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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 11:43 AM

I think Dave and Don likewise have been talking quite a bit of sense here. I don't know why these threads need to end up polarised between two opposing viewpoints (Jim v's Keith) when world events are usually a bit less simple than being on either Jim's side or Keith's side. The men involved in this killing, were crystal clear about why they did what they did. There was a perfectly coherent political motive. They were also clear about doing it explicitly in the name of Allah. So the killing was also religiously motivated. Considering the amount of politically and religiously motivated violence we see on the news every day, sadly I find neither of these things either shocking or unusual.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 11:18 AM

"Am I a liar too, Jim? Or just a 'boy' not worthy of response?"
Did I say you were - must have been at the cooking sherry?
Keith is a liar because he tells lies - I've listed them - do you want to point out where I've misjudged him or is that another thing you'd rather keep to yourself?
As for your being worthy of response - I was waiting for you to express a solid opinion - on anything.
I'm really too old to spend my time trying and put fog in a bottle.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 09:36 AM

As to my seeming

"unusually hard line in your support of Keith

I don't know what is either "unusual" or "hard line" in my considering, with regard to this thread, that he is in general in the right.

And you're not.

Hard lines!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:52 AM

As to "Veracity", Don. I think your arguments were misplaced, regarding Keith's never having acknowledged any political dimension. I think you were, let us put it perhaps better as, 'disingenuous'. You had used the word 'dishonest' of him; in passing it back to you, I was clearly suggesting that the boot was perhaps on the other foot. If you regard that as a 'slur', then I regret the fact; but I still think it a justified contextual response to what I perceived as such disingenuousness on your part.

You seem to have accepted that I have said nothing to justify your denouncing me as to my category ~b~.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:50 AM

Am I a liar too, Jim? Or just a 'boy' not worthy of response?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:32 AM

"I do not lie."
you invented an MI5 claim that there are "thousands of Islamist communities in Britain" - a lie
You have consistently ignored requests to provide proof for that claim- a continuation of that lie.
You lied about your claim that there are " thousands of Islamist communities in Britain" and you continue to do so after the evidence has been placed before you.
When you were caught in a magnificent foot-in-mouth by identifying small arms ammunition to Assad as "a few sniper bullets" you gave six separate and unrelated excuses for having done so, finally settling on "I thought we were talking about somewhere else.
You are now about to call me a liar
You consistently and openly lie.
You are a serial liar who seems not to possess a single vestige of self-respect - which is what we have come top expect from people who hold your views.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:32 AM

"....Muslims killing each other in other countries, internal disputes nothing to do with Al Qaeda or global Islamist terrorism."


Surprising Study On Terrorism: Al-Qaida Kills Eight Times More Muslims Than Non-Muslims

By Yassin Musharbash

Few would deny that Muslims too are victims of Islamist terror. But a new study by the Combating Terrorism Center in the US has shown that an overwhelming majority of al-Qaida victims are, in fact, co-religionists.

SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:26 AM

What about amjam chouhdray's band of followers Don?
Our "Mujahid" was one of them.
Do they not hold meetings and communicate with each other about their common interests?
Are they not a community of Islamists?

And why should anyone care if you or I consider they are communities or not?
And why did Jim try to change the subject to definitions of community?

I have nothing more to add on the subject of communities.
Does anyone deny that we have thousands of Islamists, that many of them are in touch with each other, and a number have been convicted for plotting together the mass murder of ordinary people?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 08:15 AM

""We know there are "thousands" of Islamists here.
I am sure they form communities.
I do not know their names.
Clear now?""

Clear as mud!

If there is one thing a subversive organisation does not do, it is form communities.

You big yourself up as being more knowledgeable than the rest of us, then make a fatuous statement like that!

Any such community wouldn't last a month. Subversives almost always operate in cells which are completely unknown to any but the cell mrembers.

I imagine MI5 would think all their birthdays had come at once if you were right.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:58 AM

""Where has Keith used, or even suggested, the concept of its being purely religious? "Purely" is Don's own tendentious [and dishonest] interpolation.

You are the one debating dishonestly I fear, Don, in refusing to take on board the obvious point that 'religious' and 'political' are not mutually exclusively ring-fenced terms, and that it is perfectly patent that these young men were motivated by a combination of both elements.""

OK. I don't like massive cut 'n pastes, but you issued the challenge, so here's just part of the available evidence that Keith is refusing that combination in a prolonged attack upon Islam and its followers.

If you want more, just scan through his (and his sidekick Bobad's) massive posts about Muslims killing each other in other countries, internal disputes nothing to do with Al Qaeda or global Islamist terrorism.

""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St
From: Peter K (Fionn) - PM
Date: 23 May 13 - 09:11 AM

Keith, rather than try to outdo each other in the vocabulary of atrocity, it might be more productive to give measured thought to yesterday's horror/atrocity/barbarity. Choice of words aside, Greg's point is entirely valid and, as far as I can see, he's the first to have raised it.

No doubt you'll agree that these violent acts, by people willing to sacrifice their own lives, would not be happening if the US had reacted rationally to 9-11 and the Bush-Blair criminal invasion of Saddam had not happened. The challenge now is to find some way of getting back to where we were.

And before you say it, yes, we would obviously be in a better place still if 9-11 had not happened in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 23 May 13 - 09:19 AM

I have not indulged in any vocabulary of atrocity.
I do not accept that such deeds are in anyway justified.
You and Greg are entitled to your opinions, but I will not be joining a debate on the pros and cons of this act, or how much we are to blame for what was done.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 24 May 13 - 11:05 AM

That we should leave (which we are anyway) is a widely held view.
Anyone can make their views known by writing to MPs and the press, organising petitions and protests and all the other ways that are open to free citizens in a democracy.

Chopping someone up is not a political action.
Indeed we can not be seen to be influenced by such acts, thereby encouraging more of them, so it actually makes it harder to make any change in that direction.

I do not think it is in any way appropriate to discuss British foreign policy as a cause for this act.
Many (most) here are bitterly opposed to foreign policies, but they do not chop people up.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 25 May 13 - 05:01 AM

Democracy has not failed because a minority are unable to get their unpopular views reflected in policy.
Extremists have always responded to that fact with violence, but I did not expect to see that response proposed here.

us whose governments involve us in organised slaughter in distant countries
If a majority believed that, the government would fall.
They don't and nor do I.

The slaughter in those lands is overwhelmingly committed by others, who happen to be Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:36 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.

Mass atrocities against ordinary people and children are a daily occurrence, and for no tactical purpose.
They appear to be an end in themselves and committed by apparently deeply religious Muslims, even though the victims are also Muslims albeit the wrong sort.
How much less mercy can non-believers expect?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
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: Keith A of Hertford - PM
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: Keith A of Hertford - PM
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: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 PM

Why not Keith - you get away with it
An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted.
You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim.

They are acting on deeply held religious belief.
They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford - PM
Date: 29 May 13 - 04:08 PM


Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists
No.
- or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction.
No.

Am I claiming that active Islamist organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction?
Yes. They say so.
Why should we heed you and ignore them Jim?""

As you can see Mike, he takes them at their word when they talk about religion, but suddenly loses trust in that word when it mentions the response to Western foreign policy and military intervention in Muslim countries.

I won't bother asking for any apology for, or acknowledgement of, your slurs on my veracity, as you seem unusually hard line in your support of Keith on this thread.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:54 AM

Interesting that the next thread as I opened just now was "BS: Do you ever lose your temper?" Whoever had posted whatever I was replying to there had certainly succeeded in making me lose mine, hadn't he, just!

It is, nevertheless, Don, still an example of my ~a~ category: my opinion on the teachings of the religion, which I have never denied expressing several times. Calling it 'a judgement' doesn't alter that fact. I do regard the religion's teachings as fatuous, and insofar as they are undeniably aggressively proselytising, ill-mannered. That is my opinion, to which you have not convinced me I am not entitled. Sorry if you didn't care for the tone in which I expressed it there; but ~ "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" The Merchant of Venice IV i 65

But you have, as I predicted, furnished no example of my category ~b~. Nor can you.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:29 AM

""passing judgement on the whole of Islam," is, you will appreciate Don, a thoroughly ambiguous accusation. It could mean

either - ~a~ passing judgment on the whole of the religion


or - ~b~ passing judgment on all the members of the worldwide community subscribing to that religion.""

So it must have been somebody else who posted the following anti islamic rant?

""Of course not. You were doing your usual ostrich act, so you could ignore the bleeding-obvious, the patent lesson that Islam should never have been allowed a foothold here to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...], we have got to change all our ways to accommodate their filthy fatuous ideas or they are going to kill a few more of our soldiers & blow up a few more of our buses. And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again.

Modern equivalent of the one on KoKKo's 'little list' in The Mikado, 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,
All centuries but this, and every country but his own' ~~
good old Gilbert had their number all right, Carroll & his like. Make me sick. Traitors. Is High Treason still a capital offence, I wonder?""

If that isn't passing judgement on the whole religion I don't know what is!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM

Don, I dismiss the stuff about Muslims being victims and being slaughtered by us because it is bollocks.
It is propaganda.
He was grandstanding, not setting out his deeply held beliefs.

Jim, I do not know why you always somehow misunderstand what I clearly state, but know this, I do not lie.
What do you think you gain by it?
If you were to win a Mudcat spat by lying, so what?

We know there are "thousands" of Islamists here.
I am sure they form communities.
I do not know their names.
Clear now?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest who has nothing better to do
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:02 AM

OK, I think I understand it now.
The West should not have interfered in Iraq or Afghanistan
The Arab Spring has brought peace and freedom to the region
The West SHOULD interfere in Syria and then everything will be lovely

Thanks for sorting all that out for me

Any ideas to help me gain a bigger penis and a larger bank balance?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 06:17 AM

Jim, two responses but no answer to my question yet. Please do not respond with yet another set of questions asking what I have already said umpteen times before.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM

Good answer, Don. Thanks and not just because I happen to agree:-) It makes sense that the statements made by the killer and witnessed by others are the best thing we have to determine his reasons. He said it in response to the British army killing Moslems. It was, therefore, to him an act of both political and religious significance. Either side saying one is valid and the other is not is transparently nonsense.

Yes, I know you are not Jim and you do not want that comparison making so I apologise for using your sage words as an example to all that no side of the equation can be ignored. It is what I have been trying to say all along.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:53 AM

""You, on the other hand, are saying that because they said it is political it must be true.""

I am not Jim, who has his own take on everything and can defend his own arguments.

I have never said, nor do I believe, they are mad.

What I am saying is that the killer made statements to witnesses, which were reported by those witnesses.

He certainly made reference to a response to the British army killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It doesn't matter whether Keith A believes that this is happening.

The killer believes it and it is part of his reason for committing murder.

That religion was also a part of that reason is inarguable.

Keith, however, chooses to believe that religion was the whole reason and deviously ignores or dismisses the political element.

If we accept that the killer believes what he said about Islam, then we cannot choose to deny that he believes what he said about the politics.

Keith is constantly on a soapbox about Islam and Muslims and will go to just about any lengths to demonise the Islamic religion.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:40 AM

"Care to explain your reasoning?"
Libya was part of the Arab Spring demonstrations seeking to bring a semblance of democracy to despotic states.
Iraq and Afghanistan weren't and are efforts to keep the oil flowing and have now arrrived at the point were the US is attempting to bring about a mutual interest understanding with an extremist group i the Mujaheddin.
Care to explain why you didn't know that?
Jim Carroll   
Whoops - nearly forgot:
"The term community has two distinct commutative meanings: 1) Community can refer to a usually small, social unit of any size that shares common values. The term can also refer to the national community or international community, and 2) in biology, a community is a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment.
In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness.
Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community has less geographical limitation, as people can now gather virtually in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location. Prior to the internet, virtual communities (like social or academic organizations) were far more limited by the constraints of available communication and transportation technologies."
(22 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM )

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest who is confused
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:27 AM

Can you help me please Jim?

Intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan BAD
Intervention in Libya GOOD
Intervention in Syria GOOD

Care to explain your reasoning?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:26 AM

"there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain" (21 Jun 13 - 04:38 AM)
"Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." (21 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM)
"No there aren't " (21 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM)
"MI5 knows of "thousands." What is the lower limit for a community Jim?"   (21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM)
"Jim, there are thousands of Islamists not communities." (23 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM)
As you are fond of saying – more lies
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 05:20 AM

Sorry - Call to important stuff (breakfast) made me let the post go without preef rooding. Apologies for the mis-spellings. I did notice one other thing on a re-read.

Jim says

Which side are YOU on boy

I am sure it was intended to get an angry reaction. It didn't. Calling a 60 year old man 'boy' is vaguely humorous but it also shows the respect the writer has to his fellow man. And no amount of whining about the rights of minorities will alter the fact that they are happy to treat someone as their inferior.

Now, once again Jim, were the perpetrators mad or not?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM

Jim, there are thousands of Islamists not communities.
I did not cherry pick the killer's words, I just said it was lies.
He stood covered in the blood of his dying victim, and claimed to be the victim.

Globally, they are the aggressors not the victims.
Do not accuse me of lack of substantiation, without being specific, because it is an easily refuted lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM

I answered all your questions before, Jim. Remember? Even though I am not obliged to do so and you, yet again, have not answered the one very simple one I posed here they are again. Cut down to as few a words as possible -

1. I agree that ordinary Moslems are not to blame. I disagree with how you suggest others do.
2. I think you are misinterpreting a lot of posts on here. We all know you do it with Keith but you have started on me too.
3. I do mot believe the majority of Moslims are driven to murder by their religion.
4. I believe the perpetrators thought they were acting for Islam. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant.
5. I do not believe there are thousands of communities. I do believe a significant minority pose a threat. I cannot confirm or deny a specific number.
6. Everyone should link their sources. If they do not their claims are not necessarily wrong but definitely unsubstantiated.
7. It is not logical that any part of the killers statements are taken out of context.
Hence my question to you which you hoped you could avoid by repeating your questions to me!
8. I am not on anyones 'side' in this argument. It is a petty squabble on an insignificant internet forum. None of this will make a tad of difference to anyone.

Now, how about you answering my one simple question. Is he mad and ALL hos claimes can be dismissed or is he sane in which case they can ALL be true?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 04:43 AM

So, let us endeavour to follow J Carroll's reasoning:-

He thinks we should intervene militarily in the internal affairs of such Middle Eastern states as he dislikes the governments of;

military intervention would inevitably involve killing some of the people there;

who are Muslims;

so British troops would be killing Muslims;

which would provide a comprehensible incentive to British citizens of Nigerian origin who have changed their religion for beheading British soldiers in the streets of London for political reasons.

Have I got that right?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest who thinks religion is bollocks
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:51 AM

"What I called it when they intervened in Libya (and finally stopped selling arms to Gadaffi) - doing their 'duty of care' as UN members and helping suppress a tyrant bent on murdering his own people - what would you call it?"

Iraq - Saddam Hussein (none of our business?)
Afghanistan - Taliban + export of terrorism (none of our business)

Syria - Sunni/Shiite - choose one/both or none
You chose Shiite

I agree
It's all shite

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 03:36 AM

"I expect some serious wriggling to avoid an answer."
And I think it's time you gave some answers yourself instead of asking others what they believe and demanding answers.
You say you agree with some of what I say and disagree with some - what - in both cases?
You say you don't agree with the way I look at things - care to specify what in particular so we can discuss it?
Dealing with your postings is as I described it - wrestling fog.
How about some actual statements on where you stand on all this - do you believe Muslims are driven to murder by their religion?
Is this a religious murder?
Is it logical that the killers words at the murder site should be carefully cherry-picked so that only the bit that can be used against the Muslim communities and the other bit ignored?
Do you believe that there are "thousands of Islamist communities in Britain" made up of only 2,000 Islamic suspects?
How do you feel about people who claim MI5 reports and refuse to identify them?
How about some answers from you - you must be getting very sore sitting on that fence
"Which side are YOU on boy, which side are YOU on"   

"What will you call it when we DO become involved?"
What I called it when they intervened in Libya (and finally stopped selling arms to Gadaffi) - doing their 'duty of care' as UN members and helping suppress a tyrant bent on murdering his own people - what would you call it?
The failure to act (until now) has opened the door to extremist groups and now, when the US and Britain has finally decided to take action they will be supplying arms that will possibly fall into the hands of these groups.
In 2015 Syria will become an oil-dependent country - had their oil stocks been in any way significant Assad would have been long gone.

Jim Carroll (o.k.a Non guest who has been vomiting throughout these inhuman arguments)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Guest who is about to vomit,
Date: 23 Jun 13 - 02:20 AM

"The murderously cynical refusal to become involved in Syria"

What will you call it when we DO become involved?

(just after the oil, crusade against Islam, cultural imperialism, warmongering blah blah blah)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 11:53 PM

One hopes in particular that they will both give heed to the final sentence of its 5th paragraph.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 11:51 PM

Thank you for copying that cogent & rational exposition of a vital distinction, bobad. Just hope that Don will read it with as open a mind as his entrenched mindset will permit him to bring to bear on this topic. Not too bothered about Jim, whose incurable bias is well summed up by Keith only 2 posts back at 0311.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 06:03 PM

Distinguishing between Islamophobia and a rational critique of Islam

Secular June 22, 2013 By: Michael Stone

Progressives must distinguish between Islamophobia and a rational critique of Islam if they are to successfully understand and navigate contemporary political discourse.

Currently many progressives confuse Islamophobia (an irrational fear of the other that manifests itself as an obnoxious bigotry towards all things Muslim), with a rational critique of Islam that considers the very real danger that Islamic extremists pose to civil society.

Progressives are right to be suspicious and contemptuous of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is real, and often takes the form of anti-Asian and/or anti-Arab racism. For example, an Islamophobe is someone who believes all Muslims are terrorists, or all Muslims support terrorist activity; an Islamophobe is someone who believes that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques, or otherwise worship freely; an Islamophobe hates or fears all Muslims in virtue of the simple fact that they are Muslim, or appear to be Muslim.

With that said, it is important to note that Islam is not a race, it is not a skin color, it is not a sexual orientation. It is a religion. It is a set of beliefs and practices. And anyone should be able to question the legitimacy of any set of ideas, any set of beliefs and practices. Progressives must not lump together those who offer a rational critique of Islam, and those who espouse nothing but a simple minded and irrational bigotry and hatred towards Islam.

An Islamophobe is someone who makes negative, irrational generalizations concerning all Muslims. Often these negative, irrational generalizations about Muslims emanate from right wing, conservative Christians, who often espouse political positions antithetical progressive positions. Thus, it is understandable that some progressives may confuse a rational critique of Islam with the irrational fear that is Islamophobia, and reject both, throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater.

Progressives must not conflate a rational critique of Islam with Islamophobia. Being concerned about Islamic extremists having a negative impact on your country, another country, or the world at large, is not Islamophobia. Indeed, such a concern is only rational, given our recent shared history.

For more news, information and humor relevant to atheists, freethinkers, and secular humanists, check out Progressive Secular Humanist Examiner on Facebook.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 03:11 PM

We all saw the murder scene statements.
He was spouting the usual Islamist propaganda, that Britain is responsible for the indiscriminate murder of Muslims in Muslim lands.

It is just lies.
We are not killing Muslims anywhere.
They are being killed, on an industrial scale, but by other Muslims.
The truth is that far more non-Muslims are being butchered by Muslims than vice versa.
Look up the horrific killings of kids in school uniform in Nigeria this week.
Look up what happened to UN staff in Somalia.

Jim, you deny that the thousands of radical extremist Muslims in UK constitute a community.
Good.
It means no-one can be in any doubt that you are a complete arse.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 02:51 PM

To throw some numbers into the numbers game being played:

"But when it comes to actual jihadists, to those who have or will commit an act of terrorism in Allah's name, my research suggests that they represent no more than one in one hundred of the 180 million young fundamentalist Muslim men prepared mentally, morally, and spiritually to be terrorists. That means that there are 1.8 million actual Islamic jihadists on the planet today - a number which could jump one hundred fold almost instantaneously should the opportunity arise."

This from Prof. Sharma from India (whoever that is) but at least he purports to have researched the numbers which is more than can be said for most of our illustrious Mudcat members.

How Many Muslims Are Terrorists?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM

Jim says -

As far as I'm concerned, anybody who carries out such an act is totally round the twist and anything they have to say has to be has to be regarded as irrational

Dom says -

Whether you believe that Britain is responsible for Muslim deaths is neither here nor there.

HE believes it and said so, giving it as part of the reason for his actions.


Who is right? Is he an irrational madman, in which case him saying that Britain is responsible and he is acting for Islam is irrational or is he sane, in which case him saying that Britain is responsible AND that he was acting on behalf of Islam must both be true.

Simple enough question isn't it. Is he sane or not? I expect some serious wriggling to avoid an answer...;-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 01:43 PM

"Jim has said that they were mad and therefore cannot be believed when they said they did it for Islam."
I have said from the beginning that there are a whole host of reasons why this murder took place - I'll spell it out.
Muslims have a genuine grudge about what is happening to them in Britain and what is happening to Muslim countries abroad, largely to protect oil supplies and sell weapons (as former home secretary Vince Cable said "we sometimes sell arms to States who have appalling records of human rights" (or similar). The murderously cynical refusal to become involved in Syria is also a major factor.
There are those within the Muslim communities who would exploit this for religious purposes and a tiny handful of young Muslims have undoubtedly succumbed to their arguments, but to claim that religion is in any way the cause of this killing without recognising the causes of discontent in the first place is to cop out, and to claim the something shouted after a brutal event such as this (while ignoring everything else that was said) is pure manipulation of the facts.
As far as I'm concerned, anybody who carries out such an act is totally round the twist and anything they have to say has to be has to be regarded as irrational, Especially directly following the killing.
But anybody who takes such an event to prove a whole community as being culturally untrustworthy (that is the logical conclusion of such an accusation) is equally round the twist - sick, sick, sick.
Don and I aren't joined at the hip - We've never met, but he seems a nice, compassionate feller - breath of fresh air considering the company....
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM

"You want to think it was purely religious, so you delete from your thinking all the political comments of the killer about Iraq and Afghanistan, reported by eye witnesses.
You are without doubt the most dishonest debater on this forum."

Where has Keith used, or even suggested, the concept of its being purely religious? "Purely" is Don's own tendentious [and dishonest] interpolation.

You are the one debating dishonestly I fear, Don, in refusing to take on board the obvious point that 'religious' and 'political' are not mutually exclusively ring-fenced terms, and that it is perfectly patent that these young men were motivated by a combination of both elements.

What are you finding so difficult about that?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM

"passing judgement on the whole of Islam," is, you will appreciate Don, a thoroughly ambiguous accusation. It could mean

either - ~a~ passing judgment on the whole of the religion


or - ~b~ passing judgment on all the members of the worldwide community subscribing to that religion.

As to ~a~, I don't see how I could be accused of that. I am in no position to 'pass judgment'. If by 'passing judgment', you mean no more than 'expressing an opinion' on the teachings of that religion as I perceive them, then [despite Richard's very strange denunciation of my being 'more critical of one religion than others', which must rank as the 2nd most fatuous remark I have read on this thread, only outdone by Jim's assertion that, if the terrorist acts were religiously based, then they would all be doing it!], I maintain that I am fully entitled to express an opinion; and it remains my opinion that the religion [I don't see how one can have an opinion of anything but 'the whole' of it] comprises some teachings liable to be mischievous in their influences and effects: an opinion which, I repeat, I am perfectly entitled to express.

I think you will find it hard to quote anything I have written which could justify you in accusing me of ~b~.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM

Whether you believe that Britain is responsible for Muslim deaths is neither here nor there.

HE believes it and said so, giving it as part of the reason for his actions.


Don, I know you are not Jim but you are standing in the same corner. We cannot have it both ways. Jim has said that they were mad and therefore cannot be believed when they said they did it for Islam. You, on the other hand, are saying that because they said it is political it must be true.

Which is it? That they were mad, in which case both the political and religious statements were invalid. Or they were sane, in which case we must believe both.

Genuinely puzzled.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM

Ho hum. Nothing new in the last 800+ posts.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM

""The dreadful killing was committed by religious extremists, who shouted praises to Allah as they performed an Islamic style execution.

I think and believe it was religiously motivated, and I accept that Jim Carroll does not but think he is on his own.""

You want to think it was purely religious, so you delete from your thinking all the political comments of the killer about Iraq and Afghanistan, reported by eye witnesses.

You are without doubt the most dishonest debater on this forum.

Whether you believe that Britain is responsible for Muslim deaths is neither here nor there.

HE believes it and said so, giving it as part of the reason for his actions.

But that doesn't give you a hook for your bigotry, so you leave it out.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 12:19 PM

""Don seems to be playing it. He has for some reason taken every time to answering the points he failed to grasp in my 3rd or 4th post back; without, tho, even bothering to read the ones in between.

Poor old Don. No wonder he has, as I said a bit back, completely lost the plot.""

Not once have you answered, nor apparently even understood the one single inarguable point that you are, in passing judgement on the whole of Islam, using the very sections which are used to radicalise and recruit terrorists.

How does that make you any more honest than the opposition?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM

"The term community has two distinct commutative meanings"
And you have produced evidence of none whatever - no "communities of Islamists, certainly not the "thousands" you claim - "MI5 knows of "thousands." - utter gibberish when you have only been able to claim MI5 as knowing of only 2,000 Islamist suspects - how many Islamists per community "do the math"?
You have produced no evidence from anywhere that MI5 has claimed a single community made up of Islamists - neither has anybody else ONCE AGAIN IT IS PURELY YOUR OWN INVENTION
Your hatred has apparently caused you to lose it altogether.
As for my "being on my own" - you appear to have not noticed that the only other person supporting you here is your rather sad friend who seems to have regressed back to his schooldays - with an occasional hit-and-run visit from Yogi Bear's friend Boo-Boo.
This thread started as a compassionate discussion on a horrific murder - in your hands it turned into a diatribe of bilious hatred aimed at a docile and extremely vulnerable community who really could do without the shit dished out by you, your two friends.
Your hatred blends in perfectly with that of the people who are really making the streets of Britain no-go areas - the fascist BNP and EDL scum still holding their meetings and intimidating people who are totally innocent of this crime.
Well done - keep up the good work - of such stuff are ethnic cleansing programmes carried out.
Out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Jun 13 - 05:43 AM

Enough I think.
More than a month has passed.

The dreadful killing was committed by religious extremists, who shouted praises to Allah as they performed an Islamic style execution.

I think and believe it was religiously motivated, and I accept that Jim Carroll does not but think he is on his own.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 02:07 PM

"The term community has two distinct commutative meanings: 1) Community can refer to a usually small, social unit of any size that shares common values. The term can also refer to the national community or international community, and 2) in biology, a community is a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment.
In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness.
Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community has less geographical limitation, as people can now gather virtually in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location. Prior to the internet, virtual communities (like social or academic organizations) were far more limited by the constraints of available communication and transportation technologies."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM

You have totally failed to name ONE "Islamist" community

Name, British Islamists.
Number, thousands.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 12:53 PM

Stop squabbling right now, you naughty, naughty boys, otherwise it'll be straight to bed with no supper.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 12:35 PM

You have totally failed to name ONE "Islamist" community and you have failed to point out ONE SINGLE statement that there are any "Islamist" communities in Britain - NOT ONE.
THERE ARE NO ISLAMIST COMMUNITIES IN BRITAIN
What a team - one invents anti Muslim propaganda and the other implies that no-one can trust what any Muslim says.
The B.N.P. are crying out for people like you.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM

Looked up "Islamist communities in Britain" – Google asked me "did you mean Islamic communities"
No Islamist communities in Britain

That does not convince Jim.
We know there are at least thousands of Islamists and a community can be less than a hundred.

Talking of proof, why do you state the killers were mad?
Carrying out an Islamist execution is evidence of Islamism, not insanity.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 11:12 AM

"MI5 knows of "thousands."
What's yours - or MI5's
Name one Islamist community or link to proof that MI5 have identified made such an obscene claim.
Looked up "Islamist communities in Britain" – Google asked me "did you mean Islamic communities"
No Islamist communities in Britain – pure vindictive invention on your part.
Did find this though
Jim Carroll

MUSLIMS ARE WELL-INTEGRATED IN BRITAIN – BUT NO ONE SEEMS TO BELIEVE IT
British Muslims often express a stronger sense of belonging than other citizens, so why are they still seen as outsiders?

Leon Moosavi
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 July 2012 13.00 BST

'More than half (55%) of Britons would be concerned if a mosque was built in their area.' Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian
In Britain today there is a mismatch between how non-Muslims often perceive Muslims and how Muslims typically perceive themselves. This disconnect is down to a tendency by non-Muslims to assume that Muslims struggle with their British identity and divided loyalties. These concerns were challenged a few days ago,in a report by the University of Essex that found Muslims actually identify with Britishness more than any other Britons.
This study is just one of several recent studies that have consistently found that Muslims in Britain express a stronger sense of belonging in Britain than their compatriots. Consider the following examples:
• 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public.
• 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain while only 50% of the wider population do.
• 86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians.
• 82% of Muslims want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoodscompared to 63% of non-Muslim Britons.
• 90% of Pakistanis feel a strong sense of belonging in Britain compared to 84% of white people.
Those who work closely with Muslim communities will attest to the integrated position of British Muslims and that despite frequent exoticisation, British Muslim lives are much the same as any other citizen's. British Muslims also appreciate their ability to practise their religion in Britain without the type of subjugation that fellow Muslims are subjected to under despotic regimes in several Muslim-majority countries. Even though negative depictions may encourage people to imagine Muslims as similar to the 7/7 bombers who struck seven years ago this week, your average British Muslim is much more likely to be similar to a confident Amir Khan, a bubbly Konnie Huq or a hardworking James Caan.
There is, quite frankly, no major issue of Muslims not wanting to be a part of British society. But there is an issue with the common but unspoken xenophobia pervasive in British society that casts Muslims as outsiders. That is why despite Muslims repeatedly pledging their dedication to Britain, a consistent spattering of polls show that many non-Muslim Britons still view Muslims as a potential enemy within. Consider the following examples:
• 47% of Britons see Muslims as a threat.
• Only 28% of Britons believe Muslims want to integrate into British society.
• 52% of Britons believe that Muslims create problems.
• 45% of Britons admit that they think there are too many Muslims in Britain.
• 55% of Britons would be concerned if a mosque was built in their area.
• 58% of Britons associate Islam with extremism.The minority of Muslims in Britain who do view Britain with contempt – as indeed, we must recognise there are some – frequently explain their disaffection as a result of being labelled as outsiders and told they do not belong. Thus, the inability to appreciate British Muslims as typical citizens can actually create the very atypical citizens that are feared in the first place. Muslims want to be part of British society but their marginalisation may lead to some retreating to the margins.
If the myth that Muslims in Britain will not integrate is allowed to be propagated, it will only lead to the continuation of a harmful cycle whereby greater distrust and animosity is sown. The results of this can be devastating. Last Sunday marked the three-year anniversary of the Islamophobic murder of Marwa El-Sherbini by a far-right attacker, a crude example of an inability to accept that Muslims are at home in Europe. This intense rejection of Muslims is increasing across Europe, which is especially disturbing considering that a significant number of the far right would consider armed conflict against Muslims, as the case of Anders Breivik revealed. In Britain, we have seen several far-right plots that seek to undermine the presence of Muslims in British society, such as a recent arson attack on a mosque in Stoke-on-Trent. Clearly, there are weighty consequences to the dismissal of Muslims as fellow British citizens.
While politicians may claim that multiculturalism has failed, there is a strong case to be made that it operates successfully every day when Britons of different faiths, ethnicities and backgrounds convivially co-operate alongside each other to make the nation what it is today. Muslims are integrated, feel at home in Britain and are quite simply as British as the next person, even though this does not quite match the sensationalised cynicism that some enjoy indulging in. This rather unexciting conclusion is actually rather exciting as it lays to bed many of the unwarranted concerns that are held about British Muslims.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/03/muslims-integrated-britain

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM

MI5 knows of "thousands."

What is the lower limit for a community Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 21 Jun 13 - 10:29 AM

Islamist vs. secular Muslim debate - shades of Mudcat: YouTube.