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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 13 - 12:37 PM

Eliza, he was in Kenya to cross into Somalia to join al-Shabab, a violent extreme Islamist group, so what happened there came after his radicalisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 27 May 13 - 01:05 PM

"he was in Kenya to cross into Somalia to join al-Shabab, a violent extreme Islamist group"
Me
"MI5 attempted to recruit one of the killers"
Keith
"I think it probably true Jim. I think it a sensible policy to employ informers"
And "violent extreme Islamist group" members, it would appear.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST
Date: 27 May 13 - 01:34 PM

Mayomick provides a salutory example of just how stupid some people can be.

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

Apologies Keith. I suppose instead of saying "Or is it that you think the resulting catastrophe, in which innocent civilians have died in many scores of thousands, should be met with peaceful protest?" I should have said: "Or is it that you expect the resulting casualty...will be meet by peaceful protest?" That would have been nearer to what I meant, but I admit that I have great sypmathy with violent protest in some circs, even in our dempracy. One vote in four years allows precious little scope to express a view on everything.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 13 - 03:05 PM

There are many non-violent ways of expressing views, e.g. demonstrations, protests, civil disobedience.

I am still shocked that you think it reasonable to resort to violence.

Jim, MI5 has had many successes in "turning" enemies, but perhaps they will employ you as an expert consultant.
What do they know compared to you, right Jim?

Are you challenging the accuracy of anything I have said?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 27 May 13 - 03:24 PM

Sorry, I was the guest at 1.34pm.

I don't know whether Keith's question was only intended for Jim. If for me too, I do question some of the stuff Keith comes out with. Not least his assertion that "thousands" of muslims are out to get us. His position is at best a bit inconsistent. He seemed to accept that 2,000 muslims are deemed to be potential risks (according to MI5) but also that only an unspecified proportion of that 2,000 might go on to plot violence.Someone above referred to Quran 9.5 which I took to mean surah 9, section 5 in an English translation. But I see no words in that section approximating to what was quoted.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 13 - 03:31 PM

Peter, I said that of course the majority of British Muslims are not extremist, but that a significant minority are, and quoted the security services figure.
These are those known to be sympathetic to militant Islam.
I first heard it quoted on a R4 news prog. but I provided some links showing the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 May 13 - 03:57 PM

In which case, Keith, his possible 'defence' of having been tortured and rendered mentally ill or whatever won't hold water in court. It also seems unlikely that TWO insane men joined forces to perpetrate this atrocity. Regarding the verse/s from the Koran, surely any world religion should see that such exhortations are not at all appropriate nowadays. In the OT one is encouraged to 'smite' various non-acceptable groups, grab the jawbone of an ass and whack people, and in a general way commit violent and murderous acts. But no sane person would advocate such behaviour today. Would they....?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 13 - 03:59 PM

I think you'll find that a large proportion of the US fundagelical right would indeed so exhort.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 13 - 04:01 PM

Keith, give us the correct citation, and give us the correct text, and then we can see if you are a bigoted liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 13 - 04:12 PM

I think you'll find that a large proportion of the US fundagelical right would indeed so exhort.

Absolutely, Richard. Not only would, but DO. Constantly.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 27 May 13 - 05:30 PM

Richard I have given 4 links already.
Have you not heard this statement given to explain why these two were not being watched when security forces were aware of their militancy?
Are you suggesting I have made it all up?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 May 13 - 05:30 PM

I imagine that the sort of folk who would bury a woman up to her neck in the sand and chuck rocks at her head until she dies, chop off the hand of a thief or genitally mutilate young girls wouldn't baulk at hacking to death a man in the street with a meat cleaver. But the majority of Muslims surely don't subscribe to such evil?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 May 13 - 07:05 PM

But the majority of Muslims surely don't subscribe to such evil?

Correct.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 May 13 - 09:14 PM

Keith: tell us EXACTLY the relevant verses of the Koran.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 01:37 AM

But depends which Muslims surely, Eliza; the majority of those in Muslim countries where such evils are a part of the established law [Saudi, N Nigeria...] DO so subscribe, alas; do they not? Or who would chuck those rocks, amputate those hands, mutilate those genitals, cane those raped girls' bare bottoms...?

And what was the ancestry of these two young men? --


"Thursday 23 May 2013 UK
Woolwich suspect Michael Adebolajo a 'typical teenager'
Woolwich murder suspect Michael Adebolajo "was just a typical teenager" says a shocked neighbour who knew him when he was growing up in Essex.
Kemi Ibrahim-Adeoti told Channel 4 News that at first she didn't recognise the man in the videos of the incident in Woolwich, which left soldier Lee Rigby dead and two suspected attackers under armed guard in hospital, as the same person who had come round to play with her own son as a teenager:
"I'm just appalled that something like that could happen in the Nigerian community..."

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 13 - 02:31 AM

Richard, I have not commented on the Koran and know nothing about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
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: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:45 AM

Keith, it was MtheGM who asserted that a rendering of part of the Koran was accurate, not you.   Apologies for that.

MtheGM, you say above " It is, or was, an accurate quotation from part of The Q'ran so far as I can see.". Please provide us the exact reference so that we can check.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:48 AM

"how they reconcile that with current events in Syria and Iraq."
Or the Israelis in Gaza - or the Christians in Viet-Nam or Chile or Greece..... or how does any "peace loving and "god-fearing" religion-claiming nation carry out murders and other atrocities - or "pass by on the other side while they are being committed - suspension of belief perhaps?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:52 AM

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

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

Here is an explanation of "zakah" - http://www.uwt.org/site/article.asp?id=172

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 03:56 AM

Richard ~~ My point was rather in the nature of a query to Don as to the reason for his denouncing it as inaccurate than an outright assertion as to its accuracy. I accepted what I had read from those, including Muslims, who had commented on the Sura under question. I note that Don has not been back to justify his claim that the translation was 'inaccurate'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 04:00 AM

... or, as he actually claimed, 'misquoted'.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 04:07 AM

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 28 May 13 - 04:59 AM

"Mayomick provides a salutory example of just how stupid some people can be."

You should learn to spell before you throw out insults like that Peter. Why did you insult me in that way?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 05:17 AM

Don may not have challenged the accuracy of the alleged quote, but I now have. Kindly respond.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 05:23 AM

Interesting link Jim. A bit out of date (2001) and I think not written by an Islamic scholar (correct me if I am wrong).

It also translates the offending verse differently - saying "idolaters" rather than "polytheists".

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 05:30 AM

Demonstrate more clearly where the inaccuracy lies, please then Richard: by citing the version Don claimed to be responding to with accusations of 'misquotation', and what you asseverate to be the correct quotation; and I will endeavour to respond if significant differences do indeed appear, which could not be accounted for by simple variations in the verbal options of the translators.

Till then: no comment.

Why, btw, have you chosen to respond on Don's behalf when he has not himself seen fit to do so? Will he welcome this interpolation of yours, do you think?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 05:53 AM

Neither the date nor the religion/culture of the scholar is in any way relevant to the arguments he puts forward (I take it you were being serious and not taking the piss out of those who have used such get-outs in the past?).
It is a general analysis of how all three religions have been adapted to suit various agendas throughout history - in my opinion a brilliant summing up of the 'movable feast' nature of all religions.
Nit-picking the teachings of Islam to point the finger at all Muslims as being potential perverts or killers or general undesirables is an all-too-common practice on this forum and using the brutal killing of a young man within days of the event in order to do so seems particularly despicable - and speaking as a non-believer, particularly 'unchristian' - correct me if I'm wrong.
A plague on all their houses      
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:05 AM

Jim ~~ I don't think anyone has suggested that 'all Muslims' sympathise with such violent practices ostensibly in support of their faith; but I would commend to you the ongoing correspondence in The Times regarding the attempts by Dr T Hargey, Imam of Oxford mosque, to distance himself from the offenders' actions, and the extent to which correspondents consider these to have fallen far short of an outright denunciation.

Never, in addition, forget the wise words of Yeats in 'The Second Coming' ~~

The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity

~~ It is an unhappy phenomenon that those with enough 'passionate intensity' to commit such acts are those liable to be regarded as the spokespersons for whatever cause it may be that they purport to espouse.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:09 AM

"have you chosen to respond on Don's behalf when he has not himself seen fit to do so?"
I seem to remember it was Don who jumped to your defence and put me in my place (rightfully) when I was harassing you for a clarification of your own position?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:17 AM

...and your point is...?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:28 AM

Part of the problem is that the young are passionate and ardent. They are therefore vulnerable to the 'teachings' of the terrorist cells apparently preaching hatred and murder in back rooms of certain mosques or houses. It must be quite exciting and even flattering to be given 'jihad' tasks involving danger, and requiring courage to undertake. You see this in student riots, the London riots, Punk rock twenty years ago etc etc. Disaffected youth will always be a good recruiting ground for evil. To counteract this there are already many organisations (of faiths and of none) who try to direct the young towards worthwhile activities. They need more funding and promoting.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:35 AM

"...and your point is...?"
Do as you would be done by maybe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 May 13 - 06:36 AM

Or the Israelis in Gaza -
Bad example Jim.
The Israelis endeavoured to avoid harming civilians and achieved a record low figure for collateral casualties.
Civilians were not targeted as even Goldstone affirmed.
In Syria and Iraq the atrocities are targeted and quite deliberate.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 28 May 13 - 07:14 AM

I don't think you should confuse nastiness with youthful passion and ardour Eliza. It's not only the young who can be nasty - Peter K is an old boy isn't he? I remember shortly after the Danish Islamophobic cartoons came out in 2005 speaking to a Muslim who had helped organize the huge march against the invasion of Iraq in Dublin two years previously . A lot of people were saying at the time - especially leftists it must be said - that the Danish newspaper had a right to mock Muslims ,that the cartoons were an expression of free speech , how it was important to defend hard won democratic rights against the islamo-fascists etc etc . The Muslim shook his head and asked , but why do people want to mock us and insult us in the first place?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 May 13 - 07:34 AM

Wriggling, MtheGM?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 07:43 AM

"...and your point is...?"
Do as you would be done by maybe?
Jim Carroll ---
.,,.
I think you misunderstood, Jim. I was not "harrassing" Don for an answer, but asking Richard why he thought Don had not chosen to respond to my query as to where he [Don] found a 'misquotation'. It was Richard I was addressing in the post you misquoted [you omitted the vital word 'why' at the beginning of the bit you pasted], not Don.

Got it now?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 07:44 AM

So I think it might just be you who are 'wriggling', Richie-Boy!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: mayomick
Date: 28 May 13 - 07:53 AM

And now the UK wants to turn him into some sort of a hero . I had a facebook request from somebody two days ago asking me to sign a petition to give Lee Rigby a state funeral. It really shows the low mentality over there - I suppose you can't help it with your history , all your nasty anti-Muslim jokes, all your years of Paki-bashing your centuries of plundering in the name of spreading civilization, some of it got blown back at you in Woolwich - a hideous echo. I felt sorry for your poor drummer boy and wondered why you left him on the road to die alone and some arsehole comes along and calls me stupid !

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 May 13 - 07:57 AM

I mean, Rich, furnish the two versions postulated of the Sura in question as I requested, and I will gladly comment on the differences, if any, which might constitute 'misquotation'. Until you have done that, how would you expect me to comment, having nothing to go on?

~M~

[like the police station where the lavatory got stolen; the cops said they had nothing to go on...]

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Musket sans body
Date: 28 May 13 - 08:06 AM

Mayomick. Are all paddies as thick as you?

Not nice is it?

So stop stereotyping the English then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haters gonna hate, but fuck 'em.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shouldn't they?

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shit, perhaps we'll even have a tune?

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

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