.

Disestablish the religious nonsense from UK parliamentary process.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 15 May 14 - 11:55 AM

Dr. Zakir Naik explains why Allah in his wisdom has made halal for muslims, sex with young male slaves and women captured in war. (Shariah Law).

Qur'an (33:50) - "O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives to whom thou hast paid their dowers; and those (slaves) whom thy right hand possesses out of the prisoners of war whom Allah has assigned to thee"

Qur'an (23:5-6) - "..who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess..."

Qur'an (4:24) - "And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess."


It is clear from these verses in the Quran that neither slavery nor sex with slaves was prohibited by Allah or his messneger Muhammad(pbuh). It is secular law that is preventing Muslims from keeping slaves and having sex with women captured in war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYr8l1hkp0U

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 15 May 14 - 03:33 PM

If you're not averse to it maybe we can meet up for a brew or two and duke out our differences at your local watering hole.

Actually, bobad, I'm not at all averse to it, but I'm afraid I'll have to decline. However, I DO appreciate and thank you for the invitation.
Sincerely. (believe it or not)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 15 May 14 - 04:03 PM

Funny Bobad. I thought it was civilised behaviour and common decency that stops Muslims, Christians and rational people from what you were quoting.

Most Muslims I know, work with and call close friends tend to eat too much chocolate or watch crap on the telly. I'm not sure slavery and rape would occur to any of them.

There again I know quite a few Christians who wouldn't do the same, despite The Bible urging them to do so.

Tell me, as the criminals want everybody to think its their religion urging them on, are you purposely playing to their agenda or just a fool?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jeri
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:04 PM

Maybe we could talk about parts of Leviticus that tells the righteous what offenses they should kill people for. Then, we add common sense and realize we just don't do that shit any more. Those parts of the Bible are similar to the parts of the Quran Bobad quoted, and Muslim extremists are a little bit like the KKK. If anyone has ever actually known moderate Muslim people, they know they aren't any better or worse than moderate Christians or Jews. They're trying to live their lives as best they can, and most of us live in countries that believe they should be able to.

It's people who don't know any Muslims who can buy the propaganda about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 May 14 - 05:26 PM

Yeah, Keith, and Kenny Everett suggested that we bomb Russia. Just try to remember that it's Israel (or Bibi at least, using Hamas as his excuse for not sitting down) who won't sit down with Hamas. Ian Paisley used to say stuff like that about the IRA, and look at him now.


I note today a great article in the Guardian that, once and for all, blows out of the water that nine-day wonder of "Islamists" plotting a sinister takeover of Birmingham schools. Better take a look, Keith, as last time we discussed it you were in denial of the breaking news. As the sensible among us knew from the outset, it was a total bloody Islamophobic hoax. You must feel disappointed at the loss of that particular opportunity of painting Islam as The Great Threat To The Planet. Never mind, Bobad's having a good crack at it in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 15 May 14 - 08:41 PM

So, what happened with the Gerry Adams investigation then?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Noel Battle
Date: 15 May 14 - 10:41 PM

Well I don't know what you can call a religion that encourages cutting off the heads of those who refuse to convert, if not a threat to the Kuristian USA and Europe.

But when it comes to playing a reel on a cheap Chinese diatonic Harmonica such people haven't a clue.

Or maybe I was not listening to the right Mulla?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:55 AM

Steve, I have never, ever criticised Islam and I hope that the Birmingham story is a hoax.
There was no "breaking news" before. Just some individuals who thought it a hoax and some who did not.

This thread is about Islamic radicalism and if it is "the biggest threat to world peace", but that little group of Steve, Greg, Musket and Jim refuse to discuss it and keep trying to change the subject.

Any comment about the killing, kidnapping and converting of terrified school children?
Any comment about encouraging very young children to shoot Jews? ("all of them")
Any comment on the sentencing to death of a doctor for apostasy, after flogging her for adultery?
Any comment about the sectarian strife between Sunni and Shia and the industrial scale of killing?

I think it reasonable that the thread should be extended to include Christian and other radicalism, but let's keep it to religious radicalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:09 AM

Steve, I fear that this article may not mark the end of this story just yet.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/14/inside-park-view-academy-religion-row-school-victim-of-success
" In short, on the evidence of a single day and chaperoned by school officials, it looked and felt much like any other state school in England or Wales."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 14 - 09:50 AM

Iran Accountability Week

This also marks the sixth anniversary of the imprisonment of Iran's Baha'i leadership, also known as the Yaran; an execution binge that has seen over 600 executions since the "moderate" Hassan Rouhani ascended to the Presidency in August 2013, and over 250 carried out in 2014 alone; and the continuing unjust imprisonment of more than 900 prisoners of conscience and political prisoners, including women, human rights defenders, ethnic and religious leaders, journalists, bloggers, students and trade union leaders — in short, the leaders of Iranian civil society — many under threat of execution.

During his 2013 election campaign, Rouhani explicitly promised to ensure "equality for all citizens without discrimination based on race, gender, or religion." Despite his campaign promises, the Iranian regime's campaign of incitement to hate against the Baha'i has continued unabated, including: the singling out of the Baha'i for special opprobrium and repression; the use of state media to dehumanize and demonize the Baha'i in the eyes of their fellow Iranians; the harassment of Baha'i children; the proliferation of personal and property assaults on members of the community; and the orchestration of militia and hate groups to intimidate and silence them. All of this has been accompanied by an ongoing culture of impunity, wherein no one has ever been arrested or prosecuted for such crimes.

Irwin Cotler: Criminalizing the Baha'i faith

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 10:40 AM

Hey Bobad! Any articles concerning the hate sermons from the pastors in Dumbfuckistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 11:31 AM

Fundamentalists, but hardly radical in the context of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 01:52 PM

Kenya now the victim of indiscriminate killings by Islamic radicals based in Somalia.
Any comment?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 16 May 14 - 02:33 PM

You'd have thought that having started to populate the reply box. You might comment yourself ?

Is it just me or is it rather odd when people try to goad others into feeding their own prejudice rather than have the courage of their conviction and give their own take?

Mind you, I doubt it will be scintillating reading.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 16 May 14 - 03:51 PM

"Hey Bobad! Any articles concerning the hate sermons from the pastors in Dumbfuckistan?"

So, you're trying to make an equivalence between some hate sermons which you haven't even provided an example of, and the execution of 600 people.....seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 May 14 - 04:13 PM

The thread title is Islamic radicalism, so I would expect comments on examples that crop up daily.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 16 May 14 - 08:04 PM

Well I don't know what you can call a religion that encourages cutting off the heads of those who refuse to convert

I'm no apologist for any religion, as is possibly known hereabouts, but I know of no religion that encourages cutting off the heads of those who refuse to convert. What I do know is that a few nutters professing to belong to certain religions might have such predilections. Similarly, the Catholic church does not encourage child molestation and institutional abuse, though a few nutters professing to be members of said church might like to either practise or cover up such abuse. Why, one such fellow of the latter tendency has just been made a saint!

I'm no apologist for cheap Chinese harps either, though, like with a lot of kids who went on to play proper ones later on, they sort of got me going.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:20 AM

Any comments about religious radicalism Steve?
(That is the subject of the thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:58 AM

If anyone bothers to read the OP, they will see it isn't about Islamic radicalism at all. It is a juvenile attempt to goad rational people into defending Mr Khan from the corner shop so fools can say they don't care about terrorism.

Read the first fucking post.

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

You made that up Musket.
Brian's post was about Blair saying Islamic radicalism was the greatest threat to peace.
Here it is in full.


Much as I dislike Tony Blair as someone who's caused as much aggravation as he's mitigated, however, I find myself agreeing with him on this statement:

"In significant and controversial intervention, the former Prime Minister suggested that, as a result of failures in Iraq and Afghanistan, governments in Europe and America had become "curiously reluctant to acknowledge" Islamic extremism."

I seem to remember taking a fair bit of flak on this forum for being a 'racist bigot' et al for pointing this out a couple of years ago.

The 'West' ignores this threat to our lifestyle at our peril. Until governments and institutions get 'unafraid' to call a spade a spade (no pun intended) and stop pussy-footing around when dealing with RADICAL Muslims and CRIMINAL Muslims, we are going to remain 'curiously reluctant' to acknowledge and deal with the threat.

In that statement I am referring only (NB - ONLY) to the law-breakers, inciting or carrying out attacks, grooming young girls etc etc, NOT the vast majority of peaceful and law-abiding folk of ANY religion, colour or creed.

It does seem that when the word 'Muslim' is added to the sentence, it suddenly all gets far more complicated for our government both central and local including Law Enforcement agencies.



OK, PC do-gooders brigade . . . your shout . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 06:17 AM

"I know of no religion that encourages cutting off the heads of those who refuse to convert. What I do know is that a few nutters professing to belong to certain religions might have such predilections."

.,,.

Come, Steve, how can you be so disingenuous? You know as well as I do that a Sudanese woman has been sentenced to death for "apostasy", tho she was brought up a Christian and has never pretended to be anything else. She is to be executed when her child is just about old enough to realise what is going on. Humane religious practice, or what! She must also receive 100 lashes, quite soon, because, though her marriage was fully legal where it took place, Muslims in Sudan may not marry out and so hers has no legal standing there, and so sexual intercourse with her lawful wedded husband counts as "adultery" in the view of the authorities.

And this is not the work of "a few nutters", but of the legally constituted government of a recognised state with which we and all others maintain full diplomatic relations.

Similar instances could be cited from several other such Islamic jurisdicitons, in the Far East, the Mid-East, Africa...; as we are all well aware. "Work of a few nutters", your Aunt Fanny! It's the work of nationally imposed, diplomatically recognised, Islamic Radicalism, as rubricated in the thread title. And stop pretending otherwise. It's beneath you, Steve.


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 08:47 AM

TC Keith just cut and pasted the first post to make me look thick. Perhaps he forgot to read it first.

TC.

And in other news,

What do you get if you order the slaughter of over a thousand Muslims?

You get to win the Indian election!


(I love Brian May's bit about "not the ones who behave but the others" clause. The only sad bit about it is that it just goes to prove how over rated democracy is....)

Michael. Your Sudanese example... Does that mean all Christians are as bad as the Ugandan churches that lobbied for capital punishment for being gay?

Tell you what, when I see Tahir, my appointments secretary on Monday, I'll ask him to apologise for the Sudanese court. I may have to show him on a map where Sudan is though, he hasn't been far from Leeds in his life other than one family holiday to see relatives in Kashmir.

The day diplomats recognise Islamic radicalism as an entity, the day will have arrived when we can send the tanks into the enemy.   If you think it is nationally imposed, I suggest asking nurse. She might put you right. After all, all governments of all countries have a mandate to govern all eh?

zzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 09:45 AM

TC, you said, "If anyone bothers to read the OP, they will see it isn't about Islamic radicalism at all." so I pasted it in case anyone believed you.

I doubt anyone does now, so perhaps I needn't have bothered.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 09:56 AM

And still you haven't read it.

I wish life was as simple as you portray it. Imagine being able to read without having to think what is being put. You'd not be able to form any opinion though..

TC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 17 May 14 - 12:16 PM

People who kill or harm other people are bad, regardless of their religion or lack thereof. End of story.

What is the reason to assign a particular religion to bad people? Why isn't the conversation about bad people instead of about religion? Some Muslims kill people. Some Christians kill people. Some communists kill people. Some capitalists kill people. Some politicians kill people. Some black people kill people. Some white people kill people. Some women kill people. Some men kill people. Some children kill people. Some adults kill people. Some governments kill people. Some drivers kill people. Some dogs kill people.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:33 PM

Would you not say that Islamist radicals are bad people?
Boko Haram?
al Shabab?
al Qaeda?
Hamas?
The London bombers?

The premise of this thread, as claimed by the UN Middle East envoy, is that they are a grave threat to peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 17 May 14 - 01:43 PM

Many would contend that religion is a threat to peace regardless of the cult.

For me, it is more complicated than that. Religion is an excellent tool for using others to further your aims due to the shallowness of superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:13 PM

What's an "Islamist Radical", FW? Can you define your terms?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 May 14 - 02:31 PM

Certainly Greg, but are you not embarrassed by your ignorance, and of needing things explained to you by a FW?

Islamists are followers of Islamism, a movement that seeks the overthrow of democracy and its forcible replacement with fundamentalist Islamic rule and the Sharia.
When a decent Muslim person is converted to Islamism, he or she is said to have been "radicalised" into that extremist and radical version of Islam.

Can I help you understand anything else?

Musket, does any other religion have an equivalent movement?
If so my opinion of them would be the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 May 14 - 03:07 PM

When a decent Muslim person is converted to Islamism

How is this accomplished? And what about indecent Muslims?

In the words of the Chad Mitchell Trio, Islamism is the ism dismalest of all, I suppose, and the only thing we need to worry ourselves about.

Unless you count Christianism, Jewishism, capitalism, corporatism, Cliven Bundyism, Zionism, TeaPartyism, Hinduism, Jainism or militarism, colonialism, racism, fuckwitism & etc..

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 May 14 - 04:11 PM

Ian ~~ I didn't suggest that all anyones were as bad as all anyone elses. I was simply replying to a specific point made by Steve which seemed to me erroneous. If you will trouble to reread his post, and mine in response, you will find that the absolute limit of my assertions.

But I don't suppose you can be, as you would doubtless put it, arsed...

Regards azzevva

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 01:55 AM

Decent Muslims are typically radicalised by Islamist hate propaganda.
Did you really not know this Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:00 AM

Is "decent" a term meaning potential terrorist or somebody who has no need to be referred to in this thread?

Your stereotyping is breathtaking Keith. Truly awful.

TC



The main issue here is talking about the dangerous aims of people who use religion as a cover and relate it to people who happen to be of that particular religion.

As I said, it's like blaming your Granny for the crusades.

The term Islamist denotes radicalisation of Islam principles. You can be radicalised in the name of any religion. The threat to international harmony we see today is due to the vulnerability of people with little education. As ever, wicked people fill the gap with God.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:41 AM

Yes, indeed, "you can be radicalised in the name of any religion." Who would differ from that assertion?

But can anyone name the radicalisation of any other religion than the one named in this thread title whose radicalisation has led to anywhere near such extreme outcomes? I know all about the Jewish terrorists in pre-Israeli British-mandated Palestine; the lunatic Mr Jones, & that peculiar Westboro sect in Kansas [is it?] who claim to be Christian; the Hindu persecution of Muslims in just post-Raj India. But do/did any of these result in anything quite as spectacular as 9/11; let alone as extreme as the establishment of recognised sovereign regimes (N Nigeria, Yemen, Sudan, Malaysia cont p 94) in the international community where young women are regularly publicly beaten on the bare buttocks with canes for letting too much of their faces show, or stoned to death for having legally married a member of another faith?

Anyone?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:06 AM

All the Muslims I have met and known have been decent people.
I do not stereotype, I acknowledge that such decent folk hate the violent extremists as much as I do.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 04:30 AM

I just saw John Simpson on Andrew Marr, just returned from N Nigeria.
He said he had never seen a town attacked with such "brutal savagery" as he saw there (and he has seen some attacked towns!)
He quoted the Boko leader saying "I enjoy killing the people God tells me to kill."
He said BBC edited the quote out of his reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:06 AM

"But can anyone name the radicalisation of any other religion than the one named in this thread title whose radicalisation has led to anywhere near such extreme outcomes?"
Body-bag counting again Mike
Israel facilitated the massacre of 3,500 unarmed civilian refugees - fairly near the top of any list.
If you want to talk about Holy Wars, wouldn't you have to include the setting up of an exclusively Jewish state by militaristic aggression such a war?
It's certainly led to a large number of body-bags.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 05:49 AM

Michael,

before education kicked off in Europe in a big way, we too behaved in a similar fashion, thinking we could rule the world, and you know what? We had the church to tell the ignorant peasants God wanted it thus.

I repeat. Today's issue is Islamic radicalisation. However, many religions, including Christian, Judaism, Sikh, etc etc have present day examples of killing in the name of their particular imaginary friend.

Just because it is every horrid worrying, despicable threat we can imagine doesn't make it unique. It doesn't make Muslims "decent" it makes them er.. people. I don't blame our local vicar for the Serbian massacre of Muslims. I don't point at Indian people and ask how many Muslims were slaughtered in order to get the popular vote in the Indian election...

The problem with you, with Keith and others is that you appear incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You jump on the back of anyone who doesn't think Islamist radicalisation is the only problem ever. Ask the people of Palestine what they think when men in black coats, hats and ringlets nod their heads on Arab land claiming God gave it to them instead. I notice they can't find the deeds with their God's signature on it...

If you think Islamic radicalisation is a religious thing, you must have been reading the simple ignorance Bobad shows in his posts on this matter.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:17 AM

Ian & Jim: I really do take both your points that this is not a phenomenon either historically or ontologically unique. But I would draw attention to the theory of Hegel [I think it was ~~ philosophy, you will gather is not a particular discipline of mine], that at a certain critical point, a quantitive difference morphs into a qualitative one. I think that this point has been reached when one considers the effects of the radicalisation of Islam with those of the radicalisation of any other group you can name in the modern world ~~ which is the world we are concerned with here. This is not to downplay the enormities of, say, Christians to the Lions in Roman times; or the Crusades or the Holy Office [aka The Inquisition]: but just to urge their irrelevance to the topic of this thread ~~ in the interests of which, Jim, I urge that body-bags NEED to be counted. If you can't see the difference between the numbers being killed by Bokar Haram, and the none being killed, however many may be ortaorically threatened, by the Westboros, well then you can't. But I think you make yourself faintly absurd by the attitudes of moral superiority you strike over this gigantic gap smack in the middle of your perceptions.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 14 - 07:50 AM

If he body bags need to be counted Mike - count them for yourself.
The present conflict in Palestine is happening now, not in Roman time and it continues to tale lives - and, just as so-called Islamic crusades, it has been given a religious basis by taking place in order to set up a specifically Jewish State.
If one is a 'Holy War' so is 'tother.
It appears to be "ridiculous" to compare them only because it doesn't suit your own particular agenda.
By the way, was not around to respond to Keith's question on educating children to hate.
MILITARISING ISRAELI CHILDREN

EDUCATING CHILDREN TO HATE

PROMOTING HATRED THROUGH LITERATURE

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 07:51 AM

The Hegel model needs to factor in the phenomenon of selective media.

We see issues based on what advertising executives think go best with the interlude and Islamist fighters see what they are shown too. It is difficult to be truly objective even if you have the capacity to be so. With so many in politics and the media religious themselves, this is not easy.

You are the one comparing Westboro with Islamist groups. My point us that the hate, division and so called moral superiority is there. Far right Christian groups don't burn copies of the Q'ran in order to promote harmony. Body Bag counting is important yes, but so is root cause analysis.

If you want to dumb down the discussion to Keith's partisan simplicity, count me out. I'll just sit here taking the piss if it's all the same to you....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:15 AM

"All the same to me", absolutely, Ian. In what light it might cast you, is another point I would urge to your consideration.

--"Body Bag counting is important yes, but so is root cause analysis."--

Analyse away, and much good may it do you. Won't resuscitate the counted bodies, will it now? Whatever the 'root cause', they remain just as dead, and they were people. Those burnt Korans otoh were just books ~~ whatever orthogaphy for their nomenclature one might favour.

Jim, we can go on verbally fencing like this ad-∞; and in fact are doing so: to little likelihood of either of us ever convincing the other...

Regards to you both

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:18 AM

Just books eh?

It cost hundreds of lives in the riots that followed in many Islamic countries, four American servicemen were beheaded and two embassies attacked.

Just books....

The quill and the sword to use your flowery language...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:30 AM

---riots that followed in many Islamic countries, four American servicemen were beheaded---
.,,.,.

Nice of you to make my points for me. Books on one side; heads on the other! Heads I win, I think...

But you still can't see any qualitative difference, can you? Too busy 'analysing' your precious 'root causes'.

Sigh!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:43 AM

Now, why am I suddenly reminded of a phrase in a long-ago essay of Kingsley Amis, I think it was? -- or perhaps it was a letter to a paper. Can't remember all the details of who made the remark Amis was addressing, or precisely what he said; but Amis said words to the effect that it "conveniently shows the difference between lefties and human beings".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:46 AM

"Won't resuscitate the counted bodies, will it now?"
No - but it might prevent more, just as recognising the militaristically aggressive nature of Israeli expansionism might just put a halt to it.
Pretending it isn't happening and blaming the other side certainly won't.
"...likelihood of either of us ever convincing the other..."
Have given up trying to convince you, Boo-Boo, Keith the Christian and Brucie the Zealot of anything Mike.
It doesn't stop either of us putting our opinions (hopefully without resorting to emotion-blackmail based appeals regarding personal sensitivities again)
It would be good to be able to discuss root causes now and again without finger-pointing one-sidedeness; coming to terms with the cause of this conflict rather than their effects (to both sides) is eventually going to provide some sort of a solution, if there is one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 08:56 AM

I wouldn't know Michael. I have known a few lefties as you call them and consider them idealistic armchair socialists   Apart from the weird beard tree huggers of course.

Why do you consider my refusal to differentiate between religions "leftie?" Are you saying a local Muslim GP has more in common with terrorists than the old lady seeing him because she has problems kneeling pray in church these days?

If God botherers on this thread wish to differentiate between The Holy Q'ran and their bible, more fool them. Either can be used to get an army up, and both have such a track record.....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 09:03 AM

"cause of this conflict" -- Which conflict precisely, Jim? If you mean the Israeli expansionism one, then you know we don't disagree. I know you sometimes like to dismiss my grief at the way it has all developed as 'lip-service', but you don't really know the half of it, you know; and are not as gifted as you sometimes appear to like to think in the ability to read my mind.

If the conflict you refer to, otoh, is the one whereby the world's entire safety is threatened by militant Islamism in C21, just as it was by Lenino-Marxist Bolshevism during much of C20, the very mention of which I have learnt by experience is liable to bring from you the oh-so-convincing counter-argument of a knee·jerk cry of 'racism': why then, I see little prospect of convincing you, either.

But by all means let us try to keep as much heat and personal animosity out of any views we may exchange on such matters, indeed.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 09:22 AM

I do so consider it so, Ian, as being a part of that would-be humane but actually ultimately destructive idealism so characteristic of so much left-wing thinking, that all causes, and all actions, are of equal validity so long as they are taken in the right idealistic spirit: of course you should "differentiate between religions"; they are all nonsense, but some are more harmless sorts of nonsense than others; and you had better learn to "differentiate" as to which, if you don't want yourself or your children or your grandchildren carried off in the approaching -- I'd say "holocuast" if the word hadn't been pre-empted to a specialist usage; but you will, I take it, get my point. So start differentiating right now if you know what's good for you.

If you really cannot see the distinction between the windy utterances and the symbolic but non-destructive to any particular individual, other than emotionally, of Westboro on the one hand; and the "let's kill all the bastards" approach of Boko Haram, whose leader & spokesman just this last week publicly & emphatically proclaimed the pleasure and delight he took in killing the enemies of Allah, then I can only put down such gross & grievous lacunæ in your thinking to an over-indulgence in that so satisfying to its possessors of the sort of pious self-righteousness so typical of the left. Which is what Amis considered to be what distinguished them from human beings.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 09:34 AM

... and what do you know of the thoughts and actions of your nice GP's young nephew, eh? The killers of Mr Rigby were some nice person's nephews, I expect...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 10:19 AM

I had no idea.

I am truly sorry for trying to reason.

Your last post reveals paranoia and discriminatory ideals.

Tell me, do you shit yourself when a dark skinned person with a rucksack gets on the train?

Do you know of thoughts and actions of relatives of the Bosnian Serbs in The Hague?

Are coptic Christians suspect too or does the word Christian make them inherently decent?

No wonder you defend Keith. You may as well rediscover Jesus. They need bigots to help overcome the rational thinking coming out of Synods this last few months.

Our forensic hospitals are full of patients who reckon God made them kill people. Doesn't stop them being people with personality disorder, schizophrenia or delirium. Do you blame followers of their God for their crimes? Don't get too close to Keith then, there's a rumour that the odd Christian murders people and days God told them to.....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,John P
Date: 18 May 14 - 10:29 AM

Estimates for the number of civilian body bags in Iraq as a result of the war conducted there by the US and the UK range from 110,000 to more than a million. This war was overtly referred to by the people who started it, at least in the US, as a war of Christianity against Islam. They didn't really think that, mind you, but that was how they sold it to the ignorant Christian masses.

And that's just Iraq. Afghanistan probably doubles that number. Have the Muslim terrorists racked up that kind of body count yet? Does it really matter which violent evil-doers are doing the evil?

Singling out one group as if they were worse than any other is discriminatory thinking. Also blind, in that the connotation is that "my group of killers is better than that group killers because the other group does more horrible things." Open your eyes and add up the body bags filled by the US and the UK, starting with the formation of Israel and continuing to the present. Evil killers kill people, and they come from all religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:01 PM

Further to John P's post I'd add that very few religions are willing to excommunicate whole sections of their believers even when the believers are violent murdering bastards. As John pointed out, ideology often trumps reality--or becomes reality. The Iraq war was one against the infidels, and the current 'terrorist' response in also a war against the infidels, which in this case happens to be us. Boko Haram's behavior is in its way quite like aspects of the US/UK-led Iraq invasion. It used to be 'Kill a Commie for Christ' and now we're surprised people elsewhere are pissed off. Shouldn't come as a surprise. Whether you're hacked to death with knives or blown apart by smart bombs, the end result is you're dead. Boko Haram is a product of its country and bad management within that country, and it's not coincidental that Nigeria has lotsa oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:10 PM

Hurrah. Reason eventually prevails.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:12 PM

This war was overtly referred to by the people who started it, at least in the US, as a war of Christianity against Islam.

No it was not, and the death count there now, in a wholly religious conflict between Sunni and Shia, is truly horrific with daily bombings of public places that no-one even bothers to report anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:45 PM

The 'religious' element to the invasion of Iraq:

'I know that it is currently politically incorrect to quote Bob Woodward, but in his book, Plan of Attack, Woodward tells about asking President Bush if he asked his own father for advice about going to war against Iraq. According to Woodward, Bush replied that he had not asked his father for advice because, "He is the wrong father to appeal to for advice, the wrong father to go to, to appeal to, in terms of strength. There's a higher father that I appeal to."'

That is from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-wallechinsky/what-is-the-real-reason-g_b_11116.html


That there was no religious element involved is nonsense. In North America the reasons were not spelled out as official policy, but it surely was an influence among other reasons, and most of us knew that God was working for us, as usual.

In wars, there is lots of money to be made. And some corporations make a killing.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 May 14 - 12:57 PM

"Which conflict precisely, Jim?"
Any conflict that acquires the tag "Holy War" in order to demonise that particular religion Mike.
As I said, 'Holy Wars' per se are extremely rare beasts - these are always about something else.
To sympathise for the dead of one side and ignore all the other dead is to be partisan - what about all the Mrs Alis, whose sons died during one of the incursions into Gaza, or at Sabra.... or all of the other sites of mass murder - not human enough to deserve sympathy, or just the wrong colour or religion
And no - I won't differentiate one you've finished counting the body bags, I'm sure you'll end up finding very little difference in the figures eventuality and it's the intention that counts in the end - a 'master race', 'a chosen people' 'God on our side'.....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 01:13 PM

This war was overtly referred to by the people who started it, at least in the US, as a war of Christianity against Islam

Are you going to substantiate that statement or not?
Any overt references?

Every US president was and is a Christian.
That hardly makes every US war a religious one.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 18 May 14 - 01:27 PM

600

Which is, as everyone knows, a significant number for this debate eh Keith?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 18 May 14 - 01:32 PM

The number 600 is interesting. As a product of primes (as all numbers are) it reads 5 x 5 x 3 x 2 x 2 x 2.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 18 May 14 - 02:02 PM

Any overt references?

How about accept covert references, FW?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:26 PM

We were told it was overt, but OK Greg, what have you got?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 May 14 - 03:36 PM

Jim, from your links.
"The report says that Israeli and Palestinian teachers both portray their neighbours as enemies, though Israel does so considerably less."

Small cheer?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:40 PM

"In that statement I am referring only (NB - ONLY) to the law-breakers, inciting or carrying out attacks, grooming young girls etc etc, NOT the vast majority of peaceful and law-abiding folk of ANY religion, colour or creed."

Dodgy disclaimer KA of H. You left out the bit about some of your best friends being Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:41 PM

Not trying to hide, simply forgot.

That last post was mine

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:52 PM

"If you really cannot see the distinction between the windy utterances and the symbolic but non-destructive to any particular individual, other than emotionally, of Westboro on the one hand; and the "let's kill all the bastards" approach of Boko Haram, whose leader & spokesman just this last week publicly & emphatically proclaimed the pleasure and delight he took in killing the enemies of Allah," MtheGM

You would have a job convincing any Muslim, however peacefully inclined, that there is any more than a mildly quantitative difference between your utterances here and those of the Boko Haram leader.

Qualitatively, you and he are equally guilty of condemning a whole culture, based upon a flawed stereotype.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 18 May 14 - 06:54 PM

Sorry, me again.

I've been away from here for a couple of weeks and I'm out of practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 May 14 - 11:43 PM

Think I'd better leave this thread & really mean it this time. The effort of trying to get sense into the heads of selfrighteous stinkingmannered halfwitted ostriches is coming to sap my sanity and rob me of the will to live. Adieu. See you on some other thread. Some time. Maybe.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 01:13 AM

One less ostrich then..

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:38 AM

""The report says that Israeli and Palestinian teachers both portray their neighbours as enemies, though Israel does so considerably less.""
Rather outbalanced by the sight of Israeli children with automatic weapons in their hands saying that they can't wait to be old enough to kill Arabs.
Hate doesn't come with one of your sliding scales when it reaches those proportions.
Small cheer indeed.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 04:02 AM

All kids are interested in weapons, and the Jewish ones were not being encouraged to exterminate a race by their state broadcaster.

Troubadour, that "disclaimer" was not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 04:42 AM

Does the government here take responsibility for the output of our state broadcaster?

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 05:20 AM

No, but Hamas does.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 05:46 AM

Using a state broadcaster is not the same as taking responsibility for it.

Anyway, your Israeli friends reckon Palestinians are incapable of taking responsibility for anything. You can't have it both ways.

But you can try.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 May 14 - 06:44 AM

... except just to observe what a contemptibly cheap little specimen that Musket can be when it sets its mind to it, can't it?

Now I really have done.

I daresay

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 14 - 07:03 AM

"All kids are interested in weapons, and the Jewish ones were not being encouraged to exterminate a race by their state broadcaster."
These kids are being brought up to expect to kill Arabs, you appalling bigot
You expressed righteous indignation about a film depicting Arab children being encouraged to talk about killing Jews, but when the opposite is presented you excuse it as 'just being children'
On both sides, children are being brought up to hate the other side - one side is no better or worse than the other - that is the fact of the situation.
Another fact is that Israeli is a wealthy and powerful militaristic state using brute force to extend its territory, the Palestinians are responding to Israeli acts of terrorism with similar acts of their own.
Everybody here, apart from your little Gang of Four recognise that and attempt to support the idea of the (now sadly defunct) Peace Negotiations - you lot wave your little flags for the Terrorist State.
Sickos - the lot of you.
Another one for you to excuse
ISRAELI HATE EDUCATION

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 07:26 AM

That's me.

Perhaps you think people don't read what you put sometimes? Like I just said to Keith, you can't have it both ways.

I called you a top man or some such admirable trait in a thread the other day, and still do. However, you can be confused, contradict yourself and occasionally it is difficult to see where you are coming from.

Contemptible cheap specimens don't come around every day. I suggest making full use of them whilst they can be, as you say, arsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 08:05 AM

Gaza broadcasting is state controlled like the rest of the Middle East (except Israel obviously).

The little Gazan children were being encouraged to kill all Jews.
The Jewish children were imagining themselves in battle, as their parents and grandparents were, defending Israel from foreign armies.
It is a very common childhood fantasy to imagine fighting bravely for your country.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 08:52 AM

Yeah, nobody controls Israel. Obviously....

A very secular government according to er... the Israeli government. Mind you, in order to form a government they have to have a very non secular mandate. Can't be upsetting the land grabbers and electric fence erectors eh?

Shalom.

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 08:58 AM

TC, there is no state editorial control of Israel's media.
The childrens' programme encouraging small children to exterminate all Jewish people was broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV, the official Hamas-run television channel broadcasting from Gaza.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 19 May 14 - 10:00 AM

No it wasn't.

No more than Jeremy Clarkson is the official stance of The BBC.

Even worse. A Sunday School in England full of small children has them learning and singing songs such as "Fight the Good Fight" and "Onward Christian Soldiers, marching on to war."   One song even encourages children to martyr themselves, claiming "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam."

Easy isn't it?

Especially when it is the "other lot" you want to believe it about.

Nobody argues with the awfulness of the broadcast. The scattergun claim of responsibility though just brings out the bigotry in the worst of people.

The rogue state of Iran still wishes to melt Israel. There again, Israel has promised to reduce Tehran to a glowing puddle. Palestine however, under both parties has tried and tried to negotiate with the Israelis, even to the point of managing to keep rogue militants quiet in order for it to happen. There are many people within Palestine who feel negotiation never worked and never shall, and feel something similar to The UK backed French resistance might work for them too. This isn't the answer, but the stranglehold on The USA by Israel isn't an answer either.

I think they are getting a wee bit pissed off waiting don't you?

Don't tell me you have sunk to Michael's level of "every Muslim has a relative..."

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 May 14 - 10:11 AM

"he Jewish children were imagining themselves in battle, as their parents and grandparents were, defending Israel from foreign armies."
So there we have it - if an Arab children (aged around 6 or 7) say they wants to kill Jews, it is serious - if Israeli children (young to mid -teenagers) say they want to kill Arabs, and wave guns to show how, they are only playing - no bais there then!!
Moron
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 May 14 - 10:36 AM

The level of erudition here has risen to new lows.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 11:17 AM

TC,
No it wasn't.

Yes, it was TC.
The childrens' programme encouraging small children to exterminate all Jewish people was broadcast on Al-Aqsa TV, the official Hamas-run television channel broadcasting from Gaza, and that is confirmed above by The Spectator and other reliable sources.
Just because you sign yourself TC, no need to overdo it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 11:20 AM

TC,
There again, Israel has promised to reduce Tehran to a glowing puddle.

I was not aware of that.
Please supply the evidence, or were you just living up to your signature again TC?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:25 PM

TC, Iran has no nukes to deter.
Israel has had them for years.
Israel has never threatened Iran with them.
Your claim was false.
Made up.
You do not choose not to substantiate, you just can't.
How thick of you was that TC?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 May 14 - 03:28 PM

And, I do not call you "thick cunt" TC.

I call you TC because that is how you sign yourself, but you are being very thick and cuntish about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 20 May 14 - 03:45 AM

Something I have often said is do not place too much reliance on statistics. Not to do with this topic but this story just shows why I never take any notice of 'official figures say...'

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 14 - 04:12 AM

"I'm not here to provide evidence."

Well Musket quite right too – why change the habit of a lifetime, you have never backed up any of your shit-stirringly outrageous claims before so why start now when we all know that the exercise would be fruitless.

Talking about one's inability to use a computer, could you please translate the following into something that even remotely makes sense?

"If you don't know to debate, join some research club or other."

"If you don't know to debate" WTF does that mean FFS? Or is it just missing a "how"? Keith is correct by the way in his assertion that he only calls you TC because that is how you sign yourself off at the end of each post – it should of course be DITC – standing for Demonstrably Ignorant TC

"your track record in finding things is pretty fucking dire."

Having read through the exchanges on a number of threads Musket I'd say that Keith's track record and ability at finding things to blow your arguments out of the water happens to be a damned sight better (For that read light years ahead) than your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 20 May 14 - 04:55 AM

Get your key worker to help you to write that Terribulus?

Still unintelligible bollocks tell him.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 14 - 05:39 AM

Only to you Musket - Only to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 14 - 06:14 AM

"Demo" you would not know truth, logic or fact if collectively they all jumped up and bit you on the arse - and any glorified "bean counter" who describes themselves as being "fucking important" is merely delusional.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 14 - 07:47 AM

"Are Keith A Hole of Hertford and Terribulus the same person?"
Don't think so - but I think they take turns (along with little Boo Boo) in sharing the same brain - hence the quality of their offerings.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 20 May 14 - 08:33 AM

Bean counter?

That aimed at me?

Retired CEO perhaps. I was never clever enough with numbers to be a bean counter. No good at scoring at a dart board for that matter. I always made sure I had a decent bean counter though. Shareholders count and all that. Don't ask me about NHS bean counting all the same. The more I try the less I understand. That's because I'm not in love with myself in the same way your posts show you to be. If you can explain, no really explain how resource limit and cash limit are complimentary tools, the chancellor will thank you, never mind me.

Out of interest, I can't be a bean counter because I don't have a job. Both the academic chair and the strategic work in healthcare are honorary. I'm obviously too fucking important to be poor.

Zzz


Of course I'm "fucking important." The distinction between that and being important, whatever that means, is only recognisable by intelligent people. Which is why Keith, his pet worm and you are the only ones bandying it about as if it has currency. I think, though I could be wrong, it started when Keith couldn't understand how people could form their own opinions rather than cut and paste someone else's from a dubious internet site then defy anyone to say differently. He'll go far that lad. {snigger}

Jim seems to have it on the button. Whether it's a brain or just a Cornish pasty keeping their tabs apart is another matter though.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 14 - 08:47 AM

Meet Sakdiyah, a young Indonesian who is fighting Islamic fundamentalism with her chosen weapon - comedy.

The Moral Courage Project

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 20 May 14 - 10:55 AM

Strategic work in Healthcare? Ah back to the Staffordshire Hospital again eh - where the survival rate was better had you been on footpatrol in Sangin District, Helmand Province, Afghanistan unarmed wearing flip-flops, T-shirt and shorts.

What is that hospital trust that was taken in hand and "privatised" because it was over £40 million in debt and was handed over to the staff to run? Out of debt completely this year and expected to make a profit next year?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 May 14 - 11:10 AM

Meet some Jews opposed to Israeli terrorism
Jim Carroll

JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE

THIS IS NOT JEWISH

BIRTHRIGHT TRIPS MUST END

AMERICAN JEWS AGAINST ISRAELI POLICIES

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 20 May 14 - 11:25 AM

Here come da Jews, here come da Jews!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 20 May 14 - 01:40 PM

Sad to see one of the most able and respected debaters on the forum (Mr T) getting involved with someone who makes a habit of breaking the cardinal rule.....always tell the truth.

I'm afraid only admin can put an end to the tactics he uses, to close threads and obfuscate issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 21 May 14 - 02:22 AM

No real fear of that Akenaton, as there is no debate or discussion with either, they simply invent and make stuff up to support their rather ridiculous arguments then retreat behind a barrage of foul-mouthed unpleasantness when their falsehoods are torn to shreds. As stated previously neither Carroll or Musket would recognise the truth, logic or fact if all collectively jumped up and bit them on their arses.

What they lack totally is any sense of perspective, a classic example of this from Musket on this thread:

Keith A submits a link clearly showing official Hamas broadcasters in Gaza repeatedly putting words into the mouths of children who were little more than toddlers getting them to enthusiastically talk about them killing Jews when they got older. Musket's response was to state that Christianity was just as bad getting people to sing hymns such as "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam", "Onward Christian Soldiers" (adopted as by the Salvation Army IIRC) and "Fight the good fight". Absolutely ridiculous example of comparing apples to oranges.

"Jesus wants me for a sunbeam" - Original version by Nellie Talbot. A children's hymn - here is a sample, the lyrics for the second verse:

"Jesus wants me to be loving,
And kind to all I see;
Showing how pleasant and happy,
His little ones can be."

Rum F''k Musket how hateful can it get!!!! Doesn't it just inspire you to go out and kill people? Reading the lyrics through from start to finish reveals that it is a song with no reference to violence whatsoever.

"Onward Christian Soldiers" - No mention of death at all in the lyrics

"Fight the Good Fight" - Is about life not death.

But one thing you can consistently say about and depend upon with Musket - he does so much revel in making a complete and utter arse of himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 May 14 - 10:58 AM

Away from this thread for a bit, but find it hasn't moved much. But there's still dear old Musket, calling me "confused".

This, note, is the shining intellect whose great piece of logic is that all religions are nonsense so he refuses to 'discriminate' between different ones.

And doesn't get that this is precisely analagous to saying he doesn't like being ill, so he refuses to 'discriminate' between cancer and a cold.

And calls me "confused"!

Bless!!!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 21 May 14 - 12:40 PM

Ah. Bigotry is more entertaining when it is blind..

Christ thy right.

If brainwashing children isn't fucking obscene, what is?

You are right. I don't discriminate between religions. They are all delusions and comfort blankets and they are all used to abuse the natural superstition of simple folk.

Anything wrong with that statement? When someone says it is God's will, isn't there something slightly unhinged about them? When people thank a fairy story character, it is quaint. But when they ask a fairy story character to guide their feelings towards other people...

Hey, Terribulus! Want to see nasty men putting things into the mouths of children? Keep an eye on Catholic priests, they are good at it till they get caught.

When you talk to Akenaton about lying and making things up, don't you feel just a wee bit ironic? Or does your defence of religion go as far as agreeing with his awful homophobia?

I love Mudcat. They say there is one in every village but we appear to have a commune of them here. Just as well real people don't show their sorry arse every time they spout a view eh?

If you are concerned about ailments Michael, ask nurse. They are listed in your care plan. Do you really think that people who see religion as religion and don't see one cult as better than another can't tell the difference between a cold and cancer?

Do you still think Mr Patel at the corner shop should be treated with suspicion in case he may be related to a terrorist? How many Irish people do you hide from in the street? Would it be the same terrorists who killed Princess Di on the orders of Prince Philip?

The older they get, the dafter they get.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 May 14 - 12:57 PM

Like I said

Confused.com

As ever was

In ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠


LoL Musket

At you not with you

You'd be pathetic if not quite so high-lairigh-ous

Pity that Missing·The·Point not an Olympic sport

Gold medal cert, you

And to think I once rated you as showing some glimmerings of an intellect

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 22 May 14 - 03:58 AM

Don't worry. The feeling was never reciprocated. Semi humorous at times, expert in HTML but occasionally a wee bit of poo pops out.

There is a way to deal with your fear.   Eat your greens. They are supposed to eliminate free radicals. If you add Jerusalem artichokes to your diet, they may be able to distinguish between decent Christian free radicals and naughty Muslim free radicals too.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 May 14 - 05:26 AM

Thank you for your most witty rejoinder, Musk. At least, I take it to be so, but unhappily labour under the somewhat deleterious handicap of lacking the remotest inkling of what the blazes you are on about. Still, no doubt your meaning is hyaline clear to yourself.

One or two points I continue to urge, mind. OK, so you didn't accept [tho I couldn't quite see why] my cancer/cold 'discrimination' analogy to your refusal to 'discriminate' between religions, whatever their varying effects.

Well, then: we all agree that crimes are bad things, don't we? So do you refuse to 'discriminate' between the man who rapes a helpless woman and then murders her, and a little girl in a supermarket who fancies a sweetie so hides one in her pocket till she gets outside without paying for it, so is guilty of theft {'shoplifting' as such, is not an individual offence}. I mean, they are both guilty of crimes, and crimes are nasty; so, according to Muskey logic, we shouldn't 'discriminate' between them, should we?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 14 - 06:16 AM

Your comparison between rape and murder and stealing sweeties is more than a little fatuous doncha think Mike?
An Israeli regime that facilitated the massacre of 3,500 refugees may not measure up numerically to the annihilation of 6,000,000 human beings, but there is little to choose between motivation of both.
This is why, I believe, it is valid to compare such actions one with the other and why is it equally permissible to compare what now appears to be happening in Israel with what happened in South Africa.
By the way, I intended to respond to your 'whoops' apology on the other thread, but Mudcat appears to be only intermittently accessible here in the Wild West
No apologies needed, would that all our differences were as trivial!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 22 May 14 - 06:29 AM

Yeah Michael. I don't distinguish between the length of a car and the length of a double decker bus either. I don't distinguish between....

I don't distinguish between religions as being religions. What is difficult about that? I know Christians pray with their fingers crossed, Muslims pray with their arse in the air and Sikhs get fed afterwards. They are distinctions of process, not concept.

As I have never been a Christian, Muslim or anything else for that matter, I don't have any affinity with any of them. Some of my friends are Christians, some of my friends are Muslims, etc etc. Why should I lean towards one group over another on the basis of history?

As the last Archbishop of Canterbury pointed out last month, we are a post Christian society. The traditions still inform our way of life in terms of which day of the week we get a lay in, which dates we get pissed and promise to like each other and what time B&Q shuts on a Sunday. But after that, I fail to see why one cult should have any more influence over me than another?

Are you saying I don't distinguish between Sheffield Wednesday and groups of 11 men who try to play football?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 07:22 AM

Jim, IDF did not facilitate any of the massacres in that camp.
They did stop one of them though.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 14 - 07:57 AM

"Jim, IDF did not facilitate any of the massacres in that camp."
Yes they did
Transporting the killers to the site, allowing access to the camp, providing illumination so the massacre could continue for three nights without hesitation, armed Israeli troops eye-witnessing the slaughter and doing nothing to prevent it, transporting the killers away from the scene and building a sports stadium over the mass graves - all is a matter of historical record gathered from unbiased investigators.
The only thing in Israel's defence ifs their denial
The British left Palestine to the sound of hand grenades being hurled into the (sometimes occupied) homes of Arabs whose forbears who had occupied that territory for millenia, in order to build what has now become an Apartheid state
The Israeli regime have betrayed the Jewish people by acting like their former persecutors, and fanatics like yourself, who defend that betrayal by persistent denial of their recorded crimes are part of that betrayal.
Equating those crimes with being 'Jewish' is a smear on the six million who died - it is pissing on their memory.
Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 May 14 - 08:17 AM

I hoped you might have something new, but no.
Same old discredited stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 22 May 14 - 08:44 AM

In Iran, happy gets you arrested

(CNN) -- Tehran's police chief was deeply offended. "It's obscene," he declared, and promptly arrested six young men and women who made a joyful fan video, dancing and lip-synching to the sound of Pharrell Williams' huge hit, "Happy."

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/21/opinion/ghitis-iran-happy-video/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 22 May 14 - 09:11 AM

"Gender equality and Women's Rights are a Jewish Conspiracy against Muslims because Jews and Christians are jealous that only Muslims posesses Islamic Sharia and they don't"

Jews and Christians Try to Destroy Muslim Women

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 22 May 14 - 11:30 AM

I've yet to see a religion that is happy with people enjoying themselves or seeing everybody as equal.... The three versions of "the book"being the most misogynist and bigoted of them all.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 22 May 14 - 12:52 PM

Most religions are also horrified by sex without a religious blessing. A fiend of mine recently caused much consternation amongst both Xtiam and Muslim attendees at a particular gathering by asking "Don't you try a dress on before you buy it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 May 14 - 06:32 PM

"I hoped you might have something new, but no."
Not discredited - denied by you and the Israeli regime,
You have yet to produce a single shred of evidence to back your stupid claims that Israel wasn't guilty for the massacre - before, during and after the documented facts
You are no different to Irving an his crowd denying the Holocaust didn't happen.
God (if there is one) protect us all from religious hypocrites
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 14 - 04:22 AM

a single shred of evidence to back your stupid claims that Israel wasn't guilty for the massacre

Strange that not one single decent government blames them for it then.

They accept indirect responsibility as the authority at the time.
They accept that the commander should have anticipated something, and acted sooner, but they are not guilty of any massacre.

All the massacres in those camps, including this the only one you care about, were committed by other Arabs as is the the appalling suffering now of the Palestinian refugees in Syrian camps.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 14 - 04:53 AM

Don't be stupid Keith
They were foud guilty by independent enquiries - Sharon was indicted as a war criminal and then was elected prime minister, totally implicating Israel in his crimes
Who gives a toss what the same Governments who did nothing about Britains and the US's illegal incursion to Iraq thought - they're all a bunch of self-serving politicicians
JEWISH VOICE FOR PEACE

ELECTRONIC INTAFADA

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

NOAM CHOMSKY

How many more of these Anti-Semitic opinions do you want?
You are still Mudcat's own version of David Irving
Christian - sure you are!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 14 - 04:58 AM

They were foud guilty by independent enquiries
Really?
Which?
- Sharon was indicted as a war criminal
No he was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 14 - 06:42 AM

Piss off Keiyh
Done and dusted
You have the rerports
You have the facts
You will continue to support War crimes
You will continue to support the sale of weapons and equipment to terrorist states such as Syrian, Libya Bahrain...
You will continue to be a reactionary, right-extremist holocaust denier
That's waht you do and that's what you and yours are known for ]Say a prayer for the rest of us
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 14 - 07:34 AM

You have the rerports
You have the facts

Yes.
Israel was indirectly responsible.
No-one was "indicted as a war criminal."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 14 - 08:15 AM

"To prevent future Boko Harams, American Muslims must speak out forcefully against their radical coreligionists—and the media must cover it."

How We Stop the Next Boko Haram

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 May 14 - 08:16 AM

Israel was indirectly responsible.

Only indirectly responsible? Oh, well, that's all right then, eh FW?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 14 - 09:52 AM

Not all right Greg.
They are shamed by it, but they did not "facilitate" it and were not "indicted" for any "war crime."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 May 14 - 11:06 AM

Are you going to make all Catholics speak out against paedophiles within the clergy Bobad?

What the flying fuck are you talking about? Are you saying that an American citizen whose grandparents came from Malaysia has to denounce tribal Aftican terrorists in order to keep your bigotry sated?

Perhaps all Jewish Americans should apologise for Israeli atrocities or get all American drivers to apologise for Australian drink drivers with trucks.

I assume the point of such an exercise will to be if Christian Americans see Muslim Americans as being normal people ? Why else ?

What has Boko Harem to do with normal people who happen to be religious ? Should all Christians denounce African terrorists too just to be safe?

Just because religion is psychopathology on a nutshell, don't confuse terrorists using religion with people who happen to have religion. The poor buggers have enough confusion in their lives without being persecuted by people of a slightly different cult.



Land of the free.

Keep banging the rocks together. We'll send a few spy planes over Dumbfuckistan to keep an eye on y'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 May 14 - 12:49 PM

"They are shamed by it, but they did not "facilitate" it and were not "indicted" for any "war crime.""
No - he wasn't - the US made sure of that, but all the enquiries and the eye-witnesses implicated Israel fully in the massacre - you have the facts, you choose to ignore them again.
More war crimes to deny
Jim Carroll

GENOCIDE

WAR CRIMES

AMNESTY ACCUSES ISRAEL


ATROCITIES

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 May 14 - 02:35 PM

Your first link is to Russia Today, and its about a "tribunal" run in Kuala Lumpa as some rich man's hobby.
Are you serious Jim?!

Your second link is a Guardian headline about "possible war crimes" but there is no text and there are no war crimes.

Your third link is Amnesty accusing Israeli forces of brutality, but less than all its Arab neighbours.

Your last link is to Electronic Intifada, an anti-Isreal hate propaganda site.
The clue is in the name!

Nothing to challenge in any way any of the points I just made about one of the massacres at the Lebanese camp which you made an issue of.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 14 - 05:48 PM

May 22, 2014
Six Scenes of My Interactions with Muslims: The Good, the (Mostly) Bad, and the Ugly

I'm an equal opportunity critic of religions. But when it comes to human rights, I'm far more concerned about Islam.

by Herb Silverman

"I'm a liberal, but not a knee-jerk one. I'm an atheist, but not one who thinks all religions are equally problematic or that they should be judged by the violent behavior of religious extremists. I think the Bible and Quran both contain ridiculous passages and reasonable passages. Religious fundamentalists can quote portions of their holy books to justify loving their neighbor or killing their (infidel) neighbor.

But at the risk of being called Islamophobic, I think Islam is the worst and most dangerous religion by all human rights standards."

Read More

Herb Silverman is founder and President Emeritus of the Secular Coalition for America, author of "Candidate Without a Prayer: An Autobiography of a Jewish Atheist in the Bible Belt," and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Mathematics at the College of Charleston.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 23 May 14 - 06:18 PM

If Muslims want their religion to be viewed more favorably, they must forcefully and publicly condemn without qualification any violent strain of Islam regardless of what the Quran says.

We've neen here before, Boo- I expect the Muslims will do so just so soon as the "Christians"[sic] forcefully and publicly condemn without qualification the fundagelical loonies, the murderers of abortion doctors, the Timothy McVeigh type bombers & etc. etc.

I won't hold my breath, tho.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 14 - 07:24 PM

He, he.....like clockwork.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jeri
Date: 23 May 14 - 07:46 PM

The Daily Beast thinks Muslims have to jump through hoops to have people view their religion "more favorably". People who choose to demonize an entire religion based on their own prejudices will likely continue to do so no matter what anyone says or what facts get in the way. Enough Muslim religious leaders and average folks spoke out after the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists, and those determined to be stupid remained stupid. "Stupid" doesn't respect facts or honesty.

Now I have to go back to the Daily Beast, because the article "Muppets And The Politicos Who Love Them" sounds fascinating.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 May 14 - 09:24 PM

Leila Hatami, acclaimed Iranian actress and the first Iranian woman to sit on the jury of the Cannes film festival was denounced as a sinner by hardliners and targeted by a petition that she be sentenced to one to ten years imprisonment and flogging for pecking the octogenarian festival director Gilles Jacob on the cheek.

The Daily Beast the site that thinks Muslims have to jump through hoops to have people view their religion "more favorably".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 24 May 14 - 02:21 AM

Faith. The art of believing what cannot be proven. I'm sure most American Muslims will happily apologise. Apologise for fellow Americans that is.

I watched Billy Connolly's two part documentary on death the other week. It included an Islamic funeral service in a town, I think in California but I may be wrong (tell you what, I'll say it definitely was, then Keith will find out where and correct me) and two things occurred to me.

1. It gave free services for those families who could not afford a funeral.

2. Many families using their services weren't Muslim, including some poor Jewish families.

This multi denominational approach and community feel brings out the best in The USA, whilst the loud mouthed idiots show decent people in a bad light. I think the inference was that only Christians carried rich v poor to the grave.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:26 AM

"Are you serious Jim?!"
Who do you people think you are?
You ignore evidence by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses to massacres, Israeli soldiers, ex Israeli Secret Service heads..... and a whole host of other people who have stood out against Israeli fascism, and think you can cherry-pick and reject evidence to their terrorism as you see fit.
Between the gang of you, you drag up 'evidence' from Muslim Watch, White Supremacy, Zionist Gatestone, suspected Israeli war criminals...
Your entire case on Sabra/Shatila is based on Israel's claim that they didn't do it.
Israel is a terrorist state that has been protected from prosecution by over 100 U.S. vetoes.   
Who the **** do you thing you are?
Israel is a terrorist state - your sole defence of it is they say they didn't do it and that their puppet politicians haven't criticised them.
The Russian newspaper article is s straightforward report of Amnesty's statement on possible war crimes by Israel
The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported
The main contents of the Guardian article have been removed for because the copyright has run out - the headlines state it all.
If you are going to take over David Irvine's char on behalf of Israeli atrocities, you are going to have to put more thought int it than this
Jim Carroll
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

This from the Guardian - in full:
By Inna Lazareva, Tel Aviv 9:07AM GMT 27 Feb 2014
Israel has reacted angrily to a report by Amnesty International which accused it of being "trigger happy," saying that the study showed bias and a "skewed logic".
Amnesty has accused Israel of a "callous disregard for human life" after it documented the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years.
The 87-page report, entitled "Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank" was published on Thursday and details what it described as "excessive force to stifle dissent and freedom of expression" since the beginning of 2011. The report documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands "who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life."
In the report, Amnesty International goes as far as to accuse Israel of "war crimes and other serious violations of international law" against Palestinians. The report notes that more Palestinians living in the West Bank had been killed last year than in 2012 and 2011 combined, and said that more than 8,000 Palestinians - including 1,500 children - have been wounded by rubber bullets and tear gas since 2011.
"The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers- and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators - suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International.
Israeli officials have heavily criticised Amnesty's report as a "public relations stunt" "removed from reality", "unverifiable" and inaccurate.
Daniel Taub, Israel's Ambassador to the UK, said: "Amnesty's obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights."
The Israeli Embassy in London said in a statement "Amnesty is in need of an urgent reality check".
Between 2011 and 2013, there were 247 people injured by rock throwing, while "scores of Israelis have been victimised by shootings, stabbings, and other forms of terror, none of which Amnesty sees fit to mention in its report", noted the Embassy.
"The report brings together carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically-motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts", said the Israeli Embassy.
Hours after the report was published, Israeli forces killed a 24-year-old man that they were seeking to arrest, after he refused to turn himself in. Soldiers in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit bulldozed part of Muataz Washaha's house after a standoff lasting several hours, and opened fire. His body was found shortly after.
An Israeli military statement said that Washaha had been wanted for "suspected terror activity" and that the forces, which later found an AK-47 assault rifle in the house, were operating under the premise that he was armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:26 AM

"Are you serious Jim?!"
Who do you people think you are?
You ignore evidence by Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, eyewitnesses to massacres, Israeli soldiers, ex Israeli Secret Service heads..... and a whole host of other people who have stood out against Israeli fascism, and think you can cherry-pick and reject evidence to their terrorism as you see fit.
Between the gang of you, you drag up 'evidence' from Muslim Watch, White Supremacy, Zionist Gatestone, suspected Israeli war criminals...
Your entire case on Sabra/Shatila is based on Israel's claim that they didn't do it.
Israel is a terrorist state that has been protected from prosecution by over 100 U.S. vetoes.   
Who the **** do you thing you are?
Israel is a terrorist state - your sole defence of it is they say they didn't do it and that their puppet politicians haven't criticised them.
The Russian newspaper article is s straightforward report of Amnesty's statement on possible war crimes by Israel
The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported
The main contents of the Guardian article have been removed for because the copyright has run out - the headlines state it all.
If you are going to take over David Irvine's char on behalf of Israeli atrocities, you are going to have to put more thought int it than this
Jim Carroll
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

This from the Guardian - in full:
By Inna Lazareva, Tel Aviv 9:07AM GMT 27 Feb 2014
Israel has reacted angrily to a report by Amnesty International which accused it of being "trigger happy," saying that the study showed bias and a "skewed logic".
Amnesty has accused Israel of a "callous disregard for human life" after it documented the killing of dozens of Palestinian civilians in the West Bank over the past three years.
The 87-page report, entitled "Trigger-happy: Israel's use of excessive force in the West Bank" was published on Thursday and details what it described as "excessive force to stifle dissent and freedom of expression" since the beginning of 2011. The report documents the killing of 45 Palestinians and wounding of thousands "who did not appear to be posing a direct and immediate threat to life."
In the report, Amnesty International goes as far as to accuse Israel of "war crimes and other serious violations of international law" against Palestinians. The report notes that more Palestinians living in the West Bank had been killed last year than in 2012 and 2011 combined, and said that more than 8,000 Palestinians - including 1,500 children - have been wounded by rubber bullets and tear gas since 2011.
"The frequency and persistence of arbitrary and abusive force against peaceful protesters in the West Bank by Israeli soldiers and police officers- and the impunity enjoyed by perpetrators - suggests that it is carried out as a matter of policy," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa director at Amnesty International.
Israeli officials have heavily criticised Amnesty's report as a "public relations stunt" "removed from reality", "unverifiable" and inaccurate.
Daniel Taub, Israel's Ambassador to the UK, said: "Amnesty's obsessive focus on Israel, and its refusal to recognise the very real threat posed by deliberately-orchestrated violent demonstrations, suggests an agenda that has more to do with politics than human rights."
The Israeli Embassy in London said in a statement "Amnesty is in need of an urgent reality check".
Between 2011 and 2013, there were 247 people injured by rock throwing, while "scores of Israelis have been victimised by shootings, stabbings, and other forms of terror, none of which Amnesty sees fit to mention in its report", noted the Embassy.
"The report brings together carefully selected, unverifiable and often contradictory accounts from clearly politically-motivated individuals, which it then reports as unquestioned facts", said the Israeli Embassy.
Hours after the report was published, Israeli forces killed a 24-year-old man that they were seeking to arrest, after he refused to turn himself in. Soldiers in the West Bank town of Bir Zeit bulldozed part of Muataz Washaha's house after a standoff lasting several hours, and opened fire. His body was found shortly after.
An Israeli military statement said that Washaha had been wanted for "suspected terror activity" and that the forces, which later found an AK-47 assault rifle in the house, were operating under the premise that he was armed.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 05:12 AM

The Kuala Lumpur findings have been widely accepted and reported
Really?
Where, apart from Russia Today?

I have no "case" about Sabra-Shatilla except that Israel's version stands up to scrutiny and should not be dismissed.
Reputable "eye witnesses" tell lies about Israel.
Remember those good nurses on the Mamara who "saw" Israelis throwing bodies into the sea, yet every single person on the ship was subsequently accounted for.
There were no bodies.
I doubt the nurses made the story up.
The activists gave it them.
That is what they do, and the gullible saps like you lap it all up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 05:16 AM

The Irish government are not "puppet politicians" of some global Zionist conspiracy.
Nor are the rest of the EU, or Scandinavian governments, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada,.................

They are well informed, and not taken in by all the lies and propaganda like you are.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:24 AM

You have been give all this before - you choose to ignore it.
You have just been give a load more - you choose to ignore that.
Amnnesty, Human rights Watch, on the spot reports - all ignored.
The huge researched document on Sabra/Shatila - ignored.
You have never responded to accusations of Israeli terrorism with anything other than Israel's denials.

Moving Bedouins about like pawns - they have no right to live on lands they have occupied for decades.
onto a toxic site - it wasn't toxic   
Chemical weapons - not chemical
Inequalities in Israel - non existent, despite masses of research, including the definitive 'Inequality Report', which was so definitive you claimed it was too much to be expected to read.
You have lied and distorted your way though all these arguments and you dare call those who don't believe you "gullible saps"
You are not even good at this.
Your arguments are totally void of all humanity and logic
Christian my arse
Where is your evidence for any of this shit?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 06:46 AM

Jim, you kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it.

Instead of just responding to that you now want to restart the debates about Bedouin and all the other propaganda that has been shown up for what it is so many times.

Amnesty has criticised most countries, and Israel's neighbours much more than Israel, but if we must discuss Israel let's do one issue at a time.

Israel was only indirectly responsible for that massacre.
No-one was "indicted as a war criminal" as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 14 - 07:23 AM

"People who choose to demonize an entire religion based on their own prejudices will likely continue to do so no matter what anyone says or what facts get in the way."

I don't see anyone here demonizing an entire religion. What I see being demonized are those who commit atrocities in the name of their religion and their defenders who apparently are unable to distinguish between the two.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 07:50 AM

As Bobad says...
... and are also unable to distinguish between religions who are benign, even tho as absurd as all religions are, and those whose activities are based on violent proselytisation and a definded mission to wage war, whether literally or merely ideologically, on all others.

Islam is one of the foremost examples of this latter type; and its real adherents would, & indeed do, despise any who claimed to be their co-religionists who asserted otherwise.

So to refuse to distinguish between religions, as eg Musket self-glories in doing, as equally ridiculous, without taking into account their various stances with regard to missionising, proselytisation, opposition to the rights of expression or practice of other religions, literal application in today's world of the more extreme injunctions of the original founders [stonings, death for apostasy, floggings for adultery, which means any sex SFAICS] -- such denials of any distinctions constitute, I say again, the thoughts & actions of fools.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 24 May 14 - 08:06 AM

And besides, there are those among us who consider all religions as being evil and worthy of demonization.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 08:32 AM

"Jim, you kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it."
It is disputed by Israel alone - it has transpired since that America was implicated in it, and politicians have not commented on it or way or another - just followed America in giving their blanket support for Israel in whatever they do.

US INVOLVEMENT

America has found it necessary to used its UN veto over 100 times to prevent condemnation of Israel - their position in doing so has made them no different from the Russian and Chinese support of Assad - six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Nobody gives a toss what politicians do - it is totally out of our control and they speak for nobody but themselves and their personal interests.
Only you choose to hide behind them - as you chose to hide behind "experts" and "historians" in the past.
Israel has been condemned throughout the world by independent Human Rights and War Crimes investigators - that is what matters, not the Freemason-like bunch of politicians.
"all religions as being evil and worthy of demonization."
Get it right fellers - when religion is left as a matter of personal choice it is as harmless as a belife in the Little People - it is those that would use those beliefs - Christian, Muslim, Jew... who are in need of demonisation
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:03 AM

It is disputed by Israel alone
No.
The Irish government do believe it either.
Nor do the rest of the EU, or Scandinavian governments, or Australia, New Zealand, Canada,.................

Now please, if we must discuss Israel yet again, can we deal with one issue at a time?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:07 AM

a belife in the Little People

Musket believes in the Little People, but he thinks they are of no consequence.
(Whither England thread.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 09:57 AM

"The Irish government do believe it either."
No they don't, but if they did, so ******* what?
Answer the statements that have been by Amnesty and Human Rights Watch - or maybe the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign.
Oly an Establishment arse-licker moron would hide behind politicians nowadays - they are all a bunch of self-serving crooks.
The Irish Government for Christ's sake - we've just had another minister forced to resign and he has been forced to hand his now illegal retirement kick-back to charity.
They are all crooks - if crooked politicians and culprits claiming their innocence is your best shot, you have nothing
None of them have expressed support for Israeli atrocities - if they have - where?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:06 AM

Sorry Michael, I can't hear you above the noise.

OY! JIM! KEITH! KEEP THE BLOODY NOISE DOWN. I CANT HEAR MICHAEL GET HIS ARSE ROUND HIS TIT!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:18 AM

Ireland's current relations with Israel
Alan Shatter is the minister who has just been forced to resign, incidentally
Jim Carroll

"2000s[edit]
In 2003, the Irish government opposed the building of Israel's security wall in the West Bank.
According to WikiLeaks, following the 2006 Lebanon War, Ireland prevented the United States from moving military equipment destined for Israel through Shannon Airport.[9]
2010s[edit]
On 19 January 2010, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh a senior Hamas military commander was assassinated in Dubai by a team of eight suspected Mossad officers who used counterfeit European passports, including Irish passports.[10] The Irish government responded by expelling a staff member of the Israeli Embassy in Dublin.[11] Ireland subsequently delayed an EU-Israel agreement which would involve allowing Israel to access sensitive information on EU citizens, and demanded that Israel tighten its data protection laws.[12]
On 5 June 2010, an Irish humanitarian aid vessel MV Rachel Corrie heading for Gaza, was intercepted and seized by the Israeli Navy.[13] This caused political tension between Ireland and Israel.[14] [15]
On 25 January 2011, Ireland upgraded the Palestinian envoy in Ireland to that of a full embassy which resulted in the Irish Ambassador to Israel being summoned. Israel announced that it "regrets" the decision.[16]
On 4 November 2011, the Irish ship MV Saoirse carrying humanitarian aid to Gaza was intercepted by the Israeli Navy in international waters. The Navy boarded the ship, took those aboard in custody and towed it to Ashdod. In response, Irish Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs Eamon Gilmore stated that the Irish government do "not agree with [the Gaza blockade], (...) regard it as contrary to international humanitarian law in its impact on the civilian population of Gaza, and (...) have repeatedly urged Israel to end a policy which is unjust, counter-productive and amounts to collective punishment of 1.5 million Palestinians."[17]
On 16 November 2011, unnamed sources from the Israeli Foreign Ministry claimed that "Ireland (is the) most hostile country in Europe" and was "pushing all of Europe's countries to a radical and uncompromising approach". An unnamed official argued that "the Irish government is feeding its people with anti-Israel hatred" and that "what we are seeing here is clear anti-Semitism." An official from the Irish Foreign Affairs Department announced that "the Government is critical of Israeli policies in the occupied Palestinian territories. It is not hostile to Israel and it is clearly wrong to suggest as much," he said. "The notion that this Government is or would be trying to stoke up anti-Israeli feeling is untrue. We are not hostile to Israel. We are critical of policies, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories. These are not the same things".[18] Israel's ambassador to Ireland was reported as distancing himself from claims of Irish anti-Semitism.[19]
In early 2012 the Irish Palestine Solidarity Campaign organised a "cultural boycott" of Israel, as a result of which Irish music group Dervish (band) cancelled a proposed tour of Israel, citing "an "avalanche of negativity" and "venom" directed towards them." [20] This online campaign was officially condemned by Irish Justice Minister Alan Shatter [21] and Irish Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore [22]
In 2013, Alan Shatter, minister of Justice, Equality and Defense said, while visiting Israel, that "Ireland is a friend of Israel. We have a government in Ireland that wants a deeper engagement. But we also have a government in Ireland that is committed to the peace process."[23]

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 10:56 AM

No reason why you should hear me, Ian. I wasn't talking to you, just ABOUT you...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 11:00 AM

No accusations there about Israel massacring refugees.
If Israel did such a thing, decent countries like Ireland would shun them, but they don't because it is bollocks.

They do criticise Israel's policy over Gaza, and the fence, but they do not accuse of massacres or war crimes because they know it is bollocks.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 11:01 AM

Politicians supporting Israel
Jim Carroll

Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations

The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 12:21 PM

Jim -- Would you please tell us

a. the date of this Resolution you cite

and

b. its precise wording [or, if very lengthy, a reasonable digest of its purpose]?

Without this info one sees no significance in the figures you quote whatseover.

Thank you ····

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 May 14 - 12:29 PM

Not, mind, that I can see what point you are making here, thruout. Denunciations of Israel are often deserved and all very well; but we have had, and have one ongoing at this very moment, innumerable threads on the topic. What the hell do you reckon it has to do with the avowed subject of this thread, for which cast your eyes ½" upwards?

Drift is sometimes entertaining, and where would we all be without that incomparable ongoingoingoingoing Keith'n'Carroll Show!!!!!

But now & then, as here, a drift into somebody's obsessive King·Charles·Head ultimately just becomes tiresome.

So could we maybe get off Israel and on to Islamic Radicalism? Maybe? Just for a bit? Pretty Please!

Oh, go on!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 May 14 - 12:49 PM

The resolution was TO ACCORD PALESTINE NON-MEMBER OBSERVER STATE' STATUS IN UNITED NATIONS

You kept saying that Israel "facilitated" that massacre, so I just reminded you that it was disputed and that no democracy believes it.
It was not an invitation to rehash a hundred arguments.

If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 01:33 PM

" it was disputed and that no democracy believes it."
It was disputed by Israel - you have produced no other evidence of anybody else supporting it.
The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) December 2012 - easily traceable.
You might try this for an international view of the Middle East situation
WORLD PUBLIC OPINION
"that no democracy believes it."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 01:44 PM

Whoops - (sorry again Mike)
What tou appeart t be saying is that none of the politicians believe it - the war crimes and human rights organisations throughout the world have condemned it - you have been given the evidence for this over and over again and have chosen to ignore it and hide behind the opinions of self-serving countries like Britain, who followed the US into an illegal war, and is little more than their gofer.
You have still to produce a single shred of evidence of anybody actually supporting the massacre, and it turns out that even the Yanks were conned into believing the lies - you've had that fact too
"...the date of this Resolution you cite...."
6th Nov 2012
Easly traceable.
You might try this for how the world views Israel
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/503.php
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:12 PM

TWO JEWISH ANTI-SEMITES (no doubt!!)
(including a 'lying'Jewish nurse)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 May 14 - 03:22 PM

"If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere."
Not fucking thread drift again Keith
Whenever oyu get into trouble - out comes the blue pencil
Will you never learn Keith - we discuss whatever we wish around these subjects - you have no authority here - stop manipulating discussion
Just a reminder - your mentor introduced Israel into this discusssion half a lifetime ago and it has been mentioned 177 times to date - it's a little obvious to wait till now to cry 'foul'
You really are a ham-fisted censor
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 01:12 AM

Oh, come on Jim, don't be so touchy & so disingenuous. Thread drift is thread drift: & altho we all sometimes follow a train of thought which momentarily throws a thread off-track, that is not the same as doing what you are so clearly doing here, which is deliberately to introduce a vaguely related topic which is a well-known obsession of your own with the obvious purpose of hijacking the thread so that you can obsessively rehearse it for the n℔ time, knowing that Keith will rise to it & the Show will again run&run. Now for crying out loud stop going on about The Iniquities Of Israel, which are only marginally related to the avowed topic of this thread, & take your anti-Is stuff, if you must, to the BDS thread.

I am not trying to 'censor' you or whevs; merely requesting you to act with reasonable courtesy to let others get on with this thread, which is on a topic just as significant to some as the misdeeds of Israel are to the all-important J Carroll.

I am thanking you...

Best Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 02:50 AM

"Thread drift is thread drift"
Wha.....?
My comment is addressed at Keith's attempts to once again steer the discussion away from the awkward bits and into his comfort zone - it has been his regular practice as long as I have had anything to do with him on this forum
His statement
"It was not an invitation to rehash a hundred arguments.
If you must discuss Israel again, do it elsewhere."
I have become extremely tired of his arrogant proprietorial behaviour and have warned him about it on numerous occasions.
As far as I am concerned, these threads go wherever the contributors go wherever the contributors choose to take them, and whoever attempts to prevent them from doing so is indulging in censorship.
I would be extremely disappointed to learn that you were supporting him in his efforts.
Examples of Zionist, Christian, Buddhist, Bush Baptist... whatever fundamentalism will, and should be part of all these discussion, which are essentially about the misuse of religions for other purposes.
Much of the problems of Muslim fundamentalism today rise directly from the problems of the Middle East, and ring-fencing Israel as a no-go area in these discussions is to exclude a major player in the conflict.
A massacre of 3,500 unarmed Muslim refugees by a different sect of Muslims, facilitated by a Zionist influenced state is an example of religious fundamentalism gone viral.
That massacre, along with Keith's blanket support for its facilitators, is perfectly valid for discussion here.
Please don't disappoint me further in following him up his censorship road.
He is certainly not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket; you really should know better.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 03:10 AM

Sorry, Jim; but I think you are plain wrong in this instance. It is not "censorship", nor is it "arrogant[ly] proprietorial", to request the courtesy of sticking substantially to the point in a thread, rather than hijacking it to ride a hobby-horse that one [ie you in this instance] has ridden to death in umpteen posts elsewhere, and where there are plenty of other places to continue to exercise it if you really insist on persisting in it. This thread is not about Israel, except by a most marginal train of thought; but plenty of others are; and these would be the places to go on making these points of yours: thus letting those who want to discuss "Islamic radicalism..." (quite large & significant enough a topic to be permitted to proceed without obsessive irrelevancies, or at best marginalities, obstructing the process) to get on with doing so.

So just, if you would be so good, stop being so insufferably patronising with your

"Please don't disappoint me further in following him up his censorship road.
He is certainly not the brightest starfish in the sand-bucket; you really should know better"


and just stick to the point at issue in the thread.

Thanks again...


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 03:38 AM

I never said I was trying to talk to you Michael. I just couldn't hear the entertaining waffle you were coming out with.

Mind you, from time to time it isn't so much entertaining as disturbing. Are you REALLY circumspect regarding any Muslim you come across in case they have a relative with a rucksack?

Presumably you clench your sphincter if you come across an Irishman in case his uncle is a priest. Or even worse, a Christianist radical.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:00 AM

No need to be "circumspect", Musket. Never suggested I was. I simply made the point that, becoz one person, of any demographic, may be a nice guy, it doesn't follow that they all are -- whether they happen to be related or not. I think you are over-labouring this perfectly simple point.

Jim, following your kind permission, in your assertion that "As far as I am concerned, these threads go wherever the contributors choose to take them", I would like to take this opportunity right here & now to offer ❤iest congratulations to my team, Arsenal, on winning the FA Cup. If I had the energy, I would now proceed, by your kind & emphatic leave, to add this statement to every thread on the forum! I would add that Zoe Wanamaker is my favourite actress, while I am about it.

Anyone else got any more mnemonic irrelevancies to contribute, according to this now explicitly formulated Jim·Carroll·Principle of anything goes and to hell with the integrity of the thread?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:06 AM

You, Keith, Boo-Boo and Brucie have all made a point of targeting Muslims on this forum - you have all studiously avoided the fact that Islamic radicalism is an example of a religious extremism that has occurred at one time or other in one form or another, wherever any particular religion has gained political influence, and is still a factor in connection with the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist religions today.
Keith in particular has gone to racist and cultural extremes to attack on single religion, while, at the same time defending the behaviour of a State that declares itself Jewish and has resorted to military aggression atrocities to expand the boundaries of that State.
He has also attempted to absolve his own claimed religion (I've never met a Christian so devoid of humanity as he appears to be) from any wrongdoings, declaring that the abuses that are happening in Christian countries have nothing to do with religion.
Between you, you are attempting to present Islamic radicalism as not only evil and dangerous, which it most certainly could be, but as unique, which it is definitely not.
Islamic radicalism is a part of a larger picture, much of which has nothing to do with religion anyway.
Unless we are allowed to discuss it in its full context, we are only left to shake our heads in disapproval of the behaviour of one religion and ignore that of all the others.
Israel irrelevant to religious fundamentalism - you have to be joking.
Sabra/Shatila remains one of the most horrendous examples of an atrocity committed by a state acting in the name of religion, certainly in my lifetime - and Israel can chalk up a number of other examples of such atrocities to its (credit?).
If I am being patronising, perhaps you aren't the intelligent and principled individual I've come to regard you as - I stand corrected.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:22 AM

I have never attacked any religion nor any person for their faith.
Repeating the lie does not make it any less of a lie Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 04:30 AM

"attempting to present Islamic radicalism as not only evil and dangerous, which it most certainly could be, but as unique, which it is definitely not."
.,,.
Seriously, Jim. Certainly not uniquely so -- I don't think anyone is asserting that -- but most arguably the most so. I know about Jim Jones & those loonies in Kansas & the Rev Mr Moon & his Unificators; about Shatila; and so ad ∞; & deplore them all as much as you do. But you have yet to name any actual present-day sovereign state ruled by any other system than claimed Koranic authority, in which people are stoned to death for what are not even offences in most places in the world; where young women are publicly given 100 strokes of the cane on the bare buttocks for being seen out in public with someone who is not an immediate relation, or because a veil has slipped to show too much face ...

I could go on, as you know. But I invoke Hegel again: this is not merely a quantative, but a qualitative difference, between this "Faith" & any other you can name. How can you urge that the fact that the Israelites stoned adulterers to death in the days of King David, & even as 'recently' as the days of Jesus Christ, or that the Holy Office burned 'heretics' in C16, is any "whataboutery" justification for their going on performing such stonings to this very day in Malaysia and Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia?

How?


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:27 AM

"Repeating the lie does not make it any less of a lie Jim."
Ho hum - you a#have described all Male Pakistani Muslims as being culturally implanted to have sex with underage women
That is an attack on both the religion and the adherents to that belief
Mike
Once again, by confining the discussion to extremes, you are attempting to isolate Islamism as the major threat while at the same time, precluding discussion on other religions.
Islamic extreme radicalism is a threat.
So is a regime attempting to establish a one-religion state by force of arms.
The fact that that state has nuclear capability makes it a major threat to us all - God with a bomb.
I bloody well know of the injustices of enforced extremist religion, just as I know of the injustices of all religions, when they are allowed to afflict them - which, in some cases, is at this moment.
You are applying your sliding scale in order to demonise one religion, while at the same time demanding that we concentrate on that religion and ignore the rest
You seem hell-bent on not allowing us to discuss Islamic extremism in the context of its root causes.
Feel free not to do so yourself, otherwise, kindly mind your own business
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 06:36 AM

Not sure what your last four words supposed to mean, Jim. As a member of this forum -- not a 'Guest' or any such, but a properly constituted and recognised member -- I am perfectly entitled to comment on any point made in its discussions. It is, in fact, my 'business' to do so. It's what I joined it for. So what do you mean by telling me to "mind my own business"? That is precisely what I am doing, you impertinent little jackanapes, you. How veryveryveryvery bloodybloodybloodybloody DARE you! Be off with you, and mind yours elsewhere, you conceited young idiot!

~M~

(teeheeheeheehee.......)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:30 AM

Keith just said he never attacks people for their religion or faith.

Yet is known for saying "as a Christian....." Which infers a moral superiority. Although when I say that as a person who likes a decent Pinot I abhor bigotry, he can't see that it is the exact same thing.

Odd.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 07:32 AM

You are entitle to comment on what I write Mike - you are not entitled to tell me where and whether I can write it
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", as Evelyn Beatrice Hall was once heard to remark.
Hmm - Jackanapes again - you really do turn me on sometimes!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:27 AM

Musket, I have never said "As a Christian..." implying any superiority.
I did say that I belong to a Church that abhors and confronts racism, but that is not what you accuse me of.

You and Jim both attack things I have never said, and never would say, because you have no answer to what I actually do say.

Jim,
Ho hum - you a#have described all Male Pakistani Muslims as being culturally implanted to have sex with underage women
That is an attack on both the religion and the adherents to that belief

No.
I stated repeatedly that their religion was not in any way relevant, as you know because I have put it in front of you.
I only said I believed what was being said by eminent people of that culture, about their own culture.
I made clear it was not my own opinion, and indeed that I knew nothing about that culture.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 09:54 AM

Glad to give satisfaction, Mr Jack-a-Napes.

'Defend to death' was said by Voltaire first, I believe.

Cheers

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:37 PM

"'Defend to death' was said by Voltaire first, I believe."
I believed so until comparatively recently - apparently it is incorrectly attributed to him but Ms Hall was the originator of the saying apparently.
EVELYN BEATRICE HALL
Must write to Q.I.
"I stated repeatedly that their religion was not in any way relevant,"
Being Muslim refers to a religion - being a Pakistani is a reference to national origins, Male refers to gender, ergo all male Muslim Pakistanis being culturally implanted with a tendency to bed underage girls is an attack on an entire communities race, religion and gender - Three at a Blow, as the folk-tale would have it - doesn't come any more all-embracing than that.
You have yet to produce one single "eminent person" who made such a statement, and if you produced a thousand, it wouldn't make the slightest difference to the fact that it is deeply racist, sectarian and inflammatory - such stuff are holocausts made of.
Your hiding behind your so-called Christianity is as revolting as your "historians" and your "experts"
Your disgusting views bear not the slightest resemblance to any genuie Christian I have ever met, including virtually all my friends and neighbours here, and a considerable number of my family.
I honestly believe you would have to fill in an application form to become a member of the human race - and you would almost certainly be turned down.
If what you state as your views represents anything resembling a religion, it is very easy to see where fundamentalism; Christian, Jewish, Muslim...., comes from.
You are a one-off head-banger Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:51 PM

Ah ~~ thanks for that info re the Voltaire biographer, Jim. I had heard of her by pen-name only, and hadn't come across theory that the attribution to Voltaire was a gloss of hers. Thanks for this info: no knowledge ever unwelcome.

As to "telling you where or whether you can write" anything. I think it reasonable to challenge your apparent assertion that any thread can be arbitrarily led off in any direction at the whim of any contributor to it, which seemed to me to be asserted in your "these threads go wherever the contributors choose to take them". If that is not what it implies, then what is? And it still appears to me a most questionable claim, liable to lead to infinite confusion. I can't really feel that challenging it in any way constitutes "telling you what or where you can write".

Does it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 May 14 - 12:53 PM

I did not refer to their religion at all, and just accepted what eminent people said of their own culture.
If that is the worst you can put up against me, in all these years, how bad can I be?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:06 AM

I dunno. The liberal use of the word eminent is as frequent as your wearing your religion on your sleeve. Both put there to denigrate those who disagree with you.

So don't be surprised when disagreeing leads to finding you disagreeable.



Michael. Voltaire certainly is relevant to this thread and as ever, all religion based activity.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:09 AM

"just accepted what eminent people said of their own culture."
Bollocks - you made that up, good Christian that you are - it doesn't matter anyway. it's racist, and it's exactly the racist/religious smear that gets petrol poured through letter-boxes by your BNP friends
You put down their tendency to pedophilia to their religious driven culture - can you not stop lying for one minute?
Sorry Mike - can't agree
These discussions can only be wailing walls if we can't discuss them in their full context.
Keith's regular trick is discuss whatever he wants, wherever he wants, then, when he runs into trouble, too try to close that particular avenue by crying 'thread drift'.
He has been quite prepared to discuss this up to now, then, when he became mired in his own distortions, he tries to divert attention away from it.
He once desperately tried to do this on a chemical weapon (I think) thread, then himself drifted off into something completely off topic - when challenged, his reply was "thread drift happens".
Christian - 'I've shit them!' as they used to say in Liverpool
Not suggesting you are doing that, but he certainly is.
I'm afraid Sabra/Shatila will come up again and again as an example of one of the great atrocities brought about by a religion-driven regime - apologies in advance.
Off to sunny Waterford for a few days - have fun!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: BrendanB
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:26 AM

According to Musket, prefixing a statement with 'as a Christian...' implies moral authority. I do not see how that conclusion can be drawn. In a conversation about education I might say 'as a retired teacher...' Simply to contextualise what I wish to say and, perhaps, to establish my credentials. If I were to indicate that I was speaking as a Christian it would indicate no more than my attempt to present a Christian view. I do not see how I could claim any moral superiority. If others choose to confer such authority on me that is a matter for them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 26 May 14 - 05:42 AM

It might be revealing to ask a non-radicalised muslim around and ask his opinion sometime. It's a bit like discussing racism when you're not on the receiving end - about the only thing I know is that I don't know, the more I learn the worse it seems, all that the legislation has done is drive the racism underground, making it harder to get a grip on and so more entrenched. I'm being careful to differentiate between equality in entitlement, disadvantage and racism, in passing, so I'm not buying into any sense of corrective reverse discrimination.
Of late, discrimination also works the other way, blacks using non-existent racism as a defence against their own faults. That too is racist, sadly, so it's not as if it's a one-way street.
Perhaps this is thread drift, that the question was of radicalisation. But the problem is that when the only way out of an unendurable situation is radicalisation, everyone loses: the real answer is to constinue to offer a way out of the corner, through tolerance.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 07:34 AM

Jim, if I was a racist I would post racist views and you would not have to trawl back years to find one post that is not in the least racist anyway.

Everyone is sick of you making the same tired old accusations.
You do it because you can not argue your case.
If you could, you would.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 26 May 14 - 02:34 PM

Brendan. Fully agree but we are talking Keith here and he has form. He uses what he considers moral authority by pointing put he can't be x y z because Christians don't do x y z. He drags dubious quotes from internet searches and once he decides the authors are eminent, then woe betide you if you disagree. That makes you a liar.

Not nice sometimes. Not nice at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 May 14 - 03:05 PM

He uses what he considers moral authority by pointing put he can't be x y z because Christians don't do x y z.

Completely untrue.
I have NEVER made any such statement.

(I did say that I belong to a Church that abhors and confronts racism, but that is not what you accuse me of.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 07:26 AM

Extracts from this morning's The Times, pp31 & 32

1. Pregnant bride stoned by her family
Pakistan
A 25 year old Pakistani woman who was three months pregnant was stoned to death by her family outside the High Court in Lahore for marrying the man she loved ... She was cornered and attacked with bricks by a mob of men that included her father, two brothers and a former fiancé. The couple had gone to the high court to record a statement in front of a judge that Ms Parveen had married by choice and had not been kidnapped, as had been alleged by her father ... The police have arrested only Ms Parveen's father, who is believed to have admitted to the killing. He described it as a matter of honour. The other men ... fled and have not been caught ... Honour killings are common in Pakistan, though it is unusual for the attack to happen in a public place ... Few cases of honour killings ever make it to court, and prosecutions are rare ... Police in rural areas often turn a blind eye to such incidents, dismissing them as family matters.

2. Death sentence woman has baby
A Sudanese woman sentenced to death for marrying a Christian has given birth to a girl in prison. A judge has allowed Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, to nurse her baby for two years before the sentence is carried out.

Yes, yes, I know -- Ho-hum, heard it all before! But (and call me a racist or a bigot or whatever pejorative epithet may occur to you to deflect the effect of my question, if it gives you any satisfaction) I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Anyone?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:19 AM

Ho hum anyone?

How about Northern Ireland's first minister Robinson who has defended a Christianist pastor who calls Islam evil. He said it is the duty of the pastor to denounce false prophets.

It isn't as abhorrent as the animals who killed their own daughter but it was aimed at causing civil unrest and hatred of others, which eventually leads to the same thing. Fear of people through linking them to the behaviour of others. The Pakistani cultural issues of ownership of women is not tolerated by millions of Muslims. A friend asked why so many people who compare him to thirld world superstition, when asked, admitted that love honour and obey were in their Christian marriage vows.

If you must link culture to faith, then show me where in the bible it says I lay on the sofa farting watching Match of the Day.

Pointing out animals who have cultural ideas from the stone ages has nothing to do with Muslims living here any bit as much as being a vicar in Surrey paints you with the same pot as American Christians who murder doctors and nurses involved in termination of pregnancy.

You know, pointing out that others may comment in such a way to your post does no more than show your own misgivings about your comments. Hope for you yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 10:42 AM

"No passage in the Koran discusses honor killings, but Muslim clerics justify them and secular Muslims either do not punish them or pass laws to mitigate punishment for them. With this, Muslims make honor killings a part of Islam."

Supna Zaidi: Does Islam Justify Honor Killings?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 12:48 PM

"American Christians who murder doctors and nurses involved in termination of pregnancy", Ian, do not do so by judicial process in accordance with the laws of the jurisdiction within which they do it. Stop being so stupid as to pretend you can't see the distinction, you fatuous ostrich, you!

My comment as to what I knew boobies like you would say points to the opposite of misgivings; ie that I know I am right whatever foolish people like you might feel PC-ly obliged to rejoin. You really are doing yourself little credit by being unable to muster any better argument.

In particular, you have dodged my explicit questions, to which a direct answer would be welcome, as distinct from irrelevancies about the Islamic denizens of our own population, who are entirely marginal to my interrogatives..

To remind you, here they are again:-
I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Telling me that Muslims who live here may not agree with such procedures is no sort of answer to the questions whatsoever. It is the extrapolations, and claims of divine authority [see the article linked by Bobad in his last post] from the citable teachings of the faith which induce such responses, which are of concern. Even if they are not accurately invoked [see point above about their being Hadithic if not perhaps directly Koranic], it is obviously regarded by the authorities where such abuses obtain as more than their jobs or safety are worth to attempt to intervene. Do you really think the "American Christians" you cite operate in conditions of such confidence & certitude?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:17 PM

Yes yes yes. But this thread is about Islamic radicalism, not national law. That the national law allows old ignorant peasants to use religion to enforce their odious will on society is fucking awful and abhorrent.

But it certainly isn't Islam gone bad. Media commentators are as happy as the perpetrators in purposely confusing culture and faith. The Pakistani prevalence of women as chattel certainly isn't Islamic in origin. It is shared by the many other faiths in that UK defined country borders.

I used to be involved in forensic mental health both as an inspector and lay assessor. I also inspected prisons. You may or may not be surprised how many murderers feel God told them to do it.

When you see me make the link from that in the same way you make the link with Islam, you can call me a bloody do gooder or whatever. Religion is the art of controlling a community. Always was always will be. But to make a link to those who share a faith is something that seems to be done to Muslims but not Christians.

For all my disdain of religion and everything to go with it, I don't think of Muslim friends as relatives of terrorists any more than thinking my Catholic friends covering for child abusers.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:38 PM

"But this thread is about Islamic radicalism, not national law"
.,,.

'Yes yes yes' right back 2U! -- Why "But"? The two concepts are interdependent, not [as 'but' implies] incompatible, within the terms of reference of this colloquy. It is the radicalism which incites, & is held to justify, the [IMO misplaced] laws, surely? So 'national law' is part of, & an outcome of, the "radicalism" which, as you rightly say, is what this thread is about, rather than tangential or non-germane, as your 'but' implies.

So answer my questions, please, & stop trying to justify avoidance of doing so by recourse to factitious would-be diversional irrelevancies.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 01:46 PM

I am not, btw, surprised at the attitude you found among so many murderers in the course of your interesting work. But your tone implies that you didn't feel such claims were any justification for their actions. Do you not feel the same to be extrapolated amongst the entire, radically based, judicial systems we are talking of? If you don't, then what was your point?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 02:41 PM

"As a first step we will have to unlock our language and learn, once more, how to call a spade a spade. The worldwide cancer of terrorism by some Muslims is inspired by the teachings of Islam. To deny this fact is intellectual dishonesty. As long as you, and the rest of the non-Muslim world, permit Muslims to tippy toe around the doctrine of "armed jihad", you won't be able to take the second step, that is, confronting this death cult ideology on its merits, while resisting the temptation to be xenophobic and thus wrongly develop a hatred towards all Muslims."

Tarek Fatah: How to Fight Islamic Terrorism

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 28 May 14 - 03:11 PM

I'm no genius so I take the training on the chin when taught to not link reason with irrational state.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 14 - 04:40 PM

I'm no genius either, Musket. So I have not the ghost of an idea what that gnomic utterance of yours was meant to mean. But please don't trouble to explain. I am sure I shouldn't find it very interesting even if it were elucidated.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 28 May 14 - 05:31 PM

Just watched the news about the woman stoned by her family. Nothing to do with Islam but the report said it was within the culture the family had been brought up in. The murder was obviously wrong. Obviously going to be used by politicians the world over to show how Pakistanis (and therefore Muslims) are evil.

Stereotyping is what is happening. Sadly we can do nothing about that apart from ignore it.

And less stereotyping of us Gnomes please, M.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 06:40 PM

"Nothing to do with Islam but the report said it was within the culture the family had been brought up in."

And on what authority do you make this statement? Do you not know that there is no central authority for the interpretation of the Quran, the Hadiths and the Sahaba? Islam contains many schools of thought and there's no one single or simple source of interpretation on disputed points. Do you know what every Imam is preaching to his congregates on this issue? If the Imam prescribes honour killing to his followers does that still make it "nothing to do with Islam"? In many Muslim communities culture is intertwined with Islam - where do you draw the dividing line? Many progressive Muslims would disagree with your simplistic statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 14 - 06:51 PM

Egyptian TV Host Kicks Guest Out of Studio for Expressing Controversial Ideas on Religion

YouTube

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:17 AM

Just a couple of sentences from this morning's Times; following on from the bits I quoted from yesterday's --

In Somalia, a 13-year-old girl claimed she had been raped by three men. She found herself accused of adultery, was buried up to her neck inside a stadium and stoned to death in front of 1,000 people.

It's no use just getting all hysterical, Musket, and saying the people who did it were 'animals' ... 'ignorant peasants' doing what you denounce as 'fucking awful and abhorrent'... 'us[ing] religion to enforce their odious will on society'.

It was not 'ignorant peasants' enforcing anything; it was the judicial authorities of a sovereign state with which we maintain diplomatic relations administering the law which obtains within that jurisdiction. So will you still try to maintain this is not relevant to the subject of this thread, because we are talking about 'Islamic radicalism', which is somehow not germane to the laws to which it leads?

Oh, come on...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:37 AM

.. and have you come across this current story, copied from a New York paper?--

Noor Hussain, a 75-yr-old Pakistani immigrant, beat his wife to death in their Brooklyn apartment for making him the wrong dinner. His trial started Wednesday, where he was charged with second degree murder.
He had asked his wife, 66-yr-old Nazar Hussain, to make him goat for dinner. She made the mistake of making him lentil beans instead. He was outraged and they got into an argument. Court papers indicate that Nazar disrespected Noor and cursed at him. He then grabbed a wooden stick and beat her to death as she lay in bed.
Hussain's attorney Julie Clark was quick to admit he beat his wife in her opening statement, but argued he is ONLY guilty of manslaughter because he didn't mean to kill her. "He comes from a culture where he thinks this is appropriate conduct, where he can hit his wife," she said. "He culturally believed he had the right to hit his wife and discipline his wife."
The 'religion of peace' does condone wife beating. In one section, the Koran specifically tells men they are above women and women who disobey need to be beaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:41 AM

I agree with every bit of what you put Michael till you dragged a religion into it.

You are as misguided as Boo Bad above, where he rattles on about the Q'ran but somehow fails to point out the bible and it's similar proclamations.

Just because most people in the west don't take the bible as meaning anything serious and in less developed countries they retain the superstition that only a few do here, doesn't mean you can differentiate.

I recall in UK courts, you can invoke a superstition in order to persuade the court you are not telling porkies. Are you sure courts and religion are only joined at the hip in foreign climes? Do you think the governments of some countries control their areas in the same way Westminster controls Belfast? Do you hold Cameron to account for the appalling religious comments of Robinson the other day?

I wish governments did control their countries. Then economic sanctions might do something, but I'm not quite as naive as you are.

Something about gnomish in one of your earlier posts. According to scripture, gnomes can only be associated co messiah emeritus, and I am a full fat, caffeine saturated co messiah. Do get your facts right when talking about religion eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 07:55 AM

I said "gnomic", not "gnomish". If you don't know what is meant by a 'gnomic' utterance, here you are:-

gnomic
adjective
expressed in or of the nature of short, pithy maxims or aphorisms.
"that most gnomic form, the aphorism"
difficult to understand because enigmatic or ambiguous.
"I had to have the gnomic response interpreted for me"

I meant the second bit: what you had posted was so enigmatic as to be entirely opaque to my comprehension.

It's no good trying to exclude the religious element. See the NY Daily News bit I cited, where Koranic authority was explicitly claimed. So what if some Christians sometimes mis-cite Holy Writ? Whataboutery is never an argument. & you are still evading my challenge to point to any instance of such being the occasion of anything approaching the outcomes which which we are concerned here. You don't really want me to copy my questions yet again, do you?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:11 AM

The correct etiquette for beating your wife in Islam:

Islam: how to Beat Your Wife

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:16 AM

And here is a translation of a relevant Shura ~~

Quran 4:34:
Men have charge of women because Allah has preferred the one above the other and because they spend their wealth on them. Right-acting women are obedient, safeguarding their husbands' interests in their absence as Allah has guarded them. If there are women whose disobedience you fear, you may admonish them, refuse to sleep with them, and then beat them. But if they obey you, do not look for a way to punish them. Allah is All-High, Most Great.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:19 AM

Yeah but what about the Bible, Mike?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:33 AM

I don't know... You give a gnomic response to something where you can happily confuse gnomic itself with gnomish and it goes straight over a grey head.

Good job I don't use my A material eh?

No, don't copy your questions again. They were dismal enough the first time around. What is The UK government doing about Peter Robinson inciting religious hatred? Isn't the government in control of him? Etc etc...

The only time religion and culture are confused in the minds of some here is when they think of the culture growing behind the gas cooker in the church hall kitchen. Buggering priests aren't anything to do with Christianity but a court in A third world country is something Mr Patel up the road must denounce or be seen to be implicated.

I give up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 08:59 AM

These are normal Muslims not radical extremists:

It's Not the ''Radical Shaykh'' it's Islam - Fahad Qureshi

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 May 14 - 10:00 AM

I think you posted the wrong article, Boo - didja read it first?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 10:13 AM

I think you missed the point Greggiepoo - but then what's new?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:39 PM

I give up too, Musket -- any attempt to make heads or tails as to what the hell you are on about. What is your 'A material'? What has Peter Robinson saying that he agrees with some other N Irishman got to do with anything I have said? How is it the biz of UK government anyhow? Who has suggested that your neighbour Mr Patel is called on to do anything whatever?

I think you must have finally flipped.

Bobad -- don't understand your question in the last post you addressed to me: "What about the Bible?" I mean, what about "what about" it? Kindly elucidate.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:54 PM

Mike, I was being facetious, simply preempting Musk et alia's propensity for whataboutery.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 01:56 PM

Thank you. Get it now.

LoL.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 29 May 14 - 02:19 PM

My how they squirm!

Still no reply to your question M.

One would think they would be grateful for your forensic demolition of their idiotic agenda?

Easy!   Easy!   :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:01 PM

If you've got it Michael, get some antibiotics. I'd hate it to spread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 29 May 14 - 03:03 PM

Likes, not lies.

Possibly Freudian considering who I aimed it at.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 14 - 04:00 PM

"Likes" what? Not "lies" what? Can finds no use of either word in any of your recent posts...

Gnomicer & gnomicer...!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 03:15 AM

And the hate goes on.....
"What has Peter Robinson saying that he agrees with some other N Irishman got to do with anything I have said? How is it the biz of UK government anyhow?"
Are you joking Mike?
What does a hate statement aimed at a large section of the population of Northern by a political leader have to do with the UK?
Have you really become such a supporter of Islamophobic hatred?
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

The "some other N Irishman"
A CHRISTIAN VIEW OF MUSLIMS
Jim Carroll

You really have joined the 'Dark Side' haven't you - you'll be waving papers saying "peace in our time" next.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:03 AM

You should know by now, Jim, that trying to provoke me to argue with you on such topics is a no-no. We both know where the other stands, & so far as I am concerned you are impermeable to reason on the matter and can persist in your mulish Islamist-loving ostrichicity without response from me. I am not Keith, who can never resist rising to your mindless maunderings. There is not going to be any equivalent Jim'n'Mike Show, so stop trying to get one going.

That is my last word to you on this topic.

Best regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 04:49 AM

I love no religion Mike, and your attempt to claim I do is beneath even you (unless you can actually produce evidence of having suppoorted any particular religion or superstition!
Your attitude to Muslims is basically no different to that of many Germans aimed at Jews in the 1930s, and some British people are now giving support to a political party which is attempting to turn that attitude into a reality by manipulating xenophobia such as yours.   
That worries me deeply - obviously not you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 05:45 AM

Isn't it funny when my posts get deleted except the post I put afterwards with a spelling correction...

Perhaps deleting posts about Islamaphobia being abhorrent is par for the course considering the moderators live in Dumbfuckistan.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:16 AM

"Islamophobia; a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

         Christopher Hitchens

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:17 AM

"Islamophobia; a word created by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons."

"DEFINING "ISLAMOPHOBIA"
The term "Islamophobia" was first introduced as a concept in a 1991 Runnymede Trust Report and defined as "unfounded hostility towards Muslims, and therefore fear or dislike of all or most Muslims." The term was coined in the context of Muslims in the UK in particular and Europe in general, and formulated based on the more common "xenophobia" framework.
The report pointed to prevailing attitudes that incorporate the following beliefs:

Islam is monolithic and cannot adapt to new realities
Islam does not share common values with other major faiths
Islam as a religion is inferior to the West. It is archaic, barbaric, and irrational.
Islam is a religion of violence and supports terrorism.
Islam is a violent political ideology.
For the purposes of anchoring the current research and documentation project, we provide the following working definition:

Islamophobia is a contrived fear or prejudice fomented by the existing Eurocentric and Orientalist global power structure. It is directed at a perceived or real Muslim threat through the maintenance and extension of existing disparities in economic, political, social and cultural relations, while rationalizing the necessity to deploy violence as a tool to achieve "civilizational rehab" of the target communities (Muslim or otherwise). Islamophobia reintroduces and reaffirms a global racial structure through which resource distribution disparities are maintained and extended."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:24 AM

Islamaphobia is alive and kicking without dead contributors.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:27 AM

OK Jim. One more try.

If it's only religion you don't love, then WHY do you denounce all my animadversions against the evident effects of the teachings of Islam, as urged by its own adherents, and, in particular, many of their ministers of the faith, as 'racist'? You can't have it both ways. When young murderers defend themselves in the public courts, on the plea that their crime was "an act of war" -- the Holy War enjoined on them by their Prophet -- then how can you accuse me of 'racism' when I reject this explicitly religion-based defence, and denounce the effects of the teachings of the works they claim to be citing in their defence? The fact that your neighbour, that nice Mr Patel, might not agree with their plea is neither here or there [& I repeat that you don't know what he may have to say on the subject when speaking to his co-religionists -- he's not going to tell you, is he?]. And from such animadversions of mine, you make your great slide [which you excuse yourself with "Whoops! Just being rhetorical"] of saying that in doing so I have somehow implicitly complained of someone or other "coming over here to take our jobs". I won't let you forget that libellous attack, any more than you can bring yourself to forget what some others have said on certain matters. For shame, Jim!

Get your head together, Jim. Either they are a race, in which case your cries of "racism" might make some sense; or they are just a religion, which you therefore deny supporting, in which case I am perfectly entitled to express views as to the observable adverse effects of this religion's teachings on many of its adherents, and those with whom they may come into contact: whether as legal authorities flogging & stoning young Sudanese women of whose marriages they might disapprove, or yobbos hacking soldiers to death in the streets of London, or Pakistani mobs killing brides uninhibited by the surrounding police officers.

Can't have it both ways, Jim. Sorry. They are not a race, as you demonstrate you well know by your pathetic opening of your last post to me. And as they are not, I am perfectly entitled to express adverse opinions as to the deleterious effects of their teachings as a religion.

Got it? If not, then I think you had better go & reinsure with Confused.com.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:44 AM

In interests of accuracy, and before anyone can make a point of my inaccuracy against me: that young woman in Sudan has been sentenced to be flogged & hanged, not stoned ~~ when her newly born child is two years old: now there's humanity for you! But let me make the point which I might not have sufficiently stressed, that in all the three instances I cited of which she is one (& I could as you know have found many more, from Malysia, Yemen, N Nigeria), the perpetrators of these enormities, the murder in Woolwich, the stoning in Lahore, the sentence in Sudan, have explicitly called the teachings of their faith in defence and justification of their actions &/or judgments.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:51 AM

& Jim, by some sort of mental sleight or legerdemain which I can't even begin to follow, says that my saying so somehow makes me the equivalent of the Sturmabteilung in 1930s Berlin. Ain't he the charmer, just, to say such things to me, who lost I know not how many cousins to the Nazis?!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:16 AM

In case anyone should plead that, in worst-case scenario, these are just leftovers of now fading traditions, don't forget that the Sultan of Brunei has just, within the last month, enacted BRAND NEW laws mandating stoning to death for adultery: which doesn't, in Islam, it appears, necessarily mean adultery in fact, but any sort of extra-marital intercourse; or even just miscegenation -- back to the ongoing Sudan thing again, where the condemned woman was legally married, but to someone the judge decided was of another faith.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:21 AM

"any sort of extra-marital intercourse" ···

even having been raped can get you stoned to death for adultery, publicly, buried up to neck in a football stadium. See my entry above about the 13 yr-old- Somalian girl: 29 May, 0717 am.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 09:28 AM

Prague, May 27 (ČTK) — Islamic ideology rather than individual groups of religious fundamentalists is behind violent actions similar to the gun attack at the Jewish Museum in Brussels that killed four people, Czech President Miloš Zeman said Monday at the Israeli Embassy in Prague.

Two Israeli tourists and a member of the museum staff were killed by an unknown shooter Saturday, and another staff member died of his injuries Sunday.

Zeman's speech sharply condemning "the hideous attack" was posted on his official website today. Zeman took part in the celebration of the 66 years of independence of Israel.

"I will not be calmed down by statements that it is only small marginal groups. I believe, on the contrary, that this xenophobia and this racism or anti-Semitism stem from the very nature of the ideology on which these fanatical groups rely," Zeman said.

He said one of the sacred texts of Islam calls for the killing of Jews.

Zeman said he would also sharply criticize fanatics who planned to kill the Arabs.

"However, I have heard of no movement calling for the massive murder of Arabs, but I know about an anti-civilization movement that calls for the massive murdering of Jews," he said.

Prague Post

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:04 AM

"WHY do you denounce all my animadversions against the evident effects of the teachings of Islam
I have always placed all religious extremism down tho churches and fanatics.
I deplore the attitude of you and yours in being selective in your attacks on one group and ignoring - even to the extent of attempting to divert the discussion away from the root causes.
Those attacking Muslims for their beliefs and way of life are no different than those who attacked Jews for their beliefs and way of life.
"your cries of "racism" might make some sense" - stems from your pupil - who you have persistently and actively supported and excused, accusing one racial group of being perverts implanted by their culture - Islamism is not a race - "All male Pakistani" is - you described my criticism as being a misunderstanding on my part - making yourself part of his racism.
"who lost I know not how many cousins to the Nazis?!"
Which makes your position even more indefensible.
There is nothing more depressing than a member of one persecuted group persecuting and defending the persecution of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 10:37 AM

Boo Bad. Yeah, it''d be a first to be guests at the Israeli Embassy for your country and complain about the Zionist aim to rid "The Holy Land" of Arabs....

zzzzz

On an internet site in Afghanistan, a doddering old fool called Abdul, or AtheAM as he signs himself points out how Christian forces, first from The West 130 years ago, then Russia and more recently The West again spread terror around the country in the name of their Christianist aims, killing women and children, dropping bombs and getting their equivalents of mullahs to bless the rockets, whilst their soldiers praise their Lord.

Europe, America, Australasia, they all worship the same type of God etc etc etc...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:00 PM

Aaahhh -- poor old Jim. You can't help being sorry for him. Thinks he's so prettily priggishly pure of ❤ ; but that old antisemitic strain will keep bursting out -- all those old certainties of Wasp superiority to keep the lesser lots like the Yids in their appointed places. He doesn't mean it to; but it will just keep bursting out.

& the cream of the joke is ~~ he really is too thick to know what I'm on about.

I expect he'll say it's becoz I'm [his favourite word of abuse] EDUCATED, dontcha know? & coz I accuse them of coming over here to take our jobs. [I never have, but the libellous little louse forgets that bit!]


Aaaaahhhhh!

Poor old Jim!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:21 PM

Back to the schoolyard Mike - doesn't it always happen when you run out of excuses.
Yah boo sucks to you too
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:37 PM

Sorry, Jim; but you are an antisemite. You think you're not but you are. I push you into an intellectual corner, like your dire & drastic constant confusion between race & religion for instance; and what pours out but the old refs to Nazis, and reminders about being a member of a "persecuted race"...? Well, how luvly to be a Wasp like you, so dashed superiah to us lesser breeds, wot wot...

When Dustin Hoffman went all Method & prepared for Marathon Man by running all round Central Park & staying awake for 36 hours, Laurence Olivier said "Have you thought of trying acting, dear boy?"

So, never mind the Nazis & the "persecuted races", Jim. Have you thought of trying arguing, dear boy?

All this constant recession to race & origin-throwing & reminders of the Nazis ~~ really a bit contemptible, you know. I'd afraid the yah·boo·sux are just a teeny dose of own medicine.

You think they're not, but they are...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:48 PM

"Jim; but you are an antisemite. "
The old get out - scramble behind the piles of dead to excuse your echoing the very thing that killed them.
Been there - done that - have long established that those who attribute crimes committed in the names of the Jewish people are the Antisemites.
Pathetic!!
Jim carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 30 May 14 - 01:52 PM

I recall a couple of years ago someone saying at a folk club I was at that Muslims can't stand the idea of music and want it banning. Councils will be telling shops to get rid of Muzak in case it offends yadda yadda.

A few nights later, at a Richard Thompson concert......
I
Incidentally, I'm just wiating for the taxi. Four couples meeting up for a drink and meal. One of the couples are Muslim so soft drinks and vegetarian for them as the pub doesn't do halal. Just another night in multicultural UK.

Meanwhile, idiots with placards saying Jesus this that and the other will be, as ever, picketing the out of town shopping mall a few miles away as they open on a Sunday.

I'd wear tin foil on my head as well if I were you Michael, just to cover all bogey men...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 14 - 07:25 PM

Sorry, Jim; but you are an antisemite. You think you're not but you are.

You come across generally as a respectable old duffer, but I take serious exception to this. I have not, in all the time I've managed to stick with Keith-Jim threads, detected one iota of antisemitism from Jim, and my antennae are constantly all a-bristle. This remark, unfortunately, marks you out as that thing I really hoped you weren't: a silly old fool. Get a grip, Michael. Preferably by taking a holiday from threads like this one. I know how to do that. Watch and learn.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 30 May 14 - 08:35 PM

Look at who's coming to the defense of the antisemite Carroll - that is rich, rich indeed!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 12:45 AM

You mean well, Steve. But these antennæ of yours are not of the most sensitive. One of the most irritatingly insidious forms of antisemitism is throwing up their origins at Jews, telling them they should 'know better' then to do such-and-such or say so-&-so or have views on this'n'that, because of their ethnic history. It's something Jim does all the time. I gave some reasoned argument; asked some very specific questions. He declined to address or answer them; instead introducing the 1930s Nazis into the equation and reminding me I was a member of a 'persecuted race'; as if I was ever likely to forget. You're a well-meaning old thing yourself, Steve, in general. But, be well advised -- stay out of this one. It's an area I really do know a lot more about than you do, and you are liable just to make a rather unsavoury sort of fool of yourself.

Best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:16 AM

I am perfectly well aware that I could just as easily have been born in 1932 in Warsaw as in London; in which case I should not be sitting here posting this. The consideration is a constant leitmotiv to my entire existence. It needs no patronising persons revelling in the security of their unshakeable Waspery to remind me of the fact, thank you.

A little empathy would not come amiss on occasion.

So, sorry: I say it again. Jim is an antisemite. He thinks he isn't but he is. I daresay he would rather not be; in which case he would do well to get his brain in gear before his fingers start automatically typing "Nazi" and "persecuted" and so on yet again.

And I say again: Islam is, for reasons I have rubricated countless times with no semblance of any rational response, but mere irrelevant abuse or facetiousness [I mean you, Musket], a Weltanschauung which needs constant vigilance on the part of the rest of the world [just look at responses to the ongoings in Sudan at this instant] if its potential for ubiquitous mischief is to be contained.

Which is what this thread is supposed to be about.

So how about some rational responses, please: without engagement of these factitious instamatic racism-spotters which snarl up so much of the baggage of so many of you?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:27 AM

Try folding the tin foil first. It makes it twice as thick and doubles the chances of preventing harmful rays from reaching your head Michael.

The transmitters are disguised in mosque minarettes so check to see how close you live to a mosque. Don't actually get within 600 yds of one though. You don't need to be quite so brave.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:33 AM

How you could have the gall to post that after my just preceding thread, Ian, is quite beyond me.

You contemptible little louse.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:36 AM

"One of the most irritatingly insidious forms of antisemitism is throwing up their origins at Jews"
And one of the most despicable defences of atrocities carried out by regimes claiming to act on behalf of the Jewish people is to point to the death toll of the Holocaust and say "If you critisise them you are an Antisemite".
Israel is now a persecutor of the Muslim people, stealing their land, slaughtering, starving, ghettoising and humiliating their people.
You have paid lip-service to being opposed to this while at the same time you have stayed silent on a massive massacre of refugees, you have ignored the chemical warfare, the Berlin-like wall, the attempts to starve an entire, largely impoverished people into submission, the attempted ethnic cleansing of a nomadic people, the Warsaw Ghetto like checkpoints, the destruction of homes, the bombing of hospitals and schools, children being used as human shields..... you have refused to even acknowledge statements by Israeli soldiers and security service officers.
Your 'opposition' to Israeli expansionist terrorism appears to amount to the cutting down of a few olive trees and six broken cameras - no more than mealy-mouthed lip - service.
When my mother-in-law-to-be (didn't happen) showed me her tattoo all those years ago and told me, "Never again - not to anybody" she left me with something that stuck with me for the rest of my life.
I first met her and her daughter through their activities in the South African Anti-Apartheid Movement protests... I have no doubt where they would be today in connection with Israeli Anti-Apartheid protests. Certainly on the opposite side of Israel's Berlin Wall, to you, BooBoo, Keith the Moron - and all the other 'principled and honest human beings' now defending Israel's right to act exactly like the former persecutors of the Jewish people.
Don't you dare call me an Antisemite, you appalling cowardly, hypocrite.         
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:43 AM

Then stop being one. Till then I'll call you what I like, you pompous little prig.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 31 May 14 - 03:50 AM

The Times today.

"Across the globe, in the Middle East, Asia and Africa, Christians are being bullied, arrested, jailed, expelled and executed. Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times. Yet Western politicians until now have been reluctant to speak out in support of Christians in peril.

The savage treatment of Meriam Ibrahim, sentenced to hang because she refused to renounce her Christian faith, has highlighted the miserable plight of those living under the regime of President Omar al-Bashir. The president has stated that he wants a "purely Islamic society" and many Christians, some of them denied food aid....."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 31 May 14 - 04:12 AM

Neither dare they speak out for the Muslims in peril after it took the murder of a couple of thousand of them in order to deliver India a new President.

The rise of using Islam as a tool for murderous intent is wrong. Yet substitute the word religion for Islam and religious hypocrites start defending religion.

There again, western media work on the basis of a bloke in London having empathy with a bloke in Africa on the basis of praying to the same delusion whilst seeing another bloke in Africa as being inferior because his delusion is slightly different.

Seen through the eyes of the other delusion, the first delusion doesn't have the answers.

Rational people meanwhile are called everything from a pig to a dog for refusing to play the persecution game. People who are seen as Christian by others, not necessarily Christians. It is easy to denounce medieval atrocity as being an aspect of one delusion regardless whilst claiming a moral high ground for another.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 04:25 AM

"Till then I'll call you what I like, you pompous little prig."
Schoolyard names and no answers again Mike.
And I will continue to regard you as a despicable hypocrite until you and provide some and stop defending Israeli atrocities from behind your 'wall of the dead'
What a ***** team!!!
Islamic Society - Jewish State - both lead to ethnic cleansing in the hands of zealots and extremists - whence the difference?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 31 May 14 - 05:10 AM

"No answers" to what?

I am the one waiting for some answers to some questions I have asked. Can't find any questions you have asked that require any answers. If there are any, please repeat them. Meanwhile, here are mine again, to which some answers would be appreciated --

I ask yet again if anyone can point to any other contemporary faith which induces so perverse a concept of "honour" in any of its adherents, or whose followers, in so many jurisdictions where they have gained power, use its tenets to justify such excesses of governmental forensic "justice".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 01:27 PM

You have been presented with a series of Israeli atrocities carried out in the name of the Jewish people - you have ignored them all.
You have made quite clear that you regard all criticism of Israel as Antisemitic
What have you asked that I haven't replied to?
I have always made a point of responding to all questions
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 May 14 - 01:32 PM

Christianity is by most calculations the most persecuted religion of modern times.

WHOSE calculations, FW - yours? Lets see the EVIDENCE for this preposterous claim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 31 May 14 - 02:03 PM

CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION
"It's almost certainly not the case that Christians are the most "persecuted" religious group in proportion to their numbers. Rather, they suffer along with other minority groups from, to take the most obvious example, the increasing prominence and, in some countries, power of strains of Islam that are uncomfortable with the very notion of religious pluralism. So, to an equal or even greater extent, are Muslims belonging to minority sects, such as the Shia in Saudi Arabia or the Ahmadi in Pakistan. Persecution against the Ahmadis, a sect not regarded by some orthodox as Muslim at all, has spread even to Britain, where recently a local newspaper in Luton was prevailed upon to apologise for the "hurt feelings" of Muslims after it carried an advertisement from the Ahmadi community.
If Christians are persecuted in many parts of the world, so are Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists and Jews. If Christians are persecutors in other (or sometimes the same) parts of the world: as are Muslims, Hindus, atheists, Buddhists and Jews. The fact that such a list of persecutors can include Buddhists, probably the faith least renowned for its zeal or intolerance, is a strong indication that by and large we are dealing with group rivalries, hatred of minorities, political struggles and only rarely a persecution based in the specifics of Christian theology."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 14 - 07:35 PM

Look at who's coming to the defense of the antisemite Carroll - that is rich, rich indeed!

Attempted smear noted. But, more important than that, you show yourself to be a minnow. Prove that I'm what you imply I am, you scurrilous little shitbag. And, while you're at it, you unreconstructed extreme right-wing shitferbrains, consider whether, just for once in your useless little life, you might actually make a post that actually has some serious content. High on snide, vacuous on substance, that's you through and through. Can't think why I've never said it before. You haven't got one single fair-minded idea in what passes for your brain. There are plenty of you around, unfortunately. Go on, prove that I'm what you imply I am. Alternatively, let's all have a bloody good laugh at your next pointless one-liner. Scum.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 14 - 07:49 PM

You mean well, Steve.

No I don't, and I don't need a pompous, right-wing arsehole like you to patronise me, thanks.   

You're a well-meaning old thing yourself, Steve, in general.

You just said that. Have you forgotten? Are you in a home yet? Twat.

But, be well advised -- stay out of this one. It's an area I really do know a lot more about than you do, and you are liable just to make a rather unsavoury sort of fool of yourself.

I need "advice" from a gobshite like you like I need a second arsehole. And never assume that, from your extremely limited transactions with me, you know more than me about anything on the planet. That is dangerous ground, dear fellow, for you to tread, as a number of people on this forum have already gleaned. I could go for your jugular ever more, but you're very old and I really don't need to be upsetting you. Best that you just sod off, leave me 'n' Jim alone (we bite hard, and you're frail) and get on with your arch-Tory, Islamophobe dreams.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:19 AM

WHOSE calculations, FW - yours? Lets see the EVIDENCE for this preposterous claim.

Not mine Greg. That was a quote from yesterday's Times.
Here are a few more people who make the "preposterous claim" (taken from Jim's link)
"In a rare theological intervention at a Downing Street reception yesterday, David Cameron made the eye-catching suggestion that Christians were the most persecuted religious group in the world today.
The PM is not the first prominent figure to make such a claim. Pope Benedict XVI said it during his New Year message in 2011, Angela Merkel made similar remarks during a visit to a church in November 2012, and late last year Prince Charles spoke of "intimidation, false accusation and organised persecution to the Christian communities in the Middle East at the present time."

Tragic news reports seem to bear this out. The destruction of ancient Christian communities in their homelands in Iraq, Syria and other parts of the Middle East, described by Tom Holland as "a crime against civilisation as well as against humanity", has been one of the most depressing consequences of the recent turmoil. Sometimes, direct religious persecution seems to be involved, as in this week's murder of Dutch priest Frans van der Lugt in the besieged town of Homs. Meanwhile, in Pakistan yet another absurd blasphemy prosecution came to light, this time of a Christian couple sentenced to death (and a fine!) for allegedly sending text messages deemed to be offensive to Islam.

And let's not forget North Korea, officially the worst country in the world to be a Christian, where a few weeks ago 33 Baptist missionaries are said to have been sentenced to death on the personal orders of Kim Jong-Un.

The persecution of Christians has been the subject of some recent books. The US Catholic journalist John Allen entitled his The Global War on Christians, maintaining that Christians as a whole were "indisputably ... the most persecuted religious body on the planet". Writing in the Spectator, Allen commented that,

the world is witnessing the rise of an entire new generation of Christian martyrs. The carnage is occurring on such a vast scale that it represents not only the most dramatic Christian story of our time, but arguably the premier human rights challenge of this era as well."

In slightly less apocalyptic vein, British author Rupert Shortt in his recent book Christianophobia: A faith under attack catalogues violent targeting of Christians from Nigeria to the far east as well as less lethal but clear human rights abuses and intimidation. In an interview with Alan Johnson, Shortt said that "in a vast belt of land from Morocco to Pakistan there is scarcely a single country in which Christians can worship entirely without harassment".

"Rather more rigorous data has been assembled by the Pew Research Forum in a report produced earlier this year. Pew found that official "restriction on religion" (a more objective term than "persecution") was at the highest level for six years, as was the "social harassment" of members of religious communities. And Christians, indeed, were the most affected group. Christians faced harassment in no fewer than 151 countries worldwide – and not just in the Middle East, China or North Korea."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:32 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:33 AM

Jim, your man goes on to claim that "It's almost certainly not the case that Christians are the most "persecuted" religious group in proportion to their numbers."

He is agreeing that it is the most persecuted, but only because it is the biggest.

Shite!!
There is no religious persecution in Europe or USA where most Christians are.
Christianity is very far from the biggest religion in the places where persecution happens, so proportionally they actually suffer very much MORE than other religions.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:58 AM

Delete USA and insert North and South America.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:16 AM

Oh, diddums-widdums, Steve. What a splenetic outburst. Quite uncharacteristic. What can have rattled the old cage to such an extent? Not like you at all. Why, somebody who can be so very rude and offensive with no provocation whatsoever deserves to be "patronised", you know [which you weren't, but let that pass].

Unless there is some physical cause, perhaps? Sounded to my experience like the effect of some sort of niggling painful disability which can have that sort of deleterious effect on the temper -- do you suffer from anything like gastric ulcers, say, or something of that nature? If not sure, I should get it checked if I were you. There must be something amiss for you to come over so exceptionally rude & aggressive without the slightest cause. Really quite unacceptable. But I shall overlook it. You are clearly not yourself for some reason.

There there...

Best regards, as ever

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:45 AM

And here is a bit of intentionally patronising, but obviously much-needed, advice for you, Mr Shaw. The use of such phraseology as "gobshite" and "arsehole" [with or without a factual addition like 'rightwing' which I see no objection to tho clearly intended as some sort of insult unworthy of an intellect generally of the quality of yours] is entirely counterproductive, and detracts from whatever merit the argument in which such appear might possess [nil, pretty well, in this instance, but as a general principle, you understand]: along with such idiotically hyperbolical threats as 'going for the jugular' [arrgghhh!; I would be quaking in my boots, if I wore boots!]. But you refrain because of my advanced age, do you: otherwise my jugular would be severed by your dentures, would it? Now who's being "patronising", you stupid young fool? Behave yourself.

In earnest, now: you would really do much better to forswear such locutions for the future, my good man.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:18 AM

"Fool", you observe. Much better word than "Twat". Take heed, & learn, my good fellow. I flatter myself that, here from the security of my own home [not "a Home", note], I can bite just as hard as you if need arises, tho fewer of my original teeth survive probably. I could match your pathetically abusive efforts in rational exchange any day of the week, & you better believe it, Sonny Jim!. So watch out for your own metaphorical 'jugular', you silly little chap.You are, after all, not such a bad old thing at that -- as I might have observed previously, but poor pathetic old survivals like me must be indulged to the extent of the occasional otiose repetition, or what a sad old world this would be for lively young things like S. Shaw Esq to come to eventual maturity in, to be sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Saint Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:43 AM

{sniff} {sniff}

Here, can you smell bullshit?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:56 AM

And to indulge just for a moment in your sort of vocabulary, which as a rule I have avoided on this forum for the past 5 years as both discourteous & counterproductive, but the alliteration seems appropriate this time around --

I may be occasionally a bit breathless after walking, and a bit arthritic now & then

but really for 3-score-&- 22

I am not all that fucking 'frail'.

Now, then; remind us: what was anybody saying about Islamic radicalism...?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:18 AM

Steve, why can you not disagree with a polite and reasonable post in the same way?
Why must you be so abusive and offensive?
And how can you possibly know more about anti-Semitism than a Jew, especially a Jew who remembers Mosely's Blackshirts marching through his home city, lived through the holocaust losing family members, and made his way in institutions like the British Army?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:43 AM

"There is no religious persecution in Europe or USA where most Christians are."
Of course there is religious persecution in Europe and America
It has recently been announced that there has been an increase in the vandalising of Jewish cemeteries and attacks on Jews in Europe, I belive a number of people were gunned down in a Jewish museum recently. Incidents like this are set to accelerate now that that nice Mr Farrago's friends, Penn, Wilders, Soini, Kjaersgaard, Bossi... et al, have gained a toe-hold.
None in Britain - ask the Muslims who have turned up for worship to find some kind soul has poured petrol through the letter-box of their mosque, or the continued victims of 'Paki bashing', or Asian shopkeepers who have to put reinforcements over the fronts of their shops (one of them got kicked to death and was set on fire not to long ago).
Inter-religious persecution and disturbance is a fact of life in many countries - we're about to experience another bout of it up North from here in another few weeks.
Since 9/11, Muslims have become the most persecutes section of American society, all Muslims being blamed for the behaviour of a handful of fanatical nutcases.
Religious persecution, like the poor, has always been with us; it seems that it only becomes a problem to some people when Christians are on the receiving end.
Some of us regard all religious persecution as evil and the possibility of any church gaining political influence a permanent Damocles sword hanging over all of us - with people like yourself, it only becomes so when your own little boat is rocked.
You have the article - deal with the statements - "shite" does't hack it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 03:58 AM

With respect, Jim, and I hope without heated controversy: I honestly think you are confusing the concept of "persecution", which means the systematic maltreatment of a community by means legally recognised by the licit authorities where it occurs -- as is the case with some Christians in some places at present, though not of course exclusively so -- with illicit violence, not authoritatively approved, to which some minorities are subjected by dissident elements within the societies where they live. It is this latter abuse that you seem to be addressing in the examples given in your last post. They are most regrettable and deplorable abuses indeed; but they do not IMO constitute "persecution" in the sense I urge here, and which seems to me to be the meaning of that referred to in the post to which you are responding. True "persecution" is done by, or with the approval of, governments; not by insufficiently controlled mob-rule.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

BTW -- meant to say thank you, Keith, for your last post. I should like to think that Steve posted his last one in heat, and perhaps regretted having done so after clicking on 'submit', as I am sure we have all done from time to time. I wonder... Seriously, I do generally regard him as a rational and reasonable forum member, and can't avoid thinking he departed from his normal standards for once this time. I should certainly prefer to think so.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:29 AM

Speaking as a contemptible little louse, I fail to see what personal history has to do with it.

None of us experienced any of what we write about. Michael is just amazingly reactionary and sees criminal association with one religion whilst ignoring the failings if others. Keith just likes people to think he is clever.

Both disappointing. Luckily, both disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 04:35 AM

The persecution of Catholics in Northern Ireland led to over a decade of bloody warfare not so long ago - that persecution has been a part of life for the minority third since 1922.
The 'Troubles' actually started when Civil Rights marches were deliberately directed by police through mobs of stone-throwing Loyalists.
Members of my family were driven out of Derry in the 1950s after having their house burned around their ears in one of the regular sectarian bloodlettings.
Even today, in still Catholic Ireland, if I wished for a child of mine to receive a non-denominational education, I would have to drive 20 miles to the nearest school - permanently full, so you'd better make that 40 miles.
We've been through discussions on pregnancy termination to the point of allowing women to die rather than being given life-saving operations, or the State being implicated in continuing to cover up facts about clerical child abuse.
Much of the violence against Muslims and Roma taking place in Europe today is condoned or not acted on by the authorities - illicit maybe, ignored certainly - they coined the phrase 'institutional racism/culturalism' to cover it when it was revealed in Britain.
None of this would, I am sure, register on your sliding scale of persecution, of course.
The disturbing rise of fundamentalism in the world today is a continuation of what has always happened when religion has combined with politics, it's only the ingredients of that that are different.
On the subject of this thread, I would suggest that the persecution of Muslims by the Israeli regime, with its massacres, regular military incursions, checkpoints and daily humiliation must be a front-runner in the Religious Persecution stakes, but I have no doubt that you regard that as Antisemitism on my part.
As far as I am concern, they call all go to their own chosen Hell in their own particular handcart.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:12 AM

Jim, that New Statesman link that YOU provided lists all the places where real persecution exists.
It most definitely did not include Europe or the Americas.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:22 AM

You see, Keith, going to a point I mentioned elsewhere, it is statements like 'lists all the places where real persecution exists' that let down your arguments. The New Statesman does not list 'all the places'. Granted, it provides a list that shows some places where persecution exists but I am as sure as I can be that persecution exists in other places as well. And what is 'real persecution' anyway? Is there such a thing as surreal persecution? Remember what I was saying? The media are not telling lies. But they are only telling part of the story.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:31 AM

The writer of that piece did list a number of places that he felt relevant to the discussion.
He certainly did not mention Ireland's abortion laws.
I was pointing out that Jim's own link was not describing the kinds of persecution that Jim includes.

He is quite entitled to define anything he wants as persecution, but the piece he links to did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:39 AM

Michael is just amazingly reactionary and sees criminal association with one religion whilst ignoring the failings if others.
.,,.,
No, I don't. They are all bollocks to me & replete with 'failings'. But the 'one' you accuse me of concentrating on happens to be the 'one' that this thread is about, doesn't it? So it wouldn't be particularly germane to go off at them all. Cast eyes ½" upwards and read the thread title, sillipooze.

But this 'one' happens nevertheless to have a lot more 'failings' than the others, at that, doesn't it? Or can you after all name a sovereign state run by any other system where, in this current Year Of Grace, young women are publicly caned 100 strokes on their bare buttocks [N Nigeria 2001], or buried up to their necks & stoned to death for sleeping with husbands they have legally married but the sharia court won't recognise, or hanged for maintaining the religion into which they were brought up? But objedction to such practices is "reactionary", is it? How so, pray?

I'm surprised BTW at you falling back on such a pathetic lefty boo-word as "reactionary". Why, I shall be an "imperialist running-dog" of something-or-other in a minute, I daresay.

"reactionary": let me roll it round the mouth. "reactionary"; "reactionary"...

Reminds me of my bro-in-law's Communist-party-member brother back in the 1940s. "Reactionary" --

Ah, sweet!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:08 AM

"It most definitely did not include Europe or the Americas."
So ******* what?
You have just been given the situation in America and Britain - who o earth is puttig national boundaries on religious persecution, certainly not me.
Here'e a further example of the British brand from this moring's Sunday Times
I think Mike shrugged it off as "Peter Robinson agreeing with some other Irishman", and nothing to do with Britain.
Jim Carroll

BIBLE BASHER WHO LACKS FAITH IN COMMUNITY SPIRIT
The Metropolitan Tabernacle preacher's verbal attack on Muslims and sharia law from his Belfast pulpit has caused disquiet not just in Northern Ireland but around the world

Not many live shows at the Odyssey Arena in Belfast offer a religious 1 experience, but then not many shows are like those hosted by Metropolitan Tabernacle church. In 2011, a 7,000 -strong audience saw a line-up that included choirs and drama teams. The headline act was Pastor James McConnell who told the gathering that recent natural disasters were a sign of the second coming, as prophesied in the Bible.
This veteran grey- haired preacher describes himself as a simple man, but at Pentecostal rallies he is more like a rock star. In 2005, he drew a full house of14,000 to the Odyssey. Five years later 12,000 people listened to his sermon at a rally in Ravenhill rugby ground. Thefollowingyear, he preached to 1,000 people in predominately Catholic west Belfast.
His place of weekly worship, Whitewell Metropolitan Tabernacle on Belfast's Shore Road, cost £5m (€6.14m) to build 20 years ago and is more like a concert venue than a church. Visitors are greeted with a golden double staircase, glittering chandeliers and a waterfall in the foyer. This is religion Las Vegas-style. At a time when Sunday congregations are dwindling elsewhere, McConnell is clearly doing something right. The east Belfast-born firebrand, who has been preaching since the age of 13, built this place up from an Orange Hall with 10 worshippers to a hand-clapping arena that routinely attracts 2,000.
Two Sundays ago McConneU's congregation heard him make remarks about Muslims that would ignite a controversy that would be reported around ' the world. The pastor described Islam as " heathen" and "satanic". "People say there are good Muslims in Britain — that may be so — but I don't trust them," he roared from the pulpit.
Khalid Anis of the Islamic Society of Britain challenged McConnell about his remarks on the BBC's Nolan Show last Wednesday. "I was disturbed that, in a country where there has been so much sectarian strife, a religious leader seems to be making the same mistake about stereotyping and tarring a whole community because of ignorance," he said. Before the debate, Anis expected a "huanced discussion about sharia law and the role it played within Muslim communities. It quickly became apparent [McConnell] had no understanding about what sharia means to British Muslims"
A number of political figures came out in support of McConnell. These included Edwin Poots, the DUP health minister, and Sammy Wilson, another MLA from the party. Peter Robinson, Northern Ireland's first minister, agreed he would not trust Muslims involved in violence, or devotees of sharia law, although he would "trustthemtogototheshops" for him. "Trust isn't a matter of ahatecrime," Robinson reasoned. "If it is, I'm going to ask the police to take action against people who don't trust politicians."
Robinson and his wife Iris have worshipped at McConneU's church for years, and their daughter Rebekah was married at his Shore Road venue in 2003. When Iris Robinson was revealed to be having an affair-with a 19 -year-old, McConnell , publicly came to the couple's support, saying: "I think Iris can begin again in another way, not in politics, where she can help a lot of people."
Peter Robinson may have spoken out of spiritual solidarity with his pastor, but the province's Muslims were offended. "I find it despicable and totally unacceptable," said Anis. "The 3,000 or so Muslims in Northern Ireland look up to him, as do other minority communities. He has since backtracked, but I don't think that's enough. He's doing the political thing now, as far as I can see."
Some Christians justified McConnell's sermon on the basis of freedom of speech. Michael Wardlow, head of Northern Ireland's Equality Commission, was having none of it, however. "It's perfectly OK for people within faith traditions to have a robust dialogue around faith, even criticise other faiths, but freedom of speech has limitations," he said. "In evangelical, more right-wing churches, you do get more extreme language. [But] not only did he say all Muslims cannot be trusted, he said they can't be trusted because of sharia law. Two things were happening: negative stereotyping, and he was perpetuating perceptions that are not factually correct."
Race-hate crimes are on the rise in Northern Ireland, with a 43 % increase in attacks on ethnic minorities over the past year. Two racist attacks are reported every day. Last week Anna Lo, an Alliance MLA, announced her intention to leave politics because of racist abuse. "To support a lunatic who makes remarks like that is adding fuel to the flames in Northern Ireland," Lo said about Robinson's support for McConnell.
Despite his apparently antiquated beliefs, the pastor leads a relatively progressive church. The venue streams its services online, some preachers read scripture from iPads, and McConnell invites everyone including Catholics to attend. In 2010, he condemned fundamentalist preachers in America for burning copies of the Koran on the anniversary of 9/11. "I think it's not just disrespectful but stupid," he said.
The pastor has been married to Margaret since he was 22, and has two daughters. His background suggests triumph in the face of adversity. James McConnell was born May 15,1938, in east Belfast. At the age of seven his mother died, and he was orphaned at 13 when his father also passed away. "My sister was very ill with tuberculosis and our home was wiped out by the disease," he once said. "I went to live with my grandparents; my grandfather was a godly man and at the age of 7 Vi1 gave my life to Christ."
At 14, McConnell left school and started working in a Belfast shipyard as an office clerk. He was ordained to the Christian ministry when he was 17 and founded the Whitewell church two years later. By the time he set up the Metropolitan Tabernacle in 1994, he was one of Europe's most notable evangelical preachers. Despite his Jimmy Swaggart style of mega-church preaching, he has largely avoided scandal until now.
Accordingto company accounts from 2009, the church's annual operating costs are about £1.2m.
McConnell reportedly takes a modest £25,000 salary. He has been involved in a number of charitable ventures, but not all have worked out. In 2009, he said he "took a hammer" to a Romanian children's home funded by his congregation to stop it falling into the hands of a "paedophile ring" connected to the Romanian government. The Romanian embassy rejected the allegations.
Spouting fire and brimstone from the pulpit may not have been good for his health. In 2011, he underwent triple heart-bypass surgery. It was reportedly only the second time in 54 years he had not held his services — and he was back preaching two weeks later. Last year, he was diagnosed with prostate cancer and underwent chemotherapy. During his Slightly befuddled performance on the Nolan Show, he continually pronounced sharia as "sharara". "He can't even pronounce the word," complained Anis. "I don't know what's driving him, quite honestly."
On Thursday, Robinson apologised for his comments, which local Muslim leaders accepted. However, some Muslim doctors have questioned his continuing suitability as first minister, and particularly his health minister's support for McConnell. SaminaDornan, a consultant gynaecologist and obstetrician at Belfast's Royal Victoria Hospital, said: "I love living here, I am so proud to be here, but I have never been so embarrassed in my life to be from Northern Ireland."
No apologies have been forthcoming from McConnell himself. Last week, he was back on stage at Metropolitan Tabernacle, labelling Barack Obama a "patchwork quilt" who "doesn't know" if he's Christian or Muslim. "Nobody is going to close my mouth — Islam is dangerous," he said.
Still, Anis is hoping that there is a way forward through dialogue. "I told him [after the Nolan Show] the Belfast Muslim community is extending an invitation to come and sit with them. Nothing happens by talking hateful language."
You'd think Northern Ireland might have realised that by now.
Sunday Times 1.6.2014

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:40 AM

That must have been some real putrid verbal diarrhea that Shaw spewed out to merit those responses from MtheGM. I long ago ceased reading anything emanating from that vile person but do quite enjoy Mike's counter punches - do keep it up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:50 AM

Thank you, bobad. Actually, I don't generally find Steve 'vile'; I often find him quite a reasonable person, which is why I was so taken aback by his last lot of animadversions. As I said a post or two back, to Keith at 0411 am, I can't imagine what brought it on, & hope he may now regret it. Not holding breath, tho.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 07:08 AM

Shaw doesn't take kindly to being called out for the shite he spews. He once sent me a threatening PM for doing so that had me quaking in my boots (not really - having a good laugh at his expense more like it). Anyway - be warned.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 07:11 AM

Did you get around to checking on the nephew of the corner shop owner Michael?

It's just that the word reactionary crept up again.

By the way, I did read the thread title. I am not interested in threads designed to point at people for being different. It's got fuck all to do with foreign abhorrent cultures and more to do with making tenuous links with decent law abiding citizens over here. Your addition to that puerile agenda was most unwelcome.

By the way, following on from Jim's expose of radical Christianist hate in Northern Ireland, an excellent photo of a woman outside Stormont with a banner saying "I am a Muslim Consultant Surgeon. I am here to do Mr Robinson's shopping"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 07:27 AM

Sez you what it has "more to do with"; but it's no sort of law of nature that you have to be right about that. Islamist radicalism is a demonstrable threat to the current commonweal, or none of the things from 9/11 to the caning of the unmarried mother in Nigeria to the murder of Fusilier Rigby would have happened. If we are not to single out any sort of specified entity for any sort of comment, than what is the point of this forum at all? And you really don't know what Mr Patel's nephew thinks, you know. All v well being sarcastic about the comment; but the 9/11 guys & the Rigby killers et al were all somebody's nephews at that.

Sorry, Ian; but I honestly think you are long overdue to log on to Confused.com . You really do seem to have lost the plot here.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 07:44 AM

more to do with making tenuous links with decent law abiding citizens over here.

The title excludes decent law abiding citizens.
Our security services say there are thousands of radicalised Islamists who do live here though.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 08:05 AM

"Not Europe"
The present swing to the right has been engineered by playing on innate Xenophobia, largely aimed at Muslims
The problem, of course, is that once the extremists get a toe-hold, their extremism has no particular sectarian or racial barriers - anybody whose face doesn't fit
Not counting Farrago, the extremist right (no dispute that all this shit is right-wing generated, though Mm Le Penn is insisting that they are "radical" and not extremist) has made significant gains in 12 European countries.
She is now ferreting away trying to unite those groupings into a single entity - good days ahead, if she does.
Jim Carroll
This from today's Sunday Times, from European Belgium.
FEARFUL JEWS BEGIN EXODUS FROM EUROPE
The Brussels killings are an extreme example of anti-semitism driving thousands to Israel, the UK and US
Sojan Pancevski BRUSSELS Inna Lazareva TEL AVIV

DELPHINE ANKAOUA never dreamt she would feel com¬pelled to leave her chic home in the leafy Neuilly-sur-Seine suburb of Paris.
But when her neighbours of 10 years asked Ankaoua to remove the mezuzah, a small box containing a piece of Jewish religious text, from the front door of her flat, she and her family decided it was time to leave the country — and move to Israel.
"We were absolutely shocked," said Ankaoua, 39, who had long encouraged her sons to wear baseball caps over their kippas (skull caps) to disguise their origins. "We tried phoning an organisation that helps Jews combat anti-semitism, and they told us just to take off the mezuzah."
Any doubts about her decision were dispelled two weeks before Ankaoua and her husband were due to leave when their seven-year-old son was told he could not play in the garden because he was Jewish.
"At that point I just said: 'Merci, la France! Au revoir!'," she said. "It made it so much easier for me to say goodbye to my country."
From her new home in Jerusalem, Ankaoua works for the Israeli government, helping other European Jews driven to emigrate by what they perceive as an increasingly hostile atmosphere.
The extreme form such hostility can take was high¬lighted by last weekend's killings of four visitors and staff of the Jewish Museum in Brussels in an apparent Antisemitic attack
Despite an international outcry, the Belgian police have yet to catch the perpetrator.
Figures compiled by the Israeli government say the exodus is most pronounced from France, home to more than 500,000 Jews, and Belgium, which has a 42,000-strong Jewish commu¬nity. The number of French Jews moving to Israel doubled to 3,374 in 2013, after the killing in Toulouse the previous year by a French-Algerian anti-Semite of seven people, including three stu¬dents at a Jewish school.
This year it could hit 5,000: by the end of April, 1,499 had already made the journey.
The secretary-general of the World Jewish Congress, Serge Cwajgenbaum, said many more were moving to Britain, America and Canada. "Jews are questioning their future not only in France but in Europe at large because they fear for their safety."
The EU's racism watchdog found France, Belgium and Hungary were the worst countries in terms of perceived anti-semitism, according to a study conducted among Jewish minorities.
Nearly half the respondents expressed concern about falling victim to verbal attacks, while more than 33% feared physical assault. A quarter said they avoided Jewish sites or events because they felt unsafe.
A surge in support for far-right parties in elections to the European parliament, such as the National Front in France, has added to concerns.
"When openly anti-semitic, neo-Nazi political parties gained a foothold in national parliaments and regional councils, and now in the European Parliament itself, more alarm bells should be raised", wrote David Harris, director of pressure group, the America Jewish Committee.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 08:54 AM

The writer of that piece did list a number of places that he felt relevant to the discussion.

But that is not what you said, Keith. Your exact phrase, to save you paging back, was lists all the places where real persecution exists.

Not being pedantic or trying to nitpick in any way but when you say one thing and then change it, how can we hope to follow your argument?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 09:19 AM

Jim, the shooting of Jews in France was by an Islamist.
re the Jews shot in Brussels, "29-year-old French citizen Mehdi Nemmouche captured Friday in Marseille, said to have ties to Syrian jihadists.

Thanks Dave.
I revise the post.

Jim, that New Statesman link that YOU provided listed a number of places that were felt relevant to the discussion about persecution.
It most definitely did not include Europe or the Americas.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 10:02 AM

Thanks, Keith. Still a very pertinent point to our other discussion about relying on the press. Here we have a perfect example. You said one thing and was corrected, so you revised the post. That is exactly what happens when the media is pulled up by offcom. However, by that point in time the damage has been done. A revision or apology on in column 6, page 11, does not get noticed but satisfies the law. And people still believe that the article lists all the places where real persecution exists. They do not read the retraction.

BTW - Even your revision is a spin. Just because it does not list Europe or the Americas does not mean that persecution is not occurring there. They just want to draw your attention to the places they list for an agenda that we can only guess at. As I have said before, do not rely on the media for anything.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 10:38 AM

Well, here's some good news for a change, we can only hope that those Imams who prescribe it take heed: "Ulema Council says so-called 'honour killings' are un-Islamic and sign of ignorance, ahead of June 5 meeting."

Pakistan clerics issue stoning death decree

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 10:43 AM

"Jim, the shooting of Jews in France was by an Islamist."
It doesn't matter who the **** did the shooting - the racist response of the police and the neighbours of the lady interviewed indicate an institutionalised racism in Belgium.
Antisemitic attacks in Europe are long term facts of life for Jews living there.
Attacks on homes of asylum-seekers are exclusively carried out by the indigenous populations throughout Europe - a disturbing rise of those attacks has been reported today in British/Christian Northern Ireland.
Election results recently have shown a disturbing rise in support for fascism in Europe - twelve countries in all - not (yet) counting Britain - all the candidates, white, Christian and indigenous - not a Muslim among them.
It seems from here that people (so-called Christians) like yourself are happy to ignore this, and go along with them as long as they include Muslims as the targets of their (your) hatred)
Once again - you have the situation in Christian Europe, yet you continue to ignore it.
Long live us white Christians eh?   
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 10:57 AM

Here are a few more people who make the "preposterous claim"

I didn't ask for a list of more people spouting bullshit, FW - I asked for evidence.

Which you did not supply.

As per usual.

Now awaiting your usual spin doctoring.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 11:30 AM

Michael accuses others of anti semetism then repeats his awful slur on decent law abiding Muslims.

Keith meanwhile makes his usual sweeping statements in a style he'd scream for "evidence" of if more rational people had said it.

Perhaps one day society will learn to suck each other's cocks but till then, fear and mistrust of neighbours prevails.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 11:31 AM

Greg, some of them were heads of state, and all of them quoted by someone trying to prove that Christians are NOT the most persecuted.
(That was the "agenda" Dave)

Some research evidence was also quoted Greg.
You are being too hard on poor Jim's link.

Jim, Your Sunday Times piece made clear that Jews are fleeing France in fear of the Islamists, the rise of the Right just ringing "more alarm bells."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 11:33 AM

Musket, what "sweeping statements" have I made.
I am sure I can produce evidence if required, but for what?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 11:58 AM

"Your Sunday Times piece made clear that Jews are fleeing France in fear of the Islamists, the rise of the Right just ringing "more alarm bells.""
You appear to be absolving indigenous antisemitism in order to pin it on the Muslims - does your sectarian hatred have no limits?
Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe because of the increase in popularity of extremist right organisation expressing views like yours.
Of course there is Muslim antisemitism, just as there is Jewish Islamophobia - there is a Muslim-Israeli territorial war taking place in the Middle East, but the institutional brand in Europe is the most indicative of what is happening there, and it is the most dangerous because it knows no religious or racial limits YOU HAVE TOTALLY IGNORED THS FACT - UP OUR OWN HOME-GROWN RACISM, IT WOULD APPEAR
Jim Carroll
Fanatiacal ptatt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:40 PM

Ian loq: Michael accuses others of anti semetism then repeats his awful slur on decent law abiding Muslims.
,..,.,
Quote this 'awful slur' please, Ian, so that I have some idea what the blazes you might be on about; I have not at present the least notion what you may be referring to: unless you mean that I suggested that any decent law-abiding person might have some relative who is less so; which seems to me a pure statement of fact -- everyone is related to someone who is decent & law-abiding, so what is a slur in saying that the latter might have a relative who is the former? It doesn't apply specifically to Muslims or anyone else, but is a mere statement of an evident commonplace.

If that is not what you are drivelling on about, then be so good as to specify what you do mean.

Otherwise, just shut your stupid fat gob, eh? There's a good fellow.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:46 PM

Jim Carroll
Fanatiacal ptatt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:47 PM

Hang on, here comes my fat gob.

"Mr Patel's nephew."

Nurse ! Michael is out of bed again!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 12:54 PM

You appear to be absolving indigenous antisemitism in order to pin it on the Muslims - does your sectarian hatred have no limits?

No Jim.
You Sunday Times piece makes clear that, before the rise of the Right, under a Socialist government, it was fear of Islamists causing the exodus of Jews from France.
It specifically refers to the shooting, "The number of French Jews moving to Israel doubled to 3,374 in 2013, after the killing in Toulouse the previous year by a French-Algerian anti-Semite of seven people, including three stu¬dents at a Jewish school."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:10 PM

"Jim Carroll
Fanatiacal ptatt
Jim Carroll
Typos - is that all you've got, you pseudo-Christian braindead?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:48 PM

Not just typos Jim, but that was a classic.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:51 PM

So Musket, what is that sweeping statement that needs evidence?
Come on.
Perhaps this time I can't produce any.
Go for it Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 01:56 PM

"Not just typos Jim, but that was a classic."
Which you seem to be using to divert attention from the fact that you totally refuse to acknowledge the fact the European fascism is still with us and has never really gone away - including the British variety.
You're a bit of a mess really, aren't you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 02:00 PM

I've dealt with Mr Patel's nephew already, Ian. & with the fact that you don't know what Mr Patel really thinks & he's not going to tell you. If you regard this as a general attack on all law-abiding anything-whatevers, then I fear you are deluded. But that's not news, you poor old fellow. Better call that 'nurse' of yours to minister to your own goodself, my Dilly-Duckling...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 05:25 PM

before the rise of the Right, under a Socialist government, it was fear of Islamists causing the exodus of Jews from France.

One word for you, FW: Dreyfuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:22 PM

Shaw doesn't take kindly to being called out for the shite he spews. He once sent me a threatening PM for doing so that had me quaking in my boots (not really - having a good laugh at his expense more like it). Anyway - be warned.

Well, minnow, here, for your delectation and for the delectation of everyone else, are the only two PMs I've ever sent you.

[Quote](1)Bet he'll bite again, his type always do.

Troll. Go and find something useful to do.[Unquote]


[Quote](2) Know summat, mate? PMs means PRIVATE messages. However, you have my full permission to publish mine in full. On the thread. Go ahead! I hope you understand, by the way, what is meant by "in full." Anything else will be regarded as a breach of confidentiality and I'll report you. Have a nice day, whoever you are.

In full, OK? No allusions, yeah? Go for it![Unquote]

There ya go. Permission to publish any of my PMs in full, but only in full, so as not to misrepresent. Some dark threat, eh? Be warned, guys!


Minnow! Got anything useful to say, preferably not Islamophobic for a refreshing change? Can you manage more than one line, or do you prefer to hide behind your "sage-man-of-few-words" bullshite persona?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:30 PM

I note your multiple bad-conscience litany of posts, Michael (do get a bloody life, and I hope you're feeling better as a consequence of your cathartic exercise of spleen - it's only a sodding internet forum, you know), but the problem is that you called a perfectly reasonable (though admittedly passionate) man antisemitic, without the merest hint of justification. One has to suspect that you are actually Bibi's uncle. Or, in your case, his great-great uncle. Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie. And cut out the PMs please. We can manage perfectly well in front of everyone else. Well, I can, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Jun 14 - 06:39 PM

And how can you possibly know more about anti-Semitism than a Jew, especially a Jew who remembers Mosely's Blackshirts marching through his home city, lived through the holocaust losing family members, and made his way in institutions like the British Army?

Boo effin' hoo. What a load of emotional old bollocks. Even you can do better than that. And you can't even spell Mosley. And it's "the Holocaust". I seem to have more respect than you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:33 AM

"And cut out the PMs please. We can manage perfectly well in front of everyone else. Well, I can, anyway."
';.,.

Glad to. So, everyone, here is the PM I sent Steve yesterday, which refs back to one I had from him just over a month ago ---

Your latest effusion...         1 Jun 2014 08:40 AM         
                        Message - Steve Shaw:-
"I think that this icy attitude of mine
has rankled with some around here of more ardent inclination, but I
care not a jot. I'm a big cuddly teddy really, you know!"
you PM'd me a few weeks back.[late Apr 14]
Could have fooled me re your latest outburst. What on earth has got into you?

So where did this 'icy' but 'cuddly big teddy' go to, eh, to be replaced by this nasty resentful foulmouthed yobbo? Genuinely puzzled by the loathsome little swine's current goings-on.

& who is "Bibi" when he/she is at home?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:51 AM

Just a reminder, since at your request, we are washing some of this originally private bit of dirty linen in public;

Your PM quoted above was part of one in reply to one from me, telling you that, when I joined Cat 5 years ago, the late Diane Easby warned me in a PM, when I had got caught up in with you on a thread, to watch out for your notorious-to-all nasty two-faced trolling troublemaking vindictiveness & truculence; which I couldn't at the time make out as you were being, & have been since, till now, eminently reasonable and affable: and you were responding in some self-justifying apparent puzzlement, & denying ever having corresponded with Diane on any topic to your then recollection anyhow.

Still, looks as if she was in the right of it after all, eh? You obviously are a nasty truculent two-faced &c &c &c troublemaking troll at that,

aintcha, Steve Shaw?

And please consider yourself well patronised, you inconsistent feebleminded pathetic little booby, you!

Best regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 02:40 AM

And what's with your going on·&·on about my age, eh Shaw-minor? You know mine - 82. But you keep everso quiet about yours. You are however, from where I am sitting, most manifestly a nasty jumped-up young upstart with a peculiarly self-satisfied but grossly exaggerated opinion of his own powers & abilities. Look at me, at my great age, running rings round you here while you pant and strain to keep up. You're not even starting to convince anyone, you silly, conceited, pathetic, mannerless little fool. And I am still waiting for all these o-so-powerful 'bites' of yours which are going to demolish me once & for all. Come on, now: show us these invincible fangs of yours -- you stupid, toothless, vain, wittering, rude, useless little fat·gob.

All the best, me-duckling - keep trying ~~

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 02:48 AM

And say "Sir" when you speak to me, you disrespectful little yobbo!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 03:24 AM

Slow-burn -- re Bibi.

Oh, you must mean Netanyahu.

Well well well: another origin-throwing antisemite emerges from the woodwork....!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 03:30 AM

M....too much PM's already. :0)

Keep YOUR feet out of the mire Sir.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

Strange coincidence, Dictionary.com has "gnomist" as its "word of the day".

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:25 AM

Why, Ake?

I shall probably have to leave this thread soon, mind, becoz I'm just beginning to enjoy it too much. Demolishing this puffed-up little yobbo Shaw's vain attempts, with his self-vaunted great intellect and fatuous claims of greater knowledge than mine of everything under the sun, is just too priceless for words. Winding him up is just becoming too addictive. Can't wait for him to come back with a few more of his poor toothless "bites" which are supposed to finish me off good'n'proper ~~ in his dreams! ~~; & his pathetic attempts to gain leverage by reminding everybody of my long-ago Jewish origins (obviously assuming all Mudcatters to be as mindlessly antisemitic as his disgusting stinking self); and my supposedly helpless & debilitating advanced age which is absolutely leaving his conceited self·regarding youthful vigour standing; and his pathetic conviction that supposedly lively young people can be any sort of match for knowledgeable & still-active octogenarians: it's all just such unholy FUN!

So come on back, Little-Shaw-O'-My-♥: Letsby Avenue! Can't wait for your next lot of idiocies... teeheeheeheehee.......   

☠〠·LoL·〠☠

~M~

Appreciate your pun on my name, btw, Ake. Not all that original, tho, as you might have anticipated.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:27 AM

I miss-spelled a surname and dropped a capital.
That does not answer or invalidate my point Steve, so here it is again.

How can you possibly know more about anti-Semitism than a Jew, especially a Jew who remembers Mosley and his Blackshirts marching through his home city, lived through the Holocaust losing family members, and made his way in institutions like the British Army?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:40 AM

So, now: to get back to the thread's moutons ~~~

Attention to this morning's Times, which once again full of the goings-on of those stinking Sudanese persecutions of this harmless young woman that they want to whip & hang for marrying someone that one of their ignorant Islamist shitholes of a judge didn't approve of; + an account of all the institutions and individuals worldwide breaking off all contact with the Sultan of Brunei over all his nice new stone-'em & flog-'em legislation.

Come on now, all you fine champions of the intolerable: let's hear it for His Majesty the good old Sultan and His Honour the fine upstanding Sudanese judge.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:47 AM

Why, Keith: the unconscionable Shaw obviously considers it much more serious to lose a capital letter than to lose all one's relations in Focsani & Bucharest & Riga & Vilnius.

He really is a one, ain't he just!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:51 AM

Or..

How can anyone know more than teachers of any particular school under scrutiny?

Except the OFSTED inspectors bring outside objectivity. Having been involved in regulation myself for a few years, I see that experience and affinity bring a dimension to a debate, not an answer. An answer includes cold objective scrutiny. That's why the victims don't get to sit on the jury or bench.

Michael's linking all Muslims with radical fanatics is as piss poor as the mindset that linked all European Jews with the haves v have nots debate that was popular in the '20s and '30s. I've seen photos of the blackshirts marching, so my recollection is at least as good.

If the time of the blackshirts marching is relevant, then discuss the difference between young British men going to Syria to defend an ideal and young British men going to Spain. Both advised otherwise by the government of the day, both going for the same perceived purpose.

Keith as ever sees items he agrees with as stronger in evidence base than anything that offends his stupidity.

Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 05:27 AM

BRITISH BELFAST
"I miss-spelled a surname and dropped a capital."
And are quick enough to take advantage of others doing similar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:55 AM

"Michael's linking all Muslims with radical fanatics"
.,,.
No. Wrong. Not worth going on contradicting this obsessive little tit. He's asserted this countless times, but never been able to cite the instance. So what if I said that some nice Muslim he knows might have relatives that are less nice, & might even sympathise with them on the quiet without necessarily telling His Imperial Musketness, how does that equate to the accusation above?

Oh, just shut up you silly little prat, Ian. You have as Jane Austen put it, long ceased to deserve the compliment of rational opposition.

So just piss off.

Please.

Best regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Seaham cemetry
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:10 AM

I fail to see how normal people are debating with these bigoted old men with no concept whatsoever of whom or what they address.

I saw active service in Iraq, Afghanistan and over a couple of neighbouring borders. I, as many others went wondering the degree to which we could relate village tribal law with the mindsets of the student doctors we trained with back in England from these countries.

Not one bit.

Just because an ill educated old man invokes the Q'ran to justify his judgement is no different to calling a Church of England vicar for a mass murderer in Alabama who says Jesus told him to go on a killing spree.

The governments of some of these countries, whilst attempting to show themselves in control, are not. Sadly, some use the lawlessness of regions as a bargaining tool for western support in propping up their own regime.

Out of interest, there is nothing new in many of these atrocities, just heightened awareness. Not a bad thing in itself but it does tend to feed Col Bigot Retd and members of his bridge club.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:22 AM

Oh dear Michael, you repeated it just up the page and started it on this thread for that matter. Your diatribe earlier today is there for everyone to laugh at for that matter.

Ask nurse. She will help you look for it.

Best regards, may your continence pads never leak and all that,

Musket

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:31 AM

Keith as ever sees items he agrees with as stronger in evidence base than anything that offends his stupidity.

Care to give an example of this latest accusation you have made up?
Of course not!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:38 AM

I am fortunate in remaining perfectly continent, thank you. But if I weren't, then drawing attention to the fact is just the sort of brilliant argument to appeal to your o-so-amusing mindset, eh Ian? I am sure that any elderly Mudcatters reading this, who do perhaps have the misfortune of having lost continence with old age, must be most delightedly diverted by your incomparable wit.

Oh, you really are a nasty, contemptible little specimen of uselessness. A really dismal little pain in the arse ~~ & I stress that LITTLE.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:42 AM

Rejoin if you like. Or not. Up to you --

but I hereby announce that no more answers will be forthcoming from me to your pathetically petty provocations.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:56 AM

Book distributed at City of Toronto's "Doors Open" festival calls for Muslims to wage a Jihad against non-Muslims.

Claims, "Jihad is as much a primary duty of the Muslims concerned as are daily prayers or fasting. One who shirks it is a sinner. His very claim to being a Muslim is doubtful."

Doors open for Muslim Brotherhood?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:04 AM

Prejudiced abuse and mocking of age, infirmity and disability should be dealt with as forcefully as racism,IMO, FWIW.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:25 AM

Eyup Michael,

Just for you, I found your original diatribe and stereotyping discrimination.




Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MtheGM - PM
Date: 18 May 14 - 09:34 AM

... and what do you know of the thoughts and actions of your nice GP's young nephew, eh? The killers of Mr Rigby were some nice person's nephews, I expect...




And then you have the gall to try to invoke moral authority due to distant relatives being European Jews. If I were you, I'd play along with the ga ga excuse. It may increase your credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:29 AM

"Care to give an example of this latest accusation you have made up?"
Take any of your carefully selected "historian", or "experts" - you might start with the obsucure idealistic Australian sect who told you it was OK to sell arms and riot control equipment to Assad.
Plenty of others to choose from.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 08:58 AM

Book distributed at City of Toronto's "Doors Open" festival calls for Muslims to wage a Jihad against non-Muslims.

Yup, Boo- just like The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion represent all Christians.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:01 AM

I'd add homophobia to the list, but I wouldn't want to incriminate you Keith. Your support of your pet worm does that admirably. Not to mention your membership of a homophobic religion.... Kicked the misogynists out yet?

The brass neck gall of it....

In the real world, The Equality Act and it's predecessors define race, ethnicity, disability and sexual orientation. Age has a few provisos. Not least of all not to take their views seriously. The older they get, the dafter they get. Mind you, there's one or two on this thread for whom keyboard access restrictions would feature in a best interest meeting..

By challenging and ridiculing Michael, I am treating him as an equal. What's your excuse?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:02 AM

Take any of your carefully selected "historian", or "experts"

So Jim, name one historian I have cited who was not an eminent, professional historian, or one person I have cited as an expert who was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:18 AM

Could someone define eminent, professional and expert for the rest of us?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:48 AM

"Yup, Boo- just like The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion represent all Christians."

Another one of your false equivalences Greg - nice try but this one isn't even close - you're losing your touch. Look up Sayyid Mawdudi, Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood - you might just learn something that will enable you to make an intelligent post instead of the reflexive "whataboutery" of which you are so fond.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:51 AM

"Could someone define eminent, professional and expert for the rest of us?"

Eminent--anyone who supports a given argument
Professional--see eminent
Expert--see professional

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:00 AM

What's little Michael?

Size 13 shoes, 6'4", beer gut to be proud of and a humongous great willy. My new car doesn't fit in the garage either for that matter.

You see, when people start saying horrible things about others, picking on one aspect, in the example of a GP or corner shop owner, his or her Islamic faith, I start thinking.. What trait of theirs can I pick on and have a pop at in order for them to see how it feels? You seem to be a touchy bugger who enjoys giving it out. Even light hearted comments about cooking sherry hit a nerve. And still you dole it out with absurd hatred and fear of local citizens on the basis of something you read about in a newspaper happening half way around the world. Instead of wondering what can ,be done about it, you join in the crass game of defying anyone with a dark skin to condemn it publicly or be associated.

Your refusing to acknowledge me as a result is fine, but then you wonder when young Muslims refuse to integrate in your cosy Alan Bennett world.

You are almost as sad as our resident corporal sign writer from Oswestry.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:15 AM

So Musket, when you spoke disparagingly of "little people of no consequence" you were referring to their stature?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:51 AM

"So Jim, name one historian I have cited who was not an eminent, professional historian, or one person I have cited as an expert who was not."
The Australian tree-huggers association, or whatever they call themselves, who told you it was OK to sell weapons and rit control gear to Assad
The team of "experts" who you claim said that "All male Pakistanis were implanted to have it off with underage girls" - still never produced
The Daily Mail Journalist who said World War One was a glorious enterprise to which a generation of young men went willingly to be slaughtered in the mud.
The Muslim Watch thread which you dedicated yourself to claiming that their masses of racist propaganda was true beyond all doubt.
Not forgetting Christine Kenneally, who you swore, supported your view of The Irish Famine, but turned out to be saying exactly the opposite.
to name a few.
Have you ever though of entering your writings for the Booker Prize for fiction - I'm sure you'd do well
All together now, "lies, all lies I tell you"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 10:55 AM

"Islamist radicalism is a demonstrable threat to the current commonweal, or none of the things from 9/11 to the caning of the unmarried mother in Nigeria to the murder of Fusilier Rigby would have happened. If we are not to single out any sort of specified entity for any sort of comment, than what is the point of this forum at all?"

I can't argue with more than the detail of that, any more than you can logically claim that Western interventionism has had any less of an horrific effect upon their countries, from the 1920s right up to now. Of course there have been many other instances since the birth of Christianity, of Islam being (unsuccessfully) targetted for extermination.

If you constantly visit upon others, invasions, pogroms and actions which lead to their deaths in thousands, what do you expect might be the result?

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." (Bible: Galatians VI)

The atheist philosopher George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." (The Life of Reason (1905-1906)).

That much misattributed quote is something that every Western and every Christian nation should examine in its every detail and nuance, before deciding to let the world look after itself, back off and mind its own cabbage patch, so as not to invite further hostility.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:04 AM

Jim, I do not remember the tree huggers but I certainly would never describe such folk as expert on anything.

The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture.
They blamed the offending on aspects of it.

I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything.

I have never used any "Muslim Watch" site, but the list you claim came from there contained no errors that any of us including YOU could find.

Christine Kinealy is an eminent historian who we both quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:18 AM

"Prejudiced abuse and mocking of age, infirmity and disability should be dealt with as forcefully as racism,IMO, FWIW."

i.e. ignored?

No change required then.

To refer to your own comments about persecution, apples & pomegranates.

You guys do love to fawn on the ones with brains, don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:38 AM

Editorial Policy.
" We don't allow hate, racism, stalking or other intimidation, or personal threats or attacks."

I wish it covered mocking people for their age and infirmity.
Allowing it does not make our forum a nicer place.
It probably never occurred to the administrators that anyone would do such a thing.
Such things never used to be said.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:40 AM

Keith
You produced an obscure group of idealists in order to back up your claim that it was permissible to sell Assad riot equipment and arms - you have a very convenient short memory.
"The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture."
You have never produced a single statement resembling your obscene suggestion, and you never will - feel free to do so now.
You even went as far to debasing the country you claim to love by suggesting that British laws would allow such a horrendously racist statement from a public figure.
"I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything."
Max Hastings is a non qualified 'Historian' who writes for the Daily Mail
You dismissed all information give to you and insisted he was the "expert" we should accept for no other reason that you claimed (not having read anything he had written) that he supported your jingoism.
"I have never used any "Muslim Watch" site, "
You strenuously defended three pages of invention by Muslim Watch (hundreds of unqualified claims) put up by Boo Boo
"Christine Kinealy is an eminent historian who we both quoted."
You quoted her as saying Britain was not to blame for the outcome of the Famine - as with your 'Muslim implant' claim - it was your own invention.
You developed a technique of hiding behind 'experts' and have consistently admitted that you have ever read any of them, or any others on any of the subjects you have pontificated on.
Next
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:49 AM

Jim, Max Hastings is regarded as an eminent historian by such as BBC, Guardian, other historians, so you view of him does not count for much.
He was only one of many historians I referred to anyway.

The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture.

You strenuously defended three pages of invention by Muslim Watch (hundreds of unqualified claims) put up by Boo Boo

Completely untrue.
I said I did not trust it and took the trouble to check the entries.
I was just being honest that I could not find a single fault.
Nor could anyone else including YOU Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 11:59 AM

And here we are once again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 12:45 PM

I wish it covered mocking people for their age and infirmity.

What about mocking people for their stupidity and idiocy?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 01:49 PM

"The Pakistanis you referred to I do regard as experts on their own culture."
I never referred to any Pakistani - in three years you have not produced one single person making a claim culturally smearing an entire culture.
Have anybody holding office or in the public eye done so, they would be facing charges of incitement to racily hatred - or are you still claiming that Britain has no laws protecting ethnic minorities from racial abuse - is it so racially extreme without the help of the BNP and Ukip?
Still no evidence - no links - no statements - nothing other than your disgusting claim - lies, total lies.
You are still free to provide statements and links, of course - I look forward to the humiliation
"Max Hastings is regarded as an eminent historian"
That might have been acceptable if you had, in your turn not dismissed all those giving a different opinion as "not a qualified historian" as you have persistently done on that and every other thread.
Hist on your own petard somewhat, I'd say.
MAX HASTING IS A DAILY MAIL JOURNALIST AND YOU HAVE JUST LIED (AGAIN) WHEN YOU WROTE "I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything."
I repeat, Max Hasting is a Daily Mail journalist - he has no qualifications as a historian.
"Completely untrue."
No it isn't - you claimed to have checked most of them, - you hadn't, and you defended them as true.
More lies - what did I say?
This wouldn't be half the fun it is if you weren't so arrogant, so dishonest and you didn't try to make each subject a point-winning competition.
Your declarations of infallibility and your repeated prat-falls are nearly a substitute for your nausing up thread aftre thread, ther way you do.
Keep it up - it's the nearest thing I'll ever come to a blood-sport.
Jim Carroll

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

Sincere apologies Keith – one "expert" does back up your claim.
UNDERAGE SEX SLAVERY IN BRITAIN

GAVIN BOBY
Have a good night - say a prayer for us all
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 03:26 PM

http://www.maxhastings.com/category/books/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 04:08 PM

Jim, once again you have made me the subject of the thread, reopening long dead discussions.
You are obsessed.
Discuss the issues not me please.

All your claims are false and I would be happy to rubbish them by pm, or if you must, on a dedicated thread that all normal people can avoid.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,For info
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 05:32 PM

By Dr. Arieh Eldad an M.D. at Hadassah Hospital in Israel


I was instrumental in establishing the "Israeli National Skin Bank", which
is the largest in the world. The National Skin Bank stores skin for every
day needs as well as for war time or mass casualty situations.

This skin bank is hosted at the Hadassah Ein Kerem University hospital in
Jerusalem where I was the Chairman of plastic surgery.

This is how I was asked to supply skin for an Arab woman from Gaza , who
was hospitalized in Soroka Hospital in Beersheva, after her family burned
her.

Usually, such atrocities happen among Arab families when the women are
suspected of having an affair.

We supplied all the needed Homografts for her treatment. She was
successfully treated by my friend and colleague, Prof. Lior Rosenberg and
discharged to return to Gaza .

She was invited for regular follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic in
Beersheva.

One day she was caught at a border crossing wearing a suicide belt.
She meant to explode herself in the outpatient clinic of the hospital where
they saved her life.

It seems that her family promised her that if she did that, they would
forgive her.

This is only one example of the war between Jews and Muslims in the Land of
Israel . It is not a territorial conflict. This is a civilizational
conflict, or rather a war between civilization & barbarism.
I have never written before asking everyone to please forward onwards so
that as many as possible can understand radical Islam and what awaits
the world if it is not stopped.

Dr Arieh Eldad

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:26 PM

Islamism in Birmingham schools.
"One of the schools concerned, Adderley, has released an official statement confirming that its head, a moderate Muslim, and other heads have been subjected to "malicious and targeted campaigns to remove them." Given all this, there can't really now be any dispute that a plot exists.

But the Beeb's(BBC) record on the story has been mixed. It has done some real reporting on it – that is, making the effort, like us, to gather actual evidence of its own. But on other occasions it's been too ready to take at face value the obviously self-serving denials of obviously interested parties – such as governors of the schools concerned, or in this case Birmingham City Council.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100270920/islamism-in-birmingham-schools-how-the-bbc-is-selectively-reporting-the-trojan-horse-plot/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 06:40 PM

Max Hastings is regarded as a bit of a cunt by one professor.

Kind of blows a hole in your priggish crap, doesn't it?

He writes as if he is being paid per word rather than by fact.

Luckily Keith, as far as those charged with dealing with reality are concerned, your day dreams and impressionable faith in fools put you firmly in the camp of your little people as you call them.

What ho !

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:25 PM

I only come here once a day as I have a life, so it takes me a while to catch up (I must be mad). So five points.

(1) There is no Birmingham plot. Keith appears to be the only person on the planet who still thinks so, but that is because it suits his purpose for there to have been a plot.

(2) Very entertaining, Michael. I can't make my mind up whether (a) you've lost it, (b) you are indulging in some warped sort of humour, or (c), you have made a complete twat of yourself in front of everyone without realising it. You do sound very upset (all those posts with afterthought after afterthought...), but, if so, that's your own doing. Take a break.

(3) I am 62 years 11 months 18 days and 15 and a half hours old. Paypal me thirty quid for a bottle of Talisker on my birthday, y'all (preferably individually, not collectively, you tight gits), on June 15, please.

(4) You do not have to have been a victim of the vile persecution of the Jews, or be in the family of such victims, to get your head around what antisemitism means. Why I should have to make this elementary point to allegedly sentient grown-ups is utterly beyond me.

(5) The word "holocaust" is increasingly, and rightly, becoming almost exclusively associated with that horrible phase of history, and the only correct rendering of the term in that context is "the Holocaust".    To omit the capital H is regarded as a serious insult, and carelessness is simply no excuse. Speaks volumes about your pretentious and sanctimonious nonsense on this and just about every other topic, Keith, that you should respond with your lame-duck excuses.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 07:37 PM

Well, Doctor Eldad, persuade your blinkered administration to negotiate with the newly-united Palestinian factions instead of going down the depressingly-predictable path of "not talking to anyone with Hamas on board". One day you will talk whether you like it or not, and the sooner you start the fewer of your citizens, not to speak of the citizens of Gaza and the West Bank, will be killed or hurt. Your government will always find a way of not talking, because they don't have to, thanks to US bankrolling of your military. Quite a few of us in the west hope against hope that that invidious situation will not go on forever. Your people and the people in the occupied territories all deserve peace, prosperity and security, so do try to stop arguing against it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 02 Jun 14 - 09:12 PM

http://www.snopes.com/politics/israel/eldad.asp

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 12:51 AM

Dearest little Stevie: oh, welcome back. I began to think you had gone away, young fellow, leaving me bereft of all those good guffaws you had been affording me. But you were just off getting on with this gr8 'life' of yours. Well, enjoy. & thanks for latest lot of laughs.

But enuff awready. No more of your posts will be read by me. As I said above to that other sillibugga

"Rejoin if you like. Or not. Up to you --

but I hereby announce that no more answers will be forthcoming from me to your pathetically petty provocations."

So adieu; with best regards, natch --

~M~

Oh: nearly forgot. Happy 63-years-young in 12 days time. But no malt from me, I fear. I gave up all alcohol 12 years ago, & life really is much nicer without, so I don't propose to encourage any young person in bibulous ways. So if you have any sense, you will seize tho occasion to do likewise & celebrate the occasion with sparkling mineral water: really much nicer...

Teeheeheehee: in my dreams, you compulsive young toper you...

Now -- back once more to those Islamic Rads, yes???

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 02:35 AM

"Max Hastings is regarded as an eminent historian" [Keith]

That might have been acceptable if you had, in your turn not dismissed all those giving a different opinion as "not a qualified historian" as you have persistently done on that and every other thread.
Hist on your own petard somewhat, I'd say.

MAX HASTING IS A DAILY MAIL JOURNALIST AND YOU HAVE JUST LIED (AGAIN) WHEN YOU WROTE "I have never put up any daily mail journalist as an expert on anything."

I repeat, Max Hasting is a Daily Mail journalist - he has no qualifications as a historian." - Christmas

A few of points with regard to the above:

1: Sir Max Hastings IS regarded as being an eminent (albeit unqualified) historian, evidenced by the awards and reviews his work has received from eminent qualified historians and by the fact that those same eminent qualified historians invited him to become a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

2: I do not believe that Keith did dismiss "all those giving a different opinion as "not a qualified historian"[sic]". I believe that on the "Potato Blight" Thread he dismissed quite correctly some of those you put up as "qualified historians" (Tim Pat Coogan and John Mitchel being but two of them - neither of course are considered by "qualified historians" as being either eminent or "qualified").

3: Sir Max Hastings is NOT a Daily Mail journalist - before leaping to contradict that statement I would direct you to look up the difference between being a journalist and a columnist.

As for this from Musket

"Max Hastings is regarded as a bit of a cunt by one professor.

Kind of blows a hole in your priggish crap, doesn't it?"

Kind of demonstrates your total lack of perspective, while at the same time making a complete and utter c**t of yourself Ian (LIOL & Bar).

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:04 AM

"Size 13 shoes, 6'4", beer gut to be proud of and a humongous great willy." - {description of Musket by himself}"

On the "willy" thing - if the rest is true how do you know? When was the last time you saw it?

Are you paid by the word Ian - must be as your self-penned description could have been shortened to either of the following - BFF or more appropriately BFC.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:20 AM

I'd look up the word irony if I were you Terribleus.

There aren't many (any?) ways of drilling reason into Keith's thick skull and my hypothetical one professor reflects Keith's continual habit of saying subjective opinion is undeniable truth.

It's his infantile immature stupidity I was getting at, not any opinion on Max Hastings. For the record Hastings is a revisionist who writes history to suit his views in the same way he did as a newspaper editor. It reads well and I can see how shallow fools are impressed with it but his prolific output doesn't reflect thougt out reasoning in my humble opinion. He begins with a hypothesis and sets out to justify it. Not objective history accounting in my book.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:53 AM

Tell Mr Shaw exactly what any, blinkered or otherwise, Israeli Administration has "to negotiate with the newly-united Palestinian factions? Recognition of the State of Israel's right to exist perhaps? Recognition of the right of the citizens of the State of Israel to life their lives in peace free from threat of attack?

Perhaps Mr. Shaw you could give us the Hamas view point on those issues.

1: "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

2: "Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah's promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said:

The time(16) will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry:

0 Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad(17), which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)(18). - excerpt from Article 7 of Hamas Charter 1988

3: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day or Resurrection. Who can presume to speak for all Islamic generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status [of the land] in Islamic Shari'a(20), and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection." - excerpt from Article 11 of Hamas Charter 1988

Comment: As it would appear to be perfectly acceptable in the minds of Hamas for Islam to take land by force, then they can hardly deny the same right to others - True?? - They could of course just be proven hypocrites.

4: "[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement [Referring to HAMAS here Steve]. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

5: "There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time(27), an exercise in futility."

So tell me Steve what are they going to negotiate?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:07 AM

Most people either have one or are one.

It's ruddy huge. It's party piece is to pop up when at the table and nick a bun just like an elephant. It's that happens next that makes my eyes water. The beer belly could do with developing to be fair. It just isn't big enough.

Still, better than being a bit of a cock eh?

Don't get me too excited, I tend to pass out.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:09 AM

"Sir Max Hastings IS regarded as being an eminent (albeit unqualified) historian"
Read what I have written
Keith has always rejected historians, who don't agree with him no matter how "well regarded" they are, yet holds up a Daily Mail journalist to make his case - can't have it both ways Terrytoon.
From Max Hastings' own C.V.
"Sir Max Hastings is an author, journalist and broadcaster whose work has appeared in every British national newspaper."
He appears not to know the difference between journalist and columnist as he describes himself as the former - nowhere does he claim to be a historian, no matter how others regard him.
I really don't care what you "believe"; you never offer anything more than flag-waving, bar-room type wannabe-militaristic opinions anyway.
I didn't and never do base my arguments on the 'reputation' of "historians" no matter how "eminent", I base my opinions on what I have read of their work.
In the case of the Famine, I presented series of facts - ethnic cleansing, "act of God", militarily defended full warehouses, food shipped out of Ireland throughout the starvation period, half a century of mass evictions, enforced emigration, inbuilt British hatred of the Irish.... you both chose not to respond to any of them with facts of your own - in most instances you both ignored them completely in spite of my requests for you to respond.
By the way - Coogan is regarded as a distinguished historian by many, though I have never made any great claims on his qualifications
I have never quoted Mitchel in anything I have written, other than to condemn his support for slavery in the American Civil War in an album note.
I have no knowledge of his reliability as a historian, never having read anything he has written on the subject.
As far as Keith, and, as far as I can judge, you are concerned, the "eminence" of whichever historian is of little import to either of you, he persistently admits he has never read a book on the subjects he fantasises about and relies entirely on cut-'n-pastes he hastily gathered after having made his jingoistic and flag-wagging Little Englander statements: you appear to be no different.
"Dr Arieh Eldad"
Was interested to read what you wrote - not unlike the Jehovah's Witnesses who staunchly refuse essential blood for life-saving operations, without family forgiveness - wonder if this falls within your description of "barbarism"?
Funny thing religion, which is why I don't subscribe to it.
Was fascinated by your summing up Israel's stance as a holy war "against barbarism" though - puts it all in proportion.
"Jim, once again you have made......"
No Keith, you have made it about you with your fanatical Islamophobic rantings.
And once again you duck out - showing that your "experts" and "historians" are basically figments of your own imagination created to win 'glittering prizes'.
No examples of 'cultural implants' again - other than those I provided
from extremist sites expressing views similar to your own - must dig out some more; it helps put you in context.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,for info
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:20 AM

You waste your breath responding to Dr Eldad. His was a piece I copied from online, deemed to be authentic -- see the snopes comment which folowed. He is not himself a contributor to this foolish introspective forum and probably blssfully unaware of its very existence.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:21 AM

Keith has always rejected historians, who don't agree with him no matter how "well regarded"

Completely untrue, I reject none.
On WW1 there are no living historians who did disagree with me.

Musket, there is no historian who disparages Hastings like that, unless you are having delusions of historical importance again.

Steve, I have no opinion on whether the plot is real or not, but Andrew Gilligan in that Telegraph piece clearly does.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:31 AM

Wow Musket!! You've outdone yourself on Sir Max - The Royal Historical Society are according to you: "shallow fools......impressed with.....his prolific output".

You could, judged upon your own contributions to this forum, be rightly accused of many things Musket, but knowing anything about history isn't one of them. Oh, and on Sir Max Hastings, like Carroll, you too should look up the difference between a Journalist/Reporter and an Editor/Columnist.

While I disagree strongly with many of Hastings comments and much of his work - On the First World War he was bang on - and both yourself and Carroll were ripped to shit on the Christmas Truce Thread on the three key metrics for success introduced by Keith.

By the by Musket you are far from objective yourself and as I stated previously you seem to suffer from a chronic lack of perspective on just about every subject you select for "discussion".

Keith on the other hand does clearly identify the sources he quotes and introduces and in so doing clearly states that they are THEIR opinions NOT necessarily his. Unfortunately all you and Carroll ever do is read who posted and then launch into attacking the poster NOT the points introduced by him - the pair of you even have to resort to inventing things said by him to attack him on - It really is rather pathetic and frankly boring, apart from that it is completely pointless and spoils any thread where the pair of you indulge yourselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:46 AM

Hey "legend"

" GUEST,Musket - Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:07 AM"

Did it really take you over one hour to come up with that response??

Pathetic ain't the word for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,for info
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 04:48 AM

Moreover if Mr Carol had read the Snopes piece as he should have done beofre rushing so stupidly to contradict Dr Eldaad he would know that the bits at the end of Eldad's piece were not his own but added on before posting by some ill wishing third party. Carol is in too much of a hurry to be a reliable comentater it would seem.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:27 AM

Awww shucks Christmas I'll spell it out for you as you obviously have not bothered to read Sir Max's CV only the key words from it.

The career path of Sir Max Hastings:

1967 to 1982 - Journalist/Reporter - Foreign Correspondent working for both the BBC and the Evening Standard, awarded "Journalist of the year" in 1982

1980 - Historical Author Won the Somerset Maugham Award for non-fiction for book "Bomber Command". He also won the Yorkshire Post Book of the Year prize for both his historical works "Overlord" and "The Battle for the Falklands".

1982 to 1996 - Editor then Editor-in-Chief Daily Telegraph awarded Editor of the Year in 1988.

1996 to 2002 - Editor Evening Standard after which he retired.

2002 - Knighted (A means by which merit in terms of achievement, or service can be officially recognised)

2002 to 2007 - President of the Campaign to Protect Rural England

2010 - Received the Royal United Services Institute's Westminster Medal for his "lifelong contribution to military literature".

2012 - Awarded the Pritzker Military Library Literature Award, a "lifetime achievement award for military writing".

Enrolled as a Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature and enrolled as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society.

In retirement Sir Max Hastings has worked occasionally as a COLUMNIST for the Daily Mail as well as for The Guardian, The Sunday Times and the New York Review of Books.

Now if you can read and understand all of that you will now know that counter to what you repeatedly claim:

Sir Max Hastings HAS NEVER worked for the Daily Mail as a JOURNALIST

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:50 AM

As a Life Associate of the Freelance division of the Institute of Journalists, I feel qualified to contribute to this ill-tempered and ill-informed exchange. Anyone who writes for the press regularly and professionally, whether as a full or part-time occupation, in any capacity and not just that of 'reporter' [which I have never worked as -- I was exclusively a critic and feature writer] is a Journalist. What on earth makes either of you imagine that "journalist" is exclusively synonymous with "reporter"? The term "journalist" certainly subsumes "reporter", but not exclusively: it means that everyone who contributes, or processes [eg the editor, department editors, subeditors &c] written copy to the press. Any one of them will be a Journalist, qualified for membership of the NUJ if full-time, or the IoJ if part-time but with other commitments (my erstwhile situation). Just remember what the "J" stands for in those abbreviations, and stop being so silly as to argue that anyone is not a "journalist", but is only a "columnist". A columnist is a journalist. So Sir Max is, at that, currently a Daily Mail journalist; even if not employed fulltime on the paper as a reporter.

This was a silly piece of drift. Take my {longtime IoJ-member's} word for it, you would both do well do drop it.

~M~
Freelance Associate, Institute of Journalists

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:52 AM

Well, Teribus, your rant on Hamas, ironically, displays the very reason why sensible talks (by sensible I mean meaningful) are urgent and vital, and that will not happen until the US imposes strict conditionality on its military aid to Israel. I believe that, once that is done, Hamas will readily agree to cease hostilities (don't you think that their accommodation with Fatah is a bit more than baby steps in the right direction?) and that meaningful talks could take place. Meaningful in this context means that each side has a lot to lose by failing to compromise. At present, the Israel regime never has anything to lose no matter how horridly it behaves. I have little time for Hamas, who are indeed an obstacle to peace, but far greater obstacles are the theft of the best Palestinian land, Israel's legendary murderous bellicosity and the repression of Palestinian people in Gaza. The biggest of all obstacles to peace, though, are people like you and Netanyahu who have been duped into believing that there is no need to talk. Long live the pro-Israel lobby, eh? No talking means more killing. Churchill knew that. He wasn't my type but I thought he might be more yours.

Or, maybe, if Michael is Bibi's great uncle, you're Bibi's uncle.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:05 AM

Dearest little Stevie: oh, welcome back. I began to think you had gone away, young fellow, leaving me bereft of all those good guffaws you had been affording me. But you were just off getting on with this gr8 'life' of yours. Well, enjoy. & thanks for latest lot of laughs.

But enuff awready. No more of your posts will be read by me. As I said above to that other sillibugga

"Rejoin if you like. Or not. Up to you --

but I hereby announce that no more answers will be forthcoming from me to your pathetically petty provocations."

So adieu; with best regards, natch --

~M~

Oh: nearly forgot. Happy 63-years-young in 12 days time. But no malt from me, I fear. I gave up all alcohol 12 years ago, & life really is much nicer without, so I don't propose to encourage any young person in bibulous ways. So if you have any sense, you will seize tho occasion to do likewise & celebrate the occasion with sparkling mineral water: really much nicer...

Teeheeheehee: in my dreams, you compulsive young toper you...

Now -- back once more to those Islamic Rads, yes???

Silly man. You will read my posts and you will respond. You'll probably even respond to this one. You appear to think that piling post upon brainless post of this ilk will distract from the initial sore point, which is that you called a man who is nothing of the sort antisemitic.

I might add that there is nothing compulsive about my "toping", that your alcohol withdrawal is your private affair and does not qualify you to prescribe it for me or for anyone else. I could feel the need to stoop to your level by suggesting that a couple of pints might sweeten you recent distemper, but I won't. And call "Islamic Rads" what they are, and avoid the broad brush of prejudice, eh? There are plenty of people of Islamic persuasion who are embarrassed and mortified by the the behaviour of an unrepresentative tiny minority among their number.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:09 AM

MtheGM

A Journalist/Reporter - reports news and covers events for a newspaper in order to inform the public and is supposed to leave his/her own bias and beliefs out of the piece reporting it impartially, objectively and factually as accurately as possible.

Editors or Columnists on the other hand are free to declare their bias and write articles accordingly - they are not reporting on anything they are providing comment on something someone else has reported on events in the news.

I believe that the lines have converged and merged so as to become almost indistinct over the past few years but the distinction should hold good for anyone reading and editorial piece, a column in which the bias of the columnist is well known and when reading news of a breaking story.

You seeing no difference at all sums up why anyone with any sense at all should never ever talk to the Press - today their stories are written long before the set out from their offices, they are not interested in finding out facts, their only interest is in the harvesting of sound-bites which when they re-emerge are usually taken out of context and misquoted - a Profession it bloody well isn't.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:24 AM

"Sir Max Hastings HAS NEVER worked for the Daily Mail bum-fodder as a JOURNALIST"
So what - he describes himself as a journalis and is present writing for the Daily Mail - semantic juggling.
His historical qualifications do not meet those that Keith demand for the rest of us, therefore he does not qualify as a historian, though Keith based most of his case on his being so.
Shucks to you too.
"On WW1 there are no living historians who did disagree with me."
Arrogant nonsense - you haven't read any of those you quoted, so how on earth could you possibly know?
You based your entire case on a tiny handful of out-of-contest cut-'n-pastes, as you always do.
Throughout the discussion - and the one on the famine, you hid behind the reputations of "real qualified historians" without ever having read a single one of their books, which you admitted when challenged "I am no expert"
You don't read - you seek qualification for your jingoistic rubbish after you have propounded it.
"He is not himself a contributor to this foolish introspective forum and probably blissfully unaware of its very existence."
Sorry - I responded to the holier-than-thou stance of the posting, which I read in passing, because I believe it represents much of the trouble in the Middle East and elsewhere - "my religion is more important than yours".
No religion can claim clean hands when it comes to interference in medical matters - the Christian church least of all.
Every year thousands of families are forced to ship their daughters to the UK for pregnancy terminations they cannot obtain legally in Ireland due to primitive, religion-based laws.
Last year the government to re-think an age-old religious-based law forbidding life saving operations - this following the death of a young woman due to an unviable pregnancy
Politicians who voted for the changes in the law were threatened with excommunication.
Such operations are still illegal in cases involving rape.
The height of "barbarism" was reached some time ago when the staff of a Christian-run South American hospital hid the pregnancy of an 11-year-old daughter of a family of itinerant agricultural labourers who had been raped by a local farmer, made pregnant and given two sexually transmitted diseases.
The staff admitted that the girls age and her condition would inevitably lead to her death had the pregnancy been allowed to go through, but they deliberately suppressed the fact that the girl was pregnant until it was too late for her to obtain a termination legally.
On appealing to the local bishop, they were told that that "the girl should embrace her martyrdom with pride".
Religion and medicine is just as toxic a mix as with politics.
Damn them all.
By the way - I am not in a rush to be a "reliable commentator" on anything - I am as anxious as I always have been that this forum is not used by racists, sectarians and other examples of the detritus of society as a platform for hate - nothing more.
There is nothing introspective about any of this - holy wars, whichever product-brand of superstition they are fought for, concern us all and are a threat to all our futures.
Taking sides only heightens that threat.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:35 AM

Mike - overlooked your postings
"What on earth makes either of you imagine that "journalist" is exclusively synonymous with "reporter"
I don't believe I ever described Hastings as a "reporter", nor do I believe it to be a derogatory term, though it has been debased by some of that trade - particularly by those who work for the rag in question.
My only point was that if "real historians" are the only ones permissible in these discussion, then that must be applied to all and not used to debunk or exclude information, as it all-too-often is by our usual suspect.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Hack spotter Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

Wow. Your potted bio of Hastings gives me a right old stiffy. I reckon I'm about to fa i n ttt.....

How wonderful it must be to go through life assuming everybody you come into contact with has your own limitations in analysing and questioning people who must be good cos they've been on the telly.

Who indeed am I to question eminent people. Perhaps because I can't see the aura of eminence surrounding their egos.

zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

Did you know? My last post was number 911. Something for the paranoid fools to mill over.

I'm a journalist myself Michael in that I write for periodicals and journals (as well as penning some guidelines fodder.)

Mind you , I don't consider myself a journalist any more than I consider myself a porn star.

You can tell a journalist. They usually prop up the bar / smuggle cooking sherry whatever.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:02 AM

"Well, Teribus, your rant on Hamas, ironically, displays the very reason why sensible talks (by sensible I mean meaningful) are urgent and vital, and that will not happen until the US imposes strict conditionality on its military aid to Israel. I believe that, once that is done, Hamas will readily agree to cease hostilities (don't you think that their accommodation with Fatah is a bit more than baby steps in the right direction?) and that meaningful talks could take place.

Now exactly how would the USA imposing conditions on its military aid to Israel (Which by the way I think you exaggerate the importance of) prompt Hamas to cease hostilities against Israel? I mean they have "ceased" hostilities many times in the past only to resume them whenever a suitable target of opportunity comes along (What was the deal they signed up to when Israel withdrew from Gaza again Steve? Did Hamas live up to their end of the bargain?)

The Hamas "accommodation" with Fatah. Does that extend to Hamas allowing Fatah candidates to stand for election in Gaza? Their accommodation is borne from necessity and survival, it has got nothing whatsoever to do with any peace plan.

Until Hamas and Fatah both come out with the clear unequivocal statement supporting the right of existence for the Sovereign State of Israel and the right of its people to live their lives in peace free from attack or threat of attack there will never be any meaningful talks - Hamas in their charter state that such talks are a waste of time now that is hardly Israel's fault is it?

By the way why has it got to be the USA imposing conditions on Israel, why not the International Community imposing conditions on how the Palestinians spend the millions they receive in aid?

"Meaningful in this context means that each side has a lot to lose by failing to compromise."

Care to tell me what either Hamas or Fatah have compromised on?

"At present, the Israel regime never has anything to lose no matter how horridly it behaves. I have little time for Hamas, who are indeed an obstacle to peace, but far greater obstacles are the theft of the best Palestinian land, Israel's legendary murderous bellicosity and the repression of Palestinian people in Gaza."

So far the Israelis have reached agreements with the Egyptians, the Jordanians and a sort of semi-agreement with the Palestinian Authority - all have held, all have been lived up to. Not however with Hamas, because Hamas seek Israel's destruction and they will never compromise on that aim - so yes Hamas ARE an obstacle to peace, they are the greatest obstacle to peace. When the Israelis pulled out of Gaza peace would have followed had Hamas done anything about the rocket attacks, they didn't and Israel, quite rightly reacted.

"The biggest of all obstacles to peace, though, are people like you and Netanyahu who have been duped into believing that there is no need to talk."

Not no need to talk, more like no point in talking to reach an agreement that will be ignored by one side.

1947 - They were offered peace and more land than they are arguing for now and they refused it.
1956 - They were offered peace and more land than they are arguing for now and they refused it.
1967 - They were offered peace and the land they are arguing for now and they refused it (The Three NO's of the Khartoum Declaration 1967 - "No peace with Israel, No recognition of Israel, No negotiations with Israel")
1973 - Etc, etc., and on down to the present day.

They have had 67 years to sort this out - be done with it and next time let them fight it out to the finish.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 09:14 AM

"1947 - They were offered peace"...... yaddada, yadda, yaddada.
The voice of Imperialism rides again
They were given S.F.A. that they weren't already entitled to by right of the fact that they had occupied the land for generations -millenia in fact.
The Empire partitioned the territory without obtaining satisfactory agreement from either side, pissed off (to the sound of gunfire and grenade explosions and left the occupants to sort out a mess centuries caused by Imperial exploitation - as it did all over the globe.
The world is still trying to cope with that mess
Formerly Rule Britannia (as usual)
You make returning property to its rightful owners sound like Fatherr Christmas coming down the chimney
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 09:51 AM

mull

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 10:17 AM

Actually the deal on the table in 1947 was the two-state solution proposed by the United Nations - nothing whatsoever to do with your favourite cartoon baddies (The Brits) at all. The Jewish population of the Mandated Territory of Palestine accepted it but the Arab population of the Mandated Territory of Palestine rejected it and opted to go to war instead - they lost. As the Arabs of Palestine did not accept the 1947 borders as proposed there have never been any established two-state boundaries so all the crap about Jews stealing land is just that - CRAP.

By the way if any have right to the land due to occupation over millenia then that would be the Jews.

If the Arabs of Palestine especially those represented by Hamas in Gaza think that it is OK to take and hold land by conquest then Christmas old son what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

They tried in 1948 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

They tried in 1956 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

They tried in 1967 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

They tried in 1973 and they lost - by their rules the land belongs to the Israelis

Israel has made peace with Egypt and that peace has held - all Egyptian land occupied by Israel returned.

Israel has made peace with Jordan and that peace has held - all land formerly part of the Mandated Territory of Palestine and occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967 (West Bank and East Jerusalem) relinquished by Jordan.

2005 - Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Gaza Strip and handed it over to the Arabs of Palestine.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 10:50 AM

"The Jewish population of the Mandated Territory of Palestine accepted it"
With misgivings - the Arabs rejected it, as they had every right to do. giving the circumstances.
Israeli 'freedom fighters' went about clearing Arab homes with hand-grenades while the embarkation ships were leaving port.
As I said, Britain left Palestine in a state of turmoil, as they did with many of their former possessions
Their departure from Palestine was not unlike that of the Yanks scrambling for the helicopters on the roof of the Saigon embassy - the stuff epics are made of!
To attempt to accept territories gained by force of arms is to write in generations of warfare.
Israel's continuing military incursion has now reached toe proportions of ethnic cleansing and is widely recognised as the establishment of an apartheid state.
]I have no doubt that you, as a wannaba military man regard that as acceptable - the civilised world doesn't
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:21 AM

Israel's continuing military incursion has now reached toe proportions of ethnic cleansing

??

and is widely recognised as the establishment of an apartheid state.

Not by any democratic government.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:26 AM

Teribus ~~ You still seem to think that "journalist" only means "reporter". Rubbish. All those who write for, or administer, the press are journalists. Reporter is just one of the dozens of different jobs that journalists do. If you can't use terminology precisely, you can't expect any of your arguments to convince anyone.

I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such; merely with semantic accuracy. From the junior trainee on the local paper to the Editor-in-Chief of Times newspapers, they are all journalists, and you are simply pissing down the wind to try and deny it in order to make inaccurate and unconvincing debating points.

Jim: I wasn't accusing you of any such false distinctions. Teribus is the one making them.

A pity, Teribus, because in general in this thread you have IMO rather more of the right of it that JC, but are doing yourself no favours by undermining your own arguments with this inaccurate semantic stupidity.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 11:30 AM

"Not by any democratic government."
You mean "not by any poodle politician" - surely?
Apart from the U.S's veto, and Britain's lickspittle silence - do you have any examples of open support for Israel's massacres, military incursions, use of chemical weapons, ghettoisation, Nazi-like humiliation and attempted starvation into submission of the Palestinian people, or the attempts to drive the Bedouins of off their lands and rehouse them on toxic rubbish dumps in order to create a "Jews only" State - or is this, just like your mythical historians "All in the mind, you know?".
What support the Israelis have is one of inaction - just like Assad's Syria
Jim Carroll

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

You have persistently claimed that Israel's terrorist activity has had the support of "Democratic Governments"
Would you mind providing some actual examples please?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 01:15 PM

These democratic governments that don't exist Keith. Do they include the many democratic governments, ours amongst them, who agree to uphold and seek compliance with the many UN resolutions concerning the behaviour and criminal actions of Israel ?

You do come out with some rubbish, don't you?

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

No decent nation would do business with an apartheid state.
So tell us Jim, Musket of any decent state that has sanctions or accuses them of apartheid.
Ireland or any European nation?
Scandinavian states?
Australia?
New Zealand?
Canada?
Name one.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:16 PM

Ireland or? You could have just said Europe but I understand that your politics don't like to group countries as part of Europe.

No. None if the above deal with apartheid countries Keith. Apart from the apartheid ones with er.. oil, minerals or a Euro guilt trip that confuses a rogue state with a European ethnic demographic that is very close to historic memory now.

Just think Keith, once the last holocaust survivor is laid to rest, the revisionists can start rewriting that history as they started with WW1 after the last soldier died.

--------

So, which of your list aren't in The UN then?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:37 PM

They are all in the UN Musket, and Europe is a continent, so membership is more to do with Geography than politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 03:58 PM

I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such...

You can say that again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:33 PM

I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such...

Exactly, Steve; got it in one.

And there you have it, folks. But at least he has the courage to admit it, whilst FW Keith does not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:04 PM

I have generally taken Teribus to be a formidable right-winger of the worst sort, but now he also reveals his (or her? How would I know? Does sound testosterone-fuelled though...) revisionist credentials as well. Seems we can't talk about the here and now without his virulent harking back to the usual contentious interpretations of history. Well I'm not up for that game. So Israel reached accommodation with Jordan and Egypt, huh? Not sold out to the west, then, huh, and seen as superb bastions of democracy for decades? Seen Egypt today, Teribus, old son? That's what the long-suffering people of Egypt get for the selling-out by their stinking dictators to the west, the latter getting the yanks to prop up their dictatorial corruption for 40 years and ignoring their own people, innit. Trouble is, in spite of your sharp intellect you appear to have the typical yank Achilles heel (assuming you're a yank - how would I know, but you do act like one...) of having learned all you know from Fox News. I still reckon you could be Bibi's uncle. Or the Mudcat official AIPAC representative. What a waste of talent.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 06:40 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F. - PM
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 05:33 PM

"I am not concerned here with questions of accuracy, reliability, or any such...

Exactly, Steve; got it in one.

And there you have it, folks. But at least he has the courage to admit it, whilst FW Keith does not."


Way to take a statement completely out of context and use it to disparage a poster. Doing so is despicable for anyone but has come to be expected from these two whose main contribution to this forum is the denigration of other posters. They think they are being so clever and pithy but the sad state of the BS section today is largely due to posters such as these.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 07:31 PM

Your understanding of context, minnow, is not mine. Michael called a non-antisemite an antisemite, I called him out on it, and he went all primadonna on us in about twelve silly posts (I haven't counted exactly). Michael has ceased to deal in objective facts in typical Islamophobe fashion (you should easily recognise the syndrome). Your own track record consists of defending the indefensible in one-liners. I try to actually argue points with people. It takes time, but at least I'm not lazy like you. The only posts of yours that go beyond about a line and a half are huge great quotes from some obscure source or other, typically unadorned by any context provided by you. Now, minnow, why don't you rejoin Teribus. He's watching Faux News too. Don't wanna miss stuff, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Jun 14 - 08:14 PM

I do believe the Terrible Teribus is from the UK, Steve. But then, Fox "News"[sic] airs there as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 01:18 AM

Terribulus, Boo Bad and the corporal sign writer from Oswestry.

They say there's one in every village. We appear to have a commune living in Mudcatville.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:03 AM

"No decent nation would do business with an apartheid state."
Are you out of your mind
Britain and the rest of the world did business with Apartheid South Africa throughout its existence.
Britain and the US is selling arms to some of the most repressive states - that nice Mr Cable told us it was OK.
Business is business.
Are you totally out of your head
Even the US has finally turned on Israel for its outrageous contempt for human rights and international laws, despite having defended it for decades.
You said Israel had the support of the democratic nations - where are your examples of that support - in your head, dining with your imaginary historians and 'experts, no doubt.
IS THAT YOUR ONLY CASE FOR ISRAEL'S BEHAVIOUR (NOT FORGETTING THEIR OWN DENIALS OF THEIR CRIMES?
Jim Carroll


BBC POLL

CHRISTIANS

HAARETZ

UK

EUROPE

U S

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:03 AM

MtheGM:

1: Differnce between working as a Journalist and Writing Regular Articles

2: The following from Boston Globe:

"Frequently Asked Questions (Newspaper Definitions

What's the difference between a reporter, editor, and columnist?

A reporter gathers facts and information on an event of public interest and then presents them in a readable style to inform the reader. The reporter is supposed to provide objective observation about events that editors deem newsworthy. Reporters are often assigned to "beats," or particular areas, such as business, politics, energy, or education.

Sometimes reporters don't write the stories they cover. For example, a reporter at the scene of a story occasionally must dictate the material by telephone to another reporter who writes it in the newsroom to meet the deadline for the next day's issue.

An editor serves many functions. While specific responsibilities may differ according to title or newspaper, an editor may do one or more of the following: assign reporters, decide which news events to cover, edit (revise) reporters' stories, decide what stories get published, determine where each story will be placed in the paper, write headlines, and select photographs for the paper. At larger papers, each section (e.g., Business, Sports) has one or more editors responsible for the content of that section.

A columnist gives opinions, usually his or her own. A columnist is expected to gather accurate information, just as a reporter does, and then comment on that information. A columnist has more latitude and license than a reporter and is not constrained by the rule of impartiality that governs news writing. While they are subject to the editing and approval of one or more editors, columnists can write just about what they please, as long as it remains within the boundaries of good taste and public acceptability, as defined by the paper."

If you wish to use the generic term "Journalist" to cover every single person that works for a news organisation that is up to you. But it would appear that to call yourself a "journalist" and be a reporter you have to have some form of qualification, whereas to be a "columnist" you do not, therefore all reporters should be up in arms as all those unqualified bastards are lowering the standards and diminishing the status of the hard won qualifications of the reporters.

Long long time ago since Sir Max Hastings worked as a reporter.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:09 AM

HOW SOME CHRISTIANS TREAT 'SINNERS'
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:35 AM

Journalist does not come under the protected title legislation in The UK.   Press credentials may be required for access to certain places and information, but the title is a free one.

Michael has every right to call himself a journalist. If I were so minded, I could too.

There again, I told Keith I had decided to call myself a historian (I have written and had published a couple of potted histories, mainly around six sigma and how it was introduced and adapted, in order to inform future realisation, but there you go. I am a published historian.)

So... Using Keith's provisos;

I am living. I am most certainly eminent.

Check. Your move.

(Dunno about journalist though. Writing against deadlines is hard work and I am in the Douglas Adams camp in that regard.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:46 AM

I won't disagree with any of that, Teribus. But it's not a matter of what I "would like to use [a] generic term for"; & would just make the point that, whereas the National Union of Journalists {NUT}, which is the leading union for the profession, demands that the bulk of the member's time & earning power be spent in the pursuit of press employment in any capacity, not just reporting, the Institute of Journalists (IoJ), the one I belong to, does not, but simply demands to see a good body of work published in reputable journals; most of mine were in the Guardian and The Times, for which I was book/theatre/folk-music critic when I joined; but as my main earnings at the time were from teaching, I did not qualify for the NUT. Both, though, which is my point, have the word "Journalists" in their titles, and membership of each is recognised thruout the trade [if you don't like "profession"] as indicative of employability within it. So I return to my point that you are over-defining the word "journalist" within a narrow compass which does not subsume to any significant degree its true meaning. So how long it may be since Sir Max actually did any reporting is quite beside the point as to his being definable inter alia as a journalist.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:48 AM

I meant NUJ, of course, not NUT. I must be NUTS!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 03:59 AM

Mr Shaw if you cannot tell me or anyone else for that matter what could be discussed at any "meaningful" talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority hotch-potch of Fatah and Hamas why not just say so.

If you cannot give any examples of what the Palestinian side of the equation has compromised on then why not just say that they have compromised on nothing.

The essential factor required before any talks take place is the statement by all parties and factions representing the Palestinian side that they recognise the State of Israel, they recognise its right to exist and that they recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack. If that statement is not made then the Israelis and the Palestinians have got absolutely nothing to discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:08 AM

Jim: I am as appalled as anyone by that terrible story about the grave in Tuam. Even more horrible than the Magdalene Laundries scandal and all the other well-known Irish Catholic abuse. But how being even more horrified by the far greater, both in nastiness & in number, abuses carried out in the name of Islamism is in any way incompatible with that, I can't see. Horrible indeed; but why instance it, except as a none-too-convincing exercise in whataboutery? I mean, this is

[look up there ☝☝]

a thread about Islamic radicalism. If you want a thread about iniquities committed by some Christians, there are plenty you could refresh, or you could start yet another. But what is the point of citing it here -- except to divert attention from what the thread is actually supposed to be about?

~M~

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

Britain and the rest of the world did business with Apartheid South Africa throughout its existence.

"We stand here today to salute the United Nations Organization and its Member States, both singly and collectively, for joining forces with the masses of our people in a common struggle that has brought about our emancipation and pushed back the frontiers of racism."
South African President Nelson Mandela
Address to UN General Assembly
3 October 1994

1 April 1960 — The Security Council, in its first action on South Africa, adopted Resolution 134 deploring the policies and actions of the South African government in the wake of the killing of 69 peaceful African protesters in Sharpeville by the police on 21 March. The Council called upon the government to abandon its policies of apartheid and racial discrimination.



2 April 1963 — First meeting of the Special Committee on the Policies of Apartheid of the Government of the Republic of South Africa, It was later renamed the "Special Committee against Apartheid".



7 August 1963 — The Security Council adopted Resolution 181 calling upon all States to cease the sale and shipment of arms, ammunition and military vehicles to South Africa. The arms embargo was made mandatory on 4 November 1977

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:38 AM

You said Israel had the support of the democratic nations - where are your examples of that support - in your head, dining with your imaginary historians and 'experts, no doubt.

"Imaginary historians" ????
Why say that? They are quite real Jim.

Have you forgotten that I produced statements by various governments of their warm and friendly relationship with Israel, which they would not have with a state guilty of war crimes or apartheid.
It is all propaganda for the gullible.
Well informed governments know better.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 04:48 AM

Ireland.
"Ireland and Israel are both modern, open, export orientated economies which benefit from highly educated and dynamic workforces. Israel is one of Ireland's largest trading partners in the Middle East, with visible trade amounting to a half a billion US dollars annually. It is not surprising, therefore, that there are strong commercial links across a wide range of business areas from software and the life sciences to education and food and drinks. "

"Irish culture – music, dance, literature, cinema, art - has always been very popular in Israel. The Embassy co-operates with a wide range of partners in developing its annual cultural programme. Some established highlights of the annual programme include the Irish Film and Irish Music Festival at the Tel Aviv Cinematheque, the Irish Studies Seminar at Ben Gurion University, the Samuel Beckett Lecture at Tel Aviv University and a number of Bloomsday activities in June."

"The Embassy also has a new Deputy Head of Mission, Julian Clare. As we both settle in, deepen our understanding of Israel and build on the work of our predecessors in developing bilateral relations between Ireland and Israel diplomatically, economically and culturally"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:00 AM

Sweden and EU.
"Economic relations between Sweden and Israel are in a positive stage of development. Trade figures are up again and we see a clear increase in the numbers of business-related visits and inquires.
The Swedish Government actively promotes such contacts."

"Trade between Sweden and Israel is since 1995 undertaken within the framework of the association agreement between the European Union and the State of Israel.

The main features of the agreement include regular political dialogue, provisions on freedom of establishment and liberalization of services, the free movement of capital and competition rules, the strengthening of economic co-operation on the widest possible basis and co-operation on social matters, supplemented by cultural co-operation. The Agreement reinforces the arrangements for free trade in industrial products which have been in force since the late 1970s. "

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:04 AM

Canada.
Canada and Israel have strong, multidimensional bilateral relations, marked by close political, economic, social and cultural ties. Support for Israel, especially its right to live in peace and security with its neighbours, has been at the core of Canada's Middle East policy since 1948. The relationship has been strengthened in recent years as evidenced by increased cooperation in several areas, including public security, defence, trade and investment, and the increased frequency of ministerial visits. Canada and Israel marked 60 years of diplomatic relations on May 11, 2009. On this occasion, Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated: "At the heart of relations between Canada and Israel is the dynamism of our shared communities. We look forward to the next 60 years and beyond."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:08 AM

Keith: Why are you arguing with Jim about Israel here? He is just trying to divert all our attention from what this thread is about, ie the iniquities of at least some elements of Islam [see my last post, 0408, & above ☝☝]; and you are just encouraging this tactic of his by rising to his irrelevant challenges. There are plenty of threads about Israel he could refresh or initiate; but he is trying for reasons best known to himself (but perhaps not too hard to guess at) to drift this one away from its true topic. Why not just let him get on with it if it makes him happy?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:14 AM

Good point.
I will make this my last on Israel.

Australia.


The State of Israel is a robust parliamentary democracy.

Australia has warm and close relations with Israel, which are supported strongly by Australia's active Jewish community. The relationship has a strong historical dimension, dating back to the First World War when Australian forces fought in the region, including in modern-day Israel, alongside their Allied Counterparts against the Ottomans. Australia was the first country to vote in favour of the 1947 UN partition resolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 05:59 AM

Oh dear. So much reality to hate and ridicule, it must be difficult to focus on one bogeyman at a time.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:17 AM

Of course, intelligent people couldn't possibly debate Islamic radicalism without addressing Western moral intent, Israel and hypocrisy in other cults that point out the failings of Islamic belief.

But that isn't what this is about is it? Keith and Michael just want to list atrocities to persuade people to be circumspect over Muslims over here. Michael just pulled Keith up for straying from shock horror and Keith apologised.

Fuck me gently.

I'd up the dose , for what it's worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:17 AM

None of the states you have name have given one iota of support to Israel - you claim support fort their actions, not trading relations.
There is no support - only opposition, even from its greatest ally - The US.
Britain's greatest trading partner is China - shining example of human rights
You have been given examples of the democratic nations attitude to Israel.
Mike
Whya re you attempting to confine religious atrocities to one religion when they are common to all
Whateboutary my arse - all religions are capable of atrocities - it gores with the power.
"Thread drift" seems to be another nasty habit you've picker up from your better half.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:42 AM

I am not doing so, Jim -- except within the parameters of this thread, whose topic it happens to be - look ☝☝☝☝. If you want a more generalised discussion of the iniquities of all religions, then start a thread on it [or refresh one of the dozens already lurking in the archives]; but why hijack a thread on a specific topic by overgeneralising it -- unless you can't bear the thought that the one which is the thread's topic might not be so very Persil·white·&·pure after all? I meanwhile would rather stick to the topic of this thread, which, as you might just have noticed, is one on which I happen to feel quite strongly. You might disagree with, or even deplore, these feelings of mine. But you are not going to counteract them simply by changing the subject!

Are you - Ummmmm!?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 06:49 AM

Jim, it is not just trade.
Where are the governments who describe Israel as apartheid or criminal?
Nowhere in the world of democracy.
I will not discuss Israel here but post to the current Israel thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:19 AM

Mike
You are attempting to present Islam and Islam alone as the religion causing terrorism in the world today
Probably the greatest threat to world peace is nuclear-empowered Israel setting up a mono-religious state by force of arms.
Stop interfering with our discussing this - you are evry bit as bad (and moronic) as the other moron.
There are plenty of examples of religious atrocities - allow us them to discus them all in context
As I have constantly pointed out to Keith - you have no authority to restrict discussion on any topic to your own Islamophobic comfort-zone
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:25 AM

Kewith
You have persistently claimed that Israel's behaviour meets with the approval of the demacratic states, yet you have failed to produce one single item of that "approval".
Your only defences for Israel's terrorism has been their own denials and this mythical support
You have just been give half a dozen examples of world opposition to Israel, some from Israel itself.
Where is your evidence for this bloody nonsensical claim?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

"That Mr Iqbial from No.33. I reckon he doesn't have a TV licence. And with a name like that he's bound to have a nephew with a rucksack.

I don't know why they can't be like proper religions. You don't see priests brainwashing impressionable young boys. And Mossad never carry out state murder in other countries."

Is that good enough to join your self righteous club?

Michael and Keith seem to be sitting in adjoining wing back chairs. One muttering Noël Coward anecdotes whilst the other polishes the medals he got on eBay. That's fine till they get bored and wonder which sections of UK society to demonise next.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:56 AM

"sitting in adjoining wing back chairs"
Don't forget that good ol' boy Terminus, strutting his stuff in his TA uniform after closing time - I'm sure he would hate to be left out of your role-call of Maggie's Militants
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 07:59 AM

Mr Shaw if you cannot tell me or anyone else for that matter what could be discussed at any "meaningful" talks between the Israelis and the Palestinian Authority hotch-potch of Fatah and Hamas why not just say so.

If you cannot give any examples of what the Palestinian side of the equation has compromised on then why not just say that they have compromised on nothing.

The essential factor required before any talks take place is the statement by all parties and factions representing the Palestinian side that they recognise the State of Israel, they recognise its right to exist and that they recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack. If that statement is not made then the Israelis and the Palestinians have got absolutely nothing to discuss.

You call it an "equation"?? Gosh, there are none so blind...

Just read back what you typed here. You want all the compromise to come from the side which is having its best land stolen by a neighbour with a massive military bankrolled by the cowardly, AIPAC-led US, from the side which routinely has about a hundred times more of its citizens killed by said neighbour, from the side whose people are regarded as second-class citizens in said neighbour's territory, from the side whose communities have been divided by an apartheid wall and which has a million and a half of its citizens held under impoverishment and siege by said neighbour (who thinks nothing of routinely violating its territory, trying to prevent its elections and arbitrarily threatening to withhold rightful tax receipts). Your idea of compromise seems to be one side carrying on as normal with its illegal land thefts and bellicosity whilst the other is supposed to act like saints.

The reason there can be no meaningful talks under present circumstances is nothing to do with Hamas and Israel's constant grandstanding about them. It is because Israel simply does not have to talk. Even if Hamas were a bunch of cuddly kittens, Israel would still not be talking about handing land back, and you know it. Whatever Israel does, whatever resolutions it ignores, whatever atrocities it visits on its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza, including the littering of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets and blitzing schools with white phosphorus and standing by calmly whilst its attack-dogs slaughter hundreds in refugee camps, no matter how much of the finest land it steals for settlements, it faces no more than the mildest tut-tutting from its western backers. No threat of sanctions, no conditionality on its military aid. So there is nothing at stake for Israel. Well, actually, yes there is. The security of its own people, who, one fine day, will see that their blinkered leaders can't get away forever with the Orwellian lie that the enemy is always without, all too easy to demonise. For your information (again), I have no truck with Hamas and I utterly oppose anyone who calls for the destruction of Israel. Take off your own blinkers for a minute while you try to digest that, because it truly is not an inconsistency. Hamas, unlike Israel, has much at stake. They will not call off their idiotic faux-campaign for the destruction of Israel because that would be defeat for them, but, stop the land thefts, lift the siege and they will talk, and the big wiping-off-the-map nonsense will quietly go away. But that will never happen if your attitude prevails (which it is doing as things stand). I remember the inglorious 70s when I was one of them there trade union militants. We were always going on strike tomorrow unless we got fifteen percent. We always got about three and a half, and carried quietly on working. That's how it works. There was a lot at stake, like losing our wages for example. But you, why, you stand there, arms folded, eyes shut, head shaking, calling for complete capitulation of a hubris-ridden faction, knowing full well it won't happen. So people just carry on dying. Don't you think the people in the Middle East on all sides deserve a bit more imagination than that?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 08:27 AM

Musket and Jim, is there no such thing as "Islamic Radicalism" or is it just not acceptable to discuss it?

And, why the need to ridicule?
Lack of any actual argument?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 08:31 AM

Problem is Steve, simple folk work on the basis that if you question their views, you obviously support whatever they are scared of.

Sophistication? You'd be better off trying to debate on The Daily M*il forums.

Jim. - Terribulus and poo bad may be in the same care home, but haven't been assessed as suitable for the communal lounge. Keith and Michael are deemed harmless as nobody actually listens to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM

"I have produced several."
You have produced none
You have claimed support for Israeli's role in the Sabra/Shatila massace - none whatever.
The blockade, the incursions, the use of chemical weapons, the Nazi-like humiliation of Palestinians, expansionism, apartheid, ethnic cleansing of Bedouins - please link us to examples of support of any of these.
Britain's greatest trading partner is China- does that imply support for her human rights record?
"Today, however, China and Britain enjoy a friendly, cooperative, and close relationship. China and Britain have established a full strategic partnership and close cooperation"
The US has vetoed over a 100 UN resolutions condemning Israel's behaviour - it has made it clear it will no longer do so
AN 'ANTI-SEMITIC' JEW'S VIEW OF ISRAEL
Jim Carroll
Whoops - right thread, I'm afraid!!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:23 AM

Still dodging the questions that you have been asked Steve.

1: "You want all the compromise to come from the side"

Ehmmmm No Steve compromise involves both parties in any negotiation. I now repeart:

"The essential factor required before any talks take place is the statement by all parties and factions representing the Palestinian side that they recognise the State of Israel, they recognise its right to exist and that they recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack. If that statement is not made then the Israelis and the Palestinians have got absolutely nothing to discuss."


2: "which is having its best land stolen by a neighbour"

What land is being stolen? From whom? As far as Hamas goes that "neighbour" has in fact given them the territory they now govern - Gaza - Initially stolen from the mandated territory of Palestine by the Egyptians in 1948 and occupied by them until 1967. The Israelis handed the land over to the Palestinians in 2005.

As for the West Bank and East Jerusalem, they had been taken by force of arms from the Mandated Territory of Palestine by Jordan and occupied by them until 1967. The Jordanians relinquished any illegitimate claim they had on those territories in 1988.

Under the terms of the original mandate for the territory of Palestine Jews can settle anywhere within its borders. No defined borders exist for any two-state solution as the only offer ever made, the UN-1947 Plan, was rejected by the Arabs and never put into practice or effect.

3: "....from the side which routinely has about a hundred times more of its citizens killed by said neighbour, from the side whose people are regarded as second-class citizens in said neighbour's territory, from the side whose communities have been divided by an apartheid wall and which has a million and a half of its citizens held under impoverishment and siege by said neighbour (who thinks nothing of routinely violating its territory, trying to prevent its elections and arbitrarily threatening to withhold rightful tax receipts)."

Tell me how many "Palestinians" did the Israelis kill today? Now ask yourself that question every day. You will find that the answer to that question will consistently be zero until the day the next attack is launched against Israel from inside Gaza.

Your so-called apartheid wall was built to save lives and guess what it has, both Israeli and Arab lives.   

4: "The reason there can be no meaningful talks under present circumstances is nothing to do with Hamas and Israel's constant grandstanding about them."

What present circumstances are you referring to? Any part at all attributed to Hamas refusing point blank to recognise the State of Israel? Tell me Mr. Shaw how exactly do you negotiate and carry on a meaningful dialogue with someone who does not recognise you? At the end of such discussions anything that you think they have agreed to is immaterial because to them YOU do not exist.

5: "It is because Israel simply does not have to talk.

That will remain to be the case until all "Palestinians" recognise the the State of Israel's right to exist.


6: "Even if Hamas were a bunch of cuddly kittens, Israel would still not be talking about handing land back, and you know it."

What land has Israel got to hand back to Hamas? Rhetorical question the answer is none. Israel did a deal with Hamas in unilaterally withdrawing from the Gaza Strip in exchange for peace - The Israelis lived up to their part of the deal - Hamas failed to live up to theirs - documented fact. Par for the course though.

Israel did land for peace deals with Egypt and with Jordan - Both were successful. King Hussain of Jordan tried to help the "Palestinians" and the only thanks he got for it was an attempted take over of his country by the very people that he was trying to help - Again par for the course.

7: "Whatever Israel does, whatever resolutions it ignores, whatever atrocities it visits on its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza, including the littering of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets and blitzing schools with white phosphorus and standing by calmly whilst its attack-dogs slaughter hundreds in refugee camps, no matter how much of the finest land it steals for settlements, it faces no more than the mildest tut-tutting from its western backers. No threat of sanctions, no conditionality on its military aid. So there is nothing at stake for Israel. Well, actually, yes there is. The security of its own people, who, one fine day, will see that their blinkered leaders can't get away forever with the Orwellian lie that the enemy is always without, all too easy to demonise."

Emotive twaddle if Israel wasn't threatened and attacked none of the above would have occurred.

8: "For your information (again), I have no truck with Hamas and I utterly oppose anyone who calls for the destruction of Israel."

Then just for once let us hear you condemn them as roundly as you condemn Israel. Please treat us an example of your emotive twaddle wittering on about indiscriminate rocket attacks against unarmed civilians, about using "Palestinian" civilians and children as human shields, about placing command centres and ammunition dumps in schools and hospitals - But I do not think that I will hold my breath waiting for that to occur, because I know it won't happen.

9: "Hamas, unlike Israel, has much at stake. They will not call off their idiotic faux-campaign for the destruction of Israel because that would be defeat for them, but, stop the land thefts, lift the siege and they will talk, and the big wiping-off-the-map nonsense will quietly go away."

Ahhh so that is what it is about as far as you are concerned - a face saving exercise for the Hamas/Fatah leadership. Now you tell me, you have two people who have publicly stated that they are your sworn enemies and who you know to be armed, they ask to meet you but you must first come alone and unarmed to this meeting and stand naked in front of them - if you said that you would agree to go to that meeeting as instructed then I would call you the greatest fool in Christendom, and I would be right - that is what you are in effect asking Israel to do.


10: "I remember the inglorious 70s when I was one of them there trade union militants. We were always going on strike tomorrow unless we got fifteen percent. We always got about three and a half, and carried quietly on working."

Doesn't surprise me at all, but the end result was that you and your like aided and abetted in killing off British industry, and damned near succeeded in bringing the country to its knees.


11: "So people just carry on dying. Don't you think the people in the Middle East on all sides deserve a bit more imagination than that?

The people of the middle-east carry on dying because that is what their leaders demand of them in order to save face. The "leaders" and representatives of the Arabs of Palestine are the ones that lack imagination, their entire income of the "Palestinian State" is based on aid and they, the "leaders" are making fortunes out of it. More important as far as they are concerned they know that this gravy-train will continue just as long as they can keep "their people" in poverty in order to play the guilt-card and hold their begging bowls out to useful idiots such as yourself and to their guilt-ridden rich Arab neighbours.

The people of Palestine have had 67 years to sort this problem out - they have signally failed to do so - let them fight it out - it is the only solution now that they themselves will ever accept.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:35 AM

Steve,

Please let us know WHICH of the following you consider to be too much of a burden upon the Palestinians:

1. They recognise the State of Israel,

2. They recognise its right to exist.

3. They recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack.



You indicate that this is unreasonable to ask of them- WHY?????

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:48 AM

Well you spent a long time on that. I've made my points, some of which you've twisted round and others which you have bounced off tangentially. I try to see the whole picture here, you see half of it. I have no truck with Hamas, I've called their manifesto for the destruction of Israel nonsensical and a stance that I utterly oppose (I serially disappoint some of my supposed allies by saying that, here and on other forums, but hey). I've said they are an obstacle to peace, I have bemoaned their hubris. I think you might have missed those bits. However, you will see just what you want to see, that's clear. I'm afraid I won't be doing a Jim to your Keith. Let your constant harking back to history (your version only, natch) be your refuge. 'Tain't mine. Someone has to do something.

Are you Bibi's brother?

Revisionism note: so it was schoolteachers, who infamously caved in (still do) at every pay and conditions negotiation, and who lost five days' holiday under Thatcher, who sent the nation to the dogs, eh? Not Maggie then? Well, thanks for betraying your true colours, anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 09:50 AM

You indicate that this is unreasonable to ask of them- WHY?????

No I didn't. I disagree with their (Hamas, to be more precise than you) stance vehemently. I take it you can read...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:29 AM

You might call it emotive twaddle Teribus but I call it lying and dissembling in order to demonize and delegitimize a people - more in tune with the intentions of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:40 AM

"They recognise the State of Israel, "
They can only expect recognition when they recognise the right of the indigenous people of Palestine to live unmolested and without threat of massacres, chemical weapons attacks, blockages and Nazi-like humiliation
The state of Israel came into being to the sound of Arab homes being cleared by hand grenades.
"They recognise its right to exist. "
When they recognise the rights of others to exist.
"They recognise and will uphold the right of the people of Israel to live their lives in peace free from attack and threat of attack"
Vise versa
Israel is a wealthy, powerful State preying on a Third world,impoverished people.
HOW ISREAL DEALS WITH CRITICISM

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 10:50 AM

without threat of massacres,

Done.
Never been a single one!

chemical weapons attacks,

Done.
Never been a single one!

blockages

?

and Nazi-like humiliation

Shite.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 11:25 AM

<<<[quote Teribus]"Whatever Israel does, whatever resolutions it ignores, whatever atrocities it visits on its neighbours in Lebanon and Gaza, including the littering of the countryside with hundreds of thousands of cluster bomblets and blitzing schools with white phosphorus and standing by calmly whilst its attack-dogs slaughter hundreds in refugee camps, no matter how much of the finest land it steals for settlements, it faces no more than the mildest tut-tutting from its western backers. No threat of sanctions, no conditionality on its military aid. So there is nothing at stake for Israel. Well, actually, yes there is. The security of its own people, who, one fine day, will see that their blinkered leaders can't get away forever with the Orwellian lie that the enemy is always without, all too easy to demonise."

Emotive twaddle if Israel wasn't threatened and attacked none of the above would have occurred.[/unquote]>>>

So, minnow of the lazy one-liner, would you care to separate out from the above for me which bits you regard as the lies and the dissembling? I'll admit that the "one fine day" bit is my fervent hope, but all the rest is factual. One fine day we'll see something from you that has actual substance, as opposed to a "yeah, me too, fellow backwoodsman" or a huge quote from somewhere else with little or no input from you, or a single-sentence "you're wrong, you Israel-hater, and you're a prick".

You lazy git.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:16 PM

"Never been a single one! "
Atrocity denier

Ditto

Ditto

Ditto

Why on arth are you discussing Israel on a thread about Muslim atrocities
Thought you and your mate disapproved of that sort of thing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:28 PM

If you mean me there, Jim -- no I don't. See the Israel thread. Boy, don't it ever add to the gaiety of nations,eh Jim?, to drivel just what you like on a thread, relevant or not, and then assert that nobody is going to tell you you can't.

Thank you so much for the idea and the shining example!!!!

<C A R R Y O N C A R R O L L !!!!!!!

"He's all right!"

"Who's all right?"

~~~~~~~JJJIIIMMM   CCCAAARRROOOLLL~~~~~~~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 12:42 PM

... and the next thread is called "Jokes in the worst possible taste"

There is a God!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 02:04 PM

Back to the school yard Mike
I'll report you to Quelch..... yarrroooo. leggo you rotter.
Jim minor

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 14 - 02:30 PM

Three items just from today's BBC news page UK.

"Prime Minister David Cameron asks for a full account of the dispute between the home secretary and education secretary over allegations of (Islamic)extremism in schools."

"A (Islamic)terrorism trial could be heard entirely in secret for the first time in an English court.
Senior judges have been hearing that the Crown Prosecution Service wants the criminal case to be dealt with completely behind closed doors on grounds of national security"

"Two British men were arrested in Dover late on Tuesday night on suspicion of (Islamic)terror offences, police have said."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 02:18 AM

How did the police manage to put Islamic in brackets Keith? Did you slip the word in or are you saying the police don't differentiate between Islamic and Islamist?

Did they report on the number of Christian burglaries too?

Or are you reverting to your old trick of disingenuous posting? You know, like when you posted an apology to yourself in the name of another person?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 02:41 AM

Are we going to learn how Governments who don't do business with countries who carry out massive human rights abuses has "warm, friendly relations" with the perpetrators of the Tianenmen Square massacre Keith ("China and Britain enjoy a friendly, cooperative, and close relationship")
Guess not.
Seems to have blown your case for Israel right out of the water, as all you are left with is their saying "we didn't do it guv".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 03:09 AM

The guest above was me. I forgot to do it. My phone won't accept cookies because of some security stuff over an exchange account I have on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 03:50 AM

Wrong thread Jim.
Musket, it was BBC who chose not to specify the type of extremism.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 06:32 AM

The BBC got something wrong?

You repeated it knowing it to be wrong?

The country must be going to the dogs.......

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 06:38 AM

BBC got nothing wrong, but they omitted the detail making it relevant to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 07:50 AM

So explain what Islamic terror is then, if you reckon they got nothing wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 08:45 AM

Jihad in Kenya

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 08:58 AM

There seems to be some effort to separate Israel's war crimes from those of Muslim extremists, therefore making this an out-of-context attack on a single religion rather than a matter of the threat all religions carry.
I will reply to what is put up on the Israel thread and carry over what I believe to be relevant here – censorship be damned.
"Israel is an invisibly tiny sliver of land with no natural resources." (Keith – who else?)
Israel is a wealthy state with world wide political and financial support, including, up to now, that of the United States.
It is a nuclear power, so its terrorist behaviour is a world-wide threat not just a Middle Eastern one.
China is guilty of atrocities against its own people - it is a friend and business party of 'the democratic world' including, and especially Britain.
America had been guilty of War and crimes - everybody trades with America.
Britain traded with Syria, despite over a decade of human rights abuses
After the Arab Spring protests began Britain continued to trade with Syrian even to the extent of weapons and riot control equipment and later, chemicals that could be used in weapon manufacture.
Briatn was selling arms to Gadaffi and supplying arms to the rebels
Weeks after the outbreak of Arab Spring, David Cameron hosted a massive arms fair aimed at several extremist states, including Bahrain.
Business is business - your alibi for Israel is blown.
I will continue to post my views on the other site and will not be censored by either of you blue-pencil pratts
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 09:19 AM

I will continue to ignore you here then Jim.

Musket Islamic terrorism is terrorism inspired by extreme versions of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 03:54 PM

"Jihad in Kenya". Another great bobad-minnow link. Just a link, as ever. No comment, no context, no sense, no brain, no click from me. Lazy git.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 04:12 PM

Twice now I have posted in reply to Keith. Twice I have checked that it appeared and twice it has gone missing since.

I repeat, verbatim. Keith A of Hertford said a while back that such a term is Islamist terrorism not Islamic terrorism.

There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism any more than my Catholic neighbour threw dead babies in a cesspit in Ireland.

Please don't delete it this time. If you have a hang up about Muslims, see your shrink as a hear you call them over there. Don't abuse your editing rights based on your views. If your views coincide with Keith's pick a good shrink with lots of certificates.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 04:58 PM

You sad man.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 06:18 PM

"There is no such thing as Islamic terrorism any more than my Catholic neighbour threw dead babies in a cesspit in Ireland"
.,,..

Those who did that did not plead the injunctions of their holy writ for so doing.

Islamist terrorists, OTOH...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 06:21 PM

Oh bugger ~~ just noticed whom I was extracting from & replying to there: one with whom I am not engaging for Jane Austen reasons ["not deserving the compliment of rational opposition"].

Still, I suppose that needn't invalidate the point made.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 06:25 PM

According to Musket everyone is in need of a shrink himself excepted.....I heard a lot of that when I worked on a psychiatric ward.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 07:01 PM

What exactly did ya DO on that ward, Boo?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 07:12 PM

My job was to interact with the patients and to report on my interactions at the daily nursing report sessions.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 07:35 PM

Cor, how bloody revealing, minnow.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 05 Jun 14 - 08:55 PM

Canada looking at how to stop the radicalization
of young Canadian Muslims who are joining foreign jihadi groups abroad:

"A prominent Calgary imam, Sayed Soharwardy, told CBC News he strongly believes that increased radicalization of young local men is happening at a "faster pace now" than a decade ago. He wonders why more potential jihadis have not been stopped at airports before even stepping foot on a battlefield.

"I am convinced that the intelligence people know who is recruiting, who is going overseas, who is fighting there," the cleric said. "If they do not know every one of them, they know some of them."

A major question is who is influencing these young men, and leading them toward becoming suicide bombers such as Salman Ashrafi, who killed at least 46 people in a 2013 Iraq suicide attack.

The attack was carried out on behalf of the extremist group ISIS (the Islamic State of Iraq in Syria), a group so violent it has even been condemned by Al-Qaeda."

CBC News

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:07 AM

Don't worry Michael. Nurse will have noted on your care plan who you are ignoring this week. Now just get a chair near a window and keep a lookout for those nasty Muslims.

In reply to his naive crassness above, the nuns were to believe the babies were sub human through their catholic beliefs. They ran their slave camp to make money for their church and the church supplied them their moral justification.

I believe the term is Christianist.

Poo Bad. I hope you wore your name badge. When I visit in patient facilities, especially at the forensic end of the market, it's often difficult to tell the difference.

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

"Those who did that did not plead the injunctions of their holy writ for so doing."
Virtually all of them in those horrific institutions claimed to be doing "God's work".
Two Magdalene nuns who were interviewed on Irish radio last year and referred to the girls under their care as "sinners" and "sweepings from the street" used those exact words, as have many of the abusive priests.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:24 AM

We don't know any of the details regarding the Irish remains, so theories are not very helpful at present.

Don't forget it's only a few years since UK hospitals disposed of stillborn babies in ways that were quite immoral.
Kept them in jars I believe, or disposed of them without the permission of the mothers.

I n saying that, the Catholic Church does have questions to answer, both over the sexual abuse of boys and young men by adult men and their historic attitude to unmarried mothers and their children.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 04:23 AM

The mods have already had to combine threads on the Irish babies issue, so let's not hijack this thread with it too.

(Unless anyone wants to discuss the treatment of unwed mothers by Islamic radicals?)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:02 AM

A campaign which turned hysterical was waged against me by an individual, 30 May 0725pm, 31 May 0749pm, 01Jun 0630, et al; on the grounds that

"the problem is that you called a perfectly reasonable (though admittedly passionate) man antisemitic, without the merest hint of justification."

This man was J Carroll. May I draw the attention of this individual to the latest post by Mr Carroll on the "Small hope for Israel/Palestine" thread, and my subsequent replies to it, in which this question is specifically addressed, as to the the grounds for my having called him so, which I maintain I have there fully justified.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:37 AM

1000 posts and still thick as pigshit.

So much for education.

I suppose fighting against Christian people committing atrocities being mentioned on this thread keeps it to the original post. Finding a link between British Muslims and terrorists.

Have any of you any shame whatsoever?




Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:34 AM

"This man was J Carroll"
My response from the other thread
One of the most distressing features of what is happening in Israel today, is that Israel's supporters use the dead of the holocaust to defend atrocities - they would be turning in their grave if they had been given the dignity of funerals
You have consistently ignored the fact the in the film 'The Gatekeepers', it was an ex -head of Israel' own security service who compared the behaviour of today' Israeli regime with that of the Nazis - a thoughtful omission on your part.
Suggestions that Israel has become an Apartheid state have come from both inside and outside Israel
Jim Carroll

" It can be checked on Wikipedia."
Wikipedia is made up of opinions, not researched facts - nothing they put up can be regarded as a definition unless it is backed up by researched facts.
It is my opinion, and that of many others, that Israel's behaviour is in many instances reminiscent of that of the Nazis, in particular their dehumanisation of the Palestinian people (as deplored by you) and their facilitating the Sabra/Shatila massacre (as deplored by just about everybody).
I consider it deeply Antisemitic to attribute such actions to 'The Jews'- do you think they were Jewish actions or those of the regime you have criticised (sort of) yourself?
In order for me, or anybody, to be an Anti-Semite, I would have to take your stance and blame the Jews, as you are doing.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

I have responded to that on the other thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:42 AM

...cleans a big, big, carpet.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 07:46 AM

"In order for me, or anybody, to be an Anti-Semite, I would have to take your stance and blame the Jews, as you are doing."
.,,.

Can't honestly make heads or tails of what you meant here, Jim. I do blame the Israelis for many things, and greatly regret the way this entity I worked so long & hard to establish has turned out such a grave disappointment in so countless many ways. But how saying that constitutes in any way "blam[ing] the Jews" for anything or in any context, I really cannot make out.

Could you clarify what you mean here, please Jim ~~ with perhaps some examples from any posts of mine of what you claim to be on about?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 08:02 AM

"I have responded to that on the other thread."
You have made your accusation here.
"But how saying that constitutes in any way...."
Describing criticism of Israli behaviour as Antisemitic, is to imply that the behaviour being criticised is in any way Jewish.
I have specified examples of behaviour I believe comparable to that of the Nazis
I am certainly not alone in making that comparison
SOME JEWISH "ANTI-SEMITES"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 10:42 AM

Give up, Michael. I don't use the words that Jim sometimes uses to describe atrocities perpetrated by the Israeli regime, but those words do not remotely amount to antisemitism and Jim (though he shouldn't have had to) has made his position perfectly clear. Your antisemitism antennae have been rather too finely tuned by your apparently Islamophobic side.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 10:55 AM

My points are made, with authenticated references given. I stick to the declaration cited in evidence. If you don't like its conclusions, then take it up with the European appointed committee whose report I have cited, according to which you are indeed being antisemitic. My conclusion stands. And it certainly doesn't, except by the most grotesque mental contortions, in any way involve "blaming the Jews" for anything whatever. Surprised at you, Jim, for tying self up in such mental knots -- or, on 2nd thoughts, perhaps not so surprised at that. You have form for being the worst, most ungracious, argument-loser in the entire History Of The Universe.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 11:29 AM

Would that get the European committee that also measures the bendy aspects of bananas for conformity?

If you are so cosmopolitan and inclusive when citing a European committee, why so racist, xenophobic and pathetic when talking about fellow British citizens who happen to point their prayer mats in a south easterly direction?

Nasty little hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 12:03 PM

"Jim, for tying self up in such mental knots"
Until you have dealt with the points I raised your case is a despicably dishonest one and your accusation is no more than a cowardly slander.
Only those who have no honest response take such a stance as yours.
Are we to assume that Einstein and those Jews who signed his letter are all Anti--Semites?
Look at the date - they were was far nearer the holocaust that we are and far more qualified to make such a comparison.
Are we to assume that one of the six ex-directors of Mossad, who compared the actions of the Israeli Government is an Anti-Semite?
How about other Jews who make the same comparisons, or describe Israel as an Apartheid or a fascist state - Anti Semitic
You are doing no mare than replacing argument with slur
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:10 PM

I can't see quite what can be denounced as hypocritical in my coming right out and saying that I think militant islam is a threat to the whole of the decent civilisation built up in the west. It makes no secret of the fact that world domination is its aim, by any means available to achieve this. I think the hypocrisy lies with you who evade these obvious facts and butter up this inimical-to-our-war-of-life violently proselytising system because many of its members happen to be differently skin-toned from yourself and you are running terrified of being accused of no-need-to-specify-what.

Stinking little hypocrite right back to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:11 PM

That is, 'way-of-life'; though 'war-of-life' has a certain adventitious felicity, perhaps...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:50 PM

"I think the hypocrisy lies with you who evade these obvious facts"
Obvious to you maybe - not to others
You have just accused me of being "the worst, most ungracious, argument-loser in the entire History Of The Universe."
I doubt if you will even bother providing evidence. but please do so
You are now displaying a vitriolic petulance towards those who disagree with you, in the past it takes the form of juvenile name-calling and sneering.
I have never really agreed with your political opinions, but I once respected your honesty and integrity and your willingness to apologise when you made a mistake.
All that seems to have disappeared under a mountain of hysteria sad
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 02:54 PM

I think militant islam is a threat to the whole of the decent civilisation built up in the west. It makes no secret of the fact that world domination is its aim, by any means available to achieve this. I think the hypocrisy lies with you who evade these obvious facts

"Obvious facts"? Well, I haven't heard a cuckoo since early last week, but it's never too late...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:02 PM

OK, ostriches. You'll learn -- or your children will.

Jim -- Point out some mistakes I have made, please, and I will apologise for them, as is my usual practice. I can think of none which can be adduced on this thread. Your disagreeing with some of the opinions I might have expressed is, I am sure you will appreciate, not quite the same thing.

The only exception I can think of is the mistake I appear to have made in assuming that you wouldn't have lost every vestige of your ability to accept a bit of light-❤ed joshing about the existence of such differences. Sorry about that, certainly.

Regards

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:41 PM

"Point out some mistakes I have made, please, and I will apologise for them"
You usually do Mike - it's got beyond mistakes now, it's your arrogance and your unbelievable hypocrisy in refusing even to respond to points but before you
"OK, ostriches. You'll learn -- or your children will."
Sandwich boars on Oxford Street tine again - we're all doooomed I tell you!!!.
Again, I repeat
I doubt if you will even bother providing evidence. but please do so
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 03:54 PM

WHAT "points"?

Evidence of WHAT?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 04:06 PM

All v well making jokes about sandwich boards and all doooomed, Pte Fraser. But I am honestly quite serious in my view that failure to confront and draw the fangs of militant Islam will 'doom' future generations to consequences which you - or they - will not like. I don't need to parade that down Oxford St. Just look at the incidents of the past 13 years and stop being such an insufferable head·in·sand smartarse: 9/11, 7/7, Rigby, Satanic Verses murder of Theo van Gogh ... That should be enuf 'evidence' for you to be going on with just for starters.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:03 PM

These awful consequences being?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 05:07 PM

About time for his Ovaltine methinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:25 PM

"These awful consequences being?"
.,,.
Fancy being publicly hanged for being married to your own lawful wedded wife, do you? -- like this young person in Sudan at this moment; for having been brought up as a Christian & preferring it that way, even tho the father who walked out on them when she was 3 happened to be a Muslim; due to hang in two years when she has weaned her new daughter [aahhh, now, there's humane!]: after her 100 lashes, of course, for sleeping with her own husband.

Oh, yes; they're charming people indeed. So give them their heads, you purblind ½·wits: so they can have yours off with one of those nice fancy curved ceremonial swords in which they take such delight.

Just read the article about stoning & beheading in this week's Spectator, from the guy who happens to live & work there. Or Rod Liddle's convincing piece in the same journal. Oh, yes, but of course: Speccie happens to be a rightish journal, doesn't it: so boobies like you last two posters and the rest of your drivelling pathetic love-em-all mob can safely ignore anything printed therein. Hope it keeps fine for you -- on the day of your beheadings!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:31 PM

Well, ~M~ You figure that a force of slavering Islamic fanatics are going to take invade and take over the UK or the U.S. and impose Sharia Law any time soon?

If so, you're an hysterical alarmist idiot & ready for membership in the tinfoil brigade.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:36 PM

& I take it that you are not going to deny that such outcomes as I here rubricate go on continuously in Saudi Arabia, N Nigeria, Yemen, Malaysia, Brunei [where NEW laws for stoning, beheading, amputation, flogging, have just, this last week or two, been enacted by the Sultan]... nations where Islamic Sharia law is institutionalised by legal forensic usage: ie that Islamic radicalism from which this thread takes its title.

Stuff your Ovaltine up your drivelling dribbling liquid shitting bumhole, you nasty stinking swinish little turd, Musket. Don't you dare speak to me like that, you pitiable pitiful jumped-up little imbecile!

Go on, now: laugh it off and make a few more evasive little cracks about calling for nurse. You poor deluded idiotic little booby.

But, like I say --- you'll learn

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:41 PM

Stuff your Ovaltine up your drivelling dribbling liquid shitting bumhole, you nasty stinking swinish little turd

You certainly know how to use sense and logic to win an argument, Michael. Thanks for not resorting to personal abuse.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:42 PM

Oh, that's all right then, Greg, is it? You don't think it's going to happen here, so sod the poor buggers elsewhere that it is happening to, as you are not bothering to deny. Well; there is charming.

But, slavering or not, it will happen if you stay so complacent about how it can't & won't. So try putting your tinfoil where it will do most good, you selfsatisfied little driveller. Who was such a joke who couldn't do any harm to anyone from a Munich beerhall in 1923 then? He was just a harmless slavering faraway little object too.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:46 PM

There's sense & logic there as well, Dave, if you look. But I don't see why I should just sit here & just soak up all the abuse without spreading just a bit of my own about a bit. Helps keep one cheerful just before bedtime, dontcha know! & poor old Muskie-face, he really is a bit of a pathetic little object innit...

☠~M~☠

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 06:50 PM

BTW, Greg -- don't know about "any time soon". But it's all been quite 'soon' enough for the Van Gogh & Rigby widows, I dare say...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jun 14 - 08:21 PM

Just look at the incidents of the past 13 years and stop being such an insufferable head·in·sand smartarse: 9/11, 7/7, Rigby, Satanic Verses murder of Theo van Gogh ... That should be enuf 'evidence' for you to be going on with just for starters.

Why, of course! But let's also look at anything between 100,000 and a million innocent dead Iraqis, plus ten times more with families devastated, plus ten times more injured and impoverished, then let's look at Afghanistan, where ten times more innocent Afghanis were killed in the first few years than were killed on 9/11...

Is that "enuf" evidence for you to see that, whatever your precious "Islamic extremists" can do, western imperialism can do ten times more and ten times worse?

Give it a rest, Michael. You might well have been something once, but you ain't half blowing it now, big time. Sad to see, actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 12:40 AM

I didn't ask for 'evidence'. That was you.

I thought we'd get to "imperialism". We've had "reactionary". I'll be a "bourgeois" next, as well as a "running-dog to filthy capitalism". Honestly, the use of all this jargon from the day-before-yesterday [nay, the century before-last]'s Marxist jargon is really sad. & you say I'm blowing it. [Thanks btw for how I used to be whevs -- no idea what you ever were.] The bulk of all these deaths were internecine, nowt to do with us at all.

But above all, these are arguments on my side. Your evidence just confirms that it's a war; which, in the long term we are not going to win if we go on complacently telling ourselves that it's only a few & a long way away & they won't be 'slavering' around here any time soon......

Oh, what's the use. Your granddaughter will be caned on the bare bottom in the middle of Trafalgar Square, then buried up to her neck in Hyde Park while they smash her head with stones...

And get hold of the fact for heaven's sake that that is happening now, today, this minute to somebody's granddaughter. But you do not wish to know that. It's a vile filthy system that has vast swaves of the world in thrall. But nowt to do with you or Greg or Jim. As long as they won't be here 'some time soon', just let them get on with it, & keep up the diplomatic relations, maybe occasionally sending an undersecretary or a deputy chief clerk round to express HM Government's concern...

Oh, go away, with your complacent whataboutery & your leftie PC & your antiracism.

You all make me want to vomit. But you'll learn

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 03:20 AM

Nurse, can you ring the GP and arrange a medication review? All this getting excited about nieces and beheading on the streets of Cambridge, we may have to ask a CPN for some input.

I'll never reach your eloquent levels of abuse Michael, but I promise to keep trying. The snag is, you need a bit of irrational paranoia in order to really rant and I seem to be lacking in that regard.

We are doing a BBQ for lots of friends later today. I'll make a point of ensuring there aren't too many beheadings or flogging near the halal barbie. That reminds me, I need to pop and get the meat. Tatty bye.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 03:34 AM

Musket is a self-evidently point-missing fool, is all the response that his last fatuous response [or indeed any that preceded it] require[s].

Hope he enjoys his barbie, mind -- tho it's a nasty wet day round here.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 03:37 AM

"But nowt to do with you or Greg or Jim."
As my name continues to appear here, I feel perfectly justified in duplicating my response to Mike's response to Einstein's description of the State of Israel "sixty six years ago", from the Israeli thread.
EINSTEIN
Jim Carroll

"[repeat nineteen forty-eight, 66 years ago"
Exactly - within five years of the events he was referring to when he suggested the possibilities of Israel echoing those events - sixty odd years later a leading figure in Israeli security, one who was complicit in some of the atrocities, an Israeli patriot, would say that this was what Israel had become.
You have never had the bottle to actually address Irraeli atrocities Mike - you have only ever paid lip-service to them.
You are outraged at my/Einstein's/the Mossad man's comparison, yet you pass over Israel's continuing aggression with a vague nod of disapproval -otherwise, total silence
The only reference I can remember your ever making to Sabra/Shatila is one of your sneers at my bringing it up.
The only 'defence' of Israeli actions here is Keith's moronic claim that Israel must be OK because Western politicians have "warm and friendly relations" with her, as they do with the perpetrators of the Tienanmen Square massacre - everything else is silence or denial.
The rest of you have settled for outrage on my using a comparison that many other peple are making, including Jews.
The Jewish people deserve far more than this sort of hypocrisy.
How dare you bunch of turds implicate the Jewish people in the militarist, religion driven aggression that is taking place in the Middle East today
Another 1500 homes on the West Bank were announced yesterday in response to the Palestinian decision to unite the two disputing groups - that unification has been welcomed by the west as bringing about a possibility of peace - Israel's lethally spiteful opposition makes the possibility of peace even more remote.
Attributing Israel's actions to the Jewish people debase them in their entirety.
It is now common to hear Israel's aggressive expansionism described as fascist or apartheid or ethnic cleansing.
Einstein warned against this happening sixty odd years ago, today, Jewish intellectuals like Noam Chomski are talking in terms of "State Terrorism" and "political and economic fascism".
Throughout the world, politicians and human rights groups are openly describing what is happening in the Middle East as "ethnic cleansing" and "Apartheid".
Throughout the world Jews are organising themselves into groups in order to express their opposition to the behaviour of the Israeli regime - many are making the same comparisons.
The first time I ever heard the term "Jewish Fascism" was from a Jewish friend, we were in a relationship at the time and it was the first serious argument between us.
I remember it clearly because it was just after we had both come out of a Manchester cinema in tears, having sat though the horrors of the documentary epic 'Shoah'.
She expressed her misgivings of what was happening in Israel, even back then; I was horrified that someone coming from a family of holocaust survivors should make such a comparison and reacted badly.
You don't like Israel being compared to the Nazis - neither do I.
Do something about it other than whine about the comparison, or learn to live with it.
Do not attempt to implicate the Jewish people as a whole with the actions of Israels militaristic and political extremist thugs - it is as bad as blaming the Muslim people for the extremist behaviour of Islamist fanatics, which you all make a habit of doing anyway.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 03:52 AM

Not exactly bloody sparkling over here. Still, spent most of yesterday struggling with a small marquee and we can open up the garden room so a few dozen can be catered for with no risk of getting wet or feeling cramped.

The reason I mentioned it at all is that I find it incredible that you have such a dismal view of multiculturalism in England whilst at the same time our party today has people from all cultures attending. Granted, both of us involved in The NHS means of course we are bound to have friends we wouldn't have if we worked elsewhere but it makes me so angry to hear little England paranoia when most of us appreciate the broadening of horizons our culturally enlarged society can bring.

Did you rant about Sharia and Islamic requirements in faraway countries sixty years ago?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 04:08 AM

Yes, actually. Have disliked Islam & all its works & teachings for as long as I recall; remember exploding at a colleague in my teaching days, must be 50 years ago now, who suggested we should read bits of the Koran in assembly.

And this 'multicultural society' bit was the biggest con ever perpetrated on this land. Nobody ever had any electoral mandate or warrant from anyone just to open us up to such an extent that we were, literally, flooded; that there were huge cities where the indigenous population was outnumbered by so enormous a %ge. It was just allowed to happen without any sort of authority & presented as a fait accompli with no sort of by-your-leave whatever; on a scale far exceeding [I call the Hegelian quantative/qualitative-change theorem in aid yet again] any of the stuff always being flung up about huguenots and my-lot & the rest of it: & suddenly some smartarse politico sez priggishly that we've got to remember that we live in a multiculcheral surss-eye-etty & that's it -- end of! -- now bugger off home, there's dears.

Biggest con on the commonweal ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 05:27 AM

"Biggest con on the commonweal ever."
And your solution, send them all back disgruntled to join the extremists?
You once objected when I suggested you were calling for them all so be sent back to where they came from - now you are saying exactly that.
Eunuch Powell, as he lives and breathes
Ukip's victories certainly have brought them out of the woodwork - Middle England strikes back - bet George Lukas is already preparing a series!
If the multicultural society isn't working its because of rabids like yourself not allowing it to with your hatred and your cans of graffiti spray and petrol.
I believe a similar attitude was adopted by many following the American Civil War - then they had the Klan to keep them warm - in every sense.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 05:54 AM

I have never suggested any 'send them back' solutions or anything like it. Too late to do so. That is why it was such a monster con — we are stuck with this insidious underhand fait accompli; which I note you don't deny its having been.

& just see you back at your old "stealing our jobs" libellous lies & pretences. I haven't said "send them back". Ever. Any more than I ever said "stealing our jobs". Go on; find just one instance of my having said it. & then plead again that you were just being "rhetorical", carried on by the momentum of what you thought I might just be going on to say, which was your pathetic dishonest fatuous attempt at a get-out last time. Stupid lying sticker of words in other people's mouths. —— That's often, so we are told, an unconscious admission of suppressed thoughts of one's own. What black thoughts are you suppressing, eh Carroll? Are you really such a whiter·than·white lover of all mankind as you pretend and like to see yourself as?

& you have the bloody allfire gall to accuse me of 'hypocrisy' & 'lipservice', you disgusting hypocritical little breastbeating ineffectual do·gooding fool. Ugh! But you make all decent people want to throw up

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 06:51 AM

You may have dismissed a religion sixty years ago. The more I see of any religion, the more I dismiss religion...

But your scare mongering over this country based on others infers a worsening of the situation that does not bear scrutiny. There is a huge risk of terrorism on these shores but it doesn't come from the friendly Imam and Mrs Hussain down the road. It does not even come from Islam. It comes from people using Islam in the same way football hooligans used to use their football club.

Many countries that have the Q'ran in their law of the land are also fighting Al Q'eieda but that fact doesn't fit in with popular prejudice. If you want to stain people based on their choice of imaginary friend, surely you would find examples from where the vast majority of Muslims are found?

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

Musket, what you say may be true, but the acts of terrorism here have been committed by just such people as you describe.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:19 AM

"Too late to do so".
It was never an option - not for a civilised nation anyway, especially one which grew rich and comfortable by exploiting these ex-Empire countries.
You are exposing yourself as 'righter than right', as the old soap powder ad nearly said
It seems that, far from opposing Israel's politics, you have applied them to our own country
I think your closet has just collapsed.
Jim Carroll

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

"terrorism on these shores but it doesn't come from the friendly Imam and Mrs Hussain down the road. It does not even come from Islam. It comes from people using Islam in the same way football hooligans used to use their football club."
.,,.,.
No, sorry; I see where you are coming from, but I don't think the comparison holds. There are Suras & Hadiths, little as you might like the fact and little as your imam and Mrs Hussain might be influenced by them*, which can be interpreted as warrant for 9/11 or Theo Van Gogh or Fusilier Rigby. I bet you won't find a paragraph in a Millwall programme from the 1950s-60s which could possibly be interpreted as "The team and board will think well of you if you wear our scarf and go out after the match and smash all the windows in New Cross Road".

Islamism contains an intrinsic built-in potential for violence & terror. Football matches do not.

~M~

*[& as I've said before, if they are they might tell their friends but they are not going to tell you]

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:26 AM

So.. The troubles in Northern Ireland were perpetrated by Christianists then?

Every forensic patient and prisoner in prisons who say God told them to go on a killing spree go to prove we have to be circumspect of Keith?

zzzzzzz

As I said, I'll diplomatically ask that beheadings and floggings are kept to a minimum at my party today. Honour killings can join the "please refrain" list too.

Oh heck, might be the odd Catholic, and here's me with an old septic tank in one of my paddocks.

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

" it makes me so angry to hear little England paranoia when most of us appreciate the broadening of horizons our culturally enlarged society can bring."

Still waiting to see much evidence of Muslims broadening THEIR "horizons"

Ironic to read such as the quote, from the most politically blinkered contributor to this forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:41 AM

You have taken issue with me before now, Jim, for describing your politics as of the left. MYOB, you have said. So just stuff your "righter than right", if it's all the same to you. "What's sauce..." & all that. And this really is a sauce!

And what "closet" do you keep going on about, please? "Closet" implies being unmasked as having been outed for activities or opinions which one has endeavoured to keep concealed. When have I ever attempted to conceal my fear of Islamism?

Can't make out what your ref to Israel's policies means at all; but I don't believe you know either, just thought it would sound sorta profound & sorta accusatory if nobody bothered to wonder what the hell it meant. Come on, furnish us with a comprehensible paraphrase within the possible viable interpretations of that fatuous sentence. You can't, because it's entirely meaningless.

Still, people never tire of telling me you can be a bit hysterical sometimes but you mean well, your good old ♥ is in the right place.

In a piggywig's shitty bumhole it is, you spiteful vindictive little jump-up, you.

And what became of these efforts we were going to make to discuss rationally without all this abuse. Wasn't me who departed from them -- you with all your "pricks" and such... You just can't control your filthy temper, that's your trouble. So full of rage & spleen you'll poison yourself with your own spit one of these fine days.

Best regards, as ever

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:53 AM

Have disliked Islam & all its works & teachings for as long as I recall; remember exploding at a colleague in my teaching days, must be 50 years ago now, who suggested we should read bits of the Koran in assembly.

Thanks for the information - so it has nothing to do with the "Islamism"[sic] shibboleth at all - you were a simple bigot 50 years ago, and you're one now.

Clears things up wonderfully.

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

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up "Sharia compliant" wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

The Telegraph

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:04 AM

If there is a more boringly predictable, but entirely meaningless, boo-word in the English language than "bigot", then I should dearly like to know what it is. Useful fallback for the intellectually-challenged who lack any sort of real rational argument, though, like

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:11 AM

Thanks for the link Bobad.....more or less blows all of Michael's tormentors out of the water.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:28 AM

Fortunately your complacency is not shared by our security services.
I have more faith in their knowledge than yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM

"Thousands of Islamist extremists in the UK see the British public as a legitimate target for attacks, the director general of MI5 has warned."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM

"Jim, for describing your politics as of the left"
I have never taken issue at your describing my politics as anything - I took issue at your demanding, McCarthy like' to state what my politics were.
With normal, honest people, I have no objection to discussing my politics openly - with your particular brand of witch-hunters, I am aware that any political affiliations I have or might have had in the past, will be used to circumvent responding to my arguments, so why give you a 'get out of jail free'.
As you don't respond to arguments anyway, perhaps it doesn't matter, but it's amusing to watch you wheedle your way past them anyway, so why spoil aconstant source of amusement.   
You once threw a hissy-fit when I suggested that you would vote for the closet fascist Farragoites and told me to mind my own business - that and your recent diatribes of hate was answer enough as afr as I'm concerned.
"And what became of these efforts we were going to make to discuss rationally without all this abuse - In a piggywig's shitty bumhole it is, you spiteful vindictive little jump-up, you."
He hit me first sir, I assume?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:42 AM

"Thanks for the link Bobad.....more or less blows all of Michael's tormentors out of the water."

Oh, I'm sure they'll rebut with name calling or inane whataboutery as they always do.

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

If there is a more boringly predictable, but entirely meaningless, boo-word in the English language than "bigot", then I should dearly like to know what it is.

Islamism.

You're welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 10:13 AM

"Now, can you honestly say that Islamic teachings have no political or forensic influence in Yemen, Saudi, Brunei, N Nigeria, Malaysia, Sudan, Somalia (cont p 94)?"
Of course they have, just as Christian teaching has an effect in Ireland, Spain, France, Italy - and everywhere that calls itself a Christian/Catholic country - and that effect can be just as align as Muslim extremism when it as allowed to be.
It is disingenuous to claim Israel is not a religious state - in theory maybe, but the Zionist right have made religion a major feature in its development.
In the end, religion is immaterial anyway - the setting up of a mono-religious/cultural state in the manner that is taking place is the threat, and would be, no matter what religion was involved.
Israel's role is one of an expansionist aggressor - nuclear capability is the icing on the cake.
If I am being "silly", you are being evasive.
A nuclear power behaving as Israel is just as, if not far more dangerous as Islamism.
The Muslim communities in Britain have more than proved they are capable of avoiding the extremes of their religion, otherwise the streets would have been awash with Powell's "Rivers of Blood" long before now.
These tried and trusted law-abiding people are the ones you would throw back into the arms of the Islamic extremists, making them bitter and resentful enemies (not without reason) rather than the friends and good citizens they have proven to be - all to feed your own personal bigotry.
I wonder what the final count would have been if those fleeing the rise of Nazism in Germany had been given the same welcome you are offering Muslims
Doesn't bear thinking about - so you obviously haven't bothered.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 12:51 PM

"avoiding the extremes of their religion, otherwise the streets would have been awash with Powell's "Rivers of Blood" long before now."

Thanks. Rigby, 7/7, Van Gogh, 9/11 quite enuf streamlets of blood to be going on with

Christian teaching has an effect in Ireland, Spain, France, Italy - and everywhere that calls itself a Christian/Catholic country - and that effect can be just as align as Muslim extremism when it as allowed to be.

But it isn't ever 'allowed to be', you thick fool. How many women stoned to death in Ireland last year? How many thieves' hands cut off in Italy. How many girls publicly caned on bare bum for shirt collar undone in Spain or France? Show me something anything like as malign as any of those in any of those countries.

You just don't get it, do you!? Because you're a thick hidebound fool. Fed up arguing with you. I'll go & find another wall to batter my head against, you silly ninny, you fatuous goon, you halfwitted lump of useless protoplasm, you waste of space

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 12:56 PM

... and all of those for things which aren't even illegal in decent countries, where they don't hang people for choosing another religion or marrying someone without asking the judge first if that's OK.

And they're malign for not doing are they?

You should be ashamed of saying such things, writing such disgusting drivel. But shame is unknown to a rhino-hided ass like u

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 01:00 PM

Oh, no, sorry; wrong. Naughty me! Stealing is against the law; so look at all the one-handed people walking around Spain & France & Italy & Ireland as a consequence.

You drivelling idiot!

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

'as a malign consequence', that should have been

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 01:21 PM

At least you can go camping in France and Spain without anybody sending in troops in to massacre the campers and rape the women, or pour burning phosphorus that burns the faces off children.
I doubt if many of the sites there have armed guards on the gates to humiliate those going in and out or force musicians to play them a tune to entertain the guards.... or all the things designed to persecute and degrade those whose ethnic and cultural faces don't fit.
Give us a breal Mike and ******* grow up.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 01:39 PM

Hope you're always in Dublin good and early on a Sunday, Carroll Shit4brains, to get a good place outside St Patrick's for all the malign beheadings after Mass

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 01:41 PM

Oh, it's 'grow up' is it, you infantile tit? Why should I give a break to such a malign swine

coo; a rhyme too.

Maybe there is a god...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 01:46 PM

School time again Mike
And you call me "bad loser"
Tsk, tsk
Any religion will persecute to the extent it is allowed to
Never once witnessed a beheading in Southall or Balham, or along Merton Road
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 07:52 PM

Though I can often see where you are coming from when you make the point, Jim, I must say that you tend rather to overuse this "schoolboy abuse" denunciation as a sort of kneejerk get-out when you can't quite think of a better argument.
It doesn't bug or distress me particularly --
but just perhaps a point for you to think of re your so very frequent invocation of it.

Off to bed. It's nearly 0100.

Heigh-ho. Goo'night

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jun 14 - 08:27 PM

Islamic law is adopted by British legal chiefs

Islamic law is to be effectively enshrined in the British legal system for the first time under guidelines for solicitors on drawing up "Sharia compliant" wills.

Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether.

Why, yet another piece of bone-idle, lazy, received-"wisdom" bobad-minnowism. Ground-breaking my arse. Anybody in this country can write a will leaving their dough to absolutely anyone they like. I can leave a will leaving all my bloody dosh to the cat's home if I want, and, as long as it's my money and not our money, the missus could do nothing about it. If it's our money and not my money, or property, I can't, and nothing in Sharia or anything else in this country can overturn that. Well, I suppose I could try, but it wouldn't bloody work. Do try to educate yourself.

Hang on: can pork educate pork...?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jun 14 - 06:57 AM

You just get inbred pork.

Which leads us to an article in The Daily Telegraph....

In order to ensure they are not brought to book for inciting Islamaphobia, you read it twice and the second time it is clear that under UK law, nothing is altered and you can leave what you like to whom you like and anyone who doesn't like that has the legal right to contest. It. Guidelines have been drawn, a while ago now, to help people reconcile the law requirements with their cultural ones.

I am as vocal about Islam trying to influence outside those who wish it as I am with Christian organisations, but the bullshit and phobia around it is worthy of pointing and laughing. Of course, this Friday, I shall be outside the Sheffield mosque waiting to see the beheadings.... Zzzzzzzzz

If you want to see Sharia law in action here legally, look no further than the constitution of ACAS the arbitration and reconciliation service. Better still, look at a magistrates bench. Arbitration by people deemed learned in handing down binding decisions when both parties agree to their deliberations.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 04:36 AM

The brilliant pundit-journalist Melanie Phillips writes in this morning's Times:

"It is a striking paradox that the more is revealed about the danger in Britain of Islamic terrorism, the more resistance there is to attempts to defend the country against it. The Security Service has warned that several thousand Britons are known to be involved in such terrorism and that monitoring all of them is impossible. Yet virtually every proposal to beef up security — detaining terrorism suspects without charge for 90 days, deportation of foreign terror suspects, control orders and so on — has met ferocious resistance."

Ill-disposed Islamists + well-meaning kneejerk lefty do·gooding "racist"-screamers are robbing of our nation of the will to live. And I get mocked by such on here for being scared for the future, with silly sneers about "yellow peril" and such from the likes of Wotsit & Unowho.

For heavens sake, all of you ~~ wake up before it's too late.

~M~

Oh, what's the use? No use taking sense to the senseless. Go back to bed Michael, and let them [or their children & grandchildren] stew in their own juice. You won't be there, anyhow...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 05:25 AM

They don't hate the country Michael, they hate only what they see as "conservatism", law and order, traditional values and standards.

They have been programmed to close their minds to anything which contradicts their ideology.....I think it's some sort of virus, and it actually does "come through the telly!!"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 05:47 AM

"For heavens sake, all of you ~~ wake up before it's too late."
'THE END OF THE WORLD (AS WE WISH IT) IS NIGH'
Give us a break Mikey - you are becoming a caricature cross between a Hooray Henry and Alf Garnett.   
"lefty do·gooding "racist"-screamers"
Given the choice of living next door to most of the Muslims I have met and a ranting, hate-filled rightist Thatcherite manic - no contest.
Brilliant pundit", Melanie Phillips is a right wing journalist who, her time, has defended Thatcher's dictatorship, wage cuts, banker's "little weaknesses", hatred of Muslims... and many other anti-democratic causes
It seems "brilliance" is dependent on which side of the political ans social divide you speak for
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 05:54 AM

I didn't accuse them of hating it, Ake: merely of not seeing the potential harm their built-in unquestioned OK·PC attitudes are doing to it.

In reply to whoever it was a bit back, either here or on the other thread [doesn't matter which] who threw up past scares like "yellow peril" & "marxist takeover" & such at me to accuse me of scaremongering over this one: they were perils at the time, at that, but were overcome by resolutely facing them down. This one we are just happily walking into for fear of accusations of the dreaded boo-'r'·word if we even try to do anything to confront or disinfect the dangers.

Anyhow, a penny that comes down heads 50 times may still easily come down tails the 51st; and the fact that a dozen severe perils to our security have eventually come to safe conclusions doesn't mean that the 13℔ isn't going to get us. And this present one, by a combination of this complacent refusal even to recognise it as one by Unowho & Witsit, & the worldwide spread & potency of the ideology whence it derives, smells to me as if it might well turn out to be the one.

Musket will probably call this a racist statement because he's racism-obsessed, fitted out with his own infallible instamatic racist-detector [available, no doubt, online or at all reputable hardwares]. For some reason, eg, to his convoluted & inexplicable thinking, my perfectly accurate and incontrovertible vanilla assertion, that any well-intentioned & law-abiding Muslim might just have a relative who is not quite so law-abiding & well-intentioned, has him shrieking and slavering and foaming at the mouth that I must be a combination of Torquemada & Julius Streicher & Verwoœrd. Still haven't fathomed out what he's on about there.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 06:08 AM

See? Toldya·so. Nothing if not predictable, dear ole Muski·booz.

Teeheeheeheeheehee, my ickle duckidaddles, but aren't you a

1

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 06:16 AM

"they were perils at the time"
As was actual abuses in schools and churches by church and state protected Christians
A Marxist takeover" was never an issue outside the twisted minds of McCarthyites like yourself.
From reports in the (London) Times this morning, 'The Islamic 'takeover' of schools has turned out to be a bit of a damp quib, though one Government 'genius' has has proposed "dawn raids" on schools in future - your lot will be suggesting burning books next!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 06:30 AM

The risk of terrorism by people using a mainstream religion as an excuse is there and real.
But the disgusting linking made to British people living their lives quietly and with dignity, whether they be Muslim or too educated to fall for the blame game that ignorant pigs love to use...

There have been mass casualty attacks, attempted mass casualty attacks and foiled mass casualty attacks involving Islamists who were outwardly living their lives quietly and with dignity.

This is not paranoia but fact.
Our security services are overwhelmed by the shear number of people they consider a threat because of their extreme Islamic beliefs.
People who regard the public as legitimate targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 06:46 AM

"You are inadvertently displaying the problem with reactionary ignorance"
,..,

I mean, seriously Ian [& resisting the strong temptation to mock that wonderfully outdated pathetic 1930s commie boo word 'reactionary']

HOW?

Pleased specify with some conviction what problem I am 'inadvertenly displaying', where, & how?

I genuinely, honestly, have not the remotest idea of what you are maundering on about. All v well to make pompous portentous assertions in an accusationary tone; but at least try to give them some substance, please.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:20 AM

Further to my piece of 0436 about the Melanie Phillips article in today's Times: a short clip from another article in the same paper, not even on this topic, but supporting the point I emphasised there and again at 0554, about how the fact that previous threats ['yellow peril' &c] have not come to fruition doesn't mean that this Islamist one can't & won't ----

The Times Chief Sports Reporter, Simon Barnes, on how there are always concerns before Olympics, World Cups, &c, about how things won't be ready in time, but so far they have always managed to be, writes,

"There are always scare stories. And one day one of them will turn out to be true. To believe that something that hasn't happened before couldn't happen at all is history's most popular mistake (Louis XVI: 'The French people are incapable of regicide.')"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:26 AM

I've strongly suspected for a while that Michael has lost it (his recent burbling posts, often bereft of any content connected to the argument appear to be strong evidence in that direction), but he's now confirmed it by hitching his wagon to Melanie Phillips. With allies like that...


Hahahahaha!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:36 AM

Butt out, Shaw, you pathetic little pain. Away & play with your cuddly teddy -- or something...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:40 AM

"There have been mass casualty attacks, attempted mass casualty attacks and foiled mass casualty attacks involving Islamists "
As there have been against Muslims by Christians and Buddists - Israel has waged constant warfare against Muslims in Palestine since the creation of the state, and some British bigots have made the lives of peaceable Asians and other Immigrants to Britain both miserable and dangerous for decades, based on racial and cultural hatred as displayed by you and your friends.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:44 AM

What do suggest then Keith?

Resurrect the home guard with you as Corporal Jones? Stick sentries outside the house of Dr Mahmoud? Arrest anyone with a beard but no moustache? Tell you what, turn the rest of the population against them! Yeah, get your mates with Land Rovers and second hand cammy jackets to beat a few old Pakis up! Whilst they are at it, they can start on queers. And paediatricians, and thespians....

You really like to fantasise about a world where pretend soldiers can be useful, don't you? Thanks all the same, but we have police to deal with anti terrorism. Soldiers are there to interfere with other countries and help old ladies out of flooded houses over here.    Do you move your toy soldiers around based on your whim or do you have to throw a dice in order to move them around the kitchen table?


Michael,

Wot Steve said.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:45 AM

Oh, so that's all right then, is it? What point do you think such whataboutery makes, Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:46 AM

Musket -- Wot I said back to him

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 08:51 AM

I'll raise you a sanatogen tablet.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 09:45 AM

My point is as it has been in the beginning - that all religions are capable of extremism and prone to abuse and to single out one of them for special treatment is to be part of that abuse.
Of all communities in these islands today, the Muslim ones (in general) are the least likely to be part of abusing other religions - not the crystal-gazing, Cassandra-like predictions you indulge in - proven and often expressed facts.
The answer - stop persecuting people you don't like and learn to live with them - whatever the send-'em-all back merchants would wish, they are here to say and they have proven an asset.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 11:10 AM

A hospital trust I visited last week sent me their potted statistics.

Their catchment area is very white British, running at 83% and 12% Easten European. The small rest of the local population? Add a few takeaways and you are basically left with professionals, mainly in NHS.

Easy. 52% of the doctors, (consultant and staff grade) are Muslim.

At another hospital a few years ago whilst there on behalf of a regulator, I investigated an issue of a nurse with a long dangling chain with a crucifix being asked not to wear it, in line with the uniform code, in line with infection control considerations. She was taking this further, trust only interested in respecting foreigners etc etc, the usual caring Christian attitude we know and love....

In the meantime, I asked three Muslim nurses about bare below the elbows, touching men and other Islamic taboos. All three stated that you leave your faith at the door when caring for patients. If a trust supplies disposable arm covers, great. If not, get on with it. A Muslim doctor told me he was hugely concerned by the nurse pushing her Christianity against sensible health precautions as other people, including many Muslim healthcare professionals might follow the idea as many have a genuine cultural aversion to some of the things they are asked to do but see their care for patients as more important.

We are a multicultural society. Asking what WE do about THEM just shows the dinosaur mentality of an unfortunate chav element.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 11:13 AM

Oh, for heavens sake stop being so naive, Jim. Forget about what an asset Islam has been to some of the population of Wolverhampton or Bradford; and what a pest those silly Christian fools in Kansas have been.

Worldwide, there is one religion that is streets ahead of all the others in the "unacceptable practices in the name of the Faith" stakes. And it is the one too in which the duty and injunction to spread the faith is strongest by any measure.

And you know it. And anyone with the sense they were born with knows it. And if you pretend this isn't so, then you show yourself to be intellectually so far beneath contempt with regard to the topic of this thread that it will cease to be worthwhile for anyone of any sense to address another word to you on the topic, or read another one which you might post.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 11:17 AM

LONDON (AP) — Government inspectors in Britain said Monday there was a "culture of fear and intimidation" at several schools investigated over allegations of a plot to run them along strict Islamic lines.

The Office for Standards in Education, or OFSTED, said five of 21 schools it inspected in the central English city of Birmingham failed to protect students from extremism. The inspections were spurred by an anonymous letter alleging a plot called "Operation Trojan Horse" by hardline Muslims to infiltrate Birmingham schools.

Authorities believe the letter was a hoax, but the alleged plot has inflamed tensions in Britain's second-largest city and sparked a public feud between senior government ministers over the best way to confront extremist ideas.

Chief schools inspector Michael Wilshaw said there was evidence of an "organized campaign to target certain schools" by some members of their boards of governors. Inspectors said governors tried inappropriately to influence the curriculum at some schools, promoting a "narrow faith-based ideology" and in one case attempting to ban mixed-sex swimming lessons.

http://www.mail.com/news/world/2903676-inspectors-criticize-schools-islamist-plot.html#.7518-stage-subhero1-4

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 11:44 AM

Hey, BS Bruce: ya forgot to post the last line of the article, so I'll do it for ya:

"The OFSTED reports find absolutely no evidence of this because this is categorically not what is happening at our schools," he said

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 11:53 AM

"all religions are capable of extremism and prone to abuse and to single out one of them for special treatment is to be part of that abuse."
.,,.

And more on this idiotically ingenuous [or DISingenuous] point of Jim's ~~

There is only one religion which has a political as well as religious dimension, one religion which is simultaneously effectively the governing authority of sovereign states within the world community. And in pretty well every one where it is, its rule is tyrannical oppressive, "medieval" [for want of a better word] in its penalties and sanctions for crime; which crimes are largely not even illegal in more rationally governed countries. Just show me the country where you will be hanged if you say you really would rather stop being a practising Christian or Jew or Buddhist or Hindu or Flying-Spaghetti-Monster-Worshipper. Stoned to death for what they call adultery, which isn't even in its true meaning illegal here, and they only mean 'fornication by it anyhow', and not many of our young people would even survive adolescence if...   

Just one. Go on. ONE?!

Obviously, in world terms, such a one must be 'singled out for special attention' from the community of nations; and 'singled out for special attention' to make very sure that its compulsion for spreading its word universally is not allowed to obtain too much leverage in nations where it has not contrived to get the upper hand yet.

"What "abuse", for crying out loud, does Jim see such considerations as "part of"?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 12:02 PM

GregF,

The rest of the article (Not just YOUR quote from the person being accused):

"Staff and some head teachers variously described feeling 'intimidated', 'undermined' or 'bullied' by governors, and sometimes by senior staff, into making changes they did not support," Wilshaw said.

Of the schools inspected by OFSTED, five were classed as failing and placed under special measures, 12 were told they needed to make improvements and three were praised. Park View Educational trust, which runs three of the criticized schools, rejected the inspectors' verdict. Vice chairman David Hughes said the inspectors "came to our schools looking for extremism, looking for segregation, looking for proof that our children have religion forced upon them as part of an Islamic plot."

"The OFSTED reports find absolutely no evidence of this because this is categorically not what is happening at our schools," he said.




So YOUR post is of no value to the discussion, as you have demonstrated may times in the past.




You do know that your treatment of guinea pigs and other small animals would get you executed under Sharia Law, don't you, GregF?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 12:19 PM

Hi, BS Bruce-

Can you supply EVIDENCE -rather than your customary abuse & BS- that
'The OFSTED reports find absolutely no evidence of extremism, segregation, or proof that our children have religion forced upon them as part of an Islamic plot' is untrue?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 12:20 PM

Bearded Bruce. If you don't understand what you are typing / pasting, either ask a friend or leave the bullshit to the real experts. Keith, Michael and Poo Bad are streets ahead of you in spreading lies and bullshit in order to demonise a huge number of British people.

Your bit about Sharia Law and guinea pigs is wonderful. I sent a link to this page to a colleague who us writing a paper on understanding fear and bigotry.

Ooh he... Under Sharia law, your beard would be removed and your sonnets burned! And then they get a spaceman to prod you before beheading you in front of ...

By the way, the OFSTED report and the reaction by heads affected is now available on the BBC News website. The most interesting bit is the role of Michael Gove and his party leadership spat with the Home Secretary.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 12:32 PM

GuineaPig GregF,

HERE is the ENTIRE article. WHat part do you have a problem with? The statement BY THE ACCUSED that he does not support with facts? THAT is YOUR standard - I guess you WOULD give him full credit and assume it is true in spite of the facts (Unless he is Jewish, of course)





LONDON (AP) — Government inspectors in Britain said Monday there was a "culture of fear and intimidation" at several schools investigated over allegations of a plot to run them along strict Islamic lines.

The Office for Standards in Education, or OFSTED, said five of 21 schools it inspected in the central English city of Birmingham failed to protect students from extremism. The inspections were spurred by an anonymous letter alleging a plot called "Operation Trojan Horse" by hardline Muslims to infiltrate Birmingham schools.

Authorities believe the letter was a hoax, but the alleged plot has inflamed tensions in Britain's second-largest city and sparked a public feud between senior government ministers over the best way to confront extremist ideas.

Chief schools inspector Michael Wilshaw said there was evidence of an "organized campaign to target certain schools" by some members of their boards of governors. Inspectors said governors tried inappropriately to influence the curriculum at some schools, promoting a "narrow faith-based ideology" and in one case attempting to ban mixed-sex swimming lessons.


"Staff and some head teachers variously described feeling 'intimidated', 'undermined' or 'bullied' by governors, and sometimes by senior staff, into making changes they did not support," Wilshaw said.

Of the schools inspected by OFSTED, five were classed as failing and placed under special measures, 12 were told they needed to make improvements and three were praised. Park View Educational trust, which runs three of the criticized schools, rejected the inspectors' verdict. Vice chairman David Hughes said the inspectors "came to our schools looking for extremism, looking for segregation, looking for proof that our children have religion forced upon them as part of an Islamic plot."

"The OFSTED reports find absolutely no evidence of this because this is categorically not what is happening at our schools," he said.


http://www.mail.com/news/world/2903676-inspectors-criticize-schools-islamist-plot.html#.7518-stage-subhero1-4




Musket,

GregF has a long history of abusing small animals. He has never denied it. STATEMENT OF FACT. But he has a problem, always running out of duct-tape...



My beard is well within the standards of Sharia law.

As for the poetry,

Qu'ran Sura 37:36 back at you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 01:16 PM

"Worldwide, there is one religion that is streets ahead of all the others in the "unacceptable practices in the name of the Faith""
There have always been worldwide practices in faiths - some of them still happening - we're coping with some of them in Ireland and looking back on the results of others at at the moment (I can hear the news from the other room)
What the **** do you expect to be done with these people you appear to hate so much?
Ghettoise them on Salisbury Plain - or maybe there's another Guantanamo Bay going begging somewhere?
Fit them all with security tags?
Send them back to where they come from angry and with something to hate us for, into the arms of the fanatics (more or less what happened because the word stood by and did nothing about Assad's slaughter).
Maybe scientists can find a procedure to medically extract their religion from them?
Perhaps we could gas them all - perhaps not, didn't work last time?
It's almost possible to see the froth around your mouth from here in the far west
Bloody head-case - time for your rabies shot, I think.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 01:57 PM

I READ the entire article (which apparently you did not) before I responded to your BS, Bruce.

You have STILL supplied no evidence that Mr. David Hughes is wrong,
just more BS and childish abuse. Oh, and of course your usual idiotic "anti-Semetic" jab, which is also bullshit.

Do look up the info per the BBC mentioned by Musket. And actually read it - before you make an arsehole of yourself. Again. (Still?)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:02 PM

GregF,

Try reading for COMPREHENSION.



"The Office for Standards in Education, or OFSTED, said five of 21 schools it inspected in the central English city of Birmingham failed to protect students from extremism. The inspections were spurred by an anonymous letter alleging a plot called "Operation Trojan Horse" by hardline Muslims to infiltrate Birmingham schools.
...
Chief schools inspector Michael Wilshaw said there was evidence of an "organized campaign to target certain schools" by some members of their boards of governors. Inspectors said governors tried inappropriately to influence the curriculum at some schools, promoting a "narrow faith-based ideology" and in one case attempting to ban mixed-sex swimming lessons.

"Staff and some head teachers variously described feeling 'intimidated', 'undermined' or 'bullied' by governors, and sometimes by senior staff, into making changes they did not support," Wilshaw said."



But then YOU are fine with bullying and intimidation, as that is your normal mode of discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:10 PM

When the tide turns

Just because I have just seen Vin, I love the optimism in the song and it may just have some significance that I cannot at present put my finger on :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:13 PM

You're a fool, Jim Carroll. I have absolutely given up any hope of ever getting any sense into your stupid, thick, illiterate turnip-head.
& I say 'illiterate' advisedly, in full consideration of its literal meaning, because you are absolutely incapable of reading with any scintilla of comprehension the most simple piece of writing set before you.

Just go away and commune with your halfwitted self; and I hope it may keep fine for you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 02:49 PM

"You're a fool,"
And you are a bigoted hypocrite.
I gave you a list of options - do you have any of your own?
God save us all from the descendants of the persecuted!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 03:00 PM

Spooky. I was listening to Vin singing that on the way home earlier.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 03:35 PM

Hey Bruce! Do the Christian courts, the ones where you can swear by the bible, do they give out justice as per the bible? Eye for an eye! Help! Don't let these Christians take over! They let you keep slaves, concubines and bugger under 16s!

It's all there in their bible you know....

Prat.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 03:39 PM

But then YOU are fine with bullying and intimidation

Well, bearded bruce, or bb, or ...shit... Bibi... - aargh.... I'm not happy with bullying and intimidation either, and I'm also not happy with OFSTED. This lot has got let's-have-a-leftie-bashing-Islamophobic-witch-hunt-before-the-next-election written all over it. Over the previous six months to two years, that self-same OFSTED had found all the schools to be really good, often outstanding. The original Trojan-horse letter was almost certainly a fake. We are talking about schools that have achieved outstanding results in a very deprived area. The schools' reputations are undiminished. On the other hand, the government and OFSTED are in a state of severe disrepute. Only the toadying right-wing press can save them. Which they will.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 03:40 PM

But they don't still, in the C21, run their judicial systems in strict LITERAL accordance with it, as in Yemen, Saudi, Sudan, Somalia, N Nigeria (cont p 94), do they?

Prat!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 04:06 PM

Jim, all the mass casualty attacks and attempts were made here in UK and are the only indiscriminate deliberate mass casualty attacks here since WW2 60 years ago.

Your "As there have been against Muslims by Christians and Buddists - Israel has...." is irrelevant to our experience here.

Musket, "what should we do."

We should not allow them to change our system and way of life.
We should not allow them to spread and inculcate hate between our communities.
We should be vigilant and alert.
We should not be complacent and pretend that there is no threat.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 05:11 PM

Austin!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 05:22 PM

Only the toadying right-wing press can save them.

With, of course, the assistance of eejits like BS Bruce;

Who STILL hasn't presented any actual evidence that Mr. Hughes is wrong - only what someone "said" - which passes for fact in BS Bruce's world, apparently.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 05:29 PM

And as for Keith - its hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Jun 14 - 06:10 PM

Anyone see Wilshaw with Paxo tonight? Ever see a bloke looking so bloody uneasy and unhappy, blotchy face, ever so slightly sweaty, clearly following political orders? This bloke is supposed to be in charge of Ofsted, which, you'd have thought, should have been well sorted after all these years (by way of anecdote, the only Ofsted inspector to observe my lessons had been on the beer during his jolly at the Falcon in Bude the night before. A panic-stricken Year 8 lad who'd been sitting near him on the back row of my lab came dashing up to me: "Mr Shaw! I dunno if that bloke's all right but he's making funny noises!" When I went to investigate I found the bloke asleep, sweaty, smelly and snoring. He later told me my lesson was good...). I also know another Ofsted inspector who had had to leave teaching on mental health grounds but who got back as an Ofsted inspector after two days' training. I remember him ringing me up before he nailed his Ofsted job to ask me to ask the deputy head at my school if there were any vacancies for supply work, though he specified that he couldn't possibly manage more than a couple of days a week as his mental state wouldn't be able to take it.

Not exactly an insider's view, obviously, but a possible corrective for anyone who thinks that Ofsted is anything like a legitimate organisation. I could say a lot more, really I could!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 03:19 AM

Dave, I was referring to UK.
Greg, identify an error or misapprehension in my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 03:23 AM

Keith as ever with his inadvertent insight gets to the nub of the issue.

WE shouldn't allow etc THEM blah blah

Here's the question. Are WE UK citizens regardless and are THEY terrorists? Or don't you include Tahir and Iqbaal in your "we?"

Should Keith and his flak jacket cronies tell British people to change their culture to suit his? Perhaps if they shut that nasty mosque and started swelling the empty pews in nice loving inclusive churches instead eh?

I recall you supporting the idea of faith schools Keith. Well done, this is what you get. Assuming it is what you get. I'm not convinced of either argument just yet.

OFSTED complain of cronyism and families getting jobs. The newspapers link this with Islam. Err.. If it is true, and it may well be, it is cultural, not a facet of a religion.

Shallow people are quick to link culture to religion when it suits them. I'm a rational person but to a bloke in Jeddah, my thoughts and deeds would be seen as Christian as that is how the west is portrayed and taken up by ignorant people.

Ditto some of the ignoramuses and paranoid bigots who think they can rant on Mudcat without reality occasionally pointing and laughing at them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 03:34 AM

"is irrelevant to our experience here."
Violent racist attacks, harassment and discrimination in Britain have been part of the lives of outsiders who have settled in Britain throughout the 20th and into this century, Jews, West Indians, European asylum seekers.... anybody of the 'wrong' colour, religion and origin.
'Paki-bashing' almost achieved the status of a national sport from the 70s to the 90s in parts of England.
Open warfare under the name of Religious differences in Northern Ireland led to loss of life here and in mainland Britain for two decades - hopefully, that is disappearing, but we are about to see yet another display of religious and national triumphalism here in a few weeks time.
Some of the worst of those once active in the Troubles have now directed their attentions to asylum seekers and Muslims - racist attacks in the part of Ireland that is still British have been reported as being on the increase.         
Someone once claimed strikes and industrial unrest as 'the British disease', that has long been replaced by racist and religious intolerance.
A couple of years ago a survey revealed that a quarter of British people admitted to holding and expressing racist views; that was confirmed by another poll this year and is now taking political shape as indicated by the fact that Ukip went into the election on a racist ticket and gained significant support.
All this has taken place because of hatred generated by people like yourself with your 'cultural implants' and hate-merchants like the B.N.P.
Well done you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 03:53 AM

Musket, by "them" I meant Islamic radicals, the subject of this thread.

Jim, our own security services recognise Islamic radicalism as currently by far the greatest threat to our security and safety.

Are you saying it is not?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 04:27 AM

Not Austin, Texas. Austin 1100. Just trying to lighten things up and obviously failing...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 04:55 AM

Worthy effort Dave.
Afraid I was just too thick or absorbed to get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 07:19 AM

"Are you saying it is not?"
I am saying, a they have in the past, that there is not enough evidence to make such a statement.
I tend to regard 'spooks', as I do politicians, as untrustworthy employees of whoever is in power at the time (and in some cases, as in the cases of their espionage activities regarding some 'unapproved of' elected politicians) a law unto themselves.
As I have said over and over again, the Muslim communities are among the most law-abiding and industrious of all British citizens.
Demonising them by denigrating their religion and equating their behaviour with that of a handful of extremists and criminals, as you and your squalid bunch of brothers have persistently attempted to do, is far more likely to make them militants that the behaviour of a tiny bunch of nutty extremists.
You have not responded to one point I have made abour racism and sectarianism in Britain, nor will you - you seig heilers provoke race and cultural hatred rather than condemn it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 07:38 AM

Hex 15!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 07:38 AM

Demonising them by denigrating their religion and equating their behaviour with that of a handful of extremists and criminals,

I do not do that, but the "handful of extremists" (the security services are aware of thousands!) are a serious threat and it is foolish to think the "spooks" are lying to you about it.

As I have said over and over again, the Muslim communities are among the most law-abiding and industrious of all British citizens.

You have said it over and over again but never once supported it with any facts.
They are in fact significantly over-represented in the prison population and the gap is widening.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 07:49 AM

Malmö, Sweden's third largest city, where one quarter of the population is Muslim, is another Muslim stronghold in Sweden where the fire department and emergency workers no longer enter Muslim immigrants' areas without police protection.

When two Swedes, one a community leader, were to visit Malmö to examine the situation on the ground, they both said it was too risky to go.

Mr. S., a Palestinian living in Malmö, arrived in Sweden as a refugee fleeing the Jordanian intelligence service two decades ago. He said, "I am a true Muslim. My wife wears hijab, I appreciate this country, and I just want to make a living but those Islamist crazies won't leave us alone. They say they support jihad, they deal drugs, they get drunk and harass women. At the same time, they look down on me because I have Christian Swedish friends. They threatened my eldest son; they said his friends are white non-Muslim Swedes. I swear to Allah, sometimes I feel I am not living in Malmö but in Afghanistan."

"My daughter does not wear hijab," he added. "She has blonde hair and could easily pass for a Swede, therefore the minute she leaves the house, the local Muslim men start harassing her, thinking she is a native Swede. They think of Swedish girls as easy and prostitutes. When I confront these men harassing my daughter, they bluntly tell me they thought she was a Swede and they would have not harassed her if they had known she was a Muslim. Tell me what should I do now? Cut my daughter's hair? Force her to wear hijab? Now I understand how Swedes feel about us Muslims harassing their sisters and daughters."

Another Palestinian, a college professor, who lives in a small town in northern Sweden, said, "I am religious, but I cannot accept what the Muslim fundamentalists have been doing to this country. I have had job offers to teach at major Swedish cities, but instead chose to go to a remote town where I would not have to see fundamentalist immigrants. Our people are playing with fire. The Swedes are very polite and tolerant by nature, but I doubt they can take the Islamic provocation of this country much longer. I am not sure what will happen, but I would not be surprised if one day Sweden bans immigration from all Arab and Muslim countries."

Mudar Zahran

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 08:02 AM

"Never once witnessed a beheading in Southall or Balham, or along Merton Road" - Jim Carroll

Ooooh that was a slip Christmas.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Mullah Musket
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 08:23 AM

I used to have an Austin 1100.

Well, the log book said it was a Morris 1100, but the dashboard certainly came from an Austin because it had the red ticker tape speedo. The rocker cover was Vanden Plas. Dunno about the bodywork. there were very few areas where a magnet could stay attached if truth be known.

I bought it at an auction in 1981. I bid £20.00 but it failed to meet a reserve. The auction house had me speak with the owner and we agreed £25.00 to allow him to pay the commission and still get a pint out of it.

Lasted me till 1983, so it wasn't that bad. It tended to point towards Mecca a lot, but that was possibly due to worn bushings and bad tracking. It got stolen once, and after a fortnight, the insurance were all ready to cough up their estimate of value, (£300.00.) I was getting all excited when I had a call from PC Plod. It had turned up.

Bugger..

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 09:47 AM

"are a serious threat and it is foolish to think the "spooks" are lying to you about it"
THe security services have listed elected politicians, trades union leaders (especially miners leaders), writes, journalists, civil rights campaigners, peace demonstrators.... vitually anybody vaguely left of rightist politics, as "security risks".
They have bugged their homes and opened their mail - may have 'security' records.
Anyone inciting violence and hatred should be a 'security risk' - including hate merchants like you and yours - only too often they/you aren't
It's all immaterial anyway - oyu and your smutty friends have consistently attempted to implicate "all Muslims" in terror and claimed that it is their religion or their cultural background (in your case by "cultural implants")
That is the world of the B.N.P. Muslim Watch, and all the other scum-buckets whose views you echo - not any security service I am aware of.
Of course potential terrorists should be detected and dealt with - many of them should be forced to share a cell with you and yours.
"They are in fact significantly over-represented in the prison population and the gap is widening.
The rise in the number of Muslims in British prisons has not been discussed at any great length but much of it has been put down to young Asian men's disillusionment with their treatment
Blacks and Asians in Britain are six times as likely to be stopped and searched by the police and there has been a rise in hate crimes against Asians
Muslim communities remain the most trouble-free and law abiding in Britain - law breaker face ostracisation within the communities when found committing criminal acts
This is what Cameron had to say about the Muslim communities in Britain
CAMERON
On the other hand, Anti Muslim crmes are on the rise in Britain
CRIMES AGAINST MUSLIMS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 12:32 PM

So MI5 is wrong, and we should listen to you instead Jim.
We will have to agree to differ on that and I will leave it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 02:43 PM

"So MI5 is wrong, and we should listen to you instead Jim."
Some context:
Since 2001 there have been 4 Islamic terrorist attacks in Britain by Muslims and 4 terrorist aimed at Muslims
The vast majority of terrorist attacks have been attributed to the IRA
Those who went to fight Assad in Syria are now being counted as a terrorist threat, pretty much the same as those who went to fight in Spain were in the 1930s.
Those who fought in Syrian make up the majority of those suspected of being in favour of extremism
There are no figures to show how many of those suspected by MI5 are Muslins and how many support other causes, such as The Real IRA or racism.
Since 2001, there have been 470,678 racists identified attacks in Britain - an average of 130 per day; the vast majority of these have been on Muslims - there is no record of how many others have been reported as racist but not accepted as being such.
between 2007 and 2011 there been 87,000 reported racist incidents in British schools, an average of 130 per day.
One third of Britons questioned in surveys admitted that they hold and have openly expressed racist views - not a country that welcomes foreigners, you might say
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 02:44 PM

The C&P by bobad looks pretty suspicious to me. Even if it were true why would a true Muslim refer to people that deal drugs, get drunk and harass women as Muslims as well? The people he is referring to are just criminals of no particular religion.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 05:04 PM

23 pages of vitriolic denigration of a demographic which makes up a largely inoffensive and law abiding five percent of the total population, trying hard to equate the tiny proportion of that five percent who are suspected of being likely to commit acts of terror with the whole grouping.

And the basis for that mindset is 26 verses of their 6000 verse holy book which mention the word Jihad.

MtheGM in his increasingly paranoid rants, seems singularly unaware of the fact that, barring stupid incidents in which two mentally off beam idiots kill a soldier, exchanging their two lives for his one.

A pyrrhic victory, by any standards and they didn't even get to be martyrs.

What threat does MtheGM see from that tiny moronic fringe, to the country as a whole.

The UK is nothing like the USA. Even if M's fears were realised and the whole five percent revolted, with the lack of weaponry in this country, they wouldn't stand long against the army.

So all this is just calculated nastiness inspired by fear of the different.

If I believed in a God, I would pray for deliverance from all paranoid xenophobes, theirs and OURS!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 06:38 PM

What threat does MtheGM see from that tiny moronic fringe, to the country as a whole.

I would posit that there is a more substantial threat worldwide in the long run from members of thenot so tiny moronic fringe of which BooBad, MGM, Keith & Co. are representative.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 07:43 PM

If there is real terrorism in this world, then it must be most acutely felt by the hundreds of millions of innocent, peace-loving, hard-working Muslims who want nothing to do with that exceptionally tiny minority of nutters in their midst. They are the victims, not the smug westerners who see ever such a vague threat to their well-heeled, cosseted, oh so Christian lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 08:33 PM

The country in the world most faithful to the values of the Koran is Ireland according to an Iranian-born academic at George Washingon University in the US. Next are Denmark, Sweden and the UK.

In a BBC interview, Hossein Askari, Professor of International Business and International Affairs at George Washington University said a study by himself and colleague Dr Scheherazde S Rehman, also rates Israel (27) as being more compliant with the ideals of the Koran than any predominantly Muslim country.

Not a single majority Muslim country made the top 25 and no Arab country is in the top 50.

The Irish Times

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 09:05 PM

Great, Boo- according to one jackass who cites no evidence. Par for the course for your nugatory cut-n-pastes.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 10 Jun 14 - 09:41 PM

FOLLOWING the publication of a study which has declared Ireland 'the most Muslim country in the world', many Irish people are making the big switch to Islam.

Ireland, according to this latest study from George Washington University, is the country most faithful to the values of the Koran, putting the already uncertain future of the Catholic Church in Ireland in further doubt.

The switch, which is being welcomed by many senior figures within Islam in Ireland, will see Irish Catholics make huge savings. The Catholic Church's hidden fees and charges in relation to guilt and shame have given many food for thought.

"Ah it's great really, it's more convenient as there is a mosque close to me here and in fairness it's about time I read a new book," shared Clonskeagh resident Mark Chambers, just one of thousands of people now looking to Islam to be their main religious faith provider.

Following religious deregulation in Ireland, other faiths have been slow to enter the marketplace but now with this latest study Islam is set to make a big push for the Irish markets.

Some people are still smarting from the lengthy and corrupt process which saw the Catholic Church awarded the sole religious faith contract upon the signing of the constitution in 1937.

"Ah it's not much of a change for and kids but I think it's time for that switch," shared Mary Cronin, a mother of five, "they have Ramadan, we have Lent. They go off to Mecca, I sent my aunty Joan to Lourdes last year for her gammy toe. We'll hardly notice the difference but the Catholic Church's customer service is just appalling, ya know?"

However, some were weary of changing religious providers. "I haven't read the small print in the contract but I heard someone say that if you cancel your contract with Islam, they give you a Fatwa? Like how would that effect my credit rating with the banks?" inquired a puzzled Cillian Ruan.

Irish people who have already made the big switch listed among their reasons for changing was the fact they would now be the best at Islam rather than the worst at Catholicism.

The Catholic Church are already working hard to try and retain their numbers with new initiatives such as upgrading women to second class citizens, a 24-hour confession service and offering all masses in 3D.

WW News

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 01:52 AM

"Malmö, Sweden's third largest city"
"THE MOST RACIST COUNTRY IN EUROPE"
Racism and xenophobia have been reported and investigated in Sweden.[1] According to the European Network Against Racism, skin color, ethnic/religious background have significant impact on an individual's opportunities in the labor market, affecting mainly Roma, Blacks, Muslims and Jews.[2] Some ethnic minorities, especially Jews, are also at larger risk to face threats and violence.[3]
Further information: Islamophobia
The report Racism and Xenophobia in Sweden by the Board of Integration state that Muslims are exposed to the most religious harassment in Sweden. Almost 40% of the interviewed said they had witnessed verbal abuse directed at Muslims.[4]
Sweden is home to several white supremacist and neo-Nazi organizations, including:
Legion Wasa
Swedish Resistance Movement
Former organizations include:
National Socialist Front
White Aryan Resistance
Antisemitism[edit]
After Germany and Austria, Sweden has the highest rate of antisemitic incidents in Europe, though the Netherlands reports a higher rate of antisemitism in some years.[5] A government study in 2006 estimated that 15% of Swedes agree with the statement: "The Jews have too much influence in the world today".[6] 5% of the total adult population and 39% of adult Muslims "harbour systematic antisemitic views".[6] The former prime minister Göran Persson described these results as "surprising and terrifying". However, the rabbi of Stockholm's Orthodox Jewish community, Meir Horden, said that "It's not true to say that the Swedes are anti-Semitic. Some of them are hostile to Israel because of the military occupation and oppression of Palestinian territories."[7]
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 01:53 AM

"The country in the world most faithful to the values of the Koran is Ireland"

Halal Guinness anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 02:42 AM

"Most faithful to the values". What does that even mean? What are the values of the Koran? Any different to the values of the Bible? Both parts? What a set of weasel words.

Like the WW News article though, bobad. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 02:47 AM

Actually - After re-reading the article I realise that Professor Askari is talking sense. He is pointing out that the ideal of Islam is more like the free western countries than the oppressive regimes that incubate the radicalism.

Bobads selective C&P are the weasel words, not the professors.

Bad Bobad.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:05 AM

There seems to be an opinion floating that normal law abiding citizens who contribute to society are terrorist sleepers if they get together and pray on a Friday but not if they get together and pray on a Sunday.

The nearest I know to under cover Muslims is a bloke I used to work with who enjoyed a pint and was rather partial to bacon butties. It wasn't so much that he was boutique pick n mix, although he evidently was, but that he could recite a get out clause from The Holy Q'ran that said in the land of the infidel, you can lapse to blend in and be accepted.

Presumably that's how our Christians get to eat pork and prawns, though having never been one, I am not the best suited to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:17 AM

The "nearest that Musket knows" eh?

Well, there now; everybody knows that "Musket" is simply one of the pseudonyms of The Lord God Almighty: so there is conclusive; absolutely world-shattering, forever-settling, totally incontrovertible....

☺☺ ☻☻ ☠☠ 〠〠 teeheeheeheehee. He really is a caution, innit!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:28 AM

Huffingtom Posts last month.
"In a letter to The Times (£), General al-Basheer, chief of staff of the supreme military council, the commanding body of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), said the "majority" of foreign ISIS fighters were from the UK, with others from France, Germany and Belgium.
He said: "We, the Syrian people now experience beheadings, crucifixions, beatings, murders, outdated methods of treating women, an obsolete approach to governing society. Many who participate in these activities are British."


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.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:35 AM

And you reckon I'm 'ranting', do you?, Mr I-Forget-Which-½wit-Said-It.

In your dreams. If I wanted to rant, believe me you'd know you were being ranted at. Sweetest of sweet reason is all you've had from me so far.

Still OK OK OK yes yes yes. So go on walking complacently right into your own, and the world's, destruction, you self-satisfied lot of oh-so-right-thinking bores. It's only happening in Riyadh & Lahore & Kano and not in Bradford or Birmingham or Leicester yet so that's all right then...

Hope you all enjoy the ummah when it comes. The oh-such-fun public beheadings and stonings and canings...

Have fun ~~

I won't be there...

☠~M~☠

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:46 AM

First kneeling on the block if there is a God...

Amazon sell Islam proof shelters you can build in your garden to protect you in the eventuality of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 06:03 AM

Naming Europe's New Anti-Semitism

Europeans are reluctant to describe the Brussels museum shooting as an anti-Semitic hate crime. It's time to end this dangerous state of denial.

"And where are the imams?

Where are the young Muslims of whom we never tire of saying that they have nothing to do with this nasty business?

What do the imams need to happen before forcefully condemning, once and for all, the insult to the Koran, the blasphemy, that is the act attributed to Nemmouche?

And what do young Muslims need to hear before organizing, rising up in protest, and, one would hope, chanting with one voice, "We are all Brussels Jews in danger of being killed"?"

Bernard-Henri Lévy The Daily Beast

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 07:31 AM

Remember the speech that instigated this thread, about militant Islam being the greatest threat to world peace?

BBC today.
Middle East newspapers are horrified by the fall of Iraq's second largest city, Mosul, to the jihadist Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), known pejoratively in Arabic as "Daesh".
Some commentators believe that if nothing is done Iraq may be destroyed, with serious consequences for the region.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 08:14 AM

Some commentators were saying that before Rambo and his stupid mates dived in a few years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 09:07 AM

You (intentionally?) miss Keith's point, Ian.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 09:41 AM

The Independent, March 2014

"The plea from the (ISIS)rebel fighter comes as UK authorities are becoming increasingly concerned at the number of British citizens travelling to Syria to join extremist groups in the three year old civil war. British and other non-Syrians travelling to Syria tend to gravitate towards al-Qa'ida-type groups that espouse global jihad.

The total number of British participants in the conflict is estimated to be in the "hundreds", with as many as 20 thought to have died in the fighting. Charles Farr, the Home Office's terror chief, warned recently that Brits travelling to Syria represented the "the biggest challenge" to the security services since the 2001 Twin Tower attacks"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/british-fighters-in-syria-urge-others-to-join-them-9205428.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 09:53 AM

Look.

1. The equation of Islam and Islamic with Islamist is defective.

2. Islamist atrocities abound.

3. Parts of Sharia law are offensive - but are seldom applied outside primitive states.

4. It's a lawyer's job to help his client achieve the result the client wants (by lawful means) and drafting wills to achieve an effect that conforms to Sharia law may be part of that objective, but many parts of Sharia inheritance law would be ineffective if challenged in a UK court pursuant to the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Similarly family law, to an extent, must match English standards.

5. Did you know that vibrators are haram (certainly in the case of internal use and maybe more generically)? That's most upsetting!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 10:41 AM

Re your point 1, Richard: it is the Islamists, not any of us, who claim to 'equate' them; so better take your objections to the 'equation' up with them, hadn't you?, and see where it gets you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 12:55 PM

Sounds about par for the course!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 02:55 PM

"To criticize a person for their race is manifestly irrational and ridiculous, but to criticize their religion, that is a right. That is a freedom. The freedom to criticize ideas, any ideas - even if they are sincerely held beliefs - is one of the fundamental freedoms of society. A law which attempts to say you can criticize and ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas is a very peculiar law indeed.

It all points to the promotion of the idea that there should be a right not to be offended. But in my view the right to offend is far more important than any right not to be offended. The right to ridicule is far more important to society than any right not to be ridiculed because one in my view represents openness - and the other represents oppression"

― Rowan Atkinson

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:02 PM

Looks like the Islamists have taken Sirte, Saddam's home town and are moving to take Baghdad.....Looks like Michael has been bang on the button.
The Iraqi Army "melted away", after all the money we spent to train them....Crocodile tears from President Obama's administration, but re-engagement is out of the question.

Soon everyone will be asking "why did we kill Gadaffi?"
"why didn't we support Assad?"

But as Michael has said, "its too late now"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:07 PM

My post of 12:55pm, was in response to an obscene post from Ian which has subsequently removed.....could someone kindly remove my response.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:10 PM

Three posts back, Musket's protest at having a post deleted because it contained the word "cunt" has now in its turn been deleted. All will know that my exchanges on this forum with Musket are not invariably of the most affable; but I must ask what the hell is going on here. I myself forswore the use of objectionable, so-called after the Lady Chat Trial all those years ago, "4-letter words", as being rude and counterproductive and manifesting weakness rather than strength in argument. But they have, till now, unquestionably been part of everyday life & everyday posting on this forum.

Who has suddenly decided they are no longer acceptable? And why? Whoever this somewhat prim mod is had better go back over years-and-years-and-years-worth of threads & see how much he/she will be called on to delete in the interests of consistency! Won't be an awful lot left, I suspect.

Lovers of freedom cry --- "Bring back Musket's 'cunts'!"

And if this post gets deleted, I shall scream the house down!

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:32 PM

I think there have been too many C***s already?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 03:40 PM

I like cunts.

MtheGM, it is your posts, and those of your small coterie of followers, Teribillus, Akenhateon, KeiththeA, B-O-bad and Juicy Brucie, who persist in implying that ordinary Muslims are somehow similar to Islamists. You will find, if you bother to think, that the Islamists, while asserting that theirs is the true voice of Islam, also assert that non-militant Muslims (the vast majority) verge on apostasy or at least delinquency.

That implication of yours is the worldview that serves to radicalise non-radical Muslims. By all means defend against - indeed go on the offensive against - the Islamists, but not because of their religion, but their atrocities. Tarring my dentist, who goes by the name "Sharon" to make life easier for her dimmer patients, with the same brush will be counterproductive. I forgive her for prescribing metronidazole for my duff teeth as a first choice if I have a really boozy festival planned.

Curious that no-one seems to care whether vibrators are haram or not. I'd have thought it was a vital social distinction these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 04:53 PM

I have never implied that ordinary Muslims are similar to Islamists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 04:59 PM

Nor have you implied that they're dissimilar.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 05:15 PM

Aw Greg, yer such a sap....that's why I loves ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jun 14 - 07:00 PM

Actually, most of the people Richard so cutesily names in his post go out of their way to make the distinction between ordinary Muslims and Islamists. It seems to me that the ones who do not are the usual cabal who get their woodies from belittling and name calling those with whom they disagree. Janie had them pegged pretty accurately in the now deleted thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:17 AM

Come on Richard, surely even an old legal dinosaur like you can tell the difference in using the word as a term of abuse and liking women.

It is grave insult to women everywhere, very disrespectful, they do not deserve to be defined by one organ of reproduction.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:30 AM

I wasn't defining women by a sexual organ. I was defining Keith by a term of reference.

D H Lawrence and I have a shared heritage to protect.

I think the moderators aren't too happy when I describe said term of reference in terms of density.

Anyway, it is a term of endearment surely? After all, you'd never see me offering Akenaton similar jocular names? The thought of his odious views as represented on this website being shared by anybody who wishes to be taken seriously isn't one I would happily contemplate.

Keith however is just daft as a brush, and it's rather funny to goad him. Some of the things he comes out with make up for his lack of debating skills.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:51 AM

Actually, Ian: Keith is ten times the debater you will ever be. You show a glimmer of intelligence now & again; but can never resist undermining with some sort of smartarse crack or childish challenging-the-grown-ups naughty word. Keith, OTOH, selects a line of argument and sticks to it resolutely, without FWIW any recourse to what are generally regarded as obscene modes of expression. You really have nothing to patronise him about, believe me! Boot firmly on other foot... Only perhaps you are after all too thick to see it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

Janie had them pegged pretty accurately in the now deleted thread.

If it was the thread that I started, asking for an apology for Janies comments, Janie did not post to it. If it was the thread where Janie attempted to psycoanalyse everyone and reckoned I was capable of burning people to death, then that was closed and Janies comments were deleted.

Maybe you are barking up the wrong tree, bobad. Or maybe just barking...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:51 AM

"MtheGM, it is your posts, and those of your small coterie of followers, Teribillus, Akenhateon, KeiththeA, B-O-bad and Juicy Brucie, who persist in implying that ordinary Muslims are somehow similar to Islamists."

Really Richard? Care to supply with an example where I have done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:58 AM

And what's this about my "followers", for that matter, Richard? Followers? Didn't know I was being followed! Help! I'm being followed!

First scene of A Night At The Opera: Groucho & Margaret Dumont ~~ "Do you follow me, Mrs Claypool?" "Yes." "Well stop following me or I'll have you arrested!"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 06:22 AM

I have certainly never equated them, so Richard will not be producing an example of me either.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 07:38 AM

Read this.

A female Muslim journalists article on how she was treated in Texas. This is where we could be going if we continue tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 08:05 AM

"This is where we could be going if we continue tarring all Muslims with the same brush."

I take it that you are speaking for yourself as I am certainly not doing so - I am clear on the distinction between ordinary Muslims and Islamists. If you are not it would behoove you to make the effort to study up on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 08:24 AM

This is where we could be going

Going? In many parts of the U.S, thanks to the hysterical fear-mongers its where we already ARE.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 08:39 AM

I take it that you are speaking for yourself

No. I am also quite certain that there are criminals and extremists in all walks of life. 'We' is a polite device that I used in this case to mean those who do not know the difference. Apologies for not making it clear but I assumed that most people of average intelligence would realise that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:02 AM

Musket did not understand the difference between Islam and Islamism and interchanged the words.
When Bobad and I were critical of Islamism he insisted that was an insult to all Muslims.

"Keith. When you said "they" with regard to Islam and having much to apologise for..."

I had said "Islamism has much to apologise for."
Musket maintained that it was the same.
Starts here.

thread.cfm?threadid=136372&messages=1844#3585366

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:18 AM

Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 12:15 PM

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

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We did laugh at you for being so ignorant of such basic terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:21 AM

True, every word.

As ever, your context forgets the thread you spilled it over from. 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...

When your vicar stands outside your church and apologises for Uganda, I'll ask the Imam on our chaplaincy team to apologise for Islamist atrocities.

Sanctimonious twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:42 AM

Musket did not understand the difference between Islam and Islamism

I find that highly unlikely, Keith. If the words were interchanged it was for good reason. I have no reason to doubt the intelligence of either Musket or yourself. Integrity maybe. Intelligence, no. :-)

Musket - What do you mean by confusing us with ST?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 11:09 AM

As ever, your context forgets the thread you spilled it over from

I gave the link.
It takes half a minute then goes to the post and can be followed.
Try it Dave and see for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah

"The terrorists, who belong to The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS -- known as DAESH in Arabic] and are said to be an offshoot of al-Qaeda, are planning to take their jihad to Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula -- after having already captured large parts of Syria and Iraq, the sources said."

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4354/isis-jordan

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 11:36 AM

said to be, alleged, anonymous source, it is reported, could be, might be .................................... ad nauseum

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 12:25 PM



Gatestone Institute

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

Eh Dave?

ST?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's your point Greg?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Make up their minds about what?

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

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


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

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

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

It are?

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

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

GregF,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers

DtG

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

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

That ISIS is a terrorist group?

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

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

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

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

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


The fierce ambition of ISIL's Baghdadi

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

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

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

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

But rant on, if it makes ya happy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bobad, we may disagree on some things but

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

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

Thanks for that.

DtG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have presented my sources...

Rerely.

...and you have failed to dispute the facts

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The style alone urges you to keep prodding him.

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

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

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

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

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

"Islamist is a term that criticises all Muslims."

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

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

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

Left Foot Forward

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

As a word it most certainly does.

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

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

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

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

You alone have ever made that link Musket.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No contest.
You lose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joining the Republican Party, for one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back on Monday.

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

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:03 PM

Just noticed Keith's ridiculous post saying everybody reckons there is a threat apart from Jim and me.

I won't speak for Jim, he can do that himself.

I however reckon there is a threat. It comes from radicalised people. I am not sure where I have ever said otherwise.

Tell you what though, Keith and his Rambo mates on this thread reckon I don't see the threat, mainly because it suits their sneering bullying stupidity.

All because they have been exposed for bigotry towards normal peaceful UK citizens going about their lawful business and lives.

If I want lessons about a religion, I doubt I would get them from a superstitious staunch Christian bigot like Keith, thank you very much.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:06 PM

Thank you Dave - something to think about
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:06 PM

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."

It was reported in our media at the time.

MI5 say returning Jihadis are the greatest security threat facing us.
So does our government, Cameron today, Clegg yesterday and Haigue the day before.
All quite unequivocal.

In the whole world, just you two who think everyone else should know better.
Like you two do!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 03:12 PM

Dave,

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

Not just Jim. We all know that.

Musket, I see that you acknowledge that there is a threat.
MI5 and the government say it is the single biggest threat to our security.
Do you think you know better, or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 04:29 PM

You just knew it had to be the Jews who were behind the ISIL terrorist plot:

"The so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is a plot by the Israeli regime to drive away revolutionary forces from Israeli borders and provide a safe haven for the Zionists, a high-ranking Iranian military commander says. "

Press TV   the official news organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 06:28 PM

the official news organization of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Good one, Boo- a source that's just about as reliable as the others you regularly quote.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 06:39 PM

In what way is it unreliable? It's the official government mouthpiece.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:18 PM

Hopeless.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:36 PM

Oh I see now, it's your usual stalking behaviour where you feel compelled to make a disparaging comment on whatever I post while contributing nothing of substance to the discussion. I don't know what you get out of doing that but whatever it is you must really like it because you sure do it a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 10:43 PM

The kidnapping of 3 innocent youngsters by an extremist Islamist terrorist group is cruel, disgusting and tragic. Nothing on earth can justify such barbarity. It does not serve any cause at all - certainly not the Palestinian cause of freedom from occupation! We are waiting to hear sane voices of condemnation of this barbaric act from the Palestinian Authority. It serves the interests, if any, of the Netanyahu Coalition Government that blames the PA and Abu Mazen for this and justifies their hardline attitude towards a peaceful solution. These Islamist Jihadi terrorists do not care because they hate any form of peace with Israel, irrespective of who rules Israel. While these barbaric Islamist terrorists do what they do, peace will forever be evasive between Israel and the Palestinians. They want to destroy Israel and the Jewish People. They serve the right wing Jewish religious extremists more than anything else and any remains of sanity,moderation and pragmatism will recede into the mist.

Shimon Z. Klein

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 11:58 PM

Greg F. - PM
Date: 17 Jun 14 - 09:18 PM

Hopeless.
.,,.

Has a more accurate post than this ever appeared on this forum!?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

In parliament yesterday Miliband demanded to know what was being done to counter the threat from returning Jihadis.

Cameron said, ""The people in that regime (ISIS) - as well as trying to take territory - are also planning to attack us here at home in the United Kingdom."

It is already happening in Nigeria, Libya, Mali, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Somalia, Kenya, Belgium, France,......

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 04:37 AM

Still no explanation of what exactly that threat is.
Still no acknowledgement of the role the US and Britain have played in promoting Islamic radicalism in the Middle East.
Just the same old, same old hate peddling alarmism
I do believe Tory Blair said the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain had nothing to do with the present situation there - just about sums up the reliability of all Government statements, I would have thought.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 05:34 AM

It is not just the government.
Also Labour.
Also MI5.
Also Scotland Yard.
Also Journalists working in Iraq and Syria.
Also ISIS itself.
Also the individual Jihadists.

It is a relief to know that you know better Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 08:03 AM

All receiving their information from the government and their mouthpieces.
The tiny handful of statements are not worth the pot they have been pissed into
The Government warnings appear to be to be a diversion from their own involvement in the Middle East fuck-up - their previous grooming of Islamic movements which they thought would keep Muslim countries as allies, invasions to protect oil supplies, the continuing allowing of Israel to use military force to create an Apartheid State, the cynical approach to The Arab Spring protests and worst of all, the total abandoning of the Syrian people to Butcher Assad, Britain's former ally and trading partner.
This is what has opened the door to Islamic extremists, and it is this that has to be dealt with.
It will be fascinating to see if the US responds to Iranian requests to bomb the rebels, thus re-confirming that Iraq was and continues to be about oil
As far as the 'risk' of rebels returning to Britain is concerned, if there is one, the answer lies in utilising the good will of the Muslim communities in Britain, which would mean undoing some of the decades of damage done by people like yourselves, who continue to demonise them as cultural paedophiles, shelterers of terrorists, and now, (interesting development) criminal communities.
A good start would be to stamp down on those promoting cultural and race hatred - maybe banging a few of you up as a lessons to the rest of your tribe.
Muslim communities in Britain are a fact of life; those communities have shown themselves willing to be British and have, by and large,are recognised as being a benefit rather than the Yellow Peril you and the rest of you post-Powellites try to make them out to be.
Any calming influence towards hot-headed young men returning from war is going to have to come from within those communities and not imposed from outside by politicians and State bodies who already have an appalling record of race and cultural relations.
"It is a relief to know that you know better Jim."
It's a certainty that you with your ignorance, racism and 'Christian' declared inhumanity, are the last person to listen to on any of these subjects.
Your 'final solution' to the Muslim 'problem' (or even a vague hint of a one) has yet to be put forward for consideration - just inflammatory ranting hatred.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 09:20 AM

All receiving their information from the government and their mouthpieces.

Silly Jim.
The government is INFORMED by them.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 10:12 AM

So far there is no indication of what that 'threat' is apart from the boasting of a few young soldiers at present fighting.
The 'information' was exactly the same as was claimed by those who went off to fight fascism in Spain - dangerous Bolsheviks who were receiving weapons training and experience in fighting and return to bring about bloody revolution in Britain - those returning were blacklisted and put under surveillance - no arrests, not bloody revolution.
The same MI5 and the same bunch of politicians were the ones who spread the panic.
Just supposing these people are an actual threat - what exactly do you propose should be done about them?
How in any way do they relate to the Islamic religion.
What does any of this have to do with the British Muslim population as a whole
How in any way does anything have to do with your hate campaign aimed at Muslims in general - your branding them implanted perverts, your claims that they are hiding terrorists withing their communities, now your suggestion that they are criminals and that this criminality has anything to do with terrorism?
What do you should suggest should happen:
Should the Muslim religion be banned in Britain?
Should the entire Muslim community in Britain (particularly the "implanted" ones) be subjected to close scrutiny.
Should they all be sent back to where they or their forefathers) came from.
Ghettoisation - extermination - what?
You have expended a great deal of time over the last few years making the Muslim communities in Britain figure of hate and distrust - as potential sexual perverts, now as potential terrorists, taking advantage of a conflict that is largely of the West's own making.
If there is any threat whatever from the Muslim communities in Britain, if is because of the hate spread by you and yours.
Surprisingly enough, the only disturbances in Muslim communities were the Southall riots of over 30 years ago.
They have put up with Pakie-bashing, mosque burning, threats to and actual attacks on their lives and homes inspired by shit like that you persistently dish up, with relative silence, tolerance and passivity, despite the intolerance and bigotry of you and yours.
What do you feel we should do with these people?
As a personal choice, I would rather have Asian neighbours, than the middle-England bigot of you and your red-neck friends.
I'd be far more inclined to put up fire-proof front doors and smoke alarms to protect us from you, than I would any Muslim family I have ever met.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:19 AM

The threat is of terrorism, not from ordinary decent Muslims but from the "several thousands" of Islamists who see ordinary folk as targets, and the hundreds now committing atrocities on the people of Iraq and Syria with a group shunned by al Qaeda as too extreme.

Strangely, I am not reassured by your dismissal of the statements of

The government.
Also Labour.
Also MI5.
Also Scotland Yard.
Also journalists working in Iraq and Syria.
Also the leader of the Free Syria Army.
Also ISIS itself.
Also the individual Jihadists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 11:55 AM

No qualifiaction of a threat
No suggestion of what should be done
Just - lest trust the politicians
No chane - more hate more racist and cultural smears - more old same old same old that we have been getting from you for years
As Big Brother used to say "Hate,hate, hate, hate...."
God save us from "ALL" religious warriors - especially those batting for their own side.
I''ll leave you to your particular brand of Christian warfare.
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 19 Jun 14 - 07:45 PM

"I do believe Tory Blair said the invasion of Iraq by the US and Britain had nothing to do with the present situation there - just about sums up the reliability of all Government statements, I would have thought."

It may have escaped your notice, but Tony B Liar is not an official member of any government.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 02:02 AM

I do so like Christmas's little rants, he must spend entire days wound up to hi-doh blood, blood pressure through the roof, frothing at the mouth as he bangs away on his keyboard missing the keys he wants in his rush to inflict yet one more of his drivel filled messages on the community at large.

The following I found really funny:

1: "The 'information' was exactly the same as was claimed by those who went off to fight fascism in Spain - dangerous Bolsheviks who were receiving weapons training and experience in fighting and return to bring about bloody revolution in Britain - those returning were blacklisted and put under surveillance - no arrests, not bloody revolution."

The same ones that came back and fomented trouble in the workplace during the first eighteen months of the Second World War (It all stopped when Hitler attacked the USSR). Perhaps you missed the point that there were no arrests and no bloody revolution because they were blacklisted and because they were subject to surveillance.

2: "Ghettoisation"

That immigrants have done all by themselves through choice and that fact was what Enoch Powell referred to in his speech. He talked of uncontrolled immigration at such a rate that the immigrants get absolutely no opportunity to integrate and naturally set up communities that then make integration impossible. Examples of this in cities all over the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:07 AM

"It may have escaped your notice, but Tony B Liar is not an official member of any government."
It may have escaped your memory that Tory Blur (sorry about previous mis-spelling) was once the most powerful politician in Britain - second in command to the most powerful politician in the world - the most powerful politician in the world, who led Britain into an illegal war, which did much to create the present mess.
He missed being charged for his illegal war by the skin of his arse, but is present pronouncements are that of a politician - he appears to have no skills or influence in any other field
"The same ones that came back and fomented trouble in the workplace"
Do oyu have any actual data other than your right wing rantings that those "armed and trained International Brigadiers who, it was predicted, returned from Spain an attempted an overthrow of the Government in Britain"
There were never any arrests of any of them, not even on suspicion - that they were under surveillance never became known till decades later.
The I.B. were made up of left-wingers and liberals - and non-politicos, Catholics, Jews, and Atheists - all who feared the rise of fascism and were prepared to risk their lives to do something about it - Britain's response was to appease it, all confirmed by the welcome they got when returning home - punishment for expressing their opposition.
Any threat to Britain came from those in the higher echelons of British Society who were preparing to welcome a German victory - like the ex King and his consort.
That was how the British leadership was preparing to oppose fascism - with "Peace in our Time!!"
Any ghettoisation that has taken place in the immigrant communities i Britain has come from self -protection from scum like Powell , from racist attacks by his supporters, many of whom were members of good ol' British Institutions like the Nation Front, Neo-Nazis like Colin Jordan's National Socialist Movement.
The British Pakistani population have been singled out in surveys (published twice in the 'leftie' Daily Mail, as the community most prepared to be integrated into British society and happy to be recognised as British.
That you should raise your three cheers for scummy Powell says what needs to be said here - aren't you missing your morning dip in your "Rivers of Blood".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:42 AM

I guess we will have to rely on those nasty Muslims, the ones who would be terrorists if we didn't keep a wary eye on them whilst in their shops and clinics, rely on their fellow followers of Islam to deal with the terrorists for us.

Then we can go back to mistrusting them again.

zzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 05:20 AM

The terrorists hide among the good people Musket.
The gang who tried to set off car bombs in London and made a suicide attack on Glasgow airport included doctors and other NHS professionals.

Perhaps they were at one of your barbecues.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 05:58 AM

Frankie Boyles take on that terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport:

"Good old Glasgow. If I had to pick a city in the world where I could depend on one of the locals to kick a man who was on fire, it would always be Glasgow. That really had to hurt - 90% burns and sore bollocks...

I think we should get a photo of that guy KICKING A FLAMING MAN, blow it up and make it the welcome sign at Glasgow Airport. Underneath we should have the words 'Glasgow Welcomes Careful Drivers'...

I love the naivety of al-Qaeda. For trying to bring a religious war to Glasgow. You're 400 years too late guys!! You've not even got a Football Team for Christ's sake... I think that we should give Partick Thistle to al-Qaeda. If only for the joy of hearing them read out their team sheet on Saturday...

The Sun last week urged us all to respond to the attack by flying the Union Jack. Really, in Glasgow that's never been a great way of getting your insurance premiums down...

For a while, confusion reigned at Glasgow airport. Was it a terrorist attack or just Richard Hammond turning up late for check-in?

People say it was lucky they didn't crash into a fuel container. I say it's lucky they didn't hit the queue coming out of Duty Free - the whole place would have gone up like Hiroshima...

The best bit is being told that hundreds of people were saved from being hideously burnt...these were Scottish people flying to Spain! They'll come back looking like they've been bungee jumping off the lip of a volcano!"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 06:46 AM

"Good old Glasgow"
Take it we've seen the last of your smears on Britain's "premature anti - fascists" (MI5 label) and you will maintain radio silence on your Powelism
As you were corporal!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 07:58 AM

Three quotes from former CIA officer, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies.
Jim Carroll

"One of the greatest dangers for Americans in deciding how to confront the Islamist threat lies in continuing to believe - at the urging of senior U.S. leaders - that Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than for what we do. The Islamic world is not so offended by our democratic system of politics, guarantees of personal rights and civil liberties, and separation of church and state that it is willing to wage war against overwhelming odds in order to stop Americans from voting, speaking freely, and praying, or not, as they wish."
Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris

"We assume, moreover, that bin Laden and the Islamists hate us for our liberty, freedoms, and democracy - not because they and many millions of Muslims believe U.S. foreign policy is an attack on Islam or because the U.S. miitary now has a ten-year record of smashing people and things in the Islamic world."
Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris

"The U.S. invasion of Iraq is Osama bin Laden's gift from America, one he has long and ardently| desired, but never realistically expected."
Michael Scheuer, Imperial Hubris,

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 10:15 AM

Well, then, obviously even a "former CIA officer, now an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies" can be as bloody a fool as anyone else, if he really sets his mind to it.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 10:50 AM

"can be as bloody a fool as anyone else, if he really sets his mind to it."
Or - on te other hand, he might be right
you have the previous article saying exactly the dsame - you choose not to comment on it - you wouldn't, would you?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 10:52 AM

TAKE YOUR PICK
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 10:58 AM

Tsk. Another post gone missing. I assumed moderators weren't cultured enough to understand Latin.

Mistrust will always exist between you and any Muslims in The UK then Keith?

Shallow xenophobic bigoted comment on your part.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:07 PM

No Musket, and neither did I with Irish folk during the IRA offensive.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:18 PM

"Mistrust will always exist between you and any Muslims in The UK then Keith?"
Be fair Muskie - only the "implanted" ones - whoops, sorry, that is all of them!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 03:58 PM

dylan - which religion do you believe in? all of them

what's so funny about peace, love and understanding?

in any group of people there are a few great folk, a handful of violent rogues and everyone else is trying to struggle through as best we can.

those of us in supposedly christian-based western societies, with our own history of oppression, sexual abuse and vicious empire building, have no right to go throwing stones at the criminals in any other religion.

peace and love, children, it's the only way

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 05:10 PM

You know that I have never criticised Islam or suggested that Muslim people pose any kind of threat to anyone.
You are a dishonest man.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 05:40 PM

one love.....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 20 Jun 14 - 07:24 PM

"You know that I have never criticised Islam or suggested that Muslim people pose any kind of threat to anyone."

Well then, let me do that. Some Muslims pose a serious threat to others, including other Muslims if the actions of ISIS are anything to go by.

Islam is as stupid as most other religions, and so are its followers.

Some find their leaders in Rome or Canterbury, others in Mecca or Jerusalem. They all claim to have a connection to the ONE TRUE GOD, PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, and they all have two-faced bastards running things.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 02:02 AM

Can't argue with that as all religion is ultimately corrupt.

However, I can't see why I should mistrust my Catholic neighbour, due to Continuity IRA or my Muslim neighbour for the situation in Iraq. I have a friend and ex colleague who was an Iraqi medic in the Iran / Iraq war but he is a mate, a professor of microbiology and goes to Friday prayers. Keith said such people could be hiding terrorists in their midst. Absolutely disgraceful.

Keith is saying two very different things in the same thread, which is an improvement by the way.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 03:19 AM

"You know that I have never criticised Islam "
You have described the Islamic religion as making its followers inclined towards having underage sex and the Muslim communities as harbouring terrorists.
You have claimed that an entire cultural population is "implanted" with sexual tendencies, and the only reason they are not succumbing is that they "suppress" those tendencies "implanted" by their religion.   
Time after time, you and your own particular sect have quoted from the Koran to prove that this is a religiously written and taught edict - it has been the whole basis of yours (end every single ultra-right website and extremist party throughout the world) attack on Muslims.
That is not only criticising Islam, it is presenting it as a perverting influence and describing all adherents as perverts.
GUEST.# is right - there are Muslims who do pose a serious threat to others.
Ongoing revelations show that there are Christians who have not only posed a great threat to others, but have more that realised that threat and, where they allowed to, would be as threatening as they ever were.
The same threat is present in the Middle East from those claiming to b e acting on behalf of the Jewish people.
All religions pose a threat under certain circumstances.
You even have your own propaganda machine, as they did.
You talk about "several thousands" of Islamists who see ordinary folk as targets"
It was announced in the press a couple of days ago that MI5 believed there COULD BE UP TO FIVE HUNDRED YOUNG MEN who might return to Britain to continue their Islamic crusade - so already the official calculated figure has escalated out of all proportion from your hate factory.
Given MI5s past record of who it considers a threat, its record of exaggeration, the fact that many of the inexperienced young volunteers are quite likely to be killed fighting - and the fact that the right-wing press have dredged up only three quotes from young men on a high from the battle front, of any of them bringing armed struggle to Britain, I would say that the likelihood of them doing so is virtually non-existent, and even if it was possible, the Muslim population as a whole would prove an effective opposition to any threat.
At the beginning of my lifetime, people were being sent to their deaths in millions because of their culture and beliefs
What is happening now - the spread of hatred towards different cultures and beliefs, is opening the way for a repeat performance of those horrors.
You and yours are part of that.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 04:58 AM

You have described the Islamic religion as making its followers inclined towards having underage sex

That is a blatant lie Jim.
You know well, because I have produced the quotes for you, that in that debate I said specifically and repeatedly that religion played no part.
You are a despicably dishonest man.

However, I can't see why I should mistrust my Catholic neighbour, due to Continuity IRA or my Muslim neighbour for the situation in Iraq.

You should not Musket.
I would not either.

Keith said such people could be hiding terrorists in their midst. Absolutely disgraceful

It would be disgraceful if anyone said that, but it is just another Musket lie.
What I actually said was, "The terrorists hide among the good people Musket."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 05:07 AM

You talk about "several thousands" of Islamists who see ordinary folk as targets"
It was announced in the press a couple of days ago that MI5 believed there COULD BE UP TO FIVE HUNDRED YOUNG MEN who might return to Britain to continue their Islamic crusade - so already the official calculated figure has escalated out of all proportion from your hate factory.

Both are correct Jim.
400+ with ISIS.
Several thousands here with us.
BBC last October.
"Thousands of Islamist extremists in the UK see the British public as a legitimate target for attacks, the director general of MI5 has warned."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 05:42 AM

"I said specifically and repeatedly that religion played no part."
While at the same time attacking Muslims "Muslim implant"
Is it their colour you object to?
If you attack Catholics, you are identifying their religion, not their race, colour taste in shirts - it is an attack on their religion.
Saying you are not doing so is equivalent to weeping crocodile tears for the people of Homs while at te same time proposing their killers are sold weapons and riot control equipment to subdue them - totally meaningless and contradictory.
The dishonest is all on your side and always has been.
You are a fully qualified religios bigot
"Thousands of Islamist extremists in the UK"
There is not one hred of evidence to suggest a threat from the Muslim population in Britain itself unless you ascribe the acts of a tiny handful of disturbed fanatics to the Muslim population - it is those you and yours have mede the target for your hate.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 05:43 AM

The sad thing is, Keith, that Jim really is a very good person. Highest of principles; ❤ thoroughly in right place. Trouble is that these very worthiest of attributes so often lead him into such absurdities and confusions, because of his absolute inability, unless resolutely beaten over the head by themselves, to think ill of anybody whatsoever. That's why, basically, he writes so much pathetic nonsense with the very best of motives and intentions.

Dear old Musket, OTOH, I suspect of being something of a malicious laughing-up-his-sleeve old stirrer who gets his kicks from endeavouring to irritatite to the utmost. Has the advantage of furnishing quite a lot of [slightly guilty] amusement. I mean, it would be cruel in the extreme to laugh at poor old Jim, wouldn't it now? Good ole Muskibumz, tho, will revel in the thought of how much he has wound you up [in his dreams!]...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 05:56 AM

"Muslim implant"

A fake quote Jim.
A lie to support the previous lie.
You are truly despicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 06:28 AM

"A fake quote Jim."
You mean somebody posted the "Don, I now do believe....." "implant" claim using your name?
Did you report them?
Have you never supported it saying it was only because prominent people convinced you it was true?
Was it all a bad dream???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 06:39 AM

"... cruel in the extreme to laugh at poor old Jim", I wrote a couple of posts back. But there have to be exceptions to all things. And the way he goes on milking that misapprehension, that pathetic failure to get the point all those [what was it? 5?] years ago, but going on repeating his lack of basic comprehension of Keith's perfectly obvious point over & over again, can only become more ludicrous every time he does it.

So:

hahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!

Thanks for the laugh, Jim.

~M~

〠〠〠〠〠☺☺☺☺☺〠〠〠〠〠

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 06:48 AM

"Muslim implant"

A fake quote Jim.
If it is not fake, find it.
You never will.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:08 AM

Someone adjust Michael's medication please...

That said, he is right on one thing. You can't have a serious discussion when all you can hear is Oink! from some contributors, so pointing and laughing is about as appropriate as a response can get.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:32 AM

"perfectly obvious point over & over again"
So he said he didn't make it - you say he did and it is perfectly obvious
What is that perfectly obvious point Mike?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 07:43 AM

Wowzer, Muskititz: was there ever such a milker of unhilarious jokes to death [apart from poor ole Jim qv a few post back] as pathetic-ole-U.

My medication! Wowie! -- well hahahahabloodybloodyha: just mind you don't do some grievous bodily wotzit to all those Mudcatters helplessly holding their sides ROTFLing till dangerously out of breath at that incomparable esprit of yours. My medication: well LoL·LoL·LoL to ∞∞ to be sure!...

The thing is that, just as the cooking sherry one ran aground on the fact that I haven't drunk any alcohol for a dozen or so years; so I took myself off the medication my docs kept prescribing a couple of years ago, & have felt incomparably better ever since. Quite healthy enuff to get the better of any facetious ohohoho's produced by the likes of any pathetic old Rustigun-face's desperate but exiguous essays at yoomah.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 08:07 AM

Your quote in full – it was in the context of Muslim Paedophiles
Feel free to deny you wrote it and your racism appeasing friend is free to explain it away.
I look forward to both with some interest
Jim Carroll

13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM
Muslim prejudice thread.
"Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb.
Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us?"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 08:56 AM

It was not " in the context of Muslim Paedophiles."
That is the lie.
I said specifically and repeatedly that it was NOT an issue of religion.

You know that because you have been shown the quotes.
You repeat the lie in the full knowledge that it is a lie.

It was a 3 sentence post.
The first sentence that you always forget because it reveals your lie,

"Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things (Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing.)"

The second sentence just says I had come to believe what people like Jasmin Alibhai-Brown were saying, that the culture led to the offending.
Not my opinion, just no reason to disbelieve.

The third sentence asked why you disbelieved what those anti-racist Pakistani people were saying.

"Muslim implant" is a lie made up by you.
Such is your determination to discredit me, but you have to lie because unfortunately I have never actually posted anything you can use against me.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:29 AM

It was in full context of young men preying on young non-Muslim women - you have the link
One lie.
Yourr statement says exactly what it says - that they are implanted to have sex with underage young women because of their culture - repeated over and over by you "culture is everything".
The second sentence is an outright lie - no public figure has ever made such a statement, nor would British law ever allow them to without prosecution, and even if a million of them raised their voices in Trafalgar Square next Sunday, it would still be a profoundly damaging racist statement, whoever made it.
You have never "shown me" a single shred quote from a single public figure implicating the entire male Pakistani population in paedophelia, and you never shall - but you are free to prove me wrong now.
Suggesting that the entire male Muslim male population is implanted is "Muslim implant" whatever way you attempt to juggle it semantically.
Your friend seem to have fallen silent - perhaps he's looking for his pills!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:41 AM

It was a 3 sentence post.
The first sentence that you always forget because it reveals your lie,
"Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things (Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing.)"

If I specifically and repeatedly stated that the Muslim religion was in no way to blame, it is clearly lying to claim otherwise.

You have to lie about me to discredit me.

Again you make a thread into an attack on me personally because you have lost the original debate.
Devious, dishonest despicable.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,#
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 09:54 AM

"Nothing defines humans better than their willingness to do irrational things in the pursuit of phenomenally unlikely payoffs. This is the principle behind lotteries, dating, and religion.

Scott Adams"

Figured you guys could benefit from that quotation.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:20 AM

"You have to lie about me to discredit me."
No quote
No justification
Nothuing
Done and dusted - checkmate
See you next time
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Troubadour.
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:22 AM

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

These figures are the official statistics on religions in Pakistan, which prides itself on upholding religious freedom:

    Muslims: 181,723,000
    Christians: 2,700,000 (approx. 1.8%)[citation needed]
    Hindus: 1,800,000 (approx. 1.6%[47])
    Buddhists: 106,989[52]
    Sikhs: 30,000
    Zoroastrian/Parsis: 25,000 (many are undocumented migrants from Iran)
    Jews: 200
    Animists, Baha'i, Atheists: n/a

In fairness to Jim, given the figures above showing how many Pakistanis are not Muslim, K A of H's comment undoubtedly aimed only at those who are, since he has chosen to mention them, and only them, in relation to these "cultural" tendencies to commit crimes.

Perhaps the very old argument isn't as old after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:38 AM

In fairness to me, we were discussing British Pakistanis.

My only point was that they were over-represented in a particular offence, which they were then and much more since.

I also stated that I neither knew nor cared why, but that I believed what British Pakistanis like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown said about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 14 - 10:41 AM

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

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 04:03 AM

Jim, returning to the threat you deny.
BBC today.

UK police will have to deal with the threat of British fighters returning from Syria for "many years", a top Scotland Yard officer has told the BBC.

Met Assistant Commissioner Cressida Dick said the conflict represented a "long-term" terrorist threat.



One of the men in the video has been identified as aspiring medical student Nasser Muthan, 20, from Cardiff.

Ms Dick - who is currently head of specialist operations including counter terrorism at the Met - warned Britain would face "the consequences" of the conflict in Syria for years.

More than 50 people have been arrested in the UK since 2013 for alleged Syria-related offences.

But Ms Dick would not be drawn on the extent to which UK police have already had to confront security threats from British jihadists fighting in the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 05:59 AM

"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""
Yeah - sure it is!
Can I make it clear - I have raised this comment regularly over the years, and will continue to do so, because I feel that it opitomises the racist attitude that makes the lives of non British subjects who choose to settle in Britain, as miserable and as dangerous as it is sometimes.
It is raw, crude racism aimed specifically at an entire community and their religion.
We were given dark hints of another explanation for the remark from Esmeralda the Good Fairy - none yet, and certainly none from our born again Christian, but early days yet; there'l be plenty of opportunities in the future (if the world hasn't ended by then, of course!!)
"More than 50 people have been arrested in the UK since 2013 for alleged Syria-related offences."
Those arrested weer detained for preparing to fight in Syrian - "heading for a "terrorist training camp" as oe paper puts it, referring to four arrests.
Others have been arrested for "withholding information" which breached security laws.
The police attitude is that some of those returning "MIGHT" brign violence to Britain on their return - nothing more tangible that that - the extension of the 'suss law' to include what might happen.
In order to do this, they have converted opposition to Assad to "terrorism" and the training for such opposition to "terrorist training camps".
If only those troublesome Syrians had done as they were told in the first place, we wouldn't have had all this mess, and Britain could have continued to supply weapons, chemicals and riot control equipment to keep them in their place, as Keith suggested ages ago.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 06:56 AM

If Esmeralda is me, as I suspect, then I have summarised my view of your constant idiocies as being just that a few posts up, Jim (21 June 0543 & 0649), and see no point going over it all again. I said, in sum, that you are making a joke and a ludicrous booby of yourself with this constant parroting of a perfectly, in context, rational remark, whose purport you have misinterpreted from the off. You look sillier & sillier & more & more of a pathetic comic turn every time you come out with it again. All you are doing each time is reminding us what Jack Straw, Alibhai-Brown, & all those other luminaries said, which flies right in the face of your jolly good ole ♥-in-right-place but oh-so-imperceptive-of-the-facts-and-realities doctrinaire PC piggipooze.

So do please carry on... Anything for a bit of a giggle these fine days.

☤☤Esmeralda☤☤

aka
~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:29 AM

It is rational to state that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
I expected nothing less from somebody who shares those obnoxiously racist views.
I'm sure we both remember somebody making similar claims 70 odd years ago - I'm not prepared to let it pass on the nod, you apparently are, and are prepared to live with it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:35 AM

Jim, in that years old thread, my only point was the over-representation.

I always emphasised that religion played no part.
The double quotes show I was just quoting Don's question to answer it.
Those were his words.
Their religion was and is irrelevant.

I did not know or care why they did it, just that they should stop.
I came to believe what Pakistani people like Alibhai-Brown said was the cause, but I had no opinion about it and said so repeatedly.

Can we get back to the subject?
You must have raised this issue a hundred times on a hundred threads and we have been asked over and over to drop it.
My offer to discuss it on pm stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 08:38 AM

"I have raised this comment regularly over the years, and will continue to do so, because I feel that it opitomises the racist attitude..."

.,,.

OK. Let's try to take this seriously. Leaving aside what it may or may not epitomise, the first thing to ask is, whether there may be any truth in it.

Please not that I am expressing no opinion as to that; merely pointing out that it must be the first thing to be considered.

Jim is constantly reminding me of that scene in Brecht's "The Life Of Galileo" which I mentioned in another context recently (& if ever there was a writer who might just be lefty enough to suit Jim's book, it has to be good old Bert Brecht). Galileo is called before the Inquisition for saying that the Earth moves round the Sun. The prosecuting cardinal opens with the words, "The first thing to be established is whether it would be desirable for the Earth to move round the Sun."

Jim is not starting by asking whether there may or may not be such a cultural tendency as such as Jack Straw, Ann Fryer, Alibhai Brown, Mohammed Sidiqui, et al, thought that there might be in certain sections of certain demographics. He is starting by denouncing the very idea as "the epitome of the racist attitude" threatening certain of our fellow citizens.

But the point to be established first of all, quite apart from what the effects might be if it were, is surely whether such culturally influenced attitudes actually do or do not exist.

But that won't do for Jim. His priority is to establish that they can't possibly do so because they do not accord with the social doctrine of Jim; just as the priority of the Church was to establish that the rotation of the Earth was impossible as it didn't accord with the doctrine of the Church. They threatened Galileo with torture if he didn't recant. Jim threatens us with being denounced by nasty names like racist or fascist if we even admit the very possibility that Straw&Fryer&Alibhai&Sidiqui&all were simply seeing something that was there.

Didn't know what a Jesuit you were at ❤; did you, Jim?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 09:36 AM

You have hit the nail squarely upon the head Michael.
This attitude prevails in every thread, not just with Jim, but with the whole gang of supposed lefties....they are not really lefties you know, just slightly deluded kids with a media view on life and how things aught to be.....they never allow reality to intrude and truth or facts are merely a distraction.

It's all a bit sad really, something expected from adolescents on Facebook, but not grown men....especially "educated" ones.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 10:01 AM

"....especially "educated" ones."

Never confuse education with intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 10:19 AM

Sorry: I meant Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim Ramadhan Foundation youth group, as a questioner of the activities of some of the "testosterone-fizzing" young men, not Mohammed Sidiqui. Greatly regret having confused in my memory two fairly similar names of distinguished Muslims.

Apologies to both of them. Accuracy matters!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 11:01 AM

"Jack Straw, Ann Fryer, Alibhai Brown, Mohammed Sidiqui,"
None of whom made anything resembling the statement Keith has persistently claimed since his monumental foot-in-mouth - unless you are ably to produce such a statement,,, he hasn't?
All warned of the dangers of using such conclusions to promote racial and cultural hatred, yet this is exactly what Keith has done - so much is his declared respect for these people.
Straw made a point of suggesting that the crimes in question were perpetrated by "testosterone fizzing young men"; Keith carefully edited out this bit when he put Straw's statement up (I have little doubt he will now deny having done so, but it's there on the thread - follow the link)
All said that the behaviour of this small band of criminals could in no way be laid at the door of any ethnic or religious community - this has been the view of everybody involved, including the police, judiciary and particularly the researchers who surveyed the Muslim communities and produced a report of their findings - that there was no indication that the crimes were a cultural issue.
We are all surrounded by our culture to one level or another, we are not slaves to that culture - we accept or reject its aspects as we see fit.
The minuscule group of young Muslim men Keith was venting his cultural /racial hatred on, had in fact rejected some of the basic aspects of their culture regarding drinking alchohol and practicing sex outside of marriage - they were criminals who in many ways had embraced some of the worst aspects of Britain's own, indigenous culture.
We notice that the same has happened to a number of young Travellers when they became urbanised.
No authoritative body has ever made anything resembling Keith's all embracing and oven-filling pronouncement - not one.
You may regard him as a "good debater" - most of us recognise him as being the lying racist, ignoramous tosser that he undoubtably is.
"This attitude prevails in every thread, not just with Jim, but with the whole gang of supposed lefties"
This, from a declared "Marxist" who once wrote that the mass murderer Breivik was making points that were worth listening to - now that will cause me some sleepless nights!!
What a team eh - an educated Alf Garnett, a Les Dawson Wannabe and an out-of-work 'Little Britain' cast member - have you decided which one of you is Curly, and which, Larry and Moe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 11:27 AM

Jim, they all acknowledged the over-representation, which was the only point I was making.
They all put the cause down to culture, which effects all.

I expressed no opinion about the cause, but believe them.
Why would anyone not?

Do you think them ignorant of their own culture?
Do you think them racist liars?


Is there one other post of mine that even suggests what you are accusing, either in that thread, or in all my years of posting before or since?
If not, does it not strongly suggest that you might have taken that one post the wrong way?

In any case, no-one else in the world, never mind this forum, shares your obsession with it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 11:42 AM

Try googling, Jim. You will find lots of reports like that from which the following are extracts"-

~M~

theweek.co.uk/politics/8707/muslims-back-jack-straw-pakistani-rape-gangs

Jack Straw is not looking quite as lonely as he was last Friday when he made the controversial statement that there was a "specific problem" involving British men of Pakistani descent grooming young white girls for sex because they think they are "easy meat".
Straw told the BBC: "These young men... act like any other young men, they're fizzing and popping with testosterone, they want some outlet for that, but Pakistani heritage girls are off-limits and they are expected to marry a Pakistani girl from Pakistan, typically."So they then seek other avenues and they see these young women, white girls who are vulnerable, some of them in care... who they think are easy meat."But Straw is now receiving support, not least from members of the Asian community.Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim Ramadhan Foundation youth group, said: "These young men do not see white
 girls as equal, as valuable, of high moral standing as they see their
 own daughters, and their own sisters, and I think that's wrong. It's a form of racism that's abhorrent in a civilised society.""I first raised this two or three years ago and I got a lot of stick within the community from people who said I was doing the work of the BNP and stigmatising them."
The feminist Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has also backed
 Straw. Writing in the Independent about the Derby gang she says: "The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there
Earlier, Ann Cryer, former Labour MP for Keighley, West Yorkshire, who campaigns for women's rights, said Straw should be commended for bringing up a problem which, she claimed, Muslim MPs were not prepared to confront. Said Cryer: "The vast majority of young Asian men are fine, but there's a minority who do not behave properly towards white women and sweeping it under the carpet will only make matters worse. If these Asian men behaved in the same way to young Muslim girls they'd end up in very hot water in their community."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 11:46 AM

All said that the behaviour of this small band of criminals could in no way be laid at the door of any ethnic or religious community - this has been the view of everybody involved, including the police, judiciary and particularly the researchers who surveyed the Muslim communities and produced a report of their findings - that there was no indication that the crimes were a cultural issue

Oh, Mandy Rice-Davies, for crying out loud! Of course they did -- scared of the fatuous likes of you, for some reason, I suppose.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:26 PM

Akenaton: "This attitude prevails in every thread, not just with Jim, but with the whole gang of supposed lefties....they are not really lefties you know, just slightly deluded kids with a media view on life and how things aught to be.....they never allow reality to intrude and truth or facts are merely a distraction."

BRAVO!!!!!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 12:45 PM

The Independent.

When it comes to sex, Alyas Karmani is a plain-speaking man. For a Muslim imam he is breathtakingly so. "Oral sex and anal sex are taboo in the British Pakistani community," he announces matter-of-fact way over gosht palak in his favourite curry-house just up the hill from Bradford University. "Sex is seen as only for procreation and only in the missionary position. More so if your spouse is from abroad."

He is addressing the question of whether a disproportionate number of British Asian men are involved in grooming underage girls for sex. He thinks the answer is "Yes" – which is also very plain-speaking on a subject around which the British policing, political, academic and social work establishment dances with over-sensitive diplomacy.

Yet Imam Karmani is no maverick. As well as being an imam, he is a psychologist with more than 20 years of practical experience in youth and community work. He is a former adviser to the Department for Education on youth empowerment and a one-time head of race equality for the Welsh Assembly and is now co-director of Street, a project whose name stands for Strategy to Reach, Empower and Educate Teenagers.

One of its key projects is running courses to change the attitude of young British Pakistanis which, Alyas Karmani believes, underlie the cultural assumptions which have led a number of Asians to become involved in the on-street grooming of schoolgirls for sex. Eight men of Pakistani heritage, and an Afghan, were were convicted at Liverpool Crown Court this week of offences including four rapes, 11 charges of conspiracy to engage children in sexual activity and six of trafficking children for sexual exploitation.

"Many British Pakistani men live in two worlds," he begins. "The first is encompassed by family, business, mosque. It is a socially conservative culture where there is no toleration of sex outside of marriage, and little emphasis on sexual gratification."

Many are emotionally browbeaten into preserving their family honour by marrying a cousin from their family's village in north-west Kashmir, the part of Pakistan from which the forefathers of Bradford's Asian community originally migrated.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/asian-grooming-why-we-need-to-talk-about-sex-7734712.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 01:26 PM

"Oh, Mandy Rice-Davies, for crying out loud! Of course they did -"
Keith cited these people as his witnesses and you have just put them up on his behalf
Now you appear to be saying that you are free to accept the bits that suit your own racism and reject everything that doesn't.
"Jim, they all acknowledged the over-representation, which was the only point I was making."
It wasn't, for a start - they all said that there was no evidence to link underage sex with either race or culture
In the end, it came to the behaviour of a handful of "testosterone fizzing young men" out of a population of a million and a half - such was the overwhelming evidence of cultural over-representation.
Anyway - your point was that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" in no way tied up with your unproven "over-representation" claim - it was simply a blatant attack on the entire British Pakistani population.
"Do you think them racist liars?"
You insist on hiding behind statements that have never been made and which you have never produced, as if they were real - show us your willie Keith - it's an invitation with no time limit.
Maybe we should reiterate the qualifications of some of your experts.
Anne Cryer (not Fryer - pay attention that boy at the back)
Renowned for her demand that only people with a command of English should be eligible for entry into Britain
We would never have had an Empire, any not be facing the problems we are today if such conditions ahe been generally applied - the British were renowned for speaking more loudly when foreigners didn't understand them - we are not the world's greatest linguists, you might say.
Her comments on a tiny minority of Asian men not respecting white women could just as well be referring to a large proportion the indigenous population in Britain who not only show no respect for either men or women from other races and colours, but have little or no respect for women from their own culture - and are renowned for same.
That the Muslim communities would not tolerate such behaviour is something in their favour - surely?
Lord Ahmed.
Narrowly escaped prison by using his political clout for having killed a pedestrian while using his mobile phone.
He later made his name for threatening to assemble a thousand Muslims to invade Westminster if the vote in the House of Lords didn't go his way.

Alibhai-Brown
Had she said anything resembling what you claim she said, she might - just have commanded some respect, if for no other reason that her ability to get up your fellow conservatives' noses:
"Mr Fabricant said he said he would never appear on a discussion programme with Ms Alibhai-Brown as he would "either end up with a brain haemorrhage or by punching her in the throat."
"I could never appear on a discussion prog with @y_alibhai I would either end up with a brain haemorrhage or by punching her in the throat"
She certain has a great deal going for her, but being used as a weapon to denigrate the Muslim people is not one of them
MULTICULTURALISM
You people should know all this - it's been pointed out often enough.
C'mon lads - you can do better than this - such stuff are the best editions of "Have I Got News For You" made of
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 02:29 PM

Alibhai-Brown, like the Imam just quoted and all the others, said that there was an over-representation and that their culture was to blame.

I would not know about the culture bit, but I see no reason to doubt them.

It is nothing to do with religion or Islamism so I will not discuss it here.
If you insist on continuing and refuse to use pm, I will start a thread for us so no-one else has to read your shit.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 02:49 PM

Keith - the "over-representation " was done and dusted before it started
As was pointed out on day one - if it had been a cultural thing it would have affected the entire Muslim population of Britain - not a few communities and a handful of criminals.
Without your quotes - all is meaningless
Your gofer has obviously done his best in trying to trawl up statements by your "experts" and has returned zilch.
Attacks on Muslims nothing to do with Islamism or radicalism - my, my - more "thread-drift, always a sign of desperation - having painted yourself into another corner, "all for England, thread-drift and Saint George".
Please feel free to open up another thread - it will be an ideal opportunity to say what I have to say twice.
Must go - Casualty calls!
Your friend is probably busy learning his lines:
"A fine mess you have got me into Keithie...."
A classic pair of prats, eh wot?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 03:08 PM

Like to 'punch her in the throat', eh? Well, there's a really impressive argument that's settled her intellectual hash, right enough!
.,,.
"What a team eh - an educated Alf Garnett..."

SCOUSE GIT!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 03:36 PM

... or, as "educated", should perhaps render that as

"CHILDISHLY ILL-EDUCATED PERSONAGE OF MERSEYSIDE SEAPORT EXTRACTION"?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 03:51 PM

I've often envied those with a formal higher education, but when I observe the behaviour of some of those who were lucky to have received one - thanks, but no thanks
What have you been told about mixing the cooking sherry with the pills Mike?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 03:55 PM

"you appear to be saying that you are free to accept the bits that suit your own racism and reject everything that doesn't"
.,,.

Can't quite make out what you mean by this. If you mean I have only selected extracts, you should note that I carefully gave a URL in case you wanted to check the full passages from which I had selected.

If that isn't what the above odd gnomic utterance was supposed to mean, then what in hell's name was?

~M~

Not quite sure why I'm bothering to ask, as I have long stopped giving a winged act-of-procreation what J Carroll thinks. But it fills the time, as the S Korea/Algeria match was so bloody boring that I have given up watching....

ooopppss -- I expect Jim is going to denounce that as a racist remark...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 14 - 04:04 PM

"when I observe the behaviour of some of those"

,..,

Can you not recognise this as analogous to the sort of remark on which racism is based, Jim? [I am being serious] ---

"I have nothing against Blacks-Asians-Jews-Welshmen-Irishmen-Chinese-Japanese (cont p 94), but when I look at the way some of them carry on..."

Surprised at you. Genuinely. You should be ashamed of such an observation --

-- but I don't expect you are.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 03:01 AM

"Can't quite make out what you mean by this"
Simple enough Mike - Keith has been hiding behind invented non-existent statements by Jack Straw.... et al - because of their claimed expertise and experience
You have now joined him in his Islamophobic campaign, putting up the same people - yet, when what they actually said is put up, your response is "they would say that, wouldn't they"
You really can't have it both ways - they are either experts whose word is to be relied on, or they are not to be trusted.
Academic as far as their opinions anyway - they were a figment of Keith's imagination - any shame here should be yours for going along with such a clumsy and disgusting campaign aimed at demonising an entire racial/cultural group - but as you say - I don't expect you are.   
"I expect Jim is going to denounce that as a racist remark..."
I really do know a racist when I see one - Keith is one, you are a bigot who defends racism.
For the record - I find all football equally boring.
Are you going to deal with the points I have made about culture?
I've given up on the idea that you might want to discuss Britain, and the West's role in encouraging groups of Islamic fundamentalists for their own interests
I hope you are keeping a close eye on your ward before he gets himself into even hotter water and has to open up yet another Islamophobic thread to extract himself - two at the same time are more than enough to handle - he has never done too well with one.
"[I am being serious]"
I was not, nay more than I believe you are when you fly into one of your somewhat embarrassing baby-talking hissy-fits   
It was a flippant remark aimed at your own behaviour here, nothing more.
I owe much my of deeper involvement in folk music to a mutual friend and Cambridge graduate, Bob Thomson - someone who I have the deepest respect for.
You on the other hand.....
Please stop trying to smear me with your and Keith's own racist and cultural bigotry - your really are a unique pair - at least I've never come across such vitriolic hatred elsewhere from adults.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 03:12 AM

My work comes to an end this week and I am having a reception on Friday for the staff, all of whom have new posts to go to.

I wrote references for those who needed them, including my appointments secretary.

As he is a British Pakistani, should I edit the reference to congratulate him for not buggering me or embarrassing me by being arrested for grooming? After all, he does come from Rochdale....

Ask Michael if there is room for you all in his Anderson shelter eh? You know it makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 03:19 AM

I suppose you thought the 7/7 atrocities were something to make "jokes" about?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 03:39 AM

You may be interested, Jim, to know that, when Bob Thomson made history by being the first person ever to be accepted by Cambridge Univ to read for a PhD without having any earlier academic qualifications whatever, I was one of the Masters of Arts required who sponsored him for such acceptance, and also introduced him to some others necessary, as I was so impressed by his incomparable knowledge of the broadside tradition. He used often to visit our home in Cambridge to chat about folk &c. I think I met him thru Roy Palmer, whom I met because he was folk critic of The Teacher newspaper of which my wife was Literary Editor at the same time as I was folk critic of the Times Ed Supp. Thus do networks happen. Haven't heard much of him since he went to Florida; tho my cousin Valerie who lives in Madison once wrote to say she had met him at a function, and he mentioned, she tells me, having had a folk friend in Cambridge, and named me [not sure how the subj arose], and was amazed when she exclaimed, "Small world - he's my 1st cousin".

This just a drift, Jim; not meant to prove anything; just a mutual acquaintance in Bob.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 03:48 AM

Bob was also the person who introduced us to Harry Cox -- I used to give him lifts [he couldn't drive] over to Norfolk to work on Harry's collection of broadsides -- I remember one afternoon when Bob & my wife Valerie were sitting at the table sorting broadsides while I sat by the fire talking to Harry. You will find that several of the tracks on Harry's Bonny Labouring Boy collection are attrib'd "Collected by Bob Thomson & Michael Grosvenor Myer"; & I published, under our joint names, an interview with Harry in Folk Review, Feb 1973.

More drift. Sorry. Just thought you might be interested in background info on someone you obviously highly regard, Bob.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 04:04 AM

Anyhow, Jim: I don't propose to argue any further with you, because it is pointless, taking on board the fact of where we both start in our views of one another. You see me as a racist bigot; which in fact I am not. I perceive you as a foolishly doctrinaire mind-made-up-don't-confuse-with-facts ideologue; which you are probably not either.

So I see no point pursuing this nerve-racking but fruitless feud any further. Let's just leave it there, with mutual recollections of a valued acquaintance. And maybe some respect for one-another's contributions in the folk·music field, if nothing else. Which, on this forum, if you look back, is, as they say, where we came in [an image I always like as redolent of the old continuous performances they used to run in cinemas in my long-ago youth].

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 04:17 AM

Agreed
Were you ever able to follow up Bob's discovery of the unpublished Donne poem?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 04:23 AM

Glad you agree, Jim.   Respect!

Regret I know nothing about that; it had quite passed me by. Any info you can give me as to where I might catch up on it? I am of course much interested both in Bob & in Donne.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:04 AM

4.04 "Anyhow Jim: I dont propose to argue any further with you, because it is pointless..."

4.23 "Respect!"

It seems to take 19 mins for the tablets to kick in.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:16 AM

Bob was working at Cambridge library on the Madden broadside collection (about two years before he left for the States) when he discovered a handwritten poem, which he had identified by the library staff as possibly an unpublished piece by Donne.
The poem was a matter of debate in the quality press (especially the Sunday Times, I seem to remember) which revolved around whether Donne was the author or not.
Whenever the debate died down, a letter would appear by Bob, prodding it back to life again
I thing it went on for about a year - can't remember if there ever was a conclusion to it.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:36 AM

Ah, yes, thank you. I remember now. Don't think any conclusion ever reached. Anyhow, there hasn't been anything about it anywhere I have seen for many years.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 06:52 AM

According to Pew's data, 78 percent of Afghan Muslims say they support laws condemning to death anyone who gives up Islam. In both Egypt and Pakistan, 64 percent report holding this view. This is also the majority view among Muslims in Malaysia, Jordan and the Palestinian territories.

The Washington Post

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Lighter
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 10:07 AM

Interesting report, bobad.

It also notes that 1/3 of Americans (all, presumably, of voting age) cannot name the current Vice President of the United States.

Taken together, these figures suggest the average mentality of the human race.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 14 - 10:29 AM

What Islamists always forget - and want you to forget: that restoring the ancient caliphate means embracing wine, cultural pluralism and gay courtiers. An Arab secularist explains...

Khaled Diab : A successful caliphate in six simple steps

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 10:36 AM

Mohammed Jamjoom of CNN reports on how ISIS is recruiting Western youth. Expert says "treat ISIS as a deadly virus that causes Genocide."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdgzCbrPqzQ#t=144

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 11:32 AM

There now appears to be enough evidence to indicate that British Radicalism has its roots in a backlash to generations of racisim (see Keith's diversive sideshow thread).
Those researching the events have suggested that one way of combating its effects is to mend a few fences with the Muslim communities rather than demonise the Muslim people as a whole
I'm sure this won't cut too much ice with the hardened volcano squatters
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 11:47 AM

There is no significant racism against Muslims in Britain.
Hundreds of thousands have come to stay and bring their families.
The communities are thriving and growing.

On the French coast thousands of people, mostly Muslim, have been existing for months, exposed to the elements, waiting for a chance to risk their lives clinging to truck axles just to jump the que to enter Britain.
Friends and family already here tell them what a wonderful place it is.
Where else in the world does that happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:33 PM

INDEPENDENT

INDEPENDENT AGAIN

MUSLIM-EYE-VIEW

GUARDIAN

June 2014

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:39 PM

What's all this bollocks about wine etc?

Poo Bad isn't happy with condemning terrorists with warped principles. He wants us to think they have no imagined reason either.

Gilding the Lilly to say the least.

Considering approx 60% of Muslims see a caliphate as apostasy, I may as well point and laugh now rather than feign to point out how ... Oh fuck it.

Ha Ha Ha!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:55 PM

Jim, Tell Mama's claims (your June link) have been discredited.

Andrew Gilligan in Telegraph.

"Ten months ago, in the paper, I revealed how Tell Mama, a project purporting to measure anti-Muslim attacks, had exaggerated the scale and nature of attacks against Muslims both before and after the murder of Lee Rigby in Woolwich. I later revealed that Tell Mama's public funding had not been renewed after government officials raised similar concerns about its methods.
Tell Mama's founder, Fiyaz Mughal, said that there had been a "wave of attacks" against Muslims, with 193 "Islamophobic incidents" reported to it in the first five days (to 27 May), rising to 212 by June 1, the eve of publication of our first article.
"I do not see an end to this cycle of violence", said Mughal, describing it as "unprecedented". Tell Mama's Twitter feed claimed that a Muslim woman had been "knocked unconscious" in Bolton, a claim recycled in the Guardian. "The scale of the backlash is astounding," Mughal told the BBC. "There has been a massive spike in anti-Muslim prejudice. A sense of endemic fear has gripped Muslim communities." According to Mughal, the unprecedented spike proved British society's "underlying Islamophobia." These claims, and Tell Mama's figures, were unquestioningly repeated across the media.
What Tell Mama and Mughal did not tell us at the time, however, was that 57 per cent of its 212 "incidents" took place only online, mainly offensive postings on Twitter and Facebook. They did not say that a further 16 per cent of the 212 reports had not been verified. They forgot to mention that not all the online abuse even originated in Britain.
Contrary to the group's claim of an unending "cycle of violence" and a "wave of attacks", only 17 of the 212 incidents, 8 per cent, involved the physical targeting of people and there were no attacks on anyone serious enough to require medical treatment. The supposed Bolton attack never happened. There were a further 13 attacks on Islamic buildings, four of them serious.
Far from being "unprecedented," the spike in attacks was in fact "slightly less" than after 7/7, according to the assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick. Far from being unending, the post-Woolwich spike in anti-Muslim incidents fell to pre-Rigby levels within days. If there was a "sense of endemic fear" in Muslim communities, it was partly created by Fiyaz Mughal himself."

"Last week he was comprehensively defeated on all points. The PCC ruled that our reporting that Mughal exaggerated the prevalence of anti-Muslim attacks, that he had not had his funding renewed, and that DCLG officials had expressed concern about his methods, was "not inaccurate."
Perhaps it helped that we could point out that the day after our first piece, Mughal himself admitted to the BBC that the number of physical attacks was in fact "quite small;" that within two months, he had quietly dropped his own estimate of the number of "Islamophobic incidents" post-Rigby from 193 in the first five days to "more than 120" in the first week; and that the DCLG, by his own admission, had demanded an "independent review" of his data. Various police officers and DCLG officials, asked by Mughal to support his case against us, conspicuously declined to do so."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100266808/tell-mama-did-exaggerate-anti-muslim-attacks-pcc-rejects-all-fiyaz-mughals-complaints-against-us/

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 12:58 PM

Independent Again is also Tell Mama.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 01:26 PM

Good ol' Musket, clueless as ever - talk about thick.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 01:33 PM

BBC

May 2014

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 02:06 PM

From YOUR BBC clickey ( Tell Mama)

632 against ALL Moslems?

"The comparison with anti-Semitism is frequently mentioned when discussing this work - the Jewish community is much smaller in the UK, but has for years recorded anti-Semitic attacks.

The Tell Mama project wants to carry the same weight as the Community Safety Trust (CST), which has for almost 30 years been recording incidents of anti-Semitism in the UK.

The CST published its annual statistics in February and recorded 640 anti-Semitic incidents across the country in 2012, compared to 608 incidents in 2011.

Of these there were 69 'violent anti-Semitic assaults' in 2012, including two classified as extreme violence; 53 incidents of damage and desecration of Jewish property; 467 incidents of abusive behaviour, including verbal abuse, anti-Semitic graffiti and one-off cases of hate mail; 39 direct anti-Semitic threats; and 12 cases of mass-mailed anti-Semitic leaflets or emails.
"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 02:25 PM

Without denigrating the issue, I do recall CST being criticised for not verifying data by ONS when they highlighted an anti Semitic property attack which, it turned out, was a vandalism attack affecting a number of properties at random on a street in North London. The house owned by a Jewish couple had been included in the statistics. (ONS annual report circa 2002 ish.)

There is no public indifference to anti semitism but a hell of a lot of indifference to Islamaphobia. Anti semitism is normally carried out by disaffected thugs led by right wing bigots feeding them hatred, whereas Islamaphobia is fed to them by a media looking for stories and an ignorant older generation brought up on accepted casual racism.

We even have one member on here who says that Bernard Manning was a good comedian and made him laugh..

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 26 Jun 14 - 03:26 PM

You are STILL pushing Tell Mama!
Their "survey" has been totally discredited.
It was all bollocks.
See what Andrew Gilligan said in my earlier post.
You knew that because we have been through it before.

There is no objective evidence to suggest racism against Muslims is a significant issue.
Evidence that it is not, is how attractive UK is to Muslims.
See my earlier post.

Jim, you can put up people expressing their opinion that our media is prejudiced, but it is just their opinion and I am sure it is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 12:58 AM

BBC 2013
"Experts give their opinions on how society and the authorities should react to this incident and what could be done to combat radicalisation in the UK."

"Racism" does not get a mention.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22683452

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 03:01 AM

You have been given enough links to show the existence of Britain to choke a donkey.
The British police identified themselves as being riddled with institutional racism following the Lawrence murder, and commentators, from within and outside the police have said little has changed since then.
You have been given up-to-date facts and figures on Britain today showing that racism is not just a long-term part of British society, but that it is on the rise - two survey carried out over the last couple of years have returned the fact that between a quarter and a third of those questioned have admitted to and openly expressed racist views.
It is nice to find myself able to agree with Bruce for once when he points out that British racism is not confined to Blacks or Asians, but includes long-term and ongoing attacks on Jews, though I don't accept his 'special case' for them.
Racism is a problem in Britain, it always has been and it continues to be; there is something ludicrous about someone who had displayed more racism than any other member of this forum claiming that there is no racism in Britain
You have been given enough documented information to show, beyond argument that racism has been considered a possible cause of Muslim extremism and is likely to backfire in the form of dissent in Britain, yet you have attempted to prohibit discussion on anti-Muslim prejudice on a thread about Islamic radicalism.
You and Mike have both made a point of vilifying the Muslim people as a whole as a risk - neither of you have attempted to come up with a solution of your own and have rejected or ignored the suggestions of others.
Terry the Toy Trooper comes the nearest to offering one when he harks back to the good ol' Powell days of voluntary or forced repatriation, (with assisted passage, of course!) - it that what you pair of clowns want - if not, what?
It appears that you are happy to go along with Mm. Thatcher's 'catch-all' of making Britain's Muslim population "The Enemy Within".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 03:39 AM

Should read "existence of racism in Britain" of course, before he typo opportunists try to score points.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 04:14 AM

The "enemy within" tag from your own prime minister isn't nice. I have the T shirt...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 06:58 AM

"I have the T shirt"
Where can I get one? - rather win that title than the Eurovision
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 07:23 AM

Doing a fair bit of 'rejecting & ignoring' of your own, it seems to me Jim. I can't see where expressing fear of what, on present showing, are likely to be the long-term effects of the present situation, is "vilifying" anybody. I do denounce certain sections of the demographic under consideration for their dangerous interpretations of the teachings of their Prophet; which they nevertheless claim are the correct ones [what did they exclaim as they hacked poor Mr Rigby to slivers?], and which are liable to have the same baleful effects on others as they have already had on eg Rigby himself, the WTC, the journalists murdered over the Muhamed cartoons, Theo van Gogh, the Beslan school massacre victims [cont p 94]... But that's terror on my part, not 'vilification' of anybody that I can see.

Meanwhile you and your lot go on defending their goings-on, just vaguely denouncing all these enormities as nothing but regrettable but only-to-be-expected results of our way of thinking;perhaps to be just a little bit deplored, to be sure, but all our own silly fault after all --

your constant 'lip-service' cliché right back to you in your teeth!

Aren't you ashamed? Of course you're not. Much too busy sleepwalking into disaster for your grandchildren.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 09:14 AM

"Doing a fair bit of 'rejecting & ignoring' of your own"
I have rejected nothing Mike - no presented facts anyway - your irrational xenophobia doesn't count as fact, just irrational xenophobia.
I do not ignore the murder of Rigby - I do reject your cynically emotive use of the man's death to back up your hatred.
His death is one and the same as that of the householder who was kicked to death and set on fir by a bunch of racist thugs - you fail to comment on that - or any of the other deaths and racist attacks that have taken place and are continuing.
"your constant 'lip-service' cliché right back to you in your teeth!"
I don't go in for lip service - I condemn any form of terrorism - I realise it would be (once more) a waste of time my requesting that you qualify your extremely dishonest statement with an example.
I object to people like you using the acts of criminals to condemn and entire religion and community - you may not have the bottle to come out with it as blatantly as Keith, but you describe his blanket attacks as 'common sense' or some such approval.
These cultural generalisations are in no way different than those used by the Nazis to exterminate Jews
It is not me who should be ashamed of myself - you really need to take a long-hard look at your own position.
I ask again - what do you propose to do about 'the enemy within' as you have painted them?
Jim Carroll
Don't suppose you could spare a few of your crockodile tears for any of these?
RACIST MURDERS
ISLAMOPHOBIC INCIDENTS
United Kingdom[edit]
The English Defence League organises demonstrations against Islamism, but has been criticised for targeting Muslims in general.
As of early 2006, a video surfaced showing British soldiers beating Iraqi children on a compound.[58] In March 2006, Jamia Masjid mosque in Preston was attacked by gangs of white youths using brick and concrete block. The youths damaged a number of cars outside the mosque and stabbed a 16 year-old Muslim teenager.[59] On July 6, 2009, the Glasgow branch of Islamic Relief was badly damaged by a fire which police said was started deliberately, and which members of the Muslim community of Scotland allege was Islamophobic.[60]
In 2005, The Guardian commissioned an ICM poll which indicated an increase in anti-Muslim incidents, particularly after the London bombings in July 2005.[61][62] Another survey of Muslims, this by the Open Society Institute, found that of those polled 32% believed they had suffered religious discrimination at airports, and 80% said they had experienced Islamophobia.[63][64] In July 2005, a Muslim man, Kamal Raza Butt, was beaten to death outside a corner shop in Nottingham by a gang of youths who shouted anti-Islamic abuse at him.[65]
On the 26 August 2007 fans of the English football club Newcastle United directed anti-Muslim chants at Egyptian Middlesbrough F.C. striker Mido. An FA investigation was launched[66] He revealed his anger at The FA's investigation, believing that they would make no difference to any future abuse.[67] Two men were eventually arrested over the chanting and were due to appear at Teesside Magistrates Court.[68]
In January 2010, a report from the University of Exeter's European Muslim research centre noted that the number of anti-Muslim hate crimes has increased, ranging from "death threats and murder to persistent low-level assaults, such as spitting and name-calling," for which the media and politicians have been blamed with fueling anti-Muslim hatred. The Islamophobic incidents it described include: "Neil Lewington, a violent extremist nationalist convicted in July 2009 of a bomb plot; Terence Gavan, a violent extremist nationalist convicted in January 2010 of manufacturing nail bombs and other explosives, firearms and weapons; a gang attack in November 2009 on Muslim students at City University; the murder in September 2009 of Muslim pensioner, Ikram Syed ul-Haq; a serious assault in August 2007 on the Imam at London Central Mosque; and an arson attack in June 2009 on Greenwich Islamic Centre."[69][70] Other Islamophobic incidents mentioned in the report include "Yasir, a young Moroccan," being "nearly killed while waiting to take a bus from Willesden to Regent's Park in London" and "left in a coma for three months"; "Mohammed Kohelee," a "caretaker who suffered burns to his body while trying to prevent an arson attack against Greenwich Mosque"; "the murder" of "Tooting pensioner Ekram Haque" who "was brutally beaten to death in front of his three year old granddaughter" by a "race-hate" gang; and "police officers" being injured "during an English Defence League (EDL) march in Stoke."[71]
An academic paper by Katy Sian published in the journal South Asian Popular Culture in 2011 explored the question of how "forced conversion narratives" arose around the Sikh diaspora in the United Kingdom.[72] Sian, who reports that claims of conversion through courtship on campuses are widespread in the UK, says that rather than relying on actual evidence they primarily rest on the word of "a friend of a friend" or on personal anecdote. According to Sian, the narrative is similar to accusations of "white slavery" lodged against the Jewish community and foreigners to the UK and the US, with the former having ties to anti-semitism that mirror the Islamophobia betrayed by the modern narrative. Sian expanded on these views in 2013's Mistaken Identities, Forced Conversions, and Postcolonial Formations.[73]
In February 2011, a social club in North Wales was burned down in an arson attack. This came just weeks after Flintshire Muslim Cultural Society announced plans to open a mosque there.[74]
A number of attacks on Muslim buildings followed the May 2013 murder of Lee Rigby.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 27 Jun 14 - 09:36 AM

" If there was a "sense of endemic fear" in Muslim communities, it was partly created by Fiyaz Mughal himself."

In short he deliberately spread misleading information - exactly as Yasser Arafat's Uncle did in Palestine in 1921 to foment riots and attacks on the Jewish community in Jerusalem and in other parts of the territory.

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?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 01:36 PM

TOLERANT BRITAIN 2010
Jim Carroll

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 07:26 AM

Jim approved and offered support.
Thanks Jim.

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: GUEST,#
Date: 28 Jun 14 - 08:21 AM

Islam is a sick religion.

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

Another cop out?

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Jun 14 - 01:44 PM

IS THIS ABOUT RELIGION?
jIM cARROLL

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 02:46 PM

"who continue to add Palestinian territory"

Which Palestinian territory would that be?

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: 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: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:24 PM

The Palestinians that I know are members of West Bank Christian families that were driven out of their millenium-old Christian towns by the Arab League in 1948.

Going to give them back their homes? They lived in Ramallah.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:27 PM

So, what is YOUR solution, Jim, besides supporting terrorists as long as they kill Jews and anyone who support Israel's existence? Please tell us how you would resolve it.

Then you can address the hundreds of thousands displaced from Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh when THEY were divided.

Oh- that's right- No Jews, no need to complain about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 04:35 PM

Moments ago, 20 rockets were fired from Gaza at Israel. 4 were intercepted by Iron Dome and 16 landed in open areas near Be'er Sheva, 50 kilometers from the Gaza Strip. In the past month, more than 200 rockets have been launched at Israel from Gaza.

Israel will do what it must in order to protect its borders and its citizens, and Israel Defense Forces will continue to respond to these terror attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 14 - 10:16 PM

one of those boo-words to disguise antisemitism

Nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:17 AM

Interesting "Guest" on BBC's "Hardtalk" programme a few days ago, a Somali local Government Official, Mohamed Nur, who was appointed as the Mayor of Mogadishu and served in that capacity between 2010 and early 2014.

A Muslim his views on the radical Islamic jihadist group are extremely uncompromising, paraphrased, they are simply this:

Kill them, wherever and whenever you encounter them. Do not try to capture them or put them on trial, kill them. Their leadership including it's "middle tier will not fight, they have grown too rich to risk either their lives or their comforts, let their "foot soldiers" know that there is only death, and the "leadership" will then have to negotiate if they wish to keep what they have gained.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 02:45 AM

"So, what is YOUR solution, Jim, besides supporting terrorists as long as they kill Jews and anyone who support Israel's existence? "
More crouching behind the sic million dead Bruce - it wasn't Jews who facilitated the Sabra Shatila massacre or dropped white phosphorus on schools and hospitals or have attempted to starve the Palestinian people into submission..... it was to Israelis wot dunnit - blame the Jews if you wish - now that's what I call Antisemitism.
What do I think should happen?
I think a return to the peace table without the Israeli wrecking tactics and the U.S abandoning the use of the U.N. veto in their support (used over 100 times) might help.
What do you believe should happen to the 2.5 million Palestinians living in The West Banks and the 6.5 million refugees driven from their homes - another 'final solution' d'you think?
None of your rhetoric attempts to answer the fact that the Arabs have occupied the area continually for thousands of years, whatever was drwn up in a document by a handful pf politicians to get Britain off the hook.
You continually accuse me and others of supporting terrorism - without proof - you have continually and supported the massacre of Palestinian and their ethnic cleansing from the territory
What is your answer - I've given you mine - negotiation?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:28 AM

" the fact that the Arabs have occupied the area continually for thousands of years"

That is a bit of a "fairy tale" isn't it Christmas? Especially as the same could be said for certain Jews, but they were chased out but for some convoluted reasoning in your own mind they have no right of return.

Any idea what the qualifying criteria (UN) is to be classified as a "Palestinian" Arab with this automatic right of return? I think it would surprise you - absolutely astounds me.

You ask:

"What do you believe should happen to the 2.5 million Palestinians living in The West Banks and the 6.5 million refugees driven from their homes"

Well Christmas the same should have happened to them as happened to the 820,000 Jewish people forcibly deported and robbed of their property and possessions in the wake of the wars of 1948, 1956 and 1967. Those "Palestinian" Arabs should have been absorbed into the social fabric of the Arab countries who encouraged those "Palestinian" Arabs to fight instead of accepting the two-state solution that they were offered in 1947 by the United Nations.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:39 AM

"That is a bit of a "fairy tale" isn't it Christmas?"
No Corporal i its in the bible so it must be true
"Well Christmas the same should have happened to them as happened to the 820,000 Jewish people"
Eye for an eye eh?
Good old Christian ethic.
I'll raise you my 9,000,000 Palestinians to your 820,000 Jews - no contest!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 05:53 AM

Well actually Christmas I would not rely on the Bible as a historical record if accuracy is what you are after, and even if it was I cannot remember there being any reference to Arabs in it Egyptians, Philistines, Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, Samaritans, Greeks, Romans, etc, etc - But no Arabs.

One other point to draw to your attention Christmas there never were 9 million Palestinians in 1948, the number who fled on the orders and advice of the Arab League numbered some 711,000. Instead of welcoming those refugees the very Arab nations who had encouraged the Arabs of Palestine to reject what was on offer by the UN and to fight instead imprisoned the "Palestinian Refugees in camps (Many of those on captured Palestinian territory) and deliberately kept them in squalor and abject poverty for political reasons. Roughly the same number of Jews were displaced but the Jews allowed those refugees to assimilate into the general population and become part of the fabric of the nation.

There are no established political or territorial boundaries within the Mandated Territory of Palestine as defined by the League of Nations in 1923, if you think that there are then please get the Hamas version of it posted on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:39 AM

"Roughly the same number of Jews were displaced but the Jews allowed those refugees to assimilate into the general population and become part of the fabric of the nation."

Actually, there were MORE Jews displaced.

But Jim does not, from all his comments and posts, consider Jews as people with any rights whatsoever.

Nor does he consider Muslims as "real" people, as witness his silence on the India/Pakistan division.

ONLY the fact that it it Jews who are to be displaced is of interest to an obvious bigot like Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 07:47 AM

"What do you believe should happen to the 2.5 million Palestinians living in The West Banks and the 6.5 million refugees driven from their homes - another 'final solution' d'you think?"

I know what YOUR solution to the entire population of Israel is- you have supported those who STATE that their goal is to "KILL ALL JEWS'"


I note also that you have been silent on the war crimes even now being performed by the Palestinians- Seems like you are OK with violations of the Geneva Convention EVEN AFTER THE PALESTINIANS SIGNED THEM , when they are against Jews.




Your numbers are suspect- could you please justify them? If you count ALL the decedents of Jews that were driven out of Arab nations since 1948, I think that you will find it even larger, since the starting number was larger.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:02 AM

Over ten million Muslims killed by Muslims in the Middle East since 1950 vs. fifty thousand in the Arab-Israeli conflict in that time. Another 'final solution' d'you think?"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:17 AM

Jim has already demonstrated that it is not the killing of Arabs that he minds- Just that Jews are not being killed enough to satisfy his desires.


Note how often Jim injects the 6 million Jews killed in WW II into his conversation. He seems quite fixated on that.

I am waiting on his attacks on Gypsies and homosexuals.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 08:50 AM

"Just that Jews are not being killed enough to satisfy his desires."
Oh dear - once again - substantiate yourt lies you Antisemitic toe rag.
"I know what YOUR solution to the entire population of Israel is- you have supported those who STATE that their goal is to "KILL ALL JEWS'""
Where?
"Note how often Jim injects the 6 million Jews killed in WW II into his conversation."
Yes - I most certainly am, as are all my Jewish friends (including the ones with tattooed numbers on their forearms) who don't want it to happen with Muslims and are ashamed at what has happened to Israel in the name of the Jewish people
Now who do listen to, an unreconstructed liar who blames the Jews for Israeli war crimes and atrocities or Holocaust survivors and their families - er.... let me see?
"I would not rely on the Bible as a historical record if accuracy is what you are after,"
No neither would I - don't they do'irony' in the T.A?
Doesn't make any difference to the fact that they have occupied the land for millenia - and have as much right to be there ans anybody
Our differences appear to be simple - I opt for negotiation, you go for ethnic cleansing.
"let the crimes of the fathers be suffered on the children" is another good Christian ethic which you seem at home with.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:18 AM

Sorry, Jim
YOU are the one who supports the side that has stated it's goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the killing of all Jews.


YOU are the one who supports genocide.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 09:25 AM

I was at a conference with a man doing research in Germany recently. He is Palestinian and considers himself an Arab.

He doesn't wish to kill all Jews. He was presenting a paper he wrote alongside a colleague from Tel Aviv who is Jewish.

Sorry Bruce, what were you saying again? It's just that I have problems taking in stereotypical bigotry.

Your sonnets are crap as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:55 AM

"YOU are the one who supports the side that has stated it's goal is the destruction of the State of Israel and the killing of all Jews."
Where have I EVER done that - anywhere
I will donate a large sume to the charity of your choice if you produce any support from me for any of these people - any whatsoever.
On the other hand, you and yous have persistently supported the massacre of refugees, the killing of civilians and the destruction of their homes, the ethnic cleansing of Bedouins, the use of chemical weapons on homes, schools and hospitals.... and all this you have blamed on "THE JEWS - I've shown you yours - now you show me mine.
Won't hold my breath though!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 10:55 AM

So, you are calling Hamas liars? THEY have stated such in their own publications.


And Muskets are known for being less accurate than rifles- you miss the mark again.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 11:29 AM

"supported the massacre of refugees, the killing of civilians and the destruction of their homes, the ethnic cleansing of Bedouins, the use of chemical weapons on homes, schools and hospitals.... and all this you have blamed on "THE JEWS "

No, I have not.

You have claimed that without any proof other than your statement.

If that is all that is needed, YOU are certainly guilty of all that I have stated. Since you provide no proof, I see no need to provide you with any. It is obvious from your posts that you are all that I have stated.

Sorry if I demand the same treatment of my accusations that YOU have demanded for yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:05 PM

http://middleeast.about.com/od/palestinepalestinians/a/me080106b.htm?utm_term=hamas%20charter&utm_content=p1-main-1-title&utm_me


Article Thirteen: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences: [Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware." From time to time a clamoring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that condition, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the [prospective] parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conferences are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed. Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did the Unbelievers do justice to the Believers? "And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor will the Christians, till thou follow their creed. Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah [himself] is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper." Sura 2 (the Cow), verse 120 There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game. As the hadith has it: "The people of Syria are Allah's whip on this land; He takes revenge by their intermediary from whoever he wished among his worshipers. The Hypocrites among them are forbidden from vanquishing the true believers, and they will die in anxiety and sorrow." (Told by Tabarani, who is traceable in ascending order of traditionaries to Muhammad, and by Ahmed whose chain of transmission is incomplete. But it is bound to be a true hadith, for both story tellers are reliable. Allah knows best.)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:13 PM

I take it you are not in the position to take up my offer?
I have long realised they you people are not exactly the brightest starfishes in the sandbucket, but at least Keith attempts to bluster his way out of having lied.
I suggest you sling your hook and take your Antisemitic and dishonest arse elsewhere if you lack the bottle to back up your lying
It really does sum up you people - great role models for your cause!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:34 PM

You have stated you support forcing Israel to NEGOTIATE with HAMAS, who have stated that they will not negotiate in good faith and that their goal, and yours, it appears, is to kill all the Jews.

Send that large sum to

FSGW Treasurer
8252 The Midway
Annandale,VA 22003


Waiting to hear about it's delivery.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 12:37 PM

YOUR CHALLENGE:
"I will donate a large sume to the charity of your choice if you produce any support from me for any of these people - any whatsoever."


YOU have been shown to support forcing Israel to negotiate with those who have stated their goal is to destroy Jews, and that they will not negotiate in good faith. Either you are a total idiot, or you have demonstrated support for them.

SO PAY UP.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:12 PM

"YOU have been shown to support forcing Israel to negotiate with those who "have stated their goal is to destroy Jews"
Then the Israeli Government is guilty of (one more time) supporting those who "have stated their goal is to destroy Jews"
The Israeli Government entered those negotiations of their own free will - nobody forced them, they were prepared to "negotiate with those who "have stated their goal is to destroy Jews".
Sorry - feeble try - certainly no cigar.
You have a chance to make a large donation to a charity of your choice - you refuse to avail yourself of that offer.
You obviously have as much contempt for those in need of charity as you do for the rest of humanity.
Game, set and match - you are a liar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:22 PM

Where is the outrage over the bombardment of civilians in Israel?

You see, as most people in the UK were waking up this morning, and those in Europe, United States and elsewhere around the world were going about their daily routines, here in Israel over one million people were running for cover from a hail of rockets being rained down by Palestinian Hamas terrorists in Gaza.

In the last 24 hours alone, over 120 rockets have been fired on southern Israel. That's approximately five rockets per hour. By the time I finish this article, odds are that count will have risen to 125 rockets.

To put things in context: one million Israelis is roughly 13 per cent of the population. Thirteen per cent of the UK population equates to about 8.4 million people, or the entire population of London.

The Telegraph

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:36 PM

So, Jim, your offer is a lie- just as most of what you post.


Keep cheering those Palestinian war crimes- After all, they are doing what YOU want- attacking Jews.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:43 PM

"Then the Israeli Government is guilty of (one more time) supporting those who "have stated their goal is to destroy Jews"
The Israeli Government entered those negotiations of their own free will - nobody forced them, they were prepared to "negotiate with those who "have stated their goal is to destroy Jews".
"

As usual. you are shown up as a liar.

Israel DOES NOT negotiate with Hamas.

YOU LIE.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:45 PM

Or is it that All Arabs look alike to you? wink, wink

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 01:47 PM

Islam, or at least modern reinterpretations of it, is at the core of some of the Arabs' deep troubles. The faith's claim, promoted by many of its leading lights, to combine spiritual and earthly authority, with no separation of mosque and state, has stunted the development of independent political institutions. A militant minority of Muslims are caught up in a search for legitimacy through ever more fanatical interpretations of the Koran. Other Muslims, threatened by militia violence and civil war, have sought refuge in their sect. In Iraq and Syria plenty of Shias and Sunnis used to marry each other; too often today they resort to maiming each other. And this violent perversion of Islam has spread to places as distant as northern Nigeria and northern England.

Today the outlook is bloody. But ultimately fanatics devour themselves. Meanwhile, wherever possible, the moderate, secular Sunnis who comprise the majority of Arab Muslims need to make their voices heard. And when their moment comes, they need to cast their minds back to the values that once made the Arab world great. Education underpinned its primacy in medicine, mathematics, architecture and astronomy. Trade paid for its fabulous metropolises and their spices and silks. And, at its best, the Arab world was a cosmopolitan haven for Jews, Christians and Muslims of many sects, where tolerance fostered creativity and invention.

The tragedy of the Arabs

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:04 PM

"Israel DOES NOT negotiate with Hamas."
Nobody has suggested negotiating with Hamas - the Palestinian people are the victims here ans unless you are prepared to negotiate for a settlement the alternative is to drive them out en mass or exterminate them - what do you suggest?
"Where is the outrage over the bombardment of civilians in Israel?"
There is a war on - tanks agains civilians and their homes,Berlin type wall, phosphorus used against schools and hospitals, massacres of 3500 refugees, a seven year blockade in an attempt to starve the ordinary Palestinian into submission.... in fact, war crimes.
I deplore the use of rockets, but it's a little difficult to be outraged by their use as retaliation compared to the larger picture.
Israel is now considered a fascist state, by Jews and non-Jews alike.
It is putting into operation an Apartheid policy, it has adopted the same solution that was adopted by East Germany to cut the Palestinian farmers off from their land - starve them out - it is clearing legitimate occupiers from their land in order to create a Jewish state and it is ethnic cleansing nomads.
The world has been here before - last time it was the Jews who were prominent victims, this time it is the Israelis jackbooting their way across the Middle East in the name of the Jewish people.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:10 PM

Jim,

"Nobody has suggested negotiating with Hamas - the Palestinian people are the victims here ans unless you are prepared to negotiate for a settlement the alternative is to drive them out en mass or exterminate them - what do you suggest? "


YOU have stated that Israel should negotiate with Hamas, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF GAZA.

What do YOU suggest that Israel does WITH HAMAS?

IT IS HAMAS THAT HAS STATED IT WANTS TO DESTROY ISRAEL AND KILL JEWS.
IT IS HAMAS THAT ISRAEL WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH.

Israel will AND HAS negotiated with Palestinians.

You need to learn some history.

Perhaps that is why you keep making lies up.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 03:32 PM

"YOU have stated that Israel should negotiate with Hamas, AS THE GOVERNMENT OF GAZA."
Where - I have never mentioned Hamas - you are again lying
Where have I ever mentioned negotiating with Hamas, or even mentioned them?
Israel has negotiated with Pthe palestinian leadership therefore, by your argument, Israel is guilty of negotiating with people who wish to destroy the Jewish people, which makes, again according to your argument, Antisemitic.
I do believe Israel has done as much damage to the Jewish people as is being done by any other nation in the present time, but that is not part of your lying attempts to make me an anti Semite
As I said put up or piss off
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:08 PM

Let me 'splain something…

"Israel has negotiated with the Palestinian leadership therefore, by your argument, Israel is guilty of negotiating with people who wish to destroy the Jewish people, which makes, again according to your argument, Antisemitic."



This is a false statement by you.

Israel has NOT negotiated with HAMAS AS YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY expressed a desire for- since the were the "Legitimate elected government of Gaza". YOUR STATEMENT "Where - I have never mentioned Hamas - you are again lying " is in contrast to your posts.

HAMAS has declared it wants to destroy Israel, Kill Jews, and declared it will not negotiate honestly.

The PA UNTIL RECENTLY (When Israel stopped negotiating) was NOT allied with HAMAS.

The PA had renounced the destruction of Israel.




BY MY ARGUMENTS, YOU are being an idiot.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 08 Jul 14 - 04:13 PM

"I do believe Israel has done as much damage to the Jewish people as is being done by any other nation in the present time, "

YOU may have whatever opinion you like, but you have provided no justification for anyone reading your posts to agree with you.



"but that is not part of your lying attempts to make me an anti Semite"

YOUR POSTS have demonstrated you are by the EU definition and anti-Semite. No lie, just a factual statement.

If you don't like it, try not acting in the manner which proves you are one.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:28 AM

"Israel has NOT negotiated with HAMAS AS YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY expressed a desire for"
Where - now is your chance to prove me a liar?
The fact that you have to lie shows you have no argument - the fact that you lie public shows you to be a very stupid individual.
Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians - that is all I have ever suggested.
If that make me an Antisemite, then the Israeli regime is Antisemitic also.
You really are not very good at this, are you?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:08 AM

"The fact that you have to lie shows you have no argument - the fact that you lie public shows you to be a very stupid individual."

This describes you precisely.



"Israel has negotiated with the Palestinians - that is all I have ever suggested. "

Then YOU admit that Israel DOES NOT NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS and those who STATE that they want to destroy Israel, kill Jews, and will never negotiate in good faith.

YOU have demanded that Israel should negotiate with the PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT IN GAZA- WHICH IS HAMAS.


Or is it that "All Arabs look alike" to you?

I bet you even have "friends who are Jewish".




"If that make me an Antisemite, then the Israeli regime is Antisemitic also."

No it is YOUR demand that Israel negotiate WITH HAMAS, and YOUR posts that, according to the EU definition of anti-Semetisn, define YOU as an anti-Semite.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 03:53 PM

"YOU have demanded that Israel should negotiate with the PALESTINIAN GOVERNMENT IN GAZA- WHICH IS HAMAS."
Israel has already negotiated with the Government of Palestine - they have again if there is to be peace
You have always claimed that the Palestinians want to kill Jews and destroy Israel - Israel has negotiated with them on - how many occasions, therefore it has betrayed the Jewish people - according to you
You are a lying shitbag who hasn't the bollocks to admit that you are wrong - no different than any other apologist for Israeli terrorism
Please keep this up - it shows what a shower of shit you people really are
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: pdq
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 04:07 PM

"...You are a lying shitbag who hasn't the bollocks to admit that you are wrong - no different than any other apologist for Israeli terrorism. Please keep this up - it shows what a shower of shit you people really are..." ~ Jim Carroll


Why is this person allowed to post his daily ration of hatred, bigotry and shit-slinging?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 06:40 PM

One might pose the same question about yourself, pdq.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Jul 14 - 07:03 PM

"it shows what a shower of shit you people really are
Jim Carroll"
.,,.

WHICH people precisely, Jim? I think you had better count to 100 before posting anything like that again, before you really land your exceedingly thoughtless self in some of what you accuse some [insufficiently specified] people of being.

FOR YOUR OWN SAKE ~~ FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE WATCH IT!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 02:22 AM

" I think you had better count to 100"
I was referring to people who deliberately lie to make their case, as Bruce is doing here and as is common practice with at least two other members of this forum.
It undermines every one of these discussions over and over again and drives them into the ground
I disagree with you, and others on the question of Israel, but at least, I accept that your arguments are honest and thought out.
I will not accept being called a supporter of terrorism and an Antisemite, by him, you or anybody, without getting angry nad feeling free to express that anger.
Please stick your warnings where they don't show.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:44 AM

Jim,

YOU state:

"Israel has already negotiated with the Government of Palestine - they have again if there is to be peace"

YES, Israel has negotiated with the LEGAL government of the Palestinian Authority- WHICH RENOUNCED the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews, at least officially.

THEY HAVE NOT NEGOTIATED WITH HAMAS.

You rally do think that ALL Palestinians look alike, don't you??



"You have always claimed that the Palestinians want to kill Jews and destroy Israel"

NO, you lying shit for brains. I HAVE STATED that HAMAS has, in it's charter, stated those points.



" - Israel has negotiated with them on -"

ONLY those that have renounced the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews.





"how many occasions, therefore it has betrayed the Jewish people - according to you"

NONE






"You are a lying shitbag who hasn't the bollocks to admit that you are wrong "

This is a reasonable definition of Jim Carroll.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 07:48 AM

Jim,

YOU state:

"I will not accept being called a supporter of terrorism and an Antisemite, by him, you or anybody, without getting angry nad feeling free to express that anger."

Them show us SOME indication that you are NOT " a supporter of terrorism and an Antisemite:" or else live with the FACT that you are one.

I have shown you are a liar, and have consistently denied proven facts. That says a lot about YOU, not those of us who point out your bigotry.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 08:09 AM

Don't reply to me so truculently, please Jim. I was particularly taken aback, as the form my question to you showed, by your use of the phrase "you people", which, in the context, and taking into account the direction the argument had taken, was extremely imprecise, and could have been unfortunately interpreted [or over-interpreted!]. I was simply trying to point out that your hot haste in posting can sometimes result in unfortunate choices of phrase, of which you should be aware. If you wish me to stick such well-meant indications uncomfortably, then I shall just leave you to get on with it, and hope there are no disagreeable outcomes.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:47 AM

"WHICH RENOUNCED the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews, at least officially."
Yet they still negotiated with the Palestinian government of at least six occasions.
"THEY HAVE NOT NEGOTIATED WITH HAMAS."
Nobody has ever claimed they have or should.
"ONLY those that have renounced the destruction of Israel and the killing of all Jews. "
There has never been any stipulation on which who should take part in those talks.
"Them show us SOME indication that you are NOT ""
No, you nasty little bollocks - you have accused me - you show me where I am these things.
You, on the other hand, have made it quite clear that you are a supporter of Israeli fascism (so described by Jewish Noam Chomsky and suggested as a possibility by Jew Albert Einstien - and many other Jews) - no proof needed for this.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 11:55 AM

You have been informed of your failure to address reality. Since you provide no support for any of your comments, when you continue to state false points you are deliberately lying.

It is not possible to debate with people who lie.

You have demonstrated that you have nothing to contribute to any further discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 01:17 PM

"You have been informed of your failure to address reality" By whom - Mike - don't think so?
"It is not possible to debate with people who lie"
I'm still willing to give it a try - go on, make your point, you haven't yet
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 10 Jul 14 - 04:36 PM

Them show us SOME indication that you are NOT " a supporter of terrorism and an Antisemite:

Sounds like the old lawyer's ruse: "So wnen did you stop beating your wife?"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 03:15 AM

Michael. I suggest you add bee keepers to your list of people to be wary of.

More people in this country have died from bee stings than through terrorism in the last five years.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 11 Jul 14 - 09:48 AM

"Moderate Muslims are not very moderate...today"

"I am not looking to do away with fundamentalists, I am looking to remind them that there is only one God and they are not it".


Difference between Muslim moderates and real reformists