|
22 May 13 - 01:53 PM (#3518091) Subject: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan A very sad reflection on what Britain has become in 2013. I do hope the youth of Britain will respond positively. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/police-respond-to--serious-incident--after-reports-of-assault-in-woolwich--south-london-150210708.html? |
|
22 May 13 - 02:35 PM (#3518106) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: kendall Appalled is hardly sufficient. |
|
22 May 13 - 02:51 PM (#3518115) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Dave Hanson The firearms officers should be getting a bollocking for not killing them. Dave H |
|
22 May 13 - 03:04 PM (#3518121) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,CS If they weren't shot dead, then that was a good thing, these men wanted to be martyred. |
|
22 May 13 - 03:47 PM (#3518132) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: jacqui.c Sickening. Watch out for the backlash - most of the Muslims in the UK are decent law abiding people who will be as appalled at this event as anyone. Let's hope that anger doesn't make them victims too. |
|
22 May 13 - 04:06 PM (#3518142) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Peter K (Fionn) Ridiculous thread title. Maybe a mod can come up with something more helpful. And it didn't take long for the predictable imbecile response to show up. Well done Dave Hanson(yawn). Blood-soaked murderer tries to explain... |
|
22 May 13 - 04:08 PM (#3518143) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link agreed- most muslims dont go in for that jihad stuff. terrible - maybe about 10 mile from my home. |
|
22 May 13 - 04:46 PM (#3518154) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan Peter, it isn't your thread, so please don't make suggestions as to changing the title, now run away and play please. |
|
22 May 13 - 04:58 PM (#3518158) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Peter K (Fionn) I'm surprised that you would stand by your clever-alec stupidity, Alan. Anyone thinking to discuss the Woolwich atrocity is unlike to search for "Britain 2013" before starting a new thread. And anyone looking for this thread in a year's time will do well to remember your laboured cynicism. |
|
22 May 13 - 05:01 PM (#3518162) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan As I said Peter, go and play yourself. The thread title stands. |
|
22 May 13 - 05:22 PM (#3518168) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Eliza Tragic and horrifying. My husband is a black Muslim, and I'm worried that all law-abiding Muslims might be ostracised for this barbaric act.It is indeed almost incredible that such a thing could take place in Britain in 2013, so I see nothing wrong with the thread title. This time last year, our country was so proud about the Jubilee and our preparations for the Olympics. Visitors of all races and creeds were welcomed and mixed together happily. This event has cast a dreadful cloud over London. So sorry for the young man's family. What a totally needless death. |
|
22 May 13 - 05:42 PM (#3518174) Subject: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) An off-duty soldier was hacked to death in Woolwich, SE London, today - in broad daylight - by two guys shouting Allah Akhbar. After beheading him, they told bystanders to call the police, then hung around chatting. Police duly arrived, shot and injured them and put them under arrest. Man with blood on his hands holds knife at attack scene |
|
22 May 13 - 05:51 PM (#3518176) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) Just realised that that video link might not be available stateside. Here it is on Youtube. And here's a BBC report of the ghastly incident. |
|
22 May 13 - 05:54 PM (#3518178) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Dave the Gnome I'm worried that all law-abiding Muslims might be ostracised for this barbaric act. Probably with good reason, Eliza. Trouble is that until Moslem leaders renounce extremism like this and begin to actively excommunicate the perpetrators of violence most people will believe that this type of behavior is condoned by that religion. I am not saying that is a true picture of Moslems but it is what a lot of people will believe. And world leaders will pander to a vocal majority whether they are right or wrong. Those "law-abiding Muslims" need to ensure that the extremists are caught and brought to justice by working closely with anti-terrorist police and lobbying their leaders to let it be known that there will be no 'heaven' for the jihadists. Is it Moslem or Muslim BTW? - My first introduction to the religion is when my Dad talked about his ancestors, the Cossacks, fighting 'Mohammedans'! Is that no longer PC? I hope all is OK for you and your husband. Cheers DtG |
|
22 May 13 - 05:55 PM (#3518179) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: akenaton We are living in a madhouse. |
|
22 May 13 - 05:59 PM (#3518180) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Eliza Thank you Dave. Fortunately most people in our little village (pop 800) know my husband and he's well-liked as he does a lot for the community. He calls himself a Musulman, the term used in W Africa. |
|
22 May 13 - 06:18 PM (#3518187) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: akenaton Its getting more like the end of the Roman Empire every day...madness rules socially and politically. The TV screen is the circus and the prancing celebrities the mad perverted rulers. |
|
22 May 13 - 06:27 PM (#3518188) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan Police just confirmed, a number of people are posting footage on several social websites tonight showing the young soldiers head being hacked off. I hope the fears I have tonight don't become reality. http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4938197/shooting-in-woolwich-london.html |
|
22 May 13 - 06:45 PM (#3518193) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Greg F. Sounds like pretty much nobody knows much of what actually went on or why. Tune in again later. |
|
22 May 13 - 07:00 PM (#3518197) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Ebbie Note that the ill-named Britain 2013 thread is already discussing this incident. |
|
22 May 13 - 07:05 PM (#3518202) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: bobad "Sounds like pretty much nobody knows much of what actually went on or why." Au contraire dear Greg there were multiple witnesses and one of the killers himself spoke on video: A witness identified as James told local radio station LBC that he saw two suspects attack the young victim with knives, including a meat cleaver. "They were hacking at this poor guy, literally," he told the station. "They were hacking at him, chopping him, cutting him." Multiple witnesses said the victim was wearing a T-shirt bearing the logo of the veterans charity Help for Heroes. The attack took place less than a mile from a military barracks, in Woolwich, southeast London. Britain's Home Secretary Theresa May told ITV News she had been briefed by the Director General of the Security Service MI5 on what she called a "sickening and barbaric" attack. One eyewitness posted on Twitter that he had seen the victim "with his head chopped off" but this was not confirmed by any police or government officials. Local resident Graham Wilders told the BBC he saw a man pulling out a handgun. He said: "As I drove around the corner I see the car on the pavement. I thought there's been an accident … there was two people leaning over and I thought they were trying to resuscitate him, there was a bloke against the wall. "Next minute ... another bloke has come along and told me they were actually stabbing him, apparently they actually run the car into him and knocked him down before they done anything. "And then next minute there was a bloke come along in a silver little car and he got out and he shouted out to everyone 'someone phone the police.' So we phone the police. So next minute what happened he actually pulled a handgun out." "Next minute I see the silver car shoot off." The man holding the cleaver was videotaped by a bystander saying: "By Allah we swear by the almighty Allah and we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone." "Leave our lands and we can all live in peace, that's all I have to say." |
|
22 May 13 - 07:17 PM (#3518206) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) Here's a fuller report, Greg, with copious eye-witness detail: Daily Telegraph The calm demeanour of the guy with blood-covered hands who had the nerve to apologise that women had had to witness the atrocity was extraordinary and chilling. |
|
22 May 13 - 07:35 PM (#3518216) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) My Arab partner has just emailed me from Amman: "Are these guys human beings?????" Meanwhile the Muslim Council of Britain has condemned the atrocity in the most unequivocal terms: Muslims condemn attack |
|
22 May 13 - 08:22 PM (#3518235) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Ron Davies "Muslim Council of Britain has condemned the atrocity in the most unequivocal terms". NB, all brilliant Mudcat analysts, including the esteemed OP, who are convinced that all evil is due to religion. I wonder how long it will take til said Mudcatters forget this lesson---yet again. Not long, I'll wager. |
|
22 May 13 - 09:00 PM (#3518247) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) "Evil" itself is of course a concept born out of religion, Ron, implying the involvement of some supernatural, Satanic force. If this latest horror was committed, as you seem to assume, by people whose thinking was firmly grounded in the here and now, then it would indeed be one small step (there have been others) towards rebutting my suspicion that many of the worst things that happen are done by people inspired by superstitious/religious beliefs, or result from the exploition of such beliefs. I strongly suspect, however, that the perps in this case had some crazy notion that they were fulfilling their god's purpose. Their post-crime behaviour had all the hallmarks of a pitch at martyrdom, in the belief that they were soon be rewarded by their maker. So yep, broadly speaking, I'd say irrational behaviour and religious beliefs sit comfortably together, and likely did so in the present case. But that's not to say you can't have one without the other, nor that all people of religion do crazy things. |
|
23 May 13 - 03:39 AM (#3518296) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan Britain is on a tilt switch as it is without this. http://uk.news.yahoo.com/woolwich-edl-demo-mosques-attacked-021243145.html?vp=1#tWrZnhl |
|
23 May 13 - 04:42 AM (#3518309) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) 'Leave our lands'? I've seen the pictures of these two animals and neither of them look like Afghans or Iraqis to me. Just scum. Worthless wastes of flesh who've probably turned to some bullshit 'religion' to fill up their meaningless, pointless lives. And no, it's nothing to do with Islam any more than the IRA had anything to do with Catholicism. |
|
23 May 13 - 05:24 AM (#3518316) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: GUEST,Peter Laban Close eye-witness account |
|
23 May 13 - 05:49 AM (#3518320) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Keith A of Hertford That lady is Britain 2013 too. |
|
23 May 13 - 06:24 AM (#3518330) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan A decade ago the very thought of such an incident on a British street would have been unthinkable. Sadly I do not think it will be the last. British Muslim terrorists have moved their game up a notch,they seem to be working under the single cell system, clean skins without record, minimum use of computer/cell phone devices, difficult to gather intelligence on such people, no sophistication or time span in any degree goes into planning, no quartermaster required, no camp attendance or association with T.O's (training officers). I don't want to be alarmist, but if such attack operations were to occur again in the UK we could see some group or collective individuals deliver a measured response. The government are playing the seriousness of this incident down this morning, much as they did after recent council elections. |
|
23 May 13 - 06:26 AM (#3518331) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) Eye-witness statements have been tweeted and quoted in a headline in the Sun newspaper to the effect that the victim was beheaded. But this is put in serious doubt by Ingrid Loyau-Kennett's very coherent and detailed account in the Guardian (Peter Laban's link above). I should have known not to trust the Sun. |
|
23 May 13 - 06:33 AM (#3518334) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: GUEST,Alan The account in today's Daily Mirror says it all, many British papers such as the Guardian fearful of printing the facts it would appear. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woolwich-attack-horrified-witnesses-tell-1904602 |
|
23 May 13 - 07:00 AM (#3518339) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Barb'ry The Islamic Society of Britain has been quick to put out this statement (link below). What happened in Woolwich was terrible, disgusting, a heinous crime but we must be very careful not to let our condemnation of what happened spread into a condemnation of all Muslims. It would be scarily easy to allow that to happen. Woolwich Terror Statement |
|
23 May 13 - 07:06 AM (#3518341) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 From: Barb'ry Guest Alan - although you did start the thread as you are a Guest I am unable to contact you via a pm to discuss the title. As this appalling event has affected many people, I am going to add 'Woolwich' to the thread title so that we don't get lots of other threads starting on the same subject. If you would like to join Mudcat, you will be able to use all the functions, including messaging people. Also, it would be sad for people to get the idea that this event defines 'Britain' or 'Britishness' - I hope you agree. |
|
23 May 13 - 08:31 AM (#3518361) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Greg F. "He said he had killed the man because he (the victim) was a British soldier who killed Muslim women and children in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was furious about the British Army being over there." Well, the man has a valid point. His method of acting on that point may be unfortunate, but "blowback" is a reality. |
|
23 May 13 - 08:38 AM (#3518362) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Keith A of Hertford Just unfortunate Greg? And valid anyway? I think you are out on your own on this. |
|
23 May 13 - 08:44 AM (#3518364) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 (Woolwich) From: akenaton "Also, it would be sad for people to get the idea that this event defines 'Britain' or 'Britishness' - I hope you agree."..Barb'ry 23rd May. From Akenaton....19th may. "liberals" should ponder on this truth, before sounding off about "equality" for sexual minorities, or support for those who would like to see our heads severed from our bodies." Welcome to the new "liberal" Britain Barb'ry! |
|
23 May 13 - 09:11 AM (#3518370) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) Keith, rather than try to outdo each other in the vocabulary of atrocity, it might be more productive to give measured thought to yesterday's horror/atrocity/barbarity. Choice of words aside, Greg's point is entirely valid and, as far as I can see, he's the first to have raised it. No doubt you'll agree that these violent acts, by people willing to sacrifice their own lives, would not be happening if the US had reacted rationally to 9-11 and the Bush-Blair criminal invasion of Saddam had not happened. The challenge now is to find some way of getting back to where we were. And before you say it, yes, we would obviously be in a better place still if 9-11 had not happened in the first place. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:19 AM (#3518374) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Keith A of Hertford I have not indulged in any vocabulary of atrocity. I do not accept that such deeds are in anyway justified. You and Greg are entitled to your opinions, but I will not be joining a debate on the pros and cons of this act, or how much we are to blame for what was done. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:26 AM (#3518375) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 (Woolwich) From: Peter K (Fionn) So sanity prevailed, for which thanks Barb'ry. If you can be bothered, you might consider importing some of the posts in the unarmed soldier beheaded thread then closing/deleting that thread. Although Alan seems to favour other accounts over that given to the Guardian and ITV Daybreak by Ingrid Layou-Kennett, I think my putting "beheaded" in the other thread's title could turn out to embarrass me. As chatter solidifies into hard fact I think we'll find that there was no beheading. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:33 AM (#3518376) Subject: RE: BS: Britain 2013 (Woolwich) From: Peter K (Fionn) Keith, you quibbled at the word "unfortunate" which was cerainly not wrong, but plainly not expressive enough for your taste. Now if I may quibble with you, I have not suggested - and I doubt if any Mudcatter would suggest - that yesterday's murder was "justified". It was, however, somewhere along a scale towards "inevitable." Threads combined. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:43 AM (#3518378) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded, Woolwich (London) From: akenaton Yes Peter, this crime and the London Underground massacre were obviously prompted to a large extent by UK foreign policy. BUT....these crimes were committed by psychiatrically unbalanced religious zealots, who I am quite sure have the tacit approval of a pretty large section of British Moslems. OK maybe we reap what we have sown, but Powell's "rivers of blood" are always on the point of welling up at source. The recent trials of mainly British Pakistani muslims for the grooming and rape of children points to extreme cultural differences and the fact that Human rights activists constantly try to deny this adds to the toxicity. The leaders of Islam here in the UK,no more speak for the ordinary people, than do our politicians for us. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:44 AM (#3518379) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Wow, quick! Or maybe you were ahead of me. Thanks Barb'ry/mod. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:46 AM (#3518380) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Inevitable AND wholly predictable, Peter. How long are certain people going to support killing innocent civilians by the thousands - or tens of thousands - 'keep poking that hornet's nest with a stick' if you will, and then act suprised and outraged when they get stung? Clearly a case of "the chickens coming home to roost" - and more to come unless sanity prevails, and apologists like several individuals on this thread see the error of their ways. |
|
23 May 13 - 09:58 AM (#3518383) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. I am quite sure have the tacit approval of a pretty large section of British Moslems. Are ye now? Is that because of your crystal ball, your consistent disregard of facts & evidence, your demonstrated bigotry, or just your plain old bullshitting? |
|
23 May 13 - 10:06 AM (#3518387) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: akenaton I dont know if you have any experience of British Asian communities Greg?.....I do not use a crystal ball, ignore facts, or practice bigotry.....YOU are the expert "bullshitter" |
|
23 May 13 - 10:43 AM (#3518398) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Serious question Akenaton. You say you are sure that they have the tacit approval of a large section of British Muslims. Granted, you have form when it comes to statements concerning large sections of society that you woke up one morning and decided to hate but I await your rationale with bemused interest. The hospital where my office sits has over a thousand Muslims working every day saving people's lives alongside their 7000 colleagues. I wonder if I would see the same results if I did a straw poll. Not that I would. Assumptions to support preconceived bigotry are best left to the experts eh Ake? |
|
23 May 13 - 10:54 AM (#3518403) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Er - did these chaps look "Asian"? |
|
23 May 13 - 11:01 AM (#3518405) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,CS This was a piece of bloody PR intended to encourage the British public to think twice about allowing their governments to blow up muslims overseas. And while the act was indeed barbaric, the message was delivered extremely successfully; even with This Morning's Lorraine Kelly's attempts to stop Ingrid Loyau-Kennet from repeating too much of the stuff about women and children being blown up in Afghanistan. There's going to be no chance of a media blackout with so many witnesses and mobile recording devices around. As drone attacks continue overseas, I wouldn't be surprised if we may see more of this kind of thing here in the UK. |
|
23 May 13 - 11:02 AM (#3518407) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan Clearly the government and the Muslim Council of the UK sense more of a backlash than they care to admit.I spoke to my brother in law who is with a major media corporation in London earlier today, he said they received a directive early this morning, no interviews with anyone associated with a list provided, no interviews or photographs to be used in reports of the three buildings damaged last night in Manchester and the South East of England. Maybe it is a tactical move by the government, but what about the freedom of the press and the democratic right to express ones views ? |
|
23 May 13 - 11:39 AM (#3518426) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Ake, I don't know which (if any) British Asian community you know, but it was not representative. I DO happen to know a bit about Islam, having a flat in Bosnia and a Palestinian Arab partner who was brought up as a muslim. To me you remarks in this thread sound ill-informed, insular and suggestive of a blinkered world view. Overwhelmingly both in the UK and around the rest of the world, muslims will have been horrified and disgusted by the Woolwich killing; much more so, in fact, than I am myself. My own reaction has been little more than a shrug. Yes, an unarmed man has been brutally slaughtered without any hint of justification. But in all honesty, so what? We now discover that three of the four Americans killed by drones since 2009 were untargeted innocents. If we apply that ratio to all the civilians killed by US drones, we may assume the US has killed many hundreds of innocent people in its misguided and counter-productive efforts at extrajudicial execution. These murders may be done remotely rather than at close range with meat cleavers, but the mess on the ground can be just as bad. Yet according to polls, most Americans are comfortable with this. So however sickened we may be by the Woolwich slaughter, we should retain some sense of perspective. |
|
23 May 13 - 12:18 PM (#3518445) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: akenaton You make a rather good point Peter...and of course I was wrong to say Asians, but we have a large British Muslim population in Glasgow who are very insular. I have spoken to quite a number over the years and gauge their attitude to non Muslims as pretty derisory and certainly most believe us to be morally bankrupt.....often with good cause, but there is no integration possible for cultural and religious reasons. |
|
23 May 13 - 12:24 PM (#3518449) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Alan. "A decade ago the very thought of such an incident on a British street would have been unthinkable." Surely you haven't forgotten the murders of Stephen Lawrence and Anthony Walker? Hardly broad daylight middle of town either of them, but the only "crime" any of these victims committed was to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and in the "wrong" ethnic group. Yes, I agree with Peter K's comments about the damage which Britain and the US are doing in Afghanistan. But the only effect which yesterday's slaughter will have is to deepen the wedge currently being driven between the Christian and Muslim communities in this country. And that of course is exactly what these ratbags wanted, just like their counterparts on the far right. Strange and sad how fascists and Islamic fundamentalists end up as a mirror image of one another. |
|
23 May 13 - 12:31 PM (#3518453) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Akenaton. I can't speak for Glasgow, not having been there for many years, but I've spoken to Muslims all over England and find them anything but insular. In fact the vast majority have been extremely welcoming and friendly. If some Muslims consider Britain to be morally bankrupt, perhaps they've got good reason. |
|
23 May 13 - 12:41 PM (#3518460) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,HiLo "Little more that a shrug", My God almighty, where DO some of you come from. An innocent man is brutally murdered in the street..and you "shrug". Sometimes I do despair. |
|
23 May 13 - 01:11 PM (#3518478) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan Good point Fred, the point he is making refers to a similar incident occurring before on the streets of the UK in which PC Keith Blakelock was also hacked to death in the line of duty. Full story here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10856921 |
|
23 May 13 - 01:26 PM (#3518482) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Well said, Fred McCormick. HiLo, any idea how many innocent people have been killed by US drones, even just during Obama's presidency? Do you grieve for each and every British soldier killed in Afghanistan? Have you the slightest idea how many innocent people have been killed in Baghdad in (say) the last fortnight? Spare me the crocodile tears. |
|
23 May 13 - 02:38 PM (#3518495) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza My husband (African-born Muslim) was extremely grieved and upset by the events in London. He tells me no true Muslim would ever contemplate committing such atrocities. BUT on arrival here in Norfolk he first attended a smallish mosque where the worshippers were apparently solely from Pakistan and Bangladesh. They were hostile and rude to him, and after eight weeks of unpleasantness he changed to the mosque at the UEA, where the folk, from many countries, were much more friendly and welcoming. The first mosque seemed very 'fundamentalist' (his word) and even racist. At the gym where he's a member there is a Pakistani Muslim couple and the man spoke to him about being more radical and 'active' in Islam. This worried him and he doesn't speak to him any more. He feels that the Asian type of Muslim he has encountered is somewhat radicalised and too fierce, not at all integrated into British life like himself. This isn't a racist opinion, just an observation on his part. I told him to be very very careful not to be sucked in to any 'special group' of over-zealous Muslims, as he may end up being under surveillance etc. It's a minefield for him. Luckily, he's so well-liked in our village and even comes to church with me from time to time that no-one could say he's a 'fundamentalist'. I see on the News that the EDL are on the march, There will no doubt be more of that sort of thing as a backlash after this attack. |
|
23 May 13 - 03:27 PM (#3518507) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Lizzie Cornish 1 ".....The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country. It's true that the soldier who was killed yesterday was out of uniform and not engaged in combat at the time he was attacked. But the same is true for the vast bulk of killings carried out by the US and its allies over the last decade, where people are killed in their homes, in their cars, at work, while asleep (in fact, the US has re-defined "militant" to mean "any military-aged male in a strike zone"). Indeed, at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on drone killings, Gen. James Cartwright and Sen. Lindsey Graham both agreed that the US has the right to kill its enemies even while they are "asleep", that you don't "have to wake them up before you shoot them" and "make it a fair fight". Once you declare that the "entire globe is a battlefield" (which includes London) and that any "combatant" (defined as broadly as possible) is fair game to be killed - as the US has done - then how can the killing of a solider of a nation engaged in that war, horrific though it is, possibly be "terrorism"? ..." From The Guardian - 'Was This Terrorism?' |
|
23 May 13 - 03:50 PM (#3518520) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Lavengro Guest Alan: "A decade ago the very thought of such an incident on a British street would have been unthinkable" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhfgQOLSrTQ |
|
23 May 13 - 03:52 PM (#3518522) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome So, because the US and UK kill innocent people it is OK for other people to? The only thing an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth philosophy will result in is a world of blind soup-eaters. To make it clear to the apologists out there, both 'sides' are in the wrong. The only difference is the scale. And if we are talking numbers does anyone have the actual facts of how many people have been killed by the US and UK and how have been killed by the fundamentalists all over the world? I suspect the difference will be minimal but am willing to learn if someone can present the statistics. Bearing in mind that on the side of the fundamentalists we are talking about killing people of their own race and religion if they are a slightly different sect! DtG |
|
23 May 13 - 04:06 PM (#3518528) Subject: Obit: A Soldier died yesterday From: Les in Chorlton I have this from my friend Bill Mitton: Bill Mitton I THINK I NEED TO SAY THIS..... I AM HE I am he who would welcome you For I know of my country's freedom I am he who would bind your wounds For I know of my country's love I am he who would feed your hunger For I know of my land's bounty I am he who would be your shield For my home knows no suffering I am he who would understand your God For I know and Love my own. Yet If you have no God this I to will defend I am he who beats no martial drum Nor waves his banner high I am he who would be a reluctant patriot For my land has yet to need one. YET I am he who holds his freedom precious And would be savage in it's defence I am he who know his flag's history And cherishes it's union. I am he who holds these islands dear For I am Celt, Angle, Saxon, I am Hugonaut, I am Saphardim, I am Ashkanasi I am West Indian I am Punjhabi, I am Bangladashi I am the child of imigrants I am the son of refugees My face is many coloured My heart holds many faiths And sometimes none. BUT THIS IS MY LAND I AM HE WHO HOLDS IT DEAR THIS YOU SHOULD KNOW. |
|
23 May 13 - 04:25 PM (#3518535) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford British soldiers do not commit murder in Afghanistan. The Independent. August 2012 British soldiers in Afghanistan are being forced to act as bait in an attempt to draw the Taliban into opening fire, a serving platoon commander has alleged. Soldiers are risking their lives to get round strict rules of engagement that allow them to shoot only if they are being attacked or are in "imminent danger". The Taliban are increasingly exploiting the rules by hiding weapons in undergrowth near patrol routes – meaning British forces cannot act against them until they actually pick up their guns. The claims are made by Lieutenant Jimmy Clark , a platoon commander who recently returned from a tour of Afghanistan. Shocking scenes to be broadcast in a documentary, Our War, on BBC Three this evening reveal how it was only by luck that soldiers survived a bomb while on a patrol nicknamed "Op Bait" late last year. Lt Clark from 2 Mercian, who was leading the patrol, describes his frustration at the rules of engagement, which led to soldiers acting as bait to tempt the Taliban into attacking them. "It's difficult really to 'fight' an enemy we're not allowed to fight. Under our rules of engagement we can only really return firehttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-soldiers-resort-to-baiting-taliban-to-beat-rules-of-engagement-8082165.ht |
|
23 May 13 - 04:35 PM (#3518540) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The Woolwich killers were Nigerian. Muslims are not being murdered in Nigeria, they are doing the murdering. CBN "Islamic fighters have killed scores in multiple attacks on Christian homes and churches. There have been calls for revenge, but also for forgiveness. Madalla Christmas Massacre "It was a beautiful day. We came to church to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ," worshipper Uche Bonaventure said. "People started coming as early as six o'clock in the morning. It was going to be a joyous occasion," recalled Father Issac Achi, at St. Theresa's Catholic Church in Madellah But it never turned out that way. "It was five or ten minutes after the first service and suddenly this boom!" Bonaventure remembered. A suicide bomber in a vehicle packed with explosives drove up a busy street and stopped in front of the church. Bonaventure and his 17-month-old son had just walked out the church's front doors when the bomb exploded. "The explosion threw me on this side and my son was hurled across the other side. Around me I could see bodies on fire," he told CBN News. The radical Muslim group Boko Haram claimed responsibility for this attack and several other attacks in various parts of Nigeria last Christmas Day. The group's goal is to turn Africa's most populous nation into an Islamic country ruled by Sharia law. In January alone, Boko Haram struck 21 times, killing more than 250 people. Almost 1,000 have died in recent months in multiple terror attacks around the country. Two hundred miles north of St. Theresa's church Ester Garba remembers her dedicated husband who was killed in a bomb attack. "So many people loved my husband. He loved to share the gospel with others," she said. Isaac Kure's father was killed in the same attack. "They would not let me see my father's body. He was beyond recognition," he said. Margaret Frames' husband was also one of the victims of an attack by the radical Islamic group. "He was shot in the mouth, in the elbow, and in the back. I have not slept very well since that day," she told CBN News. On Jan. 20, 26 days after the Christmas Day massacre, Boko Haram killed 185 people in a string of coordinated attacks in Kano. A Boko Haram spokesman has declared war on Nigeria's government, the security services, and the country's Christians. "I enjoy killing anyone that God commands me to kill the way I enjoy killing chickens and rams," the spokesman said in a video released online. http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2012/February/Terror-Group-Enjoys-Killing-Nigerian-Christians-/ |
|
23 May 13 - 05:14 PM (#3518551) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Oh dear. What is happening to me? I agree with Fluffy. None of which excuses the attack. And please all remember that Muslim authorities and many Muslim individuals have spoke out to condemn the attack in very forceful terms. Was there a security failure? I thought I was hearing that the perps were "on radar". And why did the police take so long to arrive? |
|
23 May 13 - 05:51 PM (#3518561) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Keith, are you sure the Woolwich killers are Nigerian? Where have you seen that, and do you know how their nationality has been defined? (Passports? Place of birth?) Your words about muslims doing the killing in Nigeria come just as Boko Haram elements have come under severe pressure from a major government offensive in the north of the ocuntry. Apart from which, your point is fair enough. DtG, are you counting zealous American Christians among the fundamentalists? If so, you might conceivably be right. |
|
23 May 13 - 06:05 PM (#3518563) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse #Woolwich: "Nothing in Islam justifies this dreadful act" (D Cameron)? "Slay the idolaters wherever ye find them" (Repentance, the Koran). |
|
23 May 13 - 06:10 PM (#3518568) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse My poem cum song "Impressions of London in 1997" - http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/478320652 |
|
23 May 13 - 06:10 PM (#3518569) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza The named man arrested is British and born here. His father is Nigerian but lives here (according to BBC News). |
|
23 May 13 - 06:13 PM (#3518570) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad My friend Tarek Fatah on the butchering of Lee Rigby: U.K. Beheading Shows: It's Time To Fight the Doctrine of Jihad "While ordinary Britons and non-Muslims around the world are bewildered by these never-ending acts of terrorism, the response of the leaders of the Islamic community is the tired old cliche -- Islam is a religion of peace, and jihad is simply an "inner struggle."" The Huffington Post |
|
23 May 13 - 06:26 PM (#3518573) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse David Cameron a couple of years ago "The multiculultural state has failed"; me, for decades, "It's our world/our United Nations that should be multicultural. |
|
23 May 13 - 06:29 PM (#3518574) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: The Sandman I think it is important to remember that Christianity has many different sects As Christianity developed, differences arose between Christians. At the moment there are three major Christian groups (Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant), and many other smaller groups (called sects, or denominations) within these (E.g. Greek Orthodox, Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, Methodist, Anglican etc.). The Muslims also have different sects, who have differences. The people responsible for this murder had the beliefs of ONE SECT of Muslims, it is unfair to blame all Muslims for this murder, or to lump all sects of the Muslim faith together. The murder of this soldier is no worse than any murder, and no worse than this some of you here.. need to get real. The Guardian, Thursday 2 May 2013 13.41 BST Birmingham murder – family of Mohammed Saleem appeal for witnesses Shazia Khan, left, comforts Nazia Maqsood as they appeal for information over the death of their father, Mohammed Saleem. Photograph: PA A 75-year-old man stabbed to death yards from his home may have been targeted in a racially motivated attack, according to police. Mohammed Saleem, who used a walking stick, was stabbed three times in the back as he returned home from prayers at his local mosque in Small Heath, Birmingham, on Monday night. The blows were struck with such violence they penetrated to the front of his body. The father of seven also had no defensive wounds in what has been described as a swift, vicious and cowardly attack by the man leading the murder investigation, Detective Superintendent Mark Payne of West Midlands police. Officers want to trace a white man, aged 25-32, of medium height and build, spotted on CCTV footage running near the scene of the attack around the time it happened, just before 10.30pm. Police also want to trace a seven-seat people carrier captured on CCTV, driving near the mosque with the two male occupants, both white and in their 30s, who are considered "significant witnesses". In an emotional family appeal on Thursday, two of Saleem's daughters, Shazia Khan, 45, and Nazia Maqsood, 44, called for the attackers to hand themselves in. They tearfully described their father as a "widely respected member of the community" and "much-loved". Payne said the possibility it was a racially motivated attack was "a significant line of inquiry" and a large number of detectives were working on the case. "To the attacker I say we will find you and we will bring you to justice," he added. Khan, who lives in London, said she believed it was "a premeditated brutal attack, pre-planned, intended to kill". She said: "I cannot see him having any enemies being so full of hate to do this to him. He was an old man – that's what he was. He had no other agenda in his life, it's unacceptable and we just cannot believe an attack like this would happen to him. We just cannot understand it. "We have to walk past where he was killed and we can visualise it – we have to live with that for the rest of our lives." Describing her father, Khan said he had worked with youths at the mosque and "was a really good role model and had a great sense of humour, very tongue in cheek". She said people from all walks of life had been paying their condolences. Khan also had a message for her father's killers: "We don't know who carried out the attack – all we can say is you will be caught and you will be punished and justice will be done, legally. "I hope they come forward. I hope that anyone who knows this man [seen in Wyndcliffe Road] or the driver in the car, there may be mobile phone videos made of the killing – we don't know. If there's any information people are sharing, every little bit of information is vital that will help catch the killer. "It is unusual for someone of that description to be in that area. It may not be linked, we don't know, but every avenue has to be covered. We have to all pull together and get justice for my father and anybody else, because this could happen again." |
|
23 May 13 - 06:35 PM (#3518576) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza The detainee was born into a devout Christian family and converted to Islam about ten years ago. |
|
23 May 13 - 06:42 PM (#3518577) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Terry Glavin, Ottawa Citizen columnist, on the killing of 25-year-old Royal Fusilier Lee Rigby: "Note well that these idiocies about blowback and retaliation do not generally come from the mosques at all. It's the sort of rubbish that comes from out of the mouths of moral illiterates. It should stop." Column: Moral illiterates weigh in on Woolwich |
|
23 May 13 - 07:20 PM (#3518591) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan I don't think people should make comparisons with the war in Afghanistan with what happened yesterday in Woolwich. Keith Blakelock, a serving police officer was also cut to pieces on a British street with a machete. That was before the British government undertook the current war against Muslim extremists. Full story here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Keith_Blakelock |
|
23 May 13 - 08:21 PM (#3518615) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Glad you remembered that one, Alan. Back up the thread you were saying that nothing like the Woolwich crime could have happened even ten years ago. Anyway, is it Britain 2013 or Britain 1985? Make your mind up. |
|
23 May 13 - 08:28 PM (#3518618) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan As I said before Peter, go play yourself. |
|
24 May 13 - 02:46 AM (#3518677) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The hospital where my office sits has over a thousand Muslims working every day saving people's lives The Glasgow airport bombers included hospital doctors. The London bombers included school workers. Their colleagues had no idea they were militants. Although this pair were known to security as militant would-be jihadists, they could not monitor them because there are "thousands" such known to them. As Islamic terrorists go, these were remarkably restrained. All previous have tried to kill as many people as possible. |
|
24 May 13 - 03:40 AM (#3518685) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: akenaton Bobad...I dont know if you have read of the 7/7 London underground bombings, which were directly linked to British involvement the war in Iraq and carefully planned. Of course this does not excuse the crime, but gives an insight into the thinking of many politically motivated young Muslims. Contrary to what you have been saying for a couple of years, we, the UK, should not be involved in these self-serving adventures...such as Iraq, Libya, Syria etc |
|
24 May 13 - 03:43 AM (#3518686) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome DtG, are you counting zealous American Christians among the fundamentalists? I would indeed, as I would count secular extremists or those from any other country or religion. I don't know why you would single out American Christians any more than the others but I suppose you have your own agenda. It is extremism that is wrong from whatever background. I would like to know if there are any factual evidence that one 'side' has killed more people or been responsible for more atrocities than another. I asked for that before but as none has been presented I guess any such arguments on this thread are, as is usual for Mudcat, speculation and personal prejudice. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 04:05 AM (#3518693) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Done a bit of digging myself. To try and ensure an unbiased view I consulted an Islamic source - WikiIslam "Sunni extremists accounted for the greatest number of terrorist attacks and fatalities for the third consecutive year," the report says. "More than 5,700 incidents were attributed to Sunni extremists, accounting for nearly 56 percent of all attacks and about 70 percent of all fatalities." The report says that in 2011, a total of 10,283 terrorism attacks across the world killed 12,533 people. Terrorism also is blamed for 25,903 injuries and 5,554 kidnappings. According to NCTC, of the 12,533 terrorism-related deaths worldwide, 8,886 were perpetrated by "Sunni extremists," 1,926 by "secular/political/anarchist" groups, 1,519 by "unknown" factions, 170 by a category described as "other", and 77 by "Neo-Nazi/Fascist/White Supremacist" groups. The information comes from the 2011 NCTC Report on Terrorism, which is based on information available as of March 12, 2012. Now, I have done half the work. Can someone let us know how many people were killed by US/UK attacks in the same period? I would be very surprised if it was vastly different. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 04:21 AM (#3518699) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: akenaton I think you miss the point Dave...if I understand what you are saying. Surely Western involvement has led to the widespead de-stabilisation of the Middle East and North Africa and that has produce religious and ethnic conflict and spread fundamentalism. Personally, my opinion is that this was not Western stupidity, but a deliberate attempt to gain access to the area. |
|
24 May 13 - 04:32 AM (#3518701) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,musket without sans Keith. I shall go and make a citizens arrest on all my colleagues then. Just in case. Then I shall arrest the Christians I work with, just in case. Then I shall arrest you because I used to employ someone who lives in Hertford and he has a police record. Doesn't take long in each thread for your veneer of respectability to peel off, does it? |
|
24 May 13 - 04:50 AM (#3518706) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I fully understand that, ake - I don't believe it is an excuse for attacks on anyone though. Surely Gandhi showed us that there IS an alternative didn't he? The point I am making is to those who seem to endlessly repeat the mantra of "America/UK/The west/Christians/Bolivian Unicyclists are even worse." And the point I am trying to make is that extremists are all as bad as each other. Why people cannot accept that there is just NO excuse for ANYONE killing in this way is beyond me. Oh - And I agree fully that it was stupidity and greed that caused it. On all sides. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 04:56 AM (#3518708) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry - damn preef rooding - It was NOT stupidity BUT greed etc etc... |
|
24 May 13 - 04:59 AM (#3518710) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan I think some of you are missing the point Keith is making. He is a British Christian going about his life in a society he contributed to, as did his family before him. If individuals wish to live within an established society they should firstly respect the law of the land, also not expect their cultural identity and traditions to receive preferential treatment. I witnessed people spitting on the coffins of British service men and women arriving home from Afghanistan, I am yet to see or hear a public apology for those actions in any hastily assembled self beneficial news conference. |
|
24 May 13 - 05:08 AM (#3518711) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Please do not try to speak for me "Alan." |
|
24 May 13 - 05:18 AM (#3518713) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Maybe calmer and more thoughtful heads have decided that more comment would be tantamount to shouting "Fire" in a crowded theatre Alan. Maybe they also feel that comments such as those by our resident anti liberal, anti traveller, anti gay contributor, would simply amount to an inflammatory challenge and cause more trouble both from other Muslims and our own very nasty racist thugs. If we let terrorists force us to lower our standards and change the way we live, then they have alreay won! The simple answer is to break the cycle of hatred, not reinforce it! Don T. |
|
24 May 13 - 05:28 AM (#3518715) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome If individuals wish to live within an established society they should firstly respect the law of the land I would strongly suspect that those who do not adhere to the law of the land are, in the main, not concerned with political or religious ideology. What would you have us do with them, Alan? Don, yes, the best answer is to break the cycle of hatred but that is far from simple. Better men than you or I have tried since those that said 'Ug' began to hate those who said 'Nug'. Sadly none have succeeded. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 06:06 AM (#3518723) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse Last century, Gandhi and I repatriated - God knows we were right and the likes of pro-immigrationists, such as Tony Blair, were wrong; my poem on "Land Rights" - http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/476693050 |
|
24 May 13 - 06:43 AM (#3518732) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don, yes, the best answer is to break the cycle of hatred but that is far from simple."" One thing is certain! It won't be brought about by retaliation. The answer is to initiate an open dialogue between our disparate communities and hammer out a way, not to integrate, but to exist side by side with the culturally different. Integration into a totally different cultural and religious system is an impossibility, as should be obvious to the meanest intellect. Multiculturalism hasn't worked because those who tried to implement it don't know what it is. It isn't enough to pay lip service to the idea, without showing the respect and tolerance which alone makes the minority feel at home, welcome and part of the community. The young people of ethnic minorities are more readily radicalised when they are treated with suspicion and distrust. And since the 1950s they have been so treated. It is past time to change that, which should start at primary schools and continue throughout education. Don T. |
|
24 May 13 - 06:58 AM (#3518734) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu Walkabouts, we always have, and always will be a multicultural nation, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Some of my ancestors were Huguenots and came here seeking safety from persecution. Would you chuck me out of the country? At the time, there were plenty of people like you that would have; they were wrong then and they're wrong now. My impression of the attackers is of two blokes who have lost all sense of perspective and ended up living a sort of religious Walter Mitty lifestyle. The fact they were gullible enough to believe that a horrific attack like this actually means something beyond the fact they have allowed themselves to be brainwashed due to their lack of reason, and they have no ability to question what they're told in any meaningful fashion says more about their character than the perceived lack of integration on the part of the Muslim community. That said, you cannot divorce foreign policy from attacks like this, especially when one of the attackers themselves explicitly cite this as a motivator for their actions. This is a matter that grieves the Muslim people that live here, and a great many of us that are not religious too. It's dangerous to deny the actions of the UK government are without consequence, although this fact seems lost on the political classes. |
|
24 May 13 - 07:08 AM (#3518740) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse The United Nations should finally respect land rights, make all economic/capitalist immigration illegal, and help genuine asylum seekers to their NEAREST safe country. Travel and fair trade are good/imperialism and economic/capitalist immigration are bad. |
|
24 May 13 - 07:13 AM (#3518744) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Lizzie Cornish 1 >>"Oh dear. What is happening to me? I agree with Fluffy...">> I knew you couldn't hold out much longer... ;0) xx "...Mohammed Saleem, who walked with the aid of a stick, was stabbed four time in the back so viciously that the wounds penetrated his chest...." HATE is HATE...it comes in every colour, in every religion, in every Divisive Hateful Comment. Did WE raise our voices about this? Did WE go to Twitter, as many Muslims are now doing, to say "NOT IN OUR NAME!" ? Or did we simply think nothing, as we were not informed by our Mainstream Media, who are now turning the airwaves into Sounds and Thoughts of Hatred? Did 'Cobra' meet to discuss the death of Mr. Saleem? FULL REPORT |
|
24 May 13 - 07:22 AM (#3518747) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse Love OUR WORLD being multicultural. |
|
24 May 13 - 07:23 AM (#3518748) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll It has not taken long to make this a "Muslim" crime and link it it Immigration. Last night the Fascists were out on force on the streets of Woolwich milking the incident for all it was worth, and their counterparts here have begun to pop their heads out of their rat-holes already. Yesterday David Cameron said - rightly - that this was a crime by two sick individuals (or words to that effect). If this was a "Muslim" crime, then Anders Breivik's massacre was a "Christian" one. Jim Carroll |
|
24 May 13 - 07:28 AM (#3518749) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Walkabouts Verse....I know you like people to all live in special little 'boxes' from which they must never venture out, but please, wake up and know there is the blood of the world running through your veins...But blackout glasses on, so that you can see NO colours, then just accept PEOPLE as your Brothers and Sisters... Fuck The Evil Ones, but trust me, MOST people are GOOD and KIND and LOVING. This world will NEVER go back to your idea of 'each in their own' thank God. EMBRACE the world letting go of all borders, all countries, for trust me, what is coming in the not too distant future, from Mother Nature will have you not giving a fuck about all of this nonsense, whilst possibly ending up begging your Muslim brother or sister for help... Thank you. And may I suggest, that as a start on your new path, you fly this flag from your house... UNITY DEFEATS EVIL - Facebook link |
|
24 May 13 - 07:29 AM (#3518750) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan Many people here don't live in the areas of Britain that are proving problematic. If you face reality you will see that many areas are powder kegs. Watch the interviews with ordinary people on the ground, not the polished politicians or government funded community relations groups. The same message is the repeated time and time again. The change in attitude was reflected recently during council elections. |
|
24 May 13 - 07:47 AM (#3518751) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Many people here don't live in the areas of Britain that are proving problematic. If you face reality you will see that many areas are powder kegs. Where do you live, Alan? I live between Keighley and Skipton. I work in Bradford and regularly go out in all three places. Both Keighley and Bradford are amongst those potential 'powder kegs' that you mention and the right wing press are so fond of quoting. Skipton is, possibly, the cultural opposite. Manchester, where I have just moved from and is the home of the unfortunate victim, is multi-cultural to the extreme. The 'change in attitude' of 'ordinary people' you quote is not apparent in any of these areas. The attitude of the ordinary person is just the same. The attitude of the extremist thug is just the same. It is only the press and politicians that are telling us any different. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 07:58 AM (#3518753) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Alan Dave, I am pleased you find this. As I said yesterday, my brother in law works in the media and his office received an email at 6am what amounted to be a gagging order, who to interview and who not, what to give coverage to and what not, which is why there was no coverage given to buildings attacked the previous evening in three areas of the UK. The reporting of several aspects of this incident still appear artificial and muted. Anyone that thinks there isn't problems in front of us is living in some utopia. |
|
24 May 13 - 08:20 AM (#3518759) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: selby I do not know where I live in this modern world, but my old fashion values believe nothing makes this heinous crime right. Keith |
|
24 May 13 - 08:21 AM (#3518760) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie Funny thing multiculturalism. I used to live in rural North Derbyshire with its very low ethnic diversity. I always will recall my local pub and being a tap room bar fly myself at the time listeningto tthe usual suspects complaining that if "they" would only integrate more, "we" might not be so suspicious. Putting aside who the hell we and they are, I did nod slightly at the idea of self imposed apartheid being an issue. Then... a black guy walked in and ordered some drinks for his family outside (walking country, lots of ramblers passing through. ) when he walked in the place went silent till he walked out again. Quite. |
|
24 May 13 - 08:52 AM (#3518772) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I don't find that odd at all, Musket. I remember well the first black people I came across - Heather and Christopher Agboola. Can't remember where they came from but they joined our school, an RC primary, when I was about 9 or 10 I suspect - Very early 60's anyway. They were viewed as kids view everything new - With interest but a certain amount of trepidation. You don't say when the incident you refer to happened but if it was many years ago it is probably no indication of today's attitude. Set me off thinking though. I have been hiking and fell walking for about 35 years. The number of black walkers I have seen can be counted on one hand - Including a very nice chap with his children I met about 4 weeks ago on a bridge over the Leeds/Liverpool canal at Kildwick. I suppose I could have asked him why black people don't seem take to the hills as us mad English do - But he may have took it the wrong way! I think I can also safely say that I have never met any Indian or Arabic looking people on the hills either - But plenty Japanese! I can say the same about our folk club - As far as I can remember only 2 black men and 1 black woman have ever been. I would certainly never put this down to any hint of insularity on anyone's part - Both activities are as welcoming as any other. Maybe it is a culture difference of some sort? Maybe this is what people do not understand and are, therefore, frightened of? Dunno really. Just speculation and psycho-babble - neither of which do any good so before anyone draws any conclusion from this please note it is just a train of thought :-) Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 09:11 AM (#3518779) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu ". . .and help genuine asylum seekers to their NEAREST safe country" Why shouldn't they come here? Have we become so uncivilised we should turn those in need for our door? "Love OUR WORLD being multicultural." If this is implying that our country shouldn't be multicultural then as a statement it's beneath contempt. What are you suggesting exactly here? How do we achieve a non-multicultural society? Tell me in words a five year old would understand. |
|
24 May 13 - 09:48 AM (#3518786) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Tunesmith Nic Clegg ( British Deputy Prime Minister) was talking about the killing today on UK tv, and I was fascinated to hear him list the things that - he said - the killers wanted. He went on about them wanting to spread unrest and stir up tension. The list went on and on, but what he didn't mention is what we know the killers wanted i.e. for Britain to get out of Iran, Afghanistan etc. I thought that "big" omission on Clegg's part was very telling! |
|
24 May 13 - 10:12 AM (#3518794) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Lavengro DtG "As far as I can remember only 2 black men and 1 black woman have ever been" I seem to remember that in a wider sense this was not lost on Nick Griffin and other fascists, prompting the setting up of "Folk Against Fascism" in response? DtG "I have never met any Indian or Arabic looking people on the hills either - But plenty Japanese!" I used to work with a lot of Japanese, and I asked one of them why there was an apparent fascination among him and his countrymen in horse riding, golf and hillwalking? (we were a 30 min drive from the Beacons). He said that basically it was because they all needed space to perform, and that space was at a premium in Japan. Apologies to all for adding to "thread creep". If membership was open I would have PM'd you. |
|
24 May 13 - 10:30 AM (#3518800) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Gravesend, the home of the original Sikh crash helmet riot, not a problem area? Come off it! Nice to see you have re-invented the D-notice too. Whatever happened to that? |
|
24 May 13 - 10:49 AM (#3518804) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Thread creep is natural Lavengro - I don't think it is an issue. I could be (and probably am) wrong about Nasty Nicks involvement with the folk world but I felt it was more that he believed us Folkies to be rampant nationalists - Which FAF showed we were not! Tunesmith - I am not at all sure if Britain, or the US for that matter, getting out of Iran and Afghanistan would help at this stage. All criminals would love for the police to get out of their towns. All bullies would love the teachers to get out of schools and those reveling in the chaos created by terrorism would love to be left to their own devices. Now, I have no argument with anyone questioning why and how 'we' were put in charge but that is a different issue. What I am questioning is the wisdom of leaving the innocent people of those countries to the mercies of those who would apply their kind of rule with much harsher force. I don't necessarily believe that this will happen. The truth is, I don't know but am simply applying the 'better the devil you know' philosophy. I also consider myself lucky to not be in a position where I have to make the decision that would affect millions of lives and, even though I have little time for politicians of all types, I can sympathise with them in this no-win situation. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 11:00 AM (#3518809) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,CS Tunesmith: "The list went on and on, but what he didn't mention is what we know the killers wanted i.e. for Britain to get out of Iran, Afghanistan etc. I thought that "big" omission on Clegg's part was very telling!" Telling but not terribly surprising. It's what all politicians do. Did he go on to tell us that they "hate our freedoms"? Even nicey nicey Lorraine Kelly was keen to talk over Ingrid (can't recall her long surname) the woman who spoke directly with the men, when she repeated the killer's talk about women and children being blown up in Afghanistan. |
|
24 May 13 - 11:05 AM (#3518811) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford That we should leave (which we are anyway) is a widely held view. Anyone can make their views known by writing to MPs and the press, organising petitions and protests and all the other ways that are open to free citizens in a democracy. Chopping someone up is not a political action. Indeed we can not be seen to be influenced by such acts, thereby encouraging more of them, so it actually makes it harder to make any change in that direction. I do not think it is in any way appropriate to discuss British foreign policy as a cause for this act. Many (most) here are bitterly opposed to foreign policies, but they do not chop people up. |
|
24 May 13 - 11:21 AM (#3518814) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stilly River Sage I witnessed people spitting on the coffins of British service men and women arriving home from Afghanistan, I am yet to see or hear a public apology for those actions in any hastily assembled self beneficial news conference. You're engaged in an important conversation, but this one was started by and is hearded along by a puppetmaster - the guest troll who has called himself many things over the years. This week he is "Alan." If it goes pear-shaped at some point, you have been warned. SRS |
|
24 May 13 - 12:07 PM (#3518836) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Keith: should Bush and Blair have been entitled to expect no reaction at all within the UK against their reckless, ill-judged and illegal invasion of Iraq? Or is it that you think the resulting catastrophe, in which innocent civilians have died in many scores of thousands, should be met with peaceful protest and petitions? Stu made a good point about this, backup the thread, to which I would add that it is not only muslims who have been aggrieved by UK foreign policy. I notice Alan did not respond when Alan asked him where he lived. Wherever he lives, DtG, I think you might find his views have been tainted by EDL "thinking." Witness this: "I don't want to be alarmist, but if such attack operations were to occur again in the UK we could see some group or collective individuals deliver a measured response." Oh no, Alan, not alarmist at all. Walkabouts: I don't suppose your "nearest safe country" line has anything to do with you thinking there will always be a nearer safe country than the UK? Try selling your selfish philosophy in Jordan (where my partner is right now): a country of little more than a million people which has grown to something like eight million (estimates vary); the increase almost entirely made up of refugees from Palestine, Iraq and now Syria. I've forgotten who garnered the stats from an Islamic source on terrorist fatalities in 2011, but at a glance they look suspect to me, if only because they imply that very few fatalities if any were down to Shia muslims. |
|
24 May 13 - 12:19 PM (#3518840) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome It was me, Peter. It was from WikiIslam - The link is above. I am quite happy to accept it may be wrong if someone can prove it but until such a time I can only assume it is true. Cheers DtG |
|
24 May 13 - 12:56 PM (#3518852) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Keith: should Bush and Blair have been entitled to expect no reaction at all within the UK against their reckless, ill-judged and illegal invasion of Iraq? Of course not. No politician in a democracy can or does expect that. Or is it that you think the resulting catastrophe, in which innocent civilians have died in many scores of thousands, should be met with peaceful protest? Yes I do. I am shocked that you don't. |
|
24 May 13 - 01:26 PM (#3518869) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Perhaps, Keith, you don't have that much affinity, religious or otherwise, with any of those scores of thousands - in fact hundreds of thousands - of innocent Iraqis who died as a result of the Bush-Blair adventure. For my own part I would probably not have the guts to respond with violence even if relatives of mine were caught up in the collateral. But that's not the point. It should be obvious to anyone that such a monstrous crime would provoke at least a few people to violence. And you are in Cloud Cuckoo land if you think the present level of terrorist threat is unrelated to US and UK interference in Iraq and Afghanistan. |
|
24 May 13 - 06:16 PM (#3518967) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow Obviously there is no justification for killing anyone on the streets of London. Or other places. We shouldn't pull troops out of Afghanistan and stop sending drones to kill people, mostly civilians, because some people take that as a reason for murdering a man here. In London. We should do it because it's wrong for us to continue to kill people ourselves, or to have people doing it in our name. ................ I suggest somene starts up another thread to talk about the stuff this thread has drifted to, which is interesting in itself - and sticj a link to t in this thread. |
|
24 May 13 - 06:52 PM (#3518975) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Agree McG. For my own part I would probably not have the guts to respond with violence even if relatives of mine were caught up in the collateral. And who would you chop up if you did have the guts? A young soldier with a loving wife and kid? A police man or woman? It should be obvious to anyone that such a monstrous crime would provoke at least a few people to violence Again, against who? And you are in Cloud Cuckoo land if you think the present level of terrorist threat is unrelated to US and UK interference in Iraq and Afghanistan. It maybe this time. And if they do it because we allow gay marriage or women's rights, should we go back on that? We are live in a democracy. Not by luck but by bloody sacrifice. When a government ignores our will we throw them out. We do not chop up helpless, unarmed young squaddies and pretend we are doing something noble. |
|
24 May 13 - 07:14 PM (#3518980) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Both here and in the USA democracy has ceased to function at all well. But it is worth noting that in a war you kill enemy troops - and even civilians. Also in a war, people from one country who assist the enemy are called traitors or Quislings. Nothing at all to do with religion or colour. |
|
24 May 13 - 07:50 PM (#3518991) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow "When a government ignores our will we throw them out." And the next government continues to do the same things, "We do not chop up helpless, unarmed young squaddies and pretend we are doing something noble." No, instead we kill helpless unarmed people in other ways, far away from where we live, and in far greater numbers. And we call tat a noble enterprise. Murder is obscene, wherever it is done. There is a duty on those in whose name it is done to denounce it and to repudiate it. That is indeed true of Muslim leaders, to whom it must be appalling to see an unarmed man chopped down by someone calling out the name of Allah - but it is every bit as much true of those of us whose governments involve us in organised slaughter in distant countries. |
|
24 May 13 - 08:11 PM (#3518995) Subject: BS: The Woolrich Busker From: Songwronger I know the busker who watched it all. "He said they put chalk marks on the ground where the actors, sorry terrorists, involved had to stand. "He said it was so obviously fake; the police threatened to beat him up unless he moved and kept his mouth shut." http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2013/05/woolwich-false-flag-inside-job-fake.html Don't know who you are, dude, but intelligence agencies tie up loose ends after operations like this. |
|
24 May 13 - 08:55 PM (#3519003) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) What's with the "loving wife and kid" Keith? Does that make it a worse crime? You think maybe the guy was singled out because he had a loving wife and kid? Well sorry, but I'd bet his attackers didn't give a damn whether the wife was loving or not, or whether there was one child or five. It often turns out that victims had loving wives and kids, whether they are British soldiers, Iraqi civilians or whatever, and regardless of who kills them. Grow up Keith, and don't be so pathetic. |
|
24 May 13 - 10:07 PM (#3519022) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST I would like to say something different from all of the previous discussions. Personally, I was amazed at the publicity given to the murderers and their cause, by showing them with bloodstained hands on the front of many of our newspapers. What encouragement to any others with their crazy ideas. I could not buy a newspaper that day, and I think that it would have been better to have a completely blank front page with a line saying that it was with respect to the poor lad that editors were not giving the killers their wished fame and publicity. |
|
25 May 13 - 03:40 AM (#3519058) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry Peter for being pathetic. For my own part I would probably not have the guts to respond with violence even if relatives of mine were caught up in the collateral. And who would you chop up if you did have the guts? A soldier? A police man or woman? It should be obvious to anyone that such a monstrous crime would provoke at least a few people to violence Again, against who? And you are in Cloud Cuckoo land if you think the present level of terrorist threat is unrelated to US and UK interference in Iraq and Afghanistan. It maybe this time. And if they do it because we allow gay marriage or women's rights, should we go back on that? We are live in a democracy. Not by luck but by bloody sacrifice. When a government ignores our will we throw them out. We do not chop up helpless, unarmed young squaddies and pretend we are doing something noble. |
|
25 May 13 - 04:06 AM (#3519062) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge No, when a government ignores our will we can no longer throw it out. This government has introduced fixed term parliaments and seriously restricted the obligation of a government to resign if losing a vote of confidence, and MPs frequently renege on the things they promised in order to get elected. |
|
25 May 13 - 04:37 AM (#3519065) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eddie1 (sans cookie) This made me stop and think! Never a bad thing. Woolwich Attack Response - Nabil Goes In Eddie |
|
25 May 13 - 05:01 AM (#3519068) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Democracy has not failed because a minority are unable to get their unpopular views reflected in policy. Extremists have always responded to that fact with violence, but I did not expect to see that response proposed here. us whose governments involve us in organised slaughter in distant countries If a majority believed that, the government would fall. They don't and nor do I. The slaughter in those lands is overwhelmingly committed by others, who happen to be Muslim. |
|
25 May 13 - 05:38 AM (#3519080) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Woolwich Attack Response - Nabil Goes In" Absolutely magnificent - and a million miles away from the crocodile tears of the racist morons who openly peddle their vomit-making race and cultural hatred on thread after thread after thread on this forum. "who happen to be Muslim." Jim Carroll |
|
25 May 13 - 06:15 AM (#3519089) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, how would you describe those responsible for the slaughter in Syria? Lebanon? Nigeria? Iraq? Pakistan? Egypt? Afghanistan? North Africa? |
|
25 May 13 - 06:33 AM (#3519094) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad List of Islamist Terror Attacks For the Past 30 Days Date Country City Killed Injured Description 2013.05.24 Pakistan Peshawar 2 3 Two other people are killed when a suicide bomber targets a rival cleric. 2013.05.23 Pakistan Quetta 133 16 The Tehreek-i-Taliban "proudly claim" a brutal bombing that leaves over a dozen dead. 2013.05.23 Niger Agadez 20 16 Suicide bombers detonate in a local army barracks, killing about twenty others. 2013.05.22 Afghanistan Moqur 4 14 A suicide bomber detonates at a busy market, wiping out four bystanders. 2013.05.22 UK London 1 0 An off-duty soldier is hacked to death in the name of Allah by two Muslims. 2013.05.21 Pakistan Quetta 1 0 A Sunni police officer deliberately kills a fellow officer for being a Shiite. 2013.05.21 Iraq Kirkuk 5 46 Holy warriors send razor-sharp shrapnel into patrons of a cattle market, taking out at least five. 2013.05.21 Iraq Baghdad 6 18 Six people bleed to death when Mujahideen set off a bomb outside a cafe. 2013.05.21 Iraq Abu Ghraib 11 21 Eleven people at a mosque bleed out following a bombing by Religion of Peace rivals. 2013.05.20 Iraq Samarrah 8 15 Eight Shia pilgrims are sent straight to Allah by Sunni car bombers. 2013.05.20 Iraq Anbar 13 0 Thirteen innocent kidnap victims are brutally executed by religious militants. 2013.05.20 Dagestan Makhachkala 4 44 Four people are killed when Jihadists set off a bomb in front of a courthouse. 2013.05.20 Afghanistan Baghlan 14 11 A Fedayeen suicide bomber murders fourteen people. 2013.05.20 Pakistan Bajour 1 0 Fundamentalists fire on a polio team, killing a guard. 2013.05.20 Iraq Hillah 9 26 Nine people are cut down by Religion of Peace rivals while leaving a mosque. 2013.05.20 Iraq Baghdad 12 20 A dozen Shiites are torn to shreds by sectarian bombers at a market. 2013.05.19 Tunisia Tunis 0 11 Eleven policemen are injured when Salafists throw petrol bombs at them. 2013.05.19 Lebanon Tripoli 2 6 A boy is among two people killed during a sectarian clash between Sunni and Shia. 2013.05.19 Pakistan Basya Khel 1 5 A bomb targeting children leaves one dead. 2013.05.19 Iraq Haditha 8 0 Al-Qaeda attack a police station and kill eight occupants. 2013.05.19 Iraq Rawa 3 2 Islamic 'insurgents' gun down three local cops in cold blood. 2013.05.19 Iraq Baghdad 2 5 Religious radicals open fire on a group of men playing checkers, killing two. 2013.05.19 Iraq Baqubah 2 0 Terrorists kill and man and his wife in their home. 2013.05.19 Afghanistan Moqor 6 4 Six Afghans lose their lives to a Taliban ambush. 2013.05.18 Iraq Latifiya 5 10 Jihad car bombers take out ten Iraqis. 2013.05.18 Afghanistan Khak-e-Safid 1 0 A local policeman is gunned down in his driveway by Sunni hardliners. 2013.05.18 Iraq Garma 4 0 al-Qaeda gunmen take down four Iraqis. 2013.05.18 Iraq Basra 1 0 A Shia cleric is shot to death by Religion of Peace rivals. 2013.05.18 Iraq Baghdad 5 0 Mujahideen enter a home and slaughter five family members, including two children ages 8 and 10. 2013.05.18 Thailand Narathiwat 1 4 One person bleeds to death after Muslim 'separatists' bomb a hotel. 2013.05.18 India Kupwara 1 0 Muslim militants from Pakistan shoot an Indian border guard to death. 2013.05.18 Syria Damascus 3 5 Terrorists detonate a car bomb near a school, killing three people. 2013.05.18 Afghanistan Bakwa 4 0 Taliban militants murder four Afghan soldiers with a bomb. 2013.05.17 Iraq Baqubah 43 57 A double bomb attack on a Sunni mosque leaves over forty worshippers dead. 2013.05.17 Iraq Baghdad 22 57 al-Qaeda bombers take down two dozen Iraqis with three bombs. 2013.05.17 Pakistan Baz Darrah 21 120 Twenty-one worshippers at two mosques are sent straight to Allah by Religion of Peace rivals. 2013.05.17 Afghanistan Kandahar 9 70 Islamic hardliners bomb a family restaurant, killing nine innocents. 2013.05.17 Yemen Mukalla 1 0 A security officer is assassinated by al-Qaeda gunmen on a motorcycle. 2013.05.17 Iraq Fallujah 2 8 Terrorists bomb a coffee shop, killing two patrons. 2013.05.17 Egypt Alexandria 1 3 A Copt is killed during an assault by a Muslim bomb on a church. 2013.05.17 Pakistan Mianwali 2 0 A faith healer and his wife are brutally murdered in their home by suspected fundamentalists. 2013.05.17 Iraq Madain 8 25 Eight mourners at a funeral are disassembled by sectarian bombers. 2013.05.16 Pakistan Mingora 2 1 A child activist and a peace committee member are shot by the Taliban in targeted attacks. 2013.05.16 Pakistan Matani 5 6 Religious extremists open fire a convoy of local combat engineers, killing five. 2013.05.16 Pakistan Peshawar 2 0 Two truck drivers are shot to death by Muslim extremists. 2013.05.16 Iraq Kirkuk 12 18 A dozen people are torn to shreds when a suicide bomber self-detonates at a Shia mosque. 2013.05.16 Afghanistan Kabul 15 40 A dedicated Sunni blows himself up in a city street, exterminating fifteen souls, including two children 2013.05.16 Iraq Kamaliya 3 14 Three civilians are laid out by a Mujahideen car bomb at a taxi stand. 2013.05.16 Iraq Sadr City 9 16 A 7-year-old child is among nine killed when Sunnis bomb a bus stop in a Shia neighborhood. 2013.05.16 Somalia Gof Gadud 5 10 An al-Shabaab ambush leaves five dead. 2013.05.15 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim 'insurgents' shoot a 50-year-old villager to death. 2013.05.15 Iraq Baghdad 14 68 At least five al-Qaeda bombs targeting Shiites leave a dozen dead and many more in agony. 2013.05.15 Iraq Sadr City 7 33 Sunnis set off three car bombs in Shia neighborhoods, leaving seven dead. 2013.05.15 Iraq Kadhimiya 2 9 Two people are taken out by Jihad car bombers. 2013.05.15 Iraq Kirkuk 12 23 Two Jihad car bombings leave a dozen Iraqis dead. 2013.05.15 Iraq Abu Ghraib 2 0 Two brothers are taken from their home and slain execution style by al-Qaeda. 2013.05.15 Iraq Mosul 2 0 A suicide bomber kills two Iraqis. 2013.05.14 Iraq Fallujah 2 0 al-Qaeda militants shoot two brothers to death. 2013.05.14 Iraq Mosul 1 14 A child is taken out by Mujahid car bombers. 2013.05.14 Iraq Baghdad 12 0 Fundamentalists execute a dozen people at a series of shops selling alcohol. 2013.05.14 Nigeria Maiduguri 1 0 Religion of Peace activists shoot a pastor to death in his home. 2013.05.14 Afghanistan Garmsir 3 7 Children are among the casualties when Sunni radicals set off a motorcycle bomb at a market. 2013.05.14 Syria Raqqa 3 0 Video surfaces of the cold-blooded execution of three captives by al-Nusra Islamists. 2013.05.14 Syria Deir al-Zor 11 0 al-Nusra Islamists summarily execute eleven captives on video while praising Allah. 2013.05.13 Libya Benghazi 15 41 Islamists are thought responsible for a car bomb blast at a hospital that leaves over a dozen dead, including two children. 2013.05.13 Afghanistan Helmand 3 0 Three Georgian soldiers are killed when a suicide truck bomber plows into their base. 2013.05.13 Pakistan Bara 1 8 Taliban militants take out a child with a rocket. 2013.05.13 Iraq Ramadi 3 7 A Holy Warrior detonates a suicide vest, killing three Iraqis. 2013.05.13 Afghanistan Arghistan 10 12 Women and children are among ten civilians ripped to shreds by a bomb planted by religious radicals. 2013.05.12 Pakistan Muslim Colony 1 0 A 19-year-old woman is strangled by her conservative family for getting pregnant. 2013.05.12 Pakistan Quetta 8 97 A child is among eight people blown to bits by a Lashkar-e-Jhangvi suicide car bomber. 2013.05.12 Iraq Basra 1 0 Religion of Peace rivals gun down a cleric outside his mosque. 2013.05.12 Iraq Mosul 5 0 Five suspected al-Qaeda victims are handcuffed and shot in the back of the head. 2013.05.12 Iraq Baghdad 4 0 Terrorists shoot four women to death in their own home. 2013.05.12 Iraq Mishahada 3 0 Mujahideen murder three men walking by the side of the road. 2013.05.11 Pakistan Manghopir 2 3 A suicide bomber sends two souls to Allah. 2013.05.11 Pakistan Karachi 11 40 Children are among the casualties when Islamists set off a bomb blast targeting voters. 2013.05.11 Pakistan Peshawar 1 10 A bomb outside a polling station leaves one dead. 2013.05.11 Iraq Nineveh 3 21 A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills two women and a child. 2013.05.11 Iraq Shurqat 3 19 Three people are incinerated by a suicide truck bomber. 2013.05.11 Pakistan Panj Khata 1 35 A 10-year-old boy is taken out by a bomb planted by Sunni hardliners. 2013.05.11 Kenya Mandera 2 4 Islamists throw a grenade at a group of Kenyans and then shoot them in the head. 2013.05.11 Afghanistan Nuristan 1 0 A man is murdered in his own home by the Taliban. 2013.05.10 Pakistan Kurram 3 0 The Taliban gun down three security personnel. 2013.05.10 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Lashkar-e-Jhagvi kidnap and murder a Shiite civilian. 2013.05.10 India Rajpora 1 0 A farmer is murdered inside his home by Muslim militants. 2013.05.10 Iraq al-Dhera 1 5 A 2-year-old child is pulled into pieces by Mujahid bombers. 2013.05.10 India Lassipora 1 0 An imam is shot to death outside his mosque by Religion of Peace rivals. 2013.05.10 Iraq Mahaweel 3 7 Religion of Peace rivals bomb a mosque, killing three worshippers. 2013.05.10 Pakistan Miranshah 4 21 Religious fanatics take out four locals with a bomb blast at a market. 2013.05.10 India Pulwama 1 0 Hizb-ul-Mujahideen gun down a police officer. 2013.05.09 Pakistan Torghar 6 10 A half-dozen people are disassembled by Islamic bombers. 2013.05.09 Pakistan Karachi 1 0 Sipah-e-Sahaba gunmen murder a 35-year-old Shiite. 2013.05.09 Iraq Baghdad 3 2 Terrorists kill three university students with a bomb placed on a bus. 2013.05.09 Yemen Lahij 1 0 al-Qaeda gunmen take down a local traffic cop. 2013.05.09 Egypt Cairo 0 1 An American professor is stabbed five times by a well-educated terrorist. 2013.05.09 Iraq Hawija 1 11 al-Qaeda bombers take out an Iraqi child. 2013.05.09 Pakistan Multan 1 8 Fundamentalists are suspected of opening fire on a political rally, killing one. 2013.05.08 Iraq Abu Ghraib 2 3 Religion of Peace rivals set off an IED at a mosque that leaves two dead, including the imam. 2013.05.08 Pakistan Beaver Ridge WV Canaan 2 23 A woman is among two people blown away by a Shahid suicide bomber. 2013.05.08 Pakistan Hangu 2 18 Women and children are among the casualties when Islamic militants set off a bomb at a market. 2013.05.08 Thailand Narathiwat 1 1 A 45-year-old woman is shot to death by Muslim terrorists. 2013.05.08 Afghanistan Kandahar 3 0 At least three drivers are killed by Taliban gunmen at a protest. 2013.05.08 Iraq Fallujah 3 2 al-Qaeda gunmen open fire on police officers at a checkpoint, killing two. 2013.05.08 Iraq Mosul 1 4 A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills a civilian. 2013.05.08 Iraq Salaheddin 1 1 A suicide bomber manages to kill one other person. 2013.05.08 Yemen Lahij 3 0 Three men in a car are wasted by al-Qaeda gunmen. 2013.05.08 Iraq Kirkuk 2 49 Two suicide bombers take down two Iraqis and injure about fifty others. 2013.05.07 Nigeria Bama 26 0 Twenty-six people, including three children, are burnt alive as Islamists set fire to a police barracks. 2013.05.07 Afghanistan Ghazni 4 1 Taliban bombers send four Afghan cops to Allah. 2013.05.07 Nigeria Bama 14 0 Boko Haram attack a prison housing Islamist prisoners, killing fourteen guards. 2013.05.07 Algeria Keddara 2 0 Two guards at a quarry are murdered by Islamic fundamentalists. 2013.05.07 Pakistan Lower Dir 5 0 Five people are killed in a Taliban attack on a secular party official. 2013.05.07 Nigeria Bale 1 0 Boko Haram murder a man in front of his wives and children. 2013.05.07 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Militant Muslims shoot a clerk to death at a restaurant. 2013.05.07 Pakistan Korangi 2 0 Two activists of a secular-leaning party are assassinated by religious fundamentalists. 2013.05.07 Pakistan Hangu 12 35 At least a dozen people are obliterate when a Fedayeen suicide bomber detonates at an election rally. 2013.05.07 France Roussillon 0 1 A Muslim who had recently returned from the Haj shouts 'Allah Akbar' and stabs a police officer at random. 2013.05.06 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 Muslim militants gun down a 62-year-old man on his way home from work. 2013.05.06 Bangladesh Kanchpur 4 0 Four security officials are beaten to death by anti-blasphemy activists. 2013.05.06 Philippines Basilan 2 0 An Abu Sayyaf ambush leaves two dead. 2013.05.06 Iraq Mosul 5 0 Two bombings, one by a Shahid, leave five Iraqis dead. 2013.05.06 Iraq Baghdad 6 13 Mujahideen roll grenades into a rival mosque, sending at least six worshippers straight to Allah. 2013.05.06 Syria al-Quasair 20 0 Hezbollah is accused of butchering twenty people, mostly women and children, with knives. 2013.05.06 Iraq Baghdad 7 26 Jihadi car bombers take out seven Iraqis near a restaurant. 2013.05.06 Pakistan Peshawar 25 64 A Shahid suicide bomber detonates at an election rally, slaughtering over two dozen innocents. 2013.05.06 Bangladesh Motijheel 1 0 A policeman is hacked to death by Islamists chanting 'death to those who insult Allah'. 2013.05.05 Iraq Mahmoudiya 2 0 Mujahideen invade a home and shoot a man and his son to death. 2013.05.05 Iraq Baghdad 1 6 Muslims set off a bomb at a rival mosque, killing a passerby. 2013.05.05 Pakistan Sibi 4 7 The Tehrik-i-Taliban is suspected of attacking the convoy of a secular political candidate, killing four. 2013.05.05 Egypt al-Arish 1 0 Four fundamentalists shoot a bartender to death for serving alcohol. 2013.05.05 Somalia Mogadishu 11 20 Eleven people are ripped to pieces by a Fedayeen suicide bomber. 2013.05.05 Bangladesh Dhaka 4 24 At least four civilians are killed by a Hefajat-e-Islam 'siege'. 2013.05.05 Iraq Jamiyah 3 13 Three patrons are killed by a Fundamentalist bomb at an Internet cafe. 2013.05.05 Somalia Buulo Sheekh 2 0 A 95-year-old man and his grandson are murdered in their home by al-Shabaab activists. 2013.05.05 Afghanistan Korghan 4 5 Sunni hardliners dismantle four civilians with a roadside bomb. 2013.05.05 Thailand Narathiwat 2 3 Two Thais are killed by a Muslim 'separatist' bomb. 2013.05.05 Pakistan Orangi 5 0 A 9-year-old girl and three women are among five shot to death during an honor killing at a brothel. 2013.05.05 Nigeria Njilan 10 0 Islamic extremists stage a Sunday morning attack on a church and a nearby cattle market, killing at least ten. 2013.05.04 Thailand Narathiwat 1 0 A 59-year-old truck driver is murdered by Muslim militants. 2013.05.04 Thailand Pattani 1 0 Muslim terrorists shoot a 50-year-old civilian twice in the head. 2013.05.04 Mali Gao 2 4 Two local soldiers are taken out by a Fedayeen suicide bomber. 2013.05.04 Pakistan Karachi 3 40 Children are among the casualties when Religion of Peace activists blow up a secular-leaning party office. 2013.05.04 Afghanistan Farah 2 0 Two American trainers are murdered by a Taliban in uniform. 2013.05.04 Nigeria Ngamdu 4 0 Religion of Peace activists tie up four villagers and cut their throats. 2013.05.03 Pakistan Karachi 2 0 A 3-year-old boy and his father are brutally gunned down by the Tehreek-e-Taliban. 2013.05.03 Syria Banias 145 0 Thirty-four children and forty women are among one-hundred forty-five victims of a sectarian massacre. 2013.05.03 Iraq Baghdad 7 30 Sectarian Jihadis detonate a bomb at a rival mosque, killing seven worshippers. 2013.05.03 Pakistan Islamabad 1 0 The prosecutor investigating a prominent assassination by terrorists is himself gunned down on his way home. 2013.05.02 Afghanistan Barg-e-Matal 1 0 An Afghan policeman is picked off by a Taliban sniper. 2013.05.02 Syria Bayda 51 0 Fifty-one villagers are slaughtered because of their sectarian status according to a human rights group. 2013.05.02 Thailand Pattani 6 0 Muslim 'insurgents' murder a 3-year-old boy and five others when they fire into a Buddhist convenience store. 2013.05.02 Afghanistan Pula-i- Alam 8 0 Sunni hardliners murder eight local cops with a roadside bomb. 2013.05.02 Pakistan Manghopir 2 0 Two watchmen at a private school are murdered after threats from militants. 2013.05.02 Egypt Qattawiya 1 0 A Facebook user is shot to death by the Muslim Brotherhood after criticizing the group. 2013.05.02 Iraq Albu Faraj 1 4 A Fedayeen suicide bomber kills one other person. 2013.05.01 Iraq Baji 5 0 Five police officers are taken down by an al-Qaeda blast. 2013.05.01 Afghanistan Gereshk 3 4 The Taliban murder a peace envoy and two guards. 2013.05.01 Syria Damascus 1 15 Sunni terrorists are blamed for a car bomb that kills at least one. 2013.05.01 Iraq Garma 6 15 A suicide bomber detonates in a crowd, slaughtering at least a half-dozen. 2013.05.01 Pakistan Karachi 2 0 Two Shiites are assassinated by Sipah-e-Sahaba terrorists. 2013.05.01 Iraq Baquba 3 11 Mujahideen bomb a restaurant and murder a rival cleric in separate attacks. 2013.05.01 Nigeria Gashua 7 0 Five civilians are among seven shot to death by Islamic extremists. 2013.05.01 Dagestan Makhachkala 2 2 Two teens are killed by a bomb planted by Jihadis outside a store that refused to pay zakat. 2013.05.01 Iraq Ramadi 2 10 Two Iraqis bleed to death following a shrapnel bombing by 'insurgents' 2013.05.01 Iraq Hussainya 4 12 A brutal Sunni car bomb in a Shia suburb leaves four residents dead. 2013.04.30 Syria Marjeh 14 103 Terrorists bomb a commercial district, killing over a dozen. 2013.04.30 Tunisia Mount Chaambi 0 6 A half-dozen local soldiers and police are injured when Islamists set off land mines. 2013.04.30 Israel Tapuah 1 0 A Palestinian stabs a 31-year-old Jewish father of five to death in an unprovoked attack at a bus stop. 2013.04.30 Jordan Amman 1 0 A young woman is stabbed 20 times and beheaded by her brother after 'dishonoring' the family. 2013.04.30 Iraq Baghdad 4 20 Religion of Peace rivals bomb a Sunni mosque, killing four worshippers. 2013.04.30 Pakistan Karachi 2 0 Muslim extremists shoot two liberal party workers to death. 2013.04.30 Iraq Sulaiman Beg 2 5 A Shahid suicide bomber takes two Iraqis with him. 2013.04.29 Syria Damascus 6 0 Six bystanders are laid out by a suspected al-Nusra car bomb. 2013.04.29 Nigeria Ringim 5 0 Sharia proponents send rocket-propelled grenades into a bank and police station, killing five. 2013.04.29 Pakistan Charsadda 1 15 Children are among the casualties of a suspected Islamist bombing. 2013.04.29 Iraq Mahmoudiya 6 14 Sunni radicals detonate a car bomb in a Shia neighborhood, sending a half dozen resident to Allah. 2013.04.29 Iraq Karbala 3 14 Three Shia pilgrims are brought down by and al-Qaeda bomb. 2013.04.29 Iraq Diwaniyah 9 23 Nine Iraqis at a restaurant are exterminated by al-Qaeda car bombers. 2013.04.29 Iraq Amarah 18 42 Eighteen Shiites standing in a market are ripped to pieces by Sunni bombers. 2013.04.29 Pakistan Adamkot 3 0 Religious radicals kidnap and execute three local security personnel. 2013.04.29 Syria Nubbol 20 0 Twenty Shiite adults are reportedly abducted and beheaded by Sunni militia. 2013.04.29 Pakistan Peshawar 9 60 Sunni hardliners plant a bomb on a motorcycle that kills at least nine people waiting fo |
|
25 May 13 - 06:53 AM (#3519098) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, it has been suggested that whenever you make that personal attack on me instead of discussing the issues, I make this statement. 'Jim, I fully accept that you think I am a racist, and as such worthy of abuse. This is something I dispute and is vehemently denied by Mudcatters who have met me personally; my family; the members of my church, and my community. That aside, these are some opinions I wish to express and some facts I wish to highlight and discuss on this forum. Therefore can we take your opinion of me personally as a given, and have a debate as to what I have to say, nonetheless.' |
|
25 May 13 - 07:21 AM (#3519106) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Fat chance, Keith. Jim's infallible instamatic racist-spotter-equipment goes into auto-action with no interference from his intellect and his fingers just instinctively type away without his consciousness being remotely engaged. So just ignore... ~M~ Oh hell: I made a vow was going to stay off this thread; but Jim's tic·tic·tics have something of a similar effect on me... |
|
25 May 13 - 07:31 AM (#3519108) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""As I said yesterday, my brother in law works in the media and his office received an email at 6am what amounted to be a gagging order, who to interview and who not, what to give coverage to and what not, which is why there was no coverage given to buildings attacked the previous evening in three areas of the UK."" What a pity we can't apply a gagging order to the anonymous racist trolls who periodically crawl out of the woodwork here. Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 07:42 AM (#3519112) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Perhaps, Keith, you don't have that much affinity, religious or otherwise, with any of those scores of thousands - in fact hundreds of thousands - of innocent Iraqis who died as a result of the Bush-Blair adventure."" That's an understatement Peter! Any comment favourable to Muslims initiates a knee jerk that could send his footwear into orbit. Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 07:51 AM (#3519113) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford So Don, do you also believe that the killing was an understandable response to British crimes? |
|
25 May 13 - 08:00 AM (#3519115) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Hey Bobad - ya got a list of innocent civilians killed in Iraq & Afghanistan/Pakistan for the same calendar period? |
|
25 May 13 - 08:03 AM (#3519116) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim, how would you describe those responsible for the slaughter in Syria?" A Syrian despotic regime, once a valued trading partner and ally of Britain - how would you describe them (always bearing in mind that you suggested they be armed with "riot control equipment" in order to get the opposition tucked safely in their torture cells and out of harm's way)? There is about as much significance that the people of Afghanistan or any of the places you mentioned are "Muslims" as it is that the people who are in there with their drones, helicopters and sophisticated weaponry are overwhelmingly "Christians" - the only people who can possibly have any interest in such insignificant details are those who would build a wall between anybody whose culture. colour or nationality is in any way different than our own. What is significant is that those who have been sent to fight in these countries (including the poor bastard who was hacked to death), comes from oil wealthy and powerful oil-dependent countries who have seen fit to destabilise that part of the world to ensure that the oil keeps coming - even to the extent of inventing non-existent "weapons of mass destruction" to justify that destabilisation. There is something more than a little revolting about those who would use the body of a freshly-murdered human being as a soapbox to promote race and culture hatred. Said what I have to say - carry on hating! Jim Carroll |
|
25 May 13 - 08:06 AM (#3519120) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "comes from oil wealthy and powerful oil-dependent countries " Should read "wealthy, powerful and oil dependent countries" - sorry Jim Carroll |
|
25 May 13 - 08:51 AM (#3519128) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Greg,the calendar period was the last 30 days, most of those on Bobad's list were indeed innocent civilians, and a list of those killed by British or even Western forces would be very short indeed. Jim, there IS significance in the religion of those involved in the slaughter because it is mostly Sunni/Shia sectarianism. |
|
25 May 13 - 08:55 AM (#3519129) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Keith, I would have thought even you could understand what happened at Woolwich. Two guys with their heads full of crazy ideology murdered a soldier in some kind of desperate retaliation for what British soldiers have been doing elsewhere. Understanding does not mean condoning. You obviously thought one of your posts was worth repeating, feeble as it was. Within it, again repetitiously, you wanted to know whom I would expect to be on the receiving end of any violent response provoked by violent American-British invasions. I didn't answer because the answer was obvious, but let me spell it out: I don't know. Often British and American intelligence agencies don't know, which is why it is hard to defend against. People who, rightly or wrongly, feel desperate can be very unpredictable. And by the way, the assault on Iraq was opposed by a majority in the UK and it provoked the biggest demonstration ever in the UK. We didn't throw out the government, either then or at the subsequent general election. That's no big deal if our representative democracy over-rides the popular mood on (say) dog-licensing or daylight saving. But when it results in vast numbers of needless fatalities and the massive destabilising of a whole region, expect some blowback, both legitimate and illegitimate. |
|
25 May 13 - 09:06 AM (#3519131) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Peter, I am in favour of peaceful protest. You say that is not enough. I think that is wrong and I am sure you are in a small minority. Anyone with strong feelings against the last Gulf war could have voted Lib Dem who contested every seat on an anti-war platform. Very few did. That is democracy. You want something different. |
|
25 May 13 - 09:52 AM (#3519135) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Where did I say peaceful protest is not enough Keith? You think I will quarrel if the Woolwich Michaels are convicted? Incidentqlly I see thqt crimes against muslims have increased in recent days. Again not surprising, but equally wrong. |
|
25 May 13 - 09:58 AM (#3519136) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Or is it that you think the resulting catastrophe, in which innocent civilians have died in many scores of thousands, should be met with peaceful protest? Yes I do. I am shocked that you don't. |
|
25 May 13 - 11:22 AM (#3519156) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_Iraq_War Speaks for itself really! Jim Carroll |
|
25 May 13 - 12:11 PM (#3519159) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""So Don, do you also believe that the killing was an understandable response to British crimes?"" NO, I DO NOT! Neither do I believe, as so many of our more detestable anonymous arseholes, that the actions of two demented bigots are in any way representative of the vast majority of British Muslims. Do YOU? Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 12:16 PM (#3519160) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford What does it speak Jim? I very much doubt that anyone reading that would learn anything new. Does it say anything at all about an unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich? |
|
25 May 13 - 12:19 PM (#3519161) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Neither do I believe, as so many of our more detestable anonymous arseholes, that the actions of two demented bigots are in any way representative of the vast majority of British Muslims. Do YOU? No, but a not insignificant minority ("thousands"). |
|
25 May 13 - 12:22 PM (#3519162) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""and a list of those killed by British or even Western forces would be very short indeed."" Take it a step further and consider how that list will expand, if you examine the true figures for civilian casualties as a direct or indirect result of Western (including UK) forces action in other countries, instead of staying home and defending what is our country. Try to think honestly, without your customary Muslim = Evil filter in place. Whether others kill more, or fewer, civilians is irrelevant. It does not excuse us if we kill fewer, nor them if we kill more. Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 12:52 PM (#3519172) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "What does it speak Jim?" It "speaks" (whatever that particular piece of gibberish means), that worldwide democratic opposition to an illegal war doesn't stand fiddler's fart of a chance when it clashes with the interests of multinationals. Your taking over of a thread once again to trot out the party line "speaks" that you have no intention of desisting from using the body of a barely cold victim of a vicious murder as a platform for your Islamophobic rant. Nothing changes. Jim Carroll |
|
25 May 13 - 01:06 PM (#3519175) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll I look forward with interest to see how you defend the establishment if it turns out to be true that MI5 attempted to recruit one of the killers - a Muslim plot, no doubt! Jim Carroll |
|
25 May 13 - 01:13 PM (#3519176) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I think it probably true Jim. I think it a sensible policy to employ informers. Don, do you believe our forces are involved in indiscriminate killing. You know about British rules of engagement? You know our soldiers are instructed in legal and illegal military actions, that they must refuse to obey illegal orders and that they are held accountable for every round fired? |
|
25 May 13 - 01:29 PM (#3519180) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""No, but a not insignificant minority ("thousands")."" Based on what?..........Your vast knowledge of the Muslim community in Britain? Well, it's always good to have confirmation of your idea of "balance"! Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 01:53 PM (#3519183) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don, do you believe our forces are involved in indiscriminate killing."" Don't be a complete prat. You know very well I mean nothing of the sort. I referred to indirect as well as direct killings. Can you deny that many fewer Iraqis would ghave been killed in internal and insurgent actions, had we and the US minded our own affairs. Ditto, Afghanistan! The place for a National Defensive force, is within its own borders, and that applies equally to the US and Britain, as to Israel and its neighbours. A common factor in the History which BB claims we don't understand, is that there is always resistance to an occupying force, and in recent history that has incuded violent resistance in the occupyer's homeland. It is, or should be, a no brainer, except in the minds of those who believe that only their own side should be allowed to fight for their homeland. Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 02:04 PM (#3519184) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T For those, like yourself, who see only the actions of your own side as justified, there is only one side to any argument. Your comments prove this daily. Until you can see, recognise and understand (without condoning) the other side of the argument, you are simply not worth talking to, or for that matter, listening to. Don T. |
|
25 May 13 - 02:53 PM (#3519192) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest balance Has anyone on this thread mentioned that the poor fellow hacked to death was a machine gunner in Afghanistan? I wonder if he ever shot anyone. |
|
25 May 13 - 02:53 PM (#3519193) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Based on what?.......... A former MI5 chief on R4 pm prog said "thousands" were known to them. MI5 has since said about 2000. |
|
25 May 13 - 04:19 PM (#3519215) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Balance, they are only allowed to engage to save life. If he did it would only be active armed combatants. |
|
25 May 13 - 04:53 PM (#3519221) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick I've heard people talk about the police's slow response , but didn't this happen about 200 yards from an army barracks ?It seems odd that somebody in the army didn't know what was happening a couple of minutes walk away. Wouldn't streets so close to a barracks be carefully monitored by cctv? |
|
25 May 13 - 05:25 PM (#3519225) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion The army has already anticipated that point, mayomick; pointing out that, though aware of what was occurring, they are/were not authorised to make armed intervention in such a civilian context, and could not engage unarmed against armed criminals: whereas armed police were empowered to do so, subject to their own well-understood rules of engagement. ~M~ |
|
25 May 13 - 06:03 PM (#3519233) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick So they were aware that one of their own people had just been butchered and left it to the police to arrive fifteen minutes later. I can understand rules are rules and they wouldn't perhaps have known whether the men had guns or not. All the same it sounds a bit cowardly. I'd have expected a hundred soldiers -armed or unarmed - to come running out of the barracks and confront the killers . The woman who jumped off the bus to give assistance and then remonstrated with the murderers had more guts. (Having said that , I don't know how much of a hero I would be myself in the same situation !) There was a possible copycat attack in Paris today , according to Rte News. "A French soldier patrolling a business neighbourhood west of Paris has been stabbed in the neck and injured by a man who fled the scene and is being sought by police, President Francois Hollande said." http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0525/452666-french-soldier-injured-in-paris-knife-attack/ |
|
25 May 13 - 06:53 PM (#3519245) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad So, you think that the root cause of Islamist Jihadism is Israel and the West's interference in Islamic countries, well think again: The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago. That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy. An Atheist Muslim's Perspective on the 'Root Causes' of Islamist Jihadism and the Politics of Islamophobia |
|
25 May 13 - 08:14 PM (#3519256) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. I see we've come back again, one more time, to the oxymoronic Muslim Atheist and a three-hundred year quotation that has somewhat less than zero relevance in today's world. It was bullshit first time around, and its bullshit still, as will it be the next time you repeat it. How many 18th Century Christian[sic]quotations expressing the same ideas would you like to have posted, Bobad? |
|
25 May 13 - 10:59 PM (#3519294) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: LadyJean Fox News is crowing about the anti Muslim demonstrations in England right now. Revolting! Well, of course it is, it's Fox News. |
|
26 May 13 - 04:09 AM (#3519315) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The police think there was a wider conspiracy, and have arrested three more men, two of whom had to be tasered. |
|
26 May 13 - 05:24 AM (#3519320) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""A former MI5 chief on R4 pm prog said "thousands" were known to them. MI5 has since said about 2000."" And the Home Secretary said, on BBC TV this morning, that the figure of "thousands" referred to all those currently known to have the "potential to become radicalised". You understand the word "potential"? Don T. |
|
26 May 13 - 05:33 AM (#3519323) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I'd have expected a hundred soldiers -armed or unarmed - to come running out of the barracks and confront the killers ."" Which is exactly the difference which military training makes. Those soldiers obeyed the rules because that is what they are trained to do. Had they followed their instincts, it would have made no difference for the victim, and given the suicidal fervour of the killers, we would now be talking about six or more dead soldiers and probably the women tending to the victim as well. I wondered how long it would take for some know nothing clown to start yakking about cowardice. The point is that our armed forces are strictly debarred from taking military action in civil matters, and rightly so. Don T. |
|
26 May 13 - 05:44 AM (#3519326) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy."" Firstly, the fact that one idiot should grossly misquote the Q'ran in a fit of boastful sabre rattling two centuries ago is of little interest. Secondly, if you really believe that Western countries had not interfered in the Islamic world of that era and before, you are desperately in need of some basic History lessons. Don T. |
|
26 May 13 - 05:58 AM (#3519328) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Don ~~ What is your justification for "grossly misquote the Q'ran"? It is, or was, an accurate quotation from part of The Q'ran so far as I can see. As is well-known, the Book may contradict this elsewhere -- the Suras are not entirely consistent throughout. But there does not appear, then or now, to have been any "gross misquotation". ~M~ |
|
26 May 13 - 06:09 AM (#3519331) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick "Had they followed their instincts, it would have made no difference for the victim, and given the suicidal fervour of the killers, we would now be talking about six or more dead soldiers and probably the women tending to the victim as well." Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word cowardice , but that's the very attitude I was talking about Don. Had a hundred soldiers come running out to assist their fallen comrade, it's very unlikely that six of them would have been killed . The people who killed Drummer Rigby were not supermen . |
|
26 May 13 - 08:15 AM (#3519351) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion But the soldiers were under orders, Mick. They only deploy if ordered. Their orders were clearly not to do so, as interference in the situation would be contrary to their rules of engagement. It was a job for the civilian police. I agree it was regrettable that the police involvement appeared to be delayed; but if they had got there in 3 minutes I can't see it would have made a lot of difference, as Drummer Rigby was dead by then and his killers were not attempting to escape. ~M~ |
|
26 May 13 - 08:38 AM (#3519352) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, May may have said that. As you say, she referred to potential radicalisees. When it emerged that the suspects were known as would-be jihadists, it was asked why a closer watch was not put on them. "Members will examine to what extent the alleged murderers were "on the radar" and whether there was any "culpability" on the part of the security service, the source said. But they stressed: "There are thousands of people who are on the radar as would-be suspects. Only with a very small fraction of those are you able to provide that level of surveillance so that you know what each and every one of their movements is." " http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/did-mi5-blunder-over-woolwich-killers-we-will-never-know-8631565.html |
|
26 May 13 - 09:28 AM (#3519359) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Financial Times. "Security experts argue that MI5 and the police have records on many Islamist extremists in the UK. In 2007, Jonathan Evans, former head of MI5, said there were at least 2,000 people in the UK who "pose a direct threat to national security and public safety". However, security experts say MI5 has to constantly assess which of these might go on to plot acts of violence and therefore need to be pursued with greater intensity. " http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33d814b4-c3d3-11e2-aa5b-00144feab7de.html#axzz2UPAKLP8K What are you taking issue with Don? |
|
26 May 13 - 09:47 AM (#3519364) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Gee, Don - I wonder if they can explain - regardless of political and religious orientation - who DOESN"T have the "potential" to become radicalized? Dead people, perhaps? |
|
26 May 13 - 10:15 AM (#3519368) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick I find it hard to believe that there were actually orders issued not to go to Drummer Rigby's assistance. If there were, how did the people giving the orders know that the poor kid wasn't still alive after the attack? I wasn't suggesting some sort of organized military deployment against the two terrorists ,so much as about the reaction of individuals in the army at seeing one of their own getting cut down in this way. Standing orders quite correctly make the distinction between military and civilian roles , but I can't see any officer reprimanding soldiers who disobeyed standing orders to go to the aid of Drummer Rigby in such an instance as this. If there were actual orders issued in the twenty minutes or so that it took for the police to arrive , I'd say that whoever gave the order would be in for trouble . |
|
26 May 13 - 10:48 AM (#3519372) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford It was not in sight of the gates. The street is not overlooked by the barracks. Greg MI5 is only interested in people who pose a threat to the nation. They have a couple of thousands and these two were not considered more dangerous despite having been arrested in Kenya and tried to get to Somalia. So, what is your point? |
|
26 May 13 - 11:40 AM (#3519378) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. MI5 is only interested in people who pose a threat to the nation. Right ----- and no-one poses a risk to the nation other tham Ismuslic Llamamentalists. No other threats out there. And the CIA is forbidden to operate within the borders of the US. |
|
26 May 13 - 12:37 PM (#3519391) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion On the contrary, mayomick, if the Officer Commanding had been aware of what was going on, he would have been in trouble if he had permitted any of the men under his command to intervene in what was strictly a matter for the civilian police. Have you, I wonder, ever been subject to military law? -- I suspect you to be too young to have done National Service like us oldies. If you haven't, I suggest you drop the topic: you are just making yourself look a bit silly. ~M~ |
|
26 May 13 - 01:13 PM (#3519398) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick MgM are you seriously trying to tell me that soldiers aren't allowed to intervene in a civilian situation under any circumstance? Had the young man been trapped in a flat that was on fire a hundred yards from a huge army barracks would his fellow soldiers have said that it was a matter for the fire brigade ? |
|
26 May 13 - 01:33 PM (#3519404) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Right ----- and no-one poses a risk to the nation other tham Ismuslic Llamamentalists. No other threats out there. Yes there are Greg, but this figure is just about them. A couple of thousands that they know about. |
|
26 May 13 - 01:46 PM (#3519408) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse "Walkabouts Verse....I know you like people to all live in special little 'boxes' from which they must never venture out, but please, wake up and know there is the blood of the world running through your veins...But blackout glasses on, so that you can see NO colours, then just accept PEOPLE as your Brothers and Sisters..." (Lizzie Cornish)...My "venture out" before sitting down to write WAV included about 40 nations; I doubt anyone appreciates our world/our United Nations being multicultural as much as I. And I'm a 100% sure that things would be a lot better and more peaceful if humans would just trade fairly with and VISIT other nations as respectful tourists. And do you get angry, Lizzie, when you hear people talking about emigrating to Australia, e.g., without any consideration for Aboriginal "Land Rights"? http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/476693050 |
|
26 May 13 - 02:24 PM (#3519417) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Mayo ~~ Senior officers are appointed in recognition of their ability to decide on appropriate action, and hence to issue appropriate orders, in accordance with their judgment of a situation. In the circumstances you postulate, a CO would decide as to the best course of action, but would be unlikely to order his men to intervene as they could then possibly inhibit, rather than assist, the work of the appropriate authorities [in this case the Fire Brigade] -- but this would be a matter for his decision according to the circumstances prevailing. All would depend on the Colonel's assessment. In the case with which this thread is concerned, I repeat, an order from a CO to his men to intervene would be ultra vires, and I do not think any CO would assess it otherwise. ~M~ |
|
26 May 13 - 02:53 PM (#3519431) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza The contentious verse from the Koran is 9:5, where followers are exhorted to 'fight' polytheists and use the sword to either force them to convert to Islam and pay a Tax or be killed. There are quite a few verses in the same vein, about 'fighting' non-believers and if they prove stubborn, to kill them. This doesn't sound to me as if 'jihad' is an 'inner struggle' but a physically violent means to eradicate people who continue to practise their religion and refuse to conform to the rules and mores of Islam. The problem is that there are also verses encouraging peace and mercy etc. However, it's the infamous 9:5 that seems to be causing fundamentalists to incite terrorism. It must be added that in the early verses, 'People of the Book' (ie Jews and Christians) might get away with merely paying a Tax to Muslim coffers. |
|
26 May 13 - 03:29 PM (#3519434) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse ...that's from Repentance, Eliza, part of which I quoted above: "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." |
|
26 May 13 - 03:55 PM (#3519439) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse You will not find any such language in WalkaboutsVerse, of course; you will find positive nationalism, fair trade, vegetable and native gardening (harvest and habitat), animal welfare, birth control, eco-travel, anti-capitalism, pro-regulationism, a love of life...http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog |
|
26 May 13 - 04:21 PM (#3519445) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Eliza- you are of course familiar with the Old Testament? Plenty of similar "contentious" verses therein. |
|
26 May 13 - 04:25 PM (#3519446) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse ...militant but not as militant as the Koran, I think, Greg. |
|
26 May 13 - 04:31 PM (#3519447) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Example Greg? And what about New Testament? |
|
26 May 13 - 04:37 PM (#3519449) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad I see Greg's resorting to the false equivalence gambit once again - it's old, it's bullshit but it's all he's got. |
|
26 May 13 - 05:21 PM (#3519455) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,CS " it's old, it's bullshit but it's all he's got." It is old and it is bullshit, it's such a pity that millions of people are so obsessed with such a load of old bullshit. |
|
26 May 13 - 06:03 PM (#3519471) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Care to show me where & why its false equivalence Bobad, or is your regular Islamophobic bullshit all you've got? Keith - please show me where I mentioned the New Testament. |
|
26 May 13 - 06:03 PM (#3519472) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Lizzie Cornish 1 Please, don't forget to also discuss Mr. Mohammed Saleen, aged 75, who was also unarmed and on his way home from his Mosque. He suffered many fatal stab wounds in what the police described as the most frenzied and vicious attack they have ever seen. It's just that THIS story, for some strange reason, NEVER made it into the mainstream media, such as all over our TV or Radio.. Also, please don't forget also to mention that over 5,000 Muslims came together today at Morden Mosque to pray for Drummer Lee and to show their solidarity with many others in this country.... No Christians went to their Churches in their thousands to pray for Mr. Mohammed Saleem, a much loved elderly gentleman and grandfather,who was deeply loved, liked and respected. His family too have been torn apart and to be honest, no-one gave a fuck... ??????????? |
|
26 May 13 - 06:14 PM (#3519473) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Calling me Islamophobic (sic) now are you Greg. That shows me you are on the ropes with nothing left but name calling - but I knew that all along. |
|
26 May 13 - 06:42 PM (#3519480) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza Greg, I am indeed familiar with the Old Testament and in fact the entire Bible. My quotes from the Koran and any observations I made about them don't prevent me from noting similar warlike references in many other religious texts. I was merely commenting and not judging. One could, if one were so inclined, draw parallels with the activities of,say, the Conquistadores, the Spanish Inquisition, the Puritans, Mary I, Elizabeth I and many other bloodthirsty ways of ensuring 'converts' to any number of different religions. But we are, I thought, discussing here the murder this week of a man in Woolwich, motivated apparently by a deformed and misguided zeal for 'jihad' in the warped minds of two strange young men purporting to be Muslims. Opening out the thread to take in any and every religion would make it very unwieldy. |
|
26 May 13 - 07:21 PM (#3519488) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Right you are Eliza, Greg has a penchant of trying to divert from the subject at hand when it comes to militant Islam, Islamism, Jihadism or whatever name you give it. He appears to either not understand the distinction between that and Islam or is a supporter of it especially when it is directed against Israel. He labels those of us who oppose it as Islamophobes. |
|
26 May 13 - 07:40 PM (#3519494) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Sorry, in my previous post "penchant OF" should have been "penchant FOR" - I'm fussy that way. |
|
26 May 13 - 08:18 PM (#3519502) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. My quotes from the Koran and any observations I made about them don't prevent me from noting similar warlike references in many other religious texts. Agreed, Eliza. Unfortunately, Islama/ophobic fanatics like Bobad are somehow prevented from noting similar warlike references in many other religious texts. And from even acknowledging that they exist. |
|
26 May 13 - 08:42 PM (#3519512) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad There he goes again, lol. It's too bad because at one time I enjoyed his posts and agreed with many of them but then he became not much more than a stalker with a glib comment aimed at those with whom he disagrees and has now descended simply into name calling....sad. |
|
27 May 13 - 03:04 AM (#3519556) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome So, we are now down to petty point scoring, mis-information and complete nonsense. Didn't take long did it. Sad. A young father has been brutally killed. There is no excuse for that. DtG |
|
27 May 13 - 03:32 AM (#3519562) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge There is a difference between excusing and understanding. I understand that some Muslims might see the western invasions of Muslim countries as religious oppression with more than a hint of crusade about them, and I understand that some of those might wish to take revenge on members of the western armed forces who took part in those invasions. If there is a war, then non-combatants do get killed and sometimes even targetted - consider the Blitz, Cologne, Munich, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. But nowadays we tend to see it as less immoral seek to kill and destroy only combatants, military resources, and installations necessary for military purposes. One may rightly prohibit and seek to prevent actions outwith such moral judgements - but history proves that you can only stop martyrs by addressing their cause. Even WWII German hostagetaking and murder did not stop the resistance, and we see the resistance as heroes. Nothing stopped the Irish republicans (although I do not see them as heroes, and many of their targets were civilian rather than military). I am concerned that the organisational response, even from Muslims, seems to include licensing for Islamic Imams (since I can't see a way to prejudge which are likely to become Islamist as distinct from Islamic). What utterly baffles me however is how an apparently intelligent A grade student born in London and into an observant Xtian family could buy into the type of Islam that, apparently, he did. I get more and more the flavour of a young man with a mental illness. I know someone in the same hospital as him, and gossip (probably more reliable than government pronunciamento) is that he really is not likely to die so perhaps we will get some answers in due course . Must go and fix caravan! |
|
27 May 13 - 06:14 AM (#3519592) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza I agree with you Richard. That's why I wrote '...warped minds of two strange young men...' It has been suggested that one of the them had undergone torture and perhaps abuse of a sexual nature while under interrogation in Kenya, and that this abuse had engendered the subsequent acts in Woolwich. One could be cynical and deduce he's preparing the way for his defence in court, (post-traumatic stress disorder, torture-induced psychosis etc) but on the other hand, perhaps he truly was rendered vulnerable by his experiences. I have faith that the British Justice System will thoroughly and fairly assess his state of mind and deal with him accordingly. They must after all let Justice be seen to have been done. |
|
27 May 13 - 09:35 AM (#3519635) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. He appears to either not understand the distinction between [Jihadism] and Islam As there are those who ostensibly do not understand - or choose to ignore - the distinction between Judaism and militant Zionism. And those who maintain that the foreign policies of Britain & the US and the foreign and domestic policies of Israel are irrelevant to the points under discussion, as is the concept of "blowback". He labels those of us who oppose it as Islamophobes. Do you intend "it" to refer to Islam or Jihadism or something else entirely? And how would you characterize yourself? as an Islamophile? he became not much more than a stalker with a glib comment aimed at those with whom he disagrees And then there are those who label people who disagree with them "stalkers". Of course, that is in no way "name calling". It's too bad because at one time I enjoyed his posts and agreed with many of them I'm gutted. Absolutely gutted. There is a difference between excusing and understanding. Amen, Richard. Absolutely. |
|
27 May 13 - 12:37 PM (#3519689) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Eliza, he was in Kenya to cross into Somalia to join al-Shabab, a violent extreme Islamist group, so what happened there came after his radicalisation. |
|
27 May 13 - 01:05 PM (#3519700) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "he was in Kenya to cross into Somalia to join al-Shabab, a violent extreme Islamist group" Me "MI5 attempted to recruit one of the killers" Keith "I think it probably true Jim. I think it a sensible policy to employ informers" And "violent extreme Islamist group" members, it would appear. Jim Carroll |
|
27 May 13 - 01:34 PM (#3519707) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST Mayomick provides a salutory example of just how stupid some people can be. That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military instead of sayincursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy. But after the crusades, Bobad. Apologies Keith. I suppose instead of saying "Or is it that you think the resulting catastrophe, in which innocent civilians have died in many scores of thousands, should be met with peaceful protest?" I should have said: "Or is it that you expect the resulting casualty...will be meet by peaceful protest?" That would have been nearer to what I meant, but I admit that I have great sypmathy with violent protest in some circs, even in our dempracy. One vote in four years allows precious little scope to express a view on everything. |
|
27 May 13 - 03:05 PM (#3519741) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford There are many non-violent ways of expressing views, e.g. demonstrations, protests, civil disobedience. I am still shocked that you think it reasonable to resort to violence. Jim, MI5 has had many successes in "turning" enemies, but perhaps they will employ you as an expert consultant. What do they know compared to you, right Jim? Are you challenging the accuracy of anything I have said? |
|
27 May 13 - 03:24 PM (#3519750) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) Sorry, I was the guest at 1.34pm. I don't know whether Keith's question was only intended for Jim. If for me too, I do question some of the stuff Keith comes out with. Not least his assertion that "thousands" of muslims are out to get us. His position is at best a bit inconsistent. He seemed to accept that 2,000 muslims are deemed to be potential risks (according to MI5) but also that only an unspecified proportion of that 2,000 might go on to plot violence.Someone above referred to Quran 9.5 which I took to mean surah 9, section 5 in an English translation. But I see no words in that section approximating to what was quoted. |
|
27 May 13 - 03:31 PM (#3519754) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Peter, I said that of course the majority of British Muslims are not extremist, but that a significant minority are, and quoted the security services figure. These are those known to be sympathetic to militant Islam. I first heard it quoted on a R4 news prog. but I provided some links showing the same. |
|
27 May 13 - 03:57 PM (#3519761) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza In which case, Keith, his possible 'defence' of having been tortured and rendered mentally ill or whatever won't hold water in court. It also seems unlikely that TWO insane men joined forces to perpetrate this atrocity. Regarding the verse/s from the Koran, surely any world religion should see that such exhortations are not at all appropriate nowadays. In the OT one is encouraged to 'smite' various non-acceptable groups, grab the jawbone of an ass and whack people, and in a general way commit violent and murderous acts. But no sane person would advocate such behaviour today. Would they....? |
|
27 May 13 - 03:59 PM (#3519762) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge I think you'll find that a large proportion of the US fundagelical right would indeed so exhort. |
|
27 May 13 - 04:01 PM (#3519763) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Keith, give us the correct citation, and give us the correct text, and then we can see if you are a bigoted liar. |
|
27 May 13 - 04:12 PM (#3519768) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. I think you'll find that a large proportion of the US fundagelical right would indeed so exhort. Absolutely, Richard. Not only would, but DO. Constantly. |
|
27 May 13 - 05:30 PM (#3519806) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Richard I have given 4 links already. Have you not heard this statement given to explain why these two were not being watched when security forces were aware of their militancy? Are you suggesting I have made it all up? |
|
27 May 13 - 05:30 PM (#3519807) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza I imagine that the sort of folk who would bury a woman up to her neck in the sand and chuck rocks at her head until she dies, chop off the hand of a thief or genitally mutilate young girls wouldn't baulk at hacking to death a man in the street with a meat cleaver. But the majority of Muslims surely don't subscribe to such evil? |
|
27 May 13 - 07:05 PM (#3519842) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. But the majority of Muslims surely don't subscribe to such evil? Correct. |
|
27 May 13 - 09:14 PM (#3519867) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Keith: tell us EXACTLY the relevant verses of the Koran. |
|
28 May 13 - 01:37 AM (#3519903) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion But depends which Muslims surely, Eliza; the majority of those in Muslim countries where such evils are a part of the established law [Saudi, N Nigeria...] DO so subscribe, alas; do they not? Or who would chuck those rocks, amputate those hands, mutilate those genitals, cane those raped girls' bare bottoms...? And what was the ancestry of these two young men? -- "Thursday 23 May 2013 UK Woolwich suspect Michael Adebolajo a 'typical teenager' Woolwich murder suspect Michael Adebolajo "was just a typical teenager" says a shocked neighbour who knew him when he was growing up in Essex. Kemi Ibrahim-Adeoti told Channel 4 News that at first she didn't recognise the man in the videos of the incident in Woolwich, which left soldier Lee Rigby dead and two suspected attackers under armed guard in hospital, as the same person who had come round to play with her own son as a teenager: "I'm just appalled that something like that could happen in the Nigerian community..." |
|
28 May 13 - 02:31 AM (#3519906) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, I have not commented on the Koran and know nothing about it. |
|
28 May 13 - 03:36 AM (#3519920) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I would ask those who say that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims are constrained to commit no murder, how they reconcile that with current events in Syria and Iraq. Mass atrocities against ordinary people and children are a daily occurrence, and for no tactical purpose. They appear to be an end in themselves and committed by apparently deeply religious Muslims, even though the victims are also Muslims albeit the wrong sort. How much less mercy can non-believers expect? |
|
28 May 13 - 03:45 AM (#3519922) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Keith, it was MtheGM who asserted that a rendering of part of the Koran was accurate, not you. Apologies for that. MtheGM, you say above " It is, or was, an accurate quotation from part of The Q'ran so far as I can see.". Please provide us the exact reference so that we can check. |
|
28 May 13 - 03:48 AM (#3519924) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "how they reconcile that with current events in Syria and Iraq." Or the Israelis in Gaza - or the Christians in Viet-Nam or Chile or Greece..... or how does any "peace loving and "god-fearing" religion-claiming nation carry out murders and other atrocities - or "pass by on the other side while they are being committed - suspension of belief perhaps? Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 03:52 AM (#3519925) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge The nearest I can find is "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." This is really fairly unlike Bobad's alleged quote of "The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." Here is an explanation of "zakah" - http://www.uwt.org/site/article.asp?id=172 |
|
28 May 13 - 03:56 AM (#3519929) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Richard ~~ My point was rather in the nature of a query to Don as to the reason for his denouncing it as inaccurate than an outright assertion as to its accuracy. I accepted what I had read from those, including Muslims, who had commented on the Sura under question. I note that Don has not been back to justify his claim that the translation was 'inaccurate'. ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 04:00 AM (#3519930) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion ... or, as he actually claimed, 'misquoted'. |
|
28 May 13 - 04:07 AM (#3519932) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/Perry/holywar.html |
|
28 May 13 - 04:59 AM (#3519943) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick "Mayomick provides a salutory example of just how stupid some people can be." You should learn to spell before you throw out insults like that Peter. Why did you insult me in that way? |
|
28 May 13 - 05:17 AM (#3519949) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Don may not have challenged the accuracy of the alleged quote, but I now have. Kindly respond. |
|
28 May 13 - 05:23 AM (#3519950) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Interesting link Jim. A bit out of date (2001) and I think not written by an Islamic scholar (correct me if I am wrong). It also translates the offending verse differently - saying "idolaters" rather than "polytheists". |
|
28 May 13 - 05:30 AM (#3519953) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Demonstrate more clearly where the inaccuracy lies, please then Richard: by citing the version Don claimed to be responding to with accusations of 'misquotation', and what you asseverate to be the correct quotation; and I will endeavour to respond if significant differences do indeed appear, which could not be accounted for by simple variations in the verbal options of the translators. Till then: no comment. Why, btw, have you chosen to respond on Don's behalf when he has not himself seen fit to do so? Will he welcome this interpolation of yours, do you think? ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 05:53 AM (#3519957) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Neither the date nor the religion/culture of the scholar is in any way relevant to the arguments he puts forward (I take it you were being serious and not taking the piss out of those who have used such get-outs in the past?). It is a general analysis of how all three religions have been adapted to suit various agendas throughout history - in my opinion a brilliant summing up of the 'movable feast' nature of all religions. Nit-picking the teachings of Islam to point the finger at all Muslims as being potential perverts or killers or general undesirables is an all-too-common practice on this forum and using the brutal killing of a young man within days of the event in order to do so seems particularly despicable - and speaking as a non-believer, particularly 'unchristian' - correct me if I'm wrong. A plague on all their houses Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 06:05 AM (#3519961) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Jim ~~ I don't think anyone has suggested that 'all Muslims' sympathise with such violent practices ostensibly in support of their faith; but I would commend to you the ongoing correspondence in The Times regarding the attempts by Dr T Hargey, Imam of Oxford mosque, to distance himself from the offenders' actions, and the extent to which correspondents consider these to have fallen far short of an outright denunciation. Never, in addition, forget the wise words of Yeats in 'The Second Coming' ~~ The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity ~~ It is an unhappy phenomenon that those with enough 'passionate intensity' to commit such acts are those liable to be regarded as the spokespersons for whatever cause it may be that they purport to espouse. ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 06:09 AM (#3519963) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "have you chosen to respond on Don's behalf when he has not himself seen fit to do so?" I seem to remember it was Don who jumped to your defence and put me in my place (rightfully) when I was harassing you for a clarification of your own position? Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 06:17 AM (#3519965) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion ...and your point is...? |
|
28 May 13 - 06:28 AM (#3519968) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza Part of the problem is that the young are passionate and ardent. They are therefore vulnerable to the 'teachings' of the terrorist cells apparently preaching hatred and murder in back rooms of certain mosques or houses. It must be quite exciting and even flattering to be given 'jihad' tasks involving danger, and requiring courage to undertake. You see this in student riots, the London riots, Punk rock twenty years ago etc etc. Disaffected youth will always be a good recruiting ground for evil. To counteract this there are already many organisations (of faiths and of none) who try to direct the young towards worthwhile activities. They need more funding and promoting. |
|
28 May 13 - 06:35 AM (#3519969) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "...and your point is...?" Do as you would be done by maybe? Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 06:36 AM (#3519971) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Or the Israelis in Gaza - Bad example Jim. The Israelis endeavoured to avoid harming civilians and achieved a record low figure for collateral casualties. Civilians were not targeted as even Goldstone affirmed. In Syria and Iraq the atrocities are targeted and quite deliberate. |
|
28 May 13 - 07:14 AM (#3519980) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick I don't think you should confuse nastiness with youthful passion and ardour Eliza. It's not only the young who can be nasty - Peter K is an old boy isn't he? I remember shortly after the Danish Islamophobic cartoons came out in 2005 speaking to a Muslim who had helped organize the huge march against the invasion of Iraq in Dublin two years previously . A lot of people were saying at the time - especially leftists it must be said - that the Danish newspaper had a right to mock Muslims ,that the cartoons were an expression of free speech , how it was important to defend hard won democratic rights against the islamo-fascists etc etc . The Muslim shook his head and asked , but why do people want to mock us and insult us in the first place? |
|
28 May 13 - 07:34 AM (#3519989) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Wriggling, MtheGM? |
|
28 May 13 - 07:43 AM (#3519990) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "...and your point is...?" Do as you would be done by maybe? Jim Carroll --- .,,. I think you misunderstood, Jim. I was not "harrassing" Don for an answer, but asking Richard why he thought Don had not chosen to respond to my query as to where he [Don] found a 'misquotation'. It was Richard I was addressing in the post you misquoted [you omitted the vital word 'why' at the beginning of the bit you pasted], not Don. Got it now? ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 07:44 AM (#3519991) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion So I think it might just be you who are 'wriggling', Richie-Boy! |
|
28 May 13 - 07:53 AM (#3519993) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick And now the UK wants to turn him into some sort of a hero . I had a facebook request from somebody two days ago asking me to sign a petition to give Lee Rigby a state funeral. It really shows the low mentality over there - I suppose you can't help it with your history , all your nasty anti-Muslim jokes, all your years of Paki-bashing your centuries of plundering in the name of spreading civilization, some of it got blown back at you in Woolwich - a hideous echo. I felt sorry for your poor drummer boy and wondered why you left him on the road to die alone and some arsehole comes along and calls me stupid ! |
|
28 May 13 - 07:57 AM (#3519995) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I mean, Rich, furnish the two versions postulated of the Sura in question as I requested, and I will gladly comment on the differences, if any, which might constitute 'misquotation'. Until you have done that, how would you expect me to comment, having nothing to go on? ~M~ [like the police station where the lavatory got stolen; the cops said they had nothing to go on...] |
|
28 May 13 - 08:06 AM (#3519997) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Musket sans body Mayomick. Are all paddies as thick as you? Not nice is it? So stop stereotyping the English then. |
|
28 May 13 - 08:32 AM (#3519999) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu Mayomick - thanks for the appalling generalisation of an entire nation. You'd fit in a treat with the BNP and UKIP and the like; you're more Anglo-Saxon than most of the British you so despise. "some of it got blown back at you in Woolwich" Wow. Really nasty. You must be so proud. Just goes to show there are these sad, ignorant tossers in every country in the world. |
|
28 May 13 - 08:45 AM (#3520002) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "have fallen far short of an outright denunciation" I would remind you that there far more issues than this in operation here, as has been made plain by those who would use the killing of a soldier as a platform to attack Muslims - including those of you who would set out to prove that such acts are down to the Muslim religion. Worth repeating I think. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RU9QBX4U9qE "The Israelis endeavoured to avoid harming civilians" No they didn't, but thanks for your example of exactly the type of individual I'm talking about - your timing was impeccable. Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 09:03 AM (#3520006) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu "Part of the problem is that the young are passionate and ardent. They are therefore vulnerable to the 'teachings' of the terrorist cells apparently preaching hatred and murder in back rooms of certain mosques or houses" Extremist politics always blossom during times of depravation, depression and economic instability and it's no coincidence that all over Europe right-wing and extremist religious groups are on the rise. This is because many people (often at the lower end of the income spectrum) feel they have no voice in society; the political elite ignore and lie to them (and us), large corporations dictate government policy and ordinary folk are completely sidelined. With no hope of long-term stability in their lives they seek meaning elsewhere, often in the sometimes incoherent rantings of political and religious fringes who will accept their devotion without question, provided they don't question too much themselves. Some sort of economic stability is essential to prevent extremism in all its myriad forms; people need to feel they can earn a living, have a secure home, know that if they fall on hard times society will care for them. Combine this with the spectre of nationalism and the lazy. predictable stereotyping of any group outside the mainstream (Roma, homosexuals, immigrants, the poor, the disabled etc) or from another country (see mayomicks rant above and anything uttered by the English Defence League), chuck in a bit of nationalism or religious bigotry and you're away. On the radio this morning was a chap from a mosque in London (I missed the start of the interview) who, along with some of the ladies of the mosque took tea and biccies to the EDL protest on Sunday in an attempt to create dialogue. It worked partially, but what it seemed to have done is actually get people to talk to each other and recognise that between some of the EDL lot and the Muslims from the mosque there was indeed plenty of common ground. People need to interact and communicate to have their misconceptions challenged, and they need to talk and understand to see that wherever you are in the world, whatever your sexual orientation, the colour of your skin, where and to whom you were born, which football team you follow or who your god is, at the end of the day we're all pretty much the same, we worry about the same things, laugh at the same things and are all trying to get through life with as little trouble as possible, and pretty much all ordinary folk are sharing the struggle. Haters gonna hate, but fuck 'em. |
|
28 May 13 - 09:28 AM (#3520009) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford such acts are down to the Muslim religion. They are not, as most Muslims do not approve, but they are committed in the name of Islam. "The Israelis endeavoured to avoid harming civilians" No they didn't, Yes they did. " in 2007 and 2008 the ratio dropped to an unprecedented level of less than 1:30, or 2–3 percent of the total casualties being civilian.[28] Figures showing an improvement from 1:1 in 2002 to 1:30 in 2008 were also cited by Jerusalem Post journalist Yaakov Katz.[21] Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated that the 2008 figure of 1:30 represents the lowest civilian to combatant casualty ratio in history in the setting of combating terrorism. Dershowitz criticized the international media and human rights organizations for not taking sufficient note of it. He also argued that even this figure may be misleading because not all civilians are innocent bystanders.[29] In October 2009, Dershowitz stated that the ratio for Israel's campaign of targeted assassinations stood at 1 civilian for every 28 terrorists. He argued that "this is the best ratio of any country in the world that is fighting asymmetrical warfare against terrorists who hide behind civilians. It is far better than the ratio achieved by Great Britain and the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, where both nations employ targeted killings of terrorist leaders."[30] Testifying before the United Nations, Col. Richard Kemp, a British commander, stated that:[31] Mr. President, based on my knowledge and experience, I can say this: During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defence Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare. Israel did so while facing an enemy that deliberately positioned its military capability behind the human shield of the civilian population... The truth is that the IDF took extraordinary measures to give Gaza civilians notice of targeted areas, dropping over 2 million leaflets, and making over 100,000 phone calls. Many missions that could have taken out Hamas military capability were aborted to prevent civilian casualties. During the conflict, the IDF allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into Gaza. To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable. But the IDF took on those risks.More than anything, the civilian casualties were a consequence of Hamas way of fighting. Hamas deliberately tried to sacrifice their own civilians. The IDF blog lists various counter-terrorism methods used by the IDF to minimize civilian casualties and lower the civilian casualty ratio, and includes videos related to each method:[32] Pinpoint targeting - singling out terrorists for an airstrike in a way that won't harm civilian bystanders. Aborting strikes due to risk of civilians being injured or killed. Advanced technology - the IDF has heavily invested in smart bombs,[36] and has developed special missiles, such as the F-16I Sufa and the Delilah Missile, which has the ability to cancel a strike while in the air. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualty_ratio#Israeli_airstrikes_on_militants_in_the_Gaza_Strip |
|
28 May 13 - 09:42 AM (#3520012) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "those of you who would set out to prove that such acts are down to the Muslim religion." .,,. Those of whom, Jim? It's those who do the acts who set out to 'prove' this. Some just take their word for it. As they are Muslims, they should know, after all ~~ better than the unnamed 'you' that you accuse; and better than Jim Carroll. Shouldn't they? ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 09:53 AM (#3520013) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu "I would ask those who say that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims are constrained to commit no murder, how they reconcile that with current events in Syria and Iraq." Islam/Judasim/Christianity and their legion offspring would all say they are religions of peace and tolerance, yet all are motivators in societies who use extreme violence as a tool of foreign policy. Whether they're fighting each other, their own internal conflicts or whatever all these religions claim to be the 'true' word of god and so justify their acceptance of violence. How does any killer reconcile their core beliefs, even if contradictory, to themselves? |
|
28 May 13 - 10:21 AM (#3520017) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: mayomick Oh I see, I'm the same as your UKIP , BNP and EDL, am I? - there should be plenty of room for dialogue if that's the case seeing as you're interested in finding common ground with extremism in all its myriad forms. I'm very much looking forward to the free biccies Stu ,if you've any left over after meeting with the chaps and ladies of the EDL. |
|
28 May 13 - 10:33 AM (#3520022) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu mayomick, you can share my biccies anytime you want, and you just might find not everyone in Great Britain/England/Wales/Scotland/whoever-the-fuck-you-hate fits your narrow-minded preconceptions. Shit, perhaps we'll even have a tune? |
|
28 May 13 - 11:09 AM (#3520027) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Those of whom, Jim?" Those of you who would make this a "Muslim" crime and attempt to prove it so with selections from the Koran. If this is a "Muslim" crime then the Norwegian massacre (committed by a self-proclaimed militant Christian - and all other atrocities carried out by Christians would have to be regarded as a "Christian" crime. I've been following the 'Times' debate with some interest; it fails to take into consideration the 'Keith' factor - that if the balance is got wrong one way it is seen as an indication of an admission of guilt, if the other way it is seen as an insult to non Muslims and equally an indication of guilt. Meanwhile, cack at the soapbox - Keith once more uses yet another thread to prove that Israelis "didn't do it guv". Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 11:11 AM (#3520028) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Did I write 'cack' - stet. Jim Carroll |
|
28 May 13 - 11:17 AM (#3520030) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad When it comes to picking on Muslims all day long (& damaging & desecrating Islam) NO ONE, can compete with Islamist Jihadis. If "Islamophobia" can be measured in terms of killing Muslims, we have 3 million dead in Bangladesh, we have Darfur, we have the slaughter of Shia, Ahmadi, Sufi & many Sunni on an industrial scale in Pakistan, Iraq & beyond; not to mention those indirectly killed & harmed as a result of the Jihadi Islamists actions from the US 'War on Terror' after the 9 11 to the recent execution in the UK & the incidents against innocent Muslims in its wake. Blowing up Mosques; isn't that Islamophobic? How about blowing up Muslim pilgrims? Or the brutal stonings of women, including rape victims, including child rape victims for "crimes against chastity", aren't they Muslims? Or the young girls shot or attacked with acid for wanting an education or trying to escape a forced "marriage with a man 3 or 4 times their age? They're Muslims too. If It comes to acts of desecration, like burning the Koran, there are orchestrated protests when some idiot in the US does it, but how many Korans are destroyed when a Mosque or pilgrimage is blown up? (or doesn't it matter as long as they kill a load of innocent Muslims in the process?)And how many Korans were burned when the historic libruary at Timbuktu was set on fire by Islamists? And Why? "Why not?" it seems, along with some of the treasures of Islamic civilisation at it most creative. It's hard to damage & degrade the faith, the civilisation & the people more than that. White nationalist fascists in Europe spew Muslim hating rhetoric, & exploit the abuses of fascists of the Islamist variety as their most effective propaganda. But in their wildest dreams, the most anti-Muslim fascists in Europe could only dream of inflicting the misery & death upon Muslims, & the damage to their faith & reputation that the Islamist Jihadi fascists do on a regular basis. I think that anyone would be hard pressed to compete with that, when it comes to "picking on Muslims", & least of all, those Muslims like Tarek Fatah, who strive to show that there are other faces to Islam & that the Jihadis do not represent them. Copied from the comment section of a post of a cartoon by Tarek Fatah on Facebook. |
|
28 May 13 - 11:23 AM (#3520032) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Keith once more uses yet another thread to prove that Israelis "didn't do it guv". You raised the subject of Israel Jim, and you can not challenge anything that I have posted. It is all fact. |
|
28 May 13 - 11:25 AM (#3520034) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu Seems I'm not the only one who thinks we are all the same: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/28/woolwich-murder-faith-humani |
|
28 May 13 - 11:31 AM (#3520036) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 'Those of you who would make this a "Muslim" crime and attempt to prove it so with selections from the Koran' --- It is not 'OF YOU' who are doing this, Jim; it is 'OF THEMSELVES'-- Can you really not get it? The Islamists quote the Koran in their own justification incessantly. All anyone else does is point this out. Oh, what's the use? Once that Carroll·Patent·Instamatic·Racism·Spotter gets plugged in.... |
|
28 May 13 - 11:44 AM (#3520041) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I note that Don has not been back to justify his claim that the translation was 'inaccurate'."" Inaccurate insofar as it represents the very worst kind of cherry picking, well beloved of our minority of racea nd gender bigots. It is a sentence, the proper meaning of which is obscured by the absence of the whole textual context from which it has been ripped, and even thyen it is not a verbatim translation of the original words. In other words its genuine meaning has been twisted, either by the man who is reported to have said it or, quite possibly, by him who reported (politicians both). As to why I have not been back before, to answer, I seem to recall I once had occasion to defend your right actually to have a life outside of Mudcat, eh Mike? Don T. |
|
28 May 13 - 11:58 AM (#3520045) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Indeed, Don. Didn't mean to hassle. But really exercised as to wherein precisely lies the 'mistranslation' you claim to find in the passage under consideration. Do you actually know the original from which the extract comes? Or know how selective it may be? Tendentious selective quotation of an out-of-context passage is not quite the same thing as a 'mistranslation' [a tendentious accusation in itself, eh?], is it now? Without reproducing a work in full, it is surely all that can ever be furnished. ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 11:59 AM (#3520046) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""To deliver aid virtually into your enemy's hands is, to the military tactician, normally quite unthinkable."" While delivering basic necessities to your prisoners, which in reality, is what the inhabitants of Gaza are, is a necessity if you wish to avoid being accused of genocide. You really need to stop stupidly trying to pretend that Gaza Palestinians are free agents. Don T. |
|
28 May 13 - 12:07 PM (#3520047) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Perhaps, indeed, Don, you are in a position to do what Richard appears to be unwilling to do [& he accuses me of 'wriggling'!], and cite that version of the Sura we are discussing, alongside what you would consider 'a verbatim translation of the original words', so that we should at least have some genuine basis to pursue this [what seems to me not unimportant] point? ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 12:22 PM (#3520052) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The Islamists quote the Koran in their own justification incessantly."" This is where the inaccuracies build upon each other into one massive misconception. The Islamists do not quote the Q'ran. Most of the British ones, in all probability, have neither the deire nor the ability to read it. What they quote are the slanted interpretations of carefully cherry picked passages, by sundry trouble making Islamist preachers whose objective is to produce the kind of action we saw in woolwich. If they had read the book for themselves, they would know under precisely what conditions of persecution those actions were to be taken. Just as, in the bible, some quite horrendous actions are mandated, which no Christian who has read the whole book for himself would advocate as general rules to be obeyed in the modern world. However, there are some so-called Christians who have been radicalised in the same way as these Muslim youths. Compare the Japanese, currently the most polite and law abiding people, who are enthralled by scenes of natural beauty, with the Japanese of seventy years ago and their treatment of prisoners of war and conquered peoples. Human beings can be turned, so easily, into ravening beasts by charismatic community leaders with an agenda to destroy some group which they hate. We have such people in the USA, Britain, Iran, Syria, yes and Israel and every other country on the planet. Don T. |
|
28 May 13 - 12:32 PM (#3520057) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Without reproducing a work in full, it is surely all that can ever be furnished."" Not, I suspect, your original thought or words, which is why I have no problem with categorising that sentence as "weasel words". You know perfectly well that just adding in a dozen surrounding sentences can easily reverse the meaning which an interpreter has chosen to convey. A classic from the bible is the story of Jesus chasing the money lenders(changers) from the temple. How many times have you seen that used to claim that he thought those men were evil. Just a superficial glance at the surrounding text shows that it was the location, not the occupation, to which he objected. Don T. |
|
28 May 13 - 12:35 PM (#3520060) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion OK then, Don: it is those stir-it-up imams who are doing it. 'Cherry-picked' or not, it is, so, extracts from the Koran that they are feeding to those young men; and don't claim that the imams have never read it. All you have done is move the responsibility one stage farther back in the Islamist community. But Jim claims it is some of us trying to throw the responsibility on Koranic quotations; which it isn't. ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 12:39 PM (#3520064) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: selby Compassion and sense appears to work on all sides Keith York Mosque praised for offering EDL protesters tea Father Tim Jones said "the world can learn" from what happened outside the mosque A mosque has been praised for serving tea and biscuits to English Defence League supporters after the far-right group arranged a demonstration there. About six people turned up to protest at the mosque in Bull Lane, York, on Sunday and were invited inside to play football with worshippers. More than 100 supporters of the mosque had gone there after learning of the planned EDL protest. Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu said the mosque's response was "fantastic". He said: "Tea, biscuits, and football are a great and typically Yorkshire combination when it comes to disarming hostile and extremist views." 'Proud moment' Father Tim Jones, who went to the Bull Lane mosque, which is situated in his parish, said: "I've always known they were intelligent and compassionate people and I think this has demonstrated the extent to which they are people of courage - certainly physical courage and also a high degree of moral courage. "I think the world can learn from what happened outside that ramshackle little mosque on Sunday." Hull Road ward councillor Neil Barnes said it had been a "proud moment for York". He said: "I don't think I'll ever forget the day that the York Mosque tackled anger and hatred with peace and warmth - and I won't forget the sight of a Muslim offering a protester tea and biscuits with absolute sincerity." Fears over a demonstration grew after Yorkshire EDL Scarborough Division posted a message on its Facebook page calling for supporters to gather outside the mosque. Imam Abid Salik said: "We did have a few people who did come to protest but when they came some of the members of the mosque went over and they engaged in a conversation. "Some people went over with cups of tea and biscuits, they were talking for about 30 or 40 minutes and then they came inside, which was a really, really beautiful thing." |
|
28 May 13 - 12:46 PM (#3520069) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Perhaps, indeed, Don, you are in a position to do what Richard appears to be unwilling to do [& he accuses me of 'wriggling'!], and cite that version of the Sura we are discussing, alongside what you would consider 'a verbatim translation of the original words', so that we should at least have some genuine basis to pursue this [what seems to me not unimportant] point?"" No Mike, I do not have the ability to read the original in Arabic, or Aramaic, or whetever was the original. For taht you would need an Islamic theological scholar. But if I cannot prove that the actual words have been misquoted, no one here can prove that they have NOT! So to use that story without further inquiry, to make some anti Islam point, is at best specious and at worst, downright dishonest. Given that the quote consists of a single sentence, taken from a passage which might say anything from "this is a hard and fast rule" to "genuine believers should not act in accordance with this heresy"........well, I'm sure you see where I'm coming from. A lot more research is needed before we allow our eager beaver anti Muslims to start throwing bricks,.......and please don't ask Abu Qtadr! Don T. |
|
28 May 13 - 12:49 PM (#3520071) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Point taken, Don. But we are not talking about the money-changers in the temple; we are talking about a particular Koranic passage, which some imams have used to persuade some youths, so that they could then cite it as their authority, to do certain things. You don't know their context [if you did you would have accepted my previous challenge and supplied it!]; neither do I. Neither do the young men; but the imams do, and if they choose to 'cherry-pick' for this purpose... Is there, perhaps, something not entirely unweasel in your words here? ~M~ |
|
28 May 13 - 12:51 PM (#3520072) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion That in response to your previous post, but I don't think yours cross-posted with it invalidates my point... |
|
28 May 13 - 01:13 PM (#3520084) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "But if I cannot prove that the actual words have been misquoted, no one here can prove that they have NOT!" .,,. Feel bound to say, Don, with all moderation, that that seems to me more than somewhat desperate...! |
|
28 May 13 - 03:41 PM (#3520125) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "But Islamism is not Islam. Islamism is the politicisation of Islam, the desire to impose a version of this ancient faith over society. To achieve this, Islamism uses political grievances, such as mine, to alienate and then provide an alternative sense of belonging to vulnerable young Muslims. Preying on the grievances of disaffected young men is the bedrock of Islamism. Like all bigoted ideologies, it plays on the identity politics game, creating a "them and us", in order to provide a home for the "us" against the alien "other" and control the community by acting as the sole "representative" of Muslims." I was a radical Islamist who hated all of you |
|
28 May 13 - 05:20 PM (#3520142) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge FFS, MtheGM. Go back and read the thread. I don't have to do your homework. You will find Bobad's (I think it was Bobad) quote (for the accuracy of which I do not vouch) of the words of an ancient Moslem addressing teh USA. You will find your assertion that it accurately represented the Koran. You will find a reference to which verse of the Koran. And you will find my text, taken from a Koranic site. I'll see if I can find the link to the site again, but really you should do your own homework. |
|
28 May 13 - 05:41 PM (#3520146) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I made no such assertion, Richard. I simply asked Don his reason for asserting that it was a misquotation, when so far as I remembered its sentiment was as I remembered having read previously. He has since admitted he can't be sure, as he doesn't know the language of the original quotation -- but that 'nobody can prove that it isn't misquoted'; which, as I said to him, strikes me as somewhat desperate. I don't see where you get the idea that it is my job to prove for you that I am wrong. If you want so to demonstrate, by putting together the two versions under consideration, then that is up to you. Not, I repeat, my job at all. If you can't be bothered, then I stick to my point that neither you nor Don has demonstrated any 'misquotation' of the Sura in question to have occurred,,, and trust my recollection that bobad's citation which started this tranche of the discussion off is accurate. If you still think it isn't then demonstrate so. Otherwise shut-up-a-da-face. FFS, as you so charmingly put it. ☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺ |
|
28 May 13 - 06:52 PM (#3520161) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T OK Mike, Desperate you say. I say that one single sentence taken from any text, can never give an accurate assessment of the thrust of the whole, absent the context. Now you tell me that is wrong, if you can, in honesty, do so. Put your money where your mouth is, or else shut it, as you say, FFS! Don T. |
|
28 May 13 - 10:38 PM (#3520221) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Jesus wept, MtheGM. First Bobad " Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad - PM Date: 25 May 13 - 06:53 PM So, you think that the root cause of Islamist Jihadism is Israel and the West's interference in Islamic countries, well think again: The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise. The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago. That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy." Now look at the translation I gave you, from a Koranic source: my words: - "From: Richard Bridge - PM Date: 28 May 13 - 03:52 AM The nearest I can find is "And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." This is really fairly unlike Bobad's alleged quote of "The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise." If you look, the words quoted by Thomas Jefferson (or allegedly so) as NOT the same as the relevant words of the Koran (the source for which I have also given above). In short, they are a misquote. You said they were accurate. They are not. In short, Don was (remarkably) quite right on this occasion. |
|
29 May 13 - 12:55 AM (#3520242) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Thank you, Richard. I take the point, if these are indeed the same passages. But you are wrong in your last comment ~~ I did not say they were accurate; I made no assertion but simply asked where Don had found them, as he claimed 'misquoted', as they resembled what I recalled to have heard on some previous occasion. He has now withdrawn his assertion that they were misquoted, admitting that he hasn't the knowledge to make such a judgment; and fallen back on his somewhat feeble IMO argument that no passage can be accurately quoted by extracting a single sentence from it out of context; to which I would rejoin that it would depend what that sentence, even regarded as a single entity, says, and that this will not pass as an outright generalisation. ~M~ |
|
29 May 13 - 01:08 AM (#3520243) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I didn't say 'FFS', Don. If you look, I was quoting Richard back at himself. As to your, "I say that one single sentence taken from any text, can never give an accurate assessment of the thrust of the whole, absent the context. Now you tell me that is wrong, if you can, in honesty, do so." I dealt with this in my reply to Richard [in which I apologise for failing to close the 'underline' instruction which should only have underlined the one word 'asked']. To reiterate: sometimes it can, sometimes not; it depends both on the content of the single sentence quoted and of its content. I should myself feel that that sentence originally cited by bobad [which, I remind you, you claimed 'a misquotation' but now admit you haven't the knowledge to maintain such an accusation] is strong enough in itself to provide at least evidence of lethally aggressive intentions in its formulator, whatever the rest of the passage in which it appears (which you have not cited to show that the sentence quoted is in any way atypical of its context) may say. Do you, honestly now Don, not feel this at least a tenable position on my part? ~M~ |
|
29 May 13 - 01:11 AM (#3520244) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 'it depends both on the content of the single sentence quoted and of its content' ... Apologies for that nonsensical phrase above ~~ the 2nd 'content' should of course have been 'context'. |
|
29 May 13 - 02:41 AM (#3520256) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,jeff There isn't a single Muslim anywhere in the world who doesn't have blood on their hands when it comes to these types of atrocities. ALL mosques have a portion of their tithes set aside for Jihad. There are no 'good, law abiding muslims'. They simply lay low and wait until they have a clear majority then they try convert or destroy the culture in which they find themselves. If they're good and lawabiding theyr ejudt lsying low until the timre is right. Don't be fooled for a second as we're ALL infidels and lower than dogs unless some worthwhile service can be found for an infidel to serve his/her muslim overlord. Otherwise, it's perfectly ok to kill and EAT a non-muslim, povided they're consumed uncooked. Sharia Law. These 2 guys think they are martyrs for Jihad, their lives are meaningless, but what glories await them in the hereafter. Sorry if this seems to fly in the face amoung the Musim apologists on this site. Get it through your thick skulls. They are out to convert or destroy Westen Civilization. Thus far they're making rather short work of it. 20 years ago the Musilim Botherhood ageed it's priority is to indoctrinate the next generation of Amerian children. In somet textbooks 34 pages are devoteed to explaning muslim traditions and cutoms while all the other religions are limited to a total of 3. |
|
29 May 13 - 02:58 AM (#3520259) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion In fact, Don: on reflection I can't but feel that your silly argument on no·quote·admissible·without·context deserves a bit of the old reductio ad absurdum. So tell me please: if one sentence is not enough, then how many of a context must be given before an argument from quotation is acceptable? 3 sentences? 10 sentences? 100 sentences? Nothing will do but the entire work even if it's Clarissa or War&Peace? Oh, come on now, Don... ~M~ |
|
29 May 13 - 04:26 AM (#3520280) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford This may not be a neutral site, but it gives examples of the verses you are concerned about. "The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, the verses of violence in the Quran are mostly open-ended, meaning that they are not restrained by the historical context of the surrounding text. They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subjective as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God, however this can work both ways. Most of today's Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Apologists cater to their preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally do not stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to abrogate or even balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy - and that of his companions - along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history." http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm |
|
29 May 13 - 05:15 AM (#3520289) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And, Don, since we are on this topic of 'context', which you, not I, urge as an essential, I feel no stabs of conscience in reminding that you lot over there incessantly take, not even a sentence but a mere 5 words spoken by the late Lady Thatcher, "no such thing as 'society'", most exquisitely out of context, to make them mean something you are perfectly aware was not her intention at all. So how about that then? ~M~ |
|
29 May 13 - 06:17 AM (#3520294) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Indeed Keith, and many if not most Imams begin their prayer service with this invocation: "Anta mawlana, fanSurna 'Alal Qawmil Kaafiryun" "[O Allah] You are our Protector, give us victory over the Kuffar [Jews, Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims]" This is what Tarek Fatah, indefatigable crusader against Islamization, has to say about it: "Long before a jihadi picks up an AK47, he or she is imbibed with a false sense of victimhood and hatred towards non-Muslims. That hate is subtle, yet potent. And there are Imams urging the faithful to utter prayers against the Kuffar — Jews, Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims. Just the ethics of such hateful sermons and prayers is questionable, if not repugnant. Never once in any of his sermons did Prophet Muhammad invoke such angry words towards non-Muslims." |
|
29 May 13 - 06:40 AM (#3520295) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Thanks Bobad. Jim, do you take issue with this? Reuters today) - Evidence gathered by French authorities suggests the Muslim convert suspected of stabbing a soldier near Paris was acting in accordance with his religious beliefs, a state prosecutor said after the suspect's arrest on Wednesday. Prosecutor Francois Molins told a news conference the suspect was seen on video surveillance camera "saying a Muslim prayer" minutes before an attack which came three days after the May 22 murder of a British soldier on the streets of London. "That leads us to believe he was acting on the basis of religious beliefs," Molins said. French police have said they believe the attack was inspired by the hacking to death of a British serviceman in southeast London by men shouting Islamist slogans. |
|
29 May 13 - 08:45 AM (#3520333) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim, do you take issue with this?" Do you take issue with any of this? SCRIPTURES OLD TESTAMENT DEUTERONOMY 17 The Fifth Book of Moses Called Deuteronomy Chapter 17 Those who worship false gods will be put to death—Priests and judges are to determine the hard cases—Kings are not to acquire horses, wives, or gold for themselves—The king must study the laws of God daily. 1 Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God any bullock, or sheep, wherein is blemish, or any evil favouredness: for that is an abomination unto the Lord thy God. 2 If there be found among you, within any of thy agates which the Lord thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the Lord thy God, in transgressing his covenant, 3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and inquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. Wonder if any of these terrorist attacks can be described as "Christian". http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article3777392.ece http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/news/article/1854/racist-ex-soldier-who-threatened-to-behead-a http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/04/17/298808/exus-soldier-gets-prison-for-mosque-fire/ http://lancasteruaf.blogspot.ie/2011/12/stoke-on-trent-mosque-arsonists-jailed.html http://www.iengage.org.uk/news/2025-ex-soldier-admits-pigs-head-attack-on-cheltenham-mosque Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 09:09 AM (#3520341) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I can see what you are getting at, Jim, but did any of the perpetrators of the above attacks justify them by saying they were doing it in the name of Christianity? I must admit I only skimmed the articles but I could see no such reference, in which case they can be called anti-Moslem attacks, but not Christian attacks. OK - The difference may be subtle but I would have no qualms in saying there was a Christian attack if that is what the perpetrator said it was, just as when some of the Islamist attacks were done in the name of Islam they can be described as such. Just my view of course. DtG |
|
29 May 13 - 09:20 AM (#3520344) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad They are definitely hate crimes and if the perpetrators claimed to be acting on their Christian beliefs they could be characterized as Christian terrorism as could any terrorist act committed by religious fanatics in the name of their religion. |
|
29 May 13 - 09:38 AM (#3520349) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, you objected to the suggestion that it was a crime of religion. My point was that it is pretty much universally accepted as such, as now is the attack in Paris. |
|
29 May 13 - 10:02 AM (#3520356) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I can see what you are getting at, Jim, but did any of the perpetrators of the above attacks justify them by saying they were doing it in the name of Christianity?" Does it matter? Breivik made a point of describing himself as a "Christian Militant" - does that make his massacre a "Christian" one? In the end it doesn't matter a toss. These ancient rantings have no effect on sane, reasonable people whatever - it is the nutters in any society they incite to acts of hatred, and people who carry out those acts can and have come from any religion race or country. No - the Woolwich murder was not a political act - it was the work of a number of twisted bastards who justified themselves by claiming religion to be their reason. Equally twisted are those who attempt to pin these crimes as belonging to this or that particular brand of religion (in this case, somebody who has previously claimed that an entire gender of a racial/religious community is inclined to sexual deviancy because of their "cultural implant) - sickos all! Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 10:04 AM (#3520357) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Should read; "No - the Woolwich murder was not a political or religious act" Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 10:36 AM (#3520366) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford attempt to pin these crimes as belonging to this or that particular brand of religion We don't. The perps. and their supporters do. Why should we not believe them? |
|
29 May 13 - 11:03 AM (#3520374) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "The perps. and their supporters do." No, the nutters (on both sides - you and them) do. Hate merchants all. Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 11:03 AM (#3520375) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome "I can see what you are getting at, Jim, but did any of the perpetrators of the above attacks justify them by saying they were doing it in the name of Christianity?" Does it matter? Breivik made a point of describing himself as a "Christian Militant" - does that make his massacre a "Christian" one? In the end it doesn't matter a toss. 1. Yes it does matter. If people say they are committing a crime in the name of (enter your own whatever) then it is fair to say it is a (whatever) crime. 2. As Breivik made the point that he was a Christian Militant the implication was that he committed the crime in the name of Christianity. So, yes, that was a Christian hate crime. 3. In the end it doesn't matter a toss to the victims. But it does matter in the reporting of such crimes as (whatever). If it is an Islamist hate crime, let's call it that. If it is a Radical Christian hate crime. Then call it that as well. the Woolwich murder was not a political act - it was the work of a number of twisted bastards who justified themselves by claiming religion to be their reason. The massacre of Jews, Gypsies and Poles in WW2 was also an act of a number of twisted bastards as well. But we waged war on the whole German nation, not just the twisted bastards. When the population fails to control it's own extremists someone else needs to intervene. Whether that should be the UK, the US the UN or someone else is entirely another debate. And, yes, the same should apply to everyone! Cheers DtG |
|
29 May 13 - 11:12 AM (#3520378) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad IMO Jim's position has now reached the "argumentum ad absurdum" stage, he is now merely trolling and we all know how to deal with that. |
|
29 May 13 - 11:31 AM (#3520381) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Are you suggesting it is not the nutters but the religion that is the cause of these crimes - if this is the case, why is it not true of Christians, or don't they commit hate crimes? If this is your belief, your argument is no different than Keith's "cultural implant" statement, which leads us to the conclusion that no practicing Muslim can be trusted. Try some more Bible hate for size - plenty more where that came from. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm Jim Carrroll |
|
29 May 13 - 12:15 PM (#3520395) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford They can not all be "nutters" Jim. |
|
29 May 13 - 12:24 PM (#3520401) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "They can not all be "nutters" Jim." Why not Keith - you get away with it - same bilious hate? Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 12:37 PM (#3520406) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Are you suggesting it is not the nutters but the religion that is the cause of these crimes I am not sure who that question was addressed to, Jim, but from my viewpoint - No I am not. What I am suggesting is that where nutters commit crimes in the name of a religion or political party then that religion/party needs to address it. Where they will not, or are incapable of doing so, someone else needs to intervene. And once again I am talking about ALL factions here. Cheers DtG |
|
29 May 13 - 12:55 PM (#3520416) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Why not Keith - you get away with it An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted. You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim. They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah. |
|
29 May 13 - 01:23 PM (#3520425) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "vast global movement as all afflicted." Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists - or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction. Do you not think that Sabra/Shatila, Abu Graib, the Gulf War, illegal settlements, a six-year blockade, weapons of mass destuction, 'Paki' bashing..... and the bigotry and hatred so wonderfully represented by turds like you might not have a smidgeon to do with the resentment and reaction shown by many Muslims? Nah - perish the thought! Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 01:35 PM (#3520428) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Sorry - Dave - didn't see you I was actually addressing Keith but - "in the name of a religion or political party then that religion/party needs to address it." So you are suggesting that if a "militant Christian" like Breivik (or any Christian) runs amok, then it is the responsibility of the church and not the appropriate authorities? Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 01:58 PM (#3520441) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza Any religious adherents of any persuasion must be (and are) subject to the laws of the land. If their activities involve crime, whether violence, abuse, inciting to hatred and racism, murder, FGM, bigamy, under-age sex etc etc I'd imagine it's the responsibility of the Police to investigate and arrest the offenders, and for the judicial system to judge and/or sentence. This would apply to any members of any religion, in fact to anybody doing anything illegal. One cannot, after all, arrest 'A Religion' can one? |
|
29 May 13 - 02:55 PM (#3520465) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "One cannot, after all, arrest 'A Religion' can one?" To some people's great regret. Can we have a little perspective here. There are a million and a half Muslims in the United Kingdom - second only to Christians. Muslim communities are recognised as law-abiding, industrious and least likely to cause offence yet they are the most racially and culturally persecuted people in Britain. This crime was committed by two people, with a tiny handful of others suspected of complicity. Terrorist crimes or crimes of race hatred by Muslims in Britain all all but non-existent. If this murder is in any way inspired by Islam, the British people would be up to their backsides in similar incidents on a regular basis. "This would apply to any members of any religion" Not sure about that Eliza. I could walk into a Christian (Catholic) confessional, confess to having sexually abused a dozen children and suggest it might happen again, and walk out without fear of being either apprehended or reported. Not sure if this applies to the Muslim faith, nor am I sure how British law views this fact. Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 04:08 PM (#3520484) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists No. - or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction. No. Am I claiming that active Islamist organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction? Yes. They say so. Why should we heed you and ignore them Jim? |
|
29 May 13 - 05:03 PM (#3520504) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Do you, honestly now Don, not feel this at least a tenable position on my part?"" No sir! I do not. Returning to my ""somewhat feeble IMO argument"", you may have overlooked the strongest part of it. I said that the whole passage could equally easily have included an injunction to carry out these actions or an injunction against. Deviously extracting one sentence could equally be used by a radical to advocate attacks on Christians, or by a racist to denigrate the whole Islamic community. I do not think this is a weak argument, as we have seen this sentence used for both purposes in the last couple of days. You have, in fact, made my point very well indeed in your reference to the misinterpretation of the Thatcher quote, though I know such was not your intention. I have been rebutting that interpretation for years, without success. Once a bigot has made up his mind based on an out of context remark, he simply doesn't choose to hear any rebuttal. Don T. |
|
29 May 13 - 05:06 PM (#3520505) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "I could walk into a Christian (Catholic) confessional, confess to having sexually abused a dozen children and suggest it might happen again, and walk out" .,,. No you couldn't, Jim. Without your expressing a 'firm purpose of amendment', the priest would be unable to grant absolution. Even I know that, and I am no RC and have never been anything near. You mean well in so many ways, Jim; but o-dear-me you can be so ignorant sometimes... ~M~ |
|
29 May 13 - 05:13 PM (#3520509) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Thank you for the "sir", Don. There is really no need, my dear fellow! I think we have taken this particular dispute as far as it can go, and are simply beginning to assert repetitiously. Not something we are ever going to agree about ~~ I think your position absurdly over-generalised; you find my responses uncomprehending. We are not likely to move on from that sort of stalemate, I don't think. Let's leave it there, shall we? Best regards ~Michael~ |
|
29 May 13 - 05:18 PM (#3520512) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "but o-dear-me you can be so ignorant sometimes" And you can be so deviously stupid Mike - as I made plain "without fear of being either apprehended or reported" I was not referring to "absolution" I was pointing out that I would be free to continue abusing children because the priest would be under an obligation not to report me to the authorities - go educate yourself. "Yes. They say so." Some make that an excuse for doing so - unless you could point to a universal declaration showing otherwise. Perhaps you might comment on the statistics I gave. Jim Carroll |
|
29 May 13 - 05:39 PM (#3520516) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 PM Why not Keith - you get away with it An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted. You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim. They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah."" So, in this post, you are saying that the whole of global Islam is terrorist out of ""deeply held religious belief"", not just the tiny minority of radicalised nutters. ________________________________________________________________ ""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 04:08 PM Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists No. - or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction. No. Am I claiming that active Islamist organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction? Yes. They say so. Why should we heed you and ignore them Jim?"" And in this post you have denied claiming that all Muslims are terrorists, and in answer to the second question, you have responded "No", and also "Yes. They say so". Apart from the fact that your posts reek of anti Muslim sentiment and the concept that Muslim = Evil, do you really have the slightest idea of what you are actually claiming? It doesn't appear so! Don T. |
|
29 May 13 - 05:43 PM (#3520517) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""No you couldn't, Jim. Without your expressing a 'firm purpose of amendment', the priest would be unable to grant absolution."" What he is talking about Mike, is not absolution, but the hard and fast rule that prevents a priest informing the authorities of details of a confession. Don T. |
|
29 May 13 - 05:53 PM (#3520521) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford So, in this post, you are saying that the whole of global Islam is terrorist out of ""deeply held religious belief"", not just the tiny minority of radicalised nutters. No don. I was talking about global Islamism, not global Islam. They are the ones doing the terrorism, and they say they do it for religion. Jim says he does not believe that. How about you Don? |
|
29 May 13 - 06:15 PM (#3520526) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST Jews and Christians have an explicit commandment: Thou shalt not kill. They do kill, however, and what allows them to do this is the special dispensation they grant themselves. It becomes acceptable when done in the service of the state. Is this what Moses taught? No. Jesus? Double no. This special dispensation is the result of state agendas in collusion with religion leaders themselves. These religious leaders have developed a certain mentality of "I'm a rabbi or a priest whereas you're a soldier." My job is to preach, yours to kill. Of course this is all hypocrisy, but the commandment remains intact. Islam, on the other hand, says that it is permissable, even desirable, to kill infidels and to commit atrocities against women. It would appear that the vast majority of Muslims and their leaders have granted themselves special dispensation to avoid such acts, but the commandment remains intact. The difference is in the standard. Make no mistake, Islam is a false religion. What I would like to do is pick up some of you, drop you off in Pakistan, pick you up in about a year (if you're still alive) and see what you have to say then. Some of you hate Jews but others feel compelled to defend who they see as the underdog. Those people need to learn that being the underdog is no guarantee of virtue. I knew this girl who got involved with a disabled man. He subjected her to hardcore verbal abuse to the point where I believe if he had been physically able to, he would have subjected her to a whole lot worse. Certain people ought not to have certain caoabilities I'd say. As guilty as she felt, she eventually had to walk away. Who was the underdog there? The one who appeared to be at a disadvantage or the one who actually was? David the Cossack Gnome, take a break: Ой чий то кінь стоїть |
|
29 May 13 - 06:19 PM (#3520529) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Make no mistake, Islam is a false religion. Oh great, another brain-damaged fundagelical fuckwit heard from. |
|
29 May 13 - 06:20 PM (#3520530) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I was talking about global Islamism, not global Islam."" Oh well that's alright then, providing of course that there is any such thing as global Islamism. Do you know of any such organisation, or are you just making it up as you go along, as usual? Don T. |
|
29 May 13 - 06:40 PM (#3520542) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Lisa What a song! About unrequited love. Believe it or not, you don't have to turn to rock for an earful of that. |
|
29 May 13 - 06:42 PM (#3520543) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "I spent 13 years inside Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), the global Islamist organisation that first spawned al-Muhajiroun, the banned Islamist terrorist organisation founded by Omar Bakri Muhammad and Anjem Choudary." This from the account of Maajid Nawaz which I linked to in my post of 28 May 13 - 03:41 PM which you probably either didn't bother reading or read and ignorted because it puts lie to everything you and that other dingbat Carroll are professing. Nawaz spent thirteen years operating as a radical Islamist (his own words) but, of course, you and that other idiot know that it has nothing to do with Islam so maybe you should let him know that he has been deluded all this time and is really just a "nutter" who has nevertheless gained a law and Arabic degree from The School of African and Oriental Studies and a Masters in political theory from the London School of Economics. |
|
29 May 13 - 07:13 PM (#3520550) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Meanwhile, MtheGM continues to claim that the Koran says something that it did not. |
|
29 May 13 - 11:47 PM (#3520599) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion If you were a Catholic, Jim, that would not be an option to you. If not, and the priest knew this, he would probably decline to hear your confession. If you pretended to be so in order to get him to listen and then left without appearing to desire absolution, then it is perfectly possible that, after searching his conscience and perhaps consulting his Bishop, he would not consider himself bound by the principle of the secrets of the Confessional and report the matter anyhow. I shouldn't try it if I were you! I repeat ~~ ignorant! ~M~ |
|
29 May 13 - 11:53 PM (#3520600) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion aRich`rd ~~ Get it into your thick skull, please, that I 'claim', & have claimed, nothing. If you think you can find an explicit 'claim' in anything I have posted re this supposed 'misquotation' of a Shura that we are engaged with, paste it please to demonstrate the truth of your claim. Otherwise just shut the hell up and go away, there's a dear fellow. ~M~ |
|
30 May 13 - 12:18 AM (#3520604) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Forlorn Lass Alas, Jim Carroll only cares for human beings in the abstract. In other words, he loves humanity, it's people he can't stand. Makes me sad. |
|
30 May 13 - 03:02 AM (#3520616) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome So you are suggesting that if a "militant Christian" like Breivik (or any Christian) runs amok, then it is the responsibility of the church and not the appropriate authorities? No. The authorities need to intervene as well as the church. However, in a lot of countries the Moslem church and the authorities are one and the same thing. Where they are separate, like here for instance, we can have both factions intervene. Remember the Catholic church declaring that it would ex-communicate IRA killers? I do. Has anything similar been done in the name of Islam? Have any of the Islamist authorities arrested and prosecuted known killers? I don't know but would be surprised if we can find any examples of it. Cheers DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 03:23 AM (#3520620) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "If not, and the priest knew this, he would probably decline to hear your confession." I suggest you familiarise with exactly what priests have listened to and granted absolution for - and refused to pass on to the appropriate authorities, in many cases allowing the confessor to continue 'sinning' - you really have to tell me which branch of Specsavers you go to for your rose-coloured spectacles. Please don't preach to me on a subject that has been a part of my experience for all of my life. "They are the ones doing the terrorism," No they are not - you have described what is happening in Gaza as "terrorism" - it has nothing to do with holy war - it has everything to do with retaliating to a brutally expansionist regime. The Assad regime is Muslim, as you have pointed out - what is happening in Syria is about suppressing opposition to that regime - nothing to do with religion. In fact, up to the end of the present arms embargo the civilised Christian world has continued to sit on its hands and do nothing while the people of Syria are slaughtered, egged on by people like you who have applauded that inaction even to the extent of suggested that the regime be supplied with riot control equipment. Many of the States that adhere to Sharia law are trading partners with and allies of the west. Within weeks of the beginning of the Arab Spring protests the British Prime Minister was hosting an arms fair in order to try and sell arms to the same regimes - not a great sign of holy war there. If these were "holy wars", the streets of countries like Britain with high immigrant Muslim populations would be awash with blood a point you continue to ignore, as is your wont The only holy war here is the one being fought by people like yourself with your blind racist/cultural hatred of one religious group, while at the same time giving wholesale support to a real live-'n-kicking terrorist State heavily influenced by religious extremists. "Alas, Jim Carroll only cares for human beings in the abstract." Whatever you say anonymous guest - but at least I'm not attempting to use the killing of a young soldier as a platform for Islamophobia - which I have little doubt you regard as a laudable way to behave. Jim Carroll |
|
30 May 13 - 03:49 AM (#3520630) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Hi, unnamed Guest of Cossack or Russian extraction. I understand your point if you are indeed Cossack. My paternal Grandfather was born in what is now Krupotkin on the banks of the Kuban river and eventually became a Russian Orthodox priest in England. My father was brought up in Poland after my Grandparents were kicked out of Russia on religious grounds. The hatred the Cossacks hold for Moslems (or Mohamedans as my Father calls them) is legendary and considering that they were often fighting for the same resources in a harsh environment I believe the hatred was not always religious. I believe you are perfectly entitled to your views on other religions. As long as those views have not and will not result in violence then Greg F's comment is both uncalled for and insulting to all those who do have a strong faith - In all religions. I do like the song as well, is it you? I lost my Russian language when I was around 5 so thanks to Guest, Lisa for the explanation as well. One question though - What do I need to tale a break from? Na zdorovje (Yes, I know it is old fashioned but remember I have not spoke true Russian for 55 years!) DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 05:13 AM (#3520640) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don. Oh well that's alright then, providing of course that there is any such thing as global Islamism. If you are really so profoundly ignorant, you have no hope of following never mind participating in this discussion. Look it up Don dear, or leave it to us. Jim, what is happening in Syria is about suppressing opposition to that regime - nothing to do with religion. I do not believe that you are that ignorant and have really not been following these events. Assad's ruling clan is a minority Shia sect, and the opposition Sunni. The opposition receives support from Sunni Gulf states and Assad gets help from Shia Iraq, Iran and Hezbollah. It is a sectarian religious war that has already spread to Iraq and beginning in Lebanon. |
|
30 May 13 - 05:19 AM (#3520642) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Syria's deepening sectarian war bleeds across borders Tucson Citizen - 47 minutes ago Syria's deepening sectarian war bleeds across borders - News from USA TODAY. Rockets strike Beirut suburb as sectarian strife flares in Lebanon, Syria CNN - 3 days ago Syrian rebels threaten Hezbollah as sectarian conflict intensifies Washington Post - 1 day ago Sectarian attacks in Iraq stoked by spillover from Syrian war | World ... www.guardian.co.uk › World news › Iraq May 21, 2013 – Ability of prime minister Nouri al-Maliki to contain crisis may hinge on events beyond his control. Rockets hit Beirut area as sectarian strife flares in Lebanon, Syria ... www.cnn.com/2013/05/26/world/meast/lebanon-violence 4 days ago – Four rockets struck strongholds of the militant group Hezbollah in Lebanon on Sunday, highlighting fears of sectarian tensions in the country ... Syria's deepening sectarian war bleeds across borders - USA Today www.usatoday.com/story/news/.../2013/.../syria-sectarian.../237008... by Oren Dorell7 hours ago – The Syrian civil war is increasingly drawing in nations across the Middle East, in a regionwide conflict that threatens to pit world powers against ... Syria conflict spills over into Lebanon with more sectarian fighting ... ►► www.euronews.com › News 6 days ago world news - Gunmen have been seen prowling through a Sunni district of the Lebanese city of Tripoli after ... More videos for 2013 sectarian syria » Syrian rebels threaten Hezbollah as sectarian ... - Washington Post www.washingtonpost.com/...syrian...sectarian.../2013/.../bb57fe86-c7a2-11... 2 days ago – Shooting, rocket attacks reflect growing tension in Lebanon as factions take sides in Syria's civil war. Sectarianism in Iraq stoked by Syrian war - Washington Post articles.washingtonpost.com › Collections May 16, 2013 – BAGHDAD — A recent tide of sectarian tensions that erupted into the worst violence seen in Iraq in five years is testing the government of Prime ... 5/16/2013: SYRIA: The Sectarian Divide - USCIRF www.uscirf.gov › News Room › Press Releases May 16, 2013 – May 16, 2013 | By USCIRF. WASHINGTON, D.C.– The two-year armed conflict in Syria has left at least 80,000 people dead and more than 5 ... The Syrian War Is Not Only Sectarian - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the ... www.al-monitor.com/.../2013/.../syrian-conflict-failed-sectarian-analysis.... 3 days ago – While many observers have described the Syrian civil war in sectarian terms, this analysis fails to explain many aspects of the current crisis and ... Battle for Syrian Town Spurs Sectarian Fighting in Northern ... www.nytimes.com/2013/.../battle-for-syrian-town-spurs-sectarian-fighting-i... 5 days ago – Fighting for the Syrian town of Qusayr has been unusually fierce, and the tenacity of rebels against better-armed opponents has given the battle ... |
|
30 May 13 - 05:29 AM (#3520646) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Sorry Dave - missed you again. "The authorities need to intervene as well as the church" What happened in Woolwich was a crime and as such, has to be dealt with by the law. Should Woolwich suddenly become involved in a holy war, certainly, the church becomes involved, but despite claims to the contrary, this in not the case, it is a murder carried out by a tiny handful of people from a population of one and a half million (a point that you, along with Keith, continue to ignore) - does any church anywhere excommunicate everybody guilty of a serious crime? Your comparison with the IRA is facile in the extreme. The local Muslim leaders where among the first on the scene to express their abhorrence at what had happened in Woolwich, one cleric described it as "an insult to Islam" to make the claims that the killers did. It seems to me that nothing short of a signed confession of guilt would satisfy some people. BTW - the same church that used the excommunication card during the 'troubles' is now threatening to excommunicate those politicians who 'vote the wrong way' in the forthcoming vote on pregnancy termination. As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the church, any church, is totally barred as an organisation from having any influence on national (particularly political) matters whatever, the cleaner will be the air we breathe. Jim Carroll |
|
30 May 13 - 05:59 AM (#3520652) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford tiny handful of people from a population of one and a half million (a point that you, along with Keith, continue to ignore) Not ignored Jim, acknowledged. There are only a few thousand Islamists here. A small minority, but significant. |
|
30 May 13 - 06:22 AM (#3520654) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stu "There are only a few thousand Islamists here." Where did that figure come from? |
|
30 May 13 - 06:50 AM (#3520660) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome As far as I'm concerned, the sooner the church, any church, is totally barred as an organisation from having any influence on national (particularly political) matters whatever, the cleaner will be the air we breathe. Absolutely agreed, Jim. Here in England I think we have it. Well, I hope so anyway. Ireland is getting there. What about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan etc. etc.? That is part of the point I am trying to make. When those authorities unite in getting rid of the interference of the church in their politics then we can eliminate the religious labels applied to them. But they will not. They will continue harbouring criminals and murderers that have committed their crimes in the name of their faith. The other part of the point is that the churches that these people claim to represent - notice I do say claim - need to be seen to act. Not just declare their abhorrence. When the half million (the figure you quote) peaceful Moslems are seen to be acting by, possibly, providing the civil authorities information on radical factions, then there will be no good reason for anyone to promote anti-Moslem feelings. It is no longer enough to sit back and say sorry but it is out of my hands. Cheers DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 07:46 AM (#3520668) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Hello, the post eater temporarily saved you M the GM. "Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MtheGM - PM Date: 26 May 13 - 05:58 AM Don ~~ ... It is, or was, an accurate quotation from part of The Q'ran so far as I can see. ... ". Were you lying or are you so senile that you are suffering from memory loss? Off for a nice weekend, so DO continue to be honest while I am not here to monitor you, please. |
|
30 May 13 - 08:16 AM (#3520674) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "by a tiny handful of people from a population of one and a half million (a point that you, along with Keith, continue to ignore)" .,,. I don't think anyone is ignoring that point, Jim; but youl are surely ignoring the consideration that it is not just their numbers, but the effect these individuals have, and their prominence and visibility, that matters. How many did it take to knock the Twin Towers down? 3, was it? I point out again that the statistics are overridden by the point made by Yeats [the greatest of Irish poets so I expect you will love his work as I do], that The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity It's that passionate intensity that does the damage, not the actual number who possess it. A sort of opposite of the Hegelian idea that at some point a quantative difference will morph into a qualitative one ~~ opposite because here it is the smallness, rather than the largeness, of the numbers at issue. ~M~ |
|
30 May 13 - 08:23 AM (#3520676) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Ah, Richard, yes, I didn't put that too well did I? Caught, you might say ✍✍✍☞☞☞☜☜☜ ☹☹☹☹☹ Have a good time. I will try harder while you are gone!!! |
|
30 May 13 - 08:29 AM (#3520678) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Our security services say there are around 2000 individuals who they believe pose a threat and you have to assume they have missed some. This was all covered earlier in the thread Stu. |
|
30 May 13 - 08:42 AM (#3520680) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The new head of British security service MI5 Jonathan Evans said on Monday that there are at least 2,000 people in Britain who pose a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism. In his first public speech, made in Manchester, since taking the job in April, Evans said there had been a rise of 400 since November 2006 and some are as young as 15. Calling Islamic extremism the "most immediate and acute peacetime threat" in the 98-year history of MI5, he said "The more that this ideology spreads in our communities, the harder it will be to maintain the kind of society that the vast majority of us wish to live in." http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/06/content_7017305.htm Key questions about MI5's handling of Michael Adebolajo, the Briton of Nigerian descent, one of Lee Rigby's alleged killers, include its apparent decision not to keep tabs on him after he was arrested in Kenya in 2010 supposedly on his way to train with al-Shabaab, the al-Qaeda franchise extremist group based in neighbouring Somalia. MI5 has thousands of individuals on its terrorism database. It has always said, notably during the investigation into the 7/7 bombings, that who to keep under surveillance, and how persistently, was a matter of of priorities. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/defence-and-security-blog/2013/may/28/mi5-woolwich-attack-parliament |
|
30 May 13 - 08:46 AM (#3520682) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad ICM Poll: 20% of British Muslims sympathize with 7/7 bombers http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html NOP Research: 1 in 4 British Muslims say 7/7 bombings were justified http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY Populus Poll (2006): 12% of young Muslims in Britain (and 12% overall) believe that suicide attacks against civilians in Britain can be justified. 1 in 4 support suicide attacks against British troops. http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist 35% of young Muslims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified (24% overall). http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60 ICM: 5% of Muslims in Britain tell pollsters they would not report a planned Islamic terror attack to authorities. 27% do not support the deportation of Islamic extremists preaching violence and hate. http://www.scotsman.com/?id=1956912005 http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist.html Federation of Student Islamic Societies: About 1 in 5 Muslim students in Britain (18%) would not report a fellow Muslim planning a terror attack. http://www.fosis.org.uk/sac/FullReport.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist ICM Poll: 25% of British Muslims disagree that a Muslim has an obligation to report terrorists to police. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist Populus Poll (2006): 16% of British Muslims believe suicide attacks against Israelis are justified. 37% believe Jews in Britain are a "legitimate target". http://www.populuslimited.com/pdf/2006_02_07_times.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist ICM Poll: 13% of Muslim in Britain support al-Qaeda attacks on America. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/guardian-muslims-march-2004.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist Populus Survey: 18% of British Muslims would be proud or indifferent if a family member joined al-Qaeda. http://www.populuslimited.com/poll_summaries/2006_07_04_Times_ITV.htm http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist Policy Exchange (2006): 7% Muslims in Britain admire al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups. http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/libimages/246.pdf http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist Center for Social Cohesion: One Third of British Muslim students support killing for Islam http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1340599/WikiLeaks-1-3-British-Muslim-students-killing-Islam-40-want-Sharia-law.html http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/pdf/IslamonCampus.pdf Policy Exchange: One third of British Muslims believe anyone who leaves Islam should be killed http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf NOP Research: 78% of British Muslims support punishing the publishers of Muhammad cartoons; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY NOP Research: Hardcore Islamists comprise 9% of Britain's Muslim population; Another 29% would "aggressively defend" Islam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for religious or political ends acceptable. http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist ICM Poll: 40% of British Muslims want Sharia in the UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html GfK NOP: 28% of British Muslims want Britain to be an Islamic state http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf NOP Research: 68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of anyone who insults Islam; http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml&date=2011-04-06 http://www.webcitation.org/5xkMGAEvY Civitas: 1 in 3 Muslims in the UK strongly agree that a wife should be forced to obey her husband's bidding http://www.imaginate.uk.com/MCC01_SURVEY/Site%20Download.pdf http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/ShariaLawOrOneLawForAll.pdf BBC Poll: 1 in 10 British Muslims support killing a family member over "dishonor". http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/peter-rhodes/2011/12/28/honour-killing-%E2%80%93-a-stain-on-our-nation/ Two-thirds of young British Muslims agree that 'honor' violence is acceptable. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2117003/More-thirds-young-British-Muslims-believe-honour-violence-acceptable-survey-reveals.html ICM Poll: 11% of British Muslims find violence for political ends acceptable http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Poll%20Nov%2004/Guardian%20Muslims%20Nov04.asp http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/07/more-survey-research-from-a-british-islamist |
|
30 May 13 - 10:08 AM (#3520696) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Cossack David the Gnome, I meant take a break from the debate to enjoy an old Cossack song by a modern artist. The Cossack heritage has nothing to do with this debate per se. But you don't meet many people who come from that particular background and when you do, it pricks your ears up. I am Ukrainian on my father's side. My people come from Halychyna which is closer to the Carpathian Mountains and Poland than the Cossack lands which are further East and South. However, the most nationalistic Ukrainians are the ones that live in the West and perhaps oddly, they identify with the Cossacks. The real reason why the Ukrainians that live in the East and South identify as Russian is because of extermination and resettlement in Cossack territories. Something very similar happened in Northern Ireland. Similarly, my lowlander Episcopalian Scot grandfather identified with the Highlanders and "Ladies from Hell." I think this is known as hijacking a thread. Okay, one more: Nazar Savko |
|
30 May 13 - 10:29 AM (#3520701) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Thanks Cossack - I will indeed take a break and may even watch the Russian Language version of 'Iron and Blood - The legend of Taras Bulba' later :-) Good job it is sub-tiled though! I only know of the atrocities committed in the Ukraine from the book "A Short History of Tractors in Ukrainian". Very good book. Treats the subject seriously but wrapped in a very humourous story. Well worth a read if you haven't done so already. As I said, my Grandfather was from Krupotkin on the Kuban. My Grandmother, however, was from Bialystok - Which is in the North East of Poland, very close to the Ukraine and Belarus. Oddly enough, and in keeping with the thread, although Grandad was a Russian Orthodox Cossack, during the war he did a lot to help the ghetto-ed Jewish population of Bialystok. I believe it now has a high Moslem population and I suspect if it had been the same in the 1940's he would have done just the same. Thread drift over. Cheers DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 10:41 AM (#3520706) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Great, Bobad - Polls, so it must be true! Ya got any statistics on the number of Muslims who support Manchester United? |
|
30 May 13 - 10:55 AM (#3520709) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford What have you got Greg? Nothing. |
|
30 May 13 - 11:02 AM (#3520712) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Statistics are we we have, I'm afraid. Polls may not be completely accurate but they provide at least some measure of opinion. Without them all we have is supposition and guesswork. DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 11:06 AM (#3520714) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "The new head of British security service MI5 Jonathan Evans said on Monday that there are at least 2,000 people in Britain " Fascinating choice of link here Keith - China - weren't they the ones....? Never mind - your posting is a typical distortion of what is being discussed here. Nowhere in Evan's speech does he mention an Islamic threat to Britain - the term is used only once in a reference to "a significant number of young people who have gone to fight in the Yemen" - no mention of how many. The thrust of his speech is aimed at the threat from the IRA, not from Muslims in Britain. Also directed at Bobad's 'formidable' list. No matter what 'facts' have been gathered regarding British Muslims' opinion poll responses, the fact remains that the Muslim communities in Britain are recognised as law-abiding, industrious and least likely to cause offence yet they are the most racially and culturally persecuted people in Britain. I have no idea of where you gathered your information from, but I was fascinated to find that they are all to be found, using similar wording as you have provided, on the WHITE PRIDE site Dave: "When the half million (the figure you quote)" The figure I quoted was one and a half million. "then there will be no good reason for anyone to promote anti-Moslem feelings." There is never a reason to promote anti-any race or religious feeling, certainly not when those who might be involved represent such a minuscule percentage of the Muslim population, but the again, when did racist bigots ever need a reason? (I am in no way suggesting that you are one of those) Your suggestion of reporting those who are involved in terrorist activity presumes that there are enough of them to have come to general notice - there is no evidence that there are. The MI5 record speaks for that fact - one of the killers was first asked for information regarding those who might be involved in terrorism, he was then offered a job working for them and finally they lost interest in him altogether - not so much 'after the horse has bolted', rather pretending there was a horse in there in the first place - covering their arses maybe? "What about Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan" We can only hope they do get their act together, but as far as the situation stands in Britain, the last thing you do to avoid a holy war at home is to demand that a church takes action on what is a criminal act. Jim Carroll |
|
30 May 13 - 11:18 AM (#3520717) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don. Oh well that's alright then, providing of course that there is any such thing as global Islamism. If you are really so profoundly ignorant, you have no hope of following never mind participating in this discussion. Look it up Don dear, or leave it to us."" Unpleasant little wanker at times, aren't you. Islam is global, but militant radical Islamism seems to consist largely of isolated small groups gathered around so-called Imams whose attitudes are about as xenophobic as yours, and who use cherry picked segments from the Q'ran to incite disaffected idiots to violent action. You even admitted yourself that it amounts to 2000 or so in this country who are a potential threat according to MI5. It isn't close to becoming even a national movement within any Western country, let alone a global one. If it were, we would have streets running in blood, and if the inane mumblings of Islamophobes like yourself are given the slightest credence, we one day may. Don T. |
|
30 May 13 - 11:33 AM (#3520723) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T There are in fact 2.8 million Muslims in the UK now of which, our resident Islamophobe admits, some 2000 are being watched by MI5 as a potential (not definite) threat. This he claims is a ""small but significant"" number. He also mentions a figure of half a million peaceful Muslims. So obviously he knows even less about maths than he does about demographics. Perhaps he would enlighten us with his threat grading of the other 2,298,000 Don T. |
|
30 May 13 - 11:38 AM (#3520725) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Unfortunately, Dave, some of the polls - depending on how constructed and administered and to whom can be worse than guesswork at times. |
|
30 May 13 - 12:11 PM (#3520745) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad The apologists demand figures then reject them when provided - anyone surprised? |
|
30 May 13 - 12:15 PM (#3520746) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "The apologists demand figures then reject them when provided - anyone surprised?" The Islamophobes dredge up a bunch of 'facts' from a self confessed white supremist site and act affronted when they are called into question - anybody surprised? Jim Carroll |
|
30 May 13 - 12:56 PM (#3520760) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Every one of those figures is referenced, which are from a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site"? |
|
30 May 13 - 01:01 PM (#3520766) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome "When the half million (the figure you quote)" The figure I quoted was one and a half million. Sorry, Jim. I wasn't really paying attention. I have a tad of ADD, especially where rants are concerned! Cheers DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 01:27 PM (#3520772) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Every one of those figures is referenced, which are from a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site" And every one of them contradict the information coming fro elsewhere, including the speech from the MI5 head. Whatever opinions your polls come up with, in reality the Muslim population in Britain is not officially considered a security threat. How about some other gathered information - from neither white supremist not Muslim site in return. http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/ https://news.liv.ac.uk/2013/02/08/the-liverpool-view-islamophobia-in-contemporary-britain/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/the-shameful-islamophobia-at-the-heart-of-britains-press-861096.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/shahnaz-taplinchinoy/in-britain-politics-of-is_b_908119.html Jim Carroll |
|
30 May 13 - 02:11 PM (#3520788) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "the Muslim population in Britain is not officially considered a security threat." ,.., A great comfort to Mrs Rigby, we may be sure. |
|
30 May 13 - 02:47 PM (#3520805) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "A great comfort to Mrs Rigby, we may be sure." Care to offer some comfort to all those who have suffered and even died at the hands of racist bigots? Jim Carroll |
|
30 May 13 - 03:27 PM (#3520816) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick I've been trying to stay out of this, but if you want a sure fire wooden nickel posting just trust to trusty old MtheGM. I haven't got time to blue clicky it, but follow this link http://pastebin.com/Mbc0r8rD for a list of several hundred crimes perpetrated by members of the English Defence League. Does that mean we're all tarred with the same brush because we're all white? No it does not. The racist murderers of Anthony Walker and Stephen Lawrence were likewise all white. Does the fact they posed a security risk to the Black community mean the rest of us do also? It most certainly does not. David Copeland, who planted three nail bombs in London was/is a militant fascist and white supremacist whose murderous deeds must surely place him right alongside the most evil of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Does that make me a threat to UK security because we share the same colour skin, social culture and probably religious background. I most sincerely hope not. Let's get this straight. The vast majority of Islamic people are not bombers or murderers or terrorists. They are decent hard working respectable people and they do not deserve to be lumped in with the fanatics and nutters as a "security threat". Neither do they deserve the persecution which the vermin of the British far right are currently attempting to inflict on them. |
|
30 May 13 - 03:39 PM (#3520818) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: The Sandman where is don quixote when we need him |
|
30 May 13 - 04:14 PM (#3520829) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford militant radical Islamism seems to consist largely of isolated small groups gathered around so-called Imams It might seem so to you, but that is shite. Have you never heard of Al Qaeda, Taleban, Al shabab, Boko Haram, the recent war in Chad,..... I did suggest you try looking it up Don, but you chose to demonstrate your profound ignorance to the world again. I was being nice to you, silly. |
|
30 May 13 - 04:19 PM (#3520832) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad So Carroll you were lying about the data coming from a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site". You were just trying to associate me with white supremists (sic) to try and smear me you lying piece of shit. I have never once in my life accessed a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site" but you seem to have some familiarity with them. Is that where you and your fellow travelers congregate to discuss the "Jewish problem"? You are scum. Fuck off. |
|
30 May 13 - 04:19 PM (#3520833) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim, while I am sure you are right on the subject of Islamaphobia, you are barking up the wrong tree with the opinion polls. Most of the stats detailed above were collected either by NOP or ICM research. Regardless of whether the polls were published on a white supremacist site, emel or the beano, they are, or seem to be, genuine opinion polls. None of the articles you quote refute their findings. They simply repeat things that you have said before and most of us already know without producing any facts or figures. You may well be right if you say the opinion polls are incorrect, but to argue against published figures without any proof is futile. Fred, thanks for chipping in. Your posts are usually reasonable and well thought out. What you are saying is very true but, unless I am mistaken, no-one has said that all Moslems are terrorists or murderers. I cannot speak for others but my view is the same as yours. The vast majority are decent, hardworking, respectable people. However, the vast majority of Germans in the 1930s were the same. They didn't stand up to the thugs and look what happened. I am sure the vast majority of Cambodians were decent folk but in the 1970s an extremist faction gained power and the rest is history. I was pleased at the arrival of the 'Arab Spring' where those ordinary Moslems said enough is enough of the despotic and fanatical leaders. But it seems to have lost momentum. We need to help them in any way we can to rid themselves of those who approve of and sanction murder. Just like we need all the help we can get to rid ourselves of our warmongering politicians - of all parties! Cheers DtG |
|
30 May 13 - 04:29 PM (#3520836) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, this survey is reported on the BBC site. Not too white supremacist I hope! •36% of 16 to 24-year-olds believe if a Muslim converts to another religion they should be punished by death, compared with 19% of over-55s (20% would be about 500 000 people) •59% of Muslims would prefer to live under British law, compared with 28% who would prefer to live under Sharia law. (28% is about 700 000) •7% "admire organisations like al-Qaeda that are prepared to fight the West". 13% of 16 to 24-year-olds agreed with this statement compared with 3% of over-55s (7% is about 170 000 people!) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6309983.stm MI5 knows of about 2000 sufficiently dangerous to keep a file on each of them but can not watch so many. They have used that to convict many gangs now in the planning stages of mass murder attacks. |
|
30 May 13 - 06:01 PM (#3520862) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Gee thanks Fred. Always an honour to be singled out by one of your sparkling intellect. An intellect which would no doubt have us believe that all that litany of nasty white murderers you have dug up must have done it because they had been urged on by the recalcitrant rectors and vindictive vicars of their parishes, citing -- now remind me, which chapters and verses of Leviticus or Deuteronomy would it have been?; -- just the way all these Islamist blowers up and hackers down have been told it is their duty to Allah to do it by their imams, citing most precise Surahs from their holy book... We all know that consistency in argument is your speciality and watchword [when not distracted into threatening severe physical violence against octogenarians for unfortunate slips of memory for which they have already apologised]; so, for the sake of your own consistency, that must be your point, mustn't it? Regards ~M~ |
|
30 May 13 - 06:30 PM (#3520867) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Fred. The vast majority of Islamic people are not bombers or murderers or terrorists. They are decent hard working respectable people and they do not deserve to be lumped in with the fanatics and nutters as a "security threat". Neither do they deserve the persecution which the vermin of the British far right are currently attempting to inflict on them. All of that is true. Not one person here has disputed any of those obvious, self-evident truths. So, why did you feel the need to post it Fred? Now what is your opinion of the Woolwich incident Fred? |
|
30 May 13 - 06:34 PM (#3520870) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry. Fred. The vast majority of Islamic people are not bombers or murderers or terrorists. They are decent hard working respectable people and they do not deserve to be lumped in with the fanatics and nutters as a "security threat". Neither do they deserve the persecution which the vermin of the British far right are currently attempting to inflict on them. All of that is true. Not one person here has disputed any of those obvious, self-evident truths. So, why did you feel the need to post it Fred? Now what is your opinion of the Woolwich incident Fred? Were they motivated by any religious beliefs they might have held? |
|
30 May 13 - 06:56 PM (#3520879) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "So, why did you feel the need to post it Fred?" Allow me to offer an opinion on that question. He, like a few others on this thread, is attempting to conflate the opposition to Islamism with antipathty towards Muslims in general. Why they do this is a mystery to me as no one here (a couple of anonymous cranks excepted) have said or even implied that "the vast majority of Islamic people are bombers or murderers or terrorists". It is my belief that they are either seriously misinformed on the subject of militant Islamism or they are suffering from some sort of holier-than-thou complex. |
|
31 May 13 - 03:45 AM (#3520981) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I like that, Bobad. I'm going to the doctor to see if he will confirm HTT complex :-) Seriously though, you have something there. I suspect I will now be classed as a rampant right wing, Islamaphobic, child molesting fiend. Ah well, here goes anyway. I have agreed over and again that the majority of Moslems are ordinary folk, just like you and I. Just like everywhere else there is good and bad in all cultures and it is my belief that the vast majority of ALL people are good. However, the minority that cause the issues are usually the the bad ones. Because the rest of us are too hard-working, polite and decent we do not complain too much and we would certainly never act against the bad ones even though we can see it is bad. They have been very clever, those bad ones, in as much as they have established that if you are against them, you must be against everything admirable they stand for. If you are anti-EDL, you are anti English. You would have us enslaved by a foreign power and all Morris dance would be replaced by satanic rites. If you are against the Imams who preach hate and incite murder, you must be anti-Islam, you want to cut the nadgers off every Moslem and turn mosques into bingo halls. Trouble is now that a lot of ordinary folk have become indoctrinated in this philosophy. A lot of people believe the right wing nutters. A lot of people believe the manipulative Imams. Going back to something I said earlier, we have seen it happen before. A lot of people in pre-war Germany believed that if they were anti National Socialist (I will not mention the other N word for fear of invoking Godwins law) they were anti German and unpatriotic. We must make sure that it never happens again. In any society. It is up to us decent hard-working ordinary folk to stop the nutters taking over the asylum. Again. If we need help to do it then I would hope that the ordinary decent folk all over the world will help. If anyone else needs help, like the hard-working English Moslems, then we should help them too. Without fear of being accused of hate crimes. Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 03:50 AM (#3520984) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll " He, like a few others on this thread, is attempting to conflate the opposition to Islamism with antipathy towards Muslims in general" If you put a minute handful of incidents down to the religion of an entire immigrant population of Britain IT IS ANTIPATHY TOWARDS MUSLIMS IN GENERAL - HOW CAN IT NOT BE? THESE PEOPLE ARE MUSLIMS By blaming their religion for this incident, you point the finger at the British Muslim population, just as Keith's disgusting 'cultural implant' claim points the finger at every single male Pakistani - an enemy within, as the lady put it. You have turned a thread on the horrific murder of a soldier into an Islamophobic diatribe - as if there haven't been enough such similar diatribes on this forum lately (all dominated by the usual suspect(s). Bobad's list goes back to 2004, yet the position has not changed regarding British Muslims behaviour since then - they remain the most law abiding, industrious and unobtrusive cultural group in Britain, they also remain the most persecuted - and shit like this fuels that persecution. Whatever Bobad's opinion polls say, the Muslim communities in Britain are not a threat and not considered a threat (despite claims to the contrary) except by the lynch-mob mentality that would make them one. Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 04:04 AM (#3520988) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome If you put a minute handful of incidents down to the religion of an entire immigrant population of Britain IT IS ANTIPATHY TOWARDS MUSLIMS IN GENERAL How can you say that, Jim? You have said over and over in many threads that the English are, in general, racist. You have stated quite categorically that, due to incidents you have witnessed, you know that the English are racist. Yet when someone says that these bombers and murderers, that claim they are acting for Islam, are Moslems, you assume that we are against all Moslems. Sorry, but you are becoming that entrenched in your apparent hatred of some of the posters on here that your arguments are becoming nonsensical and hypocritical. When one's reason goes out of the window there is no point trying to reason with them. Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 04:07 AM (#3520989) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll A suggestion that was made higher up this thread and dismissed out of hand by our resident Islamophobe. It was also discussed last night on Question time - and recieved with surprising unanimity. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/29/britain-wars-terror-islamophobia Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 04:29 AM (#3520994) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Muslims 'the most law abiding, industrious and unobtrusive cultural group in Britain' - J Carroll [who else?!] .,,.,. Don't you love that 'unobtrusive'? If that's what they are, then where have all these threads full of such nonsense from the egregious JC come from? Why has anyone OPd them, posted to them? 'Unobtrusive', eh. As 'unobtrusive' as the Shard... ~M~ |
|
31 May 13 - 04:56 AM (#3521000) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The apologists demand figures then reject them when provided - anyone surprised?"" I just gave you census figures, and this is the best answer you have? It would seem that your comment is correct,......for Israeli apologists. Don T. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:26 AM (#3521004) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Sorry. Fred. The vast majority of Islamic people are not bombers or murderers or terrorists. They are decent hard working respectable people and they do not deserve to be lumped in with the fanatics and nutters as a "security threat". Neither do they deserve the persecution which the vermin of the British far right are currently attempting to inflict on them. All of that is true. Not one person here has disputed any of those obvious, self-evident truths. So, why did you feel the need to post it Fred?"" Maybe because of the following comment from you encompassing the whole worldwide Muslim community? ""An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted. You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim. They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah."" Oh look, somebody is disputing those obvious, self-evident truths. Guess who! Don T. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:27 AM (#3521005) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford A suggestion that was made higher up this thread and dismissed out of hand by our resident Islamophobe. "Islamophobe" is a lie, but I will dismiss it again. These two disagreed with aspects of government policy just like all the rest of us do. Unlike the rest of us, they chose to express it by running a car into an off duty soldier and then trying to behead him with meat cleavers. That does not come from politics but from religious fervour. It is what Islamist groups like Al Qaeda do. Most Muslims are decent people and hate such behaviour, but around 7% "admire" it. A small minority but a significant number of people. About 170 000 in Britain. The joke is that although Muslims are indeed being slaughtered in hundreds every day "in their lands," it is not us or any Westerners doing it. It is other Muslims. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:30 AM (#3521006) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don. Oh look, somebody is disputing those obvious, self-evident truths. Guess who! As we have just been saying, none of us can guess Don. Certainly it is no member of Mudcat. You are lying and smearing. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:45 AM (#3521010) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Have you never heard of Al Qaeda, Taleban, Al shabab, Boko Haram, the recent war in Chad,..... I did suggest you try looking it up Don, but you chose to demonstrate your profound ignorance to the world again. I was being nice to you, silly."" You are full of these stupid little non sequiturs, aren't you smartarse? I suggest you do more, and better research. It might save you from making a bigger fool of yourself than you have already. You may then be able to distinguish between tribal groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and terrorist organisations in the wider scene. You will also find that Al Qaeda is not an organisation, but a number of disparate groups in different countries, acting independently, but following broadly, the utterances of Osama Bin Laden. Theree is no actual worldwide Islamist organisation. There are no Islamist organistaions in Western countries which qualify as national. If any such existed in reality, rather than in the paranoid dreams of xenophobes, then the streets would indeed be running red with blood. Whatever spurious claims and unverifiable opinion polls you put up, the fact remains that MI5 are monitoring just 2000 individuals, who might at some future time constitute a threat, or might not! Some global conspiracy.............NOT! Don T. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:50 AM (#3521011) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Guess who! As we have just been saying, none of us can guess Don. Certainly it is no member of Mudcat. You are lying and smearing."" On a scale of one to ten. Reading 5 Comprehension 2 The quote was from one of YOUR posts, and if you had read the whole of mine you would have known that! Sheesh Don T. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:55 AM (#3521017) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 PM Why not Keith - you get away with it An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted. You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim. They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah."" Here is the basis of the lying smear. No member would? Well, you did! Don T. |
|
31 May 13 - 05:57 AM (#3521018) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad A brave British woman shows why Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka is right when he calls England a 'cesspit' breeding Islamists |
|
31 May 13 - 06:05 AM (#3521021) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Re several of the above posts. If you think there's no-one out there (or maybe even on this thread) who isn't blaming the entire Muslim population for the death of Lee Rigby, think again. Perhaps you haven't noticed the newspaper reports but the entire British far right has been mobilising its forces in hatred of the Muslim population for over a week now. Tomorrow, one of the biggest such organisations is organising a march/motorcade (festooned with swastikas, I shouldn't wonder) from Woolwich to Lewisham Islamic Centre. Why Lewisham Islamic Centre? Because their presence on the steps of that building, plus their inflammatory hate filled speeches, will be specifically designed to provoke a backlash among the Muslim community. The mobilisation time is 13-00, if anyone wants to go along and make effective use of the English right of free speech. But God help you if they get hold of you when the police aren't around. I don't what any of the other sick sad sods of the far right are doing, but I do know that the English Defence League is mobilising no less than 60 demonstrations across the country. This is in addition to the dozens they've already held, and at each demonstration the message will be the same. "Packies out!" And God help anyone they run into who is not of the same skin colour as them, or the same sexual orientation, or the same religion or political persuasion. God help us all in fact, because there is no doubt that the far right see this as their Kristallnacht and they will use it to whip up as much hatred and bloodshed as they possibly can. Keith A. Now what is your opinion of the Woolwich incident Fred? Absolutely sickening and appalling. I hope the perpetrators are banged up where they belong for the maximum sentence the court can hand down. My concern lies not with the barbarians who did the killing, but with all the innocent people who didn't. Sorry M, I just can't follow your logic. Who said anything about recalcitrant rectors and vicars? And while you're at it, when have I ever threatened anyone on this site with "severe physical violence". |
|
31 May 13 - 06:07 AM (#3521023) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Islamism is not a single organisation, but it is a vast global movement as I said Don. I have never made an anti-Islamic post. That is a lying smear that you and Jim fall back on because you have nothing else. "They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah" That is not Islamophobic, but a factual observation which they themselves would and do endorse. I have stated enough times that they are in a small minority of Muslims, but you choose to ignore that. Why Don? |
|
31 May 13 - 06:18 AM (#3521025) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Fred: You threatened ME, in most truculent and menacing tones, when I got mixed up on another thread and attribd something Jim had said to you. If you have forgotten, I haven't. You will find it if you go thru your posted threads on your personal page. It wasn't that long ago. My logic is that the minority of Muslims who are Islamists are urged into their violent acts by their imams; whereas those white murderers you so carefully catalogued had NOT been so influenced by their rectors & vicars, had they? So the Islamists are a concrete group similarly motivated by the same influences, whereas the white lot you adumbrated were a completely discrete grouping with no common factor but the commission of a particular offence. So your analogy as to the motivations of the two groups was thoroughly forced & factitious, wasn't it? Got it now? ~M~ |
|
31 May 13 - 06:42 AM (#3521029) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I just gave you census figures, and this is the best answer you have?" No - you've had the response to your list of opinion polls - no evidence whatever that they are in any way in indication of Muslim behaviour in Britain - doesn't get any plainer than that. "Islamophobe" is a lie, but I will dismiss it again." 'Course you will Keith - and you will continue to show it to be the case on every relevant and irrelevant thread on this forum. To describe a whole cultural gender as potential pervs is as 'phobic' as it gets and it sums up perfectly the knuckles-along -the-ground attitude of every goose-stepper who seeks to make the lives of 'different' others miserable. "About 170 000 in Britain." Another figure out of the air - just like your mythical 2,000 potential Muslim threats to security - and please don't say you didn't claim them to be Muslim - you produced that on a thread discussing. These figures are totally meaningless unless they are acted on, and considering the level of racism swilling around, I'm surprised they aren't higher. What a pathetically benighted little band of holy warriors - you really`should decide each day whose turn it is to use the brain! Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 06:45 AM (#3521030) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick M. I did not threaten you with "severe physical violence". I said that if we ever met I'd give you a hard time you wouldn't forget in a hurry. I was talking about an attack of the verbals, not a physical attack. In view of what you accused me of, I consider that was a prefectly justifiable reponse. The fact that you blamed me for something Jim Carroll said, and then completely distorted what he actually said, so that it made me sound like some sort of anti-Jewish fascist, was a bit low even by your standards. |
|
31 May 13 - 07:56 AM (#3521051) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Peter Laban Should Woolwich really influence policies on another continent? |
|
31 May 13 - 08:38 AM (#3521069) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome If you think there's no-one out there (or maybe even on this thread) who isn't blaming the entire Muslim population for the death of Lee Rigby, think again. I don't believe anyone thinks that, Fred. We know that there are people out there who would be happy to wipe out all Moslems. Just as there are Moslems who would like to wipe out all Christians. It just needs to be stated, yet again, that there is no evidence of it on this thread. I challenge anyone to find anyone saying they blame the entire Muslim population for this attrocity. Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 08:49 AM (#3521076) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I don't believe anyone thinks that" Yes they do - blame the religion and you blame everybody who follows that religion. Re earlier comment about British racism - I suggest you Google "is Britain racist" and come back and tell me it is only my opinion. Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 08:51 AM (#3521078) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll I wonder how people would feel if clerical abuse was described as "Catholic"? Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 09:15 AM (#3521092) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome You have it the wrong way round, Jim Fred : If you think there's no-one out there (or maybe even on this thread) who isn't blaming the entire Muslim population for the death of Lee Rigby, think again. My response : I don't believe anyone thinks that, Fred. IE - I don't believe anyone thinks there's no-one out there blaming the entire Muslim population etc. Simples! Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 09:23 AM (#3521096) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Oh, but I do dispute the claim blame the religion and you blame everybody who follows that religion. BTW. I blame the Catholic church for the abuse scandal because it is some of the leaders of that church that covered it up for so long. I don't blame the entire Catholic population. Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 09:50 AM (#3521110) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford To describe a whole cultural gender as potential pervs Same tired old lie. You have been pushing it for years Jim, but anyone who cares knows the truth. . "About 170 000 in Britain." Another figure out of the air - just like your mythical 2,000 potential Muslim threats to security 170 000 is about 7% of 2.5 million. The survey quoted by BBC said 7% of British Muslims "admired" Al Qaeda. The figure of 2000 has come from the security services. I provided quotes from head of MI5. "out of thin air" was not true Jim. Another lie. |
|
31 May 13 - 09:50 AM (#3521111) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Other catters on the thread, as well as me, read it as a physical threat, Fred. It occurred after I had apologised for the confusion. You made no disclaimer as to its being the physical threat that I and others had interpreted as was made manifest by our responses. If you were merely talking verbals, then you would be well aware that I could give back as hard a time as I got; but when I pointed out that, at 81, I would hardly be a match for you (which would not have been the case in the event of mere verbals), you left it at that and in no way modified or qualified the threat you had made. Just go back to that thread & look again if you would have the goodness. You will see that you are being, belatedly, merely disingenuously evasive. ~M~ |
|
31 May 13 - 10:15 AM (#3521118) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Commentator Emma-Kate Symons of The Australian Financial Review contrasts French and British response to Islamist terrorism. She includes this quote from my friend Tarek Fatah: "The fact these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief – the doctrine of armed jihad against the "kuffar" (non-Muslims) – is disingenuously denied by Islamic clerics and leaders. As a Muslim, I can say without fear, the latest terror attack has a basis in Islam and it's time for us Muslims to dig our heads out of the sand". Read it here. |
|
31 May 13 - 10:49 AM (#3521127) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Same tired old lie." Yup - certainly is, but I've come to expect nothing else from you - good job it's archived. "The figure of 2000 has come from the security services." Won't bother asking for a link, but that would be the same security services that tried to get information from one of the killers, offered him a job, then lost interest in him wouldn't it? "The fact these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief..." Wonder why all this isn't obvious in a population of 2.5 million - strange that! "I blame the Catholic church" But you aren't blaming the Muslim church; you are blaming the Muslim religion. "I don't believe anyone thinks there's no-one out there blaming the entire Muslim population" Ho hum - to claim it the fault of the religion you are casting aspersions on everybody who follows that religion - double simples. "2000" The figure refers to all terrorist threats in Britain, the upsurge in IRA activity being easlily the front runner - Islam gets one single mention in the MI5 speech - as you rightly say - "another lie". And so ad infinitum. Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 10:50 AM (#3521129) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll BTW Shouldn't you be attending to your other Islam hate threads - they've disappeared Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 10:53 AM (#3521130) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion FRED: Here is your post on the Thatcher Obit thread 16 apr 13 "Michael Grosvenor Myer has accused me of issuing some kind of "apparent invitation to shoot Jewish refugees ['useful for target practice']". ... That is an outrageous lie. Unlike Mr Grosvenor Myer, I spend a considerable part of my life fighting racism and fascism and all forms of bigotry … I am not going to waste my time demanding an apology from this creep. I shall just warn him that if we ever come face to face, he will be extremely sorry." My reply ~~ "Fred ~~ I withdrew that statement, admitting to having confused two discourses 15 apr 1011pm. Mixed you up with Jim, can't remember why. Sorry!!! I should nevertheless appreciate not being threatened at my age with physical violence, if you wouldn't mind too much. Don't think I should be a match for a young fellow like you at the age of 81." You made no reply to that to deny the threat of physical violence, clearly implied by that "if we ever come face to face, he will be extremely sorry." You certainly never even hinted that you had meant verbals only; which would not have made much sense anyhow for reasons given in my last post. If that was not a threat of physical violence, then it will do very well till a threat of physical violence comes along. ~M~ |
|
31 May 13 - 12:41 PM (#3521178) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry Jim, but you seem to have lost it altogether. "I blame the Catholic church" But you aren't blaming the Muslim church; you are blaming the Muslim religion. "I don't believe anyone thinks there's no-one out there blaming the entire Muslim population" Ho hum - to claim it the fault of the religion you are casting aspersions on everybody who follows that religion - double simples. Part 1. The Catholic Church is, to me, the same as the Catholoc religion. I do not use the phrase 'Moslem Church' because, rightly or wrongly, it does not sound right. Part 2. Once again you have the wrong end of the stick. Once again I am saying that no-one believes that anyone thinks that no-one is blaming the entire Moslem population. OK - awkward English, my fault, but just read it carefully and you will see we are agreeing. Y I think you are just arguing because you cannot stop! Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 12:43 PM (#3521179) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford No mention of IRA Jim, just the Islamist threat. You made that up. The new head of British security service MI5 Jonathan Evans said on Monday that there are at least 2,000 people in Britain who pose a threat to national security because of their support for terrorism. In his first public speech, made in Manchester, since taking the job in April, Evans said there had been a rise of 400 since November 2006 and some are as young as 15. Calling Islamic extremism the "most immediate and acute peacetime threat" in the 98-year history of MI5, he said "The more that this ideology spreads in our communities, the harder it will be to maintain the kind of society that the vast majority of us wish to live in." "As I speak terrorists are targeting young people and children in this country," he said, "They are radicalizing, indoctrinating and grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism." "This year, we have seen individuals as young as 15 and 16 implicated in terrorist-related activity," he said. "Al-Qaida has a clear determination to mount terrorist attacks against the United Kingdom," he said. "This remains the case today, and there is no sign of it reducing." In Iraq, Algeria and parts of East Africa, especially Somalia, he said, the "al-Qaida brand" had expanded and now posed a threat to Britain. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-11/06/content_7017305.htm |
|
31 May 13 - 12:52 PM (#3521183) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford again, no mention of IRA. "Killers Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were both known to MI5 but were classed as fringe figures who did not merit full scale monitoring. Express.co.uk quoted Barrett, as saying that it is incredibly hard to find the signals, as to when a person who expresses radical views, flips over to become a violent extremist. Lord Blair, former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said there were "thousands and thousands of people who listen to Islamic extremists". MI5 and MI6 must go after the most dangerous suspects who travel abroad for terrorist training, he added. Lord Blair said the Security Service (MI5) has limited resources, and must prioritise people who are most likely to move from being interested in violent extremism to carrying it out. He said even if they have the resources to do it, they have to have a very high level of suspicion to put surveillance on them. There are believed to be at least 3,000 people on MI5's database of extremist suspects." http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/ex-mi6-chief-says-it-s-incredibly-hard-to-stop-terror-attacks-113052600467_1.h |
|
31 May 13 - 01:25 PM (#3521199) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Part 1. The Catholic Church is, to me, the same as the Catholic religion" 'Tisn't I'm afraid Dave - the church is the purveyor of the religion - which is a collection of beliefs - look it up and see which of us has "lost it". Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 01:43 PM (#3521207) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Financial Times this time Jim. Security experts argue that MI5 and the police have records on many Islamist extremists in the UK. In 2007, Jonathan Evans, former head of MI5, said there were at least 2,000 people in the UK who "pose a direct threat to national security and public safety". http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33d814b4-c3d3-11e2-aa5b-00144feab7de.html#axzz2UtPLvxXr My figures were correct Jim. You were wrong to challenge them, and now look silly. |
|
31 May 13 - 01:45 PM (#3521208) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "A great comfort to Mrs Rigby, we may be sure." http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/31/drummer-lee-rigby-inquest-woolwich Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 01:45 PM (#3521209) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Two British Muslims were killed this week. In Syria, by Muslims. |
|
31 May 13 - 02:36 PM (#3521240) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome "Part 1. The Catholic Church is, to me, the same as the Catholic religion" 'Tisn't I'm afraid Dave - the church is the purveyor of the religion - which is a collection of beliefs - look it up and see which of us has "lost it". Sigh. I am obviously suffering from non-understandable syndrome (NUS - Has that been used elsewhere? :-) ) Please read that again, Jim. The Catholic church is TO ME, etc. etc. To you it is something else. I am not going to get into semantics though. Instead, let's just say we speak a different language. Out of interest though, does this mean you have actually understood what I was very awkwardly trying to say in point 2? Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 03:03 PM (#3521253) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Oh, and just to backup my interpretation, look at the first website I came to when looking up 'church' - Church From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Look up church in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Church is an English word for a Christian religious institution or building but it may refer to: 1 Religion 2 People 3 Places 4 Popular music 5 Other uses So I guess not everyone can separate church from religion as glibly as you can to try and prove a point. Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 03:32 PM (#3521269) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I am obviously suffering from non-understandable syndrome" You obviously are suffering from something. What is under attack here are cultural communities' beliefs which, some people are claiming, make them commit acts of terror. Dictionary definition. Religion (ri-Hjan, ra-) n. Abbr. rel., relig. I.The expression man's belief in and reverence for a superhuman power or power regarded as creating or governing the universe. 2. Any personal or institutionalised system of beliefs or practices embodying this belief or reverence: the Hindu religion. 3. The spiritual or emotional attitude of one who recognises the existence of a superhuman power : - powers. 4. Any objective pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion: A collector might make a religion of his hobby. 5. The monastic way of life. 6. Archaic. Sacred rites or practices. [Middle English religioun, from Old French religion, from Latin religio (stem n gion-), bond between man and the gods, perhaps from religare, bind back : re-, back + ligare, to bind, fasten The church has a totally different definition and I agree entirely with you about their role in clerical abuse. Keith I should really read your own links if I were you. "There are believed to be at least 3,000 people on MI5's database of extremist suspects." Nowhere does it specify who or what these "extremist suspects" are. Those taking a leading part in the Tottenham riots will be on the list. Left and right wing extremists involved in militant activities, such as 'White Pride' who were organising attacks on Asian communities following the underage sex trials will be on the list. Those who organise football violence will be on the list. Those who organise mass protest demonstrations will be on the list. Those organising the present demonstrations after the Woolwich killing, including those suspected of the attacks on mosques will be on the list. As I have pointed out Jonathon Evans made his main issue in his speech on terrorism the then recent upsurge in IRA activity, so they will be on the list. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/8008252/Jonathan-Evans-terrorism-speech.html Evans also makes an issue of spying in his speech; potential spies will be on his list. Anybody directly associating with terrorist suspects, knowingly or unknowingly will be included, as will any relatives of suspects (of any persuasion) or anybody visiting world trouble spots. What determines "national security" is, and always has been a catch-all phrase – it included your old friend Jack Straw at one time Nowhere in either of your links is there any indication of who or how many of this figure are Islamists, Asians, Irish...... whatever From the beginning you have claimed this figure as referring solely to those belonging to Muslim communities – and it is this that makes you the racist bigot you are. Jim Carroll |
|
31 May 13 - 04:27 PM (#3521292) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I did read them Jim. The context is unequivocal. I do not care that you deny it. Everyone knows that it refers to Islamist extremists, and you just make yourself even more ridiculous. And, 170 000 is about 7% of 2.5 million. The survey quoted by BBC said 7% of British Muslims "admired" Al Qaeda. |
|
31 May 13 - 04:56 PM (#3521304) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome OK, Jim. I agree. Your definitions are obviously more correct and, more importantly, I am stupid and don't understand what is going on in the world. I shall give up quoting any facts and listen only to dogma until such a time that I feel it necessary to commit ritual suicide by listening to Irish folk until my brain leaks out of my ears. Cheers DtG |
|
31 May 13 - 05:28 PM (#3521313) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Christianity, or even Catholicism, is not a false religion, however, it has been interpreted falsely by various "Christian" churches throughout history. For example, during the Reformation, many devout Protestants, beginning with the king, were looking to plunder churches and monasteries in the name of religious differences. Monarchs have given these kinds of orders, to kill "infidels"and to pillage religious sites. Ungodly popes have given such orders as well. But not Jesus, nor the apostles, nor the saints, nor any faithful follower of Christ. Anyone can call themselves a Christian. T'ain't necessarily so. Not only that but scores of pagan peoples were forcibly converted to Christianity, tortured and killed in the name of Christ. But let it be said, Jesus did not say to do any of this. In fact, quite the opposite. Jews, I suppose, are also capable of what others might deem false or extreme interpretations of Judaism, however, most Jews who could be described as religious have no intention of killing and that, incidentally, means they are deadbeats in the eyes of many secular Jews living in Israel. Jews do not proselytize so if they do kill it's not going to be in the name of religion but in the name of statehood only (better known as Zionism). Even in Khazaria there was religious tolerance and diversity inclusive of Judaism, Islam and Christianity as well as Pagan beliefs. Islam alone says it is justifiable to kill infidels. The command comes straight from the top. So if I have "Islamophobia" there's a good reason for it. Does that mean I want Muslims wiped out? No. Does that mean that I want individual Muslims to be hacked apart in the street? Hell no. Can you imagine what it must have been like to suddenly struck by a car and then set upon and hacked to death by mashugees? Can you imagine the terror he felt in his last few minutes of life. He probably died of a heart attack, poor man. This thread is supposed to be about HIM and his plight, not about the supposed plight of Muslims everywhere. What, no compassion for Lee Rigby? And to those who are more worried about the potential backlash to Muslims everywhere than the life of Rigby and his family, your sense of justice and humanitarianism is seriously out of whack. HE is the victim here, not them. This man's death should not become merely another occasion for you to spout your pro-Muslim rhetoric. |
|
31 May 13 - 08:16 PM (#3521369) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""That is not Islamophobic, but a factual observation which they themselves would and do endorse. I have stated enough times that they are in a small minority of Muslims, but you choose to ignore that. Why Don?"" Becvause in that post you chose to separate out the bands of twisted nutjobs who actually do these things and talk about the whole worldwide Muslim community as potential terrorists. Read your own post, which by the way is something you should make a point of doing anyway, before you hit the submit button. You expose much more than you realise of your attitudes and prejudices. Don T. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 02:54 AM (#3521454) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Becvause in that post you chose to separate out the bands of twisted nutjobs who actually do these things and talk about the whole worldwide Muslim community as potential terrorists. Complete shite, as is your ludicrous contention that global Islamism is an Islamophobic fantasy. Would that it were. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 03:29 AM (#3521457) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Everyone knows that it refers to Islamist extremists," No we don't Keith, it's just that some of you would like to believe we do - just another example of your Islamophobic inventiveness. I'm sure you can pull something up to prove your case, but please hurry up, none of us are as young as we were - pratt! "I shall give up quoting any facts" That's the problem here Dave - we don't have too many "facts" - just hate generated opinions. I have no love of Islam or any religion; just not prepared to let it be used against people of an entire culture unchallenged. http://www.islamophobia-watch.com/islamophobia-watch/author/islamophobia-watch Jim Carroll |
|
01 Jun 13 - 03:46 AM (#3521463) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome we don't have too many "facts" - just hate generated opinions. True, Jim. But the facts we do have are disputed without any evidence and, to me, it looks like the hate generated posts are not the ones I think you are referring too. Last post by me on this thread. No point in trying to reason with the unreasonable. Cheers DtG |
|
01 Jun 13 - 04:53 AM (#3521471) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford "Everyone knows that it refers to Islamist extremists," No we don't Keith, it's just that some of you would like to believe we do When you say "we" you mean you. You are in denial. The truth is plain to everyone. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 05:38 AM (#3521478) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "The truth is plain to everyone." If the Security Services released specified the details of the contents of their data-bases the wouldn't be very 'secure' - would they? - pratt! As I said, easily solved - show where they have specified who is on their lists. I really would take a peep at Stella Rimington's memoirs, 'Open Secret' - makes fascinating reading and shows us just how 'private' our private' lives are. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 07:03 AM (#3521497) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Jim Carroll, it's clear you are a cultural relativist and that's okay to a point, however, concern for human rights should trump cultural relativity. I notice that you are never concerned the plight of Muslim women living in such a misogynist culture. You would deny there's any problem eventhough news stories show up on a regular basis describing atrocities against women. Bet if I posted a thread about that you'd be nowhere in sight. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 07:41 AM (#3521507) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Thousands of British Muslims are being watched by police and MI5 under suspicion of possible terrorist involvement, a Scotland Yard chief has disclosed. Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said they were being looked at in the belief that they might be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorism. His estimate was given in an interview for a BBC2 documentary, al-Qa'eda: Time to Talk, which investigates British Muslim connections with the terrorist network and will to be shown tomorrow. Mr Clarke said: "What we've learnt since 9/11 is that the threat is not something that's simply coming from overseas into the United Kingdom. What we've learnt, and what we've seen all too graphically and all too murderously, is that we have a threat which is being generated here within the United Kingdom." When asked roughly how many Muslims were being looked at, Mr Clarke said: "I don't want to go down the numbers game, I don't think it's helpful … all I can say is that our knowledge is increasing and certainly in terms of broad description, the numbers of people who we have to be interested in, are into the thousands."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1527844/Yard-is-watching-thousands-of-terror-suspects.html |
|
01 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM (#3521526) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet And here are some quotes from the Koran and other authoritative sources that back up what I have been saying: Qur'an:9:88 "The Messenger and those who believe with him, strive hard and fight with their wealth and lives in Allah's Cause." Qur'an:9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war." Qur'an:9:112 "The Believers fight in Allah's Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed." Qur'an:9:29 "Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission." Ishaq:325 "Muslims, fight in Allah's Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious." Qur'an:8:39 "Fight them until all opposition ends and all submit to Allah." Qur'an:8:39 "So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world)." Ishaq:324 "He said, 'Fight them so that there is no more rebellion, and religion, all of it, is for Allah only. Allah must have no rivals.'" Qur'an:9:14 "Fight them and Allah will punish them by your hands, lay them low, and cover them with shame. He will help you over them." Ishaq:300 "I am fighting in Allah's service. This is piety and a good deed. In Allah's war I do not fear as others should. For this fighting is righteous, true, and good." Ishaq:587 "Our onslaught will not be a weak faltering affair. We shall fight as long as we live. We will fight until you turn to Islam, humbly seeking refuge. We will fight not caring whom we meet. We will fight whether we destroy ancient holdings or newly gotten gains. We have mutilated every opponent. We have driven them violently before us at the command of Allah and Islam. We will fight until our religion is established. And we will plunder them, for they must suffer disgrace." Qur'an:8:65 "O Prophet, urge the faithful to fight. If there are twenty among you with determination they will vanquish two hundred; if there are a hundred then they will slaughter a thousand unbelievers, for the infidels are a people devoid of understanding." Want more? There's plenty where that came from... |
|
01 Jun 13 - 09:04 AM (#3521528) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Ah, what the hell? Why not post a few more?: Ishaq:326 "Prophet exhort the believers to fight. If there are twenty good fighters they will defeat two hundred for they are a senseless people. They do not fight with good intentions nor for truth." Bukhari:V4B52N63 "A man whose face was covered with an iron mask came to the Prophet and said, 'Allah's Apostle! Shall I fight or embrace Islam first?' The Prophet said, 'Embrace Islam first and then fight.' So he embraced Islam, and was martyred. Allah's Apostle said, 'A Little work, but a great reward.'" Bukhari:V4B53N386 "Our Prophet, the Messenger of our Lord, ordered us to fight you till you worship Allah alone or pay us the Jizyah tribute tax in submission. Our Prophet has informed us that our Lord says: 'Whoever amongst us is killed as a martyr shall go to Paradise to lead such a luxurious life as he has never seen, and whoever survives shall become your master.'" Muslim:C34B20N4668 "The Messenger said: 'Anybody who equips a warrior going to fight in the Way of Allah is like one who actually fights. And anybody who looks after his family in his absence is also like one who actually fights." Qur'an:9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to go forth and fight in Allah's Cause you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you go forth, He will afflict and punish you with a painful doom, and put others in your place" Qur'an:9:123 "Fight the unbelievers around you, and let them find harshness in you." Qur'an:8:72 "Those who accepted Islam and left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause with their possessions and persons, and those who gave (them) asylum, aid, and shelter, those who harbored them—these are allies of one another. You are not responsible for protecting those who embraced Islam but did not leave their homes [to fight] until they do so." [Another translation reads:] "You are only called to protect Muslims who fight." Muslim:C9B1N31 "I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the Messenger and in all that I have brought." Bukhari:V9B84N59 "Whoever says this will save his property and life from me.'" Qur'an:8:73 "The unbelieving infidels are allies. Unless you (Muslims) aid each other (fighting as one united block to make Allah's religion victorious), there will be confusion and mischief. Those who accepted Islam, left their homes to fight in Allah's Cause (al-Jihad), as well as those who give them asylum, shelter, and aid—these are (all) Believers: for them is pardon and bountiful provision (in Paradise)." |
|
01 Jun 13 - 12:28 PM (#3521581) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet What? Nothing to say? Jim? Don? Greg F.? Here's more of what you defend: Tabari IX:69 "Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. We were the first to respond to the call of the Prophet. We are Allah's helpers and the viziers of His Messenger. We fight people until they believe in Allah. He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for one who disbelieves, we will fight him forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing him is a small matter to us." Qur'an:48:16 "Say (Muhammad) to the wandering desert Arabs who lagged behind: 'You shall be invited to fight against a people given to war with mighty prowess. You shall fight them until they surrender and submit. If you obey, Allah will grant you a reward, but if you turn back, as you did before, He will punish you with a grievous torture." Qur'an:48:22 "If the unbelieving infidels fight against you, they will retreat. (Such has been) the practice (approved) of Allah in the past: no change will you find in the ways of Allah." Qur'an:47:4 "When you clash with the unbelieving Infidels in battle (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), smite their necks until you overpower them, killing and wounding many of them. At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them, bind them firmly, making (them) captives. Thereafter either generosity or ransom (them based upon what benefits Islam) until the war lays down its burdens. Thus are you commanded by Allah to continue carrying out Jihad against the unbelieving infidels until they submit to Islam." Qur'an:47:31 "And We shall try you until We know those among you who are the fighters." Tabari VI:138 "Those present at the oath of Aqabah had sworn an allegiance to Muhammad. It was a pledge of war against all men. Allah had permitted fighting." Tabari VI:139 "Allah had given his Messenger permission to fight by revealing the verse 'And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah.'" Qur'an:9:19 "Do you make the giving of drink to pilgrims, or the maintenance of the Mosque, equal to those who fight in the Cause of Allah? They are not comparable in the sight of Allah. Those who believe, and left their homes, striving with might, fighting in Allah's Cause with their goods and their lives, have the highest rank in the sight of Allah." Ishaq:550 "The Muslims met them with their swords. They cut through many arms and skulls. Only confused cries and groans could be heard over our battle roars and snarling." Qur'an:5:94 "Believers, Allah will make a test for you in the form of a little game in which you reach out for your lances. Any who fails this test will have a grievous punishment." Ishaq:578 "Crushing the heads of the infidels and splitting their skulls with sharp swords, we continually thrust and cut at the enemy. Blood gushed from their deep wounds as the battle wore them down. We conquered bearing the Prophet's fluttering war banner. Our cavalry was submerged in rising dust, and our spears quivered, but by us the Prophet gained victory." Tabari IX:22 "The Prophet continued to besiege the town, fighting them bitterly." Tabari IX:25 "By Allah, I did not come to fight for nothing. I wanted a victory over Ta'if so that I might obtain a slave girl from them and make her pregnant." Tabari IX:82 "The Messenger sent Khalid with an army of 400 to Harith [a South Arabian tribe] and ordered him to invite them to Islam for three days before he fought them. If they were to respond and submit, he was to teach them the Book of Allah, the Sunnah of His Prophet, and the requirements of Islam. If they should decline, then he was to fight them." Tabari IX:88 "Abdallah Azdi came to the Messenger, embraced Islam, and became a good Muslim. Allah's Apostle invested Azdi with the authority over those who had surrendered and ordered him to fight the infidels from the tribes of Yemen. Azdi left with an army by the Messenger's command. The Muslims besieged them for a month. Then they withdrew, setting a trap. When the Yemenites went in pursuit, Azdi was able to inflict a heavy loss on them." Ishaq:530 "Get out of his way, you infidel unbelievers. Every good thing goes with the Apostle. Lord, I believe in his word. We will fight you about its interpretations as we have fought you about its revelation with strokes that will remove heads from shoulders and make enemies of friends." Muslim:C9B1N29 "Command For Fighting Against People So Long As They Do Not Profess That There Is No Ilah (God) But Allah And Muhammad Is His Messenger: When the Messenger breathed his last and Bakr was appointed Caliph, many Arabs chose to become apostates [rejected Islam]. Abu Bakr said: 'I will definitely fight against anyone who stops paying the Zakat tax, for it is an obligation. I will fight against them even to secure the cord used for hobbling the feet of a camel which they used to pay if they withhold it now.' Allah had justified fighting against those who refused to pay Zakat." Muslim:C9B1N33 "The Prophet said: 'I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and they establish prostration prayer, and pay Zakat. If they do it, their blood and property are protected.'" Muslim:C10B1N176 "Muhammad (may peace be upon him) sent us in a raiding party. We raided Huraqat in the morning. I caught hold of a man and he said: 'There is no god but Allah,' but I attacked him with a spear anyway. It once occurred to me that I should ask the Apostle about this. The Messenger said: 'Did he profess "There is no god but Allah," and even then you killed him?' I said: 'He made a profession out of the fear of the weapon I was threatening him with.' The Prophet said: 'Did you tear out his heart in order to find out whether it had professed truly or not?'" Muslim:C20B1N4597 "The Prophet said at the conquest of Mecca: 'There is no migration now, but only Jihad, fighting for the Cause of Islam. When you are asked to set out on a Jihad expedition, you should readily do so.'" Muslim:C28B20N4628 "Allah has undertaken to provide for one who leaves his home to fight for His Cause and to affirm the truth of His word; Allah will either admit him to Paradise or will bring him back home with his reward and booty." Muslim:C28B20N4629 "The Messenger said: 'One who is wounded in the Way of Allah—and Allah knows best who is wounded in His Way—will appear on the Day of Judgment with his wound still bleeding. The color (of its discharge) will be blood, (but) its smell will be musk.'" Muslim:C34B20N4652-3 "The Merit Of Jihad And Of Keeping Vigilance Over The Enemy: A man came to the Holy Prophet and said: 'Who is the best of men?' He replied: 'A man who fights staking his life and spending his wealth in Allah's Cause.'" Muslim:C42B20N4684 "A desert Arab came to the Prophet and said: 'Messenger, one man fights for the spoils of war; another fights that he may be remembered, and one fights that he may see his (high) position (achieved as a result of his valor in fighting). Which of these is fighting in the Cause of Allah?' The Messenger of Allah said: 'Who fights so that the word of Allah is exalted is fighting in the Way of Allah.'" Muslim:C53B20N4717 "The Prophet said: 'This religion will continue to exist, and a group of people from the Muslims will continue to fight for its protection until the Hour is established.'" Bukhari:V5B59N288 "I witnessed a scene that was dearer to me than anything I had ever seen. Aswad came to the Prophet while Muhammad was urging the Muslims to fight the pagans. He said, 'We shall fight on your right and on your left and in front of you and behind you.' I saw the face of the Prophet getting bright with happiness, for that saying delighted him." Bukhari:V5B59N290 "The believers who did not join the Ghazwa [Islamic raid or invasion] and those who fought are not equal in reward." Qur'an:2:193 "Fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief) and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers." Qur'an:2:217 "They question you concerning fighting in the sacred month. Say: 'Fighting therein is a grave (matter); but to prevent access to Allah, to deny Him, to prevent access to the Sacred Mosque, to expel its members, and polytheism are worse than slaughter. Nor will they cease fighting you until they make you renegades from your religion. If any of you turn back and die in unbelief, your works will be lost and you will go to Hell. Surely those who believe and leave their homes to fight in Allah's Cause have the hope of Allah's mercy." Qur'an:2:244 "Fight in Allah's Cause, and know that Allah hears and knows all." Had enough? Because I've had enough of your BS threads! These people are not victims. They are your self-professed enemies. I am not telling you to hurt them but if defend them you are fools. They will do to you what they did to Drummer Rigby if given half a chance. And if you people start anymore of these BS threads, I'll be back with every one of these hateful passages! Remember, it's not me who came up with them. Try bothering to educate yourselves before you start defending haters. Think about your own defense because you're going to need to. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 12:40 PM (#3521584) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Keith, Your cutting is sis years old (September 2006)- unless the police have arrested and spirited away the thousands they were watching in the intervening period (perhaps to the Guantanamo Bay concentration camp lookalike the Brits have set up in Afghanistan), or waiting until they have a few thousand cells free to house them, it appears they were guilty of nothing more than being suspected by the police - thank you for making my point for me. Susan, Re your list from the Koran - we really have been there and done that. I suggest you look up the long list (and there's many more) of passages in the Christian Bible calling for death to the unbeliever. http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm Jim Carroll |
|
01 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM (#3521589) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad False equivalence is a logical fallacy which describes a situation where there is a logical and apparent equivalence, but when in fact there is none. It would be the antonym of the mathematical concept of material equivalence. It is achieved by "shifting, imprecise, or tactical (re)definition of a linking term. A common way for this fallacy to be perpetuated is one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result. Wikipedia |
|
01 Jun 13 - 12:59 PM (#3521590) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Sorry Susan - missed a bit "Bet if I posted a thread about that you'd be nowhere in sight." I have no sympathy whatever with how Muslim culture treats women, homosexuals, thieves...... I find it absolutely appalling, but I do not see any of that as a reason to persecute, scapegoat and terrorise ordinary Muslim men women and children for a brutal murder they had no part whatever in. I see no protest on your part regarding the mosque burnings, huge demonstrations demanding an end to immigration and calls to send immigrants "back to where they came from", and ongoing year-by-year terrorising by right-wing thugs who have made their lives unbearable and dangerous just because they are "different". A few first hand accounts here http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=11405 Jim Carroll |
|
01 Jun 13 - 01:22 PM (#3521595) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. So SJ - whan are you going to peruse the Old Testament and extract similar examples and post them? Plenty in there as well. Or do you just want to ignore them? |
|
01 Jun 13 - 01:23 PM (#3521596) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Thanks for the definition Bobad. Now, can you show any evidence that it applies, if you can put your Islamophobia aside for as long as it takes to do so? |
|
01 Jun 13 - 01:24 PM (#3521597) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza Some very interesting accounts, Jim, and very disturbing. As you know, my husband is black (first reason for him to be wary) Muslim (second reason) and an immigrant (third). As I said, in our little village he's well known and much liked. He helps in our local church and in the community generally (eg painting the village hall, erecting our huge marquee for village events and being trained as projectionist for a future village hall cinema, to name but a few.) But he and I both realise that this happy state of affairs may not pertain elsewhere in the UK. Not so long ago, he went on a coach trip to Manchester to see Man U's football ground etc. I was worried, and told him to stay close to the other passengers. Luckily he didn't come to any harm. But now he says he'd like to visit London again this time on his own, as I'm not too well and can't travel far at the moment. He even says (and why shouldn't he?) that he'd like to visit one of the big mosques there and worship with 'his brothers'. He's so trusting and innocent and has been 'spoiled' in our Norfolk village. I just pray he'll be alright. People are understandably so incensed at this wicked act of murder, and my husband could easily be targeted coming out of the mosque. He even resembles one of the killers, I'm worried for him. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 01:43 PM (#3521603) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Complete shite, as is your ludicrous contention that global Islamism is an Islamophobic fantasy. Would that it were."" Well old son, if 2000 persons of interest, who MI5 think may be potential trouble or may not, represent the UK branch of worldwide militant Islamism, it looks as though militant Islamism is in a bit of trouble of its own. Short staffed, as you might say. Hmmmmm? Don T. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 01:52 PM (#3521605) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""And, 170 000 is about 7% of 2.5 million. The survey quoted by BBC said 7% of British Muslims "admired" Al Qaeda."" The survey of British Muslims: 1. How many polled? 2. What demographics were included? 3. What precise questions were put to them? You are clutching at straws even more than usual, given that admiring Al Qaeda doesn't equate to joining, or even supporting it, and you don't even have a clue as to what it is about Al Qaeda they admire. Don T. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 01:55 PM (#3521607) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "I suggest you look up the long list (and there's many more) of passages in the Christian Bible calling for death to the unbeliever." you say to Susan, Jim. Sure enuff. Now point our any country or society in the world where apostasy from Xtianity & conversion to another faith is a capital offence. Or any sort of legal offence for that matter. Go on. Just one. Oh, why do I bother? Jim's watchword, as everybody knows, is "My mind is made up. Please do not confuse me with facts." Susan, take note. ~M~ |
|
01 Jun 13 - 02:24 PM (#3521612) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, if the survey was not done properly and by a reputable firm, BBC would not publicise its findings. Don, Global Militant Islam is doing very well. To suggest otherwise is to entertain us all again with your profound ignorance. Jim, however many they had on their watch list 6 years ago, it is MORE NOT LESS now. They put more resources into it posts 7/7, and have foiled an attempt at mass murder at least once every year since, and some years several. You were wrong to challenge and you now look very silly indeed. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 02:27 PM (#3521615) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet What a bunch of dumb asses you are! When you are killed in Judaism it only means that you are no longer recognized! You no longer belong, you are cast out! You don't actually die in the literal sense. You're just not a Jew anymore. Don't shrug it off however because it's a serious matter. Your parents sit shiva for you as if you'd died. You're dead. Non-Jews do this also except they don't name it. The vast majority don't ritualize it. Now for religious Jews, this could breaking with tradition. For secular Jews, this will be acting in a manner that threatens the welfare of civilized,, hardworking, even gentle people. You would have to be a soul beyond human redemption to merit that sentence of "No, we don't even care about what happens to this person." Eliza, I have nothing to say to you. Women get a free pass when it comes to matters if the heart. Haven't you ever listened to Billy Holiday? Besides, I've never quite gotten over Cat Stevens. Guess he gets a free pass too: Peace Train |
|
01 Jun 13 - 03:01 PM (#3521624) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza I'm glad SJ Lepak that you have nothing to say to me, as I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 03:24 PM (#3521627) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Oh sorry. I thought you were the Eliza who said this: Tragic and horrifying. My husband is a black Muslim, and I'm worried that all law-abiding Muslims might be ostracised for this barbaric act.It is indeed almost incredible that such a thing could take place in Britain in 2013, so I see nothing wrong with the thread title. This time last year, our country was so proud about the Jubilee and our preparations for the Olympics. Visitors of all races and creeds were welcomed and mixed together happily. This event has cast a dreadful cloud over London. So sorry for the young man's family. What a totally needless death. Btw, I know what you're hiding under the hijab- donkey ears! We have people up in Boston here that are going to live their lives without arms and legs! The average person has nothing to say about what government does. We try but they swindle us. So don't bring it around here. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 03:46 PM (#3521637) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Eliza "I'm worried for him." I sincerely hope without cause. "Now point our any country or society in the world..." So we have to put the blame for the death of a soldier on the people who have chosen to leave their countries of origin and live in Britain - do I have that right? I hold no brief whatever for any religion, and am alarmed when they get a foothold in any society - I get tired of repeating that I believe religion - any religion and politics is a toxic mix. Historically, when any religion weilds political power it invariably abuses it - from Inquisition Spain, Henry VIII's and Cromwell's England right through to 20th century "Holy Ireland" with its Magdalene Laundries and clerical abuses (not to mention 21st century Vatican continuing cover-up of those abuses) In Ireland at present we are in the middle of a "to terminate or not to terminate a non-viable pregnancy" battle, following the death of a young woman who was refused one - I believe a similar dispute is taking place in El Salvador (?) too.. I am in no way comparing Christianity with Islam, favourably or otherwise, I'm simply pointing out that we can all throw about examples of violent and inhuman demands from our holy books. I hope, though certainly will not live long enough to see the time all religion becomes a matter of personal choice and not something imposed on human beings from birth by a self-appointed guardian of our souls". "it is MORE NOT LESS now" THEN PRODUCE SOME GENUINE FIGURES TO BACK UP YOUR CLAIM INSTEAD OF MAKING THEM UP TO SUIT YOUR BIGOTRY I suggest that anybody left with any genuine interest in this subject other than to use the body of a dead soldier as an Islamophobic soapbox, read through the reasoned, friendly and humanely sympathetic postings at the beginning of this thread, before Keith and his merry Klavern of Klansmen hijacked it - as has happened over and over and over...... again on this forum. Jim Carroll |
|
01 Jun 13 - 03:54 PM (#3521638) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza SJ Lepak, I am indeed that Eliza who said exactly that. But 'hijab'?? 'donkey's ears'?? I'm sure the other members of the PCC of St Margaret's church would be amazed if I arrived at our committee meetings in a hijab. And the last time I looked in a mirror, my ears appeared to be quite normal. If you have a valid point to make regarding my posts, it would be better if you were a little less obtuse, as so far, you're not making a great deal of sense. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 04:09 PM (#3521642) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Eliza Tried to PM you, hadn't noticed you were a guest. Can I apologise if I have alarmed you in any way with my descriptions of racism - it was certainly not my intention. I lived in London for thirty years and witnessed a great deal of racism - but can I stress that it was all passively verbal and non-threatening - in my opinion, very much a part of the hangover of Empire conditioning. At no time did I witness racist violence, though I was aware that it took place, usually orchestrated in advance by the sewer-rat politicos. I never found London a particularly friendly place, nor did I find it a violent one, just a large somewhat amorphous English city. If I have upset you in any way, my apologies. Best wishes to you and your husband, Jim Carroll |
|
01 Jun 13 - 04:25 PM (#3521647) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet "Eliza" does Joe Offer know you? Jim, you are worthy of the Marxist crazies that overthrew the Tsar for Stalin! Btw, Steve Gardham should have warned me about what an asshole you are, but I forgive him. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 04:33 PM (#3521651) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Lepak, Eliza is a much loved, respected and honest Mudcatter. Take back your insults and/or fuck off. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 04:59 PM (#3521655) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. & conversion to another faith is a capital offence. Or any sort of legal offence for that matter. Roman Catholocisism. Ever heard of excommunication & the Death of the Soul? |
|
01 Jun 13 - 05:01 PM (#3521656) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. as I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about. Not to worry, Eliza. Apparently nor does she. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 05:26 PM (#3521666) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "Now point our any country or society in the world..." So we have to put the blame for the death of a soldier on the people who have chosen to leave their countries of origin and live in Britain - do I have that right? .,,. No, of course you don't. A complete irrelevance & I can't see how you could possibly have interpreted what I wrote to mean any such thing. My point was that, altho the holy book of Xtnty does indeed contain certain injunctions to war against the outsider &c, they were way back then, not now. The injunctions of Xtn holy writ are not followed now to the extent of the execution of apostates anywhere in the whole world [my challenge to you was to name one place where they were ~~ which you can't becoz there are none]; whereas in places where Sharia obtains, apostasy or conversion to another religion is a capital offence, often imposed ~~ in Saudi, N Nigeria &c. Which is where your implied comparison by invocation of some of the more truculent bits of Leviticus is going to fall down. But, I wonder again why I bother, since it is J Carroll that I am addressing; who always knows best so never listens... |
|
01 Jun 13 - 05:35 PM (#3521668) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Roman Catholicism is not a legislative jurisdiction in that sense, Greg F. & death of the soul due to excommunication is not the sort of physical death I wrote about, & well you know it. Don't pretend to be more stupid & awkward than you are; it is entirely otiose. ~M~ |
|
01 Jun 13 - 05:55 PM (#3521672) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Roman Catholicism is not a legislative jurisdiction in that sense Ever hear of The Vatican? |
|
01 Jun 13 - 07:17 PM (#3521693) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza Jim, thank you so much for your kindly concern. You didn't alarm me by your accounts, I just feel that London may be a little unsafe for my husband at the moment. It was so nice of you to try to PM me, and I appreciate your consideration. And thank you too Keith for your comment. It's good to know I am welcome here on Mudcat. Kindest regards to all! Eliza. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 10:00 PM (#3521735) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Peter K (Fionn) MtheM said "That will be a great comfort to Mrs Rigby" or words to that effect, in response to a suggestion that the muslim community is not seen as a security threat. It's a pity he didn't read the Rigby family's comments before exploiting Mrs Rigby for his own purpose. It's fairly clear that the Rigbys themselves do not see the muslim community as a threat. Thread drift: It is a sectarian religious war that has already spread to Iraq and beginning in Lebanon. That's way too glib, Keith. It has become sectarian, as is often the case with insurrections (cf the relatively mini-commotion in Northern Ireland). But it started as a protest against brutal governance, the protesters believing for some reason that western-style democracy might work in Syria. They forgot that before Bashar Al Asad and his dad Hafez, Syria was virtually ungovernable, with a coups almost yearly. But for all its manifest sins, the Asad dynasty (part of the Allawi sect, which only in recent times got attached to the fringes of Shia Islam) has stuck to a broadly sectarian line. In fact the Asads have governed rather like Saddam in Iraq, but a good bit more brutally. And as with Iraq, it was madness to think that taking on the regime would make things better. Apart from anything else, militant Shia fundamentalists glimpse the possibility of an Islamic state emerging from the vacuum, and Sunni wealth in Qatar and elsewhere has rushed to bankroll the rebels in support of Syria's Sunni majority. In short, it's a Holy mess into which the UK government is itching to pour more weaponry. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 11:53 PM (#3521761) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Wow! Go babysit my grandson, come back and were all so smug :-) Et tu Keith? That's fine. You seem confused. You want my kid gloves? Here you take 'em. Having donkey ears means you don't listen. It has nothing to do with your appearance. It's like this little folk tale from Guyana about the town crier: "When he knock and shout, some shiver because dem didn't like what dem hear. Dem got some who love to talk and talk but don't listen. Dem like donkey. Dem ears long but don't hear dem own story." Do you even know what obtuse means? It means lacking in quickness of perception or intellect. I am hardly that - but you might be. If you're not wearing a hijab then you're married to a token Muslim. That's fine. We got token everything out here. I myself am a token Episcopalian in honor of my grandfather. I remember when I first went into Grampa's church. Having been brought up Catholic, I was horrified by an enormous inverted cross. But I later found out it was there because our church had been named for St. Peter and St. Peter had been crucified upside down at his own request. Oy, what a meshuggener. Like it's not bad enough right side up? Gra And I hate to disappoint y'all but there ain't no such thing as a "mudcatter" 'cept in yo head. |
|
01 Jun 13 - 11:54 PM (#3521762) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Of course I've heard of the Vatican, you patronising booby, Greg. It has no legislative powers as a "state" beyond the parking arrangements in St Peter's Square. I'd like to see what would happen if its town council or whatever the hell they call it tried to introduce capital punishment for speeding along Via Aurelia! ~M~ |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:16 AM (#3521767) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Oh, I forgot to tell you that Grampa said the upside down cross was okay because Episcopalians are not superstitious. My grandfather was a good Christian because he lived as a Christian. He didn't go in for any hocus-pocus. Or any hypocrisy. We had pipes at his funeral. And he loved cats. We had a lot of cats. That's why I know there's no such thing as a mudcat. Cats are very clean. They clean themselves actually. And they're very cute doing it. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:25 AM (#3521773) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Actually, Susan, a mudcat is a kind of fish. 'Catfish native to the Mississippi Delta's "muddy waters," especially the yellow bullhead' - wikipedia Hence the name of this forum, whence our name for ourselves, Mudcatters. Best ~Michael~ |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:49 AM (#3521776) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet You mean the funny looking fish with the whiskers? That's funny because there's two cats in the Mudcat video. I just assumed... What is This Place? But sure I know about mudcats- mainly polywogs- but sure :-))) Ain't no such thing anyway. Get over yourselves. Not you. First hit in Britain. Made in France. I Love My Dog |
|
02 Jun 13 - 03:55 AM (#3521790) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Peter, I know well how Syria started and have been discussing it here from when it was peaceful protests against the regime. Do you glibly deny that it is now a religious sectarian war with inhuman atrocities committed daily by both sides? Jim, I first mentioned a figure of 2000 and said where I had heard it. When you challenged it I provided ample evidence that the figure was reasonable, and you have produced nothing to support a significantly lower figure. You have made a fool of yourself over a trivial factoid. Likewise the 7%. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 05:34 AM (#3521816) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "you have produced nothing to support a significantly lower figure." There are no figures to produce - MI5 do not give such information and nowhere is it shown that the figures have risen - that is your invention. Lets get this straight - in 2006 the figures for terrorist threats were 2,000 - which includes all the 'suspects' I have given IRA, spies et al (according to MI5 head), left and right wing organisations - and those who are routinely listed as a risk, - mustn't forget Mrs Thatcher's "Enemies Within" the Trades Unions. What happened to those 'suspects - were they arrested, were they found to be safe, do the security forces still have them under surveillance, are they roaming free despite the fact that they are a security risk? But most relevant WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION - HAVE YOU BUGGED THE CIA HEADQUARTERS? You are a moron Keith, and the fact that you continue to invent "facts" to make your Islamophobic case makes you a lying moron bigot. Syria is a wonderful example of your moronic attitude - you open a hand-wringing thread about what was happening in Homs, when thousands of citizens were being cut down by sniper fire you explain how it was OK to sell Assad "only sniper bullets", you suggest it would be acceptable to sell him riot control equipment, you oppose suggestions that Britain arm the opposition and ignore the Chinese/Russian veto, and you appear surprised that the Syrian people have turned to the only people who are prepared to help - the Extremists. You are an inarticulate clown who is unable to maintain a coherent argument and make two statements relate to one another. If you have any idea whatever what how many suspects there are, produce your sources or go away and take your nodding dog with you - he is becoming as pathetic as you are. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 13 - 06:21 AM (#3521822) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Lets get this straight - in 2006 the figures for terrorist threats were 2,000 - which includes all the 'suspects' I have given IRA, spies et al (according to MI5 head), Actual quote. Thousands of British Muslims are being watched by police and MI5 under suspicion of possible terrorist involvement, a Scotland Yard chief has disclosed. Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said they were being looked at in the belief that they might be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorism. When asked roughly how many Muslims were being looked at, Mr Clarke said: "I don't want to go down the numbers game, I don't think it's helpful … all I can say is that our knowledge is increasing and certainly in terms of broad description, the numbers of people who we have to be interested in, are into the thousands." Same link. "The counter-terrorist effort now under way, with some 70 investigations against suspected Islamic extremists, is unprecedented and unmatched even at the height of the IRA's mainland campaign." WHERE ARE YOU GETTING YOUR INFORMATION - HAVE YOU BUGGED THE CIA HEADQUARTERS? You are a moron Keith, and the fact that you continue to invent "facts" to make your Islamophobic case makes you a lying moron bigot. I have given sources and links for everything. A pointless and desperate lie Jim, as it is still fresh in everyone's minds. You just make a bigger and bigger ARSE of yourself. (but don't stop on my account) |
|
02 Jun 13 - 07:10 AM (#3521830) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I suggest that anybody left with any genuine interest in this subject other than to use the body of a dead soldier as an Islamophobic soapbox, read through the reasoned, friendly and humanely sympathetic postings at the beginning of this thread, before Keith and his merry Klavern of Klansmen hijacked it I suggest the same, to see what a disgusting lie that is, to add to all the other lies Jim tells in his desperation to smear someone he can not challenge in any other way. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 07:48 AM (#3521835) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad That's the way it plays out with the apologists - their claims are refuted with facts and figures and they resort to smearing and name calling because that's all they have left. This thread has run it's course. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM (#3521889) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Thousands of British Muslims are being watched by police and MI5 under suspicion of possible terrorist involvement, a Scotland Yard chief has disclosed." SEPTEMBER 12TH ")) What has happened to the thousands who were being watched, SEVEN YEARS AGO - secretly banged up, deported or not guilty of any crime - come on Keith - you have a hot line into the security services, you must know? THE LONGER YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS THE BIGGER MORON YOU BECOME - YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY BACKING TO YOUR CLAIM OF INCREASED NUMBERS, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SIGN OF TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY,. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE "I have given sources and links for everything." NO YOU HAVE NOT - "This thread has run it's course." You wish!! What a trio of tossers!! Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 13 - 11:17 AM (#3521890) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Should read ,SEPTEMBER 12TH 2006 Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 13 - 11:46 AM (#3521894) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I fear that the tosser is the one who thinks his hysterical non-arguments somehow become more valid & convincing by being printed in BLOODY GREAT BIG RED BLOCK CAPITALS |
|
02 Jun 13 - 11:47 AM (#3521895) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The quote was of Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch. He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph, and I provided the link. Scotland Yard would not allow such a lie to be published in the Telegraph. So, what is your challenge Jim dear? |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:02 PM (#3521903) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet It sure has you miserable bunch of gnarly trolls! You say the same damned things over and over and over again. You're boring to the max :-) |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:03 PM (#3521904) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford If you come up with one Jim, please put it in the biggest and reddest capitals that HTML will allow. I would hate to miss it, you silly arse. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:31 PM (#3521913) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Toking Episcopalian Hey guys, wanna smoke one? Jerry Garcia says it makes you behave :-) |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:49 PM (#3521915) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Just toke yourself off, Pisco... |
|
02 Jun 13 - 12:54 PM (#3521920) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I fear that the tosser is the one who thinks his hysterical non-arguments somehow become more valid & convincing by being printed in" No Mike - the tosser is the one who lurks in the shadows while his mates stick their necks out, only emerging occasionally to egg them on when they run out of steam. "He was quoted in The Daily Telegraph, and I provided the link." Nothing later than 2006 then - now there's a surprise! Stick and stones and all that. "You're boring to the max" And you're the sad lady who thinks Stalin replaced the Tsar - go buy a history book! Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 13 - 01:26 PM (#3521931) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The numbers could hardly go down since then! There has been a gang of Islamists convicted of plotting mass murder every year since then, and several some years. We have been told that the current two were on the watch list, but could not be watched because there were still thousands on it. I have produced a lot of facts. You have provided nothing to suggest the figure should be lower. Are you going to? You would like to but you can't, because it is bollocks, like everything you post on this. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM (#3521947) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Peter Clarke, the head of the Metropolitan Police anti-terrorist branch, said they were being looked at in the belief that they might be involved directly or indirectly in supporting terrorism. When asked roughly how many Muslims were being looked at, Mr Clarke said: "I don't want to go down the numbers game, I don't think it's helpful … all I can say is that our knowledge is increasing and certainly in terms of broad description, the numbers of people who we have to be interested in, are into the thousands."" It may have escaped your attention Keith, but he operative word here is might, since implicit in that is the phrase "or might not". Why is it that you specifically have such a problem with this concept? Could it be your hatred of Muslims which prevents you from seeing all the ramifications of the word might? It certainly seems to be so! Don T. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM (#3521957) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "operative word here is might, since implicit in that is the phrase or might not" .,,. No, Don; sorry, but that's feeble and desperate. What is implicit in the use of the word 'might' here [along with all that pathetic "not going into the numbers game" shtick] is that they are the words of a spokesman scared too shitless of the PC-Brigade and the anti-racist industry to come out with the true figures he had, right there on the paper before him. This was 6 years ago, remember [as poor old Jim never tires of telling us because it's all he's got, poor old - ah - match-beginner-with-the-coin]; before the whole of that pusillanimous evasiveness was blown sky-high by decent investigative journalism, esp by The Times. You know it's true. ~M~ |
|
02 Jun 13 - 02:58 PM (#3521965) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim, it's a manner of speaking that the Tsar was replaced by Stalin." Did you say you were a teacher - hope you don't teach history! "The numbers could hardly go down since then!" Don't be more stupid than you have been already - the significance of the killing under discussion is its rarity - you have claimed 2,000 suspects now - you can't substantiate it so you have retreated to "maybes". You claim that the number of suspects has increased - you can't substantiate it and are now trying to skirt around it. The 2,000 figure comes from the Metropolitan Police - not MI5 and it was conjured up as a "maybe" - as Don has just pointed out, over a year after the London bombings, when the nearest the police had come to arresting accomplices was to execute an innocent bystander in an Underground tube station, so the must have been fairly desperate to come up with some results - "observation" being one of the favourite euphemisms for "getting nowhere". As has been requested here and elsewhere, stop inventing phony figures. You have no evidence at all that the figures have increased, there have been no arrests or deportation of the 2'000 suspects so it seems that they were innocent of all crimes, or the figure was snatched out of the air just as yours have. There is no increased 'suspect terrorist activity' from the Muslim community - they remain as well behaved as they always have been, despite you and your shitty mates trying to paint them as monsters and degenerates, in order to make their lives harder than they already are. "There has been a gang of Islamists convicted of plotting mass murder every year since then, and several some years." Can you provide links to this - the only claim I can find is on the fascist "Stormfront" website? "I have produced a lot of facts." You have not - you have invented them and refused to substantiate your claims - the nearest one to reality was your 2,000 which you have just all but admitted was back in 2006 - "The numbers could hardly go down since then!" "but could not be watched because there were still thousands on it" NO WE HAVEN'T - PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE OR STOP LYING - we have been told the police lost interest in them - nobody has claimed "thousands" - you're going to end up with a nose longer than Tony Blair's! You really should work out a use order for the brain - yo really are dipping out in the share. Jim Carroll |
|
02 Jun 13 - 03:13 PM (#3521969) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Here is evidence that the numbers have not gone down. It is provided for us by MI5. Our experience over the last ten years has shown that networks of terrorist supporters can be extraordinarily determined, resilient and patient. Some groups that have been disrupted or have had members convicted of terrorist or other offences have nonetheless been able to recover. They have resumed terrorist-related activities within a relatively short period of time and sometimes under new leadership. Over 310 individuals have been convicted of terrorist offences in the UK between 11 September 2001 and 30 September 2012. A number of those who have been imprisoned and are due for release are still committed to extremism. They are likely to return to terrorist activities and will need to be monitored in coming years. Experience has shown that it is very rarely the case that anyone who has been closely involved with terrorist-related activity can be safely taken off our list of potentially dangerous individuals. Terrorists continue to aspire to attack high-profile targets in the UK and abroad. Major public events present new opportunities for terrorists. The UK's police and intelligence services continue to step up efforts to counter the ongoing threat from international terrorism. https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/international-terrorism/international-terrorism-and-the-uk/the-trajectory-of-t |
|
02 Jun 13 - 03:30 PM (#3521975) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford "There has been a gang of Islamists convicted of plotting mass murder every year since then, and several some years." Can you provide links to this - the only claim I can find is on the fascist "Stormfront" website? yes I can, and I never look at such sites. Nor should you. They use hits as evidence of support. Asked if MI5 was in the dock, Sir Malcolm (Rifkind, former defence sec.) told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No, I don't think they're in the dock. I think that would be very unfair. "Do remember one fundamental point: the fact we have not had anyone killed until these tragic events in Woolwich since the 7/7 bombings in 2005 is not because there hasn't been terrorist plots. "Every year since 2005 there has been at least one, sometimes two or even more, terrorist plots which were disrupted and prevented from killing British citizens, partly because of the work of MI5 - in some cases very largely because of the work of MI5 - and other intelligence agencies." |
|
02 Jun 13 - 04:02 PM (#3521982) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The MI5 link does not work. Unless anyone can help, just google the first paragraph from my extract. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 04:47 PM (#3521994) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad This should work - MI5 link - you cut off the end of the url. |
|
02 Jun 13 - 09:03 PM (#3522072) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST This video was referenced by Bobad but nobody commented on it. Freedom of speech? WTF? |
|
03 Jun 13 - 01:42 AM (#3522116) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford When they do not respond, it means they can't. Bobad gave an explanation for why Jim trawls racist sites. He did not respond. (Jim just admitted he frequents the "fascist Stormfront" site.) |
|
03 Jun 13 - 03:42 AM (#3522145) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim just admitted he frequents the "fascist Stormfront" site. I never look at such sites. Nor should you." What a stupidly ignorance-imposing statement - if I wand to find what you people are up to these are the sites to go to. However, whenever I attempt to trace your statements because you refuse to link them, I come up with organsiations like 'Stormfront' 'The English Defence League' 'UKIP' and the 'British National Party' - which should tell everybody who they are dealing with here – thank you for the opportunity of pointing that fact out. Bobad's list of links came from The White Supremist - I pointed that out at the time. "This video was referenced by Bobad but nobody commented on it." Why should we Susan - it was an early report which appeared in all the press here and was common knowledge - a brave lady facing a murderous thug - what has it got to do with 'savage hordes of foreigners' on our doorstep? Have read through much of the MI5 site comments on terrorism - am reading through your link with interest - I suggest you do the same. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 13 - 03:58 AM (#3522148) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I attempt to trace your statements because you refuse to link them, Same old lie Jim. Would you care to give an example? |
|
03 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM (#3522153) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Bobad's list of links came from The White Supremist - I pointed that out at the time. You did, but it was a lie. As Bobad said, "So Carroll you were lying about the data coming from a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site". You were just trying to associate me with white supremists (sic) to try and smear me you lying piece of shit. I have never once in my life accessed a "self confessed white supremist (sic) site" but you seem to have some familiarity with them. Is that where you and your fellow travelers congregate to discuss the "Jewish problem"?" What is their take on Global Zionism Jim? Is it like coming home? |
|
03 Jun 13 - 04:21 AM (#3522155) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The third survey he listed was the one quoted by BBC that I also put up, saying I hoped BBC was not too white supremacist for you. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 04:57 AM (#3522161) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "a brave lady facing a murderous thug - what has it got to do with 'savage hordes of foreigners' on our doorstep?" .,,. "'a' murderous thug"?! "a"??? 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. Modern equivalent of the one on KoKKo's 'little list' in The Mikado, 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but his own' ~~ good old Gilbert had their number all right, Carroll & his like. Make me sick. Traitors. Is High Treason still a capital offence, I wonder? ~M~ |
|
03 Jun 13 - 04:59 AM (#3522162) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion sorry the html went apeshit: but hope my point comes over nonetheless |
|
03 Jun 13 - 05:32 AM (#3522171) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Mike seems to have flipped - I suggest he sticks to using dead soldiers and their widows an platforms for his long running Islamophobia. "You were just trying to associate me with white supremists" No Keith - you were trying to associate me - "Jim just admitted he frequents the "fascist Stormfront" site." it's your arguments that are found on these shit sites - you have virtually stopped linking on all these threads and have been asked over and over again to provide back-up. The whole bunch of you appear to have gone into 'Rally' mode - Go find a Beirkeller - the whole ******* lot of you jackbooters Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 13 - 05:42 AM (#3522173) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford you have virtually stopped linking on all these threads and have been asked over and over again to provide back-up. Ok, specify something that needs a source. You can't, because it is a false accusation. Lies, smears, and nothing else. Back to your fascist sites with you Jim. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 05:42 AM (#3522174) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Same old guest Excuse me but I think you miss the point. The behaviour of those demonstrators is way out of order. They claim the right to freedom of speech under UK law and then go on to spit in the face of both. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 05:51 AM (#3522177) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion See what I mean. I can see what's happening and he can't, so I suffer from "long-running Islamaphobia". You make me 'flip' Carroll, you stinking evasive little equivocating traitor you. How dare you patronise me, you ignorant little nonentity! {Oh, yes; I still haven't forgotten that you denounced me once for being 'educated', meaning it as an insult, you pathetic little specimen.} "British police go to hell", the charmers were yelling. Not 'a' of them: all of them. Are you bloody deaf or something, as well as blind to what's going on? Oh, what's the use. Stink away in your shithole. You'll learn soon enough... |
|
03 Jun 13 - 07:24 AM (#3522197) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "I suggest he sticks to using dead soldiers and their widows" ··· & perhaps you might care to remind us how that soldier came to be dead, eh Jim? Just suddenly keeled over with a previously unknown illness leaving the medical establishment gnashing their teeth in helpless bafflement, was it? Christ, but you are contemptible... |
|
03 Jun 13 - 08:02 AM (#3522207) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And is it not patent that a mob gathering for the purpose of repeatedly yelling "British police go to hell" are explicitly setting out to distance & alienate themselves from any 'British'ness on their own part; are in fact specifically denying being British or wishing to be thought so ~~ except, of course, for making full use of the facilities and utilities of the British town in which they have, by their own choice, taken up residence; and no doubt laying claim to any benefit to which they may be entitled by British law? And Carroll & his lot reckon that's quite OK, I dare say... Or is such a point merely another sign that I must have 'flipped'? |
|
03 Jun 13 - 08:14 AM (#3522211) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "perhaps you might care to remind us how that soldier came to be dead, eh Jim? " Because a hate filled thug killed him - that's what hatew does to people - take a look at your own ranting. 'a' murderous thug"?! "a"??? 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." Bigotted or what? Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 13 - 08:16 AM (#3522213) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Anjam choudray on the subject of benefits and taking from the Kaffir. Only 38 seconds, so worth a click. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6lkgLaIZtY |
|
03 Jun 13 - 08:22 AM (#3522216) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "One nutter" apologia alert. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM (#3522220) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Bigotted or what? Jim Carroll .,,., Oh yes, bigoted note correct spelling, please; & I know I am supposed to be ashamed of being 'educated', thank you indeed ~~ against traitorous, biased, own-kind-hating scum like you, Carroll. I could say, why don't you just sod off and live somewhere else if you hate your own countrymen so much ~~ except that is exactly what you have done, isn't it? Catch you going to live in Luton or Bradford to demonstrate how much you love all those you call me 'phobic' about. Reckon they would welcome you into their inner councils as to how they are going to contrive the world caliphate? |
|
03 Jun 13 - 08:48 AM (#3522223) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "perhaps you might care to remind us how that soldier came to be dead, eh Jim? " Because a hate filled thug killed him ,..,., Very helpful, Jim. Most specific. A Seventh-Day Adventist hate-filled thug from Morningside, was it? |
|
03 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM (#3522241) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Bit more info, maybe, Jim? Just what motivated the "thug"'s murderous hate? Financial envy? Didn't like young Fusilier Rigby's smart uniform? Or what? Must have been something really worthwhile, one feels, to go for to hack him into gobbets like that ... What was it now? What can it have been to arouse such violent destructive hate? Oh ~~ of course: he wouldn't share his magnificent Faith. Well that certainly explains it all. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM (#3522245) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion But we're not supposed to mention that, are we? It's "phobic". |
|
03 Jun 13 - 10:37 AM (#3522265) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Catch you going to live in Luton or Bradford to demonstrate how much you love all those " Spent thirty years years in West London where the main thusgs were the 'Paki bashers who lurked around the local park - Pakistanis a few doors away and dozens of families were regular customers You really do read like a hate rag now = 'twas only a matter of time before you dropped the mask - now where did I put my copy of 'Lord of the Flies'? Self-declared racist shits - all three of you - reduced to typos and all! Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 13 - 11:17 AM (#3522273) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion What 'mask'? Have never concealed any of my opinions on this topic, or my contempt for yours. See ~~ up comes your head. "racist shits" you squeal. Just as I predicted. Islamophobe? No Islamististophobe ~~ Of course. They'll get you, along with the rest of us, just as that fat beardie said, given the ½-a-chance you are determined to afford them. Self-righteous-Carrolophobe ~~ Bring it on. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM (#3522312) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Alf Garnett with a Uni education methinks - takes all kinds to make a pogrom, I suppose. Jim Carroll |
|
03 Jun 13 - 02:39 PM (#3522339) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""No, Don; sorry, but that's feeble and desperate. What is implicit in the use of the word 'might' here [along with all that pathetic "not going into the numbers game" shtick] is that they are the words of a spokesman scared too shitless of the PC-Brigade and the anti-racist industry to come out with the true figures he had, right there on the paper before him."" In your opinion Mike! Any proof of what you say? Any evidence then, other than a bald assertion from you? Don T. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 02:55 PM (#3522342) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Islamophobe? No Islamististophobe ~~ Of course. They'll get you, along with the rest of us, just as that fat beardie said, given the ½-a-chance you are determined to afford them."" Do you know the difference Mike? The following would suggest not! ""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"" Don T. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 03:05 PM (#3522345) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""They claim the right to freedom of speech under UK law and then go on to spit in the face of both."" As did the Teds in the fifties, the skinheads and National Front in the sixties, the Bnp an latterly the EDL. Please don't try to claim that Muslim protesters are in any way different. Have you been living on some planet where all whites treat police with respect, and only Muslims use the epithets "Pigs" and "Filth"? Just go on treating them as enemies and inferiors. That'll certainly help to make them love us.....NOT! People like you create terrorists. Don T. |
|
03 Jun 13 - 03:52 PM (#3522358) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion No proof, Don, no. So join poor old ostrich-in-denial-Jim in ignoring, & even denying, the bleeding-obvious if that gives you any satisfaction. I mean, did you watch that video from the girl in Luton? Do you deny what I said in my post of today 0802 am about the attitude of the Luton Muslims to their Britishness? And you still think it's OK to have them here, going on unchecked? I don't want to quarrel with you, Don. You're worth a million of halfwit doctrinaire stupid Carroll. But you don't seem much better than him at recognising this time-bomb you are happily sitting on. It's OK for me. I am a fair bit older than either of you, and unlikely to be around when it goes off. But I tremble for you... I really do. ~M~ |
|
03 Jun 13 - 06:35 PM (#3522402) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who ""They claim the right to freedom of speech under UK law and then go on to spit in the face of both."" As did the Teds in the fifties, the skinheads and National Front in the sixties, the Bnp an latterly the EDL. The teds, skinheads, NF, BNP, EDL do not have the po-faced PC brigade making apologies on their behalf. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 02:44 AM (#3522492) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Most teds were decent, hard working kids. They enjoyed a scrap with like minded kids at the weekend, but they worked all week to fund their fashion and although they broke a few laws, they did not try to impose their own laws on the rest of us and abolish democracy. Apart that is from the small minority of teddyists who committed random acts of mass murder in many countries including this one, making air travel a security nightmare, setting up bases in failed states and taking over whole countries as part of their plan to make us all teds or kill us. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:00 AM (#3522495) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "So join poor old ostrich-in-denial-Jim" And most other contributors to this thread before you and your bunch of Klansmen took it over. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:09 AM (#3522498) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford In your opinion Mike! Any proof of what you say? That was about the numbers of Islamists on the watch list. I have provided plenty of stuff to show that the number is at least 2000. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:21 AM (#3522499) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Should read "TINY BUNCH OF KLANSMEN" BTW "I am a fair bit older than either of you" I assume that you managed to acquire a copy of our birth certificates - must have a word with the security authorities about that A small handful of years, but not many. And you have yet to respond to my experience with Muslims. I started work in the early '50s on the docks for a ship repair firm - we worked on overhauling ships equipment when they docked, sometimes for months at a time. Most of the workers became friendly with the members of the skeleton crews who stayed on board, they cooked our meals and acted as guides around the ships - Indians. Pakistanis, Arabs, Africans, Greeks, Chinese...... I can't remember any friction, between us and the crews, in fact the only sign of racism in those days were the words carved into the stonework over the entrances to the public toilets which were racially segregated - (all male, no women on the docks then) - they read "ASIANS" and "MEN". There - I've shown you mine - you show me yours from leafy Cambridgeshire. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:23 AM (#3522500) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I have provided plenty of stuff to show that the number is at least 2000." In 2006 - the year after the London bombings Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:28 AM (#3522501) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I have also linked to MI5 who say the numbers have not gone down. Quite the reverse. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:32 AM (#3522503) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 500! Although the number is no longer mentioned officially, it is not just me who accepts 2000. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22718000 |
|
04 Jun 13 - 03:49 AM (#3522506) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I have also linked to MI5 who say the numbers have not gone down." Since 2002 when the MI5 report begins "It is not just me who accepts 2000." The BBC report reads "It has been said" - by whom - a politician maybe? There have been no major incidents since 2006, there have been no mass arrests, so presumably most of those under suspicion then were innocent of any crime. The situation is so "desperate" that the government is intending to cut spending to the security services - also dealt with in the report - bit irresponsible, don'cha think, especially as the IRA has definitely become an escalating problem according to the MI5 man?. We have no idea whatever what the figures are and if they are going up or down and claiming that we have is simple politicking to smear a whole community - as usual. Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 04:14 AM (#3522516) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who dare not speak his name If I say that I am appalled by the behaviour and views expressed by the marchers in Luton - does that make me a "klansman" ? |
|
04 Jun 13 - 05:23 AM (#3522528) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "does that make me a "klansman" Not necessarily - but if you open and dominate thread after thread after thread with Islamophobic postings, you wouldn't have any difficulty with a membership application. On the other hand - not exactly 'burning crosses' but - "A U.S. pastor, Terry Jones, who had organized a "Burn the Quran" event last September 11, had been invited to speak at the rally, but Jones' visit was canceled after UK authorities said they might not let him in the country. Jones, of Gainesville, Florida, did not carry out his plans to hold the Quran burning amid increasing pressure from U.S. and international leaders." http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/05/england.islam.protests/index.html Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 05:55 AM (#3522541) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""In your opinion Mike! Any proof of what you say? That was about the numbers of Islamists on the watch list. I have provided plenty of stuff to show that the number is at least 2000."" And, you dope, I am on record here as having accepted that number already. My argument with Mike (which was none of your business anyway) was over his refusal to see that when one says something "might" happen, implicit in that statement is the alternative "or might not", which elicited fom him some nonsense about the man being too scared to reveal the "real" figures, mere conjecture on Mike's part and entirely unworthy of the man I take him to be. You, on the other hand... Don T. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 06:39 AM (#3522552) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Same old guest I'm not Islamophobic. I'm not SCARED of them. I'm scared of the PC mob though and don't wish to be called a fascist or whatever because I object to the behaviour of the Luton rabble. If you label those who are unenthusiastic about the prospect of Sharia law being imposed, the pubs closed down, bacon outlawed, women trussed up in Burquas etc as klansmen or fascists then you are liable to drive them into the arms of the BNP. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 06:40 AM (#3522553) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Only significant people would get on the watch list. We know that one suspect had trained abroad and been on Jihad, and he was so unexceptional no special watch was on him. "To keep a constant watch on just one of those people, you would need a team of at least six surveillance operatives, Dame Stella says. But of course they couldn't work 24 hours a day, so you would need three teams of six. And those operatives couldn't just sit outside a suspect's house. So, you'd need an additional person to, say, sit in a nearby house, and alert the team of six when the suspect left the house. Then there's the control centre, where staff receive information from the mobile operatives and give them directions. And finally, there's a desk officer in charge of the case. "Doing that 24 hours a day, seven days a week - well, you do the sums, it's an awful lot of people," Dame Stella says. And if 2,000 people were to be followed like that, we'd be talking about 50,000 full-time spies doing nothing but following suspected terrorists. That's more than 10 times the number of people employed by MI5. The numbers don't add up." Jim, I showed that there were, "into the thousands" in 2006 and the 2012 MI5 report said none had been taken off, and we know radicalisation has continued. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 06:45 AM (#3522555) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Wise words from a wise man. Full disclosure to the anti-semites among us - the author, Dr. Avi Perry, is a Jew. Op-Ed: Am I an Islamophobe? Published: Monday, June 03, 2013 10:21 AM Telling the stark reality is just not politically correct. The year was 2009. I was a guest at a talk show, discussing my newly released book: 72 Virgins. People in the audience called in, referring to me as an Islamophobe. It was the first time I was accused of prejudice against, hatred towards, or irrational fear of Muslims. Those who tried to characterize me as such had no idea what the book was about, but quickly jumped to conclusions, basing their judgment on the evocative title. Some even claimed mendaciously to have read the book, but turned nonverbal or entirely wide of the mark when asked to reflect on the book's theme. It does not matter if the Qur'an indeed calls for violence... It does not matter as long as the Jihadists claim that it does. Throughout the years that followed, I discussed the phenomenon of Islamic terror on my own talk show, whenever the subject came to the fore due to topical events covered by the major news media at the time. I always tried to emphasize, right from the outset, that I did not regard all Muslims as terrorists, and that I did recognize the fact that not all terrorists were Muslims. My approach to characterizing Islamic terror has always been based on the fact that all reasonable people attributed it to "Radical Islam"—a global movement comprising al-Qaeda, its self-regulating extensions, and even some hot-headed, radicalized individuals with no direct ties to any of the larger Jihadi organizations. I have also noted that Islam comprises 50% of the term "Radical Islam", and that Radical Islamists commit their crimes in the name of their religion; they find proof, justification and reinforcement for their acts of terror in their sacred texts. I do not have to become a Qur'an or a Hadith expert to prove that point. It does not matter if the Qur'an indeed calls for violence (which I believe to be a true characterization). It does not matter as long as the Jihadists claim that it does; they claim to abide by their prophet's edicts. They keep justifying their acts of terror and violence by telling us that they follow their religious beliefs. What else is the root cause for their acts of terror? Now, in the minds of many left-minded individuals, this is where I have been crossing the red line. I have been linking Islam with terror, they claim. The principal line of attack other than calling me an Islamophobe, where the term is sandwiched between some unprintable X-rated junk words, has always been consistent with my own approach. Their attack has always been packaged by:"And what about crimes and terror acts committed by Christians in the name of their religion?" and also: "I have a Muslim friend, yada, yada, yada…" Right; I guess I need to say it one more time. Not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all terrorists are Muslims. Nevertheless, there is a significant segment of people among the Muslim population who commit terror acts in the name of their religion, a larger segment who do not resort to violence, but do support it wholeheartedly, and an even larger silent segment who neither support it nor condemn it, and thus, let it continue unchallenged. Fortunately, these three segments do not take account of all Muslims—there are also Muslims who view Radical Islam as alien to their interpretation of the Qur'an and to what they see as their peaceful religion. And then, the fact that Christians—mostly in the distant past and to a lesser degree in the present—committed crimes in the name of their religion, should not be used to cover up the fact that in today's world, a significant number of terror acts are committed in the name of Islam. If admitting to the cold reality, while steering clear of expressing hatred towards, or irrational fear of all Muslims, (simply because they happened to be born Muslim) makes me an Islamophobe, so be it. Trying to cover up facts with the aim of protecting a criminal, ruthless underdog (merely because that particular group is perceived as the underdog) is not only corrupt. It is an ideology in need of being condemned. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 08:45 AM (#3522573) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Only significant people would get on the watch list." Er no - the "watch list" is the routine observer list that my father was on when he returned from Spain - unless you have evidence to the contrary of course - otherwise, stop making things up. The serious suspects were the ones singled our as those "thought to be a serious threat to Britain's security" - as described in the MI5 report. Speaking of which - you claimed there were 2000 plus suspects in 2006, - you then claimed there was a large increase in that number, adapting that later to "the numbers must have increased" when you were challenged to produce your facts. Now you are claiming there are what? - 2000, wasn't it? Which makes a huge increase of what - I make in none. Consistency, dear boy, consistency - stick to the script! Did you explain why the Government is proposing to cut the budget of the security services at a time when there is a 'massive increase' in the number of suspects - I don't believe you did? Guest who dare not speak his name I'm quite intrigued by your choice of choice of pen name - why choose that one. Some time ago we had several heated arguments on this forum about, among of the things the Dale Farm eviction, following which several of us had our facebooks hacked into and phony profiles inserted (this, I was informed, was by a BNP parasite we had picked up. If you chose your name because of fear of retaliation from us pathetic liberals and loonie lefties, I would keep my eye on the rabid right if I were you - especially the ones who use the term "traitor" and have us all bunged away in the Tower. Just a warning" Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM (#3522577) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The serious suspects were the ones singled our as those "thought to be a serious threat to Britain's security" - as described in the MI5 report. Yes. That is them. People like at least one of the suspects, who had attempted to reach Somalia to train with Al Shabab. He was on that list with "thousands" more. Now you are claiming there are what? - 2000, wasn't it? I am saying 2000 at the very least, and for all the reasons and facts given. You believe it is substantially less, but you have never told us what reason you have for that belief. Will you list your reasons for us now Jim dear? |
|
04 Jun 13 - 10:47 AM (#3522610) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "My argument with Mike (which was none of your business anyway) was over his refusal to see that when one says something "might" happen, implicit in that statement is the alternative "or might not", which elicited fom him some nonsense** about the man being too scared to reveal the "real" figures, mere conjecture on Mike's part and entirely unworthy of the man I take him to be." .,,. I am reciprocally disappointed by this reaction from you, Don. I expect heels·dug·in from the likes of the doctrinaire, 'don't-confuse-me-with-facts' Carroll; but thought you more amenable to reason. **"Nonsense", was it? How can you be so insufferably cocksure? Did you ever stop to think maybe I had that fellow's measure better than you? Think of the words of the Lord Protector Cromwell "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken." Pretty rich coming from him, admittedly, who probably never admitted to a mistake in his life. But you now, Don? Has a new idea, the possibility of any possible alternative of that lefty weltanschauung in which you seem too immovably fixed to allow any possible conception of another way of looking at the world (in a time when all we hold dear is menaced from within -- I ask again, did you watch that video from the girl in Luton? & did you come out the other end with all prejudices & preconceptions intact?) never even entered your head? I say again, I should have thought better of you. You appeared to have 100x the intellect and grip of the likes of Carroll, but it appears not the ability to make this essential leap: so maybe I have overrated you. If this be so, I shudder for you. You will learn when it is too late, I fear. In continued friendship, but with concern ~M~ |
|
04 Jun 13 - 10:51 AM (#3522611) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Yes. That is them." And your proof is....? You are maliciously making this up - there is no indication in any of the statements who is on the "watch list" - saying "that is them is further evidence of your maliciousness. Those leaving the country - again as the MI5 report points out, are going to FIGHT in places like The Yemen - read the ******* report - you put it up. "I am saying 2000 at the very least" Stop making things up - the report says 2000 - exactly the same number as seven years ago - nobody has mentioned any "at least" other than you - more malicious invention on your part. Still nothing on the budget cuts? Jim Carroll |
|
04 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM (#3522638) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The recent BBC report assumed 2000, the 2006 statement said "in the thousands" I say at least 2000. MI5 confirms none have been removed while we know radicalisation has continued. I has been widely reported that that at least one of the suspects was on the watch list following his attempts to fight Jihad (not train, OK) with Al Shabab. Please deny it so I can show your stupidity again. And please tell us your reasons for thinking 2000 is too high. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 05:44 PM (#3522775) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I know I said I wouldn't post to this thread again but can someone please put a stop to this. It is like an endless stream of Tom and Jerry scenes in which Tom tries more and more ludicrous ways to trap Jerry but ends up failing each time. I am not going to say which is which. Oh, and before anyone tells me I don't have to read it. Have you tried looking away from a car crash? DtG |
|
04 Jun 13 - 06:19 PM (#3522784) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""lefty weltanschauung in which you seem too immovably fixed to allow any possible conception of another way of looking at the world"" Ask Richard Bridge whether that lefty tag fits Mike! Don't expect an answer until he stops laughing....about September at a guess! You show me your evidence, or even any discernible and recogniseable indication that your comment about that man is anywhere near a fact, and I will recant and apologise, but we both know that it is nothing more than what you choose to believe. It is your opinion, which is fine, as long as you don't present it as if it were fact, which is what you did. Don T. |
|
04 Jun 13 - 06:25 PM (#3522787) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Only significant people would get on the watch list."" In many of your posts there is a significant amount of "should" and "would", and it is almost always posted as if it were evidence based fact. It is your opinion! Kindly present it as opinion, or expect it to be shot full of holes. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. If you don't know the difference, we'll keep explaining it until what you are pleased to refer to as a brain catches up. Don T. |
|
05 Jun 13 - 12:00 AM (#3522876) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Don ~~ I take into account ··· •his evasive tone ['not getting into the numbers game'] •the time the statement was made ~~ way back before Andrew Norfolk & The Times cracked (in a fashion which altered at a stroke the atmosphere of evasion which had till then for years bedevilled any approach to anything with any trace of a racial element) the young-girls-abused-by-certain-ethnically-coherent-groups-while-everyone-who-could-have-helped-went-into-hysterical-denial scandal, which they demonstrated to have been allowed to happen largely because those who could have tackled it were too scared of the PC antiracist brigade: a different scandal admittedly from the one Mr 'Might' was engaging with, but surely analogous & comparable? which, taken together, I would urge suggest a strong possiblity [a big 'might'?!] that he was fearfully evading a direct answer as I suggested. Of course 'might' subsumes 'might not'; SFAIR I never denied this possibility: but I think in this instance the explanation I postulate for the evasive tone of his responses is likelier than the putative get-out you suggest. I won't put it higher than that. And of course I can't positively demonstrate with any sort of certainty what was going on inside his head any better than anyone else can. But taking all this suggestive evidence, of his uncertainty of tone, and the atmosphere of PC dominant at the time he made the statement, when everyone was watching his back for fear of accusations of non-PC attitudes which could ruin a career [and still can in some places ~ look at the thread ongoing, 'PC Spanish class', about the Spanish teacher in America] into account... ~M~ |
|
05 Jun 13 - 12:22 AM (#3522882) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And, having checked back, I rejoin also that I didn't claim my interpretation as a fact as you assert, but used the words "What is implicit in the use of the word 'might'" == 'implicit' surely demonstrating that I was just offering what I saw as a likely explanation, not asserting any sort of "fact" -- ['present it as if it were fact, which is what you did', were your words -- >b>no, I repeat, I didn't; I said it was 'implicit', which is surely speculative rather than assertive.] |
|
05 Jun 13 - 01:29 AM (#3522892) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And why should I take Richard Bridge, who IMO is a political moron whatever sound opinions he may have in other contexts, as any sort of authority in assessing your apparent political stance, eh Don? If you are not 'lefty' enough to suit his grotesque notions, then the better for you as far as I'm concerned! |
|
05 Jun 13 - 01:43 AM (#3522898) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, if I just gave opinions they would immediately be rejected as (insert)ist and or (insert)ophobic. I have therefore substantiated everything. Produce anything that I have not. Dave, the exact number on a watch list is what the string of traps has degenerated into. Jerry quits. |
|
05 Jun 13 - 03:18 AM (#3522910) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Really no point in discussing with people with liars who make up figures to fuel their racist hatred - might as well dip into the BNP or EDL sites for the same message. http://politicalscrapbook.net/2013/05/the-bnps-sick-recruitment-email-exploiting-woolwich-murder/ MtheGM said it all in one posting - whence the difference? I'll leave you in the company you seem best suited to. Jim Carroll "'a' murderous thug"?! "a"??? 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. Modern equivalent of the one on KoKKo's 'little list' in The Mikado, 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but his own' ~~ good old Gilbert had their number all right, Carroll & his like. Make me sick. Traitors. Is High Treason still a capital offence, I wonder?" |
|
05 Jun 13 - 03:25 AM (#3522911) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford make up figures Lie. All in public domain and quoted. |
|
05 Jun 13 - 03:34 AM (#3522912) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion snip ~~ "And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again" Jim quotes back at me my former description of his MO, as adjunct to his exclaiming "Really no point in discussing with people ... who make up figures to fuel their racist" .,,. Seems to me he is determined to remake [& emphasise & confirm] my point for me. Nice of him! Ta! ☺〠☺~M~☺〠☺ |
|
05 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM (#3522946) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""'implicit' surely demonstrating that I was just offering what I saw as a likely explanation, not asserting any sort of "fact" --"" Now then Mike, you accuse me of putting forward a weak argument and then you present this. Your knowledge of the English language is far too goddfor you to be unaware that the phrase "implicit in" is much more definite than that. You are watering it down, and you know it. Anyway, you have confirmed that you were offering an opinion and that's fine. Yours is as good as mine or anyone else's, but I think we need to know how many of Keith's 2000 have committed, are committing, or will commit violent acts, before we can decid which of our opinions is correct. So it all comes back to "might", or "might not" in the end. If we treat them as criminals already, we precipitate the very results we are trying to prevent. Does that make any sense at all? Don T. |
|
05 Jun 13 - 05:51 AM (#3522951) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford we need to know how many of Keith's 2000 have committed, are committing, or will commit violent acts, MI5's list actually, and on their site they describe the kinds of folk they take an interest in. Returning to the original subject, Amjam Choudhary has given his views about the motive for the killing. London Evening Standard. "Filmed while he talked to his followers at his office near Walthamstow mosque last Friday Choudary said: "Allah said very clearly in the Koran 'Don't feel sorry for the non-Muslims.' "So as an adult non-Muslim, whether he is part of the Army or not part of the Army, if he dies in a state of disbelief then he is going to go to the hellfire. "That's what I believe so I'm not going to feel sorry for non-Muslims. "We invite them to embrace the message of Islam. If they don't, then obviously if they die like that they're going to the hellfires." The preacher went on to praise Michael Adebolajo, 28, who along with Michael Adebowale, 22, is accused of Drummer Rigby's murder. He said :"As far as they are concerned I believe that they were doing what they believed to be Islamically correct. "Only Allah can judge them in the hereafter for what they did in their life. In their eyes they are martyrs and what I say is Allah may accept them into paradise. |
|
05 Jun 13 - 06:01 AM (#3522955) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion No, frankly, Don. I can't follow the point you are making at all. You still haven't answered my question on that Luton demo video. Did you see it? If so, did you come away from it unworried? There were more than 2,000 on that demo alone, weren't there? All explicitly asserting their alienation from any sort of British identity -- how else can one interpret a reiterated cry of "British police go to hell"? I don't expect they are all on this list of Keith's. In fact I doubt if any of that particular lot are. But they set out at least to give the impression that, given half a chance, they would carve you up with a machete if they could get away with it, didn't they? That big fat pillock who told the girl that all non-muslims were off to the hellfire [a view confirmed as doctrinal by that Chaudury creature in the morning's Times] was a right charmer, eh? Like to meet him on a dark night, would you? Are you really so happy in this 'opinion' of yours that it is somehow unnecessary, and unworthy, to feel concerned? That we are not under any kind of threat from this consumed-by-loathing-of-us-all mob right here in our midst? That it's all going to go away if we just go on pretending it isn't there, isn't it? Hope it keeps fine for you. ~M~ |
|
05 Jun 13 - 07:50 AM (#3522977) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I mean, seriously Don. I know there are some things which will fly in the face of your deepest-held tenets and principles; ones on which you have grown up all your life so that they are pretty well part of your persona. But circumstances alter cases, as they say. And there are no cases which certain circumstances cannot alter. At least stop for a second, and question whether these humane, inclusive, anti-racist, tenets of yours are entirely adequate for dealing with what seem to me patently altered circumstances to the ones we all grew up with; ones which are not necessarily compatible with our traditional collective tenets & principles; and whether at least some measure of self-adjustment might not just be requisite to deal with the situation as it IS, now, here, in this land of ours; and not how it has always been TILL now and we should all like it still to be. If only... That's all I ask. Please, Don. Just stop for a second and look around you & THINK whether any sort of mental adjustment or realignment might be necessary... |
|
05 Jun 13 - 08:55 AM (#3523005) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I'd thought of trying to make the same point to J.C. But he wouldn't even allow himself to contemplate the possibility of even troubling to try & make out what I mean; just up with his head for long enuff to shoot off that fave r-word of his ... My impression is that you are just that bit more amenable to reason, Don; or so I should like to think... |
|
05 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM (#3523110) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I can remember a time when I could never even have contemplated making any observation in any circumstances to which anyone could possibly respond by accusations of 'r*c*sm'. But that was before WTC or Ramat Gan or 9/11 or 7/7 or Madrid or the Danish cartoons or Swat Valley or Mumbai or….. The case is altered… Heads out of the sand ~~~ PLEASE |
|
06 Jun 13 - 01:37 AM (#3523312) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I was ready to be proved wrong, but I never thought there was that much difference between them Michael. Remember "Oh well that's alright then, providing of course that there is any such thing as global Islamism. Do you know of any such organisation, or are you just making it up as you go along, as usual?" ? So Ramat Gan or 9/11 or 7/7 or Madrid or the Danish cartoons or Swat Valley or Mumbai or….. were all isolated and unconnected incidents for Don. It is not just there heads in the sand. It is only there loudly declaiming arses that protrude! |
|
06 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM (#3523314) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford their their! |
|
06 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM (#3523315) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Still think that Don is amenable to reason, Keith. I should like to think he is thinking it over in the light of arguments adduced. Let's see how he will come back eventually. ~M~ |
|
06 Jun 13 - 05:50 AM (#3523362) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Are you really so happy in this 'opinion' of yours that it is somehow unnecessary, and unworthy, to feel concerned? That we are not under any kind of threat from this consumed-by-loathing-of-us-all mob right here in our midst? That it's all going to go away if we just go on pretending it isn't there, isn't it?"" Of course I'm concerned about the real threat Mike, where did I state that I wasn't. What I'm not prepared to do is to stereotype a whole community as terrorists because a minority of idiots follow the rantings of a few radical preachers. Your words in the last few days border on inciting race or religious hatred, and an example of where that attitude leads is the Muslim meeting place that was burned to the ground yesterday and the ruins covered in EDL graffiti. Is that your idea of a proper response, and if so, what do you see as the likely outcome? Do we really need to fire the first shots in yet another war, this time on our own turf? Don T. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM (#3523371) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza I was relieved to hear that there were no casualties after the fire. That Muslim meeting place was used by many different sections of the comunity, not all Muslim by any means, a true multicultural centre. The arson smacks of the Kristallnacht attacks in Germany on the Jews in the Thirties. I was also heartened to hear that the whole community was supportive of the local Muslim people and that they have always been on friendly and pleasant terms with one another. We don't yet know that the EDL was 'responsible' ( a misnomer if ever there was one!) Just because the letters were scrawled on the walls doesn't mean they were the perpetrators. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 06:24 AM (#3523373) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Is that your idea of a proper response, How can you dare even ask?! |
|
06 Jun 13 - 06:58 AM (#3523383) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Eliza. Make no mistake. The far right view this as their Kristallnacht. In fact they've been milking Lee Rigby's murder for all they can get out of it ever since it happened. Thank God for the peoples of Muswell Hill and Woolwich, and many other areas of this country, who have remained calm and ignored all the calls to join in anti-Islamic pogroms. Was it the EDL? Of course it wasn't, at any rate not officially. Neither was it "officially" the National Front, or the British Movement, who burnt Asian families out of their houses in the 1970s, or Mosley's fascists who did the same thing to the Jews in the 1930s. But we all know that the perpetrators came from these organisations, or were very cose to them. And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, Stephen Lennon and Oswald Mosley played in stirring up hatred. What, I wonder, would these bastards do if there were no minorities to persecute? Yeahh, I know. They'd invent a few. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 08:41 AM (#3523403) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome But we all know that the perpetrators came from these organisations, or were very cose to them. We are also pretty sure that Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are pretty close to a hatemongering Islamic organisation aren't we? And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Colin Jordan and John Tyndall, Nick Griffin, Stephen Lennon and Oswald Mosley played in stirring up hatred. And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini played in stirring up hatred. But I guess I must be a rabid right-wing racist for saying so because those hate-mongers had a valid reason? Cheers DtG |
|
06 Jun 13 - 10:02 AM (#3523429) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST Dave The Gnome. "We are also pretty sure that Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale are pretty close to a hatemongering Islamic organisation aren't we?" "And we all know the part which the inflammatory rhetoric of Anjem Choudary and Abu Hamza, Omar Bakri, Osama Bin Laden and Ayatollah Khomeini played in stirring up hatred." We know already that these are evil figures and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, just as I have no sympathy for the people I've named. What concerns me is the fact that an anti-Muslim backlash would bring the house down around the ears of all the decent law abiding Muslims, who go about their daily business and have no truck with Islamic extremists. And make no mistake. The Woolwich murder was specifically intended to create such a backlash. It's a little bit out of date already, but you might want to read The New Extremism in 21st Century Britain by Roger Eatwell and Matthew J Goodwin. As the authors go to considerable lengths to point out, the far right and the Islamic fundamentalists feed off each aother. IE., one side commits an outrage. That provokes the other side into committing a bigger outrage, which provokes the first side into an even bigger one, ad infinitum. I sometimes wonder if they don't ring each other up and say "We'll desecrate a war memorial and that'll get your lot stirred up and then you can break the windows of one of the local mosques. That'll get our side going. Then we'll think up something even more extreme and you can top that by..................". BTW. There have been 200 reported attacks on Muslims since the Woolwich outrage. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM (#3523435) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza Do you know, GUEST, I've thought exactly the same thing vis, the two groups are almost mutually beneficial! The remedy is strong, united local communities, but the Fundamentalists don't want to integrate, since they seem to view the rest of us as filthy, contaminated and immoral. The East End of London has an enormously long history of mixed races, cultures and religions due to immigration after pogroms, persecutions and other disasters. In the main, until just after WW2, they've all got along quite well and treated eachother with respect and decency. But none of them wished to 'convert' the rest, impose special laws, dress or religious practices on the whole population as these Islamists seem to do. The more strife, retaliation and mayhem from EDL, BNP, and the various terrorist Muslim groups, the better pleased they'll all be. Our part is to refuse to become hate-filled, offer support to all, stay calm and try to maintain our country's excellent reputation for tolerance and wise restraint. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 10:20 AM (#3523437) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Mostly virtual. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 10:52 AM (#3523444) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion No. The islamists are nor 'responding' to anything except their own jihadi imperative to bring about their Caliphate. This fills their entire horizon, & they would inevitably be doing this, whatever the reactions or responses of anyone else, which are merely tangential to their compulsions, if influential at all. The feeling of some self-righteous additional motivation which might accrue in the face of oppositional reactions might help a bit to harden their resolve ~~ it's always a great stimulus to feel oneself one of a chorus of a million lone voices crying in the wilderness: but is no sort of main trigger. I expect Don will see this as further evidence of my imagined imminent application to join the EDL. Others less tunnel-visioned by their conditioning, which even a man of his apparent intelligence seems unable to break out of, will recognise the truth of what I have said. ~M~ |
|
06 Jun 13 - 10:55 AM (#3523445) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion He still remains oddly cagey about whether he actually dared to watch that Luton demo video; or to report, if so, how he reacted to it. Why so, I wonder? |
|
06 Jun 13 - 02:21 PM (#3523532) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I presume Guest was you, Fred - Was it? Anyhow - What concerns me is the fact that an anti-Muslim backlash would bring the house down around the ears of all the decent law abiding Muslims, who go about their daily business and have no truck with Islamic extremists. What concerns me more is that an anti-Western backlash is bringing the house down around the ears of decent law-abiding Englishmen who go about their daily business and have no truck with right-wing extremists. See, it works both ways. You cannot defend the rights of one group but say another do not deserve it. I have as much right to a quiet life as any Moslem but it seems I cannot have it while you defend the rights of some groups but not others. Why is that? Cheers DtG |
|
06 Jun 13 - 03:08 PM (#3523556) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse David Cameron a couple of years ago: "The multicultural state has failed"; it's our world/our United Nations that should be multicultural (http://www.myspace.com/walkaboutsverse/blog/325979229). |
|
06 Jun 13 - 03:43 PM (#3523569) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford It does seem to be a smaller proportion of the white community who have extreme views. The much hyped BNP demo on Saturday in London drew about 150 from the entire country. That one off in Luton had about 2000 for no special occasion. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 04:41 PM (#3523585) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse The main cause of terrorism is economic immigration; Blair got making-us-safer all wrong: invading another nation whilst stepping up immigration to record levels. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 06:07 PM (#3523603) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza 'economic immigration' - we've had immigrants pouring in for several years now, principally to take up jobs that nobody here wanted to do. The Poles, Lithuanians, Chinese, West Indians (many of whom worked for London Transport) Phillippinos (nursing and care work) etc etc, all have contributed a great deal to our country. None of these seem to have turned into terrorists. Even Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrants are largely good people with strong family ethics and a moral, law-abiding way of life. It must be remembered that the dangerous fundamentalist 'Islamists' are a small but vociferous minority. The threat they represent is not IMO a result of increased numbers of immigrants. And the 'born-and-bred here' brigade, the EDL, BNP etc, are just as much a threat to our stability and peace. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 07:38 PM (#3523629) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Is that your idea of a proper response, How can you dare even ask?!"" Given your attitude to Muslims, asking is unnecessary! Mike however is usually less biased. Don T. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 07:45 PM (#3523632) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I expect Don will see this as further evidence of my imagined imminent application to join the EDL. Others less tunnel-visioned by their conditioning, which even a man of his apparent intelligence seems unable to break out of, will recognise the truth of what I have said."" Now, where and when have we seen the followers of a religion used as a bogeyman to arouse fear and hatred in a population before? I would have thought that Mike would be the very last to follow that model! Don T. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 07:48 PM (#3523633) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""He still remains oddly cagey about whether he actually dared to watch that Luton demo video; or to report, if so, how he reacted to it. Why so, I wonder?"" He watched it, end to end, and found it just as offensive as most of your recent posts Mike. See my last post for the reason! Don T. |
|
06 Jun 13 - 08:04 PM (#3523640) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad What was it that you found offensive Don? Was it the Muslim protesters proclaiming their hatred for the country that gave them sanctuary or was it the English lady who dared challenge their extremist proclamations? |
|
07 Jun 13 - 01:52 AM (#3523683) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion From: Don(Wyziwyg)T - PM Date: 06 Jun 13 - 07:45 PM ""I expect Don will see this as further evidence of my imagined imminent application to join the EDL. Others less tunnel-visioned by their conditioning, which even a man of his apparent intelligence seems unable to break out of, will recognise the truth of what I have said."" Now, where and when have we seen the followers of a religion used as a bogeyman to arouse fear and hatred in a population before? I would have thought that Mike would be the very last to follow that model! .,,. ""He still remains oddly cagey about whether he actually dared to watch that Luton demo video; or to report, if so, how he reacted to it. Why so, I wonder?"" He watched it, end to end, and found it just as offensive as most of your recent posts Mike. See my last post for the reason! Don T. .,,.,.., I would have thought Don would have been the last person so hidebound by his conditioned preconceptions as so wilfully to misinterpret what has been, IMO & with all due modesty, quite clearly stated. No-one is 'using {all] the followers of a religion as a bogeyman'; only a minute but unhappily prominent & effective segment from within the followers of a religion. You know that, Don; don't pretend you don't. This constantly adduced but weary old argument that most Muslims aren't Islamists makes as much sense as to urge, when a hydrophobic dog is on the loose, that there is no need for alarm because the vast majority of dogs are not hydrophobic. & you have seen that programme, then? So you will appreciate that there may in fact be a fair element of the 'bogeyman' in the population of a town where there is a high proportion of the followers of a religion concentrated [14.6% acc to wikipedia]. But the thing that I really would not have expected from Don is that he would have resorted to name-calling ['EDL', 'offensive' ...] instead of actually engaging, point by point, with the arguments I have postulated. Try reading my last few posts again, Don, with as much objectivity which the natural distaste your conditioning and preconceptions will allow [more than they have allowed so far, that is to say!]. Till then, I regret we can have no more to say to one another on this topic. ~M~ |
|
07 Jun 13 - 02:46 AM (#3523687) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford As I said, the two are as one. Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Don. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 03:32 AM (#3523692) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I cannot understand the hypocrisy that, quite rightly, condemns the extremists of the right wing, yet excuses the violence of the extremists claiming to represent Islam. All violent extremism is wrong. Why can some people not understand that if I condemn the perpetrators of this latest atrocity as Islamist terrorists without being an Islamophobe. I will also condemn the violent extremists of the right as English nutters, but that does not make me anti-English either. Neither of my condemnations mean I am against a whole race or religion. Just anti-violence and with the peaceful majority. Just idle speculation on my part I suspect. As I said earlier, there is no reasoning with the unreasonable. Cheers DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 03:56 AM (#3523695) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Yay. Looks as if you might have been right about that after all, Keith. Pity! ~M~ |
|
07 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM (#3523699) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Blandiver David WAV - ditch the specious rhetoric & have a look at this: Mathematics - Spoken Word by Hollie McNish |
|
07 Jun 13 - 04:22 AM (#3523700) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who shall remain gormless "I cannot understand the hypocrisy that, quite rightly, condemns the extremists of the right wing, yet excuses the violence of the extremists claiming to represent Islam. All violent extremism is wrong. Why can some people not understand that if I condemn the perpetrators of this latest atrocity as Islamist terrorists without being an Islamophobe. I will also condemn the violent extremists of the right as English nutters, but that does not make me anti-English either. Neither of my condemnations mean I am against a whole race or religion. Just anti-violence and with the peaceful majority." In a nutshell dave. Brilliant. You can rest your case. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 05:14 AM (#3523706) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Saw it days ago, Blandiver. It has been around on Facebook for a while. I don't understand what it has to do with this though. No-one on this thread seems to be talking about immigration or jobs being taken. For what it is worth, I agree entirely with the principle expounded by the young lady in the clip but I am pretty sure she doesn't mention terrorism. Cheers DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 05:19 AM (#3523708) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Sorry folks. I've just realised that my reply to Dave the Gnome was sent anonymously. It was entirely unintentional, I assure you. "See, it works both ways". Of course it does, that is what my posting was all about. Personally I look forward to the day when people the world over are valued as people. Not black or white or Jews or Christians or Catholics or Protestants or Muslims or gays or straights or travellers or whoever. Just people. Maybe that's a lot to ask, considering how many bigots the world has produced, but it has to be preferable to sitting back and watching the human race tear itself apart. If we could just make people realise that beneath the huge variety of social cultures which characterise the human race, we are all the one species; that the human race laughs and cries and fucks and fights, and feels and expresses the same emotions the world over, then perhaps we could discover one simple truth. Namely, that if you hurt me, then I will feel the same pain - emotional and/or physical - that you would feel if I hurt you. I would rather go down that road than the one which the nutters of the far right and extreme Islam are hell bent on pushing us into. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM (#3523711) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I am sure we all feel the same Fred, but we are discussing what to do about the threat posed by Islamism. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 05:38 AM (#3523712) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I did think it was you, Fred, but thanks for confirming it. Good post too on how we all should act. I was at the local park last night with the Grandkids, paddling in the pool and generally having the fun that 2 and 4 years old do :-) It was wonderful to see how all the kids accepted each other, played with each other and, apart from the odd spat of "That's MY boat!", got on so well. They were all colours and, I guess, all creeds. If only we could all keep that attitude when we grow up it would solve a lot of problems. Maybe I never grew up which is why I find it difficult to dislike people on racial or religious grounds. Don't get me wrong, I dislike a people who rub me up the wrong way (That's MY boat!) but it is never at first sight or to do with how they look, speak or think. But if it is an Islamic terrorist that steals my boat I will say as much. Just as I would say if it was a right-wing extremist. The criminal class seems to have no boundries and will use any excuse to justify their actions. It is up to the ordinary people who they claim to support to stop them. Cheers DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:34 AM (#3523718) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Times yesterday. A gang of Islamic extremists who plotted a bomb and gun attack against the English Defence League hoped to cause a "tit-for-tat spiral of violence", a court heard yesterday. The leader of the six men, who have pleaded guilty to planning a terror attack on an EDL rally during the Queen's Diamond Jubilee, had been under the surveillance of M15. But the gang was stopped, travelling back from the rally of the far-Right group with two shotguns, swords, knives, a nail bomb and a pipe bomb. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:40 AM (#3523720) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""What was it that you found offensive Don? Was it the Muslim protesters proclaiming their hatred for the country that gave them sanctuary or was it the English lady who dared challenge their extremist proclamations?"" A typically brainless Bobad comment. The protesters were indeed offensive, and the lady who stood up to them showed great courage and forbearance. She was luckier than a Muslim woman would have been, if confronting a bunch of our home grown EDL thugs. They would be much less likely to confine themselves to verbal abuse. Still, why not follow the lead of Keith A and Bobad and paint the whole Muslim population of this country (in fact the world) as religiously inspired terrorists? They've already, so it seems, converted Mike to their "hate every Muslim" religion. Shit, why don't we round 'em all up and send 'em packing. After all, it's not like we need all those doctors and nurses, shopkeepers who are open till 11pm, bus drivers, cleaners etc. Haven't we got hundreds of good law abiding white folk just itching to do those jobs? Well NO!! We bloody well haven't! So how about returning to something like sanity and recognising that we have to control the extremists, both Muslim and Christian (or what passes for it), and to do that, we need the help of the wider settled Muslim community. Turning them into enemies by our knee jerk reactions isn't the way to achieve that. A good start would be to purge our own extremist "Imams", who are busy radicalising British youth to burn mosques. And Mike, I would have thought your attitude would be more tolerant. You are old enough to remember the time when just being Jewish was a bar to membership of golf clubs, country clubs, and many other institutions. Don T. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:46 AM (#3523721) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Mrs Cheema QC, Prosecutor said the group set out their intentions in a 'chilling' document called Operation in Defence of the Prophet Muhammad. It called the Queen a 'female devil' and accused her of 'fooling a nation of blind sheep to your self-proclaimed royalty and majesty' by holding the Diamond Jubilee celebrations. Addressing the EDL, it said: 'We love death more than you love life. You are a people who are worse than animals. The penalty for blasphemy of Allah and his Messenger Muhammad is death.' |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:50 AM (#3523722) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Blandiver No-one on this thread seems to be talking about immigration or jobs being taken. It was directed at David WAV with his tiresome comments on 'economic immigration' & linking that to terrorism & the overall Islamophobic tone of this thread, rabid dogs & all! Most people, it would seem, just want a peaceful life. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:50 AM (#3523723) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Still, why not follow the lead of Keith A and Bobad and paint the whole Muslim population of this country (in fact the world) as religiously inspired terrorists? Not true Don. I have never suggested anything like that and it is not the view of any reasonable person, least of all Bobert or me. Why the need to lie Don. (" instead of actually engaging, point by point, with the arguments I have postulated.") |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:54 AM (#3523725) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "Still, why not follow the lead of Keith A and Bobad and paint the whole Muslim population of this country (in fact the world) as religiously inspired terrorists? They've already, so it seems, converted Mike to their "hate every Muslim" religion." A typically brainless DonT comment. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:57 AM (#3523727) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Don. Give us examples of any of the members you mention either saying that they hate every Muslim or believe that all Muslims are hate inspired terrorists or encouraging anyone else to say or do the same. You can't becauae the evidence does not support that scenario. I have also said that it was Moslem preachers that encouraged the young men in question to commit these acts. I have also said that the young men themselves were Islamic terrorists. They were and, as far as I know, would have continued to be so if they had not have been stopped. Does that mean that you think I am also a hate-filled right-wing radical? Cheers DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 07:45 AM (#3523739) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I suggest you go back and look at the responses of Keith A and Bobad (not Bobert Keith. Do try to keep up) in every thread about Muslims, and you will see a pattern. The Muslims are always criminals, warmongers, terrorists or sex abusers of white girls. Try to find a post anywhere by these two in which the Muslim isn't the bad guy. Good luck with that DtG. You may have let yourself in for a few months of searching. Don . |
|
07 Jun 13 - 08:05 AM (#3523752) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad So you see Dave this is how he responds to your challenge, he knows he can't provide an example so he tells you to look for one yourself. Perfectly illustrative of the bankruptcy of his position - unable to counter facts and figures he resorts to smear and slander as if that makes his case. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 08:12 AM (#3523753) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry, Don. You cannot answer my request to find examples by suggesting that I do the same. Makes you look like a politician squirming to avoid the issue. Let's put it another way. Provide proof that any of the members you mention have posted that they either hate Moslems or show me where they are inciting other members to do so and I will accept your promise. Until then, innocent until proven guilty. Surely everyone has that right. Keith and Bobad, don't feel obliged, I will stand by my point above but, to, hopefuly, finalise the issue would you like to post a link or comment on a Moslem who is not a bad guy? Here is mine - http://www.yusufislam.com/ Cheers DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 08:16 AM (#3523754) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome ...and one other thing (Sound like Columbo now!) You cannot prove that someone hates another because they have never said anything good about them. I have never said anything good about Lithuanians, Elephants, Seventh-Day adventists, The Stone Roses, pencil manufacturers or Bolivian unicyclists. Doesn't mean that I hate them all. Well, maybe some... DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 08:30 AM (#3523757) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Here is a post about a whole Muslim community who were the victims of persecution by Christians. British troops were sent as pat of NATO to their aid. [PM] Keith A of Hertford BS: British Army at it again (148* d) BS: British Army at it again 01 Mar 07 Hundreds of British troops have had to be sent home from Bosnia. They and other EU forces are no longer needed to keep the peace and rebuild. The Muslim people NATO moved in to protect are now secure. And not a drop of oil in the place. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 08:34 AM (#3523759) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 03 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM There might be more kindness (from Muslims) in return were it not for fear of reprisal. It is not healthy to be seen helping a Jew in many places. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 08:40 AM (#3523763) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 07 Feb 13 - 10:21 AM the indiscriminate (yes, Keith) slaughter of civilians. You need to justify that outrageous accusation. The massacres (of Muslims) you refer to were committed by (Christian) Lebanese militia, |
|
07 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM (#3523772) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:50 AM This is from BBC site about Ahmed. I would like to be told who knows more about British Pakistanis, working class or not, than he does. Not you anyway Lox. What else can you do but walk? The peer also openly clashed with his party's leadership in October 2006 when he openly criticised the way British Muslims were treated. He told the BBC there was "a constant theme of demonisation of the Muslim community" and that politicians were jumping on a bandwagon by "having a go" at Muslims. He said people were exploiting the fact that some within the Muslim community threatened national security. Property developer As a high-profile leader of the Muslim community, Lord Ahmed has played a role in easing tensions after the London bombings in July 2005 and the 9/11 attacks on the US in 2001. Three months after 9/11 he hit the headlines after claiming the government had tapped his phone because of his opposition to the war in Afghanistan. It was a claim the government denied. Lord Ahmed, 51, was born in Pakistan but has lived in Rotherham, in South Yorkshire, since his childhood. He studied public administration at Sheffield Hallam University and joined the Labour Party at the age of 18. Having distinguished himself as a proactive local councillor, he founded the British Muslim Councillors' Forum in 1992 and became a Justice of the Peace in the same year. He was appointed to the House of Lords in 1998 as Baron Ahmed of Rotherham after several years as chairman of the South Yorkshire Labour Party. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 09:01 AM (#3523773) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad I have posted many articles, comments and links by a friend, Tarek Fatah. He is a Muslim who has made it his task to counter Islamist extremism and extremists which he does out of a love for his religion and the desire to not have it perverted by those who would invoke it as sanction for their terrorism. He is a native of Pakistan who now lives in Canada. He was imprisoned in Pakistan for his leftist politics and cannot return to his homeland without arrest and re-imprisonment. He lives under constant threat of death from fellow Muslims who consider him an enemy to them and their fundamentalist beliefs. The likes of our apologists would call him an Islamophobe. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM (#3523774) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:42 AM 400 Alibhai-Brown. Ugandan-born British journalist and author of Indian descent. Currently a regular columnist for The Independent and the Evening Standard,[1] she is a well-known commentator on issues of immigration, diversity and multiculturalism.[2][3] She is a founder member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 09:49 AM (#3523793) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Re Don's post of 0640 am. More grieved than I can express to find him playing the antisemitic card. I know I said I had no more to say to him on this issue. But after that gratuitous piece of irrelevant origin-throwing, I must just add YOU UNSPEAKABLE SWINE, DON |
|
07 Jun 13 - 10:36 AM (#3523802) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad An article by Raheel Raza, another Muslim for whom I have much admiration: Combating political Islam "The West must now use its friends, progressive Muslims and the State of Israel, to determine a clear strategy for dealing with Islamism. Progressive Muslims, like myself, have tried to inform our governments about what they are up against. After 9/11, we called for recognition of the true enemy, a violent ideology which could not be fought with weapons of mass destruction. However, multiculturalism and political correctness kept sidelining the real issues, with any critique of Islamism bringing accusations of racism and Islamophobia." "The weeding out of Islamism and the Islamist threat lodged inside the West is the essential prerequisite, or the first step, in defeating global jihadi warfare of Islamists and in helping the Muslim world reconcile itself with the modern values of science, democracy and human rights. To do this, we need to follow the lead of our Israeli allies and look with clear eyes into the nature of political Islam and have a frank conversation without fear of political correctness." Since Raheel, her colleague Tarek Fatah, myself, Keith, Mike, Dave etc. have the same opinion of and share a loathing for Islamism then I suppose by the criteria of our resident apologists they too are Islamophobes. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM (#3523805) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "More grieved than I can express to find him playing the antisemitic card." If you're grieved you haven't been paying attention Mike. He has been called out for it more than once. A leopard can't change it's spots. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 12:07 PM (#3523829) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Noticed it more than once with Jim; bobad. Can't recall an instance with Don before. Still; there u go! ~M~ |
|
07 Jun 13 - 01:39 PM (#3523865) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Noticed it more than once with Jim; bobad." The only anti-Semites in these discussions are those who described criticism of Israeli atrocities as "Antisemitic" - thus identifying them as actions of the Jewish people - your ancestors must be very proud of you Mike. Sorry to interrupt - carry on hating. Jim Carroll |
|
07 Jun 13 - 02:34 PM (#3523888) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome The only anti-Semites in these discussions are those who described criticism of Israeli atrocities as "Antisemitic" Maybe on par with those who criticise Islamist atrocities as Islamophobes, eh Jim? And is that seriously the best you can do? Just propagating the lie that people who disagree with you must be hate-mongers? Surely you are better than that - Or at least have been in the past. I guess there may be some personal issues involved here. Cheers DtG |
|
07 Jun 13 - 03:55 PM (#3523920) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: WalkaboutsVerse I'm 100% sure that the world will be a better place when humans are content to just VISIT other nations as respectful tourists. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 06:47 PM (#3523954) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow What on earth was antisemitic about that post by Don, Michael? Drawing attention to the parallels between antisemitism directed at Jews and the same kind of intolerance directed at Muslims is hardly antisemitic - if anything it's the reverse the reverse, since it implicitly classes both kinds of intolerance as being despicable. |
|
07 Jun 13 - 09:00 PM (#3524001) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Greg F. Hear, Hear! |
|
08 Jun 13 - 12:44 AM (#3524027) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Kevin ~~ I thought someone might ask that. It is an extreme act of antisemitism to tell a jew what he has got to think because of who he happens to be. It infuriates. It's patronising and stereotyping. Stereotyping is the first stage in any discrimination. "Ah, an Italian; he must be a coward'; "A Spaniard; he must be lazy"; "An Irishman, ; be must be charming but belligerent""; "A Jew; he must have a chip on his shoulder about golf clubs"... ~M~ |
|
08 Jun 13 - 02:52 AM (#3524041) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Maybe on par with those who criticise Islamist atrocities as Islamophobes, eh Jim? " You and your little band of brothers have chosen to do that - I would revisit your rant if I were you. Making the murder a religious issue is to smear everybody who follows that religion with that murder, and to then attempt to show that that religion provides the incentive for such acts confirms that this is your claim. Your buddy took it a step further by claiming that degeneracy was "implanted" in "all male Muslim Pakistanis" - can't say clearer than that. Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jun 13 - 05:15 AM (#3524055) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "people who disagree with you must be hate-mongers? " Lest we forget "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...]" Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jun 13 - 05:36 AM (#3524059) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Making the murder a religious issue The alleged killers, and others like Choudhary did that. attempt to show that that religion provides the incentive for such acts They did that too. Your buddy took it a step further by claiming that degeneracy was "implanted" in "all male Muslim Pakistanis" - can't say clearer than that. The claim that it came from culture was not made by me. I knew nothing about the culture. I merely reported the claim. Will you ever stop shooting the messenger Jim? We all accept that the majority of Muslims are good. Does that preclude any discussion arising from the actions of those who are not? |
|
08 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM (#3524064) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome You and your little band of brothers have chosen to do that - I would revisit your rant if I were you. Assuming that was addressed at me Jim, what rant? Examples please. Just find some details of where I have been Islamophobic. I suspect that you will not post any because there are none so you will make it up. Your buddy took it a step further by claiming that degeneracy was "implanted" in "all male Muslim Pakistanis First thing, I would not know Keith if I fell over him and there is plenty I would disagree with him on. But he has nothing of the kind on this thread. As I said earlier, it is obviously something personal. 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 Is that a quote from this thread or by any Mudcatter, Jim. Have you taken to attributing random quotes to people to try and win some sort of battle. Tilting at Windmill's Jim. Once more, for the record. I have nothing whatsoever against Moslems, Christians or even Conservative that leave us in peace. I am against anyone who will kill innocent people and try to inflict their views on me violently. Anyone regardless of race, colour, creed or politics. Simple. Cheers DtG |
|
08 Jun 13 - 06:25 AM (#3524066) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Yes ~~ he was quoting me, DtG. I staND BY THE COMPLETE STATEMENT, WHICH CAN BE FOUND SOMEWHERE WAY BACK IF YOU CAN BE BOTHERED [bugger this officious shift-lock], that it is the height of filthy manners to move into someone else's country &, instead of adjusting to the lifestyle that you find, insist that the host mores must be adjusted to accommodate yours. ~M~ |
|
08 Jun 13 - 06:49 AM (#3524072) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow Sorry Michael, I just dont get that. The remark you objected to didn't imply anything about supposed Jewish attitudes or stereotypes, it was about the parallel between intolerance towards Jews and Muslims. ................ "... it is the height of filthy manners to move into someone else's country &, instead of adjusting to the lifestyle that you find, insist that the host mores must be adjusted to accommodate yours..." That applies in all countries? |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:04 AM (#3524079) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 03 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM There might be more kindness (from Muslims) in return were it not for fear of reprisal. It is not healthy to be seen helping a Jew in many places."" So, two examples, one of which required digging out from an almost forgotten conflict six years in the past. It is you who refuses to accept evidence from Jim, because it is that far in the past, is it not? As for your second example, far from being positive it is saying that Muslims are likely to kill any of their own who helps a Jew. How does that improve your case? Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:08 AM (#3524080) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You need to justify that outrageous accusation. The massacres (of Muslims) you refer to were committed by (Christian) Lebanese militia,"" Christian Lebanese who were known to be sworn enemies of the Muslims, and were sent in by IDF, who then knew, but ignored what they were doing, and afterward helped to cover it up. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:13 AM (#3524081) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""He lives under constant threat of death from fellow Muslims who consider him an enemy to them and their fundamentalist beliefs."" And this is what Bobad condiders a positive comment on Muslims. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:20 AM (#3524082) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, Dave asked us " to post a link or comment on a Moslem who is not a bad guy?" Those massacred Muslims were not bad guys. They were the innocent victims of Christian killers. In the other post I was explaining that an absence of examples of generosity by Muslims to Jews did not mean that there were no generous individuals, just that it is harder for them to show such generosity. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:23 AM (#3524084) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford ..and Bobad's example was of a Muslim friend who is not a bad guy either. Post 600 anyone? |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:27 AM (#3524085) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Oh, OK ~~ "Into the Valley of Death Rode the ..." |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:32 AM (#3524087) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "And this is what Bobad condiders a positive comment on Muslims." The fact that Tarek is undeterred by threat of death shows courage and determination. Wouldn't you say that is positive? Nice try at spinning that into something negative though as is your usual MO. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:32 AM (#3524088) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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."" Just read again your own post Mike. Note the comment about Islam (not Islamism), which I have highligted for you, and tll me that this isn't an attack on the whole Muslim community, Islamist or not. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:41 AM (#3524095) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T When Bobad is on the losing side and has nothing else to offer, the word antisemite appears. i have been called out on it only by Keith and Bobad, the Israeli government's staunchest supporters, and they have tried, without success, for a very long time to trap me into making any anti Jewish statement. Now Mike is joining them, not surprisingly after I have pointed out his anti Muslim rant. I'm surprised at Mike's sudden intolerance of those who disagree with him, but even more surprised at the outburst which began this argument. It's not the Mike I thought I knew and I'm afraid I don't much like the new one. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:47 AM (#3524098) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""A Jew; he must have a chip on his shoulder about golf clubs"..."" I wasn't trying to tell you what you must think Mike. I used that as an example of intolerance toward your people, because you complain whenever the more serious example is quoted. All it meant was that I would expect him who has been the victim of intolerance and discrimination to devote more attention to avoiding inflicting both on others. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 07:53 AM (#3524100) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The claim that it came from culture was not made by me. I knew nothing about the culture. I merely reported the claim. Will you ever stop shooting the messenger Jim?"" No you didn't! You reported then said (repeatedly), based on the identity of its authors that you believed it. You then went through a whole thread dehumanising British Pakistanis by referring to them as BPs. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 08:05 AM (#3524101) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Those massacred Muslims were not bad guys. They were the innocent victims of Christian killers."" With the connivance of the IDF! A red herring in any case, and irrelevant to this particular argument. ""In the other post I was explaining that an absence of examples of generosity by Muslims to Jews did not mean that there were no generous individuals, just that it is harder for them to show such generosity."" Oh come on Keith, don't be coy and don't take us all for fools. The implication of that post was clear in the context of the thread. It clearly implies that they risk death at the hands of fellow Muslims if they offer that help. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 08:06 AM (#3524102) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "......trap me into making any anti Jewish statement." So Don are you claiming that you were trapped into drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis and stating that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor - two examples of antisemitism as defined by the European Union Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia not by me or Keith. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 08:06 AM (#3524103) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion All right, Don. But please don't tell me what I am supposed to think becoz of certain genetic antecedence which I have long rejected. It is not only the Islamists who wish to have society altered to suit their notions. There have been requests from quite respectable representative bodies for polygamy to be permitted uniquely to their community, haven't there? Not only Muslims come along and expect concessions to their own differing ways either ~~ there was a bit of unpleasantness a generation [or even two] back when certain young Jamaicans tried to convince us that, because ganja was a traditional part of their lifestyle, the drug laws shouldn't apply to them -- remember?. It was a generational thing, & I think that particular notion has vanished into the mists of history as these young tearaways have matured into responsible adults and their children have accommodated as respectable citizens in the culture they have been born to; but it was disagreeably ill-mannered while it persisted in the 1950s. I'm not aware of any 'new' me. My views on these matters, and the expression of them, have not altered that I am aware of. I regret if they don't suit your notions, but, as Dr Johnson remarked when someone spoke slightingly of a work he happened to admire, "Sir, you may be sure 'twas writ with little thought of pleasing you". ~M~ |
|
08 Jun 13 - 08:16 AM (#3524105) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford You reported then said (repeatedly), based on the identity of its authors that you believed it. Of course I believed them! They were all from that community or had close links. The question is why you and Jim somehow knew better. It clearly implies that they risk death at the hands of fellow Muslims if they offer that help. Some reprisal certainly. A year ago there were street lynchings in Gaza of people suspected of helping Israel. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 08:41 AM (#3524108) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad There was also the story of the 4 year old Syrian girl who received life saving heart surgery in Israel: "....the mother's and daughter's journey to safety was a long and dangerous one. They made their way to Israel through a third country, the name of which has not been made known for security reasons. The child and her mother are also not being named because of a potentially hostile reaction should they eventually return home. "It's just too dangerous," said Fatma Sarsour, Arabic translator for Save a Child's Heart. "At some point, both daughter and mother will go back to Syria and they want to keep this trip a secret," she said. Her middle-aged mother appeared uncomfortable with media attention because of the perils of being identified and declined to comment." |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:16 AM (#3524114) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Yes, it is dangerous even to accept help from a Jew, nevermind help one. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:30 AM (#3524118) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""It clearly implies that they risk death at the hands of fellow Muslims if they offer that help. Some reprisal certainly. A year ago there were street lynchings in Gaza of people suspected of helping Israel."" Thank you for confirming that your feeble attempt to show that you have anything positive to say about Muslims was a lie. Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:41 AM (#3524123) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""So Don are you claiming that you were trapped into drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis"" If there are parallels in behaviour, it is a fact, and no matter what biased organisations may say, a fact it remains. Just because it is a fact which you and others would like suppressed, you are pleased to call it anti semitic. My comments on this fact relate directly to the Israeli government and its military organ the IDF, and the policies and actions they, and only they pursue. It has no bearing on the Jewish religion, and it is my opinion that the Israeli government is letting down the ordinary people of Israel. You would like to categorise that as hatred of Jews, because you would not then have to deal with the real problem. You would be wrong, not surprisingly, and as usual. As for the racist enterprise that is frankly ridiculous. Do I think that the Israeli govrnment is racist? YES I DO! Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM (#3524124) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T And, Bobad, I KNOW that you are racist! Don T. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:50 AM (#3524128) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow "It is not only the Islamists who wish to have society altered to suit their notions. " True enough, but that's normal enough. I suspect a lot of us would be in favour of relaxation of prohibition of alcoholic drinks if we were working in a country where that was the situation. And it is the case in a number of predominently Muslim nations that prohibition does not extend to non-muslim residents. And of course getting the definition of marriage altered to cover single sex unions was a clear case of people wishing to have society altered " to suit their notions". |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM (#3524130) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Oh Don, your slurs and false allegations, not to mention your outright lies, have become rather dreary. And which race exactly are you accusing me of being racist towards again - I am unable to keep track of all your accusations. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM (#3524131) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Thank you for confirming that your feeble attempt to show that you have anything positive to say about Muslims was a lie. No, we showed that it was true. You just insisted on expounding on the examples until you exposed examples of other Muslims behaving despicably. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 10:52 AM (#3524145) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "Thank you for confirming that your feeble attempt to show that you have anything positive to say about Muslims was a lie." The focus of this thread is not about all Muslims, it is about the subgroup of Muslims who commit acts of terror in the name of their religion, despite you attempt at deflection by trying to make it appear that those who condemn those terrorists are in fact condemning all Muslims. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 11:14 AM (#3524153) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow Those condemning terrorist atrocities such as the Woolwich murder include most Muslims, as well as most non-Muslims. I would hope that the same is true of those condemning those who take advantage of such atrocities as an excuse to attack Muslims. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 11:30 AM (#3524163) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "I would hope that the same is true of those condemning those who take advantage of such atrocities as an excuse to attack Muslims." That goes without saying but I will say say it nevertheless. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 12:34 PM (#3524192) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I agree of course, and would add that there has been almost zero support for that from anyone. Last week's nationally sponsored BNP march in London produced about 150 demonstrators only. They were heavily outnumbered by the ant-fascist counter demonstrators. That has been the only demonstration provoked by the murder. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 12:43 PM (#3524198) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow Marching round on the street shouting or firebombing buildings aren't the only ways of attacking ordinary Muslims. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 12:53 PM (#3524206) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Daily Telegraph "What the data broadly show, in short, is that Drummer Rigby's killers have failed. The breakdown in community relations has not come. There has been a rise in incidents, but it appears to be very short-term, overwhelmingly non-violent and even then almost entirely at the lower end of the scale." See the data here. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwic |
|
08 Jun 13 - 12:58 PM (#3524209) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Link probs. Try this or google text. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10093568/The-truth-about-the-wave-of-attacks-on-Muslims-after-Woolwich-murder.html |
|
08 Jun 13 - 01:11 PM (#3524215) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Fred McCormick Keith A of Hertford. "That has been the only demonstration provoked by the murder." It hasn't. The EDL and various other sordid far right groups have been out in force all over the country, ever since the murder, stirring up hatred and aggression for all they're worth. By contrast, the Muslim community - as distinct from individual paranoids - has shown an amazing stoicism and a readyness to unite with all other opponents of racism and prejudice. Here's a link to a report, remarkably even handed considering the partisan nature of the newspaper, about a multi racial/multi cultural/multi religious vigil which was sheld in the wake of the Muswell hill arson attack. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 02:04 PM (#3524231) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Suzy Sock Puppet Good article Keith. Political types are constantly about the business of bending the truth to their hidden agendas. They are never happy unless they have people divided seven ways to Sunday. But the 11 incidents of "hijab snatching" are way over the top uncalled for and downright nasty. You don't humiliate a woman like that. That's a very personal kind of attack and shows a basic lack of respect for others which I would think, for the snatchers, likely manifests in other areas besides their attitude toward the Muslim Community. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 02:16 PM (#3524235) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I see you are right Fred. The EDL protests against the murder escaped my notice. Sorry McGrath spoke of "condemning those who take advantage of such atrocities as an excuse to attack Muslims." At least there has been little of that, as made clear in that Andrew McGilligan piece. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 03:13 PM (#3524254) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" The Israeli regime's comparison with Nazism has been a fairly long-standing one. Parts of the Israeli press described the regime's complicity in the Sabra/Shatila massacre as "Israel's Lidice" – and the later appointment of the man who was held responsible for facilitating that massacre, Menachem Begin to the post of Prime Minister was seen by many as Israel's validation of that massacre. More recently, the former head of Shin Beth interviewed for the film 'The Gatekeepers' all but compared modern Israel with Nazi Germany, falling short by saying it was "too horrible to put into words". It is fairly common to hear modern Israel described as an "Apartheid State", and its segregated public transport (both on racial and gender basis) has said to be "In need of a Rosa Parks", a reference to segregated America. The regime's proposed forcible movement of whole communities (Bedouins) onto a rubbish dump in order to make way for new Settlements is classic fascism, (the wishes of the state over the interests of the people) underlined by the fact that the proposed new site is toxic and (according to the Israeli health authorities) will remain so for at least twenty years. Nearer to home, in one of the main Islamophobic Israeli atrocity apologists, thanks to his continued denial of Israel's facilitation in the Sabra/Shatila massacre (historically established and formally documented – notably by a Jewish academic based in Jerusalem) Mudcat has acquired its own David Irving (leading Holocaust denier and apologist for Nazi war crimes). Jim Carroll |
|
08 Jun 13 - 04:02 PM (#3524269) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Parts of the Israeli press described the regime's complicity in the Sabra/Shatila massacre as "Israel's Lidice" I think you made that up Jim. Google can not find such a ref in Israeli or any press. Is it a lie Jim, or can you justify it? Please also explain why you are hijacking this thread about a recent murder in Woolwich into yet another one about a massacre of Arabs by Arabs in Lebanon thirty years ago. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 04:22 PM (#3524270) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Also Jim, that post suggests an irrational preoccupation with, and hatred of, Israel. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 04:38 PM (#3524276) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Why, Keith: because J Carroll, as all on this forum know, is an antisemite in terms of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia {EUMC} 2005 working definition of antisemitism. Why else? So he wouldn't pass up the opportunity, would he? Just look how he intros that last post of his: '"comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis" - The Israeli regime's comparison with Nazism has been a fairly long-standing one.' He can say that again; much so, on here, with his active participation ~~ like his irrelevant [as you point out Keith] jumping on the bandwagon of that passing phrase to be blown up into a full-blown rant of a post. ~M~ |
|
08 Jun 13 - 05:15 PM (#3524282) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow Comparisons are always possible between any two things. Comparing things involves picking out differences and similarities. While there were major differences between the Nazi regime and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, there were also some very disturbing similarities. Defenders of the regime tended to emphasize the differences while ignoring or denying the similarities and parallels. Critics tended to do the opposite. The same can be true in relation to other countries. |
|
08 Jun 13 - 11:47 PM (#3524351) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Indeed. And some can obsessively introduce such comparisons obsessively into contexts where they are, at best, merely tangential to the topic under discussion, giving rise to speculations as to why they continually do so. Know the old joke about the international prize offered for essays on The Elephant? Well - The Englishman entered with an essay on 'Elephants I have Shot In Africa'. The Frenchman submitted 'The Elephant as Lover'. The German contributed 'A Brief Prologemonon To An Exhaustive Study Of The Philosophical Make-Up Of The Psyche Of The Elephant Approached in Freudian and Jungian Terms'. The American wrote on 'Humorous Contributions from The Elephant To The Saturday Evening Post and the New Yorker'. From the Irishman came 'The Elephant And Partition'. From J Carroll we get a never-ending stream of essays on 'The Elephant At Shatila'. ~M~ |
|
09 Jun 13 - 02:28 AM (#3524368) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I think you made that up Jim." I apologise to all for contributing to this long running and long established dog-fight which has no place on a thread about the murder of a soldier on the London streets. No more eh - let's get back to the hatefest? Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 13 - 03:17 AM (#3524374) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll BTW "Please also explain why you are hijacking this thread about a recent murder in Woolwich " I was replying to a statement made first by Bobad, taken up by Don and then by Mike - why do you ask? Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 13 - 04:09 AM (#3524378) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Because I can't find it Jim, but let it pass. Apology accepted. keith. |
|
09 Jun 13 - 05:47 AM (#3524385) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Apology accepted." No apology to you Keith - and don't you ever again try to implicate me in something one of your goose-stepping mates started. The fact that you can't find it is proof - if proof were needed, taht yopu don't read what others put up - you've been given it at least twice before - I seem to remember you found it too long and boring to read. Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 13 - 06:37 AM (#3524393) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome No more eh - let's get back to the hatefest? Se enough is enough as long as you get the last word and that last word is that anyone disagreeing with you hates Moslems, eh Jim? Weasel words indeed. The fact that you can't find it is proof - if proof were needed, taht yopu don't read what others put up Just as you have provided links to posts which prove I am the Islamophobe you claim I am? One law for Jim, another for everyone else. I should know better really. As I said before, one cannot reason with the unreasonable. Cheers DtG |
|
09 Jun 13 - 08:04 AM (#3524419) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Se enough is enough as long as you get the last word and that last word is that anyone disagreeing with you hates Moslems, eh Jim?" Dave I despise anybody who singles out any race, religion or community in order to "hate" them - (Christians, Moslems, Jews, Africans, West Indians) I've always believed that to be racism or bigotry - doesn't it offend you in any way? Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 13 - 08:25 AM (#3524423) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I am having a problem understanding the way the question is phrased, Jim. I am sure it must be me. Anyway, to make it quite clear, I do not like people who use social status, culture, creed or colour to generate hate toward other peoples. It certainly annoys me but I am not sure what you mean by 'doesn't it offend you'. I am not sure if I do, or ever have, 'hated' anyone for any reason but if there was a reason it would be their actions, not how they look or think. Which is why I do not like people who perpetrated this attrocity. I do not like the politicians, on all sides, who have used it as an excuse to engender hatred of any either our own society or Islam and I do not like the way you, and others, have used it as a reason to continue your own personal vendettas. I don't know how many times I have to say this but I will continue until it gets through. I thoroughly condemn the perpetrators and those who incited them while I have no issue at all with the vast majority of Moslems. I am sure most Moslems would say the same about our leaders and ourselves. I am sure that everyone on this thread feels the same - something which you cannot seem to accept in the face of overwhelming evidence. Hope this now clarifies my position. Cheers DtG |
|
09 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM (#3524484) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "I despise anybody who singles out any race, religion or community in order to "hate" them - (Christians, Moslems, Jews, Africans, West Indians) I've always believed that to be racism or bigotry... Jim Carroll .,,. So aren't the Israelis a 'community' then? You may say it isn't the 'community' you continually revert to the animadversion of in any context, relevant or [often, as above] not, but just their government. But they go on electing them, don't they? so communally they seem satisfied with the government they've got, don't they? -- even if they don't quite meet the lofty criteria of Carroll J? The fact that there may be some internal dissent ~~ perhaps even a lot; but when and where isn't there? ~~ is neither here nor there. The fact is that you just have got it in for the Israeli "community". So have I these days, as you know (except my nephew who is a tv producer and an Emin & lives in Karmiel in Galilee]. But that doesn't alter the fact that here is a community you hate. And if you say you don't actually 'hate' it, well I reckon it will do till 'hate' comes along. ~M~ |
|
09 Jun 13 - 12:31 PM (#3524487) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You just insisted on expounding on the examples until you exposed examples of other Muslims behaving despicably."" IMPLICIT in your biased post. Don T. |
|
09 Jun 13 - 12:41 PM (#3524489) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Only in your head Don. |
|
09 Jun 13 - 12:47 PM (#3524490) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I thoroughly condemn the perpetrators and those who incited them while I have no issue at all with the vast majority of Moslems. I am sure most Moslems would say the same about our leaders and ourselves. I am sure that everyone on this thread feels the same - something which you cannot seem to accept in the face of overwhelming evidence."" I would just point out Dave, that if you only read parts of a thread, then comment on the thread as a whole, you risk looking rather foolish. The following is Mike's comment, which I am posting again since you ignored it the first time I pointed it out. Look again at his comment on Islam (not Islamism) in the context of your last sentence above. Are you sure of that "everyone"? ""-snip- 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. -snip- "" Don T. |
|
09 Jun 13 - 01:34 PM (#3524501) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "So aren't the Israelis a 'community' then?" Now how did I know you were going to resort to this distortion of my position. My arguments have been entirely on the policy of the various Israeli regimes (which is how I have referred to them - I have at no time attacked the Israeli people as a nation - show me where I have. I believe these policies have damaged the Israeli people as they have their neighbours. You know this very well - but have chosen somewhat pathetically to offset my arguments - must be the company you keep - what do they say about dogs and fleas "But they go on electing them, don't they?" A little selective here - they elsected Sadat too. I belive the German people elected their government in the thirties!! Shit! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Jun 13 - 01:42 PM (#3524506) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow Unfortunately that bit about "they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...]," does appear to indicate that Michael wasn't talking about "Islamists" there but about the wider Muslim community. Incidentally thelast census indicates that Bradford is 63.9% "white British" and 24.7% Muslim. Luton, with a population of about 200,000 has about 25,000 Muslims. |
|
09 Jun 13 - 02:31 PM (#3524516) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome ~I would just point out Dave, that if you only read parts of a thread, then comment on the thread as a whole, you risk looking rather foolish. I have read and followed the whole thread with great interest, Don. I fully understand that people will try to bend my comments to there own ends. Hence, I state once again - I thoroughly condemn the perpetrators and those who incited them while I have no issue at all with the vast majority of Moslems. I am sure most Moslems would say the same about our leaders and ourselves. I am sure that everyone on this thread feels the same - something which you cannot seem to accept in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you feel you need to interpret this comment to meet your own views then feel free to do so. But remember it is there for all to see. Cheers DtG |
|
09 Jun 13 - 10:22 PM (#3524634) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge I have been otherwise occupied. MtheGM and certain others don't take kindly to being caught in a terminological inexactitude, do they? |
|
10 Jun 13 - 01:36 AM (#3524655) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Perhaps best clarify my position, in which some appear to have found inconsistencies or 'terminological inexactitudes'. Islam is a faith based on the preachings and writings of a self-proclaimed 'prophet', who urged that the world was not to be tolerated by his followers until it had universally accepted and embraced the faith he was promoting; which is one based on active hostility to and provocation of the remainder of humanity, strictness in observance, severe punishments for any who deviate from its teachings or obligations… many features, in short, inimical to and incompatible with our present modern and humane traditions, whatever might have been the developmental path of previous ages [I have often thought it oddly symbolically appropriate that the Muslim date should be 14-something!]. IMO ∴ a mischievous, anti-humane system. It is of no advantage to any state where its teachings are not generally accepted to allow it to gain foothold within it, which has to far too great an extent been allowed to happen in the Western part of the world, Europe and the N Americas. Once that foothold has been established, although 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, there is bound, by the proselytising nature and the incumbencies laid upon its adherents, to emerge a strong movement to make its tenets catch on in the host population, some of whom then may well, as converts, emerge as more determined in their life-approaches than most of the ur-adherents (which is what has happened unarguably in many recent outrages performed by the small but prominent offshoot called Islamists ~~ as, note well, in the present instance, the topic of this thread.) It is for these reasons that I consider it highly injudicious for any national entity within which Islam has not previously been any sort of significant internal influence to allow it to become so. It is bound, to my mind, to end in tears for reasons I adduce here; and, as the very existence of this thread evidences, it has done so. The tears on this particular, but by no means unique [7/7! Danish cartoons!], occasion being for the unfortunate Fusilier Rigby and his family. That is my position. It seems logical and reasonable to me. I know there are such as Bridge & Carroll & Wysiwyg who will purport to misinterpret it as an instance of the iniquitous R*C*SM word. Which it isn't. ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 02:34 AM (#3524658) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I know there are such as Bridge & Carroll & Wysiwyg who will purport to misinterpret it" You leave little room to "misinterpret" anything - your statement would not be out of place on any gutter racist website; it is stated in the same terms and it says the same things - "coming over here to take our jobs and threaten our way our life" - is the warm feeling it gives me - primitive racism. Now you are adopting Keith's "I never said it" technique - I wait with interest to see if you say "I only said it because somebody else told me to". Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:07 AM (#3524666) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome OK, Don, in the light of the more recent posts I can see why you asked me the previous question. I am no longer as sure of everyone but I am going to give the benefit of the doubt. I still think that all on this thread have no issue with the vast majority of Moslems. The tirade above is against strict Islamic teachings, which the vast majority of Moslems do not seem to follow. It is not the majority that cause the problems that are in question here. It is up to that majority to sort out the minority and if we are asked to help we should provide assistance. In a nutshell, I do see where you are coming from but think that you may be misunderstanding some of posts. At least I hope so! Cheers DtG |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:15 AM (#3524669) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 'to take our jobs' ,.., See? What did I tell you? Point out please, Carroll-the-predictable-½·wit, where I said any such thing as that. You're a fool. I don't propose to argue further with you. Anyone got any rational comments on my exposition? ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:16 AM (#3524670) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, you are outspokenly anti all religions. "A plague on all their houses" you often say. That is fine. That is acceptable. A religion is just a body of ideas anyone can accept or reject. Is it less acceptable to say that you are more anti one religion than another? Michael is an atheist like you. Can he not have opinions about religions, as you do? |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:21 AM (#3524675) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, I presume you condemn any form of persecution of apostates. Some religions take it more seriously than others, so do you not object more to them? |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:46 AM (#3524679) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Not but what I should be quite grateful to Carroll, as a matter of fact. By explicitly quoting me as making a statement I manifestly didn't make -- anyone can check by scrolling no more than 2 posts that I didn't even mention jobs, with which I was in no way concerned in the slightest -- he reveals himself as a lying nincompoop who responds kneejerkingly to posts that he doesn't even bother to read, to whom nobody in their right mind would pay any attention. ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:59 AM (#3524683) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And now I suppose he's going to denounce and abuse me again for being "educated"! I mean, how can one help patronising someone who sticks his neck out that far to ask for it? ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 04:46 AM (#3524699) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 08 Jun 13 - 09:16 AM Yes, it is dangerous even to accept help from a Jew, nevermind help one. "" So, explain what exactly that danger is, if not the danger of being targetted by other Muslims. I'm waiting with bated breath for your specious response to this. I do enjoy watching you wriggle. Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 04:51 AM (#3524701) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I am sure that everyone on this thread feels the same - something which you cannot seem to accept in the face of overwhelming evidence. If you feel you need to interpret this comment to meet your own views then feel free to do so. But remember it is there for all to see."" Since I have just posted clear proof that not "everyone" feels the same, how am I misinterpreting anything? Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 04:58 AM (#3524702) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Might it not perhaps be rejoined, Don, that your 'proof' consisted in misrepresenting my position, which I have now clarified for your benefit? ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM (#3524703) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Is it less acceptable to say that you are more anti one religion than another?" I am not "anti - religious" in any sense - I choose not to believe, but I respect the right of anybody who does. My arguments are with churches who attain political/social power and abuse it - especially by making their brand of religion a foregone conclusion, as all churches have done at one time or another. We are at present seeing the dying throes (I hope) of the political power of the Christian church in Ireland - it can't come fast enough as far as I'm concerned. No - I don't find any one religion any more or less acceptable than another. As far as churches are concerned - all are a threat when they are allowed to be - Christian churches are no exception. What's your point? A week ago the 'Question Time' panel was asked if the behaviour of the British and American Governments towards other countries had in any way influenced incidents such as the killing of the soldier in Woolwich - each of them (Lib Dem, Conservative, Labour, Ukip and a non-declared, but probably Conservative) said it had - not surprisingly missing from your arguments. One of the killers shouted religious slogans following his butchery; he also told how Muslims were suffering at the hands of the west - also missing from your arguments. You - both of you choose to make this killing purely "religious" in nature and use it as an excuse to vomit your bile on all Muslims, despite your protests to the contrary - no surprise there either. BTW Please stop sending me PMs trying to prove that all Muslims are perverts - all religions have their share of degenerates - want me to send you some cloips of Christian Paedos? Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM (#3524704) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I think you missed my last post (3:07AM), Don. If there is anything in it that you don't understand, just let me know. Cheers DtG |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM (#3524706) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion So Don, I implore you, read my post objectively and with an open mind, noting not only what it says, but also what it doesn't say. That's just what Carroll didn't do. But then, he's a fool and you're not. I think. ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:09 AM (#3524707) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""That is my position. It seems logical and reasonable to me. I know there are such as Bridge & Carroll & Wysiwyg who will purport to misinterpret it as an instance of the iniquitous R*C*SM word. Which it isn't."" Not racism Mike! Religious bigotry, definitely! Christianity also showed a definite lack of tolerance for those who did not belong. Remember the thugs who went out with the absentee King Richard 1, or the Spanish Inquisition? Where are the Cathars now? Christianity too had its militants, every bit as nasty as Islamists. They were dealt with, not by destroying Christianity, but by dealing with the terrorists (for that's what they were), and Christianity went on and grew out of its bad habits. Islam can and will do the same, but not if we insist on tarin all Muslims with the same brush. And one day somebody will have to clean up the right wing "Christians" in the USA. Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:24 AM (#3524711) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Christianity also showed a definite lack of tolerance for those who did not belong. Remember the thugs who went out with the absentee King Richard 1, or the Spanish Inquisition? Where are the Cathars now? Christianity too had its militants, every bit as nasty as Islamists. ,..,. I anticipated & dealt with these points, Don ~~~ "features, in short, inimical to and incompatible with our present modern and humane traditions, whatever might have been the developmental path of previous ages" |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:29 AM (#3524714) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion ... but thank you, Don, for your reasoned, moderate response, esp for the distinction you recognised between the racial & the ideological. A fine contrast to the hysterical assumptive and misrepresentational kneejerkery of that other fellow with his "taking our jobs" which was no part of my argument whatsoever... |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:30 AM (#3524717) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion ...AND NEVER COULD HAVE BEEN! |
|
10 Jun 13 - 05:54 AM (#3524720) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "Christianity went on and grew out of its bad habits. Islam can and will do the same"... Do you not here implicitly or even explicitly, accept my view as to the 'bad habits' of present day Islam? "but not if we insist on tarin all Muslims with the same brush" which was what I avoided doing, except insofar as pointing out that their presence in numbers provides the breeding ground for those unacceptable dissident elements with their 'bad habits' to flourish. And to convert outsiders from the indigenous population, especially among those who are antisocially inclined in the first place: it is a much observed commonplace that prisons are particularly fertile breeding grounds for such conversions to extremism, as occurred at time leading to 7/7; tho I must concede that the two involved in this present thread-topic appear to have had other, so far not entirely comprehended, motivations. I am not one to assert any invariable patterns; but certain trends and tendencies can surely be made out? ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:09 AM (#3524726) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford One of the killers shouted religious slogans following his butchery; he also told how Muslims were suffering at the hands of the west - also missing from your arguments It was not missing Jim. I rubbished it, because Muslims are being slaughtered in their lands but not by the West. 1000 in Iraq just last month, and still going on this month. A similar number every week in Syria. Bobad gave us an horrific list of recent slaughters in many Muslim lands, none at the hands of the West. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:12 AM (#3524727) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Please stop sending me PMs trying to prove that all Muslims are perverts - all religions have their share of degenerates - want me to send you some cloips of Christian Paedos?"" Me too. The next time I will publish your PM on the oopen forum. You have been warned. Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:25 AM (#3524734) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Please do. Under the title "in case you missed it" I provided, without any comment, a link to a report in today's Daily Telegraph. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:35 AM (#3524735) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Bobad gave us an horrific list of recent slaughters in many Muslim lands, none at the hands of the West."" Afghanistan? When will the West realise that the populations of Iraq and Afghanistan regard our soldiers as an occupying force in their territory, uninvited and unwanted. That's the bottom line. They didn't ask us to start our wars against "terror" on their lands, and the vast majority just want us out. It may not make sense to us that they don't see us as saviours, but as invaders, but it makes sense to them. The road to hell really is paved with good intentions, though I don't think good intentions played any part in Geedubya's thinking as he fudged the "reasons" for attacking Iraq. Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:38 AM (#3524737) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Please do. Under the title "in case you missed it" I provided, without any comment, a link to a report in today's Daily Telegraph."" Another thread! NOT HERE! Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:44 AM (#3524738) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford What about Afghanistan Don. There is a lot of slaughter going on, but very few deaths can be attributed to any Westerner, and we are packing up to leave anyway. I did not put the other thing in this thread. You and Jim did. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:57 AM (#3524740) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll " which was no part of my argument whatsoever..." It was a rhetorical choice of words. would you have preferred - "taken over our cities"? "to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...]" Outright and primitive bigotry - however worded. In the case of your partner - it was both racist and sectarian, and continues to be. "whatever might have been the developmental path of previous ages" What planet do you people occupy. In 1922 Britain partitioned Ireland on sectarian lines - the result being that best part of the 20th century was taken up with religious terrorism, leading to the death and maiming of many thousands. Next month will see Christian sectarian violence on the street of Derry and Belfast. Personally I don't give a toss for either brand of religion, but Keith will be there, as he has been in past years, claiming that "it is the fault of "their" chosen brand of religion rather than "mine". Despite efforts on your part to prove otherwise, the MI5 report shows that the only rise in concern for Britain's security comes from the increase in IRA activity - the Muslim 'threat' being more or less the same as it was 8 years ago (as far as we know, no action was deemed necessary against the then suspected 2,000 potential terrorists). The greatest religious threat to peace on these islands continues to be from Christians. Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jun 13 - 07:17 AM (#3524744) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford the MI5 report shows that the only rise in concern for Britain's security comes from the increase in IRA activity - the Muslim 'threat' being more or less the same as it was 8 years ago You made that up Jim! From MI5 site. (unedited) Sources of terrorist threats International terrorism from groups such as Al Qaida presents a threat on a scale not previously encountered. Drawing on extremist messages presented by figures such as Usama bin Laden, Al Qaida and its related networks seek to carry out terrorist attacks around the world, aiming to carry out "high impact" attacks causing mass civilian casualties. Northern Ireland related terrorism continues to pose a serious threat to British interests. Although a peace process has been active for several years, some Republican terrorist groups oppose the peace process and continue to attack economic and political targets. Other domestic extremist groups, unrelated to the Northern Ireland situation, may aspire to campaigns of violence but lack developed terrorist capabilities. For the most part, they pose a threat to public order but not to national security. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM (#3524748) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford " The UK's police and intelligence services continue to step up efforts to counter the ongoing threat from international terrorism." |
|
10 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM (#3524751) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Furthermore, Don: to resume our colloquy. My comment about the significance of the Islamic date being 14-- was not intended in any way flippantly. In both religious [Inquisition equivalent] & secular [public executions, punitive amputations, corporal punishments] terms, much of the Islamic world would appear to have developed to pretty well the exact point Europe had reached in the 15-16Cs. Another riposte to your drawing of my attention to our past as if I had missed that point. It's our past. It's their present. One which we could do without coexisting in our midst, surely? ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 07:31 AM (#3524753) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "It was a rhetorical choice of words." Carroll .,. No it wasn't, you stinking lying little swine; it was the unwarrantable kneejerk assumption of a neglectful fool who responds to what he presumes posts to contain without bothering to read them. Be off with you! I have nothing to say to the likes of you. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 08:10 AM (#3524761) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "coming over here to take our jobs and threaten our way our life" - You will in fact find nothing in my post to warrant either part of that supposed summation, Carroll, you dishonest little nonentity. Get back in your hole. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 08:19 AM (#3524765) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Be off with you! I have nothing to say to the likes of you." You haven't had a lot to say to anybody for twenty years Bigoted shit Jim Carroll |
|
10 Jun 13 - 08:45 AM (#3524777) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Much as I agree with a lot of what Don says on this thread, I would like to point out that despite some of his views he is generally more than somewhat right of centre - for example admitting to voting conservative. A leftist he is NOT. The bigotry, MtheGM in your most recent postings lies in the selective nature of your citations of the Muslim holy book, the views in which (I understand, I have not checked, but I rely on a friend who recently converted to Islam although is still a heavy drinker and an active homosexual) change over time and end broadly with an encouragement to do good and follow personal interpretation. You try to sidestep this by referring to Islamism as merely a tenet of a significant minority, but the main thrust of your argument is that Islam as a whole is dangerous, although the thrust of the selective citations you prefer seems largely to be disavowed by most Muslim leaders and clerics other than the occasional frothing Imam. So the political moron is you. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 08:58 AM (#3524780) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim. Keith will be there, as he has been in past years, claiming that "it is the fault of "their" chosen brand of religion rather than "mine". I have never, ever claimed or even suggested that any religion was to blame. You make up lies and smears all the time. Why? |
|
10 Jun 13 - 09:00 AM (#3524783) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford That last Jim lie I referred to was in the context of Northern Ireland. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 09:03 AM (#3524785) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, does criticism of any religion make one a bigot, or just that one? |
|
10 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM (#3524849) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""What about Afghanistan Don. There is a lot of slaughter going on, but very few deaths can be attributed to any Westerner, and we are packing up to leave anyway."" So what are the coalition troops doing with all that ammo, shooting rabbits? Taliban, in case you have forgotten, are natives of that country. They certainly aren't nice people and for the moment they are the enemy, but they are human beings and Muslims oo, and we are killing them. As for the Muslim on Muslim deaths, we caused a considerable number in Iraq, some directly and others indirectly, and in other places we supplied the means for killing them. We are indeed packing up to leave the second pointless war of this century, and in five years or less the Taliban will rule Afghanistan once more. When will we learn that it isn't our job to put the world to rights (according to our idea of right), and that he who minds his own business gathers no shrapnel? Don T. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 01:51 PM (#3524878) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "I rely on a friend who recently converted to Islam although is still a heavy drinker and an active homosexual)" ··· Doesn't sound a very 'reliable' sort of person then, does he, Rich? Just ask some of his new co-religionists how 'reliable' those habits and tendencies make him appear to them, and how 'reliably' they think he will be maintaining and supporting their faith by persisting in them! And not just the 'frothing imams' you speak of either. "Citing holy books"? Me? It's them that do that. I don't even know their holy books. How should I? I just take their word for what they say. "...main thrust of your argument is that Islam as a whole is dangerous, although the thrust of the selective citations you prefer seems largely to be disavowed by most Muslim leaders and clerics" -- well, to return yet again to the indispensable Miss Rice-Davies. And you call me 'a political moron'. Teeheeheeheeheeheehee..... ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 01:51 PM (#3524879) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Keith, read what I wrote. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 02:39 PM (#3524911) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And this friend on whom you choose to 'rely', Richard ~~ Did he tell the Imam about his bibulous and amatory habits before requesting conversion to the faith? I cannot feel this likely, as, had he done so, I don't expect he would have been found suitable. ~~ Even Islam is presumably not so resolute in its proselytising as to accept just anyone, even one so obviously intent on persisting in setting some of its dearest principles and beliefs at nought. So you might choose to 'rely' on him, but I should estimate his honesty and integrity to be more than somewhat exiguous. Why am I supposed to accept his assurances, on which you 'rely' so confidently, as any sort of valid argument for anything? Hmmmm? ~M~ |
|
10 Jun 13 - 03:24 PM (#3524928) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I did read Richard. You said he singled out passages, to illustrate his objections, and that he speculated on how it might be detrimental. Is it always bigoted to question any religion thus? Don, for some time now the fighting in Afghanistan has been left to the Afghan Army and Police. The Taleban have always been responsible for many more Afghan killings than the security forces. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:16 PM (#3524996) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who is bored shitless FFS!! STFU!!! I'm sharpening my machete. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 06:27 PM (#3524999) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza As it happens, one does not need to 'request admittance' to Islam or need to be vetted by an Imam. There is merely a very short declaration along the lines of "There is only one God and Mohammed is His Prophet." before three witnesses. |
|
10 Jun 13 - 08:13 PM (#3525029) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge If, Keith, you have read, you have not understood. And, MtheGM, you betray yourself by assumption, yet again. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 01:18 AM (#3525082) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
11 Jun 13 - 01:34 AM (#3525085) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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]. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 02:31 AM (#3525087) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge That's almost the point - the possibility that Islam may already be changing from within. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 02:48 AM (#3525088) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
11 Jun 13 - 03:57 AM (#3525097) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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) |
|
11 Jun 13 - 04:20 AM (#3525102) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge 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). |
|
11 Jun 13 - 06:14 AM (#3525117) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 700 That is indeed a fallacious conclusion. Nobody drew it though. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM (#3525118) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
11 Jun 13 - 07:15 AM (#3525136) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford So, not a bigot then Richard. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 08:11 AM (#3525153) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 08:12 AM (#3525154) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Sorry, 100 000. Give it a few weeks though. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 11:18 AM (#3525221) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "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~ |
|
11 Jun 13 - 01:41 PM (#3525274) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge 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? |
|
11 Jun 13 - 01:46 PM (#3525277) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Musket sans sin 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... |
|
11 Jun 13 - 02:03 PM (#3525287) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Admit the mis-spelling with shame... Specify the 'misrepresentation', though, please, R. ~M~ |
|
11 Jun 13 - 02:33 PM (#3525304) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza 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...? |
|
11 Jun 13 - 03:00 PM (#3525312) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
11 Jun 13 - 03:18 PM (#3525320) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza 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. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 03:30 PM (#3525326) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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! |
|
11 Jun 13 - 04:34 PM (#3525341) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza 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.) |
|
11 Jun 13 - 04:48 PM (#3525348) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 05:10 PM (#3525354) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza 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. |
|
11 Jun 13 - 05:46 PM (#3525366) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
12 Jun 13 - 03:08 AM (#3525487) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "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 |
|
12 Jun 13 - 03:16 AM (#3525488) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 03:31 AM (#3525491) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion As they say, Keith ~~ Leave it alone... He's not worth it. ~M~ |
|
12 Jun 13 - 03:55 AM (#3525494) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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? |
|
12 Jun 13 - 04:04 AM (#3525495) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Might also do well to look up 'Knocking Copy' [aka 'Compararative advertising'] on wikipedia, esp section "Effectivenes |
|
12 Jun 13 - 04:05 AM (#3525496) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge 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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 04:23 AM (#3525499) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 04:33 AM (#3525505) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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? |
|
12 Jun 13 - 05:01 AM (#3525507) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "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...? |
|
12 Jun 13 - 07:00 AM (#3525532) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
12 Jun 13 - 07:26 AM (#3525547) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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~ |
|
12 Jun 13 - 07:29 AM (#3525548) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Sorry -- 01.36 a.m. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 07:33 AM (#3525549) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad 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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 07:34 AM (#3525550) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 10th June? |
|
12 Jun 13 - 08:01 AM (#3525555) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 08:13 AM (#3525557) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Sorry, Keith. Yes, 10 Jun of course. I.ll doubtless get it right in a minute! |
|
12 Jun 13 - 08:19 AM (#3525560) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
12 Jun 13 - 08:29 AM (#3525565) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 08:41 AM (#3525570) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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" |
|
12 Jun 13 - 08:51 AM (#3525574) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 09:08 AM (#3525582) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 09:50 AM (#3525592) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "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~ |
|
12 Jun 13 - 10:57 AM (#3525617) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
12 Jun 13 - 01:31 PM (#3525668) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 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... |
|
12 Jun 13 - 03:16 PM (#3525710) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome 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 |
|
12 Jun 13 - 03:18 PM (#3525712) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza 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. |
|
12 Jun 13 - 04:57 PM (#3525741) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad A cartoon that some of us on this thread can relate to: New Yorker |
|
12 Jun 13 - 05:22 PM (#3525753) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST "I thought you had issue with the basic tenets of Islam" He has - he's given his opinion and has made no attempt to either explain it or blame it on somebody else - as is the practice of someone else on this forum. His vituperative outpourings didn't mention clothing. If the greatest threat lies in offended dress-sense I think we might all give a big sigh of relief. No society can hold its hand up to treating women well - particularly our own Whatever our feelings about Muslim culture, in the end it's up to them to sort their own out - gone are the days that the Empire could impose its values on a large part of the world. The fact remains that the Muslim communities in Britain are still the most law-abiding, industrious and unobtrusive in Britain today and to single them out for punishment for the behaviour of a minute handful is.... well, we've been here before, haven't we? Jim Carroll |
|
12 Jun 13 - 06:18 PM (#3525763) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome To late to go into now. If I can be bothered I shall explain more tomorrow but, for now, I can accept that people have issues with the outlined tenets of Islam such as forced conversion etc. I would also have issues with that if, and it is a big if, all the members of that faith felt they must abide by those antiquated rules. Most Moslems, in my experience and from anecdotal evidence here, do not abide by those tenets so being against the religion is not the same as being against Moslems. I think. I'm tired so brain is turning off... DtZzzzzzzzzzz |
|
13 Jun 13 - 01:24 AM (#3525880) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Support for some of my contentions from this week's Spectator -- http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8932201/to-draw-a-line-between-moderate-and-extremist-islam-is-to-miss-the-point/ which I just thought I would draw attention to. Won't convince those like poor old confused contentious Carroll who regard my moderate expressions of doubt as "vituperative outpourings"*, but just another view to consider. ~M~ *(Vituperative! That? Oh, come now, C, you call that vituperative? ~~ you know I can be vituperative when I have a mind, but that wasn't it by a long chalk) |
|
13 Jun 13 - 02:56 AM (#3525888) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Never mind Michael. His post has been deleted! |
|
13 Jun 13 - 03:15 AM (#3525892) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Link to that Independent/Spectator piece http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/rod-liddle/8932201/to-draw-a-line-between-moderate-and-extremist-islam-is-to-miss-the-point/ In Jim's deleted post he told us yet again, as if revealing some great hidden truth, that most Muslims are good and tolerant people. We know Jim. We have been acknowledging that from the start of the thread, and on other threads for years. You bring straw men into disrepute by constantly hoisting up the same old thread bare effigy. Where we disagree is over the motivation of the Woolwich killers. Although they attempted to behead the murdered corpse while shouting praises to Allah, you claim the were not motivated by extreme religious belief. You also deny the seriousness of the Islamist terror threat despite new mass murder plots exposed every year just in UK. That is what has kept this thread alive. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 03:17 AM (#3525893) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford My bad. Jim's Guest post is still there. Sorry. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM (#3525903) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Simple question - if the Islamic religion is as you describe it: "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" why aren't the streets of Britain running with rivers of blood - why aren't all the adherents to that "poisonous doctrine" out on the streets with machetes slaughtering every non-believer they can lay hands on? Is is, as Keith would have us believe of the "culturally implanted tendency" to rape underage girls, that these believers for some reason or another resist the pressures of that "poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine". This is the picture you pair have chosen to project of Muslim people in Britain - not an attack on "Islamism" as you dishonestly claim, but the religion itself and all who adhere to it. That is what you wrote and all the snidy name calling does not absolve you from that shitty piece of bilious hatred Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jun 13 - 04:36 AM (#3525908) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford as Keith would have us believe No. I just passed on what people who might be expected to know were saying. It was not about Muslims anyway, but about an ethnic as opposed to a religious demographic group. I was sure they were over-represented, as has been confirmed. You denied it. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 04:52 AM (#3525914) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion You carry on if you like, Keith. I really can't be bothered trying to argue with poor old nutty hysterical 'don't-confuse-me-with-facts' Carroll. As I remarked before, (as girls are supposed to say to pacify incensed and pugnacious boyfriends) Leave it alone. He's not worth it. So commune with yourself, Carroll. I'm not listening. ~M~ |
|
13 Jun 13 - 06:52 AM (#3525938) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Leave it alone. He's not worth it." No explanation of your vicious outburst = vicious outburst pure and simple "ust passed on what people who might be expected to know were saying. It was not about Muslims" No it was not - it was your opinion about "all British male Pakistanis" - even if you had been able to provide a quote to show somebody had said it, it was presented as "my opinion" I'd take your friend's example and disappear while you're only this far behind Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jun 13 - 06:58 AM (#3525939) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford it was presented as "my opinion" No it was not. I said at the time it was not my opinion, and have repeated that statement on every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of occasions you have brought it up since. It was not my opinion. I believed it, as I would a doctor's diagnosis, but it would be the doctor's opinion not mine. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 08:35 AM (#3525959) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll It was not my opinion." I'll dig out the full quote and the link (please tellme you do!)if you wish which begins "Don, I now believe" The pair of you are as dishonest as one another in your efforts to smear an entire cultural group. Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jun 13 - 09:07 AM (#3525965) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""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."" Doesn't the Q'ran also enjoin that Muslims should be at peace with Christians, whom it describes as "People of the Book"? Cherry pickng even as many as 109 verses of Jihadist injunctions ignores thousands of verses which make no such statements. The very thing you accuse Islamists of doing, you are doing yourselves. Does nobody see the imbecility of both sides using exactly the same twisted interpretations of the words of the Prophet as a justification for hating each other? Don T. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 09:22 AM (#3525970) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim, sorry, I know your intentions are good but you really seem to be submitting some awful arguments. Whether I agree with Keith and Michael is irrelevant. In fact, from my point of view, there are some things they say make sense and some don't. Your post, above, is a prime example. If I was to say "Jim, I now believe that the moon landings were faked" that would be my opinion, but it is based on evidence, albeit flawed. When Keith said "Don, I now believe..." it was his opinion but he has provided enough evidence to show that his opinion is valid. I would need more before I drew his conclusion and so would you but that does not detract from the fact that Keith has weighed the evidence he has and made up his own mind. It is not simply his own opinion and it is far better than just hurling insults and abuse. You are also blurring the issue by arguing on one hand about a cultural or ethnic group (British Pakistanis) and a religious group (Moslems) on the other. Although I expect a majority of Pakistanis to follow that particular religion they do not all do so. And not all Moslems are Pakistanis - Far from it! By speaking of the groups in the same terms you are displaying one of the facets of the worse kind of Racism - They are all look the same to me :-( Cheers DtG |
|
13 Jun 13 - 09:25 AM (#3525971) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome ...and Don, credit where it is due. An excellent point. In my opinion of course :-) DtG |
|
13 Jun 13 - 09:34 AM (#3525972) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""...and Don, credit where it is due. An excellent point. In my opinion of course :-)"" Thank you Dave! Greatly appreciated. Don T. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 09:49 AM (#3525980) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Yes, Dave; I know all that. The Koran doesn't maintain a consistent line, as everyone knows ~~ (even tho it is all, of course, known to be the work of the same person!). But it is not only one side that cherry-picks. I ,in fact, respond merely to the cherry-picks of the other side. And however well they are supposed to co-exist with the other People of the Book [which means the Jews too, of course ~~ Abraham & Jesus are named as great prophets along with, altho lesser than, the True Prophet who came finally] in some places (tho not that many where they do so with the Jews, eh?), it is their obligation to wage Holy War [however interpreted!] against them in others. But in all, even along with the injunction to co-exist in peace where it occurs, remains the obligation to try to convert them until all the world shares the same True Faith. So, I repeat, it must involve at least a degree of compromise to neglect that obligation for the sake of a quiet life, as many have to do who choose to go & live among the Infidel. Mustn't it? 'Asking for trouble' I repeat. & trouble is what we are experiencing. It is naive ostrich·icity of the pathetic Carrollian kind to pretend it isn't so. ~M~ |
|
13 Jun 13 - 09:53 AM (#3525982) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Words are only words, it's how they are interpreted and acted upon that is the issue here. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 10:02 AM (#3525985) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome It's only words, and words are all I have... Now, what great philosopher was that? :-) |
|
13 Jun 13 - 10:40 AM (#3525998) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Anyway, we all agree that our Muslim community are overwhelmingly decent and peaceful folk. That is good. Where do we disagree? Only about whether the killers, while beheading Rigby and praising Allah, were motivated by religious extremism or not. I think they were. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 12:14 PM (#3526027) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Dave - let's get this clear - racist and cultural hatred and bigotry runs through this and similar debates like "Blackpool" runs through rock. To suggest that this killing (I keep having to remind myself that this is supposed to be what this is about since it has been turned into platform for bigotry and hatred) is "religious" puts every devout follower of that religion under a cloud of suspicion - just as Keith's "implant" accusation put every single male British Pakistani in the same position. If it is religious, why aren't we seeing Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" in Southall, Luton, Wolverhampton, Tooting.....? These two are, I believe, maliciously ignoring all the other factors surrounding acts like these - foreign wars and generations of prejudice and abuse will do for a starter. All the alternative and additional reasons have been discussed in the press and were fully accepted as reasonable by a mixed panel of politicians on Question Time two weeks ago - yet they were junked here at the outset. The logic of this being a purely religiously inspired killing just doesn't add up unless you, as they have, refused to consider any other of the recognised factors. Sure, there are fanatical imams quite happy to use incidents like this to peddle their noxious and deadly wares, but as I pointed out to you earlier, to put it down totally to the religion condemns them all. Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jun 13 - 12:20 PM (#3526029) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "while beheading Rigby and praising Allah, " And talking about the killing of people in Afghanistan, and all the other tings tht are happening in the Muslim world. Your statement pinpoints all religious Muslims as being to blame, just as you other extremist statements have attempted to implicate te Muslim population as a whole Jim Carroll |
|
13 Jun 13 - 01:09 PM (#3526051) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome OK, Jim - I can see your point better now it is not peppered with the kind of stuff I mentioned before. For many reasons I have already gone into, I disagree and do not believe that blaming religion for this killing tars all Moslems with the same brush. But that is my opinion and you have yours. I will never try to force my opinion on anyone else and as long as no-one tries to force theirs on me I am happy. Now, can we also agree that a sensible and logical argument, whether agreed with or not, is better than personal abuse and manic rants? For all concerned. My view, once more for the record. If the perpetrators of this atrocity say that they did it in the name of Islam, that is all I can go on for now. The actions of the vast majority of Moslems have proven that they are as horrified by it as we are and shows that they wish to distance themselves from the religious fanatics. Therefore the perpetrators version of Islam is far removed from the version applied by most Moslems. Cheers DtG |
|
13 Jun 13 - 01:16 PM (#3526055) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Try this for size Jim Carroll Guardian 26th May. "Why did the Woolwich killing happen? Less than a week on, the debate has swiftly moved on to the issue of "preventative measures", with Theresa May proposing new internet controls and the banning of groups preaching hate. Yet anyone who dares to use the words "western foreign policy" in this context is bound to be speedily shut up by the likes of Paxman and co. This isn't because they have never heard of drones and Guantánamo. They are surely aware of the countless thousands of innocent civilians dispatched to their graves by western operations in the Arab world, for whom there are no floral tributes piled on the London pavements. It is rather because they imagine, in their muddled way, that to explain an event is to excuse it. Those who point to the dead of Iraq and Afghanistan are surely doing so as a devious way of justifying the slaughter of a young soldier outside his barracks. Do they also think this about the crimes of Hitler or Stalin? Are they really suggesting that historians who delve into the origins of fascism are secret Nazi sympathisers, or that to lay bare the causes of the Gulag is to exonerate its architects? The problem for these commentators is that if an event can be explained, it must be rationally motivated, and that sounds uncomfortably close to endorsing it. To call an action rational, however, is by no means to justify it. Bringing western economies to their knees a few years ago was part of a perfectly rational project on the part of the banks. It sprang from a drive to increase their profits, a motive about which there is nothing in the least insane or impenetrable. On this logic, the best way not to sound as though you are in favour of murdering soldiers on the streets of London is to see such events as utterly without rhyme or reason, like some baffling Dadaist happening. To concede that they have a motive, however malign, is to invest them with a dignity one feels the need to deny them. British intelligence, one assumes, was well aware some years ago that the IRA had rational grounds for its actions, however reprehensible it may have judged them. They weren't just killing out of boredom or bloodlust. The popular press, however, preferred to present guerrillas as gorillas – as psychopaths and wild beasts whose actions were simply unintelligible. There are at least two problems with this strategy. For one thing, if you deny your enemy any shred of rationality, you come perilously close to excusing him. To be bereft of reason, like a baby or a squirrel, is to be morally innocent. This is why barristers do not usually accuse those they are prosecuting of being dangerous lunatics. For another thing, you can kiss goodbye to any hope of victory over your foes. If they do things for no reason at all, it is hard to see how you can defeat them. After the Boston bombing a few weeks ago, a CNN anchorman asked a so-called expert whether there was anything in the background of the alleged bombers that might help to explain their actions. Unsurprisingly, the expert didn't reply: "Yes, there is, actually, it's called western foreign policy." Instead, he jawed on about the possibility of early childhood trauma. If political motives are inadmissible then psychological ones will have to do instead. Maybe these two young Chechnyans were dropped on their heads as infants, or rudely yanked from the breast. It is not true, as 19th-century liberals such as George Eliot and John Stuart Mill tended to believe, that to understand all is to forgive all. On the contrary, to place an action in its context may be to deepen the guilt of its perpetrators. Appeals to context are not always ways of letting people off the hook, a fact of which those who ritually protest that their racist or sexist words were taken out of context seem unaware. Invoking the injustice and humiliation inflicted by the west on the Muslim world will not do as grounds for murder. But neither will invoking the necessities of the so-called war on terror do as a justification for massacring the innocent." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/woolwich-murders-reason-beat-terrorists |
|
13 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM (#3526061) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Iraq. 2000 slaughtered in last two months, by other Muslims. Likewise Aghanistan where most civilian deaths are at the hands of Taliban. Syria. 5000 every month now. So why do they kill our soldier? Many people disagree with our foreign policy, but cut off no heads. It must be something else. |
|
13 Jun 13 - 03:32 PM (#3526102) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry, Jim. That is just one point of view. You happen to agree with it. Others don't. I don't understand the point of just finding news or web articles that simply agree with what one says. Sheer volume does not make things right. If it were so all the pop music that people go and buy in their droves must be right too. Still doesn't mean I like or agree with it. To be even handed, Keith does the same when he posts articles that agree with his view. Like I said - it can justify an opinion but it does not prove anything really. Cheers DtG |
|
13 Jun 13 - 04:01 PM (#3526113) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I think my links are usually for actual evidence to support my opinion, rather than just similar opinions. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 03:37 AM (#3526251) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "It must be something else." What - Is it to be found in the Koran? You didn't ask me to put up your "cultural implant" statement - I assume you don't want me to. Will think about whether I want to go through all the rigmarole of you saying you didn't say it, then saying you only said it because Jack Straw made you do it...... yatta - yattata!! "Sorry, Jim. That is just one point of view. You happen to agree with it. Others don't." Didn't say I agreed with it - just put it forward as a valid point to be considered in attempting how somebody could carry out such a brutal killing. It makes sense to me and it has been suggested at the beginning of this thread when it was populated by human beings and not racist would-be thugs who would drag themselves away from their keyboards and join their mates on the streets if only they could summon up the balls to do so. It has been fully discussed in the press and on the media for a long time now that a cultural group who has been persecuted at home (Britain) for generations and who has seen their land/s of origin attacked and plundered by western forces in order (among other reasons) to secure oil supplies, should go to horrific extremes to fight back. It happened in Syria where a people are being massacred by an ex-ally of the West while the world stood by and watched and did nothing - fair game for any nutty religious group! Nobody is asking you to take anything on trust, just pointing out that there are many other valid and widely recognised facets to these events which you people won't even discuss. What it boils down to is that, for all your lip-service to there being "good Muslims" you would rather make their lives more miserable than they already are by blaming their religion - you really have teamed up with the 'Dark Side' - pity, I thought you hasd more about you! By the way - the "others" here who you say don't agree with it are reduced to the two who have made horrificly bigoted statements about cultural groups - here and elsewhere - enjoy your company. Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jun 13 - 03:49 AM (#3526254) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Thought about it - there you go - just to put Keith's opinion in context - from a thread discussing abuse of underage girls by a handful of young Muslims. Jim Carroll "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb." |
|
14 Jun 13 - 03:56 AM (#3526255) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim dear, you have tried dozens and dozens of times to discredit me with that post. It has never worked before, so I do not care in the least if you put it up yet again. Don't be such a knob. Everyone is bored with that whole thing anyway. You are the only bigot here Jim. (And a knob.) |
|
14 Jun 13 - 04:17 AM (#3526257) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Chris B (Born Again Scouser) I don't always agree with Jim but his post quoting from the 'Guardian' was refreshingly sane and sensible. If people have reasons for doing what they do then they are responsible for what they do. If it's some sort of disorder at work then somehow they're not to blame (have I got that right?). Makes sense to me. If anything I'd go a little further. Even if people have been damaged and traumatised (either individually or collectively) that still doesn't let them off the hook. That goes equally for Israelis and Palestinians - or at least the people who purport to represent them. I still don't think that means the West is always the bad guy, though. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 05:16 AM (#3526268) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Keith - you cannot unsay what you said. You told us what you believed. We could see anyway but it was honest of you to admit it then and dishonest to deny it now. M the GM - you told us what you believed (I am not bothering to check the exact words) - broadly that Islam was a poisonous faith that should not be permitted. With your delight is verbal prestidigitation, had you meant "Islamism" rather than "Islam" I am reasonably confident that you would have said so. You singled it out for greater criticism than other religions. I note that the bigotweb is now wailing that a moslem who posted an inflammatory internet comment has had the case against him dropped, while a non-moslem woman has been sentenced to imprisonment. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=612635062081779&set=a.243378289007460.71744.213085425370080&type=1 Has anyone got the actual facts? I do note that some of the comments there could have been authored by Keith although most fall short of MtheGM's literary exhibitionism. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 06:22 AM (#3526282) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I said I believed culture was to blame. That was being said by people of, or close to that culture. Why would anyone not believe them? On what grounds do you dismiss their well informed views? I made it clear, in that sentence, that I only believed that because of the impeccable credentials of those people who stated it. That is a reasonable and not a racist way to form an opinion. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 06:22 AM (#3526283) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Very 'broadly', Richard. You know better than to mis-cite like that, you naughty boy. Lose 3 housepoints. "Poisonous" was your word, not mine: not one I should have dreamed of using. I wouldn't say it shouldn't be 'permitted', either. In the indispensable locution of President Lincoln, 'those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like'; and it will obviously be 'permitted; wherever it happens to be traditionally based. But I certainly do not think its members should be encouraged, even by passivity, to settle in large numbers in parts of the world where it is not the indigenous system, bearing in mind the injunctions of its Prophet to convert by all means at disposal the entire kafir; liable, to put it at its lowest, to cause maybe a few bad feelings both ways, wouldn't you say? And even if you wouldn't, I would. And I'll say it again if you like. So I did mean Islam, not merely Islamism. I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean that I can't regard one religion as more alien to my way of thinking than another; so why shouldnt I 'single it out for greater criticism than other religions'? I think a religion whose adherents, where they hold sway, up to this very day, administer the sort of punishments, capital, amputatory, and corporal, on its citizens, often for offences which aren't even illegal elsewhere, could do with a bit of criticism. Are you happy that there is a country where a teenage girl recently publicly received 100 strokes of the cane on her bare buttocks for the dire offence of having been the victim of a gang-rape and thus being 'impure'? Doesn't a religion that goes in for that sort of thing, with that insufferably self-righteous air of thus somehow proving itself better than the rest of you believers, lay itself open to more criticism than, say, Swedish Lutheranism? So don't be silly, Richard. Please... But thanks for kind words about my writing [even if you wrote 'is' when you meant 'in' - its these litte ½p-orth of tar lapses of attention that detract & distract...]. One does one's best! ~M~ |
|
14 Jun 13 - 06:37 AM (#3526285) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford There were only 3 sentences in that post Richard. Let's look at the post unedited. Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things(Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing.). Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb. Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us? |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:37 AM (#3526301) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Doesn't a religion that goes in for that sort of thing, with that insufferably self-righteous air of thus somehow proving itself better than the rest of you believers, lay itself open to more criticism than, say, Swedish Lutheranism?"" Tell that to the family of the young Irish woman, who recently lost her life because she was refused a termination which would have saved her. What religion do you think they will find barbaric? Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:41 AM (#3526304) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "That was being said by people of, or close to that culture." No public figure has in any way made such a sweeping statement publicly making such a horrific statement claiming that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" which makes them prone to committing crimes of rape on underage women - had they done so they would have been exposed publicly, they would have run the risk of being charged with reciting race hatred and, had they been politicians, they would have been discharged from office - it is a blatantly racist statement to have made such a claim. You have failed totally to produce one single quoted example and you have lied here when you said "I said at the time it was not my opinion, and have repeated that statement on every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of occasions you have brought it up since. "It was not my opinion" - it clearly is your opinion - "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" - your opinion, nobody else's. In the end of course, it is immaterial who said it - it is a deeply racist and inflammatory statement and whoever subscribes to it is a racist - you said you subscribe to it. It is this and similar attitudes that have informed yours and your friend's arguments on this thread - as Richard points out - you can't unsay them and claim they were out of context - they will always be your particular 'elephants in the room'. Of course, you could prove me partially wrong by producing a quote - but you won't because there isn't one. Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:45 AM (#3526306) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Islam does not allow abortion after 4 months either Don. "Seyed al-Sabiq, author of Fiqh al-Sunnah, has summarized the views of the classical jurists in this regard in the following words: Abortion is not allowed after four months have passed since conception because at that time it is akin to taking a life, an act that entails penalty in this world and in the Hereafter." |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:50 AM (#3526307) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford No public figure has in any way made such a sweeping statement publicly making such a horrific statement claiming that "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" They all used their own words to ascribe the offending to their culture. My only assumption was that culture impinges, to a greater or lesser extent, on all who grow up and live within it. If you challenge "all" Jim, what proportion will you accept? |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:52 AM (#3526308) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford And why ask the same question a hundred times just to receive the same answer? We have had this exact exchange how many times now? Are you mad? This thread is about Woolwich, not me. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:55 AM (#3526309) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""But it is not only one side that cherry-picks. I ,in fact, respond merely to the cherry-picks of the other side."" With the utmost respect Mike, that is precisely the problem. Some rabid, half mad, Mullah fills the heads of impressionable young men with hatred based on cherry picking a tiny part of the Q'ran and treating it as if it were the whole message. You respond by doing the self same cherry pick, and use it equally dishonestly to blacken the whole religion. What, would you say, is the difference between that and blackening the Catholic religion by quoting the excesses of the inquisition, an argument which has been discredited and dismissed? Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 07:55 AM (#3526310) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford In the end of course, it is immaterial who said it - it is a deeply racist and inflammatory statement and whoever subscribes to it is a racist - you said you subscribe to it. Jasmin Alibhai-Brown? Mohammed Shafiq? Ahmed? What a knob! |
|
14 Jun 13 - 08:01 AM (#3526311) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Islam does not allow abortion after 4 months either Don."" A general rule which I am already aware of. So I'll look forward to your posting of an example of a Muslim mother, in extremis, being refused a life saving termination. Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 08:45 AM (#3526322) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome What it boils down to is that, for all your lip-service to there being "good Muslims" you would rather make their lives more miserable than they already are by blaming their religion - you really have teamed up with the 'Dark Side' - pity, I thought you hasd more about you! Like unto others, Jim, I give you the benefit of the doubt. I doubt whether you purposely misrepresented my words. I suspect that you either misunderstood or I did not make myself clear enough. At least I hope so. I do not wish to make anyone's life miserable, even if they insist that I mean things that they cannot possibly know! There is no lip-service to "good Moslems", I know they are in the majority and I am friends with a lot of them. I shop with them. I drink with them (Yes, some do like a tipple!) and I even have my haircut with them. Remember, Jim, I work in Bradford at a place that employs around 3000 people with a high representation of Moslems. Where do you live and work now? Anyhow, I have stated over and over again that the religion is not the people and the people are not the religion. The fruitcakes who performed this act and those who encouraged them may well insist that they were acting for the love of Allah and Mohammed. And they probably meant it. But all those good Moslems I know and many others I don't know will tell you that the nutters are not acting on their behalf. Eventually they will get rid of the radical factions and live in peace once more. Now, please stop giving a good cause a bad name by going off on ridiculous flights of fancy. If you wish to accuse me of anything you need to know me an awful lot better to be credible. Cheers DtG |
|
14 Jun 13 - 08:50 AM (#3526323) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Oh, and BTW, you say you would rather make their lives more miserable than they already are Surely the one of the prime characteristics of a racist is saying that because people are of the same race/religion/culture they are all the same. You are not saying that all Moslems lead miserable lives are you? That would be racist... DtG |
|
14 Jun 13 - 09:22 AM (#3526329) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford When Sunni Muslims kill Shia Muslims, within the same country,just because they are Sunni and Shia Muslims, I think that killing is religiously motivated. That is not an assertion. More of a question. Can anyone help me out, because there are hundreds dying violent deaths every day. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 09:23 AM (#3526331) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Don ~~ Relativism is a great intellectual danger; and 'wotaboutery' a fatuous form of argument. Of course I deplore that young Irish woman's death due to interference from a regrettable strand of Xtnty, as much as anyone. So does that mean you think I ought to love Islam, then? If not, what was your point, precisely? ~M~ |
|
14 Jun 13 - 09:29 AM (#3526333) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion and re your Inquisition question, Don ~~ I have already made the point that Islam seems to have reached the stage of development that Xtnity had 500 years ago. The Inquisition was then; the teenager caned for being raped is now ~~ just last year, in N Nigeria. I am sure they will catch up in time. Will that woman being stoned in Riayadh next week, or the young man having his hand amputated in Islamabad, be content to wait, do you think? ~M~ |
|
14 Jun 13 - 09:54 AM (#3526339) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jasmin Alibhai-Brown? Mohammed Shafiq? Ahmed?" Then you'll have no problem whatever in producing links to quotes which come anywhere near your "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" All of these have warned against drawing racist conclusions from the handful of the cases in question. What a liar! Jim Carroll PS What happened to Jack Straw - did he change his mind which precluded him from being your star witness - perhaps because he, as a former Home Secretary also warned against drawing racist conclusions, as did the judiciary and the police involved in the cases? Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jun 13 - 09:55 AM (#3526341) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: beardedbruce When a 14-year-old boy from the Syrian city of Aleppo named Mohammad Qatta was asked to bring one of his customers some coffee, he reportedly refused, saying, "Even if [Prophet] Mohammed comes back to life, I won't." According to a story reported by two grassroots Syrian opposition groups, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and the Aleppo Media Center, Qatta's words got him killed. A group of Islamist rebels, driving by in a black car, reportedly heard the exchange. They stopped the car, grabbed the boy and took him away. Qatta, in refusing to serve a customer coffee – it's not clear why – had used a phrase that the Islamist rebels took as an insult toward the Prophet Mohammed, the most important figure in Islam. That offhand comment, made by a boy, was apparently enough for these rebels to warrant a grisly execution and public warning. The rebels, according to ABC News' reconstruction of the Syrian groups' reports, appear to have whipped Qatta. When they brought him back to where they'd taken him, his head was wrapped by a shirt. The rebels waited for a crowd to gather; Qatta's parents were among them. Speaking in classical Arabic, they announced that Qatta had committed blasphemy and that anyone else who dared insult the Prophet Mohammed would share his fate. Then, the shirt still wrapped around the boy's head, the rebels shot him in the mouth and neck. As Islamist groups continue to take territory in the Syrian civil war, more Syrians are coming under the control of armed extremists who enforce an austere and sometimes violent version of sharia law. The Washington Post's Liz Sly has reported on other such punishments in Aleppo, where the al-Qaeda-allied group Jabhat al-Nusra is thought to lead the newly established sharia enforcement authority. Such incidents are a sign of the rise of extremism within a rebel movement that began, over two years ago, largely unified behind the goals of ousting President Bashar al-Assad and establishing democracy. The influx of avowed jihadists and extremists is bad news for Syrians, and not just because those under rebel rule have to worry about sharing Qatta's fate if they are perceived as insufficiently pious. The growth of these groups seems bound to exacerbate tensions between rebel factions, easing Assad's military path to victory, and scaring off the Western powers that might otherwise be persuaded to lend the rebels greater support. Lots of people in and outside of Syria could get behind the idea of ousting a cruel and unpopular dictator and replacing him with something more democratic. But few things are more universally loathed than an al-Qaeda-allied group that executes children. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/11/report-syrian-rebels-executed-a-14-year-old-boy-for-insulting-islam |
|
14 Jun 13 - 09:56 AM (#3526342) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion t Cooperatives Environment Advancing Deserts I wqasn't making it up, tho it was 12 years ago, not last year. Here's the UNICEF link ~~ Africa, Global Geopolitics, Headlines, Human Rights, World RIGHTS: UNICEF Condemns Flogging of Teenage Girl in Nigeria By Thalif Deen Reprint | | Print | Send by email Thalif Deen UNITED NATIONS, Jan 24 2001 (IPS) - The UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) Tuesday condemned the public flogging of a teenage Nigerian girl: a punishment meted out for pregnancy outside of marriage. "There are few States, in any region of the world, across all religious lines, whose justice system allow the flogging or lashing of children," UNICEF Executive Director Carol Bellamy said. She pointed out that there is now a global consensus to protect children from violence – and most especially to spare them from forms of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment such as flogging. This consensus, Bellamy said, is represented by the almost universal ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and by the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and non-Violence for the Children of the World (2001-2010). The 17-year-old Nigerian, Bariya Ibrahim Magazu, was caned 100 times in the northern Nigerian State of Zamfara last week as a punishment for her pre-marital pregnancy. The teenager, who is illiterate, was apparently not aware of her right to appeal her sentence and was not provided with adequate legal counsel, according to UNICEF. "Her case has provoked a torrent of criticism from within Nigeria and around the world – not only because the girl testified that her pregnancy resulted from rape, but because of the fundamental violation of human rights that flogging represents," Bellamy noted. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 10:10 AM (#3526350) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Then you'll have no problem whatever in producing links to quotes which come anywhere near your "all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" No problem. They and others all ascribed the offending to the culture, and I provided links and extracts at the time. Deny that Jim. They all used their own words to ascribe the offending to their culture. My only assumption was that culture impinges, to a greater or lesser extent, on all who grow up and live within it. If you challenge "all" Jim, what proportion will you accept? PS What happened to Jack Straw - did he change his mind which precluded him from being your star witness No he did not Jim. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 10:22 AM (#3526355) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 25 Feb 11 - 12:55 PM Racist liar Jasmin Alibhai Brown in Independent. "Being avowedly a leftie liberal, anti-racist, feminist, Muslim, part-Pakistani, and yes, a very responsible person, I should be in the circle with these objectors – particularly as I can't stand the Rt Hon MP for Blackburn, his devious, shady politicking and moral expediency. However, just as when he criticised the full veil, I cannot condemn his views. How can I? Just before Christmas, I too wrote about these rapists and the anti-white cultural prejudices in some of their communities and families." http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-jack-straw-is-right-to-ask-hard-ques Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 25 Feb 11 - 01:22 PM Same piece. Shouting down Jack Straw, busying ourselves with warnings about feeding the BNP, are displacement activities that will do nothing to stop Asian groomers, who, from childhood have developed distorted ideas about themselves, society, females, vice and virtue. Like Samura said, it is up to insiders to examine and reveal what lies beneath these crimes. We owe that to ourselves, to our future generations, and to the country we have made ours. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 10:26 AM (#3526356) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I still honestly wonder why you continue pissing down the wind, Keith. You have surely learnt by now that J Carroll asserts but pays no attention to anyone else's statements; asks questions but never listens to the answers if they are not ones he approves. Trouble is, he is just not right bright, & resents those who are*; & he knows what he thinks & doesn't want to be confused with facts. If Don puts a point or a question it is wortth responding because he is an intelligent man who can take a point. Carroll is a lost cause. ~M~ Just as he never tires of quoting one remark back at you ad nauseam, so I will go on reminding him that he attacked me for being "educated", intending the epithet, by some incomprehensibly devious thought process of his own, as an denunciatory insult. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 10:29 AM (#3526358) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:26 AM It did start with that comparison, and then went on to discuss the nature of the abuse. Left Wing Liberal Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has just commented on Ahmed's contention. "It was time, he told the British Muslim community, to look more closely at the underlying causes of the crimes committed by such grooming gangs. Time for Muslims to do more to promote UK-based marriages. For giving an honest, informed and heartfelt opinion, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the religious and cultural guardians of those communities in a reaction that has been utterly disgraceful. So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki |
|
14 Jun 13 - 10:36 AM (#3526361) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 30 Jan 11 - 08:54 AM A prominent British Pakistani has offered an alternative theory to that of Straw and Cryer. 'They are forced into marriages and they are not happy. They are married to girls from overseas who they don't have anything in common with, and they have children and a family. 'But they are looking for fun in their sexual activities and seek out vulnerable girls.' He said Asian men resort to abusing young white girls because they do not want meaningful relationships with adult white women. 'An adult woman – if you are having an affair – would want your time, money and for you to break up your marriage,' the peer added. His comments come weeks after former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw provoked national outrage by saying that some Pakistani men look at white girls as 'easy meat' for sexual abuse. Labour peer Lord Ahmed said: 'I get a lot of criticism from Asian people who ask, "How can you say this about Asian men?" But they must wake up and realise there is a problem. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 10:41 AM (#3526363) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 800 From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 30 Jan 11 - 09:03 AM Atma Singh, from the Sikh Community Action Network, said: "Well done to Jack Straw for being 100 per cent honest and saying what many people already know – that there are pockets of youngsters in the Pakistani Muslim community who treat girls from other communities as sexual objects." Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Muslim youth group the Ramadan Foundation said 53 out of the last 65 convictions for grooming had involved British Pakistanis. "The reality is that there is an issue," he said. "There is a perception that these white girls have lesser morals and lesser values than women from Pakistani heritage. "It's abhorrent and there needs to be debate." |
|
14 Jun 13 - 11:05 AM (#3526374) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion A bit of slowburn esprit de l'escalier -- "You singled it out for greater criticism than other religions," says Richard above in shocked tones. I am a critic as it happens, Richard: now largely retired, tho I still do a bit online; but in my time I have spent ¼C as one of The Guardian's team of theatre critics, and as their folk record critic; and some years as regular book reviewer for The Times, in addition to work for Folk Review, Plays&Players, &c &c... Would you react as disapprovingly if I picked some plays or books or records out for greater criticism than others? That honestly isn't the way critics do it, dear old fellow. Didn't you know? ~M~ |
|
14 Jun 13 - 12:02 PM (#3526393) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I provided links and extracts at the time. Deny that Jim." Absolutely - you have never at any time provided a link to anything like your horrendous statement, but if you have it should prove no problem to provide it again. Nowhere in your link toes anybody try to implicate Muslims as a cultural group, let alone claim that they are all tainted with cultural implants. What is said is as follows: "I accept that on the basis of the evidence presented in court, this Derby gang was no different from that of the white grooming posse convicted in Cornwall in November. They too preyed on helpless, easily-pleased young white girls who were then used and destroyed. Most paedophiles in this country are white, and their victims too. Just because they harm their own doesn't make it less abominable or more acceptable. What does it matter to a young, white, rape victim whether her violator has pasty or dark skin? And it is gratifying that reputable figures like Barnado's Martin Narey and the judge in the Derby case have spoken out against wholesale racial scapegoating. We know extremists use race and crime statistics to stoke racial hatred against Britons of colour and from religious minorities. I have sometimes been a pin-up girl for the repellent BNP and English Defence League, whenever I criticise Muslims, or Asian values or black Britons who do wrong. You feel degraded and treacherous when this happens." Coerced marriages have never been claimed as reasons for pimping - on the contrary, it has been said throughout all this that the behaviour of the men in all this is against Islamic teaching and those who are involved have rejected their culture. It is extremely difficult to get actual numbers of those committing the crimes but at the time Jack Straw made is statement 2011 (which in no way implicated the culture as a whole) the figures were as follows: In thirteen years up to then there had been 17 court cases leading to the conviction of 53 Muslim men - wonder what happened to the other 2000447 British Muslims if it was their religion wot made them do it? Now how about some figures to back up your statement if you don't mind. A reminder of exactly what you said. "Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb." Jim Carroll |
|
14 Jun 13 - 12:16 PM (#3526398) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Backwoodsman Please God, make it end........... |
|
14 Jun 13 - 12:44 PM (#3526408) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Don't be such a great big fat PARTY-POOPER, BWM. If you don't like it, go to some other thread! Oh, dear ~~ these people who will log on to threads just to denounce how boring they are. As have said before, I can direct them to a BDSM forum if that's their bag! |
|
14 Jun 13 - 12:56 PM (#3526412) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Backwoodsman LOL Michael! Just put it down to my masochistic tendencies. It's rather like passing the scene of a major traffic smash - you know it's horrible, but you can't help looking. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 12:58 PM (#3526414) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Teehee ~~ you looked back pretty quick that time, didn't you? Peek-a-boo! |
|
14 Jun 13 - 01:05 PM (#3526420) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Backwoodsman LOL again! Told ya I'm a masochist! It's sad that there's so little real debate going on - just a small number of people stating the same things over and over ad nauseam, whilst sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "La-la-la" when their opponent(s) speak(s). Oh we'll, time to get ready to go out and belt a few songs out....... TTFN. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 01:07 PM (#3526423) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Backwoodsman "Oh well".........bugger damn and blast iPad bloody predictive text! |
|
14 Jun 13 - 01:26 PM (#3526431) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, in those extracts all those Pakistani Muslim people ascribed the offending to their culture. That was before I made my post two and a half years ago. Denying that just makes you look stupid. You have just had put in front of you what you denied! I ask you again, what proportion of a community are effected to any degree by the culture of that community? Richard and Don.? Backwoodsman, I too would like him to stop. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 01:46 PM (#3526439) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""and re your Inquisition question, Don ~~ I have already made the point that Islam seems to have reached the stage of development that Xtnity had 500 years ago. The Inquisition was then; the teenager caned for being raped is now ~~ just last year, in N Nigeria. I am sure they will catch up in time. Will that woman being stoned in Riayadh next week, or the young man having his hand amputated in Islamabad, be content to wait, do you think?"" A very nifty swerve Mike! 9/10 for manoeuvreability, but 2/10 for comprehension. LOL The actual point was that you are using exactly the same tiny portion of the Q'ran to categorise the whole religion, as these rabid, half mad, Mullahs use to instil hatred of us in their young students. Can you deny that this is just as dishonest a use of that 109 verses, so how do you justify using their methods to make your point, and more importantly, can any valid judgement of Islam itself result from that action? Relating to the inquisition, I did not advance that as an argument. I stated that it was discredited and dismissed as an argument, and compared it to your argument re Islam. As far as I can see, such debate distracts from the very real problem, which is these rabble rousingpreachers who are not being dealt with. We have laws against incitement to race or religious hatred, so why not jail them, sharpish? As to what a minority of sadistic rulers do within their own countries, perhaps if we were to mind our own business and make any complaints through the United Nations, we might have fewer preachers inciting hatred, and fewer terrorists setting off bombs. I don't recall anybody ever suggesting that this country is responsible for putting the world to rights. In fact, our best friends right now are the ones we obeyed when they told us to take our troops and piss off home. Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 01:47 PM (#3526440) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T They are called the Commonwealth and a lot of them are Muslims. Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 02:05 PM (#3526450) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Some pretty nifty footwork of your own around there, Don. Don't you know that aspects of the criminal law in Malaysia & Singapore -- with #s of annual executions* ( surpassed only by such as Saudi), & flogging for illegal immigrants as well as for muggers -- are a hissing & a byword to many? Are you happy about the way Pakistan & Bangladesh have developed judicially since we left? And do you think that they think they are our 'friends', Commonwealth or not? ~M~ *& not just for murder & rape &c, but for things like drug-running ~~ there's an English grandmother under sentence of death for it there right now. Not that I'm overwhelmed with sympathy; silly woman should have known the score & has only self to blame for her predicament; but you will, I know, take my point & not fly off at tangents, not being called Carroll! |
|
14 Jun 13 - 04:38 PM (#3526505) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I guess my last point is not worthy of comment?. I suppose that if I do not agree in entirety I must be a right wing racist? If i am not for you I am against you? I am not in your gang? Well, sorry, but I left the politics of the schoolyard behind some years back. Not as many as you would think but enough. Why can people not understand that we can be against terrorists without being against their cause? Why can some not understand that there are bad people in every single walk of life and if I do not like them it does not mean I am against their whole socio-economic-religious grouping? And finally, just what is the point of rhetorical questions? Jim, sorry, but I am neither for not against you, Keith, Michael, Mohammed or Santa. I just do not like people who do bad things to others. Including those who try to demean others with their weaselly words. Cheers DtG |
|
14 Jun 13 - 04:58 PM (#3526511) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don't you know that aspects of the criminal law in Malaysia & Singapore -- with #s of annual executions* ( surpassed only by such as Saudi), & flogging for illegal immigrants as well as for muggers -- are a hissing & a byword to many?"" All well and fine Mike. Do I hate the kind of government that countenances these outrages? YES I DO! Do I think it is the UKs job to take them on militarily and clean them up? NO I DON'T! We have an international body supposed to deal with this kind of stuff. What we should be doing is ensuring that it has the teeth to do the job. Getting rid of the stupid one nation veto would be a good start. Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 05:05 PM (#3526512) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T BTW Mike, I would greatly appreciate the cessation of your newly acquired habit of using me as a comparison to have a series of sly digs at Jim. I am well aware that his passion leads to unwise and often unacceptable language, but his heart is in the right place and he is, more often than not, sincere. Besides, I really don't much appreciate the faint praise of being "more sensible than Jim", or anybody else, for that matter. Din T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 05:08 PM (#3526513) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T And that of course would be Don T. Bloody weird keyboard with keys like a forty year old typewriter DT |
|
14 Jun 13 - 05:19 PM (#3526515) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "Do I think it is the UKs job to take them on militarily and clean them up? NO I DON'T!" .,,. I don't know what point of mine you think you are replying to here, Don. I have suggested no such thing. I was simply responding to your assertion that the territories we left are now our 'friends [your word! - scroll back!]; and some of these were Muslims. My point was simply that, even if they are our 'friends' [which I might beg leave to question], then 'friends' like these Muslim states I mention among our ex overseas territories are 'friends' we need like pepper up our nose. No implication that they were in any way our responsibility. Not your customary clarity of thought, methinks. ~M~ Your request noted. Shall comply, natch. Tho as to position of someone's ❤ there could be more than one opinion. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 05:24 PM (#3526518) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Dave the Gnome, Cocentrating on my discussion with Mike, I completely missed your last two posts. I've just checked back and I must say that your point is well taken and closely in accord with what I have tried to say. It also carries the weight of experience of working closely with Muslims, and understanding that the vast majority want exactly the same things that we want. ""There is no lip-service to "good Moslems", I know they are in the majority and I am friends with a lot of them. I shop with them. I drink with them (Yes, some do like a tipple!) and I even have my haircut with them. Remember, Jim, I work in Bradford at a place that employs around 3000 people with a high representation of Moslems. Where do you live and work now? (my emphasis) Anyhow, I have stated over and over again that the religion is not the people and the people are not the religion."" The last sentence is particularly succinct and elegant, and some people would benefit from having it framed and displayed in a prominent position. Don T. |
|
14 Jun 13 - 05:26 PM (#3526519) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Surely you've picked enough cherries for a family meal by now Mike :-) LOL Don T. |
|
15 Jun 13 - 12:48 AM (#3526599) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Never enough picked until everyone at the table has learnt to appreciate the significance of the flavour of the largest and most succulent. ❧·☺·M·☺·❦ |
|
15 Jun 13 - 03:06 AM (#3526619) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll No Keith - continuing to rely on witnesses who do not in any way bear out your claims makes you an Islamophobe and a liar. Nowhere does anybody attempt to link the entire male population with these crimes - on the contrary - the statements in your article all refer to CRIMINALS not Pakistanis in general - unless of course, you are claiming all male Pakistanis in Britain are criminals of course. To put a link up which sends your case crashing down in flames - now there's stupid. Jim Carroll All of these statements refer to criminals – only you have chosen to accuse the entire male population of these crimes. From your link http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-jack-straw-is-right-to-ask-hard-quest Ann Cryer Earlier, Ann Cryer, former Labour MP for Keighley, West Yorkshire, who campaigns for women's rights, said Straw should be commended for bringing up a problem which, she claimed, Muslim MPs were not prepared to confront. Said Cryer: "The vast majority of young Asian men are fine, but there's a minority who do not behave properly towards white women and sweeping it under the carpet will only make matters worse. If these Asian men behaved in the same way to young Muslim girls they'd end up in very hot water in their community." Yasmin Alibhai-Brown The feminist Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has also backed Straw. Writing in the Independent about the Derby gang she says: "The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there." She calls on Asians to examine "what lies beneath these crimes". She goes on: "I accept that on the basis of the evidence presented in court, this Derby gang was no different from that of the white grooming posse convicted in Cornwall in November. They too preyed on helpless, easily-pleased young white girls who were then used and destroyed. Most paedophiles in this country are white, and their victims too. Just because they harm their own doesn't make it less abominable or more acceptable. What does it matter to a young, white, rape victim whether her violator has pasty or dark skin? And it is gratifying that reputable figures like Barnado's Martin Narey and the judge in the Derby case have spoken out against wholesale racial scapegoating. We know extremists use race and crime statistics to stoke racial hatred against Britons of colour and from religious minorities. I have sometimes been a pin-up girl for the repellent BNP and English Defence League, whenever I criticise Muslims, or Asian values or black Britons who do wrong. You feel degraded and treacherous when this happens." |
|
15 Jun 13 - 03:59 AM (#3526623) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I am not an Islamophobe or a racist, so you will always lose this debate Jim. I also do not lie. Nowhere does anybody attempt to link the entire male population with these crimes Of course they don't. Only a complete knob would. the statements in your article all refer to CRIMINALS not Pakistanis in general Yes. Child rapists and traffickers are criminals. All of these statements refer to criminals – only you have chosen to accuse the entire male population of these crimes. Then come the big lie that Jim needs to make his false accusation. Of course I have not done that. Only a complete knob would. |
|
15 Jun 13 - 04:09 AM (#3526625) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,keith A Continuing your extract where you cut Jim. "But I still say we need to expose and discuss more openly the underpinning values of the Asian criminal rings in many of our cities. If we don't, the evil will grow. Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths. What the Derby gang did has planted and raised more racism – possibly even among good, benign people – than my words ever could. I am sure recruitment to extremist parties has gone up too. Prominent anti-racists know that, but will not openly say so. The criminals feel they did no wrong. These girls to them are trash, asking to be wasted – unlike their own women, who must be kept from the disorderly world out there. The whore and the virgin are both feared and severely controlled and abused. A 2005 study in the Netherlands of Muslim males found the same bifurcation, and identified deep sexism as responsible for both." and then "Shouting down Jack Straw, busying ourselves with warnings about feeding the BNP, are displacement activities that will do nothing to stop Asian groomers, who, from childhood have developed distorted ideas about themselves, society, females, vice and virtue" http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhai-brown-jack-straw-is-right-to-ask-hard-questions-about-asian-men-2180318.html |
|
16 Jun 13 - 02:40 AM (#3526932) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim's link does not work - I think it may be a limit on the number of characters in making a link. Cut and paste Keith's instead. Read it. Then look at how Jim uses it and how Keith uses it - Make your own mind up as to which argument it supports as I have. But remember it has nothing to do with this particular thread and only helps prove that out of the 600 and odd posts over half seem to be geared to a particular personal argument! I know this is a bit of cherry picking but please bear with me. There is one very significant line which will be relevant to this and many other cases - Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths. We know that the perpetrators in this case will use the 'fighting against injustice for Islam' card. They will ask for special or political treatment. Who is doing most to stir up anti-Islamic feeling here? The men who say that they should have special treatment because they did it in the name if their religion or those who say it is wrong for them to do so? Cheers DtG |
|
16 Jun 13 - 03:28 AM (#3526935) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion A relevant digression rather than a drift, I think ~~ Re: "cherry picking"; a phrase unworthily and tendentiously used here in a pejorative way, when it is, in fact, a process, as DtG has just demonstrated, essential for concentrating on the most relevant part of an argument. Cherries are, after all, there to be picked. And selecting the best of them is a skilful operation. ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦ |
|
16 Jun 13 - 03:44 AM (#3526937) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim's link does not work" It's the same as Keith's link above, which you or somebody else corrected. "Fear of racism should no longer be the veil covering up hard truths." It is cherry picking - it comes along with all the statements made at the time by the judiciary, by the police and by the social workers who commented on the situation at the time, which you people have studiously ignored - that no racial or social conclusions can or should be drawn from these events - over and over again. Jack Straw actually suggested these crimes as carried out by "some young Asian men who are "fizzing and popping with testosterone" but had no "outlet" within their own community" - these are crimes by young criminals, not the result of the culture of the community as a whole as you have persistently suggested. You people have cherry picked 17 court cases over thirteen years which have led to the conviction of 53 Muslim men over thirteen years to prove some sort of cultural corruption in an entire ethnic community. There has been a malicious ignoring here of the most important facts of this case by all you you - 1 The Muslim communities are the most law abiding in Britain today. If the religion of two and a half million people was in any way the cause of these events, the streets of Britain would be running with blood - why aren't they? 2 Considering the years of bigotry, abuse and actual physical violence that the Muslim communities have had to put up with at the hands of not just BNP/NF/EDL thugs, but also from of large sections of the popular press, it is surprising that there is as little trouble as there is on our streets. 3 The North of England police forces, when accused of not acting on knowledge in their possession claimed they did not do so because it was mainly consentual sex which was difficult to do anything about as it happened everywhere - not in any way an excuse for what was happening, but certainly proof positive that this was in no way a "Muslim" thing, as you are claiming. 4. The press and the media have been seriously debating the question of what effect events abroad have had on this murder, some having reached the conclusions that they have - you people haven't bothered your arses even to consider it, but have rejected it out of hand because it doesn't suit your Islamophobic agenda. "out of the 600 and odd posts over half seem to be geared to a particular personal argument" This is not a "personal" argument - Keith's (and a few other's) racism has dominated this thread as it has other threads on British Muslims and on Israel - go and read his stomach turning "Homs Horror" thread. This forum is regularly being used as a racist soapbox by one person. Jim Carroll |
|
16 Jun 13 - 03:57 AM (#3526938) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And as to 'cherry picking' the bits of the Koran which show the faith in what some would regard as an unfavourable light: is not that part of the tendency for the bad to be more noticeable and memorable than the good. ( Hence such phenomena as Godwin's Law, say; or the remark of whoever it was, "Happy is the country who has more history. & those lines of Yeats which I am always quoting, "The best lack all conviciton, While the worst are full Of passionate intensity")? So, honest now!, is not an injunction to love everyone around going to be less noticeable, and less memorable, to the vast majority of human beings, than a command to kill all who won't accept that yours is the only true path? So which is the more likely, is indeed asking more, to be cherry-picked? Honest, now. ☞ on ♥ ! |
|
16 Jun 13 - 04:00 AM (#3526939) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion should of course have read "country which has NO history" Sorry |
|
16 Jun 13 - 04:12 AM (#3526941) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Donkey-spotter From: Jim Carroll {Heee-hawww}---- ♘ |
|
16 Jun 13 - 05:50 AM (#3526953) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "than a command to kill all who won't accept that yours is the only true path?" So that would be common practice by British Muslims, would it? On Friday a sermon entitled "Tackling Street Grooming" by an imam, condemning outright the behaviour of these criminals as against the Muslim faith will be read out in fifty Mosques in Britain Jim Carroll |
|
16 Jun 13 - 06:02 AM (#3526955) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim, if you insist that I am of "You people" - IE, those who disagree with you and are therefore right-wing racists, then you will have no issue in my categorising you a complete nutcase will you? :-) As to "you or somebody else corrected", well, I don't know who you think I am or how much power you think I wield but it only strengthens the case that your conspiracy theories derive from a particularly twisted imagination. Cheers DtG |
|
16 Jun 13 - 06:19 AM (#3526959) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "So that would be common practice by British Muslims, would it?" .,,. Wikipedia article 'Terrorist Incidents In Great Britain' lists 17 incidents, either successful like 7/7, Glasgow Airport 2007, Exeter 2008, Woolwich 2013, or foiled by police intelligence & action, of unarguably Islamist provenance, since 2000. How "common" would you like, AAMOI? ~M~ |
|
16 Jun 13 - 07:43 AM (#3526991) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Michael, you could add the number of BMs who have travelled to places like Syria and Somalia to kill unbelievers or believers in the other kind of Islam. |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:02 PM (#3527061) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford MtheGM's last post just got deleted for no apparent reason. |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:08 PM (#3527064) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Yes ~~ & it was querying why another post had been deleted. What is going on, please, mods? I do not like being treated in this cavalier & unmannerly fashion by anyone; please don't try to bully me. |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:16 PM (#3527072) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Ah ~~ thank you SRS. But why couldn't they just have said so? I repeat; I don't like bullies ~~ mods or any other sort; and expect decent courtesy of treatment. All I did was ask a civil question. Was a civil answer so unreasonable an expectation? ~M~ |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:17 PM (#3527073) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion & while I was posting that, SRS's to me vanished. Oh, bugger it. So away and play your silly games! |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:19 PM (#3527076) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Stilly River Sage Come on guys, think about it. The more you talk about the troll, the more he gets his rocks off. I never post as a guest with my name or moniker. Something has set off that asshole again, maybe he's just in high spirits after getting out of jail. SRS |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:23 PM (#3527080) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Well done Maggie (The real one - Yes, I did spot it!) If you can keep your head when all around you... :-) Cheers DtG |
|
16 Jun 13 - 12:24 PM (#3527081) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome ... not that you will be a man my son or anything :-D D. |
|
17 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM (#3527137) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "How "common" would you like" How many incidents before I'm prepared to blame the entire Muslim population of Britain for these atrocities? A damn sight more than the handful you've been able to come up with so far. Britain has a Muslim population of 2000,5000. Suggested numbers such as 2,000 suspects (not forgetting the invented "many thousands more" going to fight abroad) have been bandied about here along with your claim is that 'it was their religion wot made them do it'. Why aren't incidents like these an everyday occurrence if your attempts to implicate all believers are to be given credence – please don't try to claim you haven't – you and Keith have made it abundantly clear on that score? Nobody has denied that these nutters exist, nor has anybody ever attempted to excuse their crimes in any way - what has been argued from the earliest postings is that these events in no way implicate the Muslim population in general - not just me, but most of those who posted at the beginning of this thread, before you took it over for your soap-boxing. As far as I'm concerned, the miniscule number of Muslims involved in promoting violence and murder in Britain today are guilty of incitement to violence and murder and should be tried and punished for such, or at the very least, deported. The Muslim population as a whole are exactly as I described, innocent of any crime or involvement despite your sneering attempts to implicate them via their culture. You suggested that I had no contact with the people we are discussing – I pointed out that I had and I invited you to compare notes with your own experiences – you failed to comply. I worked as a self-employed electrician in London for twenty-odd years during which time I met many Muslims. I can't claim any of them as friends – my contact with them was limited to the time I worked for them. In general, I found them friendly, hospitable and more than happy to discuss both their and my religious views in a friendly and enquiring manner – a far cry from the picture you and your friends paint of the monsters you appear to believe they are. Without exception, they possessed a humanity that has been totally lacking in anything you or your friends have shown in your outpourings of cultural hatred. In the past we met a number of Muslims on holidays we took in Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Northern Greece, not opportunities to get to know people to any great depth, but our interest in traditional music gave us chances to see them up closer than ordinary holidays would have. We found all we spoke with, without exception, friendly and hospitable, both interesting and interested – never once showing hostility towards a couple of 'infidels'. My closest contact with a Moslem was a few years ago when I spent a great deal of time in Galway with the Tunisian fiance/ of the daughter of one of our closest friends (later to become man and wife) – we had epic discussions on the various aspects of Christianity, Islam and atheism – we still remain friends. I won't bother to ask you again to reciprocate with your own experiences as I doubt if you have any. So far, none of you have even addressed the points I listed, not even to dismiss them out of hand as is your common practice. "....travelled to places like Syria and Somalia to kill unbelievers" There is a civil war in Somalia following a coup d'état; both the UN and the USA have involved themselves in attempting to bring about peace. To describe it as a fight between Muslims is cynically and manipulatively simplistic in the extreme – like describing the Vietnam War as a fight between Christians and atheists. http://www.c-r.org/accord-article/endless-war-brief-history-somali-conflict Describing what is happening in Syria (particularly after your theatrical breast-beating over Homs) as "to kill unbelievers or believers in the other kind of Islam" is beyond belief. The Syrian troubles started as an attempt to democrotise the country (part of the Arab Spring demonstrations) and was allowed to degenerate into civil war due to inaction by the West, who were happy to stand and watch the slaughter. We have yet to hear your opinion on British and US proposals to arm the rebels (talk about stables and bolting horses!) – I have little doubt you'll be claiming that this is what you argued for all the time. I'm sure you have no need of reminding of your attitude towards the UN, the US and Britain's refusal to intervene, or your call to supply Assad with riot control gear, or your defence of Britain's having sold "a few" sniper bullets" to Assad, some of which were quite likely to have been used on the streets of Homs. To describe what is happening in Syria as Muslim against Muslim is sick to the extreme on your part, given your past rivers of crocodile tears for the "poor Syrian people". Dave "You people" I have never at any time responded to your postings in any way other than to attempt to answer your points – that's what I do – no suggestion of your being a "fascist" or any other 'ist'. You, on the other hand have totally failed to respond to any of my arguments and, along with Laurel and Hardy here, have consistently failed to move from or to justify your position of blaming the religion for this and other atrocities and have refused to consider or even discuss any other possibilities. I'm sure you are aware of the "dogs and fleas" proverb, but am happy to help out if you aren't – another one for you – "if the cap fits...." Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jun 13 - 10:39 AM (#3527148) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The Muslim population as a whole are exactly as I described, innocent of any crime or involvement That is how I and everyone else here describes them. We agree. Good. despite your sneering attempts to implicate them via their culture. No-one has done that. Not knowing anything about it myself, I came to accept what people like Jasmin Alibhai-Brown and other insiders say about it. Those who go on foreign Jihad are fighting for their religion. They fight unbelievers. One of the Woolwich suspects had tried to fight with Al Shabab in Somalia, and now wants to be known as Mujaheid Abu Hamza. Mujaheid means one who fights for Islam. |
|
17 Jun 13 - 12:27 PM (#3527199) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Don't you lecture me on something you know nothing about - you are even beeing selective about the term Jihhad - go and look it up and tell me how you came to your definition and tell us how you de3cided on the meaning. Pratt Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jun 13 - 01:17 PM (#3527214) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome have consistently failed to move from or to justify your position of blaming the religion for this and other atrocities Jim, I really have no idea what you are talking about. I think your judgement is clouded by your vendetta against other members. That is not and never has been my position. In fact I posted only a few posts up something that Don commented on - I have stated over and over again that the religion is not the people and the people are not the religion Religion is not to blame for this. People are. They did say they were acting for Islam, which they could well have been in their minds. They were not acting for most of the people who follow that religion. How much plainer can I make it? Oh yes, and what 'other atrocities' am I supposed to be blaming Islam for? While I have every sympathy for your point of view and can respect it, you are doing yourself no favours by making this stuff up. Now, please either find me some facts with which to back up your accusations or stop making them. Cheers DtG |
|
17 Jun 13 - 02:17 PM (#3527237) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Careful, Dave ~~ or he will forbid you to "lecture" him. That seems to be his latest when anybody has the gall and temerity contradict any of his unarguable asseverations! ~M~ |
|
17 Jun 13 - 03:13 PM (#3527260) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll " I think your judgement is clouded by your vendetta against other members." And I think you7 are indulging in what you've just accused me of - name-calling. Throughout all of this I have put up a case, provided what I believe to be reasonable argument and requested that you/they and anybody else who disagrees respond to what I claim - you have my arguments, you have my direct invitation to justify your claims - so far you have repeated like a bleeding Dalek that you don't agree - no qualification. You'll be going off in a huff next and saying you have nothing to say to me, and then coming back when you think the coast is clear, as is the practice of your friend bring up the rear (his most comfortable position apparently). If you now claim that religion is not the cause of this why were you claiming that it was and quibbling the difference between religion and church. |
|
17 Jun 13 - 03:53 PM (#3527271) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Sorry technical interruption. Keith has just cited 2 wars that he claims are religious Jihads (suggest you look up the full meaning of the word too) The Syrian conflict started as an attempt to bring democracy to a country led by a known despotic torturer (the UK certainly knew this via an Amnesty report, yet continued to trade with him and carry on friendly relations even to the point ofd selling sniper ammunition (Keith will tell you - he spotted it) The fact that Britain, the US and the UN sat on their arses and did nothing allowed the situation to turn into a civil war and opened the gates for religious nutters to participate has nothing to do with religious crusades, just opportunism. The Somalian situation is an attempt to overthrow a government - nothing todo with religion - look it up. Keith is using these to take a swipe at all Moslems, just as he used underage sex to take a swipe at British Pakistanis. I have no vendetta against this pair of sickos, just their sick beliefs - you can look them up too - the Muslim prejudice thread or anything on Israel is as god a place as any to start for Keith - Mike said it all here on this thread (wonder what you thought about that particular rant?). Feel free to challenge any of my four statements above any time you wish. Jim Carroll |
|
17 Jun 13 - 04:09 PM (#3527278) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, we all know how Syria started. You still blame just the West and ignore the part played by your old mates China, Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Do you have evidence for these sniper rounds? I keep telling you that I have none. However it started it is now a sectarian war, Sunni against Shia. Now Somalia. Africa Report N°10012 Dec 2005 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Somalia's long civil conflict and lack of central governing institutions present an international security challenge. Terrorists have taken advantage of the state's collapse to attack neighbouring countries and transit agents and materiel. The country is a refuge for the al-Qaeda team that bombed a Kenyan resort in 2002 and tried to down an Israeli aircraft. Since 2003, Islamist extremists have been linked to murders of Somalis and foreigners. If governments are to counter the limited but real threat of terrorism in or from Somalia, they need to align closer with Somali priorities – the restoration of peace, legitimate and broad-based government, and essential services – and make clear that their counter-terrorism efforts are aimed at a small number of criminals, many of them foreigners, not the Somali population at large. |
|
17 Jun 13 - 04:11 PM (#3527279) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome If you now claim that religion is not the cause of this why were you claiming that it was I did not, Jim, and I invite you to show us where you believe this happened even though we both know you cannot. Your so called arguments, to me, seem to comprise mainly of unjustified claims against anyone who disagrees with you and then a total absence of any evidence. Then you invite me to justify my claims! Which claims are those, Jim? The ones I actually made or the ones you imagined? As to name calling, if you think I have indulged in anything but mild retaliation then you have led a very sheltered life. I believe I have shown remarkable restraint under extreme provocation so far. If you continue on your current track however you will provide enough evidence of your true self to make name calling completely redundant. Cheers DtG |
|
17 Jun 13 - 04:58 PM (#3527288) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Oh, and BTW you don't agree - no qualification. I agree with some of what you say but not all, nor the way you conduct your arguments. I need provide no justification for why I do not agree with you on some points. Can you just not understand that some folk chose to disagree with your view of the world? If so then I am afraid you are on the road to standing in a ward with your hand tucked into your vest saying "Not tonight, Josephine." :-) At least they still may allow you to access the internet if you are good... Cheers DtG |
|
17 Jun 13 - 11:59 PM (#3527370) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "agree with some of what you say but not all, nor the way you conduct your arguments" Like any who don't accept that "some folk chose to disagree with your view of the world" must be a 'ranting sicko'. Worrer thicko. & a saddo |
|
18 Jun 13 - 03:17 AM (#3527389) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Dave I have just trawled through your posts and it appears I owe you an apology - you have not actually taken a stance on this matter - you have said nothing one way or the other on the matter - though on occasion you have given the impression of having done so. Then what's our argument? Do you go along with M' and M's vicious diatribe against British Muslims? Do you go along with Keith's long standing, well established and openly vicious hatred of Muslims, describing their communities as being full of suppressed perverts and harbouring terrorists - an enemy within? Why has what I have said "clouded by my vendetta against other members" Why is my finding the views this noxious pair as reprehensible as you appear to find it? "I need provide no justification for why I do not agree with you on some points" No - of course you don't - but you do need to say what those disagreements are if you are going to refer to them here - not to do so is hit-and-run trolling. I make my argument to the best of my ability, and I expect the courtesy of an argument in return if you believe me to be wrong You don't like the way I argue - tough - I don't particularly like wrestling with fog. You disagree with me - fine - what do you disagree with? I say that anybody who butchers a soldier on the streets in no way represents the religion they claim to and should not in any way be seen as representing either their religion nor their community - any problems with that? I say that this killing has nothing whatever to do with religion but is the act of nutters who have attempted to dignify their lethally brutish behaviour by making it a 'cause' - am I wrong? I claim that it is cultural bigotry in the extreme to use that act to attempt to smear any ethnic or cultural group in Britain or anywhere - a problem with you? I believe that anybody who attempts to do so is no better than the racist and bigoted gangs who have made the streets a dangerous and miserable minefields for those who have chosen to make Britain their homes - how am I doing so far? If you disagree with what I have to say please have the good manners to say what you disagree with it so it can be discussed. If you go along with Keith and his Jimminy Cricket, have the honesty to say you do so so we know where we stand. Cheers to you too Jim Carroll |
|
18 Jun 13 - 03:39 AM (#3527392) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Keith See below for the eight year old atricle that you thoughtfully decided not to link – I wonder why!! As I said, not a holy war. As far as Syria is concerned – also not a holy war but a fight for democracy allowed to go sour by western indifference – you still haven't commented on Britain and America's intention to become involved ("too late-too late, the maiden cried") How did you describe my suggestions that they should have done when the people of Homs were being slaughtered 'a gung-ho' invasion' or some such words. As for my "former buddies, China and Russia" – any moron who knows anything about politics has to be aware that China and Russia were sworn enemies – "You can't be true to two", as the song says. Jim Carroll "Somalis in general show little interest in jihadi Islamism; most are deeply opposed. Somali militant movements have failed to gain broad popular support, encountering instead widespread hostility. The most remarkable feature is that Islamist militancy has not become more firmly rooted in what should, by most conventional assessments, be fertile ground." "Islamist extremism has failed to take a broader hold in Somalia because of Somali resistance – not foreign counter-terrorism efforts. The vast majority of Somalis desire a government – democratic, broadly-based and responsive – that reflects the Islamic faith as they have practised it for centuries: with tolerance, moderation and respect for variation in religious observance. Ultimately, there is no better way to confront jihadism than to assist Somalis in realising such a government." http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/somalia/100-somalias-islamists.aspx |
|
18 Jun 13 - 04:01 AM (#3527397) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, the point of that old report was to refute your claim "The Somalian situation is an attempt to overthrow a government - nothing todo with religion" Somalia was/is a failed state which the Islamists moved into. Those jihadists who go to join them go as mujahadein or holy warriors. In Syria now Sunnis and Shias are flocking in to kill each other, and they slaughter each other also in Iraq and it is starting in Lebenon. How have you missed all this? How deeply is your head buried Jim? |
|
18 Jun 13 - 04:12 AM (#3527399) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""No-one has done that. Not knowing anything about it myself, I came to accept what people like Jasmin Alibhai-Brown and other insiders say about it."" Serial cop out alert! Don T. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 04:13 AM (#3527400) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Your proof Keith - nothing so far, just your bilious hatred of Muslims and your disgusting attempts to smear their communities using the killing of a young soldier as a platform. I assume you've looked up the definition of 'Jihad' - below. Forgot to respond to your "sniper bullets" The sale was documented on a government site (produced by the Daily Mail and supplied to you at the time) as "small arms ammunition" It was you who identified it as "only a few sniper bullets" - what more proof does a girl need? Jim Carroll Jihad From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jihad (English pronunciation: /dʒɪˈhɑːd/; Arabic: جهاد ǧihād [dʒiˈhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, the wordjihād translates as a noun meaning "struggle". Within the context of the classical Islam, particularly the Shiahs beliefs, it refers to struggle against those who do not believe in Islamic God (Allah).[1] However, the word has even wider implications. Jihad is commonly misunderstood as "Holy War", Jihad means "to struggle in the way of Allah". Jihad appears 41 times in the Quran and frequently in the idiomatic expression "striving in the way of God (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)".[2][3][4] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid; the plural is mujahideen. Jihad is an important religious duty for Muslims. A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[5] In Twelver Shi'a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 10 Practices of the Religion. There are two commonly accepted meanings of jihad: an inner spiritual struggle and an outer physical struggle.[2] The "greater jihad" is the inner struggle by a believer to fulfill his religious duties.[2][6] This non-violent meaning is stressed by both Muslim[7] and non-Muslim[8]authors. The "lesser jihad" is the physical struggle against the enemies of Islam.[2] This physical struggle can take a violent form or a non-violent form. The proponents of the violent form translate jihad as "holy war",[9][10] although some Islamic studies scholars disagree.[11] TheDictionary of Islam[2] and British-American orientalist Bernard Lewis both argue jihad has a military meaning in the large majority of cases.[12]Some scholars maintain non-violent ways to struggle against the enemies of Islam. An example of this is written debate, often characterized as "jihad of the pen".[13] According to the BBC, a third meaning of jihad is the struggle to build a good society.[6] In a commentary of the hadith Sahih Muslim, entitled al-Minhaj, the medieval Islamic scholar Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi stated that "one of the collective duties of the community as a whole (fard kifaya) is to lodge a valid protest, to solve problems of religion, to have knowledge of Divine Law, to command what is right and forbid wrong conduct".[14] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad |
|
18 Jun 13 - 04:16 AM (#3527402) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Phew - Whole list of points there! I shall address them by number and hope we don't get out of step. Firstly though, thanks for the apology and for putting the record straight. Much appreciated. I am not sure if I can answer everything but here goes. 1. My argument only came from you saying I was an Islamophobe. The next 2 I struggle with but 2. I don't go along with any diatribe against any whole class of people simply based on their colour, creed or culture. 3. Again, I don't go along with any 'vicious hatred' of any peoples as in 2 above. What I am struggling with is that I don't think it is as open and shut as you state. I am giving both other parties the benefit of the doubt and do not believe they are as bad as you say. This probably gives rise to much of the disagreement. 4. See my comments on 2 and 3. 5. Don't understand the question 6. I believe I have made my disagreement clear. See 2 and 3. 7. (I think we are up to 'arguing with fog' in case anyone has lost track) Fine. 8. You are now repeating yourself. I have said what I disagree with earlier. 9. I agree. The only point I am making there is that they say they are representing their religion. They believe it. They have been lied to by someone. I don't know who that someone is. 10. Repeat of 9. 11. It is cultural bigotry to do so indeed. That does happen. I do not see it happening here. 12. Again I agree. Again I do not see that happening here. 13. I have said over and over that I disagree with your assessment of what is happening here on Mudcat. The fact that you chose to see that as disagreeing with you then so be it. Either I have not been clear enough, in which case I apologise, or you have misinterpreted what I have said, for which you have already apologised. Therefore we have no problems do we? 14. I do not agree with all that Keith and Michael say either. I do not believe that Islam is an inherently 'bad' faith. I think the article referred to by both you and Keith, as supporting both your views, is a good balanced piece saying much of what makes sense in both your interpretations and tempering it with a balanced view that all could learn from. Now, I don't intend to go through all that again so, in a nutshell - I don't believe Keith and Michael (and bobad?) are saying that all Moslems are bad. They have confirmed that this is the case. - I agree with your points about racism and bigotry being wrong but think you are choosing the wrong battle here - I have said this all along and don't understand why you believe I am saying something else All clear now? Cheers DtG |
|
18 Jun 13 - 04:18 AM (#3527405) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Here is a BBC report just 6 months old about foreign jihadists going to Somalia. Somali Islamist insurgent group al-Shabab, which has joined al-Qaeda, has been pushed out of all of the main towns they once controlled in southern and central parts of the country but they still remain a potent threat to the UN-backed government. Who are al-Shabab? Al-Shabab means The Youth in Arabic. It emerged as the radical youth wing of Somalia's now-defunct Union of Islamic Courts in 2006, as it fought Ethiopian forces who had entered Somalia to back the weak interim government. There are numerous reports of foreign jihadists going to Somalia to help al-Shabab It has imposed a strict version of Sharia law in areas under its control, including stoning to death women accused of adultery and amputating the hands of thieves. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15336689 |
|
18 Jun 13 - 04:29 AM (#3527411) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford It was you who identified it as "only a few sniper bullets" - what more proof does a girl need? I did Jim, believing you had identified it, but it was actually not Syria you were talking about. I have told you this about 20 times, so you know it is not true. I expect you to exploit an opponents mistake, but there is a limit. It is a deliberate deception. Another lie Jim. Britain supplied no weapons and no sniper ammunition to Syria. If you have to lie to make a case, is it worth making Jim? |
|
18 Jun 13 - 06:23 AM (#3527437) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The accepted meaning of Jihad is disputed Jim, as you would have seen had you read all the page you linked to. "Controversy has arisen over whether the usage of the term jihad without further explanation refers to military combat, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[41] Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[42] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[43] Resistance against globalization See also: Jihad vs. McWorld Benjamin R. Barber used the term Jihad to point out the resistant movement against globalization (which he refers to as 'McWorld') as well as the modern-institutionalization of nation states. The forces of 'Jihad' come from fundamentalist ethnic groups who want to protect their traditions, heritage and identity from modernization and universalized markets.[44] The resistance has led to fragmented, small-scale violent conflicts between cultures, peoples and tribes. Although 'Jihad' strengthens the solidarity within the resisting group, it obeys to hierarchy and cannot tolerate foreign influence, which discourages democracy." "] More recently, modern Muslims have tried to re-interpret the Islamic sources, stressing that Jihad is essentially defensive warfare aimed at protecting Muslims and Islam.[35] Although some Islamic scholars have differed on the implementation of Jihad, there is consensus amongst them that the concept of jihad will always include armed struggle against persecution and oppression.[40]" "Controversy has arisen over whether the usage of the term jihad without further explanation refers to military combat, and whether some have used confusion over the definition of the term to their advantage.[41] Middle East historian Bernard Lewis argues that "the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of jihad in a military sense."[42] Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word jihad was used in a primarily military sense.[43] Resistance against globalization See also: Jihad vs. McWorld Benjamin R. Barber used the term Jihad to point out the resistant movement against globalization (which he refers to as 'McWorld') as well as the modern-institutionalization of nation states. The forces of 'Jihad' come from fundamentalist ethnic groups who want to protect their traditions, heritage and identity from modernization and universalized markets.[44] The resistance has led to fragmented, small-scale violent conflicts between cultures, peoples and tribes. Although 'Jihad' strengthens the solidarity within the resisting group, it obeys to hierarchy and cannot tolerate foreign influence, which discourages democracy." "David Cook, author of Understanding Jihad, said "In reading Muslim literature – both contemporary and classical – one can see that the evidence for the primacy of spiritual jihad is negligible. Today it is certain that no Muslim, writing in a non- Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the spiritual jihad. Such claims are made solely by Western scholars, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in interfaith dialogue, and by Muslim apologists who are trying to present Islam in the most innocuous manner possible."[81] Cook argued that "Presentations along these lines are ideological in tone and should be discounted for their bias and deliberate ignorance of the subject" and that "[i]t is no longer acceptable for Western scholars or Muslim apologists writing in non-Muslim languages to make flat, unsupported statements concerning the prevalence – either from a historical point of view or within contemporary Islam – of the spiritual jihad."[81]" "Contemporary Islamism holds that Islam is now under attack, and therefore, experts explain, Jihad is now a war of defense, and as such has become not only a collective duty but an individual duty without restrictions or limitations. That is, to the Islamists, Jihad is a total, all-encompassing duty to be carried out by all Muslims – men and women, young and old. All infidels, without exception, are to be fought and annihilated, and no weapons or types of warfare are barred. Furthermore, according to them, current Muslim rulers allied with the West are considered apostates and infidels. One major ideological influence in Islamist thought was Sayyid Qutb. Qutb, an Egyptian, was the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood movement. He was convicted of treason for plotting to assassinate Egyptian president Gamal Abd Al-Nasser and was executed in 1966. He wrote extensively on a wide range of Islamic issues. According to Qutb, "There are two parties in all the world: the Party of Allah and the Party of Satan – the Party of Allah, which stands under the banner of Allah and bears his insignia, and the Party of Satan, which includes every community, group, race, and individual that does not stand under the banner of Allah."[68]" |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:20 AM (#3527444) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Did you notice the deft slide from discussion of the word "Jihad" in Islam to discussion of the word "Jihad" in Islamism? Did you also notice the impossibility of the word "Jihad" as originally written in the Koran referring to "Mcvalues" and global capitalism? Well, unless the prophet had a time machine, which seems unlikely in principle. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:40 AM (#3527451) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Re yesterday 0353 pm, today 0317 am, &c &c &c ~~ There you may see the lefty at work in all his glory. The trouble with those of the left is that they really do think that they have a unique claim to morality, from which all others are ipso facto excluded. Anyone who, for instance, draws attention to what he genuinely sees as shortcomings in any faith system, and the baleful effect that unquestioning following of its teachings might have on some [not all] of its adherents, thereby, in the lefty's uncontradictable view, reveals himself as a perpetrator of 'rants' & 'vicious diatribes'. Carroll ~~ self-righteous lefty prig (& insidious antisemite: as the man in Shaw would have said, he thinks he isn't, but he is...) ~M~ |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:46 AM (#3527454) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Nice try, Richard [or maybe not]. At a quick count, Keith's links employ the words Islam, Islamic, Islam, in relation to concepts of jihad, some 20 times. The word 'Islamism' occurs just once. & you call that a deft slide. You could do with some deft shutting up before you make even defter an idiot of your undeft self, my dear fellow. ~M~ |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:57 AM (#3527458) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "The trouble with those of the left is that they really do think that they have a unique claim to morality" -- This, one should add despite all experience of efforts to apply this morality ~~ Marxism, Maoism, Sovietism, Pol-Pottery, Ho·Ho·Ho: you name it... |
|
18 Jun 13 - 08:13 AM (#3527465) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Al Shabab on Woolwich and Boston. By Zoe Flood, Nairobi9:56PM BST 23 May 2013 Al Shabaab, which is thought to have links with one of the suspected Woolwich terrorists, launched a tirade on Twitter accusing Britain of carrying out countless abuses against innocent Muslims. In one message posted on its official Twitter account, an al-Shabaab spokesman described the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby as the "death of the wretched Kafir" and said it was "insignificant compared to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Muslims at the hands of British soldiers". Referring to the Boston bombing, another posting warned: "Where next? You just have to grin and bear it, it's inevitable. A case of the chickens coming home to roost." Speculation was mounting that the postings, peppered with English phrases, were being written by a Briton. Seizing on comments by David Cameron that the attack was a "betrayal of Islam", al-Shabaab said that in fact it was a "portrayal of Islam". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10077426/Woolwich-attack-Somali-terrorists-warn-Britain-Your-chickens-are-coming-home-to-roost.html |
|
18 Jun 13 - 08:38 AM (#3527481) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Same link. Estimates of the number of foreign fighters in al-Shabaab vary widely, but a report released last year by the Royal United Services Institute suggested that about 50 Britons were believed to be fighting in Somalia. Many are likely to be of Somali origin, but Muslim converts from some Western nations are believed to have links with al-Shabaab. Last year intelligence experts warned that Britons were being recruited to fight for the militant group and that Somalia was becoming a vital training ground for British jihadis. Kenyan police believe Jermaine Grant, on trial in Mombasa on charges of possessing explosives, has links to the militants. His accomplice Samantha Lewthwaite is on the run, with some reports suggesting that she has crossed into Somalia. Lewthwaite, who faces the same charges as Grant, is the widow of the 7/7 King's Cross bomber Germaine Lindsay. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 09:02 AM (#3527487) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Keith, please don't take offense at this or draw any conclusions but just why are you posting all these links? What are you trying to prove. I think I have lost the plot. And probably the will to live... :-) Anyhow, with a feint hope that we may get back on track can I ask a few simple questions of all concerned? 1. Did these men believe they were acting on behalf of Islam? 2. If so, do we believe the same? (We being right minded folk of all faiths or none) 3. Are all Moslems/Christians/Atheists evil? 4. Are all Moslems/Christians/Atheists good? I'll start the ball rolling Yes No No No Anyone else? Cheers DtG |
|
18 Jun 13 - 09:09 AM (#3527492) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry, folks, I just realised that the last 2 questions should really be 6 to save any confusion 3. Are all Moslems evil? 4. Are all Christians evil? 5. Are all Atheists evil? 6. Are all Moslems good? 7. Are all Christians good? 8. Are all Atheists good? To which my answers are No, no, no.no, no and no :-) Sorry to do that but as I am sure that someone would have used the previous construct to try and score points :-( D. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 09:28 AM (#3527502) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Dave, Jim challenged me on the situation in Somalia. "As I said, not a holy war." and , "Your proof Keith - nothing so far, just your bilious...." That is why I linked to articles that showed Jim to be wrong. That foreign jihadists do go to fight jihad in Somalia as well as Syria. The Telegraph piece also makes clear that al-Shabab, (linked to a Woolwich "suspect") regards the killing as religiously motivated which Jim has always denied. "It proclaims Islam" they said. They can't all be "nutters." |
|
18 Jun 13 - 09:31 AM (#3527505) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford My answers, same as yours. yes no no no no no lost count now but all nos after 1. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 09:42 AM (#3527509) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I need clarification on 2. I do not believe they were acting on behalf of British Muslims. Globally, I am not certain. Not all at least. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 09:48 AM (#3527510) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Your categories 'all evil'/'all good' a bit tendentious -- a bit the equivalent of the Latin interrogative particle 'num, which, as eny fule kno, 'expects the answer "no"'. Of course we are all morally bound to say 'no'. But try in some instances substituting 'misguided'... ~M~ |
|
18 Jun 13 - 10:31 AM (#3527516) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry, Keith. I will clarify. These men believed they were acting on behalf of Islam or whatever branch of Islam they follow. Do we believe they were? Fairy Nuff, M, but if I add 9. Are all Moslems misguided? 10. Are all Christians misguided? 11. Are all Atheists misguided? Then surely we still expect the answer no. That is the point. No-one in their right minds can say that ALL [Whatever race/colour or creed] are of a like mind. It is impossible. If it was we may as well revert to all Irish or Poles being Stupid, all Black men being over sexed and all Jews being tight with money. Which means that people are arguing over what proportion of the race/colour/creed has these characteristics. It is my contention that all people are alike so the percentage of thieves/rapists/murderers in any give group of people is going to be, more or less, the same. Unless of course we are talking about a group of politicians or religious leaders who will have a much higher proportion of nutcases... :-) Any help? Cheers DtG |
|
18 Jun 13 - 11:08 AM (#3527526) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion We are in a semantic impasse here, I suspect, Dave. I would urge that all who genuinely believe the teachings of certain faiths are misguided. The moral basis of some faiths is misguided; so such faiths themselves can misguide. It is surely a piece of dreadful relativism, in the pejorative sense, to think we must 'respect' the teachings of them all equally. Hence my reply some way back to Richard, who seemed to me up the creek in taking me to task for 'picking out a certain religion for criticism'. I asked him if, as a theatre & book reviewer, I should have been inhibited from picking out certain plays & publications more than others for criticism. He didn't reply iirc. ~M~ |
|
18 Jun 13 - 11:40 AM (#3527544) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I mean, would you not believe the followers of L Ron Hubbard's particular institutions 'misguided'? Or those of the egregious Revd Mr Jones? If so, then where would you draw the line? |
|
18 Jun 13 - 12:24 PM (#3527555) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I certainly see your point, M, and to a certain extent agree that anyone who believes that their imaginary friend is better than someone elses imaginary friend is indeed misguided. However, this may be where we differ. I think people can, and do, have a faith without accepting all the tenets of the religion. Yes, I know that if you believe in a God without proof then you can believe in anything but not all minds work like that. If they did it would be a very boring world and brings me neatly back to the point that we are all different and all people of all faiths, or no faith of course, are included in that. What is more, to castigate a whole group of people because they belong to a particular club is just plain wrong. In my opinion. But has nothing to do with the thread so, while being a welcome diversion, does not really add anything. Does it? Cheers D. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 01:06 PM (#3527574) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion No ~~ Your first sentence is not my point. I am afraid that I think the teachings of some faiths are unacceptable, and that their effect is such as to misguide any who follow them. You will find two posts above from me where I spell out why I think a certain one is in this category; which has caused one well-meaner to object, as I say above, that I have 'singled it our for criticism more than others', as if that was against the rules and somehow not cricket: and another, who is frankly IMO a priggish intolerant fool, to foam at the mouth that I am a vicious ranting vilifier or something. Interesting that his repeated attempts to induce others on here to join him in denouncing me as such have not met with much success. I repeat ~~ I would not call ALL the followers of any one 'good' or 'evil'; but I think it more misguided blindly to follow the teachings of some than of others ~~ tho those states in which the faith is legally the establishment, who will shoot you dead, judicially, for wishing to change to another, I really think are not playing the game. Can there be regimes in this 21C world which actually incorporate such a system into their judicial system? Well, we all know the answer to that, don't we? ~M~ |
|
18 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM (#3527580) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge GM - please READ the piece and tell me hand on heart you do not see the slide. Or do you think that Muslim, Islam and Islamism are all the same? It would be consistent with a lot of your apparent accusations. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 01:50 PM (#3527588) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Richard, the piece was provided by Jim who selectively quoted so it appeared to support him. I selected to show that it did not. I double pasted one extract. What exactly is your criticism of that Wiki page? |
|
18 Jun 13 - 02:35 PM (#3527604) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome M, I agree to the extent that it is misguided to blindly follow any faith. I do not agree that it is more misguided to blindly follow one more than another. I do not believe, however, that most Moslems, certain most British Moslems that I know, blindly follow any more than I believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church! While I may agree that the teachings you are quoting are distinctly out of place in today's world I do not believe that the majority of people follow those teachings. In fact, like us westerners, they have become very selective in the teachings they do follow. As I said earlier - People are not their religion. Oddly enough I was in mny barbers earlier - The Moslem one I mentioned, on Leeds Old Road in Bradford. They had an Imam on TV and while I could not understand a word he said his manner and the large background proclainging "Peace" |
|
18 Jun 13 - 02:41 PM (#3527607) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Whoops, premature return key! ...background proclainging "Peace" seemed to indicate that this was his message. There were also two Sikhs in the shop and one was having his beard trimmed. A Sikh having his beard trimmed by a Moslem! What is this world coming to? Anyhow, the point is, I think they have moved as far from the Koran (Qoran? Q'ran? I dunno) as we have from the New Testament. It is only the old guard wanting to hang on to power that are causing the problems. The rank and file will stop then and of that I have no doubt. After all, if you accept that they are people, like you and I, why would they want to go backwards? Cheers DtG |
|
18 Jun 13 - 05:20 PM (#3527654) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "They have moved as far from the Koran (Qoran? Q'ran? I dunno) as we have from the New Testament... The rank and file will stop then and of that I have no doubt." .,,. And meanwhile, tell that to the woman who is going to be stoned to death next week. The teenage girl who has been raped and so is going to be caned publicly on her bare bottom for 'impurity'. The young man who shoplifted a bit of stuff and is going to lose his right hand. The woman who rather likes what she knows of Christianity and wouldn't mind looking into it a bit further, but knows it will be no use because they will shoot her if they suspect she is thinking of converting. I am sure it would be a great consolation to them. As much as it would have been to those being burned in the Act-of-Faith by the Holy Office in Spain, had they but known that 500 years later the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church would be ever so sorry about it. All very well 'of that having no doubt'. But these things are happening NOW. And you know it. And if you don't know it, try google. Some may have 'moved on'; and won't that be a fat lot of comfort to the man looking at the bloody stump at the end of his arm & the girl unable to sit on her contused buttocks! ~M~ |
|
18 Jun 13 - 05:31 PM (#3527656) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Keith's copy/paste had 3 sections, Richard. The first two dealt with Islam/Muslims in general; only the third mentioned Islamism as an entity, but simply repeated or reinforced points made in the first two. Where is this "deft slide" you claim to observe so clearly? |
|
18 Jun 13 - 05:55 PM (#3527665) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Yes, I know all that M and don't need to look it up. They are all terrible things. But how does blaming the majority of Moslems help? Surely we should be helping then to throw off the yoke of the mad Mullahs - Not giving them extra things to worry about. We cannot stop it happening from outside. If we start to blame all Moslems then a lot will fight back. It is only human nature. Maybe they will even start to believe the 'frothing Imams' (Who coined that? I like it) I believe I said, somewhere up the thread, feels like forty or fifty years ago, that I was very happy about the 'Arab Spring'. Surely the ordinary people involved in those revolutionary uprisings have shown that they are a courageous lot prepared to stand up to their oppressors? Trouble is, of course, those very oppressors often hold the oil money. Let's face it, it is easy to blame religion. But it is greed and power that are the main motivators. Of soapbox. Now, where was I? Hmmmm. Too late now... G'night DtG |
|
18 Jun 13 - 06:06 PM (#3527672) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Still & all, Dave ~~ I do, honest, get your point: but it is always the prominent noisy minority by which anything is judged. I won't do that Yeats quote yet again. &, yes, we all have, probably, a Muslim friend or two who probably seems pretty secularised, and not essentially much different from us. But try putting these disagreeable goings-on before him for an opinion, & see if you get an outright condemnation, or (as I suspect would be more likely) a sort of embarrassed, rather squirming, response that adds up in effect to "I'd really rather not comment". |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:07 PM (#3527689) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Al Shabaab, which is thought to have links with one of the suspected Woolwich terrorists, launched a tirade on Twitter accusing Britain of carrying out countless abuses against innocent Muslims. In one message posted on its official Twitter account, an al-Shabaab spokesman described the murder of Drummer Lee Rigby as the "death of the wretched Kafir" and said it was "insignificant compared to the deaths of hundreds of innocent Muslims at the hands of British soldiers". Referring to the Boston bombing, another posting warned: "Where next? You just have to grin and bear it, it's inevitable. A case of the chickens coming home to roost."" Well, there you go. A day or two back Keith was busy rubbishing the idea that Lee Rigby's death was anything other than a religious matter, and dismissing any connection with Iraq, Libya and afghanistan. Now he kindly posts comment from the other side confirming what he so hastily dismissed. Now he will deny it and demand that I waste time posting his comments, the meaning of which he will then twist to justify his religious bigotry. And of course, it's not Keith's opinion that it was nothing to do with our activities abroad, he simply believes it because somebody else said it was so. He'll tell us who when he has time to find one. Don T. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:19 PM (#3527694) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The moral basis of some faiths is misguided; so such faiths themselves can misguide. It is surely a piece of dreadful relativism, in the pejorative sense, to think we must 'respect' the teachings of them all equally. Hence my reply some way back to Richard, who seemed to me up the creek in taking me to task for 'picking out a certain religion for criticism'."" You would be absolutely correct in this comment, had you read the whole Q'ran and found it to be uniformly evil in its intent toward non believers. Not so, when your criticism relies upon only the same tiny cherry picked section (109 verses, out of 6236) which was the basis of radicalising terrorists. You are painting the whole with a brush used for one colour of many. How you, an intelligent and thoughtful debater, can continue to rely upon this specious argument astounds me. It is simply arrant nonsense. Don T. |
|
18 Jun 13 - 07:28 PM (#3527697) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge It seems rather evident, GM, that you actively look for infelicities in Islam, to a greater extent than you do other religions. And you do not really do "faux-naif" effectively. Remember "innocent face" was not a sufficient disclaimer, recently. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 12:21 AM (#3527771) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Don ~ You are not getting my point. I think I have made it clearly enough, but you just don't want to see it. So I won't go on about it. We know well enough what each other thinks. Re this apparent self-contradiction you find in Keith's attitude, I don't see it as such. It is not a case of either it's all religiously motivated, or politically so: the two are in no way mutually exclusive, or bound to be ubiquitously the same thru all the perpetrators and justifiers of the aggressive and fatal activities. Both can easily co-exist, both within the same individual & within Islamism as a whole. ~M~ |
|
19 Jun 13 - 12:33 AM (#3527773) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I know from experience, Richard, that I do not share the admiration for the work of Alan Bennett that many others do; so it is perfectly possible that when I review one of his plays I might be prone to notice infelicities perhaps more than I should be inclined noticing an Alan Ayckbourn. But, should the latter disappoint or not be up to the standard I had anticipated, I should write so. But my attitude to both is not one I was born with, but one I came to hold after exposure to long experience of their work. Similarly with Islam: I was not born thinking it a mischievous, primitively aggressive faith in comparison with others, and many centuries behind them in ideological development, but have come to this view over long periods of observation of the way its adherents have carried on and expressed themselves. Would you have me suppress what have become my perceptions? On what grounds and on what authority ~~ apart from what seems to me a somewhat foolish and jejune sense of vague 'fair play', entirely inappropriate to the immediate question as to what is to be done about the, as I see it, pretty well uniformly baleful effects of their presence among us. ~M~ |
|
19 Jun 13 - 01:25 AM (#3527781) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, I could hardly deny that they claim to be acting in response to the indiscriminate killing of Muslims by us. I just said it was rubbish. Muslims are being slaughtered indiscriminately, and on a truly horrific scale, but not by us. They kill "the wretched Kafir" to "proclaim Islam." |
|
19 Jun 13 - 01:27 AM (#3527782) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And does it not occur to you that what you call my 'actively looking for infelicities' might just be another way of saying that I find infelicities just more noticeable here? |
|
19 Jun 13 - 01:49 AM (#3527783) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, please remember that the wretched Kafir is also being slaughtered in Africa. Just because they are wretched Kafirs. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 03:32 AM (#3527794) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome One of the arguments boils down to what proportion of Moslems are criminals of one sort or another. Some seem to think the proportion is lower than everyone else and some believe it is higher. The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle, is it not? Or, to put it another way, the same as everyone else. Cheers DtG |
|
19 Jun 13 - 03:35 AM (#3527795) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Don't have time to get involved at present. This seems to have reverted back to "evil religion" is the cause of it all and ignoring all the other factors connected with what is happening to the Muslim communities. Surely all the mass rioting, the killing of infidels.... and all the other Muslim atrocities that are taking place on the streets of Britain today..... oh, I forgot; that's not happening, is it - wonder why, if the two and a half million Muslims are followers of such an "unacceptable" (to whom?) religion? The only extensive 'religious' bloodletting to have taken place in these islands recently was Christian, when two brands of Christianity, Catholic and Protestant, tore each others heads off for over twenty years, both in Ireland and in mainland Britain. As M15 has pointed out, that still remains one of the greater threats to British peace and security today, and this will continue to be the case. Until somebody removes the "temporary" 90-year-old line that divides the two Irelands - the real cause of that particular slaughter, (and before Keith or his mates attempt to score points - no - I don't favour any particular side in this, I just recognise it to be the real problem) This religious warfare has little or nothing to do with religion, just as the Woolwich killing has nothing to do with the Muslim religion. "Richard, the piece was provided by Jim who selectively quoted so it appeared to support him." Don't attempt to accuse me of one of your regular stunts - to the extent of doctoring whole paragraphs, as in the case of Jack Straw saying that "no racist conclusions...." (not forgetting your having been warned by the site administrators for fake posting in your own support under a false name - wan't that one dug up?) I don't "select" anything to support my case and, unlike you, I link everything I quote. Jim Carroll |
|
19 Jun 13 - 03:52 AM (#3527798) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, you made a claim about the accepted meaning of Jihad, quoted the Wiki page in support of your claim, but ignored the bits that refuted your claim. The Irish troubles, as you concede, are about partition versus a United Ireland, not religion. The Irish terror threat was rated below international terrorism, they have never tried for mass indiscriminate death anyway, and no attack ever linked to religion. So, false comparisons Jim. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:10 AM (#3527802) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Jack Straw saying that "no racist conclusions...." .,,. Back to lovely little Miss Rice-Davies, ho·hum. Don't know how some people can bear to be so predictable |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:14 AM (#3527803) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I know. I had quoted Straw in full anyway. Later I quoted a something relevant to what was being discussed and Jim accused me of selective quoting. It was not. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:15 AM (#3527804) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim, you say Don't have time to get involved at present. This, from you, when you said to me a couple of days back You'll be going off in a huff next and saying you have nothing to say to me, and then coming back when you think the coast is clear One law for Jim and one law for everyone else. And before you go off on one saying that I am an Islamophobe again this is just about common courtesy. It seems Ok for you to go off, presumably doing more important things, but if I do not post for a few days I have 'gone off in a huff'? Complete hypocrisy. DtG. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:19 AM (#3527805) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim, you made a claim about the accepted meaning of Jihad, quoted the Wiki page in support of your claim, but ignored the bits that refuted your claim". I pointed out earlier that there were numerous definitions of the word and I produced the quotes that made my point - we all know the generally accepted definition of the word "Jihad" - it's the one you constantly use to smear Muslims. I linked the article as I always do (and which you deliberately (despite regular requests) constantly do not - you have often doctored texts without providing either link or naming your source - and you have faked your own postings - stop filling these discussions with snide accusations. "The Irish troubles, as you concede" I concede nothing - stop using loaded and misleading language. I damn well know that the Irish troubles are to do with partition and, just as the Muslim events, have nothing to do with religion, but rather the generations of abuse that Muslims (and all immigrants) have suffered in Britain at the hands of rightist thugs. The MI5 report cited spying and increased IRA activity as being major problems, the DOMESTIC Muslim situation, which is what this is about, came way down the list. Carry on hating Jim Carroll |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:32 AM (#3527810) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion ... and do stop going on as if politics & religion were two entirely separate entities that could never causally co-exist in any situations. Can't you see that all the motivations, in NI, Islamic activism, and pretty well every other sort of interfaith controversy, constitute an inextricable mixture, tho maybe in differing proportions, of both. Do please stop being so tendentiously faux-naïf |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:40 AM (#3527812) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford you have often doctored texts without providing either link or naming your source - Outright lie Jim. I never have and never would. and you have faked your own postings Once, in fun, and without deception. It was obvious that it was me and not the lying "Guest" MI5 classes Islamist attacks as "international terrorism" and says that the threat level is "unprecedented." IRA and other domestic extremists come well below. "Spying" was not even mentioned! 901. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:43 AM (#3527813) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "One law for Jim and one law for everyone else." I was referring to Mike's saying he had nothing more to say to me As much as I regret not being able to take part - and to respond to your reply to my points, we are under great pressure to finish the sound-clips and notes for a talk we are giving shortly, before this ******* computer gives up the ghost, which it is about to do. Please don't make an issue of this. "saying that I am an Islamophobe again" I have apologised and explained my stance on this "I have just trawled through your posts and it appears I owe you an apology - you have not actually taken a stance on this matter" Please don't make an issue of this either. "Don't know how some people can bear to be so predictable" You too Mike - always there when needed - as long as you don't have to actually commit yourself (except when the mask slips, of course) Jim Carroll |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:47 AM (#3527816) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I pointed out earlier that there were numerous definitions of the word No. You did not. and I produced the quotes that made my point No. Only ones that gave the non- violent meaning. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:54 AM (#3527819) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I was referring to Mike's saying he had nothing more to say to me You may well have been referring to Mike in the original post but in this post you accuse me of the same. And I also apologise for bring up something you had already apologised for. I was just so annoyed at your double standards. Cheers DtG |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:54 AM (#3527820) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "Commit myself" to what, Jim? (I know I wasn't going to say more to you, but you are a very able provocateur, I'll give you that!) I have "committed myself" to the conviction, giving reasons (which you may dismiss as a 'rant or a 'vicious diatribe', but a fat lot of support you got in your appeals for others to join you in denouncing them as such) that Islam is a faith mischievous in teaching and intent, whose presence in any numbers on the part of its adherents is likely to be detrimental to the interests of states where it is not the established system, and so such presence should be resisted. This is a sincere and firmly held opinion, which I have made no attempt to conceal; and which contains no element reasonably defined as 'racist', except for the Brother-Paul-football analogues, whatever: it is just a matter of conflicting interests which will be exacerbated by too much close coexistence. How much more 'commitment' do you want you mulish head-in-sand object, you! Yeah yeah I know, mixed metaphor ~ it isn't mules who bury heads in sand. So sue me! ~M~ |
|
19 Jun 13 - 05:28 AM (#3527830) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion And I'm committed to Arsenal FC, Cambridge University, Andy Murray, rare steak with freshly-made English mustard, Quintin Tarantino, Natural Greek yogurt with honey, fried eggs easy-over with unsmoked back bacon & mushrooms & rye toast... so away with you with your "as long as you don't have to actually commit yourself", you slanderous little stinker... |
|
19 Jun 13 - 05:49 AM (#3527835) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don ~ You are not getting my point. I think I have made it clearly enough, but you just don't want to see it. So I won't go on about it. We know well enough what each other thinks."" And you are not listening! You cannot extrapolate from one sixtieth to the whole and come up with a valid conclusion. In doing so, you mirror those we call radical, rabid, mad, and other epithets when they use the same method to recruit terrorists. ""Re this apparent self-contradiction you find in Keith's attitude, I don't see it as such. It is not a case of either it's all religiously motivated, or politically"" If you take a look at the early posts, that is exactly what Keith was saying. Religious, NOT political. In fact he was scathing when somebody mentioned reaction to Iraq and Afghanistan, and dismissed it out of hand. He wants it to be entirely religious! Do you? Don T. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 06:01 AM (#3527839) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford he was scathing when somebody mentioned reaction to Iraq and Afghanistan Hundreds die daily in Iraq, but not killed by us. Fewer in Afghanistan, but again not by us. So, why do they really kill us? Why do they kill Christian people and children (many school kids this week) in Nigeria? Somalia? Mali? |
|
19 Jun 13 - 06:08 AM (#3527844) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion I am not trying to extrapolate anything from anything, Don. I am simply expounding my perception of the nature of the religion professed by the whole of this demographic. What proportion of them believe in it, as the old French counting-out recitation puts it, un peu, assez, beaucoup, passionément, à la folie, pas du tout, I have no way of knowing, and do not even try to speculate. I simply think that its very nature does not bode well towards rendering its adherents likely to be congenial long-term close co-existers. That is the point I think you are failing to get.. .,,. "He wants it to be entirely religious! Do you?" ~~~ Well, obviously not; or I wouldn't have posted what I did about the inextricability of the relig and the polit, would I? If that is what Keith said, then I obviously don't agree with that bit. ~M~ |
|
19 Jun 13 - 06:25 AM (#3527850) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The stated aim of the Islamists is the establishment of Islamic governments, the overthrow of democracies, and eventually a global caliphate. That is the objective behind all their attacks. You could argue that is a political ideology, or an intention to replace politics with religious dogma. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 06:37 AM (#3527854) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Or indeed, Keith, as is the case, an inextricable mélange of both. Got that now, Don? |
|
19 Jun 13 - 08:42 AM (#3527886) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford You could argue. Or you could say that to replace all politics with religion is a purely religious objective. That is what the Islamists intend, and the clue is in the name. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 11:51 AM (#3527952) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Or a purely political one... Wheeeeeeeeeeee ~~~ we could go on like this for hoursnhoursnhoursn |
|
19 Jun 13 - 03:28 PM (#3528024) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Or indeed, Keith, as is the case, an inextricable mélange of both. Got that now, Don?"" I got it long ago. You haven't yet! You asked earlier whether a book critic would be prevented fom criticising one book more than another. You obviously think that said critic would be justified in judging these books from reading five or six pages of each. Based on that, some heavyweights of the literary world whose prose takes a bit of getting into, would have been panned by you. People like Dickens, Conan Doyle, Mary Shelley and Bram Stoker for example. Don T. |
|
19 Jun 13 - 04:15 PM (#3528045) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford So we are all too ignorant to be allowed to even have an opinion! Why do you not tell Jim that his opinion is worthless too? And what about your opinion Don. Is that based on reading 5 pages out of hundreds and therefore worthless? If so, why are you wasting everyone's time posting your worthless opinions based only on profound ignorance? |
|
19 Jun 13 - 05:22 PM (#3528059) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion No point continuing this dialogue I think, Don. You have to my mind completely lost the plot. See you some time on some other thread. Maybe. ~M~ |
|
20 Jun 13 - 03:46 AM (#3528200) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "you slanderous little stinker..." Grow up, for ***** sake, you infantile little name-caller - you really can't take being shown up for what you have obviously been all along. Your hissy-fits ring a little hollow coming from somebody who has accused those who criticise a terrorist state too severely (in your opinion) of being "Anti Semitic. or "Jew Baiting" None of you have come anywhere near to showing that this murder has the slightest to do with religion other than the rantings of a madman at the scene of the crime - hasn't stopped you from using the killing as yet another pop at docile British communities. Why do tiny minorities of fanatics attack Britain and the US? - The Gulf War maybe, or invented weapons of mass destruction, or selling weapons to despots weeks after the 'Arab Spring' started in order to ensure a continued oil supply, or generations of racial or cultural abuse....... or maybe it might just be because the world sat on its hands and watched while a murderous regime massacred hundreds of thousands of its civilians - who knows? We certainly won't find out here as neither of you have the bottle to even tackle the idea that the reasons that were suggested right at the beginning of this thread (when there were some human beings around) might have some validity. Keith Your pathetic attempts to implicate me in something that is standard practice with you are just that - pathetic. If I had attempted to produce favourable quotes for a word that everyone knows has violent connotations I would have selected this one, which is just as likely to be the cause of young zealots going to fight abroad as any other (from the same link I gave). As I said - I link all my quotes - you seldom do, only when you are forced to. Jim Carroll "The best of jihad During the Arab Spring, many peaceful demonstrations in the Arab world faced violence and gunfire by their government's regime. The gunfire encouraged the protesters and led them to revolutions, based on their strong faith in what is called "the best of jihad". The best of jihad was encouraged by their prophet, Muhammad, saying:[23][24] "The best Jihad is the word of Justice in front of the oppressive Sultan [ruler]."[25] In a battlefield context, when jihad is used to denote warfare, Ibn Nuhaas cited the following hadith to explain the meaning of the "best Jihad": Ibn Habbaan narrates: The Messenger of Allah was asked about the best jihad. He said: "The best jihad is the one in which your horse is slain and your blood is spilled."[26] In a similarly worded Hadith to the one above, Ibn Nuhaas cited a hadith from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal, where it states that the highest kind of Jihad, is "The person who is killed whilst spilling the last of his blood."(Ahmed 4/144)[27] It has also been reported that Muhammad considered performing hajj to be the best jihad for Muslim women.[28] |
|
20 Jun 13 - 04:18 AM (#3528205) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I like that, Jim - "The best Jihad is the word of Justice in front of the oppressive Sultan" Even though it is, yet again, cherry-picked. But seeing as everyone is at it, why not :-) I believe it goes a long way to say what I have been trying to say in this any many other threads. The enemy is never the ordinary people. They are like the rest of us. The enemy is the people who crave power and so send ordinary people to their deaths. On ALL sides. Cheers DtG |
|
20 Jun 13 - 04:45 AM (#3528211) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford None of you have come anywhere near to showing that this murder has the slightest to do with religion other than the rantings of a madman at the scene of the crime He was the killer, so he was in a good position to know why he did it. There is no evidence or even a suggestion that he or his accomplice are mad. He now calls himself Mujaheid. Also, the organisation he aspired to fight for said the killing "proclaimed Islam." So Jim, you are wrong again. There is every reason to infer that this killing and beheading were religious acts. |
|
20 Jun 13 - 04:53 AM (#3528214) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Grow up, for ***** sake, you infantile little name-caller - you really can't take being shown up for what you have obviously been all along. Your hissy-fits ring a little hollow coming from somebody who has accused those who criticise a terrorist state too severely (in your opinion) of being "Anti Semitic. or "Jew Baiting" We certainly won't find out here as neither of you have the bottle to even tackle the idea that the reasons that were suggested right at the beginning of this thread (when there were some human beings around) might have some validity. Your pathetic attempts to implicate me in something that is standard practice with you are just that - pathetic. the world sat on its hands and watched while a murderous regime massacred hundreds of thousands of its civilians........ & on & on & on & on &... And he has the gall to accuse anyone else of ranting. Fatuous pathetic little booby |
|
20 Jun 13 - 05:29 AM (#3528217) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford The Daily Telegraph. 23rd May 2013 "The setting was the Old Bailey in 2006, where four men were arrested for fighting with police and photographers as they turned out in support of a fanatic on trial for calling for British soldiers to be killed. Among those led away in handcuffs that day, still arguing that he was within his rights to urge people to "behead those who insult Islam", was Michael "Mujahid" Adebolajo. Seven years on, Adebolajo, a British-born Muslim convert, is suspected of having answered the call to arms as one of two men who butchered Drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich." |
|
20 Jun 13 - 11:13 AM (#3528302) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Is that based on reading 5 pages out of hundreds and therefore worthless? If so, why are you wasting everyone's time posting your worthless opinions based only on profound ignorance?"" You get more bloody ridiculous with each post. I say you can't judge the 6236 plus verses Q'ran by 109 cherry picked verses which Mike and others are using. You then ask if I'm judging by five or six pages. HELL-O-OH!.. What do you use for a brain? Don T. |
|
20 Jun 13 - 12:37 PM (#3528333) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Even though it is, yet again, cherry-picked. " No it wasn't Dave - I selected all of those as examples of the fact that there were numerous interpretations of the term 'Jihad' - for your benefit if I remember rightly - please read what I wrote. "If I had attempted to produce favourable quotes for a word that everyone knows has violent connotations I would have selected this one" The opposite of "cherry picking" in fact - I picked them all at random. Apart from that - for what it's worth, I agree entirely with your comments on "ordinary people like us", which is more or lest exactly what I have been fumbling to say. "He was the killer, so he was in a good position to know why he did it." Not if he was a mad fanatic he wasn't. He also claimed that it was what was happening to Muslims over the world that inspired him. Are you saying that he knew why he did it when it suits your own nasty agenda, but he didn't when it doesn't - can't have it both ways Keith? Something you have yet to answer - if it was down to the religion they'd all be at it - are they all suppressing their cultural implants, d'you think? "Fatuous pathetic little booby" Tiresomly juvenile little name-caller - I'll get you after school! Jim Carroll |
|
20 Jun 13 - 12:53 PM (#3528339) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Fairy Nuff, Jim - But I was not using cherry picking in a bad sense anyway - Just demonstrating the point that selected quotes can always be found to back up one's points. I gave up believing such 'proof' a long time ago which is why I was pleased to see the link to the full article by the Moslem, half-Pakistani lady who's name escapes me without going back up the thread (Old before my time...) I found it quite revealing that by picking selected passages from it both sides could prove opposite points. Paul Daniels could not have worked better magic! On the point of 'sides' - and this is to all parties concerned - do we not think that we should not fight each other as this only demonstrates that the people who really wield the power have got us beaten. Again. Cheers DtG |
|
20 Jun 13 - 01:15 PM (#3528343) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "Something you have yet to answer - if it was down to the religion they'd all be at it -" .,,. Can such a fatuous, foolish, irrational, illogical argument ever have disgraced a decent forum? It proves that missionary actitvity can't be inspired by religion, doesn't it? ~~ or we'd all be out there with our collars back to front, busy converting people, wouldn't we? Fatuous pathetic little booby. So where do you want to meet after school, then? I'll be bringing my big brother and his mates, mind. |
|
20 Jun 13 - 01:22 PM (#3528345) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Not if he was a mad fanatic he wasn't There is no suggestion that they were mad Jim. You are making that up. Their claim that we are killing lots of Muslims in their lands is an empty one. Muslims are killing lots of Muslims. We are not. |
|
20 Jun 13 - 01:24 PM (#3528346) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, I was suggesting that you and Jim are no more knowledgeable than Michael or me. If we are not entitled to an opinion, why are you? |
|
20 Jun 13 - 05:38 PM (#3528428) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Have you ever played that party game where you sit round in a circle, & one in the middle has to ask each person a question in turn; but the answerer always answers the question addressed to the previous person [the first question has to be answered just with some random answer]; and the unfortunate person in the middle, who is not in on the secret, has to work put what is going on? It's quite a fun game. Don seems to be playing it. He has for some reason taken every time to answering the points he failed to grasp in my 3rd or 4th post back; without, tho, even bothering to read the ones in between. Poor old Don. No wonder he has, as I said a bit back, completely lost the plot. ~M~ |
|
21 Jun 13 - 02:31 AM (#3528528) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "There is no suggestion that they were mad Jim. You are making that up." So hacking people to death on the streets of Hartford is 'normal' behaviour? Explains your manic hatred of ethnic minorities, I suppose - remind me never to go there. No answers, no response to facts, no logic, nothing - as pointless as every other hate-thread you've dragged out to extinction. "the people who really wield the power have got us beaten. Again." These hate-preachers wield no real power Dave - if they did their effect would be they skate on the edge of the law and take advantage of the discontent generated |
|
21 Jun 13 - 02:31 AM (#3528529) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "There is no suggestion that they were mad Jim. You are making that up." So hacking people to death on the streets of Hartford is 'normal' behaviour? Explains your manic hatred of ethnic minorities, I suppose - remind me never to go there. No answers, no response to facts, no logic, nothing - as pointless as every other hate-thread you've dragged out to extinction. "the people who really wield the power have got us beaten. Again." These hate-preachers wield no real power Dave - if they did their effect would be they skate on the edge of the law and take advantage of the discontent generated |
|
21 Jun 13 - 02:56 AM (#3528533) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome These hate-preachers wield no real power Dave I know that, Jim. that is why I said the people who really wield the power. Those who pay the piper call the tune and the preachers are much more piper than payer! Cheers DtG |
|
21 Jun 13 - 02:56 AM (#3528534) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford So hacking people to death on the streets of Hartford is 'normal' behaviour? So simple, naive Jim does not know that beheading is not considered unusual or aberrant behaviour among jihadis? You did not know that it is actually the preferred method of ridding the world of the wretched Kafir. You did not know that they love to video the proceedings for future masturbatory pleasure and to inspire the young to join their cause. You take us all for fools Jim. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 03:01 AM (#3528535) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Beheading Video | Best Gore www.bestgore.com/tag/beheading-video/ 1 day ago – Young Man Beheaded, Two Women Executed by Ba'ath Party Brigades in Syria. This gallery contains 1 photo. For the n-th time – these ... L335K1 • SICK - Beheading If you're somewhat squeamish,... l335k1.tumblr.com/post/15608965297 SICK - Beheading. If you're somewhat squeamish, you'd be wise if you chose to pass this video up as it is exactly as brutal as the title suggests. It depicts the ... Beheading Video - LiveLeak.com - Redefining the Media www.liveleak.com/browse?q=beheading%20video Belgian Wahhabis Filmed Themselves Beheading a Shiite Man in Syria. approved. A new video has surfaced filmed in Syria that shows a group of Wahhabi ... SHOCK VIDEO: Woolwich Muslim fanatic's evil rant after beheading ... www.thesun.co.uk/.../muslim-fanatics-evil-rant-after-beheading-soldier.htm... May 23, 2013 – SHOCK VIDEO: WOOLWICH heroine tends a young soldier dying in the ... fanatic who tried to behead him crows: "We swear by almighty Allah!" London Beheading Video Analysis - YouTube ► 12:36► 12:36 www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjO-aeIDxac May 29, 2013 - Uploaded by RevolutionNewz Real News @ http://RevolutionNews.US — WOOLWICH FALSE FLAG EXPOSED STAGED EVENT... HOAX! No ... LONDON BEHEADING TERROR VIDEO OF KILLER EMERGES ... ► 2:36► 2:36 www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0eMn7Go8gg May 23, 2013 - Uploaded by JUNGLE SURFER You need Adobe Flash Player to watch this video. Download it from Adobe. LONDON BEHEADING TERROR ... WARNING: VERY GRAPHIC VIOLENCE - The beheading of convert ... ►► www.mrctv.org/videos/warning-very-graphic-violence... Aug 17, 2012 Via Raymond Ibrahim. Liberal talk show host Tawfiq Okasha recently appeared on "Egypt Today" airing a ... More videos for beheading videos » Beheading video - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beheading_video Beheading video is a colloquial term in the U.S. used during the "War on Terror" for videos released by Islamist militant groups depicting interviews by hostages ... Gruesome Video Shows Syrian Rebel Beheading Civilian Alex ... www.infowars.com/gruesome-video-shows-syrian-rebel-beheading-civili... Mar 21, 2013 – A gruesome YouTube video shows a member of the US-backed Free Syrian Army beheading a civilian in yet another example of how the west ... Taped Beheadings Videos Continue To Appear on Facebook newmediarockstars.com/.../taped-beheadings-videos-continue-to-appear-... May 21, 2013 – The bizarre spectre of death has been lurking on Facebook lately as two gruesome videos have been haunting the inboxes and feeds of many ... Ad related to beheading videos Beheading Death Videos death.webcrawler.com/ Search for Beheading Death Videos With 100's of Results at WebCrawler Searches related to beheading videos gruesome beheading videos hostage beheading videos taliban beheading videos ogrish beheading videos terrorist beheading videos al qaeda beheading videos nick berg beheading videos saudi beheading videos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next |
|
21 Jun 13 - 03:02 AM (#3528536) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Whoops - premature ejaculation. "the people who really wield the power have got us beaten. Again." These hate-preachers wield no real power Dave - if they did their effect would be far more obvious than it is. They skate on the edge of the law and take advantage of the discontent generated by the situation the Muslim British people find themselves in - Pakistanis are the poorest and the most discriminated against in Britain today. The younger generation are not prepared to put up with it in the same way as the older ones have - they kick against what's happening to them and they break with their own culture. The crimes committed by young Muslims are as offensive to traditional Muslims as they are to the rest of us. The first statement by a Muslim cleric on the Woolwich murder was that it was "an insult to Islam"; the sexual behaviour of the criminal minority is directly against the "no sex before marriage" Islamic practice, as is constantly being pointed out by the traditionalists. These islands have had their own brand of militant imams all to ready to stir up hatred and take advantage of discontent that has nothing whatever to do with religion - take a look at the behaviour of Ian Paisley and his mob of fundamentalist preachers who have done so much to keep the people of Ireland divided with their sectarian bloodletting marches and their "Papist spawn-of-the-Devil" sermons. - We're just about to enter into the 'marching season' and they'll be out in force again establishing their supremacy - can't wait! Jim Carroll |
|
21 Jun 13 - 03:11 AM (#3528537) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Sorry Dave - cross posted What the **** was that all about Keith? Seems you've had an M and M moment. Having used this forum as a racist soapbox, you are now tuning it into a porn site. What on earth has any of that vomit to do with ordinary Muslim communities in Britain - or anywhere else, for that matter? We appear to back to your old argument that all Christians who commit terrorist crimes are mad and all Muslim ones are sane. Jim Carroll |
|
21 Jun 13 - 03:18 AM (#3528540) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford It has nothing to do with ordinary Muslim communities in Britain. It has everything to do with ordinary Islamist communities, here and elsewhere. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 03:26 AM (#3528544) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 'The first statement by a Muslim cleric on the Woolwich murder was that it was "an insult to Islam"' ..,,.,. Back to dear old Mandy R-D Ho hum |
|
21 Jun 13 - 04:38 AM (#3528563) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "It has everything to do with ordinary Islamist communities, here and elsewhere." No - it has everything to do with regimes who rule and absolutely control ordinary Islamist abroad - there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain and no Muslim community would ever commit or condone such an act. Some of the states abroad who behave in such a way are among Britain's most profitable trading partners and political allies - did you not see 'Death of a Princess'? This murder occurred on British soil - it was a frenzied attack by a madman, and is being described as such. You are attempting to claim the killer was sane and you have selected one of the number of things he said in his rantings as proof that this was a religious act, while at the same time ignoring everything else - other than religion possibly being a part of his madness, it was not. "Back to dear old Mandy R-D" Your mask is slipping again Go and play in the garden and we'll go for a nice walk later. Jim Carroll |
|
21 Jun 13 - 04:57 AM (#3528568) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion What mask? I hide nothing of my opinions. They might not suit your stupid predictable doctrinaire jejune infantile notions. But they are there for all to see. Calling their expression 'mask-slipping' is typical of your complete inability to think any concept thru, but always to fall back on the nearest ill-thought-out insult to ☝. So it wouldn't take a lot of effort to think of some googol of individuals with whom I should prefer a nice walk, thank you very much just the same. ~M~ |
|
21 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM (#3528571) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many. and no Muslim community would ever commit or condone such an act. Not the majority of ordinary, decent British Muslims. Apart from the public pronouncements, there were many who protested and showed their disgust spontaneously. I remember those with placards saying "not in my name" after 7/7. Only fool (you Jim) would deny that there is a significant minority who believe in Islamism. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 09:16 AM (#3528643) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "Islamism is winning the cognitive war – thanks to manipulative and gullible journalists." The Telegraph |
|
21 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM (#3528666) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." No there aren't - you have been ably, by stretching a point to claim two thousand 'Islamists' - risks to national security nationwide. - how many "communities" can you make out of that number? Tell us where they are or stop making things up. "Not the majority of ordinary, decent British Muslims" M and M has just scuppered that one with his ""Back to dear old Mandy R-D" ("they would say that, wouldn't they?") - no matter how many "decent British Muslims" there are, none of them are to be trusted - your running-mate just said so. "Islamism is winning the cognitive war" Hi Boo-Boo, broken it off with Yogi Bear have you? Jim Carroll |
|
21 Jun 13 - 10:29 AM (#3528671) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Islamist vs. secular Muslim debate - shades of Mudcat: YouTube. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM (#3528678) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford MI5 knows of "thousands." What is the lower limit for a community Jim? |
|
21 Jun 13 - 11:12 AM (#3528689) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "MI5 knows of "thousands." What's yours - or MI5's Name one Islamist community or link to proof that MI5 have identified made such an obscene claim. Looked up "Islamist communities in Britain" – Google asked me "did you mean Islamic communities" No Islamist communities in Britain – pure vindictive invention on your part. Did find this though Jim Carroll MUSLIMS ARE WELL-INTEGRATED IN BRITAIN – BUT NO ONE SEEMS TO BELIEVE IT British Muslims often express a stronger sense of belonging than other citizens, so why are they still seen as outsiders? Leon Moosavi guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 3 July 2012 13.00 BST 'More than half (55%) of Britons would be concerned if a mosque was built in their area.' Photograph: Martin Godwin for the Guardian In Britain today there is a mismatch between how non-Muslims often perceive Muslims and how Muslims typically perceive themselves. This disconnect is down to a tendency by non-Muslims to assume that Muslims struggle with their British identity and divided loyalties. These concerns were challenged a few days ago,in a report by the University of Essex that found Muslims actually identify with Britishness more than any other Britons. This study is just one of several recent studies that have consistently found that Muslims in Britain express a stronger sense of belonging in Britain than their compatriots. Consider the following examples: • 83% of Muslims are proud to be a British citizen, compared to 79% of the general public. • 77% of Muslims strongly identify with Britain while only 50% of the wider population do. • 86.4% of Muslims feel they belong in Britain, slightly more than the 85.9% of Christians. • 82% of Muslims want to live in diverse and mixed neighbourhoodscompared to 63% of non-Muslim Britons. • 90% of Pakistanis feel a strong sense of belonging in Britain compared to 84% of white people. Those who work closely with Muslim communities will attest to the integrated position of British Muslims and that despite frequent exoticisation, British Muslim lives are much the same as any other citizen's. British Muslims also appreciate their ability to practise their religion in Britain without the type of subjugation that fellow Muslims are subjected to under despotic regimes in several Muslim-majority countries. Even though negative depictions may encourage people to imagine Muslims as similar to the 7/7 bombers who struck seven years ago this week, your average British Muslim is much more likely to be similar to a confident Amir Khan, a bubbly Konnie Huq or a hardworking James Caan. There is, quite frankly, no major issue of Muslims not wanting to be a part of British society. But there is an issue with the common but unspoken xenophobia pervasive in British society that casts Muslims as outsiders. That is why despite Muslims repeatedly pledging their dedication to Britain, a consistent spattering of polls show that many non-Muslim Britons still view Muslims as a potential enemy within. Consider the following examples: • 47% of Britons see Muslims as a threat. • Only 28% of Britons believe Muslims want to integrate into British society. • 52% of Britons believe that Muslims create problems. • 45% of Britons admit that they think there are too many Muslims in Britain. • 55% of Britons would be concerned if a mosque was built in their area. • 58% of Britons associate Islam with extremism.The minority of Muslims in Britain who do view Britain with contempt – as indeed, we must recognise there are some – frequently explain their disaffection as a result of being labelled as outsiders and told they do not belong. Thus, the inability to appreciate British Muslims as typical citizens can actually create the very atypical citizens that are feared in the first place. Muslims want to be part of British society but their marginalisation may lead to some retreating to the margins. If the myth that Muslims in Britain will not integrate is allowed to be propagated, it will only lead to the continuation of a harmful cycle whereby greater distrust and animosity is sown. The results of this can be devastating. Last Sunday marked the three-year anniversary of the Islamophobic murder of Marwa El-Sherbini by a far-right attacker, a crude example of an inability to accept that Muslims are at home in Europe. This intense rejection of Muslims is increasing across Europe, which is especially disturbing considering that a significant number of the far right would consider armed conflict against Muslims, as the case of Anders Breivik revealed. In Britain, we have seen several far-right plots that seek to undermine the presence of Muslims in British society, such as a recent arson attack on a mosque in Stoke-on-Trent. Clearly, there are weighty consequences to the dismissal of Muslims as fellow British citizens. While politicians may claim that multiculturalism has failed, there is a strong case to be made that it operates successfully every day when Britons of different faiths, ethnicities and backgrounds convivially co-operate alongside each other to make the nation what it is today. Muslims are integrated, feel at home in Britain and are quite simply as British as the next person, even though this does not quite match the sensationalised cynicism that some enjoy indulging in. This rather unexciting conclusion is actually rather exciting as it lays to bed many of the unwarranted concerns that are held about British Muslims. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2012/jul/03/muslims-integrated-britain |
|
21 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM (#3528699) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Looked up "Islamist communities in Britain" – Google asked me "did you mean Islamic communities" No Islamist communities in Britain That does not convince Jim. We know there are at least thousands of Islamists and a community can be less than a hundred. Talking of proof, why do you state the killers were mad? Carrying out an Islamist execution is evidence of Islamism, not insanity. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 12:35 PM (#3528714) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll You have totally failed to name ONE "Islamist" community and you have failed to point out ONE SINGLE statement that there are any "Islamist" communities in Britain - NOT ONE. THERE ARE NO ISLAMIST COMMUNITIES IN BRITAIN What a team - one invents anti Muslim propaganda and the other implies that no-one can trust what any Muslim says. The B.N.P. are crying out for people like you. Jim Carroll |
|
21 Jun 13 - 12:53 PM (#3528719) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Backwoodsman Stop squabbling right now, you naughty, naughty boys, otherwise it'll be straight to bed with no supper. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM (#3528738) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford You have totally failed to name ONE "Islamist" community Name, British Islamists. Number, thousands. |
|
21 Jun 13 - 02:07 PM (#3528756) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford "The term community has two distinct commutative meanings: 1) Community can refer to a usually small, social unit of any size that shares common values. The term can also refer to the national community or international community, and 2) in biology, a community is a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community has less geographical limitation, as people can now gather virtually in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location. Prior to the internet, virtual communities (like social or academic organizations) were far more limited by the constraints of available communication and transportation technologies." |
|
22 Jun 13 - 05:43 AM (#3528953) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Enough I think. More than a month has passed. The dreadful killing was committed by religious extremists, who shouted praises to Allah as they performed an Islamic style execution. I think and believe it was religiously motivated, and I accept that Jim Carroll does not but think he is on his own. |
|
22 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM (#3529027) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "The term community has two distinct commutative meanings" And you have produced evidence of none whatever - no "communities of Islamists, certainly not the "thousands" you claim - "MI5 knows of "thousands." - utter gibberish when you have only been able to claim MI5 as knowing of only 2,000 Islamist suspects - how many Islamists per community "do the math"? You have produced no evidence from anywhere that MI5 has claimed a single community made up of Islamists - neither has anybody else ONCE AGAIN IT IS PURELY YOUR OWN INVENTION Your hatred has apparently caused you to lose it altogether. As for my "being on my own" - you appear to have not noticed that the only other person supporting you here is your rather sad friend who seems to have regressed back to his schooldays - with an occasional hit-and-run visit from Yogi Bear's friend Boo-Boo. This thread started as a compassionate discussion on a horrific murder - in your hands it turned into a diatribe of bilious hatred aimed at a docile and extremely vulnerable community who really could do without the shit dished out by you, your two friends. Your hatred blends in perfectly with that of the people who are really making the streets of Britain no-go areas - the fascist BNP and EDL scum still holding their meetings and intimidating people who are totally innocent of this crime. Well done - keep up the good work - of such stuff are ethnic cleansing programmes carried out. Out Jim Carroll |
|
22 Jun 13 - 12:19 PM (#3529076) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don seems to be playing it. He has for some reason taken every time to answering the points he failed to grasp in my 3rd or 4th post back; without, tho, even bothering to read the ones in between. Poor old Don. No wonder he has, as I said a bit back, completely lost the plot."" Not once have you answered, nor apparently even understood the one single inarguable point that you are, in passing judgement on the whole of Islam, using the very sections which are used to radicalise and recruit terrorists. How does that make you any more honest than the opposition? Don T. |
|
22 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM (#3529082) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""The dreadful killing was committed by religious extremists, who shouted praises to Allah as they performed an Islamic style execution. I think and believe it was religiously motivated, and I accept that Jim Carroll does not but think he is on his own."" You want to think it was purely religious, so you delete from your thinking all the political comments of the killer about Iraq and Afghanistan, reported by eye witnesses. You are without doubt the most dishonest debater on this forum. Whether you believe that Britain is responsible for Muslim deaths is neither here nor there. HE believes it and said so, giving it as part of the reason for his actions. But that doesn't give you a hook for your bigotry, so you leave it out. Don T. |
|
22 Jun 13 - 12:50 PM (#3529087) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Q (Frank Staplin) Ho hum. Nothing new in the last 800+ posts. |
|
22 Jun 13 - 01:03 PM (#3529096) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Whether you believe that Britain is responsible for Muslim deaths is neither here nor there. HE believes it and said so, giving it as part of the reason for his actions. Don, I know you are not Jim but you are standing in the same corner. We cannot have it both ways. Jim has said that they were mad and therefore cannot be believed when they said they did it for Islam. You, on the other hand, are saying that because they said it is political it must be true. Which is it? That they were mad, in which case both the political and religious statements were invalid. Or they were sane, in which case we must believe both. Genuinely puzzled. DtG |
|
22 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM (#3529105) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "passing judgement on the whole of Islam," is, you will appreciate Don, a thoroughly ambiguous accusation. It could mean either - ~a~ passing judgment on the whole of the religion or - ~b~ passing judgment on all the members of the worldwide community subscribing to that religion. As to ~a~, I don't see how I could be accused of that. I am in no position to 'pass judgment'. If by 'passing judgment', you mean no more than 'expressing an opinion' on the teachings of that religion as I perceive them, then [despite Richard's very strange denunciation of my being 'more critical of one religion than others', which must rank as the 2nd most fatuous remark I have read on this thread, only outdone by Jim's assertion that, if the terrorist acts were religiously based, then they would all be doing it!], I maintain that I am fully entitled to express an opinion; and it remains my opinion that the religion [I don't see how one can have an opinion of anything but 'the whole' of it] comprises some teachings liable to be mischievous in their influences and effects: an opinion which, I repeat, I am perfectly entitled to express. I think you will find it hard to quote anything I have written which could justify you in accusing me of ~b~. ~M~ |
|
22 Jun 13 - 01:38 PM (#3529110) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "You want to think it was purely religious, so you delete from your thinking all the political comments of the killer about Iraq and Afghanistan, reported by eye witnesses. You are without doubt the most dishonest debater on this forum." Where has Keith used, or even suggested, the concept of its being purely religious? "Purely" is Don's own tendentious [and dishonest] interpolation. You are the one debating dishonestly I fear, Don, in refusing to take on board the obvious point that 'religious' and 'political' are not mutually exclusively ring-fenced terms, and that it is perfectly patent that these young men were motivated by a combination of both elements. What are you finding so difficult about that? ~M~ |
|
22 Jun 13 - 01:43 PM (#3529112) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim has said that they were mad and therefore cannot be believed when they said they did it for Islam." I have said from the beginning that there are a whole host of reasons why this murder took place - I'll spell it out. Muslims have a genuine grudge about what is happening to them in Britain and what is happening to Muslim countries abroad, largely to protect oil supplies and sell weapons (as former home secretary Vince Cable said "we sometimes sell arms to States who have appalling records of human rights" (or similar). The murderously cynical refusal to become involved in Syria is also a major factor. There are those within the Muslim communities who would exploit this for religious purposes and a tiny handful of young Muslims have undoubtedly succumbed to their arguments, but to claim that religion is in any way the cause of this killing without recognising the causes of discontent in the first place is to cop out, and to claim the something shouted after a brutal event such as this (while ignoring everything else that was said) is pure manipulation of the facts. As far as I'm concerned, anybody who carries out such an act is totally round the twist and anything they have to say has to be has to be regarded as irrational, Especially directly following the killing. But anybody who takes such an event to prove a whole community as being culturally untrustworthy (that is the logical conclusion of such an accusation) is equally round the twist - sick, sick, sick. Don and I aren't joined at the hip - We've never met, but he seems a nice, compassionate feller - breath of fresh air considering the company.... Jim Carroll |
|
22 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM (#3529129) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim says - As far as I'm concerned, anybody who carries out such an act is totally round the twist and anything they have to say has to be has to be regarded as irrational Dom says - Whether you believe that Britain is responsible for Muslim deaths is neither here nor there. HE believes it and said so, giving it as part of the reason for his actions. Who is right? Is he an irrational madman, in which case him saying that Britain is responsible and he is acting for Islam is irrational or is he sane, in which case him saying that Britain is responsible AND that he was acting on behalf of Islam must both be true. Simple enough question isn't it. Is he sane or not? I expect some serious wriggling to avoid an answer...;-) Cheers DtG |
|
22 Jun 13 - 02:51 PM (#3529135) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad To throw some numbers into the numbers game being played: "But when it comes to actual jihadists, to those who have or will commit an act of terrorism in Allah's name, my research suggests that they represent no more than one in one hundred of the 180 million young fundamentalist Muslim men prepared mentally, morally, and spiritually to be terrorists. That means that there are 1.8 million actual Islamic jihadists on the planet today - a number which could jump one hundred fold almost instantaneously should the opportunity arise." This from Prof. Sharma from India (whoever that is) but at least he purports to have researched the numbers which is more than can be said for most of our illustrious Mudcat members. How Many Muslims Are Terrorists? |
|
22 Jun 13 - 03:11 PM (#3529142) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford We all saw the murder scene statements. He was spouting the usual Islamist propaganda, that Britain is responsible for the indiscriminate murder of Muslims in Muslim lands. It is just lies. We are not killing Muslims anywhere. They are being killed, on an industrial scale, but by other Muslims. The truth is that far more non-Muslims are being butchered by Muslims than vice versa. Look up the horrific killings of kids in school uniform in Nigeria this week. Look up what happened to UN staff in Somalia. Jim, you deny that the thousands of radical extremist Muslims in UK constitute a community. Good. It means no-one can be in any doubt that you are a complete arse. |
|
22 Jun 13 - 06:03 PM (#3529183) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Distinguishing between Islamophobia and a rational critique of Islam Secular June 22, 2013 By: Michael Stone Progressives must distinguish between Islamophobia and a rational critique of Islam if they are to successfully understand and navigate contemporary political discourse. Currently many progressives confuse Islamophobia (an irrational fear of the other that manifests itself as an obnoxious bigotry towards all things Muslim), with a rational critique of Islam that considers the very real danger that Islamic extremists pose to civil society. Progressives are right to be suspicious and contemptuous of Islamophobia. Islamophobia is real, and often takes the form of anti-Asian and/or anti-Arab racism. For example, an Islamophobe is someone who believes all Muslims are terrorists, or all Muslims support terrorist activity; an Islamophobe is someone who believes that Muslims should not be allowed to build mosques, or otherwise worship freely; an Islamophobe hates or fears all Muslims in virtue of the simple fact that they are Muslim, or appear to be Muslim. With that said, it is important to note that Islam is not a race, it is not a skin color, it is not a sexual orientation. It is a religion. It is a set of beliefs and practices. And anyone should be able to question the legitimacy of any set of ideas, any set of beliefs and practices. Progressives must not lump together those who offer a rational critique of Islam, and those who espouse nothing but a simple minded and irrational bigotry and hatred towards Islam. An Islamophobe is someone who makes negative, irrational generalizations concerning all Muslims. Often these negative, irrational generalizations about Muslims emanate from right wing, conservative Christians, who often espouse political positions antithetical progressive positions. Thus, it is understandable that some progressives may confuse a rational critique of Islam with the irrational fear that is Islamophobia, and reject both, throwing out the proverbial baby with the bathwater. Progressives must not conflate a rational critique of Islam with Islamophobia. Being concerned about Islamic extremists having a negative impact on your country, another country, or the world at large, is not Islamophobia. Indeed, such a concern is only rational, given our recent shared history. For more news, information and humor relevant to atheists, freethinkers, and secular humanists, check out Progressive Secular Humanist Examiner on Facebook. |
|
22 Jun 13 - 11:51 PM (#3529247) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Thank you for copying that cogent & rational exposition of a vital distinction, bobad. Just hope that Don will read it with as open a mind as his entrenched mindset will permit him to bring to bear on this topic. Not too bothered about Jim, whose incurable bias is well summed up by Keith only 2 posts back at 0311. ~M~ |
|
22 Jun 13 - 11:53 PM (#3529248) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion One hopes in particular that they will both give heed to the final sentence of its 5th paragraph. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 02:20 AM (#3529263) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who is about to vomit, "The murderously cynical refusal to become involved in Syria" What will you call it when we DO become involved? (just after the oil, crusade against Islam, cultural imperialism, warmongering blah blah blah) |
|
23 Jun 13 - 03:36 AM (#3529274) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I expect some serious wriggling to avoid an answer." And I think it's time you gave some answers yourself instead of asking others what they believe and demanding answers. You say you agree with some of what I say and disagree with some - what - in both cases? You say you don't agree with the way I look at things - care to specify what in particular so we can discuss it? Dealing with your postings is as I described it - wrestling fog. How about some actual statements on where you stand on all this - do you believe Muslims are driven to murder by their religion? Is this a religious murder? Is it logical that the killers words at the murder site should be carefully cherry-picked so that only the bit that can be used against the Muslim communities and the other bit ignored? Do you believe that there are "thousands of Islamist communities in Britain" made up of only 2,000 Islamic suspects? How do you feel about people who claim MI5 reports and refuse to identify them? How about some answers from you - you must be getting very sore sitting on that fence "Which side are YOU on boy, which side are YOU on" "What will you call it when we DO become involved?" What I called it when they intervened in Libya (and finally stopped selling arms to Gadaffi) - doing their 'duty of care' as UN members and helping suppress a tyrant bent on murdering his own people - what would you call it? The failure to act (until now) has opened the door to extremist groups and now, when the US and Britain has finally decided to take action they will be supplying arms that will possibly fall into the hands of these groups. In 2015 Syria will become an oil-dependent country - had their oil stocks been in any way significant Assad would have been long gone. Jim Carroll (o.k.a Non guest who has been vomiting throughout these inhuman arguments) |
|
23 Jun 13 - 03:51 AM (#3529277) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who thinks religion is bollocks "What I called it when they intervened in Libya (and finally stopped selling arms to Gadaffi) - doing their 'duty of care' as UN members and helping suppress a tyrant bent on murdering his own people - what would you call it?" Iraq - Saddam Hussein (none of our business?) Afghanistan - Taliban + export of terrorism (none of our business) Syria - Sunni/Shiite - choose one/both or none You chose Shiite I agree It's all shite |
|
23 Jun 13 - 04:43 AM (#3529283) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion So, let us endeavour to follow J Carroll's reasoning:- He thinks we should intervene militarily in the internal affairs of such Middle Eastern states as he dislikes the governments of; military intervention would inevitably involve killing some of the people there; who are Muslims; so British troops would be killing Muslims; which would provide a comprehensible incentive to British citizens of Nigerian origin who have changed their religion for beheading British soldiers in the streets of London for political reasons. Have I got that right? ~M~ |
|
23 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM (#3529286) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I answered all your questions before, Jim. Remember? Even though I am not obliged to do so and you, yet again, have not answered the one very simple one I posed here they are again. Cut down to as few a words as possible - 1. I agree that ordinary Moslems are not to blame. I disagree with how you suggest others do. 2. I think you are misinterpreting a lot of posts on here. We all know you do it with Keith but you have started on me too. 3. I do mot believe the majority of Moslims are driven to murder by their religion. 4. I believe the perpetrators thought they were acting for Islam. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. 5. I do not believe there are thousands of communities. I do believe a significant minority pose a threat. I cannot confirm or deny a specific number. 6. Everyone should link their sources. If they do not their claims are not necessarily wrong but definitely unsubstantiated. 7. It is not logical that any part of the killers statements are taken out of context. Hence my question to you which you hoped you could avoid by repeating your questions to me! 8. I am not on anyones 'side' in this argument. It is a petty squabble on an insignificant internet forum. None of this will make a tad of difference to anyone. Now, how about you answering my one simple question. Is he mad and ALL hos claimes can be dismissed or is he sane in which case they can ALL be true? Cheers DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM (#3529287) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, there are thousands of Islamists not communities. I did not cherry pick the killer's words, I just said it was lies. He stood covered in the blood of his dying victim, and claimed to be the victim. Globally, they are the aggressors not the victims. Do not accuse me of lack of substantiation, without being specific, because it is an easily refuted lie. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:20 AM (#3529296) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Sorry - Call to important stuff (breakfast) made me let the post go without preef rooding. Apologies for the mis-spellings. I did notice one other thing on a re-read. Jim says Which side are YOU on boy I am sure it was intended to get an angry reaction. It didn't. Calling a 60 year old man 'boy' is vaguely humorous but it also shows the respect the writer has to his fellow man. And no amount of whining about the rights of minorities will alter the fact that they are happy to treat someone as their inferior. Now, once again Jim, were the perpetrators mad or not? Cheers DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:26 AM (#3529298) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain" (21 Jun 13 - 04:38 AM) "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." (21 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM) "No there aren't " (21 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM) "MI5 knows of "thousands." What is the lower limit for a community Jim?" (21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM) "Jim, there are thousands of Islamists not communities." (23 Jun 13 - 04:56 AM) As you are fond of saying – more lies Jim Carroll |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:27 AM (#3529299) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who is confused Can you help me please Jim? Intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan BAD Intervention in Libya GOOD Intervention in Syria GOOD Care to explain your reasoning? |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:40 AM (#3529304) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Care to explain your reasoning?" Libya was part of the Arab Spring demonstrations seeking to bring a semblance of democracy to despotic states. Iraq and Afghanistan weren't and are efforts to keep the oil flowing and have now arrrived at the point were the US is attempting to bring about a mutual interest understanding with an extremist group i the Mujaheddin. Care to explain why you didn't know that? Jim Carroll Whoops - nearly forgot: "The term community has two distinct commutative meanings: 1) Community can refer to a usually small, social unit of any size that shares common values. The term can also refer to the national community or international community, and 2) in biology, a community is a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community has less geographical limitation, as people can now gather virtually in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location. Prior to the internet, virtual communities (like social or academic organizations) were far more limited by the constraints of available communication and transportation technologies." (22 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM ) |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:53 AM (#3529305) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""You, on the other hand, are saying that because they said it is political it must be true."" I am not Jim, who has his own take on everything and can defend his own arguments. I have never said, nor do I believe, they are mad. What I am saying is that the killer made statements to witnesses, which were reported by those witnesses. He certainly made reference to a response to the British army killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. It doesn't matter whether Keith A believes that this is happening. The killer believes it and it is part of his reason for committing murder. That religion was also a part of that reason is inarguable. Keith, however, chooses to believe that religion was the whole reason and deviously ignores or dismisses the political element. If we accept that the killer believes what he said about Islam, then we cannot choose to deny that he believes what he said about the politics. Keith is constantly on a soapbox about Islam and Muslims and will go to just about any lengths to demonise the Islamic religion. Don T. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 06:15 AM (#3529307) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Good answer, Don. Thanks and not just because I happen to agree:-) It makes sense that the statements made by the killer and witnessed by others are the best thing we have to determine his reasons. He said it in response to the British army killing Moslems. It was, therefore, to him an act of both political and religious significance. Either side saying one is valid and the other is not is transparently nonsense. Yes, I know you are not Jim and you do not want that comparison making so I apologise for using your sage words as an example to all that no side of the equation can be ignored. It is what I have been trying to say all along. Cheers DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 06:17 AM (#3529309) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jim, two responses but no answer to my question yet. Please do not respond with yet another set of questions asking what I have already said umpteen times before. Cheers DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 07:02 AM (#3529323) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Guest who has nothing better to do OK, I think I understand it now. The West should not have interfered in Iraq or Afghanistan The Arab Spring has brought peace and freedom to the region The West SHOULD interfere in Syria and then everything will be lovely Thanks for sorting all that out for me Any ideas to help me gain a bigger penis and a larger bank balance? |
|
23 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM (#3529327) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Don, I dismiss the stuff about Muslims being victims and being slaughtered by us because it is bollocks. It is propaganda. He was grandstanding, not setting out his deeply held beliefs. Jim, I do not know why you always somehow misunderstand what I clearly state, but know this, I do not lie. What do you think you gain by it? If you were to win a Mudcat spat by lying, so what? We know there are "thousands" of Islamists here. I am sure they form communities. I do not know their names. Clear now? |
|
23 Jun 13 - 07:29 AM (#3529330) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""passing judgement on the whole of Islam," is, you will appreciate Don, a thoroughly ambiguous accusation. It could mean either - ~a~ passing judgment on the whole of the religion or - ~b~ passing judgment on all the members of the worldwide community subscribing to that religion."" So it must have been somebody else who posted the following anti islamic rant? ""Of course not. You were doing your usual ostrich act, so you could ignore the bleeding-obvious, the patent lesson that Islam should never have been allowed a foothold here to preach its poisonous [and filthy-mannered] doctrine that, now they are here & have taken over some of our cities [Luton; Bradford...], we have got to change all our ways to accommodate their filthy fatuous ideas or they are going to kill a few more of our soldiers & blow up a few more of our buses. And then lift your head out just long enough to shout "Racist", coz it's all you've got, before burying it again. Modern equivalent of the one on KoKKo's 'little list' in The Mikado, 'the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone, All centuries but this, and every country but his own' ~~ good old Gilbert had their number all right, Carroll & his like. Make me sick. Traitors. Is High Treason still a capital offence, I wonder?"" If that isn't passing judgement on the whole religion I don't know what is! Don T. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 07:54 AM (#3529333) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Interesting that the next thread as I opened just now was "BS: Do you ever lose your temper?" Whoever had posted whatever I was replying to there had certainly succeeded in making me lose mine, hadn't he, just! It is, nevertheless, Don, still an example of my ~a~ category: my opinion on the teachings of the religion, which I have never denied expressing several times. Calling it 'a judgement' doesn't alter that fact. I do regard the religion's teachings as fatuous, and insofar as they are undeniably aggressively proselytising, ill-mannered. That is my opinion, to which you have not convinced me I am not entitled. Sorry if you didn't care for the tone in which I expressed it there; but ~ "I am not bound to please thee with my answers" The Merchant of Venice IV i 65 But you have, as I predicted, furnished no example of my category ~b~. Nor can you. ~M~ |
|
23 Jun 13 - 07:58 AM (#3529334) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Where has Keith used, or even suggested, the concept of its being purely religious? "Purely" is Don's own tendentious [and dishonest] interpolation. You are the one debating dishonestly I fear, Don, in refusing to take on board the obvious point that 'religious' and 'political' are not mutually exclusively ring-fenced terms, and that it is perfectly patent that these young men were motivated by a combination of both elements."" OK. I don't like massive cut 'n pastes, but you issued the challenge, so here's just part of the available evidence that Keith is refusing that combination in a prolonged attack upon Islam and its followers. If you want more, just scan through his (and his sidekick Bobad's) massive posts about Muslims killing each other in other countries, internal disputes nothing to do with Al Qaeda or global Islamist terrorism. ""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Peter K (Fionn) - PM Date: 23 May 13 - 09:11 AM Keith, rather than try to outdo each other in the vocabulary of atrocity, it might be more productive to give measured thought to yesterday's horror/atrocity/barbarity. Choice of words aside, Greg's point is entirely valid and, as far as I can see, he's the first to have raised it. No doubt you'll agree that these violent acts, by people willing to sacrifice their own lives, would not be happening if the US had reacted rationally to 9-11 and the Bush-Blair criminal invasion of Saddam had not happened. The challenge now is to find some way of getting back to where we were. And before you say it, yes, we would obviously be in a better place still if 9-11 had not happened in the first place. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier beheaded on London St From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 23 May 13 - 09:19 AM I have not indulged in any vocabulary of atrocity. I do not accept that such deeds are in anyway justified. You and Greg are entitled to your opinions, but I will not be joining a debate on the pros and cons of this act, or how much we are to blame for what was done. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 24 May 13 - 11:05 AM That we should leave (which we are anyway) is a widely held view. Anyone can make their views known by writing to MPs and the press, organising petitions and protests and all the other ways that are open to free citizens in a democracy. Chopping someone up is not a political action. Indeed we can not be seen to be influenced by such acts, thereby encouraging more of them, so it actually makes it harder to make any change in that direction. I do not think it is in any way appropriate to discuss British foreign policy as a cause for this act. Many (most) here are bitterly opposed to foreign policies, but they do not chop people up. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 25 May 13 - 05:01 AM Democracy has not failed because a minority are unable to get their unpopular views reflected in policy. Extremists have always responded to that fact with violence, but I did not expect to see that response proposed here. us whose governments involve us in organised slaughter in distant countries If a majority believed that, the government would fall. They don't and nor do I. The slaughter in those lands is overwhelmingly committed by others, who happen to be Muslim. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 28 May 13 - 03:36 AM I would ask those who say that Islam is a religion of peace and that Muslims are constrained to commit no murder, how they reconcile that with current events in Syria and Iraq. Mass atrocities against ordinary people and children are a daily occurrence, and for no tactical purpose. They appear to be an end in themselves and committed by apparently deeply religious Muslims, even though the victims are also Muslims albeit the wrong sort. How much less mercy can non-believers expect? Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 06:40 AM Thanks Bobad. Jim, do you take issue with this? Reuters today) - Evidence gathered by French authorities suggests the Muslim convert suspected of stabbing a soldier near Paris was acting in accordance with his religious beliefs, a state prosecutor said after the suspect's arrest on Wednesday. Prosecutor Francois Molins told a news conference the suspect was seen on video surveillance camera "saying a Muslim prayer" minutes before an attack which came three days after the May 22 murder of a British soldier on the streets of London. "That leads us to believe he was acting on the basis of religious beliefs," Molins said. French police have said they believe the attack was inspired by the hacking to death of a British serviceman in southeast London by men shouting Islamist slogans. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 09:38 AM Jim, you objected to the suggestion that it was a crime of religion. My point was that it is pretty much universally accepted as such, as now is the attack in Paris. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 10:36 AM attempt to pin these crimes as belonging to this or that particular brand of religion We don't. The perps. and their supporters do. Why should we not believe them? Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 PM Why not Keith - you get away with it An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted. You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim. They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 04:08 PM Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists No. - or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction. No. Am I claiming that active Islamist organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction? Yes. They say so. Why should we heed you and ignore them Jim?"" As you can see Mike, he takes them at their word when they talk about religion, but suddenly loses trust in that word when it mentions the response to Western foreign policy and military intervention in Muslim countries. I won't bother asking for any apology for, or acknowledgement of, your slurs on my veracity, as you seem unusually hard line in your support of Keith on this thread. Don T. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 08:15 AM (#3529337) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""We know there are "thousands" of Islamists here. I am sure they form communities. I do not know their names. Clear now?"" Clear as mud! If there is one thing a subversive organisation does not do, it is form communities. You big yourself up as being more knowledgeable than the rest of us, then make a fatuous statement like that! Any such community wouldn't last a month. Subversives almost always operate in cells which are completely unknown to any but the cell mrembers. I imagine MI5 would think all their birthdays had come at once if you were right. Don T. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 08:26 AM (#3529339) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford What about amjam chouhdray's band of followers Don? Our "Mujahid" was one of them. Do they not hold meetings and communicate with each other about their common interests? Are they not a community of Islamists? And why should anyone care if you or I consider they are communities or not? And why did Jim try to change the subject to definitions of community? I have nothing more to add on the subject of communities. Does anyone deny that we have thousands of Islamists, that many of them are in touch with each other, and a number have been convicted for plotting together the mass murder of ordinary people? |
|
23 Jun 13 - 08:32 AM (#3529343) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "....Muslims killing each other in other countries, internal disputes nothing to do with Al Qaeda or global Islamist terrorism." Surprising Study On Terrorism: Al-Qaida Kills Eight Times More Muslims Than Non-Muslims By Yassin Musharbash Few would deny that Muslims too are victims of Islamist terror. But a new study by the Combating Terrorism Center in the US has shown that an overwhelming majority of al-Qaida victims are, in fact, co-religionists. SPIEGEL ONLINE INTERNATIONAL |
|
23 Jun 13 - 08:32 AM (#3529344) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I do not lie." you invented an MI5 claim that there are "thousands of Islamist communities in Britain" - a lie You have consistently ignored requests to provide proof for that claim- a continuation of that lie. You lied about your claim that there are " thousands of Islamist communities in Britain" and you continue to do so after the evidence has been placed before you. When you were caught in a magnificent foot-in-mouth by identifying small arms ammunition to Assad as "a few sniper bullets" you gave six separate and unrelated excuses for having done so, finally settling on "I thought we were talking about somewhere else. You are now about to call me a liar You consistently and openly lie. You are a serial liar who seems not to possess a single vestige of self-respect - which is what we have come top expect from people who hold your views. Jim Carroll |
|
23 Jun 13 - 08:50 AM (#3529351) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Am I a liar too, Jim? Or just a 'boy' not worthy of response? DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 08:52 AM (#3529353) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion As to "Veracity", Don. I think your arguments were misplaced, regarding Keith's never having acknowledged any political dimension. I think you were, let us put it perhaps better as, 'disingenuous'. You had used the word 'dishonest' of him; in passing it back to you, I was clearly suggesting that the boot was perhaps on the other foot. If you regard that as a 'slur', then I regret the fact; but I still think it a justified contextual response to what I perceived as such disingenuousness on your part. You seem to have accepted that I have said nothing to justify your denouncing me as to my category ~b~. ~M~ |
|
23 Jun 13 - 09:36 AM (#3529369) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion As to my seeming "unusually hard line in your support of Keith I don't know what is either "unusual" or "hard line" in my considering, with regard to this thread, that he is in general in the right. And you're not. Hard lines! |
|
23 Jun 13 - 11:18 AM (#3529384) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Am I a liar too, Jim? Or just a 'boy' not worthy of response?" Did I say you were - must have been at the cooking sherry? Keith is a liar because he tells lies - I've listed them - do you want to point out where I've misjudged him or is that another thing you'd rather keep to yourself? As for your being worthy of response - I was waiting for you to express a solid opinion - on anything. I'm really too old to spend my time trying and put fog in a bottle. Jim Carroll |
|
23 Jun 13 - 11:43 AM (#3529388) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,CS I think Dave and Don likewise have been talking quite a bit of sense here. I don't know why these threads need to end up polarised between two opposing viewpoints (Jim v's Keith) when world events are usually a bit less simple than being on either Jim's side or Keith's side. The men involved in this killing, were crystal clear about why they did what they did. There was a perfectly coherent political motive. They were also clear about doing it explicitly in the name of Allah. So the killing was also religiously motivated. Considering the amount of politically and religiously motivated violence we see on the news every day, sadly I find neither of these things either shocking or unusual. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 12:39 PM (#3529409) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I have said exactly what I think, Jim and answered your questions. You have not reciprocated which is not only rude but shows your contempt for other people. Maybe you are also too old to reason sensibly? Look back just over 20 posts and you will find my unequivocal views on all the questions you posed. If you have problems understanding my responses I am quite happy to accept it is my fault and I will endeavor to clarify them again. You have not responded, to my question, do you believe the perpetrators to be insane. If so, can we believe anything they say, including the blame they are putting on Britsh action overseas. I also brought you to task on calling me 'boy' and thereby indicating that you were addressing an inferior being. Is that that action of one who believes all men equal? Waiting, but not holding my breath, for a sensible response. Cheers DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 03:14 PM (#3529475) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I do not lie Jim. I said there are thousands of Islamists, not Islamist communities, and I stand by that and produced hard evidence of it. I have no idea how many communities that amounts to, and I do not care if instead of communities we call them groups, or organisations, or followings, or gangs,.... Now that is cleared up, what is your evidence of mental illness leading to the execution? Your stuff about sniper rounds is just lies. I have explained the truth, and you know the truth, but the truth can not be used to discredit me. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 04:50 PM (#3529509) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I think your arguments were misplaced, regarding Keith's never having acknowledged any political dimension."" Come off it Mike. I just posted a list of posts from him, none of which acknowledged any vestige of a political dimension, all of which emphasised the religious. Add to that his recent response to the idea of a political dimension reproduced below: ""Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 23 Jun 13 - 07:21 AM Don, I dismiss the stuff about Muslims being victims and being slaughtered by us because it is bollocks. It is propaganda. He was grandstanding, not setting out his deeply held beliefs."" So Mike, did you skip that one on purpose, or just hope that I wouldn't notice it? It does rather make arrant nonsense of your comment, quoted above, and vindicate my position. So if Keith says the guy was genuine in his religious comments, but talking ""bollocks, and grandstanding"" about his political comments, we should believe Keith who, using telepathy, the latest addition to his many self professed talents, knows more about what he meant than the man himself? Jesus wept! Don T. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:09 PM (#3529516) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford So if Keith says the guy was genuine in his religious comments, What comments Don? He swore by Allah and praised Him. That is what Muslims do, and his religion is not disputed. The strongest comment I have ever made is that "it could be argued" that the motive was purely religious. It could be argued Don. Islamists seek rule by the Sharia. That is a political as well as a religious objective. Islamism is a political ideology. The politics of radical Islam, which is a religion. |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:13 PM (#3529517) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Jesus wept! I am sure he did, Don. And I know just how he felt :-) Can no-one put a stop to this? Someone said earlier 800 posts with nothing new. Whoever it was, they were right! Cheers DtG |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:29 PM (#3529522) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Come off what, Don? It's all political, for crying out loud, isn't it? Islamism is [or claims to be] the explicitly [& aggressively] **political** arm of Islam, for crying our loud right back 2U. It uses pretence [in two senses] of religious motivation for political ends. That is just what it DOES, isn't it? Exclaiming "Afghanistan" & "Allah" in the same garbled monologue -- you'd call that genuinely 'political' would you? Rather than an imposture of political motivation to excuse & justify their hobby of cutting people's heads off coz their prophet told them to. As Keith has been perfectly coherently saying all along. Except for those none so deaf as won't hear. So you 'come off it', eh! Just listen to Jesus STILL weeping ~~ at your mulish, pigheaded obstinacy. ~M~ |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:31 PM (#3529524) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion 1000 |
|
23 Jun 13 - 05:32 PM (#3529528) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I have nothing more to say. Their claim that Muslims are victims is false. The killing was in furtherance of Islamism, which is the political ideology of enforcing rule by Sharia. "God's laws not men's laws." Religious ideology. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 02:57 AM (#3529646) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I have said exactly what I think, Jim and answered your questions." You have yet to give a single opinion on the main issue here, which is whether the Muslim communities are a latent or actual threat to Britain . The fact that you haven't led me to believe that you went along with our two sordid little crusaders here. Where have you told us whether or not you believe the Muslim religion is a threat to Britain, or if this killing is religious or if it an accumulation of several factors.... or anything of substance really. You even protested when you were asked to put your money where you mouth is, and we conceded that you had a right not to state your opinions if you chose not to. Yet you demand answers from us. You suggest I called you a liar - I didn't, yet you don't have the good grace to acknowledge that fact and leave it as a hanging suggestion. These epic threads are echoes of what is happening on the streets of Britain today - crude, mindless, thuggish racism that incites persecution and violence targeting defenceless, and on the whole, docile people and would place them in the same position as other ethnic groups have been placed in the past - pick your side or don't expect to be taken seriously in these discussions. Jim Carroll Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 03:51 AM (#3529658) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome You have yet to give a single opinion on the main issue here, which is whether the Muslim communities are a latent or actual threat to Britain. Jim, I have said over and over again that "Muslim communities" are not a threat to Britain. In fact I have gone out of my way to point out that I believe the vast majority of Moslems, not just in Britain but worldwide, are ordinary, hard-working, peace loving people just like Christians, Atheists, Bush Baptists, Zorastrians and everyone else. Just look back to any of my posts in which I answer your questions and many others. You will see that this is patently true but I suspect you will, as always, just say I did no such thing. The fact that you have not seen it, even though it is obvious, is a good indication that you do not read posts and, should anyone have the temerity to have the slightest disagreement with you - Yes I do believe there is a significant minority of Moslems who are a threat - then the blinkers come on and a bad case of dogma sets in. Yet another indication that you see what you want to see is the fact that I did not imply you said I was lying. I simply asked whether you would that as an excuse for not responding to my question as your favourite tactic appears to be shouting 'liar'. Often. What is more you addressing me as 'boy' indicates that you feel superior to me and, presumably, to others. Who those others are is anyone's guess. All in all, Jim, having treated you with respect while you have done nothing but ignore or attempt to rubbish everything I have said, I feel that I am justified in surmising that you are simply a blinkered and very ignorant man. I will not, however, resort to attempted belittlement or petty name-calling as that seems to be the environment in which you thrive. I have, yet again, answered your question. You have not, yet again, answered mine or addressed the point that you are happy to treat me as your inferior. Until you do so I doubt very much if anything else you have to say will be of interest to me. Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:14 AM (#3529662) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I simply asked whether you would that as an excuse for not responding to my question as your favourite tactic appears to be shouting 'liar'." I have called Keith - nobody else, a liar because he openly tells lies, which he often does - show me where this has not been the case. "but ignore or attempt to rubbish everything I have said," I have neither ignored, not attempted to "rubbish" what you have said, I have disagree with it when I believe it to be wrong Please point out where this is not the case. "Yes I do believe there is a significant minority of Moslems who are a threat " Then why have we not had a correspondingly "significant number" of incidents? Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:24 AM (#3529665) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Then why have we not had a correspondingly "significant number" of incidents? There are also a significant number of motorists who are threat but not all of them cause accidents, Jim. A threat is just a threat. Only a small proportion of threats turn into incidents. Thanks for, seemingly, accepting that I have indeed given an opinion. Why it has taken so long is beyond me and it still does not answer my points to you but I wait in hope. Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:29 AM (#3529666) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Dave Each time I have claimed Keith a liar I have specified exactly what lie I believe him to have told. - you have several examples here to prove me wrong without going to the dreaded "Muslim Prejudice"or "Homs Horror" threads. You might start with his MI5 "thousands of Islamist communities" claim. I resent your describing it as "a favourite tactic", it is a response to what I believe to be habitual lying - I really do thoink you owe a justification of this accusation. Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:30 AM (#3529667) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Being called a liar by Jim is like being called scruffy by Wurzel Gummidge. If anyone reads any of my posts they will know how often I have to say, "that is a lie Jim" or "you just made that up Jim." and that you never even try t deny it. You are a foolish, foolish man. What do you think you gain by it? And I do not lie Jim. I would always rather lose the point. It's just a thread on a forum. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:32 AM (#3529669) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Oh, and as to I have neither ignored, not attempted to "rubbish" what you have said, I have disagree with it when I believe it to be wrong Please point out where this is not the case. I only have to go back 3 posts from your question to find your statement You have yet to give a single opinion on the main issue here If that is not an attempt to ignore or discredit what I have said over and over again I don't know what is. We seem to be either living in different worlds or speaking a different language. Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:38 AM (#3529672) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I resent your describing it as "a favourite tactic", it is a response to what I believe to be habitual lying - I really do thoink you owe a justification of this accusation. If you use a phrase often enough it is fair to describe it as a favourite. How many people you use it on is an irrelevance. There are a lot of things that I resent too, Jim, including you addressing me as 'boy' and avoiding answering a simple question by repeated requests for me to answer yours, which I have every time. You seem to be conveniently ignoring that too. Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:40 AM (#3529674) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford You might start with his MI5 "thousands of Islamist communities" claim. No-one has claimed that Jim. Thousands of Islamists, not communities. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 05:15 AM (#3529685) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion ~~~"Yes I do believe there is a significant minority of Moslems who are a threat " Then why have we not had a correspondingly "significant number" of incidents? Jim Carroll~~~ .,,. Well, Jim, I have already posted once the wiki extract below, which I make no apology for repeating, adding for you the question HOW MANY IS SIGNIFICANT? ~~~Wikipedia article 'Terrorist Incidents In Great Britain' lists 17 incidents, either successful like 7/7, Glasgow Airport 2007, Exeter 2008, Woolwich 2013, or foiled by police intelligence & action, of unarguably Islamist provenance, since 2000.~~~ 17 in 13 years seems a pretty *significant* # to me. How many would you have preferred? ~M~ |
|
24 Jun 13 - 05:17 AM (#3529686) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "If you use a phrase often enough it is fair to describe it as a favourite." I assume that you are not going to provide evidence for your insulting claim then? Ah well!!! You have my statement on lying - justify yours. "including you addressing me as 'boy'" I quoted a well-known song which is why I put it in quotation marks. No insult whatever intended - I take it you are not aware of Aunt Molly Jackson? I don't suppose you'd like to give an opinion on the exchange below - or the fact that MI5 has made no such claim? Islamist "communities" "No-one has claimed that Jim." "there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain" (21 Jun 13 - 04:38 AM) "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." (21 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM) "No there aren't " (21 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM) "MI5 knows of "thousands." What is the lower limit for a community Jim?" (21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM) "The term community has two distinct commutative meanings: 1) Community can refer to a usually small, social unit of any size that shares common values. The term can also refer to the national community or international community, and 2) in biology, a community is a group of interacting living organisms sharing a populated environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community has less geographical limitation, as people can now gather virtually in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location. Prior to the internet, virtual communities (like social or academic organizations) were far more limited by the constraints of available communication and transportation technologies." (22 Jun 13 - 10:21 AM ) Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 05:40 AM (#3529692) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford "there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain" (21 Jun 13 - 04:38 AM) That was you Jim, and I disagree. You might prefer to call them groups. organisations, followings, gangs, etc. but they exist. "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." (21 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM) That was me. It is a reasonable statement. "No there aren't " (21 Jun 13 - 10:18 AM) That was your unsupported and silly statement. "MI5 knows of "thousands." What is the lower limit for a community Jim?" (21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM) Yes, it knows of thousands of Islamists, so how many do you need for a community? I have never linked the words "thousands" and "communities" |
|
24 Jun 13 - 06:05 AM (#3529699) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Piss off with your lying Keith - MI5 have never claimed there to be ANY "Islamist communities" let alone your "thousands" If they had, you would have produced their statement Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 06:10 AM (#3529700) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I assume that you are not going to provide evidence for your insulting claim then? Ah well!!! No need, Jim. Firstly it is not insulting, just factual. You have made over 120 posts in this thread - 12% from one person! Some going eh? You have used the term 'lie' or 'liar' in around 10% of those posts. Quite significant I think. In fairness, I should point out that Keith has had 219 posts (nearly 22%) and used the term lie or liar around 15 times. So, yes, I will apologise for saying you use the term extensively when it is only 10%. I reduce extensive to significant. But as just two members have added around a quarter of all the posts to just bitch about each other you will understand that other members will get bleary eyed. As to the excuse for using 'boy'. I had no idea whatsoever who Aunt Molly Jackson was and I suspect that is true of 99.99% of the population. Even if I did know I would not have know the words for all of her songs. So your 'well know song' is only well known to folk music fans with an interest in pre-1960 American folk and a leaning to the left with particular reference to Union activism. Just one out of four on that score, I'm afraid. I do however accept that you felt that, for some reason, I should know and I am happy that no insult was intended. Thank you for that. Just reading back again, I believe you have answered my other question, at least in part, too. You have stated quite clearly that you believe the perpetrators were insane. What you have not said is whether you believe ANY of their claims - IE, they were doing this an behalf of Islam and because of the actions of the British abroad. You seem to be saying that you believe that they were acting politically but not religiously. Please correct me if that is incorrect as carefully picking phrases from the mouth of a madman is not really a basis for sound argument is it? Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 06:20 AM (#3529705) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome BTW - before anyone asks, mine is a mere 97 posts prior to this one :-) My views on the MI5 interchanges is not relevant - It is an argument between you and Keith and, for what it is worth, it is now down to nit-picking as to who said and meant what. Aside from that do I have any more specific questions for me, Jim? Do you accept that I have given my opinion on everything you have asked for, albeit not in agreement with yours. Bear in mind I will not join anyone's 'gang' here. I gave that up when I left primary school and began to see that there are two sides to every argument. Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 06:20 AM (#3529706) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Piss off with your lying Keith - MI5 have never claimed there to be ANY "Islamist communities" let alone your "thousands" Correct Jim. Thousands of Islamists, not thousands of communities. That is what I said No lies. I leave that to you. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 06:21 AM (#3529707) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion DtG ~~ Not often I begin a post "In fairness to Jim": but feel I must point out that, as this is primarily a folk music forum, whatever %-ge of the population at large might be expected to have heard of Aunt Molly Jackson, and know the song "Which side are you on?", it was not unreasonable on his part to assume that a much higher proportion of denizens of this forum would have done so. Mind you, that interpolated vocative 'boy' does not appear in the DT version of the song, which is attributed Florence Reese, 1946. ~M~ |
|
24 Jun 13 - 06:30 AM (#3529710) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Fairy Nuff, M. I first noticed folk music in the mid 1970s and that was through Steeleye Span, Fairport Convention and, stretching a point, Jethro Tull. I do not have the experience of some of the more senior members here. I now enjoy a lot of traditional English music - Primarily pertaining to Morris and Social Dance and including the music of Messrs. Carthy, Kirkpatrick and Hutchins as well as new bands like Bellowhead. I enjoy the contemporary music of Richard Thompson and, more recently, Anthony John Clark. I have no interest in or intention of studying the work of Aunt Molly Jackson. If that does not fit in with your or Jim's views of what a 'folkie' should know then , as the bard said, tough shit :-) Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 07:02 AM (#3529720) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Dave ~~ You might just be interested in my YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/user/mgmyer |
|
24 Jun 13 - 08:01 AM (#3529740) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Thanks M - Don't have a repertoire big enough for a YouTube channel myself but you can find me performing on the https://www.youtube.com/user/SwintonFolkClub channel, here and in a few other clips. Funnily enough we have a least three things in common - Guitar, Anglo-Concertina and a beard :-) I also do unaccomplished (damn that spulling chocker...) singing but that would have made four and it isn't as effective! Shame more people do not concentrate more on similarities than differences isn't it? Now we have had a light interlude should we get back to the hostilities :-) Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 08:57 AM (#3529757) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "It is an argument between you and Keith " No it is not - it is a total rejection of the claim that there are any "Islamist communities" in Britain, one I would have made whoever made such a claim. The fact that it is a lie is relevant as, to my knowledge Keith is the only member of this forum who consistently resorts to this practice. "You have stated quite clearly that you believe the perpetrators were insane." You fail to respond to the fact that my accusations are addressed to specific and continuing lies - what should I call somebody who persists in this practice. No - I said that anybody who would carry out such a killing, for religious, or any other reason, must be insane. I also have taiken great pains to point out all the other possible reasons for such an act, carefully expunged from this discussion by those who would make it a religious killing - stop cherry-picking. "'boy' does not appear in the DT version of the song" Thank you Mike - it does in most of the versions I have heard - including that of Billy Bragg I seem to remember. Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 09:32 AM (#3529769) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford it is a total rejection of the claim that there are any "Islamist communities" in Britain, How can you deny the existance of a single community when there are thousands of individuals? Anything to support that claim? |
|
24 Jun 13 - 09:36 AM (#3529772) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome "It is an argument between you and Keith " No it is not Then who else is arguing that point? You fail to respond to the fact that my accusations are addressed to specific and continuing lies - what should I call somebody who persists in this practice. Sorry, but I must be a bit slow today. I don't understand that at all. Do you have something specific you want me to answer? I said that anybody who would carry out such a killing, for religious, or any other reason, must be insane. That's fine. We agree on that then apart from I have never cherry picked on that one. I have stated quite clearly that one needs to accept all the statements made by the perps. or none at all - Not just one or the other. Out of idle curiosity and due to a slow day at the ranch I looked up Billy Braggs Lyric Which side are you on, boys? Which side are you on? So, everyone makes mistakes, Jim. Even you :-) Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 09:48 AM (#3529777) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,CS That's on one of Billy's earlier albums, great song. I was wondering if it was the same song that Jim mentioned, or whether it's one of Billy's own, maybe borrowing from an earlier source? |
|
24 Jun 13 - 10:01 AM (#3529781) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Then who else is arguing that point?" You - Mike - Don This is a long standing argument about racism and cultural hatred - the fact that we continue to argue about it is, as far as I'm concerned, an indication that we consider it important, whatever side we take. I make no apologies for my considering it so - during my lifetime millions of human beings were herded into extermination camps. Throughout my lifetime genocide has lurked just below the surface, occasionally coming to the surface. The first result of this killing was to bring the brain-deads onto the streets in their thousands spouting their bile against communities of largely harmless human beings. As far as I'm concerned, much of this argument is a continuation of that, if you don't think so leave us to it. In my experience Britain has a race problem. Last night the Stephen Lawrence murder hit that fan again, drawing attention to the institution racism still apparently still alive and kicking in the British police force. If it doesn't bother you, it bothers me - sorry, probably a result of poor upbringing. "Which side are you on, boys?" Sorry - don't get your point - if you were referring to the use of the plural, rather than the singular - I used the song to address an individual, namely you - you really aren't still trying to milk this - the cow's run dry Dave. "How can you deny the existence of a single community" Make up your mind Keith - are there Islamist communities or are there a number of Islamists spread over the communities in Britain - you claimed thousands and went to the trouble of defining what you meant by "community" to make your case? Stop wriggling, you've been caught telling your porkies again. Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 10:34 AM (#3529788) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Well, I am not arguing the point about MI5 which is the one in question so your summary above is incorrect. I cannot argue that one, I have no information one way or another so I am just watching the "Yes it is, no it isn't between you and Keith." I can argue about teh overall concept and have done so but I was referring to this specific issue. Billy Bragg lyrics - Not milking anything. You said that you believed he sang "Which side are you on, boy?" I pointed out he did not. Pedantic maybe but still correct. Genocide. I would not be here if it was not for WW2. I am half Polish if you did not know. My Father is from Białystok which housed a huge Jewish Ghetto and now, coincidentally, is home to 2000 Muslims, mainly Tartars. Coincidence because my Grandfather was a Cossack from the banks of the Kuban river who was victim of the Stalinist deportations. His ancestors would have killed both Tartar and Jew yet during WW2 he risked life and limb to assist the Jewish population. BTW, The only reason I mention this is so you know a little more about me. No intention of saying I know more than anyone else. Just that I am aware and have experience of racial issues. Imagine what it was like to have a foreign name (It used to be Polakow) in a Salford School in the late 50s? Now, unless you have any specifics you wish me to address, I believe all has been asked, answered, said and put to bed. Anything else will just be retreading old ground. Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM (#3529791) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, there must be at least a few communities among thousands of individuals. Obviously less communities than individuals, so obviously not thousands. Some though, unless you have evidence to the contrary. Do you? |
|
24 Jun 13 - 12:20 PM (#3529827) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Actually, Jim: following that drift a little way. I remember Peggy Seeger would sing "Which side...?" with no 'boy', I am pretty sure. I am not sure Aunt Molly actually did sing it; she sang a song called "I Am A Union Woman" which used the same tune. Did she also sing "Which side"? I have not been able to trace any ref to her doing so ~~ which I appreciate proves nothing. ~M~ |
|
24 Jun 13 - 01:52 PM (#3529854) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Jim, there must be at least a few communities among thousands of individuals" Where are we now - one minute you were referring to "thousands of communities of Islamists known to MI5" You defended this several times when challenged. You justified your claim by defining "community" When the simple(il)logistics of this nonsensical statement was pointed out you changed your plea to "I didn't mean communities" - after having repeated your claim several times and attempting to justify it by picking a definition that suited your original claim. Now we seem to be back to "Islamist communities" You are, as in numerous other cases, becoming an embarrassment. I suggest you leave this and hope it disappears. Mike I think you are right - I was confusing it with 'Union Woman' - Which Side' was made by Florence Reece in 1931. I was confused by the tune, which I never recognised as being the same Dave Take your word on Billy Bragg - not particularly fond of his singing so nothing stuck in my memory about his particular rendition. In fact I don't recall hearing the song much since the early 1960s - half a century ago (jeeze - am I really that old?) Was fascinated by your family background. I was brought up in a somewhat confused, left-wing - Irish Catholic - anti Fascist household in Liverpool. My grandmother was a mixture of all of three and was arrested for throwing a stone at a Blackshirt rally which hit one of the thugs. She always claimed that the stone "was guided by the hand of God" "Anything else will just be retreading old ground." Couldn't agree more - not too many hard feelings I hope? Jim Carroll |
|
24 Jun 13 - 02:17 PM (#3529863) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""What comments Don? He swore by Allah and praised Him. That is what Muslims do, and his religion is not disputed. The strongest comment I have ever made is that "it could be argued" that the motive was purely religious. It could be argued Don."" Do you even read what you post? ""It is propaganda. He was grandstanding, not setting out his deeply held beliefs."""" 1. Opinion not fact, unless you are telepathic! 2. Indisputably dismissing that there was any political motive with respect to Western actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also: Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 09:38 AM "Jim, you objected to the suggestion that it was a crime of religion. My point was that it is pretty much universally accepted as such, as now is the attack in Paris."" Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 10:36 AM attempt to pin these crimes as belonging to this or that particular brand of religion ""We don't. The perps. and their supporters do. Why should we not believe them?"" Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 12:55 PM Why not Keith - you get away with it An individual like me might believably be deranged, but you can not dismiss a vast global movement as all afflicted. You would have to be, er, a nutter Jim. ""They are acting on deeply held religious belief. They believe they are doing the will of Allah, and expect to be rewarded by Allah. Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 29 May 13 - 04:08 PM Are you claiming that all Muslims are terrorists No. - or are you claiming that active Muslim organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction. ""No. Am I claiming that active Islamist organisations are only involved in what they do because of religious conviction? Yes. They say so. Why should we heed you and ignore them Jim?"" Not one instance of ""It could be argued"" in that lot. I have emphasised what you actually said, making clear your real position. Lies are that simple to expose! Why do you keep doing it? And what is the mindset which drives your pathological need to place the responsibility for such terrorist acts solely and entirely upon the religion of Islam and deny that the presence of foreign soldiers in Muslim countries has any bearing on the matter. I have no less loathing for the acts and the perpetrators than you, but I am at least honest about the part that ill advised military adventures during the last decade have at the very least played a consideable role in sparking off the hatred which them. This fact, for some reason best known to yourself, you simply will not acknowledge, as witness the above comments from you, ALL direct quotes, timed and dated. Don T. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 02:20 PM (#3529865) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T which produced them Don T. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 02:26 PM (#3529869) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Where are we now - one minute you were referring to "thousands of communities of Islamists known to MI5" Not any minute Jim. it is not true. I have never put "thousands" and "communities" in the same sentence. As soon as you made your misinterpretation I made clear that I never meant thousands of communities. You are being dishonest again. Don, the religious motivation is also political in that it seeks to replace normal politics and law with Sharia. I only reject the "Islam as victim" motivation. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 02:49 PM (#3529876) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad Forhttp://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/headtohead/2013/06/201361091619207870.html anyone who wishes to take a time out from the bickering and mudslinging that this thread has become and actually listen to Irshad Manji, a reform Muslim and someone for whom I have much respect and admiration, in discussion/debate with the host of "Head to Head" Mehdi Hasan at the Oxford union. And joining the discussion are: Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra who was elected as an assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain in 2008 and who is also the chair of the Inter Faith Relations Committee, and serves as an imam and scholar in Leicester; Halla Diyab, an award-winning Syrian writer, filmmaker, broadcaster and women's rights activist, and the author of controversial TV dramas such as Beautiful Maidens and Your Rightful Disposal; and Myriam Francois-Cerrah, an academic and journalist focusing on Islamic movements and political culture. The discussion covers much of the same ground that is in contention on this thread. Give it a listen - you may learn something. What is wrong with Islam today" |
|
24 Jun 13 - 03:11 PM (#3529885) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Don, the religious motivation is also political in that it seeks to replace normal politics and law with Sharia. I only reject the "Islam as victim" motivation."" Nice swerve. This you have believed for what? The last twelve hours?....24? But you still haven't answered the actual questions. 1. How long have you had this power to read peoples' thoughts? 2. Are you really stupid enough to believe that the presence of our troops in their country shooting Muslims (the numbers are YOUR red herring. They are killing any who resist their presence with arms) has no bearing on terrorist acts in Britain? Come on Keith. You are the self proclaimed mind reader. Don T. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 03:52 PM (#3529895) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome No hard feelings at all, Jim. Never have and never will be one to bear grudges. Lets put it down to a series of unfortunate misunderstandings. I am as passionate about fair play as anyone and am firmly behind you when you say that the ordinary Moslem on the street is getting a rough deal. The only thing we were in dispute over, and it is stupid when you think about it, was interpreting other peoples intentions! I will be the first to admit that I can often see both sides and often many more, which can come across as indecisiveness. But rest assured it does put me poles apart (pun intended - Polish remember :-) ) from ANY extreme views. Fair play for all is my one big wish. Going a little further into the family history you will have figured out I am not truly half Polish, but quarter Polish and quarter Russian. To make matters worse the remainder is not all English Either - My English Grandfathers mother was Irish and my English Grandmothers mother was Welsh! Not quite sure what that makes me apart from what I have always described as a true Englishman - Bits of everything! Nor am I sure what our mutual opposition on the right wing would make of that :-) Cheers Dave |
|
24 Jun 13 - 04:35 PM (#3529918) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford 1. Opinion not fact, unless you are telepathic! It is my opinion that accusing us of the indiscriminate killing of Muslims anywhere is bollocks, as I have stated all along. If you or anyone want to defend that slander, good luck. Islamism is a religious political ideology. It is opposed to our system and seeks to impose religion in its place. It is religion. It is (anti) political. |
|
24 Jun 13 - 05:10 PM (#3529929) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion "Are you really stupid enough to believe that the presence of our troops in their country shooting Muslims ... has no bearing on terrorist acts in Britain?" .,,.,. Oh, aye ~~ it has a bearing right enuff, Don. It furnishes them with a luvverly excuse for indulging their fave headlopping hobby. And er That's it! (Please see my post of 23 june 4.43 am) |
|
25 Jun 13 - 01:51 AM (#3530054) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Atheist fundamentalist The religion of peace. Sheik Taj el-Dene Elhilaly's comments in a Ramadan sermon in a Sydney mosque have stirred a furor in the country with even Prime Minister John Howard weighing in with condemnation. The cleric also said the judge in the case, who sentenced the rapists, had "no mercy." "But the problem, but the problem all began with who?" he said, referring to the women victims – whom he said were "weapons used by Satan." The victims of the vicious gang rapes are leading the national outcry – with some calling for deportation of the sheik. In a Sydney Daily Telegraph online poll, 84 percent of people said the Egyptian-born sheik should be deported. "If you take out uncovered meat and place it outside on the street, or in the garden or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, and the cats come and eat it … whose fault is it, the cats or the uncovered meat?" the sheik said in his sermon. "The uncovered meat is the problem. If she was in her room, in her home, in her hijab, no problem would have occurred." A 16-year-old girl, whose gang rape investigation was the subject of a secret police report, issued an open letter yesterday. "You are a sad person who has no understanding of what really happens when these people inflict harm and degrading acts upon me or any other young girl," she said. Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38561/#3pThXBoAmK9m6TMf.99 |
|
25 Jun 13 - 03:40 AM (#3530070) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I have never put "thousands" and "communities" in the same sentence." Stop this nonsensical lying and distortion Keith. It doesn't matter a toss what you put in one sentence - until it was pointed out to you how logistically stupid your claims were, you argued that there were "many" and 'thousands" - you even went as far as claiming that MI5 "knew about them" - they have never made such a claim - you deliberately lied as you are lying here. There are no "Islamic communities" in Britain - the MI5's seven year old figure of 2,000 SUSPECTS (not guilty of anything until proven by British law) are a totally unknown factor and are almost certainly made up of possible Islamists, family members and close associates. The fact that they have never at any time been acted on probably puts the figure in the hundreds rather than thousands. If you are set on smearing an entire community via their religion, at least use a bit of common sense. "Islamism is a religious political ideology." That can be said of any religion. The Christian church in Ireland has had a devastating effect on Irish politics - it is at present pulling out all the stops to influence a forthcoming act on pregnancy termination. Over the last 90 odd years it has been instrumental in maintaining a sectarian state in Ireland. Historically this has always been the case; the Pope blessed Mussolini's bombs that were dropped on The Abyssinian (Ethiopian) people. Pope Pius XII ("Hitler's Pope") befriended the Nazis and stood by silently while while millions of Jews were sent to the gas-chambers. The Christian Church backed some of the worst mass murderers in history; Batista, Pinochet, Franco........ Any church with influence "is a religious political ideology." Jim Carroll 21 Jun 13 - 03:18 AM "It has nothing to do with ordinary Muslim communities in Britain. It has everything to do with ordinary Islamist communities, here and elsewhere. 21 Jun 13 - 05:08 AM I said: "there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain" You replied: "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." I challenged you by quoting a previous statement (21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM): "MI5 knows of "thousands." You replied: "What is the lower limit for a community Jim?" As for your never putting thousands and community in one sentence 21 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM "We know there are at least thousands of Islamists and a community can be less than a hundred." (21 Jun 13 - 11:41 AM) |
|
25 Jun 13 - 03:59 AM (#3530077) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, yesterday you reverted to faking a quote of mine again. You are making an unsubstantiated claim that there is not a single group of Islamists who constitute a community in this country. I say that with thousands of known Islamists, there must be. I have quoted "thousands of Islamists" enough times so that anyone should know which thousands I refer to. |
|
25 Jun 13 - 04:08 AM (#3530080) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Your last point here, Jim, reminds me of the story in the very first of Richmal Crompton's William books, Just William, 1922. William's teacher tells his class that "Two negatives make an affirmative", ie that if you use "no" and "not" in the same sentence, you mean "yes" ~~ "If you say 'there's not no sugar in the bowl', it means there is." So when William asks his father if he can have a party while his parents are away, and his father replies, "No, you can not", William takes this for permission and has a party. The story ends with William complaining to his friend thru the window of his bedroom, whither he has been banished, that he can't come out to play, 'because my father doesn't understand English grammar, that's why'. Your quoting of Keith's happening to use he word 'thousand' in the same sentence as the word 'community', but not linked ... Geddit, William Carroll? |
|
25 Jun 13 - 04:20 AM (#3530085) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim, some posts of mine you missed. Note the dates. On 21st June 1.29pm I suggested that the thousands of Islamists might constitute ONE community. 22ns June 3.11pm "Jim, you deny that the thousands of radical extremist Muslims in UK constitute a community. (SINGULAR!) Good. It means no-one can be in any doubt that you are a complete arse." 23rd June 4.56am "Jim, there are thousands of Islamists not communities." (Is that not unequivocal enough?) |
|
25 Jun 13 - 04:34 AM (#3530087) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""It is my opinion that accusing us of the indiscriminate killing of Muslims anywhere is bollocks, as I have stated all along. If you or anyone want to defend that slander, good luck. Islamism is a religious political ideology. It is opposed to our system and seeks to impose religion in its place. It is religion. It is (anti) political."" You are lying again! What he said was that the British have killed and are killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan......TRUE! He didn't say indiscriminately, YOU did! He also made the point that the presence of our troops in their countries was part of his rationale for committing this crime. and I repeat the question you are wriggling wildy to avoid answering: Are you really stupid enough to believe that the presence of our troops in their country shooting Muslims (the numbers are YOUR red herring. They are killing any who resist their presence with arms) has no bearing on terrorist acts in Britain? Please don't bother with all the side issues and obfuscation. We've already seen all you've got. A simple yes or no will suffice! Don T. |
|
25 Jun 13 - 04:41 AM (#3530089) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Oh, aye ~~ it has a bearing right enuff, Don. It furnishes them with a luvverly excuse for indulging their fave headlopping hobby."" Sad Mike, as well as unworthy! One man's excuse is another man's honestly held reason, or have you joined Keiths circle of telepathic Muslim haters? And you won't mind me pointing out that although this was a vicious and inexcusable act, no heads were lopped. That was a piece of classical yellow journalism. Don T. |
|
25 Jun 13 - 04:41 AM (#3530090) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Are you really stupid enough to believe that the presence of our troops in their country shooting Muslims (the numbers are YOUR red herring. They are killing any who resist their presence with arms) has no bearing on terrorist acts in Britain? I suppose I am, yes. The current wave of al Qaeda attacks began before that excuse existed. Remember why we went into Afghanistan? |
|
25 Jun 13 - 04:46 AM (#3530092) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford And you won't mind me pointing out that although this was a vicious and inexcusable act, no heads were lopped. A number of people saw them chopping away at his neck after he was dead. Chopping on stone paving, it would have been difficult to sever every strand. The pm withheld the detail of his injuries. |
|
25 Jun 13 - 05:17 AM (#3530098) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Can you really think it was 'an honestly held reason', Don? What 'honestly held reason' can one of any rationality [& your tone insists that you wish to regard this piece of human pig-detritus as such] have for chopping a man's head off in the middle of a busy street? & yes he did, you fool: or at least manifestly tried to, but was just plain bloody inefficient. But he shouted 'Allah' and 'Afghans' as he did it, so that makes it a rational political act driven by genuine deeply-held beliefs, to hear you tell it. "Sad" right back 2U. In ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠. With brass knobs on!!! ~M~ |
|
25 Jun 13 - 05:43 AM (#3530103) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Did I do that Mike - shit, I really will have to lay off that cooking sherry. I could have sworn I wrote "It doesn't matter a toss what you put in one sentence" Nor does it - whatever he is saying now, (which appears to that there are Islamist "communities", having said there are none and that he was only referring to "Islamists") he has claimed that there are many and thousands of Islamist communities known to MI5 - THERE ARE NONE - GEDDIT? (put this in red to get up your nose and see if I can't get the mask to slip even further. I'd stick with 'Just William' and trying to prove that it is a regular Muslim custom to behead people - you seem more at home there. Jim Carroll |
|
25 Jun 13 - 05:50 AM (#3530105) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford thousands of Islamist communities known to MI5 This is now blatant lying. I have never claimed such a thing. Jim's post faking a quote I never made. Jim Carroll - PM Date: 24 Jun 13 - 01:52 PM "Jim, there must be at least a few communities among thousands of individuals" Where are we now - one minute you were referring to "thousands of communities of Islamists known to MI5" |
|
25 Jun 13 - 06:33 AM (#3530110) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion As I keep saying, Jim, I have no mask. Tho Don has pre-empted the name, with me it's WYSIWYG ~M~ |
|
25 Jun 13 - 06:35 AM (#3530112) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "thousands of Islamist communities known to MI5 This is now blatant lying." Two consecutive responses - unaltered in any way Jim Carroll "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." No there aren't - you have been ably, by stretching a point to claim two thousand 'Islamists' - risks to national security nationwide. - how many "communities" can you make out of that number? Tell us where they are or stop making things up. "Not the majority of ordinary, decent British Muslims" M and M has just scuppered that one with his ""Back to dear old Mandy R-D" ("they would say that, wouldn't they?") - no matter how many "decent British Muslims" there are, none of them are to be trusted - your running-mate just said so. "Islamism is winning the cognitive war" Hi Boo-Boo, broken it off with Yogi Bear have you? Jim Carroll Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 21 Jun 13 - 10:42 AM MI5 knows of "thousands." |
|
25 Jun 13 - 07:32 AM (#3530126) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Happy Infidel Jim said; "....... trying to prove that it is a regular Muslim custom to behead people" France abolished use of the guillotine in 1977 Islamic extremists have held a near monopoly on the practise since then. Off with their heads |
|
25 Jun 13 - 07:33 AM (#3530127) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Yes Jim. I stand by my posts. I have never posted about thousands of communities, only thousands of Islamists. You claim without substantiation that there are none at all. I say that with thousands of known Islamists there must be. I have nothing more to say on this. It is just a silly attempt at point scoring. Move on Jim. |
|
25 Jun 13 - 07:40 AM (#3530135) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Unhappy Infidel Nice hobby Ariel Sellouk – Houston, August 2003: throat slit attempted but incomplete beheading. Sébastien Selam – Paris, November 2003: throat was slit twice; his face was mutilated with a carving fork and his eyes were gouged out by a Muslim neighbor who boasted, "I killed my Jew, I'll go to paradise." Theo Van Gogh – Amsterdam, November 2004: shot, throat slit, and five-page paper pinned to his body. Hossam Armanious, Amal Garas, Sylvia Armanious, and Monica Armanious, – Jersey City, N.J., January 2005: necks, throats and bodies stabbed, mutilation of Coptic tattoo. Brendan Mess, Erik Weissman, and Raphael Teken - Waltham, Massachusetts, September 2011: throats slit, probably by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bombers. Hany F. Tawadros and Amgad A. Konds – Jersey City, N.J., February 2013: shot, decapitated, hands severed. Lee Rigby – Woolwich, England, May 2013: run over by car, mutilated, beheaded. Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/muslim-acts-of-beheadings-in-the-us-and-the-west-97308/#Bji3vEDCVtlYzYBZ.99 Plenty of graphic videos on-line if you have the stomach for it. (I certainly don't) |
|
25 Jun 13 - 07:52 AM (#3530138) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eew! Well......fuck me dead! Fatwa: Necrophilia Is An Acceptable Practice In Islam By markulyseas Report Washington / Morocco Board News--An Imam in Morocco issued a fatwa stating that necrophilia is "Halal" or religiously acceptable practice in Islam. He said that a husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. The Imam, whose name is Zamzami Abdelbari, said that marriage remains valid even after death, which does not cancel the marriage link. He took as evidence a Koranic verse which says that Muslims believers will go to Paradise with their wives… Sheikh Zamzami said that the husband has the right to have sex with his dead wife. He added that the husband may wash the body of his dead wife and have sex with her. He said that the woman also has the same right but failed to explain how a woman can manage to perform sex with the corpse of her dead husband. However, Sheikh Zamzami, tempered his most unusual fatwa by stating that necrophilia, though Halal is a disgusting act that would be best avoided. |
|
25 Jun 13 - 08:30 AM (#3530146) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome The longer you go at this one, chaps, the more loonies will post to it. As witnessed. Can I suggest it be left to sink or, preferably, closed so these sneaky little digs at Moslems cannot continue. Just a thought. Cheers DtG |
|
25 Jun 13 - 12:30 PM (#3530232) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion Dave ~~ At what point does the publication of an unpalatable truth about anyone become a 'sneaky little dig' at them? Just asking. ~M~ |
|
25 Jun 13 - 02:57 PM (#3530290) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "I stand by my posts. I have never posted about thousands of communities, only thousands of Islamists." I said: "there are no identifiable "Islamist communities" in Britain" In reply you said, in your next post: "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." No way out of that one. You are without doubt the most shameless and stupid liar I have ever come across - to deny what has been put before you. You shame not only yourself but your mate who, feeble as it was, tried to put up some sort of a defence for you. "You claim without substantiation that there are none at all." And once again more lying. I don't expect a response from this but WHERE HAVE I EVER CLAIMED THERE ARE ARE NO ISLAMISTS I am well aware there are, I have said there are, I have pointed them out in relation to the MI5 reports, In the light of the London bombings I would have to be incredibly stupid toi have ever made such a claim. You raelly are an unwholesome little shit. Jim Carroll |
|
25 Jun 13 - 06:40 PM (#3530348) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford I don't expect a response from this but WHERE HAVE I EVER CLAIMED THERE ARE ARE NO ISLAMISTS Nowhere Jim. You did claim that there is not a single Islamist community in the whole country. I say there must be because there are thousands of known Islamists. |
|
26 Jun 13 - 02:59 AM (#3530456) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford "Yes there are. MI5 and the police are aware of many." No way out of that one. Aware of many, but not thousands. You are falling apart in front of us, and I take no pleasure in it. You have a demented obsession to catch me out doing bad things. Good luck with it, but you are charging up a blind alley with this one. I have never linked "thousands" and "communities" so you are doomed to failure in proving I have. |
|
26 Jun 13 - 04:13 AM (#3530470) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll "Aware of many, but not thousands." You've had your quotes; Your response to my statement that there were no Islamist communities in Britain -- again "MI5 knows of "thousands." "What is the lower limit for a community Jim?" Are we back no to there being "communities of Islamists in Britain? Make-up-your-mind-time. "You did claim that there is not a single Islamist community in the whole country." Yes I did - and do. There is not a single shred of evidence to show that there is, certainly not from MI5, as you claim - but you, of course, could prove me wrong. It remains your job to prove there are - won't hold my breath though. You really are going to have to put a little thought into the job if you are going to hold your position as Britain's Islamophobe answer to Joe Goebbels Jim Carroll |
|
26 Jun 13 - 04:25 AM (#3530472) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford This is the last time I am prepared to humour you on this. "Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community has less geographical limitation, as people can now gather virtually in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location" MI5 and the police have discovered many conspiracies by monitoring such "sharing" when their little communities "gather." |
|
26 Jun 13 - 08:00 AM (#3530513) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad "Extreme religious fundamentalism, like oppressive ethnic nationalism, is not an indication of strong faith or shining conviction. On the contrary, the human being of deep, abiding faith can afford to be tolerant in thought and deed, to question and to be questioned. Those who are comfortable with their deity are comfortable with their neighbors. They are also open to change, once they are convinced of its utility. Doctrinally rigid fundamentalism is always a symptom of insecure faith. This age of resurgent belief is really one of explosive doubt. Those who feel compelled to force their vision of God on others are trying to convince themselves, thus their ferocity. The possibility that alternative paths to salvation exists, isn't an affront to their God, but a personal threat to them." Military Historian Ralph Peters - "Beyond Terror". |
|
26 Jun 13 - 02:34 PM (#3530666) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""I suppose I am, yes. The current wave of al Qaeda attacks began before that excuse existed. We've been interfering in their countries since forever, so that argument is facile and specious. Remember why we went into Afghanistan?"" Yes I do! Because Bush, Blair and Brown were too bloody stupid to learn from the way the Russians got their fingers burned trying to control the Afghans. Don T. |
|
26 Jun 13 - 02:37 PM (#3530667) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T ""Tho Don has pre-empted the name, with me it's WYSIWYG"" Think again mate! That's Susan of the DT. Don T |
|
26 Jun 13 - 02:47 PM (#3530674) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Don(Wyziwyg)T I'm with Dave the Gnome in thinking its time that this anti Muslim rant ceased. The rest of you can continue giving ordinary Muslims reason to feel insecure in this supposedly civilised country. If you think your attitudes and comments are a productive means of keeping the peace good luck to you. I suggest you join the EDL. Don T. |
|
26 Jun 13 - 02:54 PM (#3530676) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: MGM·Lion What, Don, has Susan of the DT got to do with the fact that I don't wear any 'mask' to 'slip' as boring J Wotsisface is always going on about, so that with me wotchu C is wotchu get? Who is Susan of the DT anyhow, & wot has she to do with anything? Confused. Puzzled. ~M~ |
|
26 Jun 13 - 03:43 PM (#3530693) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Yes I do! Because Bush, Blair and Brown were too bloody stupid to learn from the way the Russians got their fingers burned trying to control the Afghans. Your memory is shite then Don. 9/11? Unprovoked attack that killed thousands, including more Brits than the IRA killed in 30 years? Planned where Don? The whole world agreed it was right to go in so they could not do it again. And they never have. Just poor dupes carrying home made bombs on to trains, or chopping up an off duty squady. Bush, Blair, Brown, and all the Tories and all the Libs and everyone else because it had to be done. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 04:38 AM (#3539923) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Murder victim Mohammed Saleem was mentioned earlier in this thread. Police have arrested a man for his murder. He is one of a group of Ukraine nationals who are being questioned about attacks on mosques in Britain. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 03:22 PM (#3540086) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome It's not possible, Keith. Ukrainians are immigrants too, You must just be racist... :D tG |
|
21 Jul 13 - 05:06 PM (#3540105) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza I see that the surviving suspect (who was filmed holding the hatchet with blood dripping from his hands, yet pleaded not guilty) has had two teeth knocked out after kicking off in the Prison where he's being held. He's making a complaint of assault and ill treatment. A bit rich after sawing through the neck of the young soldier. |
|
21 Jul 13 - 08:11 PM (#3540140) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge I have spent a few minutes trying to verify whether Adebolajo "kicked off". The closest I have seen is that he allegedly "refused to comply with an officer's instructions". |
|
22 Jul 13 - 02:05 AM (#3540184) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford That is because no details have been released Richard. The Prison Officers Association says that the correct restraint procedure was used, suggesting that he needed to be restrained. They also say that video of the incident exists. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 04:45 AM (#3540205) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,Eliza From my (quite extensive) experience of Prison Officers, they are always very very careful in how they deal with incalcitrance. I've seen them 'in action' many times, and there are usually five, summoned by the alarm bell, who each handle one part of the prisoner (eg one takes a leg, other leg, one arm etc and always the head is protected) They have to watch their step as everything goes on a Report after the event, and any injuries have to be examined by the Prison Doctor. Believe me, abuse by officers is almost unknown, and I've spoken to many inmates about this. They call it 'bending you up' and it just means the head is pushed down so you can't bite an Officer. So IMHO, this chap was kicking off big time to have got his poor little toothy pegs busted. Usually, it's a fellow prisoner who gives one a clump in prison, not the officers. I know one should try to sympathise with this suspect, but I'm afraid I can't. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 05:33 AM (#3540214) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge So we don't know that he "kicked off". I wouldn't be surprised, but we don't know. |
|
22 Jul 13 - 05:34 PM (#3540510) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome Anyone taking bets on who makes the first post claiming this is proof that the English are a set of anti-Islamic racists? :D tG |
|
22 Jul 13 - 07:19 PM (#3540553) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Richard Bridge Dunno about that but some of my best friends were prison ossifers. |
|
23 Jul 13 - 01:53 AM (#3540653) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Backwoodsman DtG, I think that would be a huge stretch, even for the fertile imaginations of our Mudcat Usual Suspect OCD-sufferers. |
|
24 Jul 13 - 01:37 AM (#3541071) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,SJL In regard to the recent attacks on Muslims by Ukrainians, you may find this interesting: http://m.aljazeera.com/story/201087102453222638 But there's a bit more to this ethnic animosity, going further back. The Mongol-Tatar Horde first arrived in what was then Rus'-Kyiv as conquerors in the mid-13th century. They were pretty ruthless colonizers (is there any other kind?). But the worst stage of this saga began when the Tatars combined forces with the Ottoman Empire in the mid-15th century and a slave-trade that would last 333 years (beginning in 1450 and ending in 1783) where Crimean Tatars conducted raids on a regular basis in Ukraine flourished. There were many sackings as well as an annual slave-hunt raid in which, over the years, millions of Ukrainian men, women and children were rounded up and sold into slavery. The infamous "black roads" to slavery, which appear on 17th century maps of Ukraine, date to the early 15th century and were used for over three centuries to carry enslaved Ukrainians south toward Crimea and the slave markets at Constantinople and Kaffa where ships from Arabia, Turkey, Persia and Syria were docked to buy slaves. So you see, there is some question as to whether Crimea should be actually be part of Ukraine at all. There is no love lost between these two. People in Crimea speak Russian or Tatar, not Ukrainian. Nevertheless, in 1954, the Soviet Union issued a decree transferring the Crimean Oblast from the USSR to the Ukrainian SSR. The Russians continue to maintain a strategic naval base there. The Russians loved to manipulate borders to dilute ethnicities and to discourage a sense of collective identity in the various ethnicities they dominated. As per the article, you can see that along with Ukrainians, Tatars suffered mightily under Stalin. In addition to the Ukrainian genocide, half the Tatar population in Crimea was wiped out and the rest were deported. Crimea is now considered an autonomous republic under Ukraine. I don't know that I would characterize the issue as a phenomenon of a "pro-Russian Ukrainian government." Both ethnic Russians and Ukrainians seem to share these sentiments. And yes, I would consider Crimea the ancestral homeland of the Tatars since they had occupied it so long and obviously love it enough to return. At least they should be given some land of their own... Lately I've noticed, every radical seems to have a hankering for fish and chips. It's very wrong for them to be emigrating to the UK to do their evil deeds. I fear we'll be looking at more of this kind of thing. I'm half Ukrainian. I'm ashamed of these Ukie nutcases. Now I know what it feels like to be a non-radical Muslim. |
|
24 Jul 13 - 10:58 AM (#3541207) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome No need for you to be ashamed, SJL. They may be of your ancestral background but they are not you! I am, as you may find I said earlier in the thread, part Cossack. My Paternal Grandfather born on the Kuban River and later became a Russian Orthodox priest! My Father was born in Bielystok - Now home to a large community of Tartars - to a Polish mother and the rest of me is made up of English, Welsh and Irish. The only bit I don't have is Scottish, which is a pity coz I love Bagpipes and Whisky :-) I am not ashamed of my ancestry nor am I 'proud to be English' or whatever - It is an accident of birth. Someone a lot more talented than me wrote 'It ain't what you're given - It's what you do with what you got'. And it is very true :-) Cheers DtG |
|
24 Jul 13 - 09:47 PM (#3541410) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: GUEST,SJL Za druzhbu myezhdu narodami! To friendship between nations! |
|
09 Oct 13 - 03:07 AM (#3565319) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford BBC today. Thousands of Islamist extremists in the UK see the British public as a legitimate target for attacks, the director general of MI5 warns. |
|
09 Oct 13 - 03:16 AM (#3565323) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford Jim Carroll - PM Date: 02 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM "Thousands of British Muslims are being watched by police and MI5 under suspicion of possible terrorist involvement, a Scotland Yard chief has disclosed." SEPTEMBER 12TH ")) What has happened to the thousands who were being watched, SEVEN YEARS AGO - secretly banged up, deported or not guilty of any crime - come on Keith - you have a hot line into the security services, you must know? THE LONGER YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THIS THE BIGGER MORON YOU BECOME - YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY BACKING TO YOUR CLAIM OF INCREASED NUMBERS, YOU HAVE REFUSED TO RESPOND TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SIGN OF TERRORIST ACTIVITY IN THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY,. YOU CONTINUE TO LIE "I have given sources and links for everything." NO YOU HAVE NOT - "This thread has run it's course." You wish!! What a trio of tossers!! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Oct 13 - 03:56 AM (#3565327) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll Keith I have little doubt that is was you who had awoken this thread from its squalid depths - I even commented on it on the Christian Persecution thread following last nights news - I could even have written your script for you. There were so signs of terrorist activity within the Muslim communities in Britain back on the 12th September whan I made my comments What I said last month has not changed one iota that remains the case A small group of extremists within the British Muslim communities have always seen British people as legitimate targets, Within the last 24 hours it has been announced that there has been an increase in that number: the BBC news report last night linked that increase to the fact that thousands of young British Muslims are volunteering to join the anti-Assad rebels in Syria. The 'Free West' has sat on its/our hands and watched while Assad slaughtered the Syrian population. Our leaders, on our behalf, have declared that, now he has given the undertaking that he will cease to use chemical weapons, he may continue to 'Carry on Slaughtering' by 'conventional' (whatever that means) means. It's hardly surprising that ordinary Muslims should be outraged at our continued indifference to the slaughter, which has given a great deal of kudos to the extremist groups which have taken over what should have been the U.N's role. Nor is it surprising that young British Muslims should wish to be part of that role. Syria has all the makings of a widespread Holy War which could involve us all. It is this that should concern us all, not the 'nya-nya, I was right', schoolyard -type claims of one member of this forum aimed directly at another - for ****'* sake, grow up and say something worth listening to - this isn't a video war-game!!! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Oct 13 - 04:12 AM (#3565329) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford A small group of extremists within the British Muslim communities have always seen British people as legitimate targets, Not a small group but as I tried to tell you on this thread "thousands." You and Don denied it. This is what MI5 says today. "Threats to the UK are growing more diverse and diffuse, he said, but warned: "It remains the case that there are several thousand Islamist extremists here who see the British public as a legitimate target." " "REMAINS THE CASE" Jim. "Referring to the ongoing conflict in Syria, he said a growing proportion of MI5's casework concerned individuals from the UK who had travelled to fight there. He said extremist Sunni groups in Syria were aspiring to attack Western countries. This has long been a concern of Western governments - that British-based jihadists will one day return from the killing fields of Syria and turn their new-found skills on the population back home. A number of people have been stopped at airports and some have been arrested on suspicion of terrorism. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596 "For the future, there is good reason to be concerned about Syria," he said. " "FOR THE FUTURE" Jim. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24454596 |
|
09 Oct 13 - 05:26 AM (#3565345) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jim Carroll You have my statement on this - nothing had changed - the groups that were a threat to Britain remain a threat; the Muslim communities remain as they always have been, law abiding and industrious (when they are allowed to be by bigoted racist thugs like yourself) certainly nothing has changed there. I have no intention of being any part of your making this another of your disgusting 'Muslim Prejudice' slime-pits (I'm sure you do not need my help to do this anyway). Slime away!! Jim Carroll |
|
09 Oct 13 - 07:46 AM (#3565376) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Dave the Gnome I really do give up, Jim. If you strip away the history then it is a clear unequivocal statement. It remains the case that there are several thousand Islamist extremists here who see the British public as a legitimate target. It remains the case means that it has not changed. Here means the UK or, more specifiably, England. It has been said, on the record, by the head of MI5. What is does not say is that the Moslem community in general are a threat. It contains no prejudice. It is a simple statement of fact that there are several thousand Islamist extremists who are a threat to our safety. It is that threat that the security forces are concentrating on. What do you expect them to do? Concentrate on those who are not a serious threat instead because it is not 'politically correct' to even mention the real danger? This threat will not go away by sweeping it under the carpet. Nor does it decrease if the majority of Moslems are 'law abiding and industrious'. It still remains even if some people are even worse and no amount of screaming 'racist' will protect my family and friends. OK, the problems may have been brought on by Western Imperialism or maginalisation of Islam. That will be rectified eventually. What would you have us do in the meanwhile? DtG |
|
09 Oct 13 - 09:03 AM (#3565396) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: bobad For the edification of those unable or unwilling to make the distinction between Islam and Islamism: Islam vs. Islamists |
|
09 Oct 13 - 09:23 AM (#3565401) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Jeri Shit. It's the Keith & Jim show again. Thread herpes. |
|
09 Oct 13 - 10:03 AM (#3565415) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford You would barely have a BS section now without us. A little gratitude would be nice. Love bites, not herpes. |
|
09 Oct 13 - 07:23 PM (#3565526) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: McGrath of Harlow And a few years ago they've have no doubt said the same about the Irish, or the Catholic Irish; and a bit further back about the Catholics in general. And it's always not wholly false, and it's never more than a fragment of the truth. |
|
10 Oct 13 - 02:56 AM (#3565582) Subject: RE: BS: Unarmed soldier killed, Woolwich (London) From: Keith A of Hertford No. There may have been many IRA sympathisers, thousands even, but not even the most rabid Republicans "see the British public as a legitimate target." They often fucked up, but always tried to avoid civilian casualties. |