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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:15 AM

'to take our jobs'
,..,

See? What did I tell you?

Point out please, Carroll-the-predictable-½·wit, where I said any such thing as that.

You're a fool. I don't propose to argue further with you.

Anyone got any rational comments on my exposition?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:16 AM

Jim, you are outspokenly anti all religions.
"A plague on all their houses" you often say.

That is fine.
That is acceptable.
A religion is just a body of ideas anyone can accept or reject.

Is it less acceptable to say that you are more anti one religion than another?
Michael is an atheist like you.
Can he not have opinions about religions, as you do?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:21 AM

Jim, I presume you condemn any form of persecution of apostates.
Some religions take it more seriously than others, so do you not object more to them?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:46 AM

Not but what I should be quite grateful to Carroll, as a matter of fact. By explicitly quoting me as making a statement I manifestly didn't make -- anyone can check by scrolling no more than 2 posts that I didn't even mention jobs, with which I was in no way concerned in the slightest -- he reveals himself as a lying nincompoop who responds kneejerkingly to posts that he doesn't even bother to read, to whom nobody in their right mind would pay any attention.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:59 AM

And now I suppose he's going to denounce and abuse me again for being "educated"!

I mean, how can one help patronising someone who sticks his neck out that far to ask for it?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:46 AM

""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:16 AM

Yes, it is dangerous even to accept help from a Jew, nevermind help one. ""

So, explain what exactly that danger is, if not the danger of being targetted by other Muslims.

I'm waiting with bated breath for your specious response to this. I do enjoy watching you wriggle.

Don T.

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

""I am sure that everyone on this thread feels the same - something which you cannot seem to accept in the face of overwhelming evidence.

If you feel you need to interpret this comment to meet your own views then feel free to do so. But remember it is there for all to see.""

Since I have just posted clear proof that not "everyone" feels the same, how am I misinterpreting anything?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 04:58 AM

Might it not perhaps be rejoined, Don, that your 'proof' consisted in misrepresenting my position, which I have now clarified for your benefit?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM

"Is it less acceptable to say that you are more anti one religion than another?"
I am not "anti - religious" in any sense - I choose not to believe, but I respect the right of anybody who does.
My arguments are with churches who attain political/social power and abuse it - especially by making their brand of religion a foregone conclusion, as all churches have done at one time or another.
We are at present seeing the dying throes (I hope) of the political power of the Christian church in Ireland - it can't come fast enough as far as I'm concerned.
No - I don't find any one religion any more or less acceptable than another.
As far as churches are concerned - all are a threat when they are allowed to be - Christian churches are no exception.
What's your point?
A week ago the 'Question Time' panel was asked if the behaviour of the British and American Governments towards other countries had in any way influenced incidents such as the killing of the soldier in Woolwich - each of them (Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, Ukip and a non-declared, but probably Conservative) said it had - not surprisingly missing from your arguments.
One of the killers shouted religious slogans following his butchery; he also told how Muslims were suffering at the hands of the west - also missing from your arguments.
You - both of you choose to make this killing purely "religious" in nature and use it as an excuse to vomit your bile on all Muslims, despite your protests to the contrary - no surprise there either.
BTW
Please stop sending me PMs trying to prove that all Muslims are perverts - all religions have their share of degenerates - want me to send you some cloips of Christian Paedos?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM

I think you missed my last post (3:07AM), Don. If there is anything in it that you don't understand, just let me know.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM

So Don, I implore you, read my post objectively and with an open mind, noting not only what it says, but also what it doesn't say. That's just what Carroll didn't do. But then, he's a fool and you're not.

I think.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:09 AM

""That is my position. It seems logical and reasonable to me. I know there are such as Bridge & Carroll & Wysiwyg who will purport to misinterpret it as an instance of the iniquitous R*C*SM word. Which it isn't.""

Not racism Mike! Religious bigotry, definitely!

Christianity also showed a definite lack of tolerance for those who did not belong.

Remember the thugs who went out with the absentee King Richard 1, or the Spanish Inquisition?

Where are the Cathars now?

Christianity too had its militants, every bit as nasty as Islamists.

They were dealt with, not by destroying Christianity, but by dealing with the terrorists (for that's what they were), and Christianity went on and grew out of its bad habits.

Islam can and will do the same, but not if we insist on tarin all Muslims with the same brush.

And one day somebody will have to clean up the right wing "Christians" in the USA.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:24 AM

Christianity also showed a definite lack of tolerance for those who did not belong.
Remember the thugs who went out with the absentee King Richard 1, or the Spanish Inquisition?
Where are the Cathars now?
Christianity too had its militants, every bit as nasty as Islamists.
,..,.

I anticipated & dealt with these points, Don ~~~

"features, in short, inimical to and incompatible with our present modern and humane traditions, whatever might have been the developmental path of previous ages"

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:29 AM

... but thank you, Don, for your reasoned, moderate response, esp for the distinction you recognised between the racial & the ideological. A fine contrast to the hysterical assumptive and misrepresentational kneejerkery of that other fellow with his "taking our jobs" which was no part of my argument whatsoever...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM

...AND NEVER COULD HAVE BEEN!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 05:54 AM

"Christianity went on and grew out of its bad habits.
Islam can and will do the same"...

Do you not here implicitly or even explicitly, accept my view as to the 'bad habits' of present day Islam?

"but not if we insist on tarin all Muslims with the same brush"

which was what I avoided doing, except insofar as pointing out that their presence in numbers provides the breeding ground for those unacceptable dissident elements with their 'bad habits' to flourish. And to convert outsiders from the indigenous population, especially among those who are antisocially inclined in the first place: it is a much observed commonplace that prisons are particularly fertile breeding grounds for such conversions to extremism, as occurred at time leading to 7/7; tho I must concede that the two involved in this present thread-topic appear to have had other, so far not entirely comprehended, motivations. I am not one to assert any invariable patterns; but certain trends and tendencies can surely be made out?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:09 AM

One of the killers shouted religious slogans following his butchery; he also told how Muslims were suffering at the hands of the west - also missing from your arguments
It was not missing Jim.
I rubbished it, because Muslims are being slaughtered in their lands but not by the West.
1000 in Iraq just last month, and still going on this month.
A similar number every week in Syria.
Bobad gave us an horrific list of recent slaughters in many Muslim lands, none at the hands of the West.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:12 AM

""Please stop sending me PMs trying to prove that all Muslims are perverts - all religions have their share of degenerates - want me to send you some cloips of Christian Paedos?""

Me too.

The next time I will publish your PM on the oopen forum.

You have been warned.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:25 AM

Please do.
Under the title "in case you missed it" I provided, without any comment, a link to a report in today's Daily Telegraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:35 AM

""Bobad gave us an horrific list of recent slaughters in many Muslim lands, none at the hands of the West.""

Afghanistan?

When will the West realise that the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan regard our soldiers as an occupying force in their territory, uninvited and unwanted.

That's the bottom line.

They didn't ask us to start our wars against "terror" on their lands, and the vast majority just want us out.

It may not make sense to us that they don't see us as saviours, but as invaders, but it makes sense to them.

The road to hell really is paved with good intentions, though I don't think good intentions played any part in Geedubya's thinking as he fudged the "reasons" for attacking Iraq.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:38 AM

""Please do.
Under the title "in case you missed it" I provided, without any comment, a link to a report in today's Daily Telegraph.""

Another thread! NOT HERE!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:44 AM

What about Afghanistan Don.
There is a lot of slaughter going on, but very few deaths can be attributed to any Westerner, and we are packing up to leave anyway.

I did not put the other thing in this thread. You and Jim did.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:57 AM

" which was no part of my argument whatsoever..."
It was a rhetorical choice of words. would you have preferred - "taken over our cities"?
"to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...]"
Outright and primitive bigotry - however worded.
In the case of your partner - it was both racist and sectarian, and continues to be.
"whatever might have been the developmental path of previous ages"
What planet do you people occupy.
In 1922 Britain partitioned Ireland on sectarian lines - the result being that best part of the 20th century was taken up with religious terrorism, leading to the death and maiming of many thousands.
Next month will see Christian sectarian violence on the street of Derry and Belfast.
Personally I don't give a toss for either brand of religion, but Keith will be there, as he has been in past years, claiming that "it is the fault of "their" chosen brand of religion rather than "mine".
Despite efforts on your part to prove otherwise, the MI5 report shows that the only rise in concern for Britain's security comes from the increase in IRA activity - the Muslim 'threat' being more or less the same as it was 8 years ago (as far as we know, no action was deemed necessary against the then suspected 2,000 potential terrorists).
The greatest religious threat to peace on these islands continues to be from Christians.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 07:17 AM

the MI5 report shows that the only rise in concern for Britain's security comes from the increase in IRA activity - the Muslim 'threat' being more or less the same as it was 8 years ago

You made that up Jim!

From MI5 site. (unedited)
Sources of terrorist threats
International terrorism from groups such as Al Qaida presents a threat on a scale not previously encountered. Drawing on extremist messages presented by figures such as Usama bin Laden, Al Qaida and its related networks seek to carry out terrorist attacks around the world, aiming to carry out "high impact" attacks causing mass civilian casualties.

Northern Ireland related terrorism continues to pose a serious threat to British interests. Although a peace process has been active for several years, some Republican terrorist groups oppose the peace process and continue to attack economic and political targets.

Other domestic extremist groups, unrelated to the Northern Ireland situation, may aspire to campaigns of violence but lack developed terrorist capabilities. For the most part, they pose a threat to public order but not to national security.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM

" The UK's police and intelligence services continue to step up efforts to counter the ongoing threat from international terrorism."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM

Furthermore, Don: to resume our colloquy. My comment about the significance of the Islamic date being 14-- was not intended in any way flippantly. In both religious [Inquisition equivalent] & secular [public executions, punitive amputations, corporal punishments] terms, much of the Islamic world would appear to have developed to pretty well the exact point Europe had reached in the 15-16Cs. Another riposte to your drawing of my attention to our past as if I had missed that point.

It's our past. It's their present. One which we could do without coexisting in our midst, surely?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 07:31 AM

"It was a rhetorical choice of words." Carroll
.,.
No it wasn't, you stinking lying little swine; it was the unwarrantable kneejerk assumption of a neglectful fool who responds to what he presumes posts to contain without bothering to read them.

Be off with you! I have nothing to say to the likes of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:10 AM

"coming over here to take our jobs and threaten our way our life" -

You will in fact find nothing in my post to warrant either part of that supposed summation, Carroll, you dishonest little nonentity. Get back in your hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:19 AM

"Be off with you! I have nothing to say to the likes of you."
You haven't had a lot to say to anybody for twenty years
Bigoted shit
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:45 AM

Much as I agree with a lot of what Don says on this thread, I would like to point out that despite some of his views he is generally more than somewhat right of centre - for example admitting to voting conservative. A leftist he is NOT.

The bigotry, MtheGM in your most recent postings lies in the selective nature of your citations of the Muslim holy book, the views in which (I understand, I have not checked, but I rely on a friend who recently converted to Islam although is still a heavy drinker and an active homosexual) change over time and end broadly with an encouragement to do good and follow personal interpretation.   You try to sidestep this by referring to Islamism as merely a tenet of a significant minority, but the main thrust of your argument is that Islam as a whole is dangerous, although the thrust of the selective citations you prefer seems largely to be disavowed by most Muslim leaders and clerics other than the occasional frothing Imam.

So the political moron is you.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:58 AM

Jim.
Keith will be there, as he has been in past years, claiming that "it is the fault of "their" chosen brand of religion rather than "mine".

I have never, ever claimed or even suggested that any religion was to blame.

You make up lies and smears all the time.
Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM

That last Jim lie I referred to was in the context of Northern Ireland.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM

Richard, does criticism of any religion make one a bigot, or just that one?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM

""What about Afghanistan Don.
There is a lot of slaughter going on, but very few deaths can be attributed to any Westerner, and we are packing up to leave anyway.""

So what are the coalition troops doing with all that ammo, shooting rabbits?

Taliban, in case you have forgotten, are natives of that country.

They certainly aren't nice people and for the moment they are the enemy, but they are human beings and Muslims oo, and we are killing them.

As for the Muslim on Muslim deaths, we caused a considerable number in Iraq, some directly and others indirectly, and in other places we supplied the means for killing them.

We are indeed packing up to leave the second pointless war of this century, and in five years or less the Taliban will rule Afghanistan once more.

When will we learn that it isn't our job to put the world to rights (according to our idea of right), and that he who minds his own business gathers no shrapnel?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 01:51 PM

"I rely on a friend who recently converted to Islam although is still a heavy drinker and an active homosexual)" ···

Doesn't sound a very 'reliable' sort of person then, does he, Rich? Just ask some of his new co-religionists how 'reliable' those habits and tendencies make him appear to them, and how 'reliably' they think he will be maintaining and supporting their faith by persisting in them! And not just the 'frothing imams' you speak of either.

"Citing holy books"? Me? It's them that do that. I don't even know their holy books. How should I? I just take their word for what they say.

"...main thrust of your argument is that Islam as a whole is dangerous, although the thrust of the selective citations you prefer seems largely to be disavowed by most Muslim leaders and clerics"

-- well, to return yet again to the indispensable Miss Rice-Davies.

And you call me 'a political moron'. Teeheeheeheeheeheehee.....


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 01:51 PM

Keith, read what I wrote.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 02:39 PM

And this friend on whom you choose to 'rely', Richard ~~ Did he tell the Imam about his bibulous and amatory habits before requesting conversion to the faith? I cannot feel this likely, as, had he done so, I don't expect he would have been found suitable. ~~ Even Islam is presumably not so resolute in its proselytising as to accept just anyone, even one so obviously intent on persisting in setting some of its dearest principles and beliefs at nought. So you might choose to 'rely' on him, but I should estimate his honesty and integrity to be more than somewhat exiguous. Why am I supposed to accept his assurances, on which you 'rely' so confidently, as any sort of valid argument for anything?

Hmmmm?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 03:24 PM

I did read Richard.
You said he singled out passages, to illustrate his objections, and that he speculated on how it might be detrimental.

Is it always bigoted to question any religion thus?

Don, for some time now the fighting in Afghanistan has been left to the Afghan Army and Police.

The Taleban have always been responsible for many more Afghan killings than the security forces.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest who is bored shitless
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:16 PM

FFS!!

STFU!!!

I'm sharpening my machete.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 06:27 PM

As it happens, one does not need to 'request admittance' to Islam or need to be vetted by an Imam. There is merely a very short declaration along the lines of "There is only one God and Mohammed is His Prophet." before three witnesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 Jun 13 - 08:13 PM

If, Keith, you have read, you have not understood.

And, MtheGM, you betray yourself by assumption, yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:18 AM

Thank you for setting me right, Eliza. How rather neglectful, I can't help feeling, to be so intent on converts as to accept just anyone of whatever character or antecedence. But one is never too old to learn new facts to rectify one's inaccurate assumptions~~ Richard, NB...

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:34 AM

And I shouldn't wonder anyhow, Richard, if that friend of yours doesn't find himself in some sort of disgrace or obloquy within his new faith-cohort if he persists in his iniquitous* ways.

~M~


[as they, not I, would see it, re the homosex; tho I can't stand self-satisfied lushes].

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:31 AM

That's almost the point - the possibility that Islam may already be changing from within.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:48 AM

If I have misunderstood Richard, it may well be because you have not explained properly and I am not alone.

A religion is a human construct and as such is open to comparison and criticism, and it is reasonable to have an opinion on how its growth might effect a society.

You say appear to say that makes Michael a bigot.
Where have I gone wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:57 AM

Don,
According to the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.[101][102]

According to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban's bombings and other attacks which have led to civilian casualties "sharply escalated in 2006" when "at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at non-combatants."[103][104] By 2008, the Taliban had increased its use of suicide bombers and targeted unarmed civilian aid workers, such as Gayle Williams.[105]

The United Nations reported that the number of civilians killed by both the Taliban and pro-government forces in the war rose nearly 50% between 2007 and 2009.[106] The high number of civilians killed by the Taliban is blamed in part on their increasing use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), "for instance, 16 IEDs have been planted in girls' schools" by the Taliban.[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:20 AM

Oh dear. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The fallacy is this:

Proposition 1: Islamists are dangerous
Proposition 2: Islamists express themselves to follow Islam.
Proposition 3: Some selected texts from the Koran and its interpretations may be read as foundations for Islamist views.
Fallacious conclusion: All Muslims are dangerous (or Islam is dangerous).

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 06:14 AM

700

That is indeed a fallacious conclusion.
Nobody drew it though.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM

Is anyone actually saying that all Moslems are dangerous? I may be as blind as the others but, if so, I cannot spot it! As to Islam being dangerous - Yes it is, in the wrong hands such as the 'frothing Imams'. Any religion is dangerous in the hands of fanatics, surely?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:15 AM

So, not a bigot then Richard.