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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 03:39 AM

Keith
See below for the eight year old atricle that you thoughtfully decided not to link – I wonder why!!
As I said, not a holy war.
As far as Syria is concerned – also not a holy war but a fight for democracy allowed to go sour by western indifference – you still haven't commented on Britain and America's intention to become involved ("too late-too late, the maiden cried")
How did you describe my suggestions that they should have done when the people of Homs were being slaughtered 'a gung-ho' invasion' or some such words.
As for my "former buddies, China and Russia" – any moron who knows anything about politics has to be aware that China and Russia were sworn enemies – "You can't be true to two", as the song says.
Jim Carroll

"Somalis in general show little interest in jihadi Islamism; most are deeply opposed. Somali militant movements have failed to gain broad popular support, encountering instead widespread hostility. The most remarkable feature is that Islamist militancy has not become more firmly rooted in what should, by most conventional assessments, be fertile ground."

"Islamist extremism has failed to take a broader hold in Somalia because of Somali resistance – not foreign counter-terrorism efforts. The vast majority of Somalis desire a government – democratic, broadly-based and responsive – that reflects the Islamic faith as they have practised it for centuries: with tolerance, moderation and respect for variation in religious observance. Ultimately, there is no better way to confront jihadism than to assist Somalis in realising such a government."
http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/somalia/100-somalias-islamists.aspx

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:01 AM

Jim, the point of that old report was to refute your claim "The Somalian situation is an attempt to overthrow a government - nothing todo with religion"

Somalia was/is a failed state which the Islamists moved into.
Those jihadists who go to join them go as mujahadein or holy warriors.
In Syria now Sunnis and Shias are flocking in to kill each other, and they slaughter each other also in Iraq and it is starting in Lebenon.

How have you missed all this?
How deeply is your head buried Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:12 AM

""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.""

Serial cop out alert!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:13 AM

Your proof Keith - nothing so far, just your bilious hatred of Muslims and your disgusting attempts to smear their communities using the killing of a young soldier as a platform.
I assume you've looked up the definition of 'Jihad' - below.
Forgot to respond to your "sniper bullets"
The sale was documented on a government site (produced by the Daily Mail and supplied to you at the time) as "small arms ammunition"
It was you who identified it as "only a few sniper bullets" - what more proof does a girl need?
Jim Carroll

   Jihad
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد‎ ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the wordjihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Within the context of the classical Islam, particularly the Shiahs beliefs, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Islamic God (Allah).[1] However, the word has even wider implications.
Jihad is commonly misunderstood as "Holy War", Jihad means "to struggle in the way of Allah". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[2][3][4] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[5] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion.
There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle.[2] The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.[2][6] This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim[7] and non-Muslim[8]authors.
The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam.[2] This physical struggle can take a violent form or a non-violent form. The proponents of the violent form translate jihad as "holy war",[9][10] although some Islamic studies scholars disagree.[11] TheDictionary of Islam[2] and British-American orientalist Bernard Lewis both argue jihad has a military meaning in the large majority of cases.[12]Some scholars maintain non-violent ways to struggle against the enemies of Islam. An example of this is written debate, often characterized as "jihad of the pen".[13]
According to the BBC, a third meaning of jihad is the struggle to build a good society.[6] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct".[14]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:16 AM

Phew - Whole list of points there! I shall address them by number and hope we don't get out of step. Firstly though, thanks for the apology and for putting the record straight. Much appreciated. I am not sure if I can answer everything but here goes.

1. My argument only came from you saying I was an Islamophobe.

The next 2 I struggle with but
2. I don't go along with any diatribe against any whole class of people simply based on their colour, creed or culture.
3. Again, I don't go along with any 'vicious hatred' of any peoples as in 2 above.
What I am struggling with is that I don't think it is as open and shut as you state. I am giving both other parties the benefit of the doubt and do not believe they are as bad as you say. This probably gives rise to much of the disagreement.

4. See my comments on 2 and 3.
5. Don't understand the question
6. I believe I have made my disagreement clear. See 2 and 3.
7. (I think we are up to 'arguing with fog' in case anyone has lost track) Fine.
8. You are now repeating yourself. I have said what I disagree with earlier.
9. I agree. The only point I am making there is that they say they are representing their religion. They believe it. They have been lied to by someone. I don't know who that someone is.
10. Repeat of 9.
11. It is cultural bigotry to do so indeed. That does happen. I do not see it happening here.
12. Again I agree. Again I do not see that happening here.
13. I have said over and over that I disagree with your assessment of what is happening here on Mudcat. The fact that you chose to see that as disagreeing with you then so be it. Either I have not been clear enough, in which case I apologise, or you have misinterpreted what I have said, for which you have already apologised. Therefore we have no problems do we?
14. I do not agree with all that Keith and Michael say either. I do not believe that Islam is an inherently 'bad' faith. I think the article referred to by both you and Keith, as supporting both your views, is a good balanced piece saying much of what makes sense in both your interpretations and tempering it with a balanced view that all could learn from.

Now, I don't intend to go through all that again so, in a nutshell
- I don't believe Keith and Michael (and bobad?) are saying that all Moslems are bad. They have confirmed that this is the case.
- I agree with your points about racism and bigotry being wrong but think you are choosing the wrong battle here
- I have said this all along and don't understand why you believe I am saying something else

All clear now?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:18 AM

Here is a BBC report just 6 months old about foreign jihadists going to Somalia.

Somali Islamist insurgent group al-Shabab, which has joined al-Qaeda, has been pushed out of all of the main towns they once controlled in southern and central parts of the country but they still remain a potent threat to the UN-backed government.

Who are al-Shabab?

Al-Shabab means The Youth in Arabic. It emerged as the radical youth wing of Somalia's now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts in 2006, as it fought Ethiopian forces who had entered Somalia to back the weak interim government.

There are numerous reports of foreign jihadists going to Somalia to help al-Shabab

It has imposed a strict version of Sharia law in areas under its control, including stoning to death women accused of adultery and amputating the hands of thieves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15336689

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 04:29 AM

It was you who identified it as "only a few sniper bullets" - what more proof does a girl need?

I did Jim, believing you had identified it, but it was actually not Syria you were talking about.

I have told you this about 20 times, so you know it is not true.
I expect you to exploit an opponents mistake, but there is a limit.
It is a deliberate deception.
Another lie Jim.

Britain supplied no weapons and no sniper ammunition to Syria.
If you have to lie to make a case, is it worth making Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 06:23 AM

The accepted meaning of Jihad is disputed Jim, as you would have seen had you read all the page you linked to.

"Controversy has arisen over whether the usage of the term jihad without further explanation refers to military combat, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[41]
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[42] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[43]
Resistance against globalization
See also: Jihad vs. McWorld
Benjamin R. Barber used the term Jihad to point out the resistant movement against globalization (which he refers to as 'McWorld') as well as the modern-institutionalization of nation states. The forces of 'Jihad' come from fundamentalist ethnic groups who want to protect their traditions, heritage and identity from modernization and universalized markets.[44] The resistance has led to fragmented, small-scale violent conflicts between cultures, peoples and tribes. Although 'Jihad' strengthens the solidarity within the resisting group, it obeys to hierarchy and cannot tolerate foreign influence, which discourages democracy."

"] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[35] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[40]"

"Controversy has arisen over whether the usage of the term jihad without further explanation refers to military combat, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[41]
Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[42] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[43]
Resistance against globalization
See also: Jihad vs. McWorld
Benjamin R. Barber used the term Jihad to point out the resistant movement against globalization (which he refers to as 'McWorld') as well as the modern-institutionalization of nation states. The forces of 'Jihad' come from fundamentalist ethnic groups who want to protect their traditions, heritage and identity from modernization and universalized markets.[44] The resistance has led to fragmented, small-scale violent conflicts between cultures, peoples and tribes. Although 'Jihad' strengthens the solidarity within the resisting group, it obeys to hierarchy and cannot tolerate foreign influence, which discourages democracy."

"David Cook, author of Understanding Jihad, said "In reading Muslim literature – both contemporary and classical – one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non- Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible."[81] Cook argued that "Presentations along these lines are ideological in tone and should be discounted for their bias and deliberate ignorance of the subject" and that "[i]t is no longer acceptable for Western scholars or Muslim apologists writing in non-Muslim languages to make flat, unsupported statements concerning the prevalence – either from a historical point of view or within contemporary Islam – of the spiritual jihad."[81]"

"Contemporary Islamism holds that Islam is now under attack, and therefore, experts explain,
Jihad is now a war of defense, and as such has become not only a collective duty but an individual duty without restrictions or limitations. That is, to the Islamists, Jihad is a total, all-encompassing duty to be carried out by all Muslims – men and women, young and old. All infidels, without exception, are to be fought and annihilated, and no weapons or types of warfare are barred. Furthermore, according to them, current Muslim rulers allied with the West are considered apostates and infidels. One major ideological influence in Islamist thought was Sayyid Qutb. Qutb, an Egyptian, was the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. He was convicted of treason for plotting to assassinate Egyptian president Gamal Abd Al-Nasser and was executed in 1966. He wrote extensively on a wide range of Islamic issues. According to Qutb, "There are two parties in all the world: the Party of Allah and the Party of Satan – the Party of Allah, which stands under the banner of Allah and bears his insignia, and the Party of Satan, which includes every community, group, race, and individual that does not stand under the banner of Allah."[68]"

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:20 AM

Did you notice the deft slide from discussion of the word "Jihad" in Islam to discussion of the word "Jihad" in Islamism?


Did you also notice the impossibility of the word "Jihad" as originally written in the Koran referring to "Mcvalues" and global capitalism? Well, unless the prophet had a time machine, which seems unlikely in principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:40 AM

Re yesterday 0353 pm, today 0317 am, &c &c &c ~~

There you may see the lefty at work in all his glory. The trouble with those of the left is that they really do think that they have a unique claim to morality, from which all others are ipso facto excluded. Anyone who, for instance, draws attention to what he genuinely sees as shortcomings in any faith system, and the baleful effect that unquestioning following of its teachings might have on some [not all] of its adherents, thereby, in the lefty's uncontradictable view, reveals himself as a perpetrator of 'rants' & 'vicious diatribes'.

Carroll ~~ self-righteous lefty prig (& insidious antisemite: as the man in Shaw would have said, he thinks he isn't, but he is...)

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:46 AM

Nice try, Richard [or maybe not]. At a quick count, Keith's links employ the words Islam, Islamic, Islam, in relation to concepts of jihad, some 20 times. The word 'Islamism' occurs just once. & you call that a deft slide.

You could do with some deft shutting up before you make even defter an idiot of your undeft self, my dear fellow.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:57 AM

"The trouble with those of the left is that they really do think that they have a unique claim to morality" --

This, one should add despite all experience of efforts to apply this morality ~~ Marxism, Maoism, Sovietism, Pol-Pottery, Ho·Ho·Ho: you name it...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 08:13 AM

Al Shabab on Woolwich and Boston.

By Zoe Flood, Nairobi9:56PM BST 23 May 2013
Al Shabaab, which is thought to have links with one of the suspected Woolwich terrorists, launched a tirade on Twitter accusing Britain of carrying out countless abuses against innocent Muslims.
In one message posted on its official Twitter account, an al-Shabaab spokesman described the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby as the "death of the wretched Kafir" and said it was "insignificant compared to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Muslims at the hands of British soldiers".
Referring to the Boston bombing, another posting warned: "Where next? You just have to grin and bear it, it's inevitable. A case of the chickens coming home to roost."
Speculation was mounting that the postings, peppered with English phrases, were being written by a Briton.
Seizing on comments by David Cameron that the attack was a "betrayal of Islam", al-Shabaab said that in fact it was a "portrayal of Islam".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10077426/Woolwich-attack-Somali-terrorists-warn-Britain-Your-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost.html

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 08:38 AM

Same link.
Estimates of the number of foreign fighters in al-Shabaab vary widely, but a report released last year by the Royal United Services Institute suggested that about 50 Britons were believed to be fighting in Somalia.
Many are likely to be of Somali origin, but Muslim converts from some Western nations are believed to have links with al-Shabaab.
Last year intelligence experts warned that Britons were being recruited to fight for the militant group and that Somalia was becoming a vital training ground for British jihadis. Kenyan police believe Jermaine Grant, on trial in Mombasa on charges of possessing explosives, has links to the militants.
His accomplice Samantha Lewthwaite is on the run, with some reports suggesting that she has crossed into Somalia.
Lewthwaite, who faces the same charges as Grant, is the widow of the 7/7 King's Cross bomber Germaine Lindsay.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:02 AM

Keith, please don't take offense at this or draw any conclusions but just why are you posting all these links? What are you trying to prove. I think I have lost the plot. And probably the will to live... :-)

Anyhow, with a feint hope that we may get back on track can I ask a few simple questions of all concerned?

1. Did these men believe they were acting on behalf of Islam?
2. If so, do we believe the same? (We being right minded folk of all faiths or none)
3. Are all Moslems/Christians/Atheists evil?
4. Are all Moslems/Christians/Atheists good?

I'll start the ball rolling

Yes
No
No
No

Anyone else?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:09 AM

Sorry, folks, I just realised that the last 2 questions should really be 6 to save any confusion

3. Are all Moslems evil?
4. Are all Christians evil?
5. Are all Atheists evil?
6. Are all Moslems good?
7. Are all Christians good?
8. Are all Atheists good?

To which my answers are No, no, no.no, no and no :-)

Sorry to do that but as I am sure that someone would have used the previous construct to try and score points :-(

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:28 AM

Dave, Jim challenged me on the situation in Somalia.

"As I said, not a holy war." and ,
"Your proof Keith - nothing so far, just your bilious...."

That is why I linked to articles that showed Jim to be wrong.
That foreign jihadists do go to fight jihad in Somalia as well as Syria.

The Telegraph piece also makes clear that al-Shabab, (linked to a Woolwich "suspect") regards the killing as religiously motivated which Jim has always denied.
"It proclaims Islam" they said.
They can't all be "nutters."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:31 AM

My answers, same as yours.
yes no no no no no lost count now but all nos after 1.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM

I need clarification on 2.
I do not believe they were acting on behalf of British Muslims.
Globally, I am not certain.
Not all at least.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 09:48 AM

Your categories 'all evil'/'all good' a bit tendentious -- a bit the equivalent of the Latin interrogative particle 'num, which, as eny fule kno, 'expects the answer "no"'. Of course we are all morally bound to say 'no'.

But try in some instances substituting 'misguided'...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 10:31 AM

Sorry, Keith.

I will clarify. These men believed they were acting on behalf of Islam or whatever branch of Islam they follow. Do we believe they were?

Fairy Nuff, M, but if I add

9. Are all Moslems misguided?
10. Are all Christians misguided?
11. Are all Atheists misguided?

Then surely we still expect the answer no. That is the point. No-one in their right minds can say that ALL [Whatever race/colour or creed] are of a like mind. It is impossible. If it was we may as well revert to all Irish or Poles being Stupid, all Black men being over sexed and all Jews being tight with money. Which means that people are arguing over what proportion of the race/colour/creed has these characteristics. It is my contention that all people are alike so the percentage of thieves/rapists/murderers in any give group of people is going to be, more or less, the same. Unless of course we are talking about a group of politicians or religious leaders who will have a much higher proportion of nutcases... :-)

Any help?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:08 AM

We are in a semantic impasse here, I suspect, Dave. I would urge that all who genuinely believe the teachings of certain faiths are misguided. The moral basis of some faiths is misguided; so such faiths themselves can misguide. It is surely a piece of dreadful relativism, in the pejorative sense, to think we must 'respect' the teachings of them all equally. Hence my reply some way back to Richard, who seemed to me up the creek in taking me to task for 'picking out a certain religion for criticism'. I asked him if, as a theatre & book reviewer, I should have been inhibited from picking out certain plays & publications more than others for criticism. He didn't reply iirc.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 11:40 AM

I mean, would you not believe the followers of L Ron Hubbard's particular institutions 'misguided'? Or those of the egregious Revd Mr Jones? If so, then where would you draw the line?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 12:24 PM

I certainly see your point, M, and to a certain extent agree that anyone who believes that their imaginary friend is better than someone elses imaginary friend is indeed misguided. However, this may be where we differ. I think people can, and do, have a faith without accepting all the tenets of the religion. Yes, I know that if you believe in a God without proof then you can believe in anything but not all minds work like that. If they did it would be a very boring world and brings me neatly back to the point that we are all different and all people of all faiths, or no faith of course, are included in that. What is more, to castigate a whole group of people because they belong to a particular club is just plain wrong. In my opinion.

But has nothing to do with the thread so, while being a welcome diversion, does not really add anything. Does it?

Cheers

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:06 PM

No ~~ Your first sentence is not my point. I am afraid that I think the teachings of some faiths are unacceptable, and that their effect is such as to misguide any who follow them. You will find two posts above from me where I spell out why I think a certain one is in this category; which has caused one well-meaner to object, as I say above, that I have 'singled it our for criticism more than others', as if that was against the rules and somehow not cricket: and another, who is frankly IMO a priggish intolerant fool, to foam at the mouth that I am a vicious ranting vilifier or something. Interesting that his repeated attempts to induce others on here to join him in denouncing me as such have not met with much success.

I repeat ~~ I would not call ALL the followers of any one 'good' or 'evil'; but I think it more misguided blindly to follow the teachings of some than of others ~~ tho those states in which the faith is legally the establishment, who will shoot you dead, judicially, for wishing to change to another, I really think are not playing the game. Can there be regimes in this 21C world which actually incorporate such a system into their judicial system? Well, we all know the answer to that, don't we?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM

GM - please READ the piece and tell me hand on heart you do not see the slide.

Or do you think that Muslim, Islam and Islamism are all the same?   It would be consistent with a lot of your apparent accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 01:50 PM

Richard, the piece was provided by Jim who selectively quoted so it appeared to support him.
I selected to show that it did not.

I double pasted one extract.

What exactly is your criticism of that Wiki page?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 02:35 PM

M, I agree to the extent that it is misguided to blindly follow any faith. I do not agree that it is more misguided to blindly follow one more than another. I do not believe, however, that most Moslems, certain most British Moslems that I know, blindly follow any more than I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church!

While I may agree that the teachings you are quoting are distinctly out of place in today's world I do not believe that the majority of people follow those teachings. In fact, like us westerners, they have become very selective in the teachings they do follow. As I said earlier - People are not their religion.

Oddly enough I was in mny barbers earlier - The Moslem one I mentioned, on Leeds Old Road in Bradford. They had an Imam on TV and while I could not understand a word he said his manner and the large background proclainging "Peace"

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 02:41 PM

Whoops, premature return key!

...background proclainging "Peace" seemed to indicate that this was his message. There were also two Sikhs in the shop and one was having his beard trimmed. A Sikh having his beard trimmed by a Moslem! What is this world coming to?

Anyhow, the point is, I think they have moved as far from the Koran (Qoran? Q'ran? I dunno) as we have from the New Testament. It is only the old guard wanting to hang on to power that are causing the problems. The rank and file will stop then and of that I have no doubt. After all, if you accept that they are people, like you and I, why would they want to go backwards?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:20 PM

"They have moved as far from the Koran (Qoran? Q'ran? I dunno) as we have from the New Testament... The rank and file will stop then and of that I have no doubt."
.,,.

And meanwhile, tell that to the woman who is going to be stoned to death next week. The teenage girl who has been raped and so is going to be caned publicly on her bare bottom for 'impurity'. The young man who shoplifted a bit of stuff and is going to lose his right hand. The woman who rather likes what she knows of Christianity and wouldn't mind looking into it a bit further, but knows it will be no use because they will shoot her if they suspect she is thinking of converting.

I am sure it would be a great consolation to them. As much as it would have been to those being burned in the Act-of-Faith by the Holy Office in Spain, had they but known that 500 years later the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church would be ever so sorry about it.

All very well 'of that having no doubt'. But these things are happening NOW. And you know it. And if you don't know it, try google. Some may have 'moved on'; and won't that be a fat lot of comfort to the man looking at the bloody stump at the end of his arm & the girl unable to sit on her contused buttocks!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:31 PM

Keith's copy/paste had 3 sections, Richard. The first two dealt with Islam/Muslims in general; only the third mentioned Islamism as an entity, but simply repeated or reinforced points made in the first two. Where is this "deft slide" you claim to observe so clearly?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 05:55 PM

Yes, I know all that M and don't need to look it up. They are all terrible things. But how does blaming the majority of Moslems help? Surely we should be helping then to throw off the yoke of the mad Mullahs - Not giving them extra things to worry about. We cannot stop it happening from outside. If we start to blame all Moslems then a lot will fight back. It is only human nature. Maybe they will even start to believe the 'frothing Imams' (Who coined that? I like it) I believe I said, somewhere up the thread, feels like forty or fifty years ago, that I was very happy about the 'Arab Spring'. Surely the ordinary people involved in those revolutionary uprisings have shown that they are a courageous lot prepared to stand up to their oppressors? Trouble is, of course, those very oppressors often hold the oil money. Let's face it, it is easy to blame religion. But it is greed and power that are the main motivators.

Of soapbox. Now, where was I? Hmmmm. Too late now...

G'night

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 06:06 PM

Still & all, Dave ~~ I do, honest, get your point: but it is always the prominent noisy minority by which anything is judged. I won't do that Yeats quote yet again.

&, yes, we all have, probably, a Muslim friend or two who probably seems pretty secularised, and not essentially much different from us. But try putting these disagreeable goings-on before him for an opinion, & see if you get an outright condemnation, or (as I suspect would be more likely) a sort of embarrassed, rather squirming, response that adds up in effect to "I'd really rather not comment".

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:07 PM

""Al Shabaab, which is thought to have links with one of the suspected Woolwich terrorists, launched a tirade on Twitter accusing Britain of carrying out countless abuses against innocent Muslims.
In one message posted on its official Twitter account, an al-Shabaab spokesman described the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby as the "death of the wretched Kafir" and said it was "insignificant compared to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Muslims at the hands of British soldiers".
Referring to the Boston bombing, another posting warned: "Where next? You just have to grin and bear it, it's inevitable. A case of the chickens coming home to roost.""

Well, there you go. A day or two back Keith was busy rubbishing the idea that Lee Rigby's death was anything other than a religious matter, and dismissing any connection with Iraq, Libya and afghanistan.

Now he kindly posts comment from the other side confirming what he so hastily dismissed.

Now he will deny it and demand that I waste time posting his comments, the meaning of which he will then twist to justify his religious bigotry.

And of course, it's not Keith's opinion that it was nothing to do with our activities abroad, he simply believes it because somebody else said it was so. He'll tell us who when he has time to find one.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:19 PM

""The moral basis of some faiths is misguided; so such faiths themselves can misguide. It is surely a piece of dreadful relativism, in the pejorative sense, to think we must 'respect' the teachings of them all equally. Hence my reply some way back to Richard, who seemed to me up the creek in taking me to task for 'picking out a certain religion for criticism'.""

You would be absolutely correct in this comment, had you read the whole Q'ran and found it to be uniformly evil in its intent toward non believers.

Not so, when your criticism relies upon only the same tiny cherry picked section (109 verses, out of 6236) which was the basis of radicalising terrorists.

You are painting the whole with a brush used for one colour of many.

How you, an intelligent and thoughtful debater, can continue to rely upon this specious argument astounds me. It is simply arrant nonsense.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Jun 13 - 07:28 PM

It seems rather evident, GM, that you actively look for infelicities in Islam, to a greater extent than you do other religions. And you do not really do "faux-naif" effectively. Remember "innocent face" was not a sufficient disclaimer, recently.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:21 AM

Don ~ You are not getting my point. I think I have made it clearly enough, but you just don't want to see it. So I won't go on about it. We know well enough what each other thinks.

Re this apparent self-contradiction you find in Keith's attitude, I don't see it as such. It is not a case of either it's all religiously motivated, or politically so: the two are in no way mutually exclusive, or bound to be ubiquitously the same thru all the perpetrators and justifiers of the aggressive and fatal activities. Both can easily co-exist, both within the same individual & within Islamism as a whole.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 12:33 AM

I know from experience, Richard, that I do not share the admiration for the work of Alan Bennett that many others do; so it is perfectly possible that when I review one of his plays I might be prone to notice infelicities perhaps more than I should be inclined noticing an Alan Ayckbourn. But, should the latter disappoint or not be up to the standard I had anticipated, I should write so. But my attitude to both is not one I was born with, but one I came to hold after exposure to long experience of their work. Similarly with Islam: I was not born thinking it a mischievous, primitively aggressive faith in comparison with others, and many centuries behind them in ideological development, but have come to this view over long periods of observation of the way its adherents have carried on and expressed themselves. Would you have me suppress what have become my perceptions? On what grounds and on what authority ~~ apart from what seems to me a somewhat foolish and jejune sense of vague 'fair play', entirely inappropriate to the immediate question as to what is to be done about the, as I see it, pretty well uniformly baleful effects of their presence among us.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 01:25 AM

Don, I could hardly deny that they claim to be acting in response to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims by us.
I just said it was rubbish.
Muslims are being slaughtered indiscriminately, and on a truly horrific scale, but not by us.

They kill "the wretched Kafir" to "proclaim Islam."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 01:27 AM

And does it not occur to you that what you call my 'actively looking for infelicities' might just be another way of saying that I find infelicities just more noticeable here?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 01:49 AM

Don, please remember that the wretched Kafir is also being slaughtered in Africa.

Just because they are wretched Kafirs.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:32 AM

One of the arguments boils down to what proportion of Moslems are criminals of one sort or another. Some seem to think the proportion is lower than everyone else and some believe it is higher. The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle, is it not? Or, to put it another way, the same as everyone else.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:35 AM

Don't have time to get involved at present.
This seems to have reverted back to "evil religion" is the cause of it all and ignoring all the other factors connected with what is happening to the Muslim communities.
Surely all the mass rioting, the killing of infidels.... and all the other Muslim atrocities that are taking place on the streets of Britain today..... oh, I forgot; that's not happening, is it - wonder why, if the two and a half million Muslims are followers of such an "unacceptable" (to whom?) religion?
The only extensive 'religious' bloodletting to have taken place in these islands recently was Christian, when two brands of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, tore each others heads off for over twenty years, both in Ireland and in mainland Britain.
As M15 has pointed out, that still remains one of the greater threats to British peace and security today, and this will continue to be the case.
Until somebody removes the "temporary" 90-year-old line that divides the two Irelands - the real cause of that particular slaughter, (and before Keith or his mates attempt to score points - no - I don't favour any particular side in this, I just recognise it to be the real problem)
This religious warfare has little or nothing to do with religion, just as the Woolwich killing has nothing to do with the Muslim religion.
"Richard, the piece was provided by Jim who selectively quoted so it appeared to support him."
Don't attempt to accuse me of one of your regular stunts - to the extent of doctoring whole paragraphs, as in the case of Jack Straw saying that "no racist conclusions...." (not forgetting your having been warned by the site administrators for fake posting in your own support under a false name - wan't that one dug up?)
I don't "select" anything to support my case and, unlike you, I link everything I quote.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 03:52 AM

Jim, you made a claim about the accepted meaning of Jihad, quoted the Wiki page in support of your claim, but ignored the bits that refuted your claim.

The Irish troubles, as you concede, are about partition versus a United Ireland, not religion.
The Irish terror threat was rated below international terrorism, they have never tried for mass indiscriminate death anyway, and no attack ever linked to religion.
So, false comparisons Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 04:10 AM

Jack Straw saying that "no racist conclusions...."
.,,.
Back to lovely little Miss Rice-Davies, ho·hum.

Don't know how some people can bear to be so predictable

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 04:14 AM

I know.
I had quoted Straw in full anyway.
Later I quoted a something relevant to what was being discussed and Jim accused me of selective quoting.
It was not.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 04:15 AM

Jim, you say Don't have time to get involved at present.

This, from you, when you said to me a couple of days back

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

One law for Jim and one law for everyone else. And before you go off on one saying that I am an Islamophobe again this is just about common courtesy. It seems Ok for you to go off, presumably doing more important things, but if I do not post for a few days I have 'gone off in a huff'? Complete hypocrisy.

DtG.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 04:19 AM

"Jim, you made a claim about the accepted meaning of Jihad, quoted the Wiki page in support of your claim, but ignored the bits that refuted your claim".
I pointed out earlier that there were numerous definitions of the word and I produced the quotes that made my point - we all know the generally accepted definition of the word "Jihad" - it's the one you constantly use to smear Muslims.
I linked the article as I always do (and which you deliberately (despite regular requests) constantly do not - you have often doctored texts without providing either link or naming your source - and you have faked your own postings - stop filling these discussions with snide accusations.
"The Irish troubles, as you concede"
I concede nothing - stop using loaded and misleading language.
I damn well know that the Irish troubles are to do with partition and,
just as the Muslim events, have nothing to do with religion, but rather the generations of abuse that Muslims (and all immigrants) have suffered in Britain at the hands of rightist thugs.
The MI5 report cited spying and increased IRA activity as being major problems, the DOMESTIC Muslim situation, which is what this is about, came way down the list.
Carry on hating
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 04:32 AM

... and do stop going on as if politics & religion were two entirely separate entities that could never causally co-exist in any situations. Can't you see that all the motivations, in NI, Islamic activism, and pretty well every other sort of interfaith controversy, constitute an inextricable mixture, tho maybe in differing proportions, of both. Do please stop being so tendentiously faux-naïf

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 19 Jun 13 - 04:40 AM

you have often doctored texts without providing either link or naming your source -
Outright lie Jim.
I never have and never would.

and you have faked your own postings
Once, in fun, and without deception.
It was obvious that it was me and not the lying "Guest"

MI5 classes Islamist attacks as "international terrorism" and says that the threat level is "unprecedented."
IRA and other domestic extremists come well below.
"Spying" was not even mentioned!
901.