BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

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?