""Where has Keith used, or even suggested, the concept of its being purely religious? "Purely" is Don's own tendentious [and dishonest] interpolation.

You are the one debating dishonestly I fear, Don, in refusing to take on board the obvious point that 'religious' and 'political' are not mutually exclusively ring-fenced terms, and that it is perfectly patent that these young men were motivated by a combination of both elements.""

OK. I don't like massive cut 'n pastes, but you issued the challenge, so here's just part of the available evidence that Keith is refusing that combination in a prolonged attack upon Islam and its followers.

If you want more, just scan through his (and his sidekick Bobad's) massive posts about Muslims killing each other in other countries, internal disputes nothing to do with Al Qaeda or global Islamist terrorism.

""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St
From: Peter K (Fionn) - PM
Date: 23 May 13 - 09:11 AM

Keith, rather than try to outdo each other in the vocabulary of atrocity, it might be more productive to give measured thought to yesterday's horror/atrocity/barbarity. Choice of words aside, Greg's point is entirely valid and, as far as I can see, he's the first to have raised it.

No doubt you'll agree that these violent acts, by people willing to sacrifice their own lives, would not be happening if the US had reacted rationally to 9-11 and the Bush-Blair criminal invasion of Saddam had not happened. The challenge now is to find some way of getting back to where we were.

And before you say it, yes, we would obviously be in a better place still if 9-11 had not happened in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 23 May 13 - 09:19 AM

I have not indulged in any vocabulary of atrocity.
I do not accept that such deeds are in anyway justified.
You and Greg are entitled to your opinions, but I will not be joining a debate on the pros and cons of this act, or how much we are to blame for what was done.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 May 13 - 11:05 AM

That we should leave (which we are anyway) is a widely held view.
Anyone can make their views known by writing to MPs and the press, organising petitions and protests and all the other ways that are open to free citizens in a democracy.

Chopping someone up is not a political action.
Indeed we can not be seen to be influenced by such acts, thereby encouraging more of them, so it actually makes it harder to make any change in that direction.

I do not think it is in any way appropriate to discuss British foreign policy as a cause for this act.
Many (most) here are bitterly opposed to foreign policies, but they do not chop people up.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 25 May 13 - 05:01 AM

Democracy has not failed because a minority are unable to get their unpopular views reflected in policy.
Extremists have always responded to that fact with violence, but I did not expect to see that response proposed here.

us whose governments involve us in organised slaughter in distant countries
If a majority believed that, the government would fall.
They don't and nor do I.

The slaughter in those lands is overwhelmingly committed by others, who happen to be Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:36 AM

I would ask those who say that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims are constrained to commit no murder, how they reconcile that with current events in Syria and Iraq.

Mass atrocities against ordinary people and children are a daily occurrence, and for no tactical purpose.
They appear to be an end in themselves and committed by apparently deeply religious Muslims, even though the victims are also Muslims albeit the wrong sort.
How much less mercy can non-believers expect?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 06:40 AM

Thanks Bobad.

Jim, do you take issue with this?
Reuters today) - Evidence gathered by French authorities suggests the Muslim convert suspected of stabbing a soldier near Paris was acting in accordance with his religious beliefs, a state prosecutor said after the suspect's arrest on Wednesday.

Prosecutor Francois Molins told a news conference the suspect was seen on video surveillance camera "saying a Muslim prayer" minutes before an attack which came three days after the May 22 murder of a British soldier on the streets of London.

"That leads us to believe he was acting on the basis of religious beliefs," Molins said.


French police have said they believe the attack was inspired by the hacking to death of a British serviceman in southeast London by men shouting Islamist slogans.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 09:38 AM

Jim, you objected to the suggestion that it was a crime of religion.
My point was that it is pretty much universally accepted as such, as now is the attack in Paris.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 10:36 AM

attempt to pin these crimes as belonging to this or that particular brand of religion
We don't.
The perps. and their supporters do.
Why should we not believe them?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 PM

Why not Keith - you get away with it
An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted.
You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim.

They are acting on deeply held religious belief.
They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 04:08 PM


Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists
No.
- or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction.
No.

Am I claiming that active Islamist organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction?
Yes. They say so.
Why should we heed you and ignore them Jim?""

As you can see Mike, he takes them at their word when they talk about religion, but suddenly loses trust in that word when it mentions the response to Western foreign policy and military intervention in Muslim countries.

I won't bother asking for any apology for, or acknowledgement of, your slurs on my veracity, as you seem unusually hard line in your support of Keith on this thread.

Don T.