BS: Islamic radicalism . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 04:11 AM

Janie had them pegged pretty accurately in the now deleted thread.

If it was the thread that I started, asking for an apology for Janies comments, Janie did not post to it. If it was the thread where Janie attempted to psycoanalyse everyone and reckoned I was capable of burning people to death, then that was closed and Janies comments were deleted.

Maybe you are barking up the wrong tree, bobad. Or maybe just barking...

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:51 AM

"MtheGM, it is your posts, and those of your small coterie of followers, Teribillus, Akenhateon, KeiththeA, B-O-bad and Juicy Brucie, who persist in implying that ordinary Muslims are somehow similar to Islamists."

Really Richard? Care to supply with an example where I have done so.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:58 AM

And what's this about my "followers", for that matter, Richard? Followers? Didn't know I was being followed! Help! I'm being followed!

First scene of A Night At The Opera: Groucho & Margaret Dumont ~~ "Do you follow me, Mrs Claypool?" "Yes." "Well stop following me or I'll have you arrested!"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 06:22 AM

I have certainly never equated them, so Richard will not be producing an example of me either.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 07:38 AM

Read this.

A female Muslim journalists article on how she was treated in Texas. This is where we could be going if we continue tarring all Muslims with the same brush.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 08:05 AM

"This is where we could be going if we continue tarring all Muslims with the same brush."

I take it that you are speaking for yourself as I am certainly not doing so - I am clear on the distinction between ordinary Muslims and Islamists. If you are not it would behoove you to make the effort to study up on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 08:24 AM

This is where we could be going

Going? In many parts of the U.S, thanks to the hysterical fear-mongers its where we already ARE.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 08:39 AM

I take it that you are speaking for yourself

No. I am also quite certain that there are criminals and extremists in all walks of life. 'We' is a polite device that I used in this case to mean those who do not know the difference. Apologies for not making it clear but I assumed that most people of average intelligence would realise that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:02 AM

Musket did not understand the difference between Islam and Islamism and interchanged the words.
When Bobad and I were critical of Islamism he insisted that was an insult to all Muslims.

"Keith. When you said "they" with regard to Islam and having much to apologise for..."

I had said "Islamism has much to apologise for."
Musket maintained that it was the same.
Starts here.

thread.cfm?threadid=136372&messages=1844#3585366

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:18 AM

Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 19 Dec 13 - 12:15 PM

Getting a bit desperate aren't we? "Err.. I didn't say Islam, I said Islamism, which is sooo fucking different, I'm going to point and laugh at you for being thick!"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We did laugh at you for being so ignorant of such basic terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:21 AM

True, every word.

As ever, your context forgets the thread you spilled it over from. Where you made a general link and I pointed out (as I reckon I may have done on the thread you have linked to) that Islamist is an affront to Islam as it makes a connection that is never made when Christians say Jesus told me to polish my guns.

I, like most decent people, am uncomfortable with the term Islamist as describing radicalisation of a superstition when it is, as all religious affairs, using gullible people to fight your battles for you. Only Muslims get to have terrorists named in their image.

Islamism has nothing to apologise for. It isn't in the business of apologising. Put back into the context you just brought your own quote out of, you were inferring that Islam has much to apologise for, and that is your true character boy...

When your vicar stands outside your church and apologises for Uganda, I'll ask the Imam on our chaplaincy team to apologise for Islamist atrocities.

Sanctimonious twat.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 09:42 AM

Musket did not understand the difference between Islam and Islamism

I find that highly unlikely, Keith. If the words were interchanged it was for good reason. I have no reason to doubt the intelligence of either Musket or yourself. Integrity maybe. Intelligence, no. :-)

Musket - What do you mean by confusing us with ST?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 11:09 AM

As ever, your context forgets the thread you spilled it over from

I gave the link.
It takes half a minute then goes to the post and can be followed.
Try it Dave and see for yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 11:24 AM

ISIS Threatens to Invade Jordan, 'Slaughter' King Abdullah

"The terrorists, who belong to The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria [ISIS -- known as DAESH in Arabic] and are said to be an offshoot of al-Qaeda, are planning to take their jihad to Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula -- after having already captured large parts of Syria and Iraq, the sources said."

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4354/isis-jordan

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 11:36 AM

said to be, alleged, anonymous source, it is reported, could be, might be .................................... ad nauseum

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 12:25 PM



Gatestone Institute

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 12:34 PM

Eh Dave?

ST?

Out of interest, Musket doesn't have integrity, he leaves that to the people writing his script.

Funnily enough, I work on the basis Keith is intelligent, which is why I don't understand when moderators delete my usual assessment of him, as it has to be satire.

The catch 22 is that if Keith is intelligent, why does he do it? Why does he keep up this "I've found something on the internet that backs up my weird views so you are all liars and I'm perfect."

Mind you, "perfect" got caught by Joe Offer posting as someone else apologising to Keith...

I love it when he does his school swot routine, because I can't believe he isn't conscious of it....

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:09 PM

What's your point Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:15 PM

GregF is using a ( far-left) propaganda site to point out a (far-right) propaganda site.

You know, the sort of thing that he declares "Bullshit" if anyone see does it.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:17 PM

Truth in advertising, Boo. People should have enough info on the source to make up their own minds.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:18 PM

Make up their minds about what?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:20 PM

Yet when someone brings out a description of a far-left site in a far-right site, YOU declare it bullshit-


Different standards being applied depending on whether they agree with you are a sign of bigotry .

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:24 PM

Different standards being applied depending on whether they agree with you are a sign of bigotry .

It are?

And your continued making stuff up and posting it as fact, BSB, is a sign of idiocy. Or duplicity. Or both.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: beardedbruce
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:34 PM

GregF,

You have never shown any factual basis for your statements of "bullshit"

I have presented my sources, and you have failed to dispute the facts with other than YOUR statement that it was bullshit. Not one item of evidence that anything I have posted was not as I have stated.

You are a proven lying scumbag racist asshole, from your own posts.

As long as you continue to post your worthless opinion as fact, and denigrate factual presentations as bullshit, you have nothing to contribute to intelligent conversation.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:52 PM

I have no doubt about the facts, Keith. What I do doubt is that Musket 'did not understand the difference'. That was your interpretation.

Musket - ST=Sanctimonious Twat. Stick to TC. Us gnomes of limited intelligence have enough problems without learning new acronyms. :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 01:58 PM

You know Greg, I really don't get you sometimes. You always try to discredit information or opinion that doesn't conform to your ideology simply because it comes from someone who doesn't conform to your ideology. That makes you come across as as much of an idealogue as are the extremists. For instance in the piece I excerpted what part of that paragraph do you have a problem with?

That ISIS is a terrorist group?

That they are an offshoot of al-Qaeda? - Read this from NBC News (if they are on your acceptable source list).

That they are planning to take their jihad to Jordan, Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the Sinai Peninsula? - there is a source provided for that info

That they have captured large parts of Syria and Iraq? That's all over the news today.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 02:21 PM

An informative backgrounder on ISIL (formerly ISIS - The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria now The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant reflecting their broadened ambition in the region) and it's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi from Aljazeera.


The fierce ambition of ISIL's Baghdadi

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:00 PM

See, Boo - now you're getting your knickers ina twist because I supplied information on the source of one of your ubiquitous cut-n-pastes. I made no statement as to whether it was bullshit or God's Honest Truth.

You need to stop reading into things and seeing things that aren't there.

Although the latter may illuminate where you get some of your information.

But rant on, if it makes ya happy.

PS: I assume you believe that the Gatestone Institute is a disinterested outfit with no agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:02 PM

"I said Islamism, which is sooo fucking different"
You have long established when yo made your claim of "all male Pakistanis" that as far as you are concerned they are all and one to you.
You confirmed the fact when you described the current opposition to Assad as "a war between two Muslim factions"
Describing what is essentially part of the 'Arab Spring' is dishonest in the extreme.
When the world refused to intervene to stop Syria's massacres, Muslims stepped in.
Britain voted against intervention - the British Secret Service would make those who are doing "a threat to our way of life" wouldn't they just?
As far as you are concerned, when Muslims stand up in their own defence they become 'Islamists' and are a threat to Britain - the basis of your argument throughout all these arguments - "they all look the same to me".
"Keith is ten times the debater you will ever be"
'Course he is Mike - he is, just like God, on your side.
He is an appalling, infantile and often self-confessed ignotant debator who persistently makes up his 'facts' - but as long as they are the right 'facts'......
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:16 PM

A "modest" proposal from yesterday's (London) Times.
Jim Carroll

FAITH SCHOOLS ARE DIVISIVE. LET'S GET RID OF THEM
A state education should celebrate all religions equally. Churches, synagogues and mosques can teach the devout
When I was a teenager I was fascinated by the Jewish boarding school a few fields away from our house. The local children barely ever saw any orthodox pupils leave their citadel. Occasionally they would ask us to buy them pork scratchings at the local garage, which they would eat illicitly by the river.
Theirs was a different world. Girls and boys didn't swim together. They couldn't even turn on a light bulb on Saturdays; they performed no Shakespeare because he was considered antisemitic; and they had hours of Hebrew each week.
Still I rather wanted to go there: it had amazing sports and music facilities and was only five minutes from home. But I couldn't because, my parents explained, I wasn't Jewish. Instead I went to a school a bus ride away, which was once run by Anglican nuns but now catered for every denomination. We had the occasional church service with a few beautiful hymns, there was an option to be confirmed and pupils could wear discreet crosses or headscarves. My friends were Church of England, Plymouth Brethren, Catholic and Jewish. We learnt about every faith and I went to bar mitzvahs as well as confirmations. It showed me a wide and tolerant world.
So I have always felt uneasy about fervently religious schools. They seem to teach exactly the opposite of what education should be about — to give pupils all the facts and allow them to discover their beliefs for themselves. The issue resurfaced when my husband was a governor of our local school which had a large
If we had Muslim or Catholic NHS hospitals there'd be an outcry
number of pupils from Morocco. An imam was trying to stop the pupils from drawing pictures or playing sport together. The head teacher was desperate and Christian parents began to complain that their children were being excluded. The local authority eventually intervened and the imam, who was in Britain illegally, was deported.
Twenty years later I feel even more strongly that that there is something disquieting about faith schools. We. accept them because they often achieve great results and have good discipline, something that has been missing from the British state education system recently. There are so few excellent schools, the argument goes, that we must protect those that excel, however they do it.
This is partly why the schools caught up in the Trojan Horse row, which were secular but prioritised Islam, were allowed to continue without much scrutiny — their grades were generally good.
It is also partly why, I suspect, Tony Blair, David Cameron and Michael Gove have all chosen faith schools for their children. They like the ethos and the results.
But it is an anomaly to allow publicly funded schools to choose their intake, overtly or covertly, on religious background only. No other state-funded institution is exempt from the Equality Act. There would be an outcry if there were exclusively Jewish, Catholic or Muslim NHS hospitals.
The French with their new charter for secularism in schools have been too aggressive, banning the wearing of hijabs and crosses and preventing discussion of religion. But in America, a more religious country than Britain, they have a system set up 50 years ago whereby schools cannot proselytise or promote one religion, but children's differing faiths are celebrated and accepted.
In Britain we could do the same. Nearly 16 per cent of children attend schools that select on religious identity. Instead of encouraging more faith schools as the Department for Education is now doing, we should gradually phase out religious selection in state-funded
No creed should make girls, gays or non¬believers feel inferior
establishments. High morals and good discipline shouldn't be the preserve of the devout.
There is no reason why schools that are not faith-based cannot be every bit as good as those that are. Part of the reason that faith schools excel is because their exclusive entry precludes many children from more disadvantaged backgrounds. Church of England schools admit 10 per cent fewer pupils eligible for free school meals than live in their catchment area, RC schools admit 24 per cent fewer, Muslim schools 25 per cent and Jewish schools 61 per cent.
I want my children to enjoy discovering Hinduism and Jainism as
well as the stories from the Koran and the Bible —they are all now part of Britain's broader culture.
In our fragmented society schools can be one of the few ways to bring people of differing cultures together and encourage inclusiveness. In Northern Ireland, where schools have long been divided on religious grounds, the effects have been coruscating. We need to teach children empathy, tolerance, respect for others and the importance of a cohesive society where everyone's beliefs and views are valued as long as they don't impinge on others. The best place for this is at school. Girls, gays or non-believers should not be made to feel inferior by any creed. Education should be the enemy of rabid extremism because it should encourage children to question and think for themselves.
Devout parents can still teach their children at home about their own beliefs; they can enrol their children at Sunday classes, hold Shabbat dinners or take the family to their mosque.
But schools should abide by the words of Thomas Paine, the philosopher who argued against institutionalised religion more than 200 years ago: "The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 03:24 PM

Cute Greg, very cute.....but I don't think you are fooling too many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 04:30 PM

"PS: I assume you believe that the Gatestone Institute is a disinterested outfit with no agenda?"

Don't ass-u-me. Do you not believe that every site on the internet or every news source or interest group has an agenda? Just like the posters on this site, including you, have an agenda. It's a sign of intelligence to be able to evaluate information independently of the source. Those who become obsessed with the source at the expense of the value of the information therein are showing themselves to be closed minded.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:02 PM

Bobad, we may disagree on some things but

Those who become obsessed with the source at the expense of the value of the information therein are showing themselves to be closed minded

is probably the single best line I have come across in ages.

Thanks for that.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:45 PM

It's a sign of intelligence to be able to evaluate information independently of the source.

Eggzackly. Hence my posting of link to info on source.

Its also a sign of intelligence to know the source's bias before you read, or accept uncritically what they have to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:55 PM

You have never shown any factual basis for your statements of "bullshit"

Hardly, BSB. But assuming, for the moment, that it were true, you have shown repeatedly that you don't want to be confused with the facts, so what would be the point of my plying you with facts?

I have presented my sources...

Rerely.

...and you have failed to dispute the facts

I dispute your opinions and accusations and wild flights of fancy such as your repeated "anti-Semitic" trope. You don't post "facts".

Oh - and its "horseshit", not "bullshit"

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Jun 14 - 05:58 PM

Musket,
Why does he keep up this "I've found something on the internet that backs up my weird views so you are all liars and I'm perfect."

Will you give an example of one such "weird view?"
Confident prediction, no.
You can't.
Right Musket?


Dave, Bobad and I criticised Islamism as Richard has just done.
Musket rebuked us for it.
He said to criticise Islamism was to criticise all Muslims.
Look for yourself.

He ridiculed us saying, "Getting a bit desperate aren't we? "Err.. I didn't say Islam, I said Islamism, which is sooo fucking different, I'm going to point and laugh at you for being thick!" "

To support that he claimed to have downloaded a quote from "The British Council of Mosques" that backed his view.

It would be scary if mainstream Muslims did back that, but putting the quote into Google just produced Musket's post, and there is no such thing as The British Council of Mosques anyway.

He made it all up to support his ignorant failure to grasp the difference.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 01:28 AM

Brilliant. see ? "You can't blah blah"

The style alone urges you to keep prodding him.

My only disappointment is, as ever, that Keith hasn't leaned the word context yet.

Mind you, my earlier reply has been removed which is a wee bit of a pity. All that serves to do is bugger up the right of reply. Not that replies get you anywhere. Our Keith has always preferred his own truth to the truth of others.

Just to keep him happy. Islamist is a term that criticises all Muslims. See? It wasn't hard. On one level the term means a radicalisation based on the teaching of Islam and on another it means terrorist and on another it means slur all Muslims into the first two levels.

Keith just hasn't got a ladder to get between the levels. Th

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 06:51 AM

"Islamist is a term that criticises all Muslims."

Uh oh, I'm beginning to question the high opinion you have of yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 07:40 AM

"It seems that when it comes to issues of Islamism in Britain, some parts of the left lose their moral compass, and seem incapable of combining simultaneous positions – that it is possible to be critical towards theocratic ideology and activism, whilst also defending Muslims against bigoted assumptions of collective responsibility."

Left Foot Forward

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 09:15 AM

As a word it most certainly does.

The relationship is what it is and how it is perceived, but the term makes quite clear that people wish to disassociate crimes in the name of religion with ones in the name of this particular religion.

Just because those on the left, whatever that means, see this, we capitalist super rich bastards see it too...

Just sanctimonious bigots who seem to have won the term then. We seem to be stuck with a word that sounds suspiciously like a term that means something else entirely.... mmm. although BBC Radio 4 World at One today pointed to Islamist forces being a threat to Muslims in Iraq. At least they are defining and explaining. After all, simple folk already make the link, as can be seen on this and other threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 10:58 AM

You alone have ever made that link Musket.

If you can not produce a single example of a weird view held by me, why say it?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 11:06 AM

"Will you give an example of one such "weird view?"
"Governments know better."???
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Musket
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 11:15 AM

Click on the blue text that says "From: Keith A of Hertford" Quite a library...

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:23 PM

Jim, governments have diplomats and intelligence services that give them special knowledge.
Musket, you should not make accusations against another member that you can not substantiate with even one single example.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:31 PM

For comparison Musket, I accused you of equating Islam and Islamism.

I provided a post where you quoted one of mine with the two words transposed.
I provided a quote of you ridiculing me for saying there was a significant difference.
I linked to the discussion so that your statements could be seen in their original and intended context.

You can not substantiate your accusation with anything, and just revert to calling naughty names we all learned in the playground.

No contest.
You lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Amos
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:42 PM

I argued elsewhere that psychosis--of the kind that leads an individual to do massively destructive, unthinking acts--is an individual phenomenon, and that although there are mass psychoses, such as are taken advantage of by groups like Al Qeda and ISIS, that each individual falls under their thrall for his or her own reasons, or individual aberrations of thought.

A body of doctrine used to form a group, whether Al Qeda or Boy Scouts, has no inherent capacity for harm. Using such a doctrine (or a badly twisted and altered version thereof) is, however, often an attractive way for someone bent on psychotic acting-out to rationalize or justify their destructive acts. Whether it is a mass shooting by some deeply alienated white punk in Oshkosh, or a bomber in Dublin or in Kabul, I believe the rationalizations used have little to do with the actual pressures that drive a person into flaming anti-social psychosis and destruction.

But I am really curious what it is that draws individuals to subscribe to mass dramatizations, to share hatred and buy into fabrics of venemous mythology that inform them to do harmful things.

What has to happen to an individual to surrender himself to blind, thoughtless group dramatization?

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Greg F.
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:50 PM

What has to happen to an individual to surrender himself to blind, thoughtless group dramatization?

Joining the Republican Party, for one.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 02:54 PM

What has to happen to an individual to surrender himself to blind, thoughtless group dramatization?

The Brits who have gone to fight for ISIS seem to be ordinary lads who were brought up and went to ordinary schools here in UK.

It is said they are some of the most violent Jihadists even in ISIS.

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Jun 14 - 03:00 PM

In a letter to The Times (£), General al-Basheer, chief of staff of the supreme military council, the commanding body of the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA), said the "majority" of foreign ISIS fighters were from the UK, with others from France, Germany and Belgium.

He said: "We, the Syrian people now experience beheadings, crucifixions, beatings, murders, outdated methods of treating women, an obsolete approach to governing society. Many who participate in these activities are British."
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/26/syria-britons-largest-group-isis_n_5392505.html

Subject: RE: BS: Islamic radicalism . . .
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 14 - 03:24 AM

Back on Monday.