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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:16 PM

Please God, make it end...........

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:44 PM

Don't be such a great big fat PARTY-POOPER, BWM. If you don't like it, go to some other thread!

Oh, dear ~~ these people who will log on to threads just to denounce how boring they are. As have said before, I can direct them to a BDSM forum if that's their bag!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM

LOL Michael!
Just put it down to my masochistic tendencies. It's rather like passing the scene of a major traffic smash - you know it's horrible, but you can't help looking.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 12:58 PM

Teehee ~~ you looked back pretty quick that time, didn't you?

Peek-a-boo!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:05 PM

LOL again!
Told ya I'm a masochist!
It's sad that there's so little real debate going on - just a small number of people stating the same things over and over ad nauseam, whilst sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La-la-la" when their opponent(s) speak(s).
Oh we'll, time to get ready to go out and belt a few songs out.......
TTFN.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:07 PM

"Oh well".........bugger damn and blast iPad bloody predictive text!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:26 PM

Jim, in those extracts all those Pakistani Muslim people ascribed the offending to their culture.
That was before I made my post two and a half years ago.

Denying that just makes you look stupid.
You have just had put in front of you what you denied!

I ask you again, what proportion of a community are effected to any degree by the culture of that community?

Richard and Don.?

Backwoodsman, I too would like him to stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:46 PM

""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?""

A very nifty swerve Mike! 9/10 for manoeuvreability, but 2/10 for comprehension. LOL

The actual point was that you are using exactly the same tiny portion of the Q'ran to categorise the whole religion, as these rabid, half mad, Mullahs use to instil hatred of us in their young students.

Can you deny that this is just as dishonest a use of that 109 verses, so how do you justify using their methods to make your point, and more importantly, can any valid judgement of Islam itself result from that action?

Relating to the inquisition, I did not advance that as an argument. I stated that it was discredited and dismissed as an argument, and compared it to your argument re Islam.

As far as I can see, such debate distracts from the very real problem, which is these rabble rousingpreachers who are not being dealt with. We have laws against incitement to race or religious hatred, so why not jail them, sharpish?

As to what a minority of sadistic rulers do within their own countries, perhaps if we were to mind our own business and make any complaints through the United Nations, we might have fewer preachers inciting hatred, and fewer terrorists setting off bombs.

I don't recall anybody ever suggesting that this country is responsible for putting the world to rights.

In fact, our best friends right now are the ones we obeyed when they told us to take our troops and piss off home.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 01:47 PM

They are called the Commonwealth and a lot of them are Muslims.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 02:05 PM

Some pretty nifty footwork of your own around there, Don. Don't you know that aspects of the criminal law in Malaysia & Singapore -- with #s of annual executions* ( surpassed only by such as Saudi), & flogging for illegal immigrants as well as for muggers -- are a hissing & a byword to many? Are you happy about the way Pakistan & Bangladesh have developed judicially since we left? And do you think that they think they are our 'friends', Commonwealth or not?

~M~

*& not just for murder & rape &c, but for things like drug-running ~~ there's an English grandmother under sentence of death for it there right now. Not that I'm overwhelmed with sympathy; silly woman should have known the score & has only self to blame for her predicament; but you will, I know, take my point & not fly off at tangents, not being called Carroll!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 04:38 PM

I guess my last point is not worthy of comment?. I suppose that if I do not agree in entirety I must be a right wing racist? If i am not for you I am against you? I am not in your gang?

Well, sorry, but I left the politics of the schoolyard behind some years back. Not as many as you would think but enough. Why can people not understand that we can be against terrorists without being against their cause? Why can some not understand that there are bad people in every single walk of life and if I do not like them it does not mean I am against their whole socio-economic-religious grouping?

And finally, just what is the point of rhetorical questions?

Jim, sorry, but I am neither for not against you, Keith, Michael, Mohammed or Santa. I just do not like people who do bad things to others. Including those who try to demean others with their weaselly words.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 04:58 PM

""Don't you know that aspects of the criminal law in Malaysia & Singapore -- with #s of annual executions* ( surpassed only by such as Saudi), & flogging for illegal immigrants as well as for muggers -- are a hissing & a byword to many?""

All well and fine Mike.

Do I hate the kind of government that countenances these outrages? YES I DO!

Do I think it is the UKs job to take them on militarily and clean them up? NO I DON'T!

We have an international body supposed to deal with this kind of stuff. What we should be doing is ensuring that it has the teeth to do the job.
Getting rid of the stupid one nation veto would be a good start.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 05:05 PM

BTW Mike, I would greatly appreciate the cessation of your newly acquired habit of using me as a comparison to have a series of sly digs at Jim.

I am well aware that his passion leads to unwise and often unacceptable language, but his heart is in the right place and he is, more often than not, sincere.

Besides, I really don't much appreciate the faint praise of being "more sensible than Jim", or anybody else, for that matter.

Din T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 05:08 PM

And that of course would be Don T.

Bloody weird keyboard with keys like a forty year old typewriter

DT

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 05:19 PM

"Do I think it is the UKs job to take them on militarily and clean them up? NO I DON'T!"
.,,.
I don't know what point of mine you think you are replying to here, Don. I have suggested no such thing. I was simply responding to your assertion that the territories we left are now our 'friends [your word! - scroll back!]; and some of these were Muslims. My point was simply that, even if they are our 'friends' [which I might beg leave to question], then 'friends' like these Muslim states I mention among our ex overseas territories are 'friends' we need like pepper up our nose. No implication that they were in any way our responsibility.

Not your customary clarity of thought, methinks.

~M~

Your request noted. Shall comply, natch. Tho as to position of someone's ❤ there could be more than one opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 05:24 PM

Dave the Gnome,

Cocentrating on my discussion with Mike, I completely missed your last two posts.

I've just checked back and I must say that your point is well taken and closely in accord with what I have tried to say. It also carries the weight of experience of working closely with Muslims, and understanding that the vast majority want exactly the same things that we want.

""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?

(my emphasis) Anyhow, I have stated over and over again that the religion is not the people and the people are not the religion.""

The last sentence is particularly succinct and elegant, and some people would benefit from having it framed and displayed in a prominent position.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Jun 13 - 05:26 PM

Surely you've picked enough cherries for a family meal by now Mike :-) LOL

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 12:48 AM

Never enough picked until everyone at the table has learnt to appreciate the significance of the flavour of the largest and most succulent.

❧·☺·M·☺·❦

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 03:06 AM

No Keith - continuing to rely on witnesses who do not in any way bear out your claims makes you an Islamophobe and a liar.
Nowhere does anybody attempt to link the entire male population with these crimes - on the contrary - the statements in your article all refer to CRIMINALS not Pakistanis in general - unless of course, you are claiming all male Pakistanis in Britain are criminals of course.
To put a link up which sends your case crashing down in flames - now there's stupid.
Jim Carroll

All of these statements refer to criminals – only you have chosen to accuse the entire male population of these crimes.
From your link
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-jack-straw-is-right-to-ask-hard-quest

Ann Cryer
Earlier, Ann Cryer, former Labour MP for Keighley, West Yorkshire, who campaigns for women's rights, said Straw should be commended for bringing up a problem which, she claimed, Muslim MPs were not prepared to confront.
Said Cryer: "The vast majority of young Asian men are fine, but there's a minority who do not behave properly towards white women and sweeping it under the carpet will only make matters worse. If these Asian men behaved in the same way to young Muslim girls they'd end up in very hot water in their community."

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
The feminist Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has also backed
Straw. Writing in the Independent about the Derby gang she says: "The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there."
She calls on Asians to examine "what lies beneath these crimes".
She goes on:
"I accept that on the basis of the evidence presented in court, this Derby gang was no different from that of the white grooming posse convicted in Cornwall in November. They too preyed on helpless, easily-pleased young white girls who were then used and destroyed. Most paedophiles in this country are white, and their victims too. Just because they harm their own doesn't make it less abominable or more acceptable. What does it matter to a young, white, rape victim whether her violator has pasty or dark skin? And it is gratifying that reputable figures like Barnado's Martin Narey and the judge in the Derby case have spoken out against wholesale racial scapegoating. We know extremists use race and crime statistics to stoke racial hatred against Britons of colour and from religious minorities. I have sometimes been a pin-up girl for the repellent BNP and English Defence League, whenever I criticise Muslims, or Asian values or black Britons who do wrong. You feel degraded and treacherous when this happens."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 03:59 AM

I am not an Islamophobe or a racist, so you will always lose this debate Jim.
I also do not lie.

Nowhere does anybody attempt to link the entire male population with these crimes
Of course they don't.
Only a complete knob would.

the statements in your article all refer to CRIMINALS not Pakistanis in general
Yes.
Child rapists and traffickers are criminals.


All of these statements refer to criminals – only you have chosen to accuse the entire male population of these crimes.

Then come the big lie that Jim needs to make his false accusation.
Of course I have not done that.
Only a complete knob would.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,keith A
Date: 15 Jun 13 - 04:09 AM

Continuing your extract where you cut Jim.
"But I still say we need to expose and discuss more openly the underpinning values of the Asian criminal rings in many of our cities. If we don't, the evil will grow. Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths. What the Derby gang did has planted and raised more racism – possibly even among good, benign people – than my words ever could. I am sure recruitment to extremist parties has gone up too. Prominent anti-racists know that, but will not openly say so.

The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there. The whore and the virgin are both feared and severely controlled and abused. A 2005 study in the Netherlands of Muslim males found the same bifurcation, and identified deep sexism as responsible for both."

and then
"Shouting down Jack Straw, busying ourselves with warnings about feeding the BNP, are displacement activities that will do nothing to stop Asian groomers, who, from childhood have developed distorted ideas about themselves, society, females, vice and virtue"
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-jack-straw-is-right-to-ask-hard-questions-about-asian-men-2180318.html

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM

Jim's link does not work - I think it may be a limit on the number of characters in making a link. Cut and paste Keith's instead. Read it. Then look at how Jim uses it and how Keith uses it - Make your own mind up as to which argument it supports as I have. But remember it has nothing to do with this particular thread and only helps prove that out of the 600 and odd posts over half seem to be geared to a particular personal argument!

I know this is a bit of cherry picking but please bear with me. There is one very significant line which will be relevant to this and many other cases -

Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths.

We know that the perpetrators in this case will use the 'fighting against injustice for Islam' card. They will ask for special or political treatment. Who is doing most to stir up anti-Islamic feeling here? The men who say that they should have special treatment because they did it in the name if their religion or those who say it is wrong for them to do so?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 03:28 AM

A relevant digression rather than a drift, I think ~~

Re: "cherry picking"; a phrase unworthily and tendentiously used here in a pejorative way, when it is, in fact, a process, as DtG has just demonstrated, essential for concentrating on the most relevant part of an argument.

Cherries are, after all, there to be picked. And selecting the best of them is a skilful operation.

❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 03:44 AM

"Jim's link does not work"
It's the same as Keith's link above, which you or somebody else corrected.
"Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths."
It is cherry picking - it comes along with all the statements made at the time by the judiciary, by the police and by the social workers who commented on the situation at the time, which you people have studiously ignored - that no racial or social conclusions can or should be drawn from these events - over and over again. Jack Straw actually suggested these crimes as carried out by "some young Asian men who are "fizzing and popping with testosterone" but had no "outlet" within their own community" - these are crimes by young criminals, not the result of the culture of the community as a whole as you have persistently suggested.
You people have cherry picked 17 court cases over thirteen years which have led to the conviction of 53 Muslim men over thirteen years to prove some sort of cultural corruption in an entire ethnic community.
There has been a malicious ignoring here of the most important facts of this case by all you you -
1 The Muslim communities are the most law abiding in Britain today.
If the religion of two and a half million people was in any way the cause of these events, the streets of Britain would be running with blood - why aren't they?
2 Considering the years of bigotry, abuse and actual physical violence that the Muslim communities have had to put up with at the hands of not just BNP/NF/EDL thugs, but also from of large sections of the popular press, it is surprising that there is as little trouble as there is on our streets.
3 The North of England police forces, when accused of not acting on knowledge in their possession claimed they did not do so because it was mainly consentual sex which was difficult to do anything about as it happened everywhere - not in any way an excuse for what was happening, but certainly proof positive that this was in no way a "Muslim" thing, as you are claiming.
4. The press and the media have been seriously debating the question of what effect events abroad have had on this murder, some having reached the conclusions that they have - you people haven't bothered your arses even to consider it, but have rejected it out of hand because it doesn't suit your Islamophobic agenda.
"out of the 600 and odd posts over half seem to be geared to a particular personal argument"
This is not a "personal" argument - Keith's (and a few other's) racism has dominated this thread as it has other threads on British Muslims and on Israel - go and read his stomach turning "Homs Horror" thread.
This forum is regularly being used as a racist soapbox by one person.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 03:57 AM

And as to 'cherry picking' the bits of the Koran which show the faith in what some would regard as an unfavourable light: is not that part of the tendency for the bad to be more noticeable and memorable than the good. ( Hence such phenomena as Godwin's Law, say; or the remark of whoever it was, "Happy is the country who has more history. & those lines of Yeats which I am always quoting, "The best lack all conviciton, While the worst are full Of passionate intensity")?

So, honest now!, is not an injunction to love everyone around going to be less noticeable, and less memorable, to the vast majority of human beings, than a command to kill all who won't accept that yours is the only true path?

So which is the more likely, is indeed asking more, to be cherry-picked?

Honest, now.

☞ on ♥ !

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 04:00 AM

should of course have read "country which has NO history"

Sorry

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Donkey-spotter
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 04:12 AM

From: Jim Carroll


{Heee-hawww}---- ♘

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 05:50 AM

"than a command to kill all who won't accept that yours is the only true path?"
So that would be common practice by British Muslims, would it?
On Friday a sermon entitled "Tackling Street Grooming" by an imam, condemning outright the behaviour of these criminals as against the Muslim faith will be read out in fifty Mosques in Britain
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 06:02 AM

Jim, if you insist that I am of "You people" - IE, those who disagree with you and are therefore right-wing racists, then you will have no issue in my categorising you a complete nutcase will you? :-)

As to "you or somebody else corrected", well, I don't know who you think I am or how much power you think I wield but it only strengthens the case that your conspiracy theories derive from a particularly twisted imagination.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 06:19 AM

"So that would be common practice by British Muslims, would it?"
.,,.
Wikipedia article 'Terrorist Incidents In Great Britain' lists 17 incidents, either successful like 7/7, Glasgow Airport 2007, Exeter 2008, Woolwich 2013, or foiled by police intelligence & action, of unarguably Islamist provenance, since 2000.

How "common" would you like, AAMOI?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 07:43 AM

Michael, you could add the number of BMs who have travelled to places like Syria and Somalia to kill unbelievers or believers in the other kind of Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:02 PM

MtheGM's last post just got deleted for no apparent reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM

Yes ~~ & it was querying why another post had been deleted. What is going on, please, mods? I do not like being treated in this cavalier & unmannerly fashion by anyone; please don't try to bully me.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:16 PM

Ah ~~ thank you SRS. But why couldn't they just have said so? I repeat; I don't like bullies ~~ mods or any other sort; and expect decent courtesy of treatment. All I did was ask a civil question. Was a civil answer so unreasonable an expectation?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:17 PM

& while I was posting that, SRS's to me vanished.

Oh, bugger it. So away and play your silly games!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:19 PM

Come on guys, think about it. The more you talk about the troll, the more he gets his rocks off. I never post as a guest with my name or moniker. Something has set off that asshole again, maybe he's just in high spirits after getting out of jail.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:23 PM

Well done Maggie (The real one - Yes, I did spot it!)

If you can keep your head when all around you... :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 16 Jun 13 - 12:24 PM

... not that you will be a man my son or anything :-D

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM

"How "common" would you like"
How many incidents before I'm prepared to blame the entire Muslim population of Britain for these atrocities? A damn sight more than the handful you've been able to come up with so far.
Britain has a Muslim population of 2000,5000.
Suggested numbers such as 2,000 suspects (not forgetting the invented "many thousands more" going to fight abroad) have been bandied about here along with your claim is that 'it was their religion wot made them do it'.
Why aren't incidents like these an everyday occurrence if your attempts to implicate all believers are to be given credence – please don't try to claim you haven't – you and Keith have made it abundantly clear on that score?
Nobody has denied that these nutters exist, nor has anybody ever attempted to excuse their crimes in any way - what has been argued from the earliest postings is that these events in no way implicate the Muslim population in general - not just me, but most of those who posted at the beginning of this thread, before you took it over for your soap-boxing.
As far as I'm concerned, the miniscule number of Muslims involved in promoting violence and murder in Britain today are guilty of incitement to violence and murder and should be tried and punished for such, or at the very least, deported.
The Muslim population as a whole are exactly as I described, innocent of any crime or involvement despite your sneering attempts to implicate them via their culture.
You suggested that I had no contact with the people we are discussing – I pointed out that I had and I invited you to compare notes with your own experiences – you failed to comply.
I worked as a self-employed electrician in London for twenty-odd years during which time I met many Muslims. I can't claim any of them as friends – my contact with them was limited to the time I worked for them.
In general, I found them friendly, hospitable and more than happy to discuss both their and my religious views in a friendly and enquiring manner – a far cry from the picture you and your friends paint of the monsters you appear to believe they are. Without exception, they possessed a humanity that has been totally lacking in anything you or your friends have shown in your outpourings of cultural hatred.
In the past we met a number of Muslims on holidays we took in Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Northern Greece, not opportunities to get to know people to any great depth, but our interest in traditional music gave us chances to see them up closer than ordinary holidays would have. We found all we spoke with, without exception, friendly and hospitable, both interesting and interested – never once showing hostility towards a couple of 'infidels'.
My closest contact with a Moslem was a few years ago when I spent a great deal of time in Galway with the Tunisian fiance/ of the daughter of one of our closest friends (later to become man and wife) – we had epic discussions on the various aspects of Christianity, Islam and atheism – we still remain friends.
I won't bother to ask you again to reciprocate with your own experiences as I doubt if you have any.   
So far, none of you have even addressed the points I listed, not even to dismiss them out of hand as is your common practice.   
"....travelled to places like Syria and Somalia to kill unbelievers"
There is a civil war in Somalia following a coup d'état; both the UN and the USA have involved themselves in attempting to bring about peace. To describe it as a fight between Muslims is cynically and manipulatively simplistic in the extreme – like describing the Vietnam War as a fight between Christians and atheists.
http://www.c-r.org/accord-article/endless-war-brief-history-somali-conflict
Describing what is happening in Syria (particularly after your theatrical breast-beating over Homs) as "to kill unbelievers or believers in the other kind of Islam" is beyond belief.
The Syrian troubles started as an attempt to democrotise the country (part of the Arab Spring demonstrations) and was allowed to degenerate into civil war due to inaction by the West, who were happy to stand and watch the slaughter. We have yet to hear your opinion on British and US proposals to arm the rebels (talk about stables and bolting horses!) – I have little doubt you'll be claiming that this is what you argued for all the time.
I'm sure you have no need of reminding of your attitude towards the UN, the US and Britain's refusal to intervene, or your call to supply Assad with riot control gear, or your defence of Britain's having sold "a few" sniper bullets" to Assad, some of which were quite likely to have been used on the streets of Homs.
To describe what is happening in Syria as Muslim against Muslim is sick to the extreme on your part, given your past rivers of crocodile tears for the "poor Syrian people".
Dave
"You people"
I have never at any time responded to your postings in any way other than to attempt to answer your points – that's what I do – no suggestion of your being a "fascist" or any other 'ist'.
You, on the other hand have totally failed to respond to any of my arguments and, along with Laurel and Hardy here, have consistently failed to move from or to justify your position of blaming the religion for this and other atrocities and have refused to consider or even discuss any other possibilities.
I'm sure you are aware of the "dogs and fleas" proverb, but am happy to help out if you aren't – another one for you – "if the cap fits...."
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 10:39 AM


The Muslim population as a whole are exactly as I described, innocent of any crime or involvement

That is how I and everyone else here describes them.
We agree.
Good.
despite your sneering attempts to implicate them via their culture.

No-one has done that.
Not knowing anything about it myself, I came to accept what people like Jasmin Alibhai-Brown and other insiders say about it.

Those who go on foreign Jihad are fighting for their religion.
They fight unbelievers.
One of the Woolwich suspects had tried to fight with Al Shabab in Somalia, and now wants to be known as Mujaheid Abu Hamza.
Mujaheid means one who fights for Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM

Don't you lecture me on something you know nothing about - you are even beeing selective about the term Jihhad - go and look it up and tell me how you came to your definition and tell us how you de3cided on the meaning.
Pratt
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM

have consistently failed to move from or to justify your position of blaming the religion for this and other atrocities

Jim, I really have no idea what you are talking about. I think your judgement is clouded by your vendetta against other members. That is not and never has been my position. In fact I posted only a few posts up something that Don commented on -

I have stated over and over again that the religion is not the people and the people are not the religion

Religion is not to blame for this. People are. They did say they were acting for Islam, which they could well have been in their minds. They were not acting for most of the people who follow that religion. How much plainer can I make it? Oh yes, and what 'other atrocities' am I supposed to be blaming Islam for? While I have every sympathy for your point of view and can respect it, you are doing yourself no favours by making this stuff up. Now, please either find me some facts with which to back up your accusations or stop making them.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 02:17 PM

Careful, Dave ~~ or he will forbid you to "lecture" him. That seems to be his latest when anybody has the gall and temerity contradict any of his unarguable asseverations!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 03:13 PM

" I think your judgement is clouded by your vendetta against other members."
And I think you7 are indulging in what you've just accused me of - name-calling.
Throughout all of this I have put up a case, provided what I believe to be reasonable argument and requested that you/they and anybody else who disagrees respond to what I claim - you have my arguments, you have my direct invitation to justify your claims - so far you have repeated like a bleeding Dalek that you don't agree - no qualification.
You'll be going off in a huff next and saying you have nothing to say to me, and then coming back when you think the coast is clear, as is the practice of your friend bring up the rear (his most comfortable position apparently).
If you now claim that religion is not the cause of this why were you claiming that it was and quibbling the difference between religion and church.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 03:53 PM

Sorry technical interruption.
Keith has just cited 2 wars that he claims are religious Jihads (suggest you look up the full meaning of the word too)
The Syrian conflict started as an attempt to bring democracy to a country led by a known despotic torturer (the UK certainly knew this via an Amnesty report, yet continued to trade with him and carry on friendly relations even to the point ofd selling sniper ammunition (Keith will tell you - he spotted it)
The fact that Britain, the US and the UN sat on their arses and did nothing allowed the situation to turn into a civil war and opened the gates for religious nutters to participate has nothing to do with religious crusades, just opportunism.
The Somalian situation is an attempt to overthrow a government - nothing todo with religion - look it up.
Keith is using these to take a swipe at all Moslems, just as he used underage sex to take a swipe at British Pakistanis.
I have no vendetta against this pair of sickos, just their sick beliefs - you can look them up too - the Muslim prejudice thread or anything on Israel is as god a place as any to start for Keith - Mike said it all here on this thread (wonder what you thought about that particular rant?).
Feel free to challenge any of my four statements above any time you wish.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:09 PM

Jim, we all know how Syria started.
You still blame just the West and ignore the part played by your old mates China, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah.
Do you have evidence for these sniper rounds?
I keep telling you that I have none.

However it started it is now a sectarian war, Sunni against Shia.

Now Somalia.

Africa Report N°10012 Dec 2005
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Somalia's long civil conflict and lack of central governing institutions present an international security challenge. Terrorists have taken advantage of the state's collapse to attack neighbouring countries and transit agents and materiel. The country is a refuge for the al-Qaeda team that bombed a Kenyan resort in 2002 and tried to down an Israeli aircraft. Since 2003, Islamist extremists have been linked to murders of Somalis and foreigners. If governments are to counter the limited but real threat of terrorism in or from Somalia, they need to align closer with Somali priorities – the restoration of peace, legitimate and broad-based government, and essential services – and make clear that their counter-terrorism efforts are aimed at a small number of criminals, many of them foreigners, not the Somali population at large.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:11 PM

If you now claim that religion is not the cause of this why were you claiming that it was

I did not, Jim, and I invite you to show us where you believe this happened even though we both know you cannot. Your so called arguments, to me, seem to comprise mainly of unjustified claims against anyone who disagrees with you and then a total absence of any evidence.

Then you invite me to justify my claims! Which claims are those, Jim? The ones I actually made or the ones you imagined?

As to name calling, if you think I have indulged in anything but mild retaliation then you have led a very sheltered life. I believe I have shown remarkable restraint under extreme provocation so far. If you continue on your current track however you will provide enough evidence of your true self to make name calling completely redundant.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 04:58 PM

Oh, and BTW you don't agree - no qualification.

I agree with some of what you say but not all, nor the way you conduct your arguments. I need provide no justification for why I do not agree with you on some points. Can you just not understand that some folk chose to disagree with your view of the world? If so then I am afraid you are on the road to standing in a ward with your hand tucked into your vest saying "Not tonight, Josephine." :-) At least they still may allow you to access the internet if you are good...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 17 Jun 13 - 11:59 PM

"agree with some of what you say but not all, nor the way you conduct your arguments"

Like any who don't accept that

"some folk chose to disagree with your view of the world"

must be a 'ranting sicko'.

Worrer thicko.

& a saddo

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:17 AM

Dave
I have just trawled through your posts and it appears I owe you an apology - you have not actually taken a stance on this matter - you have said nothing one way or the other on the matter - though on occasion you have given the impression of having done so.
Then what's our argument?
Do you go along with M' and M's vicious diatribe against British Muslims?
Do you go along with Keith's long standing, well established and openly vicious hatred of Muslims, describing their communities as being full of suppressed perverts and harbouring terrorists - an enemy within?
Why has what I have said "clouded by my vendetta against other members"
Why is my finding the views this noxious pair as reprehensible as you appear to find it?
"I need provide no justification for why I do not agree with you on some points"
No - of course you don't - but you do need to say what those disagreements are if you are going to refer to them here - not to do so is hit-and-run trolling.
I make my argument to the best of my ability, and I expect the courtesy of an argument in return if you believe me to be wrong
You don't like the way I argue - tough - I don't particularly like wrestling with fog.
You disagree with me - fine - what do you disagree with?
I say that anybody who butchers a soldier on the streets in no way represents the religion they claim to and should not in any way be seen as representing either their religion nor their community - any problems with that?
I say that this killing has nothing whatever to do with religion but is the act of nutters who have attempted to dignify their lethally brutish behaviour by making it a 'cause' - am I wrong?
I claim that it is cultural bigotry in the extreme to use that act to attempt to smear any ethnic or cultural group in Britain or anywhere - a problem with you?
I believe that anybody who attempts to do so is no better than the racist and bigoted gangs who have made the streets a dangerous and miserable minefields for those who have chosen to make Britain their homes - how am I doing so far?
If you disagree with what I have to say please have the good manners to say what you disagree with it so it can be discussed.
If you go along with Keith and his Jimminy Cricket, have the honesty to say you do so so we know where we stand.
Cheers to you too
Jim Carroll