BS: Unarmed soldier killed, (London-May 2013)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: beardedbruce
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:55 AM

When a 14-year-old boy from the Syrian city of Aleppo named Mohammad Qatta was asked to bring one of his customers some coffee, he reportedly refused, saying, "Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won't."
According to a story reported by two grassroots Syrian opposition groups, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Aleppo Media Center, Qatta's words got him killed. A group of Islamist rebels, driving by in a black car, reportedly heard the exchange. They stopped the car, grabbed the boy and took him away.
Qatta, in refusing to serve a customer coffee – it's not clear why – had used a phrase that the Islamist rebels took as an insult toward the Prophet Mohammed, the most important figure in Islam. That offhand comment, made by a boy, was apparently enough for these rebels to warrant a grisly execution and public warning.

The rebels, according to ABC News' reconstruction of the Syrian groups' reports, appear to have whipped Qatta. When they brought him back to where they'd taken him, his head was wrapped by a shirt.
The rebels waited for a crowd to gather; Qatta's parents were among them. Speaking in classical Arabic, they announced that Qatta had committed blasphemy and that anyone else who dared insult the Prophet Mohammed would share his fate. Then, the shirt still wrapped around the boy's head, the rebels shot him in the mouth and neck.
As Islamist groups continue to take territory in the Syrian civil war, more Syrians are coming under the control of armed extremists who enforce an austere and sometimes violent version of sharia law. The Washington Post's Liz Sly has reported on other such punishments in Aleppo, where the al-Qaeda-allied group Jabhat al-Nusra is thought to lead the newly established sharia enforcement authority.
Such incidents are a sign of the rise of extremism within a rebel movement that began, over two years ago, largely unified behind the goals of ousting President Bashar al-Assad and establishing democracy.
The influx of avowed jihadists and extremists is bad news for Syrians, and not just because those under rebel rule have to worry about sharing Qatta's fate if they are perceived as insufficiently pious. The growth of these groups seems bound to exacerbate tensions between rebel factions, easing Assad's military path to victory, and scaring off the Western powers that might otherwise be persuaded to lend the rebels greater support. Lots of people in and outside of Syria could get behind the idea of ousting a cruel and unpopular dictator and replacing him with something more democratic. But few things are more universally loathed than an al-Qaeda-allied group that executes children.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/11/report-syrian-rebels-executed-a-14-year-old-boy-for-insulting-islam

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:54 AM

"Jasmin Alibhai-Brown? Mohammed Shafiq? Ahmed?"
Then you'll have no problem whatever in producing links to quotes which come anywhere near your "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"
All of these have warned against drawing racist conclusions from the handful of the cases in question.
What a liar!
Jim Carroll
PS What happened to Jack Straw - did he change his mind which precluded him from being your star witness - perhaps because he, as a former Home Secretary also warned against drawing racist conclusions, as did the judiciary and the police involved in the cases?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:29 AM

and re your Inquisition question, Don ~~ I have already made the point that Islam seems to have reached the stage of development that Xtnity had 500 years ago. The Inquisition was then; the teenager caned for being raped is now ~~ just last year, in N Nigeria. I am sure they will catch up in time. Will that woman being stoned in Riayadh next week, or the young man having his hand amputated in Islamabad, be content to wait, do you think?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:23 AM

Don ~~ Relativism is a great intellectual danger; and 'wotaboutery' a fatuous form of argument. Of course I deplore that young Irish woman's death due to interference from a regrettable strand of Xtnty, as much as anyone.

So does that mean you think I ought to love Islam, then? If not, what was your point, precisely?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 09:22 AM

When Sunni Muslims kill Shia Muslims, within the same country,just because they are Sunni and Shia Muslims, I think that killing is religiously motivated.

That is not an assertion.
More of a question.
Can anyone help me out, because there are hundreds dying violent deaths every day.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:50 AM

Oh, and BTW, you say you would rather make their lives more miserable than they already are

Surely the one of the prime characteristics of a racist is saying that because people are of the same race/religion/culture they are all the same. You are not saying that all Moslems lead miserable lives are you? That would be racist...

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:45 AM

What it boils down to is that, for all your lip-service to there being "good Muslims" you would rather make their lives more miserable than they already are by blaming their religion - you really have teamed up with the 'Dark Side' - pity, I thought you hasd more about you!

Like unto others, Jim, I give you the benefit of the doubt. I doubt whether you purposely misrepresented my words. I suspect that you either misunderstood or I did not make myself clear enough. At least I hope so.

I do not wish to make anyone's life miserable, even if they insist that I mean things that they cannot possibly know! There is no lip-service to "good Moslems", I know they are in the majority and I am friends with a lot of them. I shop with them. I drink with them (Yes, some do like a tipple!) and I even have my haircut with them. Remember, Jim, I work in Bradford at a place that employs around 3000 people with a high representation of Moslems. Where do you live and work now?

Anyhow, I have stated over and over again that the religion is not the people and the people are not the religion. The fruitcakes who performed this act and those who encouraged them may well insist that they were acting for the love of Allah and Mohammed. And they probably meant it. But all those good Moslems I know and many others I don't know will tell you that the nutters are not acting on their behalf. Eventually they will get rid of the radical factions and live in peace once more.

Now, please stop giving a good cause a bad name by going off on ridiculous flights of fancy. If you wish to accuse me of anything you need to know me an awful lot better to be credible.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 08:01 AM

""Islam does not allow abortion after 4 months either Don.""

A general rule which I am already aware of.

So I'll look forward to your posting of an example of a Muslim mother, in extremis, being refused a life saving termination.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:55 AM

In the end of course, it is immaterial who said it - it is a deeply racist and inflammatory statement and whoever subscribes to it is a racist - you said you subscribe to it.

Jasmin Alibhai-Brown?
Mohammed Shafiq?
Ahmed?

What a knob!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:55 AM

""But it is not only one side that cherry-picks. I ,in fact, respond merely to the cherry-picks of the other side.""

With the utmost respect Mike, that is precisely the problem.

Some rabid, half mad, Mullah fills the heads of impressionable young men with hatred based on cherry picking a tiny part of the Q'ran and treating it as if it were the whole message.

You respond by doing the self same cherry pick, and use it equally dishonestly to blacken the whole religion.

What, would you say, is the difference between that and blackening the Catholic religion by quoting the excesses of the inquisition, an argument which has been discredited and dismissed?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:52 AM

And why ask the same question a hundred times just to receive the same answer?

We have had this exact exchange how many times now?
Are you mad?
This thread is about Woolwich, not me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:50 AM

No public figure has in any way made such a sweeping statement publicly making such a horrific statement claiming that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency"

They all used their own words to ascribe the offending to their culture.
My only assumption was that culture impinges, to a greater or lesser extent, on all who grow up and live within it.

If you challenge "all" Jim, what proportion will you accept?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:45 AM

Islam does not allow abortion after 4 months either Don.

"Seyed al-Sabiq, author of Fiqh al-Sunnah, has summarized the views of the classical jurists in this regard in the following words:

Abortion is not allowed after four months have passed since conception because at that time it is akin to taking a life, an act that entails penalty in this world and in the Hereafter."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:41 AM

"That was being said by people of, or close to that culture."
No public figure has in any way made such a sweeping statement publicly making such a horrific statement claiming that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" which makes them prone to committing crimes of rape on underage women - had they done so they would have been exposed publicly, they would have run the risk of being charged with reciting race hatred and, had they been politicians, they would have been discharged from office - it is a blatantly racist statement to have made such a claim.
You have failed totally to produce one single quoted example and you have lied here when you said "I said at the time it was not my opinion, and have repeated that statement on every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of occasions you have brought it up since.
"It was not my opinion" - it clearly is your opinion - "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" - your opinion, nobody else's.
In the end of course, it is immaterial who said it - it is a deeply racist and inflammatory statement and whoever subscribes to it is a racist - you said you subscribe to it.
It is this and similar attitudes that have informed yours and your friend's arguments on this thread - as Richard points out - you can't unsay them and claim they were out of context - they will always be your particular 'elephants in the room'.
Of course, you could prove me partially wrong by producing a quote - but you won't because there isn't one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 07:37 AM

""Doesn't a religion that goes in for that sort of thing, with that insufferably self-righteous air of thus somehow proving itself better than the rest of you believers, lay itself open to more criticism than, say, Swedish Lutheranism?""

Tell that to the family of the young Irish woman, who recently lost her life because she was refused a termination which would have saved her.

What religion do you think they will find barbaric?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:37 AM

There were only 3 sentences in that post Richard.
Let's look at the post unedited.

Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM

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.).

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: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:22 AM

Very 'broadly', Richard. You know better than to mis-cite like that, you naughty boy. Lose 3 housepoints.

"Poisonous" was your word, not mine: not one I should have dreamed of using. I wouldn't say it shouldn't be 'permitted', either. In the indispensable locution of President Lincoln, 'those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like'; and it will obviously be 'permitted; wherever it happens to be traditionally based. But I certainly do not think its members should be encouraged, even by passivity, to settle in large numbers in parts of the world where it is not the indigenous system, bearing in mind the injunctions of its Prophet to convert by all means at disposal the entire kafir; liable, to put it at its lowest, to cause maybe a few bad feelings both ways, wouldn't you say?

And even if you wouldn't, I would. And I'll say it again if you like.

So I did mean Islam, not merely Islamism. I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean that I can't regard one religion as more alien to my way of thinking than another; so why shouldnt I 'single it out for greater criticism than other religions'? I think a religion whose adherents, where they hold sway, up to this very day, administer the sort of punishments, capital, amputatory, and corporal, on its citizens, often for offences which aren't even illegal elsewhere, could do with a bit of criticism. Are you happy that there is a country where a teenage girl recently publicly received 100 strokes of the cane on her bare buttocks for the dire offence of having been the victim of a gang-rape and thus being 'impure'? Doesn't a religion that goes in for that sort of thing, with that insufferably self-righteous air of thus somehow proving itself better than the rest of you believers, lay itself open to more criticism than, say, Swedish Lutheranism?

So don't be silly, Richard. Please...

But thanks for kind words about my writing [even if you wrote 'is' when you meant 'in' - its these litte ½p-orth of tar lapses of attention that detract & distract...]. One does one's best!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 06:22 AM

I said I believed culture was to blame.
That was being said by people of, or close to that culture.
Why would anyone not believe them?
On what grounds do you dismiss their well informed views?

I made it clear, in that sentence, that I only believed that because of the impeccable credentials of those people who stated it.

That is a reasonable and not a racist way to form an opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 05:16 AM

Keith - you cannot unsay what you said. You told us what you believed. We could see anyway but it was honest of you to admit it then and dishonest to deny it now.

M the GM - you told us what you believed (I am not bothering to check the exact words) - broadly that Islam was a poisonous faith that should not be permitted. With your delight is verbal prestidigitation, had you meant "Islamism" rather than "Islam" I am reasonably confident that you would have said so. You singled it out for greater criticism than other religions.

I note that the bigotweb is now wailing that a moslem who posted an inflammatory internet comment has had the case against him dropped, while a non-moslem woman has been sentenced to imprisonment. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=612635062081779&set=a.243378289007460.71744.213085425370080&type=1

Has anyone got the actual facts? I do note that some of the comments there could have been authored by Keith although most fall short of MtheGM's literary exhibitionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser)
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM

I don't always agree with Jim but his post quoting from the 'Guardian' was refreshingly sane and sensible. If people have reasons for doing what they do then they are responsible for what they do. If it's some sort of disorder at work then somehow they're not to blame (have I got that right?). Makes sense to me. If anything I'd go a little further. Even if people have been damaged and traumatised (either individually or collectively) that still doesn't let them off the hook. That goes equally for Israelis and Palestinians - or at least the people who purport to represent them. I still don't think that means the West is always the bad guy, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 03:56 AM

Jim dear, you have tried dozens and dozens of times to discredit me with that post.
It has never worked before, so I do not care in the least if you put it up yet again.
Don't be such a knob.
Everyone is bored with that whole thing anyway.

You are the only bigot here Jim.
(And a knob.)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 03:49 AM

Thought about it - there you go - just to put Keith's opinion in context - from a thread discussing abuse of underage girls by a handful of young Muslims.
Jim Carroll

"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."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 03:37 AM

"It must be something else."
What - Is it to be found in the Koran?
You didn't ask me to put up your "cultural implant" statement - I assume you don't want me to. Will think about whether I want to go through all the rigmarole of you saying you didn't say it, then saying you only said it because Jack Straw made you do it...... yatta - yattata!!
"Sorry, Jim. That is just one point of view. You happen to agree with it. Others don't."
Didn't say I agreed with it - just put it forward as a valid point to be considered in attempting how somebody could carry out such a brutal killing. It makes sense to me and it has been suggested at the beginning of this thread when it was populated by human beings and not racist would-be thugs who would drag themselves away from their keyboards and join their mates on the streets if only they could summon up the balls to do so.
It has been fully discussed in the press and on the media for a long time now that a cultural group who has been persecuted at home (Britain) for generations and who has seen their land/s of origin attacked and plundered by western forces in order (among other reasons) to secure oil supplies, should go to horrific extremes to fight back.
It happened in Syria where a people are being massacred by an ex-ally of the West while the world stood by and watched and did nothing - fair game for any nutty religious group!
Nobody is asking you to take anything on trust, just pointing out that there are many other valid and widely recognised facets to these events which you people won't even discuss.
What it boils down to is that, for all your lip-service to there being "good Muslims" you would rather make their lives more miserable than they already are by blaming their religion - you really have teamed up with the 'Dark Side' - pity, I thought you hasd more about you!
By the way - the "others" here who you say don't agree with it are reduced to the two who have made horrificly bigoted statements about cultural groups - here and elsewhere - enjoy your company.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 04:01 PM

I think my links are usually for actual evidence to support my opinion, rather than just similar opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 03:32 PM

Sorry, Jim. That is just one point of view. You happen to agree with it. Others don't.

I don't understand the point of just finding news or web articles that simply agree with what one says. Sheer volume does not make things right. If it were so all the pop music that people go and buy in their droves must be right too. Still doesn't mean I like or agree with it.

To be even handed, Keith does the same when he posts articles that agree with his view. Like I said - it can justify an opinion but it does not prove anything really.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM

Iraq.
2000 slaughtered in last two months, by other Muslims.

Likewise Aghanistan where most civilian deaths are at the hands of Taliban.

Syria. 5000 every month now.

So why do they kill our soldier?

Many people disagree with our foreign policy, but cut off no heads.
It must be something else.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:16 PM

Try this for size
Jim Carroll

Guardian 26th May.
"Why did the Woolwich killing happen? Less than a week on, the debate has swiftly moved on to the issue of "preventative measures", with Theresa May proposing new internet controls and the banning of groups preaching hate.
Yet anyone who dares to use the words "western foreign policy" in this context is bound to be speedily shut up by the likes of Paxman and co. This isn't because they have never heard of drones and Guantánamo. They are surely aware of the countless thousands of innocent civilians dispatched to their graves by western operations in the Arab world, for whom there are no floral tributes piled on the London pavements. It is rather because they imagine, in their muddled way, that to explain an event is to excuse it. Those who point to the dead of Iraq and Afghanistan are surely doing so as a devious way of justifying the slaughter of a young soldier outside his barracks.
Do they also think this about the crimes of Hitler or Stalin? Are they really suggesting that historians who delve into the origins of fascism are secret Nazi sympathisers, or that to lay bare the causes of the Gulag is to exonerate its architects? The problem for these commentators is that if an event can be explained, it must be rationally motivated, and that sounds uncomfortably close to endorsing it. To call an action rational, however, is by no means to justify it. Bringing western economies to their knees a few years ago was part of a perfectly rational project on the part of the banks. It sprang from a drive to increase their profits, a motive about which there is nothing in the least insane or impenetrable.
On this logic, the best way not to sound as though you are in favour of murdering soldiers on the streets of London is to see such events as utterly without rhyme or reason, like some baffling Dadaist happening. To concede that they have a motive, however malign, is to invest them with a dignity one feels the need to deny them. British intelligence, one assumes, was well aware some years ago that the IRA had rational grounds for its actions, however reprehensible it may have judged them. They weren't just killing out of boredom or bloodlust. The popular press, however, preferred to present guerrillas as gorillas – as psychopaths and wild beasts whose actions were simply unintelligible.
There are at least two problems with this strategy. For one thing, if you deny your enemy any shred of rationality, you come perilously close to excusing him. To be bereft of reason, like a baby or a squirrel, is to be morally innocent. This is why barristers do not usually accuse those they are prosecuting of being dangerous lunatics. For another thing, you can kiss goodbye to any hope of victory over your foes. If they do things for no reason at all, it is hard to see how you can defeat them.
After the Boston bombing a few weeks ago, a CNN anchorman asked a so-called expert whether there was anything in the background of the alleged bombers that might help to explain their actions. Unsurprisingly, the expert didn't reply: "Yes, there is, actually, it's called western foreign policy." Instead, he jawed on about the possibility of early childhood trauma. If political motives are inadmissible then psychological ones will have to do instead. Maybe these two young Chechnyans were dropped on their heads as infants, or rudely yanked from the breast.
It is not true, as 19th-century liberals such as George Eliot and John Stuart Mill tended to believe, that to understand all is to forgive all. On the contrary, to place an action in its context may be to deepen the guilt of its perpetrators. Appeals to context are not always ways of letting people off the hook, a fact of which those who ritually protest that their racist or sexist words were taken out of context seem unaware. Invoking the injustice and humiliation inflicted by the west on the Muslim world will not do as grounds for murder. But neither will invoking the necessities of the so-called war on terror do as a justification for massacring the innocent."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/woolwich-murders-reason-beat-terrorists

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:09 PM

OK, Jim - I can see your point better now it is not peppered with the kind of stuff I mentioned before. For many reasons I have already gone into, I disagree and do not believe that blaming religion for this killing tars all Moslems with the same brush. But that is my opinion and you have yours. I will never try to force my opinion on anyone else and as long as no-one tries to force theirs on me I am happy. Now, can we also agree that a sensible and logical argument, whether agreed with or not, is better than personal abuse and manic rants? For all concerned.

My view, once more for the record. If the perpetrators of this atrocity say that they did it in the name of Islam, that is all I can go on for now. The actions of the vast majority of Moslems have proven that they are as horrified by it as we are and shows that they wish to distance themselves from the religious fanatics. Therefore the perpetrators version of Islam is far removed from the version applied by most Moslems.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:20 PM

"while beheading Rigby and praising Allah, "
And talking about the killing of people in Afghanistan, and all the other tings tht are happening in the Muslim world.
Your statement pinpoints all religious Muslims as being to blame, just as you other extremist statements have attempted to implicate te Muslim population as a whole
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 12:14 PM

Dave - let's get this clear - racist and cultural hatred and bigotry runs through this and similar debates like "Blackpool" runs through rock.
To suggest that this killing (I keep having to remind myself that this is supposed to be what this is about since it has been turned into platform for bigotry and hatred) is "religious" puts every devout follower of that religion under a cloud of suspicion - just as Keith's "implant" accusation put every single male British Pakistani in the same position.
If it is religious, why aren't we seeing Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" in Southall, Luton, Wolverhampton, Tooting.....?
These two are, I believe, maliciously ignoring all the other factors surrounding acts like these - foreign wars and generations of prejudice and abuse will do for a starter.
All the alternative and additional reasons have been discussed in the press and were fully accepted as reasonable by a mixed panel of politicians on Question Time two weeks ago - yet they were junked here at the outset.
The logic of this being a purely religiously inspired killing just doesn't add up unless you, as they have, refused to consider any other of the recognised factors.
Sure, there are fanatical imams quite happy to use incidents like this to peddle their noxious and deadly wares, but as I pointed out to you earlier, to put it down totally to the religion condemns them all.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 10:40 AM

Anyway, we all agree that our Muslim community are overwhelmingly decent and peaceful folk.
That is good.
Where do we disagree?
Only about whether the killers, while beheading Rigby and praising Allah, were motivated by religious extremism or not.
I think they were.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 10:02 AM

It's only words, and words are all I have...

Now, what great philosopher was that? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:53 AM

Words are only words, it's how they are interpreted and acted upon that is the issue here.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:49 AM

Yes, Dave; I know all that. The Koran doesn't maintain a consistent line, as everyone knows ~~ (even tho it is all, of course, known to be the work of the same person!). But it is not only one side that cherry-picks. I ,in fact, respond merely to the cherry-picks of the other side. And however well they are supposed to co-exist with the other People of the Book [which means the Jews too, of course ~~ Abraham & Jesus are named as great prophets along with, altho lesser than, the True Prophet who came finally] in some places (tho not that many where they do so with the Jews, eh?), it is their obligation to wage Holy War [however interpreted!] against them in others.

But in all, even along with the injunction to co-exist in peace where it occurs, remains the obligation to try to convert them until all the world shares the same True Faith.

So, I repeat, it must involve at least a degree of compromise to neglect that obligation for the sake of a quiet life, as many have to do who choose to go & live among the Infidel. Mustn't it?

'Asking for trouble' I repeat. & trouble is what we are experiencing. It is naive ostrich·icity of the pathetic Carrollian kind to pretend it isn't so.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:34 AM

""...and Don, credit where it is due. An excellent point. In my opinion of course :-)""

Thank you Dave! Greatly appreciated.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:25 AM

...and Don, credit where it is due. An excellent point. In my opinion of course :-)

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:22 AM

Jim, sorry, I know your intentions are good but you really seem to be submitting some awful arguments. Whether I agree with Keith and Michael is irrelevant. In fact, from my point of view, there are some things they say make sense and some don't.

Your post, above, is a prime example. If I was to say "Jim, I now believe that the moon landings were faked" that would be my opinion, but it is based on evidence, albeit flawed. When Keith said "Don, I now believe..." it was his opinion but he has provided enough evidence to show that his opinion is valid. I would need more before I drew his conclusion and so would you but that does not detract from the fact that Keith has weighed the evidence he has and made up his own mind. It is not simply his own opinion and it is far better than just hurling insults and abuse.

You are also blurring the issue by arguing on one hand about a cultural or ethnic group (British Pakistanis) and a religious group (Moslems) on the other. Although I expect a majority of Pakistanis to follow that particular religion they do not all do so. And not all Moslems are Pakistanis - Far from it! By speaking of the groups in the same terms you are displaying one of the facets of the worse kind of Racism - They are all look the same to me :-(

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 09:07 AM

""Even those who are content to wish to co-exist, whom I mentioned in my last long post as quoted just above, must somehow find means to reconcile their consciences to departing in such a fashion from their Prophet's teachings and injunctions.""

Doesn't the Q'ran also enjoin that Muslims should be at peace with Christians, whom it describes as "People of the Book"?

Cherry pickng even as many as 109 verses of Jihadist injunctions ignores thousands of verses which make no such statements.

The very thing you accuse Islamists of doing, you are doing yourselves.

Does nobody see the imbecility of both sides using exactly the same twisted interpretations of the words of the Prophet as a justification for hating each other?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 08:35 AM

It was not my opinion."
I'll dig out the full quote and the link (please tellme you do!)if you wish which begins "Don, I now believe"
The pair of you are as dishonest as one another in your efforts to smear an entire cultural group.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 06:58 AM

it was presented as "my opinion"
No it was not.
I said at the time it was not my opinion, and have repeated that statement on every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of occasions you have brought it up since.
It was not my opinion.
I believed it, as I would a doctor's diagnosis, but it would be the doctor's opinion not mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 06:52 AM

"Leave it alone. He's not worth it."
No explanation of your vicious outburst = vicious outburst pure and simple
"ust passed on what people who might be expected to know were saying.
It was not about Muslims"
No it was not - it was your opinion about "all British male Pakistanis" - even if you had been able to provide a quote to show somebody had said it, it was presented as "my opinion"
I'd take your friend's example and disappear while you're only this far behind
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 04:52 AM

You carry on if you like, Keith. I really can't be bothered trying to argue with poor old nutty hysterical 'don't-confuse-me-with-facts' Carroll. As I remarked before, (as girls are supposed to say to pacify incensed and pugnacious boyfriends)

Leave it alone. He's not worth it.

So commune with yourself, Carroll. I'm not listening.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 04:36 AM

as Keith would have us believe

No.
I just passed on what people who might be expected to know were saying.
It was not about Muslims anyway, but about an ethnic as opposed to a religious demographic group.

I was sure they were over-represented, as has been confirmed.
You denied it.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM

Simple question - if the Islamic religion is as you describe it:
"the patent lesson that Islam should never have been allowed a foothold here to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...], we have got to change all our ways to accommodate their filthy fatuous ideas"
why aren't the streets of Britain running with rivers of blood - why aren't all the adherents to that "poisonous doctrine" out on the streets with machetes slaughtering every non-believer they can lay hands on?
Is is, as Keith would have us believe of the "culturally implanted tendency" to rape underage girls, that these believers for some reason or another resist the pressures of that "poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine".
This is the picture you pair have chosen to project of Muslim people in Britain - not an attack on "Islamism" as you dishonestly claim, but the religion itself and all who adhere to it.
That is what you wrote and all the snidy name calling does not absolve you from that shitty piece of bilious hatred
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 03:17 AM

My bad.
Jim's Guest post is still there.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 03:15 AM

Link to that Independent/Spectator piece http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8932201/to-draw-a-line-between-moderate-and-extremist-islam-is-to-miss-the-point/

In Jim's deleted post he told us yet again, as if revealing some great hidden truth, that most Muslims are good and tolerant people.
We know Jim.
We have been acknowledging that from the start of the thread, and on other threads for years.
You bring straw men into disrepute by constantly hoisting up the same old thread bare effigy.

Where we disagree is over the motivation of the Woolwich killers.
Although they attempted to behead the murdered corpse while shouting praises to Allah, you claim the were not motivated by extreme religious belief.

You also deny the seriousness of the Islamist terror threat despite new mass murder plots exposed every year just in UK.

That is what has kept this thread alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 02:56 AM

Never mind Michael.
His post has been deleted!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 13 Jun 13 - 01:24 AM

Support for some of my contentions from this week's Spectator --


http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8932201/to-draw-a-line-between-moderate-and-extremist-islam-is-to-miss-the-point/

which I just thought I would draw attention to. Won't convince those like poor old confused contentious Carroll who regard my moderate expressions of doubt as "vituperative outpourings"*, but just another view to consider.

~M~


*(Vituperative! That? Oh, come now, C, you call that vituperative? ~~ you know I can be vituperative when I have a mind, but that wasn't it by a long chalk)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 06:18 PM

To late to go into now. If I can be bothered I shall explain more tomorrow but, for now, I can accept that people have issues with the outlined tenets of Islam such as forced conversion etc. I would also have issues with that if, and it is a big if, all the members of that faith felt they must abide by those antiquated rules. Most Moslems, in my experience and from anecdotal evidence here, do not abide by those tenets so being against the religion is not the same as being against Moslems. I think. I'm tired so brain is turning off...

DtZzzzzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:22 PM

"I thought you had issue with the basic tenets of Islam"
He has - he's given his opinion and has made no attempt to either explain it or blame it on somebody else - as is the practice of someone else on this forum.
His vituperative outpourings didn't mention clothing.
If the greatest threat lies in offended dress-sense I think we might all give a big sigh of relief.
No society can hold its hand up to treating women well - particularly our own Whatever our feelings about Muslim culture, in the end it's up to them to sort their own out - gone are the days that the Empire could impose its values on a large part of the world.
The fact remains that the Muslim communities in Britain are still the most law-abiding, industrious and unobtrusive in Britain today and to single them out for punishment for the behaviour of a minute handful is.... well, we've been here before, haven't we?
Jim Carroll