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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 03:49 AM

"I have also linked to MI5 who say the numbers have not gone down."
Since 2002 when the MI5 report begins
"It is not just me who accepts 2000."
The BBC report reads "It has been said" - by whom - a politician maybe?
There have been no major incidents since 2006, there have been no mass arrests, so presumably most of those under suspicion then were innocent of any crime.
The situation is so "desperate" that the government is intending to cut spending to the security services - also dealt with in the report - bit irresponsible, don'cha think, especially as the IRA has definitely become an escalating problem according to the MI5 man?.
We have no idea whatever what the figures are and if they are going up or down and claiming that we have is simple politicking to smear a whole community - as usual.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest who dare not speak his name
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 04:14 AM

If I say that I am appalled by the behaviour and views expressed by the marchers in Luton - does that make me a "klansman" ?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:23 AM

"does that make me a "klansman"
Not necessarily - but if you open and dominate thread after thread after thread with Islamophobic postings, you wouldn't have any difficulty with a membership application.
On the other hand - not exactly 'burning crosses' but -
"A U.S. pastor, Terry Jones, who had organized a "Burn the Quran" event last September 11, had been invited to speak at the rally, but Jones' visit was canceled after UK authorities said they might not let him in the country. Jones, of Gainesville, Florida, did not carry out his plans to hold the Quran burning amid increasing pressure from U.S. and international leaders."
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/05/england.islam.protests/index.html
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:55 AM

""In your opinion Mike!

Any proof of what you say?

That was about the numbers of Islamists on the watch list.
I have provided plenty of stuff to show that the number is at least 2000.""

And, you dope, I am on record here as having accepted that number already.

My argument with Mike (which was none of your business anyway) was over his refusal to see that when one says something "might" happen, implicit in that statement is the alternative "or might not", which elicited fom him some nonsense about the man being too scared to reveal the "real" figures, mere conjecture on Mike's part and entirely unworthy of the man I take him to be.

You, on the other hand...

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Same old guest
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:39 AM

I'm not Islamophobic.
I'm not SCARED of them.

I'm scared of the PC mob though and don't wish to be called a fascist or whatever because I object to the behaviour of the Luton rabble.
If you label those who are unenthusiastic about the prospect of Sharia law being imposed, the pubs closed down, bacon outlawed, women trussed up in Burquas etc as klansmen or fascists then you are liable to drive them into the arms of the BNP.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:40 AM

Only significant people would get on the watch list.
We know that one suspect had trained abroad and been on Jihad, and he was so unexceptional no special watch was on him.
"To keep a constant watch on just one of those people, you would need a team of at least six surveillance operatives, Dame Stella says. But of course they couldn't work 24 hours a day, so you would need three teams of six.

And those operatives couldn't just sit outside a suspect's house. So, you'd need an additional person to, say, sit in a nearby house, and alert the team of six when the suspect left the house.

Then there's the control centre, where staff receive information from the mobile operatives and give them directions. And finally, there's a desk officer in charge of the case.

"Doing that 24 hours a day, seven days a week - well, you do the sums, it's an awful lot of people," Dame Stella says.

And if 2,000 people were to be followed like that, we'd be talking about 50,000 full-time spies doing nothing but following suspected terrorists. That's more than 10 times the number of people employed by MI5. The numbers don't add up."

Jim, I showed that there were, "into the thousands" in 2006 and the 2012 MI5 report said none had been taken off, and we know radicalisation has continued.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:45 AM

Wise words from a wise man. Full disclosure to the anti-semites among us - the author, Dr. Avi Perry, is a Jew.

Op-Ed: Am I an Islamophobe?

Published: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:21 AM
Telling the stark reality is just not politically correct.

The year was 2009. I was a guest at a talk show, discussing my newly released book: 72 Virgins. People in the audience called in, referring to me as an Islamophobe. It was the first time I was accused of prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims.

Those who tried to characterize me as such had no idea what the book was about, but quickly jumped to conclusions, basing their judgment on the evocative title. Some even claimed mendaciously to have read the book, but turned nonverbal or entirely wide of the mark when asked to reflect on the book's theme.

It does not matter if the Qur'an indeed calls for violence... It does not matter as long as the Jihadists claim that it does.
Throughout the years that followed, I discussed the phenomenon of Islamic terror on my own talk show, whenever the subject came to the fore due to topical events covered by the major news media at the time. I always tried to emphasize, right from the outset, that I did not regard all Muslims as terrorists, and that I did recognize the fact that not all terrorists were Muslims.

My approach to characterizing Islamic terror has always been based on the fact that all reasonable people attributed it to "Radical Islam"—a global movement comprising al-Qaeda, its self-regulating extensions, and even some hot-headed, radicalized individuals with no direct ties to any of the larger Jihadi organizations.

I have also noted that Islam comprises 50% of the term "Radical Islam", and that Radical Islamists commit their crimes in the name of their religion; they find proof, justification and reinforcement for their acts of terror in their sacred texts. I do not have to become a Qur'an or a Hadith expert to prove that point.

It does not matter if the Qur'an indeed calls for violence (which I believe to be a true characterization). It does not matter as long as the Jihadists claim that it does; they claim to abide by their prophet's edicts. They keep justifying their acts of terror and violence by telling us that they follow their religious beliefs. What else is the root cause for their acts of terror?

Now, in the minds of many left-minded individuals, this is where I have been crossing the red line. I have been linking Islam with terror, they claim. The principal line of attack other than calling me an Islamophobe, where the term is sandwiched between some unprintable X-rated junk words, has always been consistent with my own approach. Their attack has always been packaged by:"And what about crimes and terror acts committed by Christians in the name of their religion?" and also: "I have a Muslim friend, yada, yada, yada…"

Right; I guess I need to say it one more time. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims. Nevertheless, there is a significant segment of people among the Muslim population who commit terror acts in the name of their religion, a larger segment who do not resort to violence, but do support it wholeheartedly, and an even larger silent segment who neither support it nor condemn it, and thus, let it continue unchallenged.

Fortunately, these three segments do not take account of all Muslims—there are also Muslims who view Radical Islam as alien to their interpretation of the Qur'an and to what they see as their peaceful religion.

And then, the fact that Christians—mostly in the distant past and to a lesser degree in the present—committed crimes in the name of their religion, should not be used to cover up the fact that in today's world, a significant number of terror acts are committed in the name of Islam.

If admitting to the cold reality, while steering clear of expressing hatred towards, or irrational fear of all Muslims, (simply because they happened to be born Muslim) makes me an Islamophobe, so be it.

Trying to cover up facts with the aim of protecting a criminal, ruthless underdog (merely because that particular group is perceived as the underdog) is not only corrupt. It is an ideology in need of being condemned.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 08:45 AM

"Only significant people would get on the watch list."
Er no - the "watch list" is the routine observer list that my father was on when he returned from Spain - unless you have evidence to the contrary of course - otherwise, stop making things up.
The serious suspects were the ones singled our as those "thought to be a serious threat to Britain's security" - as described in the MI5 report.
Speaking of which - you claimed there were 2000 plus suspects in 2006, - you then claimed there was a large increase in that number, adapting that later to "the numbers must have increased" when you were challenged to produce your facts.
Now you are claiming there are what? - 2000, wasn't it?
Which makes a huge increase of what - I make in none.
Consistency, dear boy, consistency - stick to the script!
Did you explain why the Government is proposing to cut the budget of the security services at a time when there is a 'massive increase' in the number of suspects - I don't believe you did?
Guest who dare not speak his name
I'm quite intrigued by your choice of choice of pen name - why choose that one.
Some time ago we had several heated arguments on this forum about, among of the things the Dale Farm eviction, following which several of us had our facebooks hacked into and phony profiles inserted (this, I was informed, was by a BNP parasite we had picked up.
If you chose your name because of fear of retaliation from us pathetic liberals and loonie lefties, I would keep my eye on the rabid right if I were you - especially the ones who use the term "traitor" and have us all bunged away in the Tower.
Just a warning"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM

The serious suspects were the ones singled our as those "thought to be a serious threat to Britain's security" - as described in the MI5 report.
Yes. That is them.
People like at least one of the suspects, who had attempted to reach Somalia to train with Al Shabab.
He was on that list with "thousands" more.

Now you are claiming there are what? - 2000, wasn't it?
I am saying 2000 at the very least, and for all the reasons and facts given.
You believe it is substantially less, but you have never told us what reason you have for that belief.
Will you list your reasons for us now Jim dear?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 10:47 AM

"My argument with Mike (which was none of your business anyway) was over his refusal to see that when one says something "might" happen, implicit in that statement is the alternative "or might not", which elicited fom him some nonsense** about the man being too scared to reveal the "real" figures, mere conjecture on Mike's part and entirely unworthy of the man I take him to be."
.,,.
I am reciprocally disappointed by this reaction from you, Don. I expect heels·dug·in from the likes of the doctrinaire, 'don't-confuse-me-with-facts' Carroll; but thought you more amenable to reason. **"Nonsense", was it? How can you be so insufferably cocksure? Did you ever stop to think maybe I had that fellow's measure better than you?

Think of the words of the Lord Protector Cromwell

"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken."

Pretty rich coming from him, admittedly, who probably never admitted to a mistake in his life.

But you now, Don? Has a new idea, the possibility of any possible alternative of that lefty weltanschauung in which you seem too immovably fixed to allow any possible conception of another way of looking at the world (in a time when all we hold dear is menaced from within -- I ask again, did you watch that video from the girl in Luton? & did you come out the other end with all prejudices & preconceptions intact?) never even entered your head?

I say again, I should have thought better of you. You appeared to have 100x the intellect and grip of the likes of Carroll, but it appears not the ability to make this essential leap: so maybe I have overrated you. If this be so, I shudder for you. You will learn when it is too late, I fear.


In continued friendship, but with concern

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 10:51 AM

"Yes. That is them."
And your proof is....?
You are maliciously making this up - there is no indication in any of the statements who is on the "watch list" - saying "that is them is further evidence of your maliciousness.
Those leaving the country - again as the MI5 report points out, are going to FIGHT in places like The Yemen - read the ******* report - you put it up.
"I am saying 2000 at the very least"
Stop making things up - the report says 2000 - exactly the same number as seven years ago - nobody has mentioned any "at least" other than you - more malicious invention on your part.
Still nothing on the budget cuts?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM

The recent BBC report assumed 2000, the 2006 statement said "in the thousands" I say at least 2000.
MI5 confirms none have been removed while we know radicalisation has continued.

I has been widely reported that that at least one of the suspects was on the watch list following his attempts to fight Jihad (not train, OK) with Al Shabab.
Please deny it so I can show your stupidity again.

And please tell us your reasons for thinking 2000 is too high.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:44 PM

I know I said I wouldn't post to this thread again but can someone please put a stop to this. It is like an endless stream of Tom and Jerry scenes in which Tom tries more and more ludicrous ways to trap Jerry but ends up failing each time. I am not going to say which is which.

Oh, and before anyone tells me I don't have to read it. Have you tried looking away from a car crash?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:19 PM

""lefty weltanschauung in which you seem too immovably fixed to allow any possible conception of another way of looking at the world""

Ask Richard Bridge whether that lefty tag fits Mike!

Don't expect an answer until he stops laughing....about September at a guess!

You show me your evidence, or even any discernible and recogniseable indication that your comment about that man is anywhere near a fact, and I will recant and apologise, but we both know that it is nothing more than what you choose to believe.

It is your opinion, which is fine, as long as you don't present it as if it were fact, which is what you did.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:25 PM

""Only significant people would get on the watch list.""

In many of your posts there is a significant amount of "should" and "would", and it is almost always posted as if it were evidence based fact.

It is your opinion!

Kindly present it as opinion, or expect it to be shot full of holes.

You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

If you don't know the difference, we'll keep explaining it until what you are pleased to refer to as a brain catches up.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 12:00 AM

Don ~~ I take into account ···

•his evasive tone ['not getting into the numbers game']

•the time the statement was made ~~ way back before Andrew Norfolk & The Times cracked (in a fashion which altered at a stroke the atmosphere of evasion which had till then for years bedevilled any approach to anything with any trace of a racial element) the young-girls-abused-by-certain-ethnically-coherent-groups-while-everyone-who-could-have-helped-went-into-hysterical-denial scandal, which they demonstrated to have been allowed to happen largely because those who could have tackled it were too scared of the PC antiracist brigade: a different scandal admittedly from the one Mr 'Might' was engaging with, but surely analogous & comparable?

which, taken together, I would urge suggest a strong possiblity [a big 'might'?!] that he was fearfully evading a direct answer as I suggested.

Of course 'might' subsumes 'might not'; SFAIR I never denied this possibility: but I think in this instance the explanation I postulate for the evasive tone of his responses is likelier than the putative get-out you suggest.

I won't put it higher than that. And of course I can't positively demonstrate with any sort of certainty what was going on inside his head any better than anyone else can. But taking all this suggestive evidence, of his uncertainty of tone, and the atmosphere of PC dominant at the time he made the statement, when everyone was watching his back for fear of accusations of non-PC attitudes which could ruin a career [and still can in some places ~ look at the thread ongoing, 'PC Spanish class', about the Spanish teacher in America] into account...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 12:22 AM

And, having checked back, I rejoin also that I didn't claim my interpretation as a fact as you assert, but used the words "What is implicit in the use of the word 'might'" ==

'implicit' surely demonstrating that I was just offering what I saw as a likely explanation, not asserting any sort of "fact" --

['present it as if it were fact, which is what you did', were your words -- >b>no, I repeat, I didn't; I said it was 'implicit', which is surely speculative rather than assertive.]

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 01:29 AM

And why should I take Richard Bridge, who IMO is a political moron whatever sound opinions he may have in other contexts, as any sort of authority in assessing your apparent political stance, eh Don? If you are not 'lefty' enough to suit his grotesque notions, then the better for you as far as I'm concerned!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 01:43 AM

Don, if I just gave opinions they would immediately be rejected as (insert)ist and or (insert)ophobic.
I have therefore substantiated everything.
Produce anything that I have not.

Dave, the exact number on a watch list is what the string of traps has degenerated into.
Jerry quits.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 03:18 AM

Really no point in discussing with people with liars who make up figures to fuel their racist hatred - might as well dip into the BNP or EDL sites for the same message.
http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/05/the-bnps-sick-recruitment-email-exploiting-woolwich-murder/
MtheGM said it all in one posting - whence the difference?
I'll leave you in the company you seem best suited to.
Jim Carroll

"'a' murderous thug"?! "a"??? A bloody great parade of murderous thugs, of whom that fat slug was just the spokie. Weren't you watching Jim? Of course not. You were doing your usual ostrich act, so you could ignore the bleeding-obvious, 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 or they are going to kill a few more of our soldiers & blow up a few more of our buses. And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again.
Modern equivalent of the one on KoKKo's 'little list' in The Mikado, 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own' ~~
good old Gilbert had their number all right, Carroll & his like. Make me sick. Traitors. Is High Treason still a capital offence, I wonder?"

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 03:25 AM

make up figures
Lie.
All in public domain and quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 03:34 AM

snip ~~ "And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again"

Jim quotes back at me my former description of his MO, as adjunct to his exclaiming

"Really no point in discussing with people ... who make up figures to fuel their racist"
.,,.

Seems to me he is determined to remake [& emphasise & confirm] my point for me.

Nice of him! Ta!

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM

""'implicit' surely demonstrating that I was just offering what I saw as a likely explanation, not asserting any sort of "fact" --""

Now then Mike, you accuse me of putting forward a weak argument and then you present this.

Your knowledge of the English language is far too goddfor you to be unaware that the phrase "implicit in" is much more definite than that.

You are watering it down, and you know it.

Anyway, you have confirmed that you were offering an opinion and that's fine.

Yours is as good as mine or anyone else's, but I think we need to know how many of Keith's 2000 have committed, are committing, or will commit violent acts, before we can decid which of our opinions is correct.

So it all comes back to "might", or "might not" in the end.

If we treat them as criminals already, we precipitate the very results we are trying to prevent. Does that make any sense at all?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 05:51 AM

we need to know how many of Keith's 2000 have committed, are committing, or will commit violent acts,

MI5's list actually, and on their site they describe the kinds of folk they take an interest in.

Returning to the original subject, Amjam Choudhary has given his views about the motive for the killing.
London Evening Standard.
"Filmed while he talked to his followers at his office near Walthamstow mosque last Friday Choudary said: "Allah said very clearly in the Koran 'Don't feel sorry for the non-Muslims.'

"So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire.

"That's what I believe so I'm not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims.

"We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don't, then obviously if they die like that they're going to the hellfires."

The preacher went on to praise Michael Adebolajo, 28, who along with Michael Adebowale, 22, is accused of Drummer Rigby's murder.

He said :"As far as they are concerned I believe that they were doing what they believed to be Islamically correct.

"Only Allah can judge them in the hereafter for what they did in their life. In their eyes they are martyrs and what I say is Allah may accept them into paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 06:01 AM

No, frankly, Don. I can't follow the point you are making at all.

You still haven't answered my question on that Luton demo video. Did you see it? If so, did you come away from it unworried? There were more than 2,000 on that demo alone, weren't there? All explicitly asserting their alienation from any sort of British identity -- how else can one interpret a reiterated cry of "British police go to hell"? I don't expect they are all on this list of Keith's. In fact I doubt if any of that particular lot are. But they set out at least to give the impression that, given half a chance, they would carve you up with a machete if they could get away with it, didn't they? That big fat pillock who told the girl that all non-muslims were off to the hellfire [a view confirmed as doctrinal by that Chaudury creature in the morning's Times] was a right charmer, eh? Like to meet him on a dark night, would you?

Are you really so happy in this 'opinion' of yours that it is somehow unnecessary, and unworthy, to feel concerned? That we are not under any kind of threat from this consumed-by-loathing-of-us-all mob right here in our midst? That it's all going to go away if we just go on pretending it isn't there, isn't it?

Hope it keeps fine for you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 07:50 AM

I mean, seriously Don. I know there are some things which will fly in the face of your deepest-held tenets and principles; ones on which you have grown up all your life so that they are pretty well part of your persona.

But circumstances alter cases, as they say. And there are no cases which certain circumstances cannot alter. At least stop for a second, and question whether these humane, inclusive, anti-racist, tenets of yours are entirely adequate for dealing with what seem to me patently altered circumstances to the ones we all grew up with; ones which are not necessarily compatible with our traditional collective tenets & principles; and whether at least some measure of self-adjustment might not just be requisite to deal with the situation as it IS, now, here, in this land of ours; and not how it has always been TILL now and we should all like it still to be. If only...

That's all I ask. Please, Don. Just stop for a second and look around you & THINK whether any sort of mental adjustment or realignment might be necessary...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:55 AM

I'd thought of trying to make the same point to J.C. But he wouldn't even allow himself to contemplate the possibility of even troubling to try & make out what I mean; just up with his head for long enuff to shoot off that fave r-word of his ...

My impression is that you are just that bit more amenable to reason, Don; or so I should like to think...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 05 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM

I can remember a time when I could never even have contemplated making any observation in any circumstances to which anyone could possibly respond by accusations of 'r*c*sm'.

But that was before WTC or Ramat Gan or 9/11 or 7/7 or Madrid or the Danish cartoons or Swat Valley or Mumbai or…..

The case is altered…

Heads out of the sand ~~~ PLEASE

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 01:37 AM

I was ready to be proved wrong, but I never thought there was that much difference between them Michael.
Remember "Oh well that's alright then, providing of course that there is any such thing as global Islamism.
Do you know of any such organisation, or are you just making it up as you go along, as usual?" ?

So Ramat Gan or 9/11 or 7/7 or Madrid or the Danish cartoons or Swat Valley or Mumbai or….. were all isolated and unconnected incidents for Don.

It is not just there heads in the sand.
It is only there loudly declaiming arses that protrude!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM

their their!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM

Still think that Don is amenable to reason, Keith. I should like to think he is thinking it over in the light of arguments adduced. Let's see how he will come back eventually.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 05:50 AM

""Are you really so happy in this 'opinion' of yours that it is somehow unnecessary, and unworthy, to feel concerned? That we are not under any kind of threat from this consumed-by-loathing-of-us-all mob right here in our midst? That it's all going to go away if we just go on pretending it isn't there, isn't it?""

Of course I'm concerned about the real threat Mike, where did I state that I wasn't.

What I'm not prepared to do is to stereotype a whole community as terrorists because a minority of idiots follow the rantings of a few radical preachers.

Your words in the last few days border on inciting race or religious hatred, and an example of where that attitude leads is the Muslim meeting place that was burned to the ground yesterday and the ruins covered in EDL graffiti.

Is that your idea of a proper response, and if so, what do you see as the likely outcome?

Do we really need to fire the first shots in yet another war, this time on our own turf?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM

I was relieved to hear that there were no casualties after the fire. That Muslim meeting place was used by many different sections of the comunity, not all Muslim by any means, a true multicultural centre. The arson smacks of the Kristallnacht attacks in Germany on the Jews in the Thirties. I was also heartened to hear that the whole community was supportive of the local Muslim people and that they have always been on friendly and pleasant terms with one another. We don't yet know that the EDL was 'responsible' ( a misnomer if ever there was one!) Just because the letters were scrawled on the walls doesn't mean they were the perpetrators.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 06:24 AM

Is that your idea of a proper response,

How can you dare even ask?!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Fred McCormick
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 06:58 AM

Eliza. Make no mistake. The far right view this as their Kristallnacht. In fact they've been milking Lee Rigby's murder for all they can get out of it ever since it happened. Thank God for the peoples of Muswell Hill and Woolwich, and many other areas of this country, who have remained calm and ignored all the calls to join in anti-Islamic pogroms.

Was it the EDL? Of course it wasn't, at any rate not officially. Neither was it "officially" the National Front, or the British Movement, who burnt Asian families out of their houses in the 1970s, or Mosley's fascists who did the same thing to the Jews in the 1930s. But we all know that the perpetrators came from these organisations, or were very cose to them. And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, Stephen Lennon and Oswald Mosley played in stirring up hatred. What, I wonder, would these bastards do if there were no minorities to persecute? Yeahh, I know. They'd invent a few.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 08:41 AM

But we all know that the perpetrators came from these organisations, or were very cose to them.

We are also pretty sure that Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are pretty close to a hatemongering Islamic organisation aren't we?

And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, Stephen Lennon and Oswald Mosley played in stirring up hatred.

And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini played in stirring up hatred.

But I guess I must be a rabid right-wing racist for saying so because those hate-mongers had a valid reason?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:02 AM

Dave The Gnome.

"We are also pretty sure that Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are pretty close to a hatemongering Islamic organisation aren't we?"
"And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini played in stirring up hatred."

We know already that these are evil figures and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, just as I have no sympathy for the people I've named. What concerns me is the fact that an anti-Muslim backlash would bring the house down around the ears of all the decent law abiding Muslims, who go about their daily business and have no truck with Islamic extremists. And make no mistake. The Woolwich murder was specifically intended to create such a backlash.

It's a little bit out of date already, but you might want to read The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain by Roger Eatwell and Matthew J Goodwin. As the authors go to considerable lengths to point out, the far right and the Islamic fundamentalists feed off each aother. IE., one side commits an outrage. That provokes the other side into committing a bigger outrage, which provokes the first side into an even bigger one, ad infinitum.

I sometimes wonder if they don't ring each other up and say "We'll desecrate a war memorial and that'll get your lot stirred up and then you can break the windows of one of the local mosques. That'll get our side going. Then we'll think up something even more extreme and you can top that by..................".

BTW. There have been 200 reported attacks on Muslims since the Woolwich outrage.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM

Do you know, GUEST, I've thought exactly the same thing vis, the two groups are almost mutually beneficial! The remedy is strong, united local communities, but the Fundamentalists don't want to integrate, since they seem to view the rest of us as filthy, contaminated and immoral. The East End of London has an enormously long history of mixed races, cultures and religions due to immigration after pogroms, persecutions and other disasters. In the main, until just after WW2, they've all got along quite well and treated eachother with respect and decency. But none of them wished to 'convert' the rest, impose special laws, dress or religious practices on the whole population as these Islamists seem to do. The more strife, retaliation and mayhem from EDL, BNP, and the various terrorist Muslim groups, the better pleased they'll all be. Our part is to refuse to become hate-filled, offer support to all, stay calm and try to maintain our country's excellent reputation for tolerance and wise restraint.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:20 AM

Mostly virtual.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:52 AM

No. The islamists are nor 'responding' to anything except their own jihadi imperative to bring about their Caliphate. This fills their entire horizon, & they would inevitably be doing this, whatever the reactions or responses of anyone else, which are merely tangential to their compulsions, if influential at all. The feeling of some self-righteous additional motivation which might accrue in the face of oppositional reactions might help a bit to harden their resolve ~~ it's always a great stimulus to feel oneself one of a chorus of a million lone voices crying in the wilderness: but is no sort of main trigger.

I expect Don will see this as further evidence of my imagined imminent application to join the EDL. Others less tunnel-visioned by their conditioning, which even a man of his apparent intelligence seems unable to break out of, will recognise the truth of what I have said.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 10:55 AM

He still remains oddly cagey about whether he actually dared to watch that Luton demo video; or to report, if so, how he reacted to it.
Why so, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 02:21 PM

I presume Guest was you, Fred - Was it? Anyhow - What concerns me is the fact that an anti-Muslim backlash would bring the house down around the ears of all the decent law abiding Muslims, who go about their daily business and have no truck with Islamic extremists.

What concerns me more is that an anti-Western backlash is bringing the house down around the ears of decent law-abiding Englishmen who go about their daily business and have no truck with right-wing extremists.

See, it works both ways. You cannot defend the rights of one group but say another do not deserve it. I have as much right to a quiet life as any Moslem but it seems I cannot have it while you defend the rights of some groups but not others. Why is that?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 03:08 PM

David Cameron a couple of years ago: "The multicultural state has failed"; it's our world/our United Nations that should be multicultural (http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/325979229).

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 03:43 PM

It does seem to be a smaller proportion of the white community who have extreme views.
The much hyped BNP demo on Saturday in London drew about 150 from the entire country.

That one off in Luton had about 2000 for no special occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 04:41 PM

The main cause of terrorism is economic immigration; Blair got making-us-safer all wrong: invading another nation whilst stepping up immigration to record levels.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 06:07 PM

'economic immigration' - we've had immigrants pouring in for several years now, principally to take up jobs that nobody here wanted to do. The Poles, Lithuanians, Chinese, West Indians (many of whom worked for London Transport) Phillippinos (nursing and care work) etc etc, all have contributed a great deal to our country. None of these seem to have turned into terrorists. Even Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants are largely good people with strong family ethics and a moral, law-abiding way of life. It must be remembered that the dangerous fundamentalist 'Islamists' are a small but vociferous minority. The threat they represent is not IMO a result of increased numbers of immigrants. And the 'born-and-bred here' brigade, the EDL, BNP etc, are just as much a threat to our stability and peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 07:38 PM

""Is that your idea of a proper response,

How can you dare even ask?!""

Given your attitude to Muslims, asking is unnecessary!

Mike however is usually less biased.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 07:45 PM

""I expect Don will see this as further evidence of my imagined imminent application to join the EDL. Others less tunnel-visioned by their conditioning, which even a man of his apparent intelligence seems unable to break out of, will recognise the truth of what I have said.""

Now, where and when have we seen the followers of a religion used as a bogeyman to arouse fear and hatred in a population before?

I would have thought that Mike would be the very last to follow that model!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 07:48 PM

""He still remains oddly cagey about whether he actually dared to watch that Luton demo video; or to report, if so, how he reacted to it.
Why so, I wonder?""

He watched it, end to end, and found it just as offensive as most of your recent posts Mike.

See my last post for the reason!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 06 Jun 13 - 08:04 PM

What was it that you found offensive Don? Was it the Muslim protesters proclaiming their hatred for the country that gave them sanctuary or was it the English lady who dared challenge their extremist proclamations?