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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 13 - 11:12 AM

IMO Jim's position has now reached the "argumentum ad absurdum" stage, he is now merely trolling and we all know how to deal with that.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 13 - 11:03 AM

"I can see what you are getting at, Jim, but did any of the perpetrators of the above attacks justify them by saying they were doing it in the name of Christianity?"
Does it matter?
Breivik made a point of describing himself as a "Christian Militant" - does that make his massacre a "Christian" one?
In the end it doesn't matter a toss.

1. Yes it does matter. If people say they are committing a crime in the name of (enter your own whatever) then it is fair to say it is a (whatever) crime.
2. As Breivik made the point that he was a Christian Militant the implication was that he committed the crime in the name of Christianity. So, yes, that was a Christian hate crime.
3. In the end it doesn't matter a toss to the victims. But it does matter in the reporting of such crimes as (whatever). If it is an Islamist hate crime, let's call it that. If it is a Radical Christian hate crime. Then call it that as well.

the Woolwich murder was not a political act - it was the work of a number of twisted bastards who justified themselves by claiming religion to be their reason.

The massacre of Jews, Gypsies and Poles in WW2 was also an act of a number of twisted bastards as well. But we waged war on the whole German nation, not just the twisted bastards. When the population fails to control it's own extremists someone else needs to intervene. Whether that should be the UK, the US the UN or someone else is entirely another debate. And, yes, the same should apply to everyone!

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 13 - 11:03 AM

"The perps. and their supporters do."
No, the nutters (on both sides - you and them) do.
Hate merchants all.
Jim Carroll

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 13 - 10:04 AM

Should read; "No - the Woolwich murder was not a political or religious act"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 13 - 10:02 AM

"I can see what you are getting at, Jim, but did any of the perpetrators of the above attacks justify them by saying they were doing it in the name of Christianity?"
Does it matter?
Breivik made a point of describing himself as a "Christian Militant" - does that make his massacre a "Christian" one?
In the end it doesn't matter a toss.
These ancient rantings have no effect on sane, reasonable people whatever - it is the nutters in any society they incite to acts of hatred, and people who carry out those acts can and have come from any religion race or country.
No - the Woolwich murder was not a political act - it was the work of a number of twisted bastards who justified themselves by claiming religion to be their reason.
Equally twisted are those who attempt to pin these crimes as belonging to this or that particular brand of religion (in this case, somebody who has previously claimed that an entire gender of a racial/religious community is inclined to sexual deviancy because of their "cultural implant) - sickos all!
Jim Carroll

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 13 - 09:20 AM

They are definitely hate crimes and if the perpetrators claimed to be acting on their Christian beliefs they could be characterized as Christian terrorism as could any terrorist act committed by religious fanatics in the name of their religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 29 May 13 - 09:09 AM

I can see what you are getting at, Jim, but did any of the perpetrators of the above attacks justify them by saying they were doing it in the name of Christianity? I must admit I only skimmed the articles but I could see no such reference, in which case they can be called anti-Moslem attacks, but not Christian attacks. OK - The difference may be subtle but I would have no qualms in saying there was a Christian attack if that is what the perpetrator said it was, just as when some of the Islamist attacks were done in the name of Islam they can be described as such.

Just my view of course.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 May 13 - 08:45 AM

"Jim, do you take issue with this?"
Do you take issue with any of this?

SCRIPTURES OLD TESTAMENT DEUTERONOMY 17
The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy
Chapter 17
Those who worship false gods will be put to death—Priests and judges are to determine the hard cases—Kings are not to acquire horses, wives, or gold for themselves—The king must study the laws of God daily.

1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evil favouredness: for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God.

2 If there be found among you, within any of thy agates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant,

3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;

4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel:

5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.

Wonder if any of these terrorist attacks can be described as "Christian".

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3777392.ece
http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1854/racist-ex-soldier-who-threatened-to-behead-a
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/17/298808/exus-soldier-gets-prison-for-mosque-fire/
http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.ie/2011/12/stoke-on-trent-mosque-arsonists-jailed.html
http://www.iengage.org.uk/news/2025-ex-soldier-admits-pigs-head-attack-on-cheltenham-mosque

Jim Carroll

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

Thanks Bobad.

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

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

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


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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 29 May 13 - 06:17 AM

Indeed Keith, and many if not most Imams begin their prayer service with this invocation:

"Anta mawlana, fanSurna 'Alal Qawmil Kaafiryun"

"[O Allah] You are our Protector, give us victory over the Kuffar [Jews, Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims]"

This is what Tarek Fatah, indefatigable crusader against Islamization, has to say about it:

"Long before a jihadi picks up an AK47, he or she is imbibed with a false sense of victimhood and hatred towards non-Muslims. That hate is subtle, yet potent. And there are Imams urging the faithful to utter prayers against the Kuffar — Jews, Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims.

Just the ethics of such hateful sermons and prayers is questionable, if not repugnant.

Never once in any of his sermons did Prophet Muhammad invoke such angry words towards non-Muslims."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 13 - 05:15 AM

And, Don, since we are on this topic of 'context', which you, not I, urge as an essential, I feel no stabs of conscience in reminding that you lot over there incessantly take, not even a sentence but a mere 5 words spoken by the late Lady Thatcher, "no such thing as 'society'", most exquisitely out of context, to make them mean something you are perfectly aware was not her intention at all.

So how about that then?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 May 13 - 04:26 AM

This may not be a neutral site, but it gives examples of the verses you are concerned about.

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran.   

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history."

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 13 - 02:58 AM

In fact, Don: on reflection I can't but feel that your silly argument on no·quote·admissible·without·context deserves a bit of the old reductio ad absurdum.

So tell me please: if one sentence is not enough, then how many of a context must be given before an argument from quotation is acceptable? 3 sentences? 10 sentences? 100 sentences? Nothing will do but the entire work even if it's Clarissa or War&Peace?

Oh, come on now, Don...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,jeff
Date: 29 May 13 - 02:41 AM

There isn't a single Muslim anywhere in the world who doesn't have blood on their hands when it comes to these types of atrocities. ALL mosques have a portion of their tithes set aside for Jihad. There are no 'good, law abiding muslims'. They simply lay low and wait until they have a clear majority then they try convert or destroy the culture in which they find themselves. If they're good and lawabiding theyr ejudt lsying low until the timre is right.

Don't be fooled for a second as we're ALL infidels and lower than dogs unless some worthwhile service can be found for an infidel to serve his/her muslim overlord. Otherwise, it's perfectly ok to kill and EAT a non-muslim, povided they're consumed uncooked. Sharia Law. These 2 guys think they are martyrs for Jihad, their lives are meaningless, but what glories await them in the hereafter. Sorry if this seems to fly in the face amoung the Musim apologists on this site. Get it through your thick skulls. They are out to convert or destroy Westen Civilization.

Thus far they're making rather short work of it. 20 years ago the Musilim Botherhood ageed it's priority is to indoctrinate the next generation of Amerian children. In somet textbooks 34 pages are devoteed to explaning muslim traditions and cutoms while all the other religions are limited to a total of 3.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 13 - 01:11 AM

'it depends both on the content of the single sentence quoted and of its content' ...

Apologies for that nonsensical phrase above ~~ the 2nd 'content' should of course have been 'context'.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 13 - 01:08 AM

I didn't say 'FFS', Don. If you look, I was quoting Richard back at himself.

As to your, "I say that one single sentence taken from any text, can never give an accurate assessment of the thrust of the whole, absent the context.
Now you tell me that is wrong, if you can, in honesty, do so."

I dealt with this in my reply to Richard [in which I apologise for failing to close the 'underline' instruction which should only have underlined the one word 'asked']. To reiterate: sometimes it can, sometimes not; it depends both on the content of the single sentence quoted and of its content. I should myself feel that that sentence originally cited by bobad [which, I remind you, you claimed 'a misquotation' but now admit you haven't the knowledge to maintain such an accusation] is strong enough in itself to provide at least evidence of lethally aggressive intentions in its formulator, whatever the rest of the passage in which it appears (which you have not cited to show that the sentence quoted is in any way atypical of its context) may say.

Do you, honestly now Don, not feel this at least a tenable position on my part?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 AM

Thank you, Richard. I take the point, if these are indeed the same passages. But you are wrong in your last comment ~~ I did not say they were accurate; I made no assertion but simply asked where Don had found them, as he claimed 'misquoted', as they resembled what I recalled to have heard on some previous occasion. He has now withdrawn his assertion that they were misquoted, admitting that he hasn't the knowledge to make such a judgment; and fallen back on his somewhat feeble IMO argument that no passage can be accurately quoted by extracting a single sentence from it out of context; to which I would rejoin that it would depend what that sentence, even regarded as a single entity, says, and that this will not pass as an outright generalisation.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 10:38 PM

Jesus wept, MtheGM.

First Bobad

"
Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad - PM
Date: 25 May 13 - 06:53 PM

So, you think that the root cause of Islamist Jihadism is Israel and the West's interference in Islamic countries, well think again:

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy."

Now look at the translation I gave you, from a Koranic source: my words: -

"From: Richard Bridge - PM
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:52 AM

The nearest I can find is "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful."

This is really fairly unlike Bobad's alleged quote of "The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."



If you look, the words quoted by Thomas Jefferson (or allegedly so) as NOT the same as the relevant words of the Koran (the source for which I have also given above). In short, they are a misquote. You said they were accurate. They are not. In short, Don was (remarkably) quite right on this occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:52 PM

OK Mike,

Desperate you say.

I say that one single sentence taken from any text, can never give an accurate assessment of the thrust of the whole, absent the context.

Now you tell me that is wrong, if you can, in honesty, do so.

Put your money where your mouth is, or else shut it, as you say, FFS!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 05:41 PM

I made no such assertion, Richard. I simply asked Don his reason for asserting that it was a misquotation, when so far as I remembered its sentiment was as I remembered having read previously. He has since admitted he can't be sure, as he doesn't know the language of the original quotation -- but that 'nobody can prove that it isn't misquoted'; which, as I said to him, strikes me as somewhat desperate.

I don't see where you get the idea that it is my job to prove for you that I am wrong. If you want so to demonstrate, by putting together the two versions under consideration, then that is up to you. Not, I repeat, my job at all. If you can't be bothered, then I stick to my point that neither you nor Don has demonstrated any 'misquotation' of the Sura in question to have occurred,,, and trust my recollection that bobad's citation which started this tranche of the discussion off is accurate. If you still think it isn't then demonstrate so. Otherwise shut-up-a-da-face.

FFS, as you so charmingly put it.

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 05:20 PM

FFS, MtheGM. Go back and read the thread. I don't have to do your homework. You will find Bobad's (I think it was Bobad) quote (for the accuracy of which I do not vouch) of the words of an ancient Moslem addressing teh USA. You will find your assertion that it accurately represented the Koran. You will find a reference to which verse of the Koran. And you will find my text, taken from a Koranic site. I'll see if I can find the link to the site again, but really you should do your own homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:41 PM

"But Islamism is not Islam. Islamism is the politicisation of Islam, the desire to impose a version of this ancient faith over society. To achieve this, Islamism uses political grievances, such as mine, to alienate and then provide an alternative sense of belonging to vulnerable young Muslims. Preying on the grievances of disaffected young men is the bedrock of Islamism.

Like all bigoted ideologies, it plays on the identity politics game, creating a "them and us", in order to provide a home for the "us" against the alien "other" and control the community by acting as the sole "representative" of Muslims."

I was a radical Islamist who hated all of you

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 01:13 PM

"But if I cannot prove that the actual words have been misquoted, no one here can prove that they have NOT!"
.,,.
Feel bound to say, Don, with all moderation, that that seems to me more than somewhat desperate...!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:51 PM

That in response to your previous post, but I don't think yours cross-posted with it invalidates my point...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:49 PM

Point taken, Don. But we are not talking about the money-changers in the temple; we are talking about a particular Koranic passage, which some imams have used to persuade some youths, so that they could then cite it as their authority, to do certain things. You don't know their context [if you did you would have accepted my previous challenge and supplied it!]; neither do I. Neither do the young men; but the imams do, and if they choose to 'cherry-pick' for this purpose...

Is there, perhaps, something not entirely unweasel in your words here?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:46 PM

""Perhaps, indeed, Don, you are in a position to do what Richard appears to be unwilling to do [& he accuses me of 'wriggling'!], and cite that version of the Sura we are discussing, alongside what you would consider 'a verbatim translation of the original words', so that we should at least have some genuine basis to pursue this [what seems to me not unimportant] point?""

No Mike, I do not have the ability to read the original in Arabic, or Aramaic, or whetever was the original. For taht you would need an Islamic theological scholar.

But if I cannot prove that the actual words have been misquoted, no one here can prove that they have NOT!

So to use that story without further inquiry, to make some anti Islam point, is at best specious and at worst, downright dishonest.

Given that the quote consists of a single sentence, taken from a passage which might say anything from "this is a hard and fast rule" to "genuine believers should not act in accordance with this heresy"........well, I'm sure you see where I'm coming from.

A lot more research is needed before we allow our eager beaver anti Muslims to start throwing bricks,.......and please don't ask Abu Qtadr!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: selby
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:39 PM

Compassion and sense appears to work on all sides
Keith

York Mosque praised for offering EDL protesters tea

Father Tim Jones said "the world can learn" from what happened outside the mosque
A mosque has been praised for serving tea and biscuits to English Defence League supporters after the far-right group arranged a demonstration there.
About six people turned up to protest at the mosque in Bull Lane, York, on Sunday and were invited inside to play football with worshippers.
More than 100 supporters of the mosque had gone there after learning of the planned EDL protest.
Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu said the mosque's response was "fantastic".
He said: "Tea, biscuits, and football are a great and typically Yorkshire combination when it comes to disarming hostile and extremist views."
'Proud moment'
Father Tim Jones, who went to the Bull Lane mosque, which is situated in his parish, said: "I've always known they were intelligent and compassionate people and I think this has demonstrated the extent to which they are people of courage - certainly physical courage and also a high degree of moral courage.

"I think the world can learn from what happened outside that ramshackle little mosque on Sunday."

Hull Road ward councillor Neil Barnes said it had been a "proud moment for York".

He said: "I don't think I'll ever forget the day that the York Mosque tackled anger and hatred with peace and warmth - and I won't forget the sight of a Muslim offering a protester tea and biscuits with absolute sincerity."

Fears over a demonstration grew after Yorkshire EDL Scarborough Division posted a message on its Facebook page calling for supporters to gather outside the mosque.

Imam Abid Salik said: "We did have a few people who did come to protest but when they came some of the members of the mosque went over and they engaged in a conversation.

"Some people went over with cups of tea and biscuits, they were talking for about 30 or 40 minutes and then they came inside, which was a really, really beautiful thing."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:35 PM

OK then, Don: it is those stir-it-up imams who are doing it. 'Cherry-picked' or not, it is, so, extracts from the Koran that they are feeding to those young men; and don't claim that the imams have never read it. All you have done is move the responsibility one stage farther back in the Islamist community. But Jim claims it is some of us trying to throw the responsibility on Koranic quotations; which it isn't.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:32 PM

""Without reproducing a work in full, it is surely all that can ever be furnished.""

Not, I suspect, your original thought or words, which is why I have no problem with categorising that sentence as "weasel words".

You know perfectly well that just adding in a dozen surrounding sentences can easily reverse the meaning which an interpreter has chosen to convey.

A classic from the bible is the story of Jesus chasing the money lenders(changers) from the temple.

How many times have you seen that used to claim that he thought those men were evil.

Just a superficial glance at the surrounding text shows that it was the location, not the occupation, to which he objected.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:22 PM

""The Islamists quote the Koran in their own justification incessantly.""

This is where the inaccuracies build upon each other into one massive misconception.

The Islamists do not quote the Q'ran. Most of the British ones, in all probability, have neither the deire nor the ability to read it.

What they quote are the slanted interpretations of carefully cherry picked passages, by sundry trouble making Islamist preachers whose objective is to produce the kind of action we saw in woolwich.

If they had read the book for themselves, they would know under precisely what conditions of persecution those actions were to be taken.

Just as, in the bible, some quite horrendous actions are mandated, which no Christian who has read the whole book for himself would advocate as general rules to be obeyed in the modern world.

However, there are some so-called Christians who have been radicalised in the same way as these Muslim youths.

Compare the Japanese, currently the most polite and law abiding people, who are enthralled by scenes of natural beauty, with the Japanese of seventy years ago and their treatment of prisoners of war and conquered peoples.

Human beings can be turned, so easily, into ravening beasts by charismatic community leaders with an agenda to destroy some group which they hate.

We have such people in the USA, Britain, Iran, Syria, yes and Israel and every other country on the planet.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 12:07 PM

Perhaps, indeed, Don, you are in a position to do what Richard appears to be unwilling to do [& he accuses me of 'wriggling'!], and cite that version of the Sura we are discussing, alongside what you would consider 'a verbatim translation of the original words', so that we should at least have some genuine basis to pursue this [what seems to me not unimportant] point?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:59 AM

""To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable.""

While delivering basic necessities to your prisoners, which in reality, is what the inhabitants of Gaza are, is a necessity if you wish to avoid being accused of genocide.

You really need to stop stupidly trying to pretend that Gaza Palestinians are free agents.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:58 AM

Indeed, Don. Didn't mean to hassle. But really exercised as to wherein precisely lies the 'mistranslation' you claim to find in the passage under consideration. Do you actually know the original from which the extract comes? Or know how selective it may be? Tendentious selective quotation of an out-of-context passage is not quite the same thing as a 'mistranslation' [a tendentious accusation in itself, eh?], is it now? Without reproducing a work in full, it is surely all that can ever be furnished.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:44 AM

""I note that Don has not been back to justify his claim that the translation was 'inaccurate'.""

Inaccurate insofar as it represents the very worst kind of cherry picking, well beloved of our minority of racea nd gender bigots.

It is a sentence, the proper meaning of which is obscured by the absence of the whole textual context from which it has been ripped, and even thyen it is not a verbatim translation of the original words.

In other words its genuine meaning has been twisted, either by the man who is reported to have said it or, quite possibly, by him who reported (politicians both).

As to why I have not been back before, to answer, I seem to recall I once had occasion to defend your right actually to have a life outside of Mudcat, eh Mike?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:31 AM

'Those of you who would make this a "Muslim" crime and attempt to prove it so with selections from the Koran' ---

It is not 'OF YOU' who are doing this, Jim; it is 'OF THEMSELVES'--
Can you really not get it? The Islamists quote the Koran in their own justification incessantly. All anyone else does is point this out.

Oh, what's the use? Once that Carroll·Patent·Instamatic·Racism·Spotter gets plugged in....

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Stu
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:25 AM

Seems I'm not the only one who thinks we are all the same:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/28/woolwich-murder-faith-humani

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:23 AM

Keith once more uses yet another thread to prove that Israelis "didn't do it guv".
You raised the subject of Israel Jim, and you can not challenge anything that I have posted.
It is all fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:17 AM

When it comes to picking on Muslims all day long (& damaging & desecrating Islam) NO ONE, can compete with Islamist Jihadis. If "Islamophobia" can be measured in terms of killing Muslims, we have 3 million dead in Bangladesh, we have Darfur, we have the slaughter of Shia, Ahmadi, Sufi & many Sunni on an industrial scale in Pakistan, Iraq & beyond; not to mention those indirectly killed & harmed as a result of the Jihadi Islamists actions from the US 'War on Terror' after the 9 11 to the recent execution in the UK & the incidents against innocent Muslims in its wake. Blowing up Mosques; isn't that Islamophobic? How about blowing up Muslim pilgrims? Or the brutal stonings of women, including rape victims, including child rape victims for "crimes against chastity", aren't they Muslims? Or the young girls shot or attacked with acid for wanting an education or trying to escape a forced "marriage with a man 3 or 4 times their age? They're Muslims too. If It comes to acts of desecration, like burning the Koran, there are orchestrated protests when some idiot in the US does it, but how many Korans are destroyed when a Mosque or pilgrimage is blown up? (or doesn't it matter as long as they kill a load of innocent Muslims in the process?)And how many Korans were burned when the historic libruary at Timbuktu was set on fire by Islamists? And Why? "Why not?" it seems, along with some of the treasures of Islamic civilisation at it most creative. It's hard to damage & degrade the faith, the civilisation & the people more than that. White nationalist fascists in Europe spew Muslim hating rhetoric, & exploit the abuses of fascists of the Islamist variety as their most effective propaganda. But in their wildest dreams, the most anti-Muslim fascists in Europe could only dream of inflicting the misery & death upon Muslims, & the damage to their faith & reputation that the Islamist Jihadi fascists do on a regular basis. I think that anyone would be hard pressed to compete with that, when it comes to "picking on Muslims", & least of all, those Muslims like Tarek Fatah, who strive to show that there are other faces to Islam & that the Jihadis do not represent them.

Copied from the comment section of a post of a cartoon by Tarek Fatah on Facebook.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:11 AM

Did I write 'cack' - stet.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 11:09 AM

"Those of whom, Jim?"
Those of you who would make this a "Muslim" crime and attempt to prove it so with selections from the Koran.
If this is a "Muslim" crime then the Norwegian massacre (committed by a self-proclaimed militant Christian - and all other atrocities carried out by Christians would have to be regarded as a "Christian" crime.
I've been following the 'Times' debate with some interest; it fails to take into consideration the 'Keith' factor - that if the balance is got wrong one way it is seen as an indication of an admission of guilt, if the other way it is seen as an insult to non Muslims and equally an indication of guilt.
Meanwhile, cack at the soapbox - Keith once more uses yet another thread to prove that Israelis "didn't do it guv".
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Stu
Date: 28 May 13 - 10:33 AM

mayomick, you can share my biccies anytime you want, and you just might find not everyone in Great Britain/England/Wales/Scotland/whoever-the-fuck-you-hate fits your narrow-minded preconceptions.

Shit, perhaps we'll even have a tune?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 28 May 13 - 10:21 AM

Oh I see, I'm the same as your UKIP , BNP and EDL, am I? - there should be plenty of room for dialogue if that's the case seeing as you're interested in finding common ground with extremism in all its myriad forms. I'm very much looking forward to the free biccies Stu ,if you've any left over after meeting with the chaps and ladies of the EDL.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Stu
Date: 28 May 13 - 09:53 AM

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

Islam/Judasim/Christianity and their legion offspring would all say they are religions of peace and tolerance, yet all are motivators in societies who use extreme violence as a tool of foreign policy. Whether they're fighting each other, their own internal conflicts or whatever all these religions claim to be the 'true' word of god and so justify their acceptance of violence.

How does any killer reconcile their core beliefs, even if contradictory, to themselves?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 09:42 AM

"those of you who would set out to prove that such acts are down to the Muslim religion."
.,,.
Those of whom, Jim? It's those who do the acts who set out to 'prove' this. Some just take their word for it. As they are Muslims, they should know, after all ~~ better than the unnamed 'you' that you accuse; and better than Jim Carroll.

Shouldn't they?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 13 - 09:28 AM

such acts are down to the Muslim religion.
They are not, as most Muslims do not approve, but they are committed in the name of Islam.

"The Israelis endeavoured to avoid harming civilians"
No they didn't,

Yes they did.
" in 2007 and 2008 the ratio dropped to an unprecedented level of less than 1:30, or 2–3 percent of the total casualties being civilian.[28] Figures showing an improvement from 1:1 in 2002 to 1:30 in 2008 were also cited by Jerusalem Post journalist Yaakov Katz.[21]
Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated that the 2008 figure of 1:30 represents the lowest civilian to combatant casualty ratio in history in the setting of combating terrorism. Dershowitz criticized the international media and human rights organizations for not taking sufficient note of it. He also argued that even this figure may be misleading because not all civilians are innocent bystanders.[29]
In October 2009, Dershowitz stated that the ratio for Israel's campaign of targeted assassinations stood at 1 civilian for every 28 terrorists. He argued that "this is the best ratio of any country in the world that is fighting asymmetrical warfare against terrorists who hide behind civilians. It is far better than the ratio achieved by Great Britain and the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, where both nations employ targeted killings of terrorist leaders."[30]
Testifying before the United Nations, Col. Richard Kemp, a British commander, stated that:[31]
Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population... The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians.

The IDF blog lists various counter-terrorism methods used by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties and lower the civilian casualty ratio, and includes videos related to each method:[32]
Pinpoint targeting - singling out terrorists for an airstrike in a way that won't harm civilian bystanders.
Aborting strikes due to risk of civilians being injured or killed.
Advanced technology - the IDF has heavily invested in smart bombs,[36] and has developed special missiles, such as the F-16I Sufa and the Delilah Missile, which has the ability to cancel a strike while in the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli_airstrikes_on_militants_in_the_Gaza_Strip

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Stu
Date: 28 May 13 - 09:03 AM

"Part of the problem is that the young are passionate and ardent. They are therefore vulnerable to the 'teachings' of the terrorist cells apparently preaching hatred and murder in back rooms of certain mosques or houses"

Extremist politics always blossom during times of depravation, depression and economic instability and it's no coincidence that all over Europe right-wing and extremist religious groups are on the rise. This is because many people (often at the lower end of the income spectrum) feel they have no voice in society; the political elite ignore and lie to them (and us), large corporations dictate government policy and ordinary folk are completely sidelined. With no hope of long-term stability in their lives they seek meaning elsewhere, often in the sometimes incoherent rantings of political and religious fringes who will accept their devotion without question, provided they don't question too much themselves. Some sort of economic stability is essential to prevent extremism in all its myriad forms; people need to feel they can earn a living, have a secure home, know that if they fall on hard times society will care for them.

Combine this with the spectre of nationalism and the lazy. predictable stereotyping of any group outside the mainstream (Roma, homosexuals, immigrants, the poor, the disabled etc) or from another country (see mayomicks rant above and anything uttered by the English Defence League), chuck in a bit of nationalism or religious bigotry and you're away.

On the radio this morning was a chap from a mosque in London (I missed the start of the interview) who, along with some of the ladies of the mosque took tea and biccies to the EDL protest on Sunday in an attempt to create dialogue. It worked partially, but what it seemed to have done is actually get people to talk to each other and recognise that between some of the EDL lot and the Muslims from the mosque there was indeed plenty of common ground.

People need to interact and communicate to have their misconceptions challenged, and they need to talk and understand to see that wherever you are in the world, whatever your sexual orientation, the colour of your skin, where and to whom you were born, which football team you follow or who your god is, at the end of the day we're all pretty much the same, we worry about the same things, laugh at the same things and are all trying to get through life with as little trouble as possible, and pretty much all ordinary folk are sharing the struggle.

Haters gonna hate, but fuck 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 08:45 AM

"have fallen far short of an outright denunciation"
I would remind you that there far more issues than this in operation here, as has been made plain by those who would use the killing of a soldier as a platform to attack Muslims - including those of you who would set out to prove that such acts are down to the Muslim religion.
Worth repeating I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU9QBX4U9qE
"The Israelis endeavoured to avoid harming civilians"
No they didn't, but thanks for your example of exactly the type of individual I'm talking about - your timing was impeccable.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Stu
Date: 28 May 13 - 08:32 AM

Mayomick - thanks for the appalling generalisation of an entire nation. You'd fit in a treat with the BNP and UKIP and the like; you're more Anglo-Saxon than most of the British you so despise.

"some of it got blown back at you in Woolwich"

Wow. Really nasty. You must be so proud. Just goes to show there are these sad, ignorant tossers in every country in the world.