BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:53 AM

Look, all religions are evil, and Boko Haram and ISIS are cunts - but these "Islamists" are as much the enemy of less extreme Muslims as they are of the rest of the world. The conflation of this sort of Islamism with Islam in general makes dealing with this sort of Islamism much harder. Having said that it does seem to me that there is a lot wrong with Sharia law - as far as I know what it is - in general (some bits are good, like the attitude to interest) and in the way that even moderate Islam treats women as second-class. But one cannot begin to hope that moderate Islam will come to fit more comfortably with the world if one merely assumes that Boko Haram illuminates moderate Islam.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:27 AM

Independent Yesterday
"Boko Haram is a militant Islamist group based in the northeast of Nigeria, north Cameroon and Niger.

The group's official name is Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, which in Arabic translates as: "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad"."

International Business Times. February.
"Syria: ISIS Jihadis Strangle Girl to Death for Breaking Sharia [GRAPHIC IMAGES]"http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/syria-isis-jihadis-publically-strangle-girl-death-not-conforming-sharia-islam-graphic-images-1436502

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:17 AM

You said it happened in Nigeria.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:16 AM

Yes Musket.
The link is they are both Islamist groups whose members describe themselves as Jihadists.

Tell us again that story you made up about Christians attacking a school and feeding Muslim children to pigs.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:04 AM

Any evidence of a link between lads from here going to fight in Syria and the kidnapping of girls in Nigeria?

Your whitewash brush of "Jihad" is rather appalling Keith.

My great uncle joined the international brigade and fought in Spain, his passage paid by a church group. Does that make him related to making homosexuality a crime in Uganda?

zzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:39 AM

BBC February
"At least 29 students have been killed after suspected Boko Haram militants attacked a boarding school in north-east Nigeria.

The BBC's Will Ross in Lagos says the remote school in Yobe state was attacked overnight when students were in their dormitories.

All the victims were teenage boys and 11 others were seriously injured. Most of the school was burned to the ground.

Islamist militants have attacked dozens of schools in north-east Nigeria.

Last September, 40 students were killed at an agricultural college during another night-time raid.

Teachers at the school in Buni Yadi said the gunmen gathered the female students together before telling them to go away and get married and to abandon their education."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-26338041

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:35 AM

Greg, your link referred to ISIS as a group that did not disown the violence of Boko.
They are Jihadists, many from this country. Two British members were killed in Syria just this week.

Many are now deploring the delay in reacting to the kidnapping.
Boko have killed tens of thousands in recent years with no reaction at all outside Nigeria.
Just a few months ago they attacked a boys school and just killed all the boys.

I reported it on the Christian Persecution thread, the premise of which is that Christians are being persecuted to extinction in many places and no-one cares.
No-one seemed to care about that.

Greg, has any other religion spawned an international movement equivalent to Islamism, whose goal is the destruction of democracy and the imposition by force of Islamic rule and Sharia Law?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 09:04 PM

"Here is a paragraph from chapter four of the Qur'an, as translated by the most formidable Islamist scholar of the 20th century, Syed Maududi:

"And forbidden to you are the wedded wives of other people, except those who have fallen in your hands (as prisoners of war): This is the Law of Allah." In his explanation, Maududi goes to great lengths to justify and explain the rightfulness of such rape of non-Muslim POWs.

There are references in the Hadith (sayings of Prophet Mohammed) where sex with enslaved non-Muslim women POWs is discussed in detail.

We Muslims have a choice.

We either develop the maturity to say, such Islamic injunctions do not apply anymore, or we can keep on driving fast-forward in reverse gear, and every time we hit an obstacle that appears in our blind spot, we can blame it on "Islamophobia".

Tarek Fatah: Muslims must denounce Nigerian kidnap outrage

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:39 PM

I said nothing about "Islamists" (whatever definition you are applying to that term today) BooBoo. Nor did I say anything about not criticising Boko Haram or defending them. Nor did I engage in the standard toddler defense you use to excuse Israel.

Do try to keep up, eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:33 PM

So let's be reasonable and let's stop tarring anti-Islamic actions with an Islam brush

BooBoo? Reasonable? That's a joke, right, Steve? Please tell me yiu meant it as a joke.......

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:33 PM

But MOMMY the Christians do bad things too so we shouldn't criticize the Islamists.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:26 PM

Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more

You betcha, BooBad! Just so soon as peace-loving "Christians"[sic] resist, denounce and abjure the proselytizing and antics of the fundagelical"Christians"[sic] by way of an example.

These same "Christians"[sic] might also oppose the ongoing U.S. drone assassinations of civilians and the state of perpetual "pre-emptive"[sic] war the U.S. is engaged in.

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril.

Now that's just the type of overblown, hysterical anti-Muslim bullshit we've come to expect from you, Boo.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is also a Fox News[sic] professional bloviator and lunatic.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:20 PM

"So cut the "jihad" crap, right?"

Tell that to the jihadis.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 May 14 - 08:10 PM

Whilst I similarly lament the absence of a central condemnation by Islam of what's going on in Nigeria (I suppose Islam has no Pope, but even having a Pope doesn't seem to help Catholicism to condemn in much of a hurry the rape of thousands of children or the removal of hundreds of Italian Jews to death camps), I demur strongly at your use of the word "jihad". Yes, I was very nasty there to Catholics, most of whom would want nothing to do with the disgusting activities of a minority of their clergy. Similarly, the vast majority of Muslims would want nothing to do with the actions of those thugs in Nigeria. So let's be reasonable and let's stop tarring anti-Islamic actions with an Islam brush. Raping children has nothing to do with mainstream Catholicism. I may be an atheist but I'm fair-minded enough to admit to that. In the same way, abducting little girls has nothing to do with mainstream Islam. So cut the "jihad" crap, right?   
.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 09 May 14 - 07:23 PM

Boko Haram and the Kidnapped Schoolgirls
By Ayaan Hirsi Ali
May 8, 2014 7:18 p.m. ET

"How to explain this phenomenon to baffled Westerners, who these days seem more eager to smear the critics of jihadism as "Islamophobes" than to stand up for women's most basic rights? Where are the Muslim college-student organizations denouncing Boko Haram? Where is the outrage during Friday prayers?

I am often told that the average Muslim wholeheartedly rejects the use of violence and terror, does not share the radicals' belief that a degenerate and corrupt Western culture needs to be replaced with an Islamic one, and abhors the denigration of women's most basic rights. Well, it is time for those peace-loving Muslims to do more, much more, to resist those in their midst who engage in this type of proselytizing before they proceed to the phase of holy war.

It is also time for Western liberals to wake up. If they choose to regard Boko Haram as an aberration, they do so at their peril. The kidnapping of these schoolgirls is not an isolated tragedy; their fate reflects a new wave of jihadism that extends far beyond Nigeria and poses a mortal threat to the rights of women and girls. If my pointing this out offends some people more than the odious acts of Boko Haram, then so be it."

The Wall Street Journal

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 09 May 14 - 09:47 AM

Actually, most of the Iranians I knew at uni and later at the College of Law were blokes, and the MOST determined coxemen.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 09 May 14 - 03:04 AM

LadyJean - I too knew a group of Iranian students in college. They too were the nicest bunch of people! They too were Muslims, but I don't have to wonder what they are doing now - They were all imprisoned and killed by Khomeni and his Revolutionary Guards.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: LadyJean
Date: 08 May 14 - 11:23 PM

I knew a group of Iranian students in college. They were the nicest bunch of people! They were Muslims, but the girls dressed like everyone else, except that they favored bright colors. They didn't drink, but they could still party! I wonder what they're doing now.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 May 14 - 08:16 PM

Well, Teribus, owld lad, nice to see you putting in all that effort, but you have done nothing to demonstrate that you are anything other than a typical western revisionist ultra-right wing imperialist. Possibly with a bit of Christian evangelist thrown in for all I know. There are millions just like you in the US who have been similarly duped (hey, I don't even know whether that's where you live). I suppose you think men didn't land on the moon either. Not for one minute am I suggesting that Saddam was anything other than an evil, despotic bastard, and it saddens me that I have to keep on reprising that with eejits like you (who couldn't rip a bloody teddy bear to pieces, by the way, you insolent git). So Al-Qaeda killed 3000 in one attack, but we managed to kill "only" 150,000. Wow, that's all right then! And a hundred thousand Iraqi kids died in the 90s, all down to him, when we put the screws on, yet that didn't happen in the 80s when he was our big mate. Yeah, right! Nothing like a bad conscience, eh! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:50 PM

Yes Greg, they are currently the most extreme group, which is why they are being given most attention.
Why are other groups less extreme?
"a current push by Al Qaeda's leaders to avoid such deaths for fear of alienating potential supporters. That was the subject of the dispute that led to Al Qaeda's recent break with its former affiliate, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria."

What does that say about ISIS?

On this site, Israel tends to get more attention than much LESS extreme states.
Curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:52 PM

Abduction of Girls an Act Not Even Al Qaeda Can Condone

By ADAM NOSSITER and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKMAY 7, 2014

ABUJA, Nigeria — As word spread like wildfire on Twitter and Facebook that Nigerian militants were preparing to auction off more than 200 kidnapped schoolgirls in the name of Islam, a very different Internet network started quietly buzzing too.

"Such news is spread to taint the image of the Mujahedeen," wrote one dubious poster on a web forum used by Islamic militants whose administrator uses a picture of Osama bin Laden.

Boko Haram, the cultlike Nigerian group that carried out the kidnappings, was rejected long ago by mainstream Muslim scholars and Islamist parties around the world for its seemingly senseless cruelty and capricious violence against civilians. But this week its stunning abduction appeared too much even for fellow militants normally eager to condone terrorist acts against the West and its allies.

"The violence most of the African rebel groups practice makes Al Qaeda look like a bunch of schoolgirls," said Bronwyn Bruton, an Africa scholar at the Atlantic Council in Washington. "And Al Qaeda at this point is a brand — and pretty much only a brand — so you have to ask yourself how they are going to deal with the people who are doing things so hideous even the leaders of Al Qaeda are unwilling to condone them."

Boko Haram is in many ways an awkward ally for any of them. Its violence is broader and more casual than Al Qaeda or other jihadist groups. Indeed, its reputation for the mass murder of innocent civilians is strikingly inconsistent with a current push by Al Qaeda's leaders to avoid such deaths for fear of alienating potential supporters.


Whole article Here

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:49 AM

I am not hurt in the least.
Naughty names!

I object to the debates being spoiled.
Instead of challenging someone's view, you call them naughty names and pretend they have said things they have not.
It ruins it.
It turns people off.
If you are incapable of saying why you disagree, go away and think until you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 08 May 14 - 09:21 AM

And then he wonders...

Then he asks people to look upon him all sweet innocent and hurt.

Aw. Poor little bugger.

By the way, I didn't say you have influence. Clapton forbid that anyone other than your pet worm and Michael on his less coherent days takes you seriously.

Read what I type.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 08:14 AM

BTW Musket, I never called you a liar over the intranet link.
It was the made up quote supposedly downloaded from the site of The British Council of Mosques.
It does not exist so you could not have given a link.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:47 AM

Some background on Boko Haram from the NY Times:

Explaining Boko Haram, Nigeria's Islamist Insurgency

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:13 AM

Richard.
"The Christian Association of Nigeria published a list on Sunday of 180 Christian girls – about two-thirds of the total 276 – among the missing."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/boko-haram-massacre-nigeria-gamboru-ngala

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:12 AM

Dave, if something is both unnecessary and offensive, it is not worth preserving.

Are we back on the Britannia 'nutters debate?

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:09 AM

Dave, if something is both unnecessary and offensive, it is not worth preserving.
If you look at recent threads about Mudcat, you will see that many people are repelled by the more abusive nature of posting in recent times.

Musket, I have never had any "influence" and have always represented a minority viewpoint here.
I just enjoy the debate, but people like you are spoiling it for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 07:07 AM

No problem, Jim - As long as I know :-)

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:58 AM

"If it was directed at me are you saying that I am guilty of these things?"
No Dave - I am not, and once again I owe you an apology - I came into this half cocked - still not good at multi-tasking.
My remarks were addressed to Keith's behaviour here - I misread your contribution.
Keith's last-man-standing behaviour had killed thread after thread - he is legendary for it.
He has been reported for the way he behaves and for a small instant, he actually manged to control it - now - like Arnie - he's back with a vengeance.
As for discouraging participation - I wouldn't like to be a Muslim in his presence - as an Anglo-Irishman, I have had a slight glimmer of how it must feel.
If he is right in his belief that this forum is dying - he is largely the cause of it; perhaps he might consider sending flowers to the funeral and ******* off to let us to mourn our dead.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:56 AM

That was not what I asked, Keith. I think we know that many or most or maybe all of the kidnapped girls are Muslim. I wanted to test the apparent assertion that a significant number were Xtian. AFAIK only some of the last 8 might have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:56 AM

The forum isn't dying, just your influence without question.

And that by the way is a healthy thing.

As I said, I have never lied. I sent a link to an archived intranet site once by mistake and you have thrown it in my face ever since. If ever I need to question whether I am being over harsh, that brings me back to reality.

Funny how my car radio is BBC, either 2 or 4. Presumably World at One like telling tales.

Funny how your "widely held" excuse, usually concerning swearing or opposition to gay marriage and other religious nonsense is rarely shared on this dying website.

Fuck shit bollocks arsehole vicar bum cunt

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:44 AM

Keith, but you seem to believe that Mudcat is 'dying' because of Musket's bad language? Well, sorry, but I do not think that is a widely held opinion. Do you not think that the constant outages, the slow responses and alternatives such as Facebook have more to do with it? If it is in fact 'dying' it is a very slow death and has little to do with what goes on below the line.

That the use of obscene swear words is offensive is an opinion but a very widely held one.

Far from the truth in many areas. Ever visited Glasgow? Or Dublin? Or Salford?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:25 AM

That the use of obscene swear words is offensive is an opinion but a very widely held one.
I doubt the Mudcat people are different in that respect.
Many do not want to be Mudcat people anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:21 AM

"Likely to discourage participation? Has anyone who really wants to join the debate been discouraged? I don't think so."
Personal opinion.
The forum is dying.
Fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:19 AM

It is unpleasant, unnecessary and is likely to discourage participation and debate.

Unpleasant? Personal opinion.
Unnecessary? Probably, but so is Morris Dancing.
Likely to discourage participation? Has anyone who really wants to join the debate been discouraged? I don't think so.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:11 AM

It is not an issue for me either Dave, but I will condemn it.
It is unpleasant, unnecessary and is likely to discourage participation and debate.

Musket, I called you a liar when you claimed to have heard on BBC of Christians in Nigeria attacking a Muslim school, killing children and feeding them to pigs.
Neither BBC nor any other agency has any such story reported, so you made it up.
Also, when you claimed to have downloaded a quote that Google could only find in your post, and you claimed it came from an organisation that does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 06:03 AM

so why condone it and why not condemn it?

Not condemning it is not the same as condoning it. I have done neither as it is not an issue for me. Other people can fight their own battles.

Jim, I am confused. You said

Harassing, misrepresenting, openly lying and fillibusting are equally examp;es of verbal bullying.
I have no doubt that you are now going to indulge in one of these to tell use you have never been guilty of any of them.

Followed by

Sorry - that should have been directed at Dave and referred to Keith's behaviour on this forum.

If it was directed at me are you saying that I am guilty of these things?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:53 AM

Sorry - that should have been directed at Dave and referred to Keith's behaviour on this forum.
I did not mention his constant attempts to manipulate discussion with constant claims of "thread drift" and attempts to invalidate the arguments of others because we don't live in Britain or haven't been members for long enough.
More lies eh?
When it comes to "verbal bullying" he is in 'world class', only his the Uriah Heep kind rather than the bluster that Musket indulges in
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:50 AM

I got as far as unequivocally lied. You called a liar on many occasions and I wasn't lying, so not much point in reading any further.

If I called you a fuckwit, I apologise. I normally reserve that as a term of endearment, and I wished to insult you. As your method of debate only ever either entrenches your weird view of the world or rearranges your prejudices, insults are the only tool left in the box. Reason certainly doesn't work, as I unfortunately found out the first time you waded in on a discussion I was part of.



Dave. I enjoy shouting. That much is obvious. I will shout till early c20 views no longer form c21 society. Glad you agree it is abuse. I prefer counter abuse if I'm to get picky, and it isn't me, as you probably know from our own correspondence, but self satisfied idiots who think the world should fit in their petty sectarian pockets are going to bring me out shouting.

Each and every time.

By the way Keith. Keep up. It isn't Comrade Musket, it's dirty rotten stinking capitalist Musket. See Al & Bridge for details.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:44 AM

"vicious, intimidating verbal bullying of the other person."
Harassing, misrepresenting, openly lying and fillibusting are equally examp;es of verbal bullying.
I have no doubt that you are now going to indulge in one of these to tell use you have never been guilty of any of them.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:42 AM

Dave, you and I may not feel intimidated, but I think others are.
The abuse serves no other purpose than to dissuade people from expressing their views, so why condone it and why not condemn it?

Richard, it was always clear that some of the abducted children were Muslims, and I do not believe anyone has claimed or implied otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:35 AM

I would be interested in your view on that.
I know that Musket is clever and funny, and I enjoy reading the banter between the two of you, but his vicious, bullying intimidation is a separate issue.

Thanks for asking. It is in your favour that you did ask rather than assume there is some sort of collusion between members as others do.

I don't find it intimidating. Abuse? Yes, but obvious and generic. Calling someone the type of names mentioned are the equivalent of A-Team violence. It looks like the real stuff but everyone gets up and walks away. I have been called all the same and worse and it has never put me off. Maybe it is me being thick skinned but it all washes over me or I give back as good as I get. The only time I felt there was real abuse towards me was when someone began to poke fun at a genuine aural disability my wife has. I trust the moderation team to know the difference between invective and real hurtful bullying.

I also think it is all getting rather silly. I know you have some good points to make, as does Jim, as does Musket, as does Steve. I have communicated with all of you both privately and publicly and know that you are all reasonable and reasoning people. I have argued against each one as well. I know I am not right on everything but I do hope that I have a balanced opinion on most things. In fact, I have got shouted at, not that that matters, for not coming down in favour of one of you on occasions. How about everyone just states their opinion, once, provides one counter argument for or against the opinions of others and then calls it a day? I have been as guilty as most of going on and on (and on and on and on). We all like the sounds of our own voices but let's give it a rest for a while, eh?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:25 AM

Returning to the subject of the thread, Guardian today makes this report.
I post it because it provides up to date information on the impact of Islamic radicalism.
I hope that is permissible.

"The US president, Barack Obama, said the kidnappings and murders in Nigeria, as well as the war in Syria and other conflicts, showed man's "darkest impulses".

The latest insurgent attack in Nigeria targeted the town of Gamboru Ngala. Gunmen burned buildings and fired on civilians as they tried to flee. The Nigerian senator Ahmed Zanna put the death toll at 300, citing information provided by locals."

"A medical officer in the Cameroon army, which has reinforced security at the border, said it believed more than 200 were killed in town. "Some of the bodies were charred. It was horrific. People had their throats slit, others were shot," he said."

"Boko Haram is holding 276 girls after a raid on a school in Chibok on 15 April, and a further eight girls aged between eight and 15 taken in an overnight raid on a village on Monday, also in its stronghold in north-eastern Borno state."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/boko-haram-massacre-nigeria-gamboru-ngala

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 05:12 AM

Musket, I have only reported lying when someone has unequivocally lied.
All the things you accuse me of are false.

Most ordinary, decent people would prefer not to be the subject of an attack on their character.
Most ordinary decent people do not like to be called "cunt" "bigot" "fuckwit" etc. and will tend to refrain from expressing opinions that may bring such abuse down on them.

Ordinary decent people would deal with expressed views they disapprove of by pointing out the flaws, not by vicious, intimidating verbal bullying of the other person.
That is what you and others have brought to our forum, and I believe it has a bearing on the dwindling number of contributors and threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:43 AM

"Christ on a bloody bike. Indeed Steve - OK then care to take me to task on any of the factual content of my post? I won't hold my breath, as both you and I know that were to enter that arena I would rip you to bits.

Revisionism personified. ??

1: "We kill a hundred thousand Iraqi children in the 90s with our impoverishing sanctions and about ten times more innocent civilians with our illegal invasion in the noughties, yet it's Saddam who's the Nazi."

Couple of points here Steve, lets start with a question:
"Exactly how did we kill a hundred thousand Iraqi children in the 90s?"

You mentioned sanctions, but as we all know now, those sanctions were totally ineffectual and as ruler of the country didn't Saddam have some part to play in this? I mean that during this period of what you emotively refer to as an era or "impoverishing sanctions" while Saddam could not import medicines and food which were permitted he did manage to:
- import 384 rocket motors;
- build 34 Presidential Palaces (All lavishly appointed);
- start up and run a WMD programme for VX agent;
- illegally export oil to the tune of billions of US$ each year.

Don't know about you Stevie but if blame was the game I'd say that under such circumstances then the buck stops firmly with Saddam - not the big bad west.

So we killed "ten times more" than a hundred thousand in the "noughties" did we Steve - PROVE IT - Iraqi records put the total number at ~150,000 - i.e. those buried, those admitted to hospital for treatment, death certificates, etc, etc. If you want a good rundown on the unlikelihood of there ever having been anything close to one million Iraqi dead then visit IraqBodyCount.org they have an extremely good critique of the batch sample estimates that claimed such ridiculous figures (Why ridiculous? Here is an example of deaths from a concentrated bombing campaign - between 1939 and 1945 over 12,000 aircraft dropped 1.3 million tons of bombs on Germany and that managed to kill 635,000 people - yet "rational" Steve Shaw thinks that the US with only 385 aircraft in the space of six months killed over a million - ludicrous - it doesn't even withstand even the most basic critical scrutiny)

As far as who killed who in Iraq:
Total death toll = ~150,000
Killed nation-wide by US/MNF/Iraqi Security Forces = ~33,000
Killed nation-wide by AQII/Ba'athist insurgents/Sectarian Militias/Foreign Jihadists/Criminal Gangs = ~117,000
In Southern Iraq total death toll = 3,344
Killed by British Forces = 124
Killed by rival Shia sectarian militias and criminal gangs = 3,220

The Ba'athist Party in Iraq Steve was formed in 1947 as a pan-Arabist national socialist party - The party embraced nationalist, racist and a populist paramilitary culture similar to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party, the term Nazi is German and stems from "Nationalsozialist". If you are simply too thick to read the history and see the parallels then too bad.

2: "The same Saddam who had no WMDs, remember?"

If you believe that the invasion in 2003 had anything to do with Saddam Hussein HAVING WMD then you were successfully duped by MSM. Perhaps you should have read what the likes of UNSCOM, Blair and Bush actually said as opposed to what the papers said they said. Perhaps you should have read the 34 points detailed in United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 (Outlining the detail of the terms and conditions agreed at Safwan in March 1991 that Saddam Hussein refused to fully implement).


3: "Who exactly was it who told us all the lies, Teribus, old chum?"

WHAT LIES - OLD CHUM?? That Iraq MAY HAVE unaccounted for WMD? As stated by UNSCOM? As stated by Blair? As stated by George W. Bush. They BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD and Saddam himself admitted that he worked very hard and very deliberately to create precisely that impression - Hell even Dr. Hans Blix believed in the summer of 2004 while he was writing his book "Disarming Iraq" that Saddam had WMD

4: "We spend fourteen years in Afghanistan on the initial pretext of getting Al Qaeda out and succeed (as any bloody fool could have predicted) in driving them into bandit country just over the border in Pakistan, where they just wait for us to bugger off, which we will, before resuming control, and we call it "the war on terror".

Al-Qaeda and their Taleban hosts were driven out of Afghanistan back over the border into Pakistan (The birth place of both organisations) in 71 days in 2001.

Liked your rather fanciful take on the Taleban "resuming control" - Between November 1994 and October 2001 the Taleban backed to the hilt by Pakistan's Government, Army and Intelligence Services failed to defeat 35,000 men of the Northern Alliance. Since July 2013 the ANSF has been responsible for national security in Afghanistan, the Taleban to date have not beaten them once. Come January 2015 the Taleban will face a 354,000 strong ANSF made up of the same men they couldn't defeat between 1994 and 2001. Pakistan reliant on foreign aid and not wishing to upset the Chinese, or the Americans will do as they are told.

5: Rather than being "a demonising load of old bollocks" my post is based on extremely well documented fact, and while I am delighted to hear that you have "absolutely no time for Saddam, his ilk, the Taliban or for Al Qaeda" it would appear that you are fully prepared to stand on the sidelines wringing your hands and saying how terrible things are you are fully prepared to merely just let them carry on as normal. Fortunately, for the people of both Afghanistan and Iraq, neither the President of the United States of America or the Prime Minister of the UK were prepared to just stand by and watch. It seems that not only have you no time for the truth - you would appear not to be able to distinguish the truth if it jumped up and bit you.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:42 AM

I'd like to test the assertion that (impliedly many) of the kidnapped schoolgirls are Xtian. AFAIK the school that was primarily raided is an Islamic school and the pupils there were observant and in Islamic dress.   This I have from some Nigerian friends one of whom went to university not far from the school.

What MAY come out of this, when Boko Haram attack more Yoruba, is a tribal war. The majority (not all, but, I am told, a majority) of Boko Haram are Fulani. Keith will have a handle on the colonial history but AFAIK the three main tribes at the colonial time were Yoruba, Ibo, and Hausa. When rule was handed over on decolonialisation the Hausa got most of the plum jobs and power. The Fulani got, I think, the shitty end of the stick. Hence, perhaps, their search for a pathway to power - but none of which explains the sources of their funding.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 08 May 14 - 04:15 AM

No Keith. I am not a bully.

If you had courage of your conviction, you would come out fighting, but what you type isn't debate. You stifle debate then accuse others of doing so. It's so bleeding obvious, only you can't see it.

You talk of suppression, then talk of my "arrival" in "our" website.

Two things to take into account. The last post you sent was the very first one, mine also. There is no previous and no long term membership badge. A first post by anyone is as valid as your umpteenth.

Now who's stifling debate?

You find friendly quotes on the internet and shout liar! at anyone who dismisses them.

Now who's stifling debate?

You call blatant homophobia by others "unfortunate" but seek to ridicule those who question it.

Now who's stifling debate?

You make comparisons of my seven years or so of posting with your own period in order to give credence to your arguments.

Now who's stifling debate?

You come out with the most outrageous comments that would silence a room through embarrassment and then complain when it is challenged.

Now who's stifling debate?

You call yourself decent.

Now who's taking the piss?







TC

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 May 14 - 03:54 AM

Dave, that was not my point at all.
A BS forum on a folk site has zero significance outside the site, but I was referring to our site.

I posted a quote from an Islamic radical on a thread about Islamic radicalism.
Musket wanted discussion of it suppressed.

As I said, he used nasty, intimidating abuse.
Ordinary, decent people are dissuaded from participating by that.
I think the arrival of people like him and his methods are culpable for the decline in our forum.

I would be interested in your view on that.
I know that Musket is clever and funny, and I enjoy reading the banter between the two of you, but his vicious, bullying intimidation is a separate issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,McMusket
Date: 08 May 14 - 02:56 AM

This is why I put what I did. Keith has form.

What is the point of just slipping in quotes? Where is the exploration of why they exist?

In this case, it would appear to be to demonise Islam rather than point out how a religion is being used as a front yet again. Keith's insistence that religion plays no part when both sides are Christian yet does when Muslim is abfuckingsurd.

Anyway. If Bridge is reading this. Did you notice he called me Comrade Musket? Hope for me yet eh ?