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

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:57 PM

A cartoon that some of us on this thread can relate to: New Yorker

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:18 PM

I personally have no problem with how people look or dress. I have to confess that, at University, I looked and dressed like a complete twit, and if my parents had seen me they'd have turned purple. Speaking of habits, there are nuns all over the place wearing exactly that, and they've done so for centuries, without annoying anyone particularly. Freedom means freedom to believe, dress and worship as one wishes. What I cannot accept is this mad desire to convert everyone else, forcibly and with terrorism if necessary. And yes, I have met 'fundamentalist' Christians, and very irritating they were. But they didn't threaten my very safety or that of my country, and I wasn't afraid of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:16 PM

I am not sure I follow that argument in light of what I was saying, but here goes...

I think the burqa is intended to create a reaction. Particularly with westerners and it so obviously has on many occasions. And yes, I can think of many other ostentatious habits. Punk? Goth? Mini-skirt? But I thought you had issue with the basic tenets of Islam, not such trivialities as the burqa. Which I believe has no place in the Qoran BTW.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 01:31 PM

So why so many women walking around in burqas, Dave? Can you think of any other demographic with so widespread an ostentatiously - one might even say defiantly - alien habit?

~M~

Pun intended on last word? Not sure...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 10:57 AM

That seems fair, Michael. I am not sure that I fully agree but it seems, to me at any rate, that your issue is with the basic tenets of the Moslem faith. I would probably go that far, if I believed that those tenets were as valid today as they were in Mohammed's time.

Having been brought up in the Russian Orthodox faith and then converted to Catholicism, prior to my ever having any say in the matter, I am aware of the tenets of those branches of Christianity. I know for certain that their adherents could be as violent as any Imam! I have been in the Ukraine and Belorussian clubs when expatriate Cossacks have called for the sacking of both Jewish and Moslem states and the death of their peoples.

Nearer home I have recited, without thought I must say, the Roman Catholic creed where it says 'I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church'. I was told to believe in a Universal church and the ultimate authority of the Pope. That all who did not believe were not worth considering as they would burn in the fires of hell and that anyone, including babies and those who could never have even heard of JC, would never enter heaven.

Yes, I know that we no longer believe a fraction of that but I also believe that, as most people have the same basic thought patterns, most Moslems do not believe in their more extreme tenets either. What we are dealing with is a faction within the Islamic faith who want to stick to those old principles in a misguided attempt to retain or gain some power of their own. We have them in every culture and I do not think they are more prevalent in Islam than they are are anywhere. But, in today's technological age, they are more noticeable and potentially more dangerous.

I am not trying to dilute the actions of these terrorists by stating others are as bad as I find that a very poor argument. After all, two wrongs have never made a right. But I do believe that you may be overstating the case. That is your prerogative and only time will tell who was right. I do hope my view is more in keeping with what will happen. But I suspect that neither of us will be around to see the end game :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:50 AM

"can you let me know if you have any issue with the Moslem population of the world in general or just with it's radical factions."
.,,.
A very fair question indeed, Dave. I shall endeavour to answer it honestly, and hope that I will be able to do so with sufficient clarity to protect me from at least some of the flak that may come my way from some who don't even wish to hear what my reply might consist of.

The trouble, it seems to me, is that many people who are well-meaning and of strong principles will sometimes let these principles blind them to the way that things are, rather than the way these principles lead them to think they ought to be. I must regretfully say that I do not think Islam a faith that can readily and happily co-exist in close proximity in any numbers with another, because, from its very inception, it was not meant to do so. Its Prophet declared it from the outset to be the only true path, whose followers have the duty to reject all others, and to bend every endeavour to bring believers in any other (the 'infidel' -- what a word; think about it) to see the truth. This message persists to a greater or lesser extent to present-day followers ~~ Eliza' recently encountered acquaintance, about whom there appears to be little disagreement here [why Don & I are in agreement!] being an extreme but, I fear, not entirely a-typical instance. Even those who are content to wish to co-exist, whom I mentioned in my last long post as quoted just above, must somehow find means to reconcile their consciences to departing in such a fashion from their Prophet's teachings and injunctions.

Now, surely it follows that Muslims who settle in a land where another faith is, or other faiths are, the norm, are bound to suffer from conflicts. Are they not forbidden, by the sacred duties enjoined on them by the Prophet they so revere, to moderate their own ways, or to compromise with the expectations of the alien societies into which they have chosen to move?

So I feel bound to conclude that an attempt to bring these two incompatible sets of expectations ~~ the religiously free society which is today the norm in the West, and the society bound by sacred injunction to but one True Faith, as in the Islamic world, is ~~ let us say, potentially injudicious. I should say that it is by its nature 'asking for trouble'. And a good bit of trouble is what we seem to me to be getting.

I respect the views of many who would wish it were not so. That some modus vivendi which would accord with their principle of peaceful coexistence on the part of all who happened to live in proximity. But it is, I reiterate, the principles of the incomers in this instance which must make this so hard to achieve.

It is nothing so simple as my indulging in the dreaded R-word. If only it were so uncomplicated! It would, I agree with all these fine principled people who at this moment are metaphorically sharpening their pens or pouring acid in their keyboards or whatever, in preparation to get me, be so much better if things in this particular were other than what they are.

But, as that wise man Bertram Wooster observes somewhere within his own sacred œuvre, other than what they are is what things are not.

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM

"Fundamentalists, of whatever stamp, are the problem here."

This thread is about the savage butchery of an innocent person by Islamic fundamentalists. As much as you would like to dilute this fact by invoking the relativist argument I would suggest that you start your own thread where we can have out at [insert here your religion of choice] fundamentalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:51 AM

As I said, religions are human creations.
Just ideas.
It is OK to disapprove of one, many or all of them.
It is OK to state a critical opinion of one, many or all.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:41 AM

Don,
No, not a bigot, as long as you apply it equally to all religions, but you don't, do you.
For you Islam is the evil one and Muslims are your constant target.

Michael is an atheist.
He has rejected all religions.
All religions are different, so of course anyone will have different opinions about each, and may find one worse than others, or may want to discuss one that is relevant to a thread while not mentioning others.
Is that not allowed Don?

Anyway, he stated, " the majority of its adherents, who cannot of course help having been born to it any more than anyone can be held responsible for their birth, may be content to live their lives with day-to-day moderation like any one else"

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:29 AM

""If theirs is the only religion that counts,""

Reprehensible behavior indeed Mike!

It is a horrible feeling to come into confrontation with fundamentalist lunatics like that Eliza, but I cannot help but ask, have you never bumped into the Christian equivalent with exactly the same attitude to your husband?

If not, you have been lucky indeed, for they are just as numerous, and just as nasty.

Fundamentalists, of whatever stamp, are the problem here. When religion becomes more important than humanity, it no longer encompasses moral and ethical values.

In my opinion, the Bangladeshis of whom you speak, if they are not naturalised, or British born, should be offered two choices. Give up the race hate speech, or leave.

It is a great pity that we don't have that remedy for our home grown fundies.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:19 AM

Thanks Michael but I cannot interpret a lot of that post. Yes, I know it is me and maybe I should get a better grasp of my own language but would you please humour me? In words that can be easily understood by a Gnome not well versed in the finer points of debate can you let me know if you have any issue with the Moslem population of the world in general or just with it's radical factions.

Thanks in advance

DtG

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

Sorry, Keith. Yes, 10 Jun of course. I.ll doubtless get it right in a minute!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 08:01 AM

""So, not a bigot then Richard.""

No, not a bigot, as long as you apply it equally to all religions, but you don't, do you.

For you Islam is the evil one and Muslims are your constant target.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:34 AM

10th June?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:33 AM

There are a number of progressive (aka liberal, reformist) Muslims who make the same criticisms of Islam as does MtheGM. Are they also Islamophobes, racists and bigots? The extremist faction of their religion certainly believe that and would like to kill them for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:29 AM

Sorry -- 01.36 a.m.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM

DtG ~~ Thank you for your reasoned response. I attempted to spell out my position as to the question[s] you put in my post of 10 Jan 13 10.36 am. May I refer you back to it. where I think you will find your questions answered. If any further to ask, please then do,

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 07:00 AM

Could be me, and often is, but I interpret MGMs post as a tirade against the extremism within Islam rather than Islam itself. It could well have read

"the patent lesson that Catholicism should never have been allowed a foothold here to give it's priests access to innocent youngsters... "

The operative being that the foothold was given to the extremists etc. rather than the foothold given to the religion. It's the way I interpret it anyway and, as I said earlier, I am prepared to give anyone the benefit of the doubt. If however the main point is that the patent lesson is that Islam itself, in all it's guises, should never have been given a foothold then I am prepared to stand corrected.

Which is it Michael? Could you make an unequivocal statement that you have no issue with Islam and Moslems per se but you are against the factions within it that are causing the problems?

What is to be done about those unruly factions is a different argument altogether.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM

"I think you just condemned yourselves out of your own mouths."
.,,.

'Seriously' right back to you, Richard. If you are really being 'serious', wouldn't you do better to deconstruct, and argue the points in, that post of mine reproduced so prominently by Carroll* to which you refer, and demonstrate precisely wherein lies this self-evident self-condemnation which you purport to perceive, rather than simply assert its presence? Any fool can just assert.

~M~

*What is this precious & invaluable 'oxygen of publicity' stuff they talk of. Where can one buy it? Ah, now, with enemies like mine, who needs to...?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:33 AM

Steve Shaw yesterday.
"Religion needs to be fought. It's a very bad thing,"

Islam is a religion, so Islam needs to be fought. It's a very bad thing.

Is Steve Shaw a bigot in your view Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:23 AM

Richard, I defend his right to express a legitimate view.
As I said yesterday, a religion is a human construct and as such is open to comparison and criticism, and it is reasonable to have an opinion on how its growth might effect a society.

You say appear to say that makes Michael a bigot.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:05 AM

Seriously, MtheGM, Keith? You are going to defend the quote that Jim gave in red letters in his post at 3.08 Mudcat time? Really? I think you just condemned yourselves out of your own mouths.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 04:04 AM

Might also do well to look up 'Knocking Copy' [aka 'Compararative advertising'] on wikipedia, esp section "Effectivenes

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:55 AM

Still, how nice of him to hilite that inarguable post of mine; in red letters yet.

Much appreciated!

☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺

Perhaps he might look up 'counterproductive in the dictionary.
He really is a kingsize Grade-A prizewinning idiot, isn't he?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:31 AM

As they say, Keith ~~

Leave it alone...

He's not worth it.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:16 AM

you and Keith have turned a thread on the death of a soldier into a hatefest against Muslims.

Not true at all Jim.
The attempted beheading was carried out by extremist Muslims.
There was no escaping that.
You created debate by claiming that their religion was not relevant to their actions.

You also accused anyone who disagreed of racism.
You are still at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 13 - 03:08 AM

"Or I just shudder to think what the likes of Carroll & Bridge will have to say to us!"
Between you you and Keith have turned a thread on the death of a soldier into a hatefest against Muslims.
Now you have turned it into an attack on two Mudcat members.
Am quite happy with your hatred - after all, it was you who wrote:
"A bloody great parade of murderous thugs, of whom that fat slug was just the spokie. Weren't you watching Jim? 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."
We don't have to "say" anything - you said it all for us.
Wouldn't have it any other way!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:46 PM

There is a good social side too.
Best not to say too much here.
Do you have a Mudcat friend who could send me an email?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 05:10 PM

Thank you for that, Keith. He's absolutely thrilled to have got past the medical questions and filled in endless forms. It seems to be taking a long time, but I suppose they have to be very careful. I expect they too will be pleased to have a chap who's both black and a Muslim, as it makes the TA's a nice mix, and unites all races and creeds. It's touching really, he says he's received so much from this country and would like to give something back by serving. He's too old for the Regulars unfortunately, but the TA's accept members a bit older. The security issue does worry me, but you can't hold a man back from what he wants to do. I'm very very proud of him, and he's an excellent example of a Muslim, black immigrant of great goodwill, who has much to offer the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:48 PM

I had Muslim friends when I was in the TA Eliza.
We had some good times and we were all one team.

I hope Ib joins and does well.
There are those who would kill him for it.
Be careful with security.
Please tell me how he gets on.
keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:34 PM

Well, I for one don't really mind what folks on here say to me, as I hold the view that they're entitled to their opinions and can express them if they wish. I must add that I have worked with Bangladeshi and Pakistani families years ago in Glasgow, helping them to integrate, and befriending the mums of school-age pupils. I was welcomed into their homes and liked them very much. As many have said already on this thread, we should be careful not to lump all Muslims together and label them as 'dodgy'. I hope this weird couple don't get to hear that my husband has applied to be in the Territorial Army. They'd have forty fits! (and on a much more serious note, may start sharpening their butcher's cleavers, God forbid.)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:30 PM

Well, we had better be very careful what we say here Eliza, on this topic, hadn't we? Or I just shudder to think what the likes of Carroll & Bridge will have to say to us!

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:18 PM

I know, Michael, a cheek indeed. We were both absolutely fizzing in the car afterwards. Apparently the chap has a big business here (catering I think) and they're very well-off. She was at pains to tell me they had a VERY big house, and it made a lot of work keeping it clean. I'm ashamed to admit I suggested that if they could afford such a large residence, they could presumably afford a maid. (Oh dear, naughty Eliza.) They actually attend a 'dodgy' mosque where my husband once used to worship. It was only Bangladeshi Muslims, very stern and strict, and they shunned him like anything, so he left and now goes to the University one which is much more multi-national. I expect they prefer to live here because the standard of living is much higher than back home. No problem with that. But I did resent being looked down on, in my own country, as 'inferior'. They'd do better in Saudi or Dubai IMO. It's this sort of thing that makes me worry for Ib. Either they'll try to indoctrinate him (unlikely to succeed as he adores UK and is proud to be a British Citizen) or they may become active Islamists and make folk look askance at any Muslims, causing Ib problems. Not good.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:00 PM

What does this man DO, Eliza? Why are they here, if, as appears, they hate us so much and regard our national religion with such contempt? If theirs is the only religion that counts, and it means so much to them, why don't why just go back to Bangladesh, or to some other country where it is not in competition with any others ~~ let alone being a minority one as it is here, so that they have to share the air they breathe with a vast concourse of infidels, which must surely be a matter of quite considerable very distress to them?

I ask, I admit, with a certain degree of resentment at the bloody impudence of their very presence here if it is such a hardship to them [anyone got a problem with that? tough bumholes!] -- But also in genuine puzzlement as to what can possibly be their motivation for having to tolerate our so-loathsome-to-themselves presence for every moment of the day.

Or do they get any sort of benefits, or in any other way do better here than they would in Bangla, by any chance?

Just asking...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM

We were in Asda yesterday and met a very Fundamentalist Bangladeshi couple. They have seen my husband at the gym (where she wears full hijab even on the machines and a weird loose full-length rubber suit for swimming, but hey...) and sometimes talk to him. I was amazed at their attitude to me (so was my husband) It was as if I smelt of poo frankly, they kept well away and sniffed. The lady asked 'if I was a Muslim yet?' and 'why hadn't my husband got down to converting me?' etc . I smiled sweetly and replied I was a Christian for life, and that my husband has no problem with that so why should they? She had the cheek to say that we weren't really married in the eyes of God unless we had a Mosque ceremony. It was a chilling encounter to be honest, and gave me much food for thought. The man particularly was a bit scary. It wasn't his very long beard but the fanatical look in his eyes. He truly looked as if he'd like to kill me right there in Asda. I warned my lovely Ib to be very careful with these people as they seemed DODGY. He agreed. Interesting...?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM

Admit the mis-spelling with shame...

Specify the 'misrepresentation', though, please, R.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:46 PM

Ooh dear. Should I massacre my neighbours in case they remember they are Islamic and therefore I am an infidel?

Zzzzzzzzzzz



Or there again. The halal lamb and chicken I have ordered for ne xt week's bbq would be wasted and at the last count, 7 of the 36 people coming need their meat halal.

I just wonder if the right wing twats and the young Asian between them realise how integrated communities are now? I realise that many of our friends are doctors due to our own professions but bloody hell...

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:41 PM

A misrepresentation as well as a mis-spelling, M.

Keith, what is your problem? Did you not read M's assertions about Islam? Or did you not understand them?

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

"That's almost the point - the possibility that Islam may already be changing from within."
.,,.

My goodness. Can this be Richard? Admitting that there might be room in Islam for "change from within"/

Is that completely compatible with your customary resolutely relatavist stance, do you think!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:12 AM

Sorry, 100 000.
Give it a few weeks though.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 08:11 AM

Standing out from all the everyday reports of mass carnage of Muslims by Muslims in their lands, we hear today of a 14 year old executed for blasphemy in front of his parents, and a 10 and a 16 year old beheaded for spying.

2000 have died a violent death by other Muslims in just 2 months in Iraq, while the death toll in Syria approaches 200 000.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 07:15 AM

So, not a bigot then Richard.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM

Is anyone actually saying that all Moslems are dangerous? I may be as blind as the others but, if so, I cannot spot it! As to Islam being dangerous - Yes it is, in the wrong hands such as the 'frothing Imams'. Any religion is dangerous in the hands of fanatics, surely?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 06:14 AM

700

That is indeed a fallacious conclusion.
Nobody drew it though.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 04:20 AM

Oh dear. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

The fallacy is this:

Proposition 1: Islamists are dangerous
Proposition 2: Islamists express themselves to follow Islam.
Proposition 3: Some selected texts from the Koran and its interpretations may be read as foundations for Islamist views.
Fallacious conclusion: All Muslims are dangerous (or Islam is dangerous).

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 03:57 AM

Don,
According to the United Nations, the Taliban were responsible for 76% of civilian casualties in Afghanistan in 2009, 75% in 2010 and 80% in 2011.[101][102]

According to Human Rights Watch, the Taliban's bombings and other attacks which have led to civilian casualties "sharply escalated in 2006" when "at least 669 Afghan civilians were killed in at least 350 armed attacks, most of which appear to have been intentionally launched at non-combatants."[103][104] By 2008, the Taliban had increased its use of suicide bombers and targeted unarmed civilian aid workers, such as Gayle Williams.[105]

The United Nations reported that the number of civilians killed by both the Taliban and pro-government forces in the war rose nearly 50% between 2007 and 2009.[106] The high number of civilians killed by the Taliban is blamed in part on their increasing use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs), "for instance, 16 IEDs have been planted in girls' schools" by the Taliban.[106]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_in_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present)

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:48 AM

If I have misunderstood Richard, it may well be because you have not explained properly and I am not alone.

A religion is a human construct and as such is open to comparison and criticism, and it is reasonable to have an opinion on how its growth might effect a society.

You say appear to say that makes Michael a bigot.
Where have I gone wrong?

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 02:31 AM

That's almost the point - the possibility that Islam may already be changing from within.

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:34 AM

And I shouldn't wonder anyhow, Richard, if that friend of yours doesn't find himself in some sort of disgrace or obloquy within his new faith-cohort if he persists in his iniquitous* ways.

~M~


[as they, not I, would see it, re the homosex; tho I can't stand self-satisfied lushes].

Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London)
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 13 - 01:18 AM

Thank you for setting me right, Eliza. How rather neglectful, I can't help feeling, to be so intent on converts as to accept just anyone of whatever character or antecedence. But one is never too old to learn new facts to rectify one's inaccurate assumptions~~ Richard, NB...

~Michael~