No post demonstrating my vilification of all Muslims then?

What is it you don't understand about

your previous being a prime example.

?

No post demonstrating my vilification of all Muslims then?

What is it you don't understand about

your previous being a prime example.

?

The Catholic Church has been involved in a scandal whereby the sexual abuse of young boys by Priests has been covered up, allegedly at the highest levels of the church. Does this statement vilify all umpteen squidillion Catholics? Yes or No will suffice.

You're desperately dodging the question; again.

.

OK guy's, there comes a time when lightly popping your partners head against a headboard, is infinitely better than banging your head against a brickwall ( paraphrased from Rachael 'Friends ). Or in this case, quietly moving on..............

7by7

I liked your thread simply because you didn't call him 'Reverend' I.P

Indeed, Mossfinn; I should remember Naam's erudite comment.

@7by7

it is futile to discuss the paint stroke of an old master or the clours of a sunset with a blind person.

and as futile is to discuss Islam, Muslims and related topics with a person who wears blinkers made of bias and pure hatred.

I liked your thread simply because you didn't call him 'Reverend' I.P

That man's publicly stated views make even the most rabid Ayatollah seem like a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment!

It's all very well to

People need to grow the **** *** and understand that it is not Muslim's who are against free society, it is Islam.

Islam is not the problem.

The problem is that certain extremist and terrorist groups use a perverted form of Islam as an excuse for their atrocities.

This line of argument often gets banded about so let's take a little look at it....

Perverted: Hmmm. I don't see on what basis you can say that a group such as the Taliban follow a perverted form of Islam in the same way that it cannot be said that Creationists follow a perverted form of Christianity. They are both, as it were, being true to their holy texts.

Extremist: Hmmm again. In what way? Because their numbers are small? Imagine two chefs.. One follows the recipe and method for cooking a roast chicken as per his cook book while the other chef boils it for 20 minutes, deep fries it for 20 minutes then spit roasts it for an hour. Which one of these two chefs would be considered the extreme or radicle chef?

It's all very well to say... "That man's publicly stated views make even the most rabid Ayatollah seem like a beacon of tolerance and enlightenment!" ... whilst refusing to address issues that make your own position less than tenuous.

It is because it is just doesn't cut the mustard for some, sorry.

Headboard or wall, it ain't rocket science........ once you start with a knife, someone resorts to a gun, then before you know it Fat Man and Little Boy are exploding above your head and then there is no point in listening, because it is an eye for an eye and before you know it, everybody is blind.

People need to grow the **** *** and understand that it is not Muslim's who are against free society, it is Islam.

Islam is not the problem.

The problem is that certain extremist and terrorist groups use a perverted form of Islam as an excuse for their atrocities.

This line of argument often gets banded about so let's take a little look at it....

Perverted: Hmmm. I don't see on what basis you can say that a group such as the Taliban follow a perverted form of Islam in the same way that it cannot be said that Creationists follow a perverted form of Christianity. They are both, as it were, being true to their holy texts.

Extremist: Hmmm again. In what way? Because their numbers are small? Imagine two chefs.. One follows the recipe and method for cooking a roast chicken as per his cook book while the other chef boils it for 20 minutes, deep fries it for 20 minutes then spit roasts it for an hour. Which one of these two chefs would be considered the extreme or radicle chef?

Indeed you are quite correct, perversion is subjective, especially when you don't have a head honcho such as the Pope to rule on theological issues. The UK and US position seem to be one step further away. They argue that Islamist extremism is completely separate from Islam, no doubt to avoid the inevitable walk down clash of civilizations road if they said otherwise. They do at least admit the extremists follow an ideology - In other words it is not random violence of the insane, but a set menu of belief and behaviour with a common 'misunderstanding' of scripture.

Let it be remembered the two murderers were born Christian, their actions are not the fault of Muslims, save the ones who 'misunderstood' Islam and passed on this misunderstanding. If I were a so called moderate Muslim I would be furious over this and do everything in my power to stop future misunderstandings.

As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, most Muslims are furious about terrorist acts and other atrocities being carried out in the name of their religion.

As has repeatedly been pointed out to you, many Muslims leaders, scholars and ordinary 'Muslims in the street' have spoken out against such acts.

But your mind is closed by your hate; like all the prejudiced you refuse to listen to anything which shows your prejudice to be the lie that it is.

Any one who uses their religion to excuse murder or any violence is, in my view at least, perverting that religion.

You may disagree and point to texts in the Koran; I could point to just as many in the Bible. Remember both books were written a long time ago in different times.

Your chicken analogy makes no sense.

Extremist doesn't mean different or in the minority, it means one who advocates or supports extreme methods; especially those involving violence.

Extremist doesn't mean different or in the minority, it means one who advocates or supports extreme methods; especially those involving violence.

What is the frame of reference for 'extreme methods'?

Do you really need an English lesson?

Extreme: far beyond the normal and/or reasonable behaviour, very severe, very drastic, etc. In politics, non representative of mainstream views or the views of those who the extremist claims to represent.

As an example, the views of both Anjem Choudary and David Horowitz are extreme and non representative of the people they claim to represent.

Only a deluded few take either of them seriously, but; empty vessels make the most noise.

If you don't understand any of the words used in this, or any other post, I suggest that you buy a dictionary; 'cos here ends the free English lesson.

Do you really need an English lesson?

Extreme: far beyond the normal and/or reasonable behaviour, very severe, very drastic, etc. In politics, non representative of mainstream views or the views of those who the extremist claims to represent.

As an example, the views of both Anjem Choudary and David Horowitz are extreme and non representative of the people they claim to represent.

Only a deluded few take either of them seriously, but; empty vessels make the most noise.

If you don't understand any of the words used in this, or any other post, I suggest that you buy a dictionary; 'cos here ends the free English lesson.

You mean 'normal' in the sense of British behavioral norms? Of course whenever anyone comes to the UK from overseas they pass through a magical filter at immigration which automatically stops extreme views or behaviour passing through as well as filtering out any 'perverted' understanding of scripture. Obviously border control for other nations have similar magical filters removing what's extreme or unreasonable there, the Saudi one filtering out Jinns and crucifixes.

I think that is what was meant by frame of reference.

Incidentally would you consider the Hamas charter extreme?

P.S Finding equivalence between Choudary and Horowitz; You should really not wear your clown costume in public.

.

Extreme: far beyond the normal and/or reasonable behaviour, very severe, very drastic, etc. In politics, non representative of mainstream views or the views of those who the extremist claims to represent.

So not as you claimed earlier....

Extremist doesn't mean different or in the minority, it means one who advocates or supports extreme methods; especially those involving violence.

I'm attempting to pin you down here to cut through the nebulous nature of some of your statements. It is nothing short of ludicrous to consider a group such as the Taliban 'extremists' since they are doing exactly what it says on the tin, in relation to other Muslims who also use the same tin. The chicken example highlight's this but you don't understand for some reason. It's not exactly new, it has been around in various guises for at least 25 years and is regarded as a perfectly logical bit of reasoning.

The fella or lass who takes ah la carte the supposed word of holy texts is the extremist.

You mean 'normal' in the sense of British behavioral norms? Of course whenever anyone comes to the UK from overseas they pass through a magical filter at immigration which automatically stops extreme views or behaviour passing through as well as filtering out any 'perverted' understanding of scripture. Obviously border control for other nations have similar magical filters removing what's extreme or unreasonable there, the Saudi one filtering out Jinns and crucifixes.

I think that is what was meant by frame of reference.

I'm asking for an objective frame of reference, not a subjective one. I care about what can be shown to be true and not about what cannot be shown to be true except in a subjective sense.

Notmyself,

Being in the minority or being different is not the same as being extreme in the sense we are talking about; Brits living in Thailand are both a minority and different to the general population, but they are not extreme (well, most of them aren't).

I fail to see why you think my two statements are contradictory; unless you either have a very poor understanding of English or, more likely I think, you are deliberately failing to comprehend.

Steely Dan,

In this regard I mean normal as generally acknowledged by civilised people everywhere; regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, whatever.

That your only response to my remarks concerning Choudray and Horowitz is a childish insult shows that you have been totally brainwashed by the editor of your favourite source. Those who read the outpourings of both with an open mind can see the similarities; a refusal to accept the freedom of others to hold a different opinion being the obvious one.

As the Hamas charter's main aim is to obliterate Israel by force, then yes.

As I would any organisation or government whose aim is to impose it's will or control on other's by force and/or would deny other's their democratic rights, including the right to practice the religion of their choice.

Do you consider the Jewish Defence League to be as extreme as Hamas? I do.

Being in the minority or being different is not the same as being extreme in the sense we are talking about

We? Every time I try to grasp what you are saying it goes back into the ether from whence it came.

It's all very well you banging on about I need to buy a dictionary so let us go there....

I have a card. On one side it says 'what is written on the other side of this card is false' On the other side it says 'what is written on the other side of this card is false'.

Is your fetish with dictionaries going to explain the meaning?

In all honesty I would have to say that your command of English is of a very high level but your command of English in a logical sense sucks donkey dicks.

If I try and dumb this down further I will get a warning/ suspension for talking to a fellow member as though they were a child. In my defence I would argue that I have, over time, simplified a single 'logic 101' point.

Ultimately, a group such as the Taliban cannot be called extremists without resorting to logical fallacies or subjective reasoning. 2+2 will equal 4 regardless of your or I opinion on it.

You mean 'normal' in the sense of British behavioral norms? Of course whenever anyone comes to the UK from overseas they pass through a magical filter at immigration which automatically stops extreme views or behaviour passing through as well as filtering out any 'perverted' understanding of scripture. Obviously border control for other nations have similar magical filters removing what's extreme or unreasonable there, the Saudi one filtering out Jinns and crucifixes.

I think that is what was meant by frame of reference.

I'm asking for an objective frame of reference, not a subjective one. I care about what can be shown to be true and not about what cannot be shown to be true except in a subjective sense.

I know what you were driving at, but people live in the subjective, I would observe the objective is far more easily viewed from a place outside the subjective 'reality' of a given place. If you accept my opinion that for the most part people see things subjectively then you can see how what is an extreme, or perverted form of Islam is in the eye of the beholder. Sunnis may see Shia Islam as a perversion and vice versa.

Would you consider the Mayans to be a civilization? They built great cities in what was jungle due to their knowledge of how to improve the nutrient poor jungle soil, however they did practice human sacrifice.

Steely Dan,

In this regard I mean normal as generally acknowledged by civilised people everywhere; regardless of their nationality, ethnicity, religion, sexual preference, whatever.

That your only response to my remarks concerning Choudray and Horowitz is a childish insult shows that you have been totally brainwashed by the editor of your favourite source. Those who read the outpourings of both with an open mind can see the similarities; a refusal to accept the freedom of others to hold a different opinion being the obvious one.

As the Hamas charter's main aim is to obliterate Israel by force, then yes.

As I would any organisation or government whose aim is to impose it's will or control on other's by force and/or would deny other's their democratic rights, including the right to practice the religion of their choice.

Do you consider the Jewish Defence League to be as extreme as Hamas? I do.

Starting at the end, the Jewish defense league have both used and excused violence against those who I would not consider military targets in the 70's and 80's, so I would agree they were a terrorist organization, I have found precious little about them since then so could not comment on the current situation. I have not found any reference to them advocating genocide, so I would not say they are quite as extreme as Hamas, I stand to be corrected if such evidence exists.

With regards to Hamas, their charter advocating the elimination of Israel and killing of Jews contains more references to the Quran than there are nuts in squirrel s**t, I presume this would be an example of what you referred to as a perversion of Islam.

Now we come full circle to the East London Mosque, they of conciliatory statements about gays which Peter Tatchell applauded in 2011, followed by four homophobic speeches in one month of 2013. Said Mosque also has a certain Junaid Ahmed as it's deputy chair an a trustee. Ahmed is also a member of the Islamist group the IFE and is an ardent supporter of Hamas - their attitude to homosexuals needs no further elaboration.

http://hurryupharry.org/2011/05/31/neil-jameson-the-east-london-mosque-and-the-ife/

So you see, when citing Muslim condemnation of Choudary from the East London Mosque you picked an unfortunate candidate as an example of moderation.

I'm sure there are indeed many moderate Muslims and I honestly have no problem with them whatsoever, though I doubt I would ever convince you of that. By moderate I would mean all those who have no religious belief and are Muslim by birth, or those with religious belief, but a belief that is consistent with the law of the land and the universal declaration of human rights.

Finally, sorry, I will try to re frame from name calling, but seriously aside from Loonwatch and the Southern Poverty Law center who considers David Horowitz to be on a par with Anjem Choudary. I need not list Choudary's wishes for a radical Islamic future for the UK, or his various inflammatory acts save to mention his comment that Lee Rigby will burn in hellfire. Be my guest point to examples of David Horrowitz advocating anything as extreme as that. I would add that both our positions on this matter are no doubt subjective and easier for others to judge objectively.

http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/about

The David Horowitz Freedom Center combats the efforts of the radical left and its Islamist allies to destroy American values and disarm this country as it attempts to defend itself in a time of terror. The leftist offensive is most obvious on our nation’s campuses, where the Freedom Center protects students from indoctrination and intimidation and works to give conservative students a place in the marketplace of ideas from which they are otherwise excluded. Combining forceful analysis and bold activism, the Freedom Center provides strong insight into today’s most pressing issue on its family of websites and in the activist campaigns it wages on campus, in the news media, and in national politics throughout the year.

I think UK campuses are also in need of a similar organization.

A 'Freedom' Centre which campaigns against freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

'Nuff said.

The East London Mosque, or the speakers it allows to use it's hall, may have many views with which I disagree. But that does not mean their condemnation of and disassociation with Choudray and the murderers of Lee Rigby is worthless; if anything it adds weight to same.

The JDL are, unfortunately, still around and still advocating murder; not just in the US, where they were formed, but other countries, too; including the UK.

Notmyself, your silly games are too tiresome to deal with.

As is your ignorance and prejudice, Steely Dan. The last word is there for either of you to have; if you so wish.

OK, girls, you can stop all the hair-pulling now and go home to Mummy.

School starts back tomorrow, so prepare your homework and write that essay on 'What I did in the Holidays'.

Maybe, but I for one would rather risk that than have the government and law enforcement agencies ignore the rights of the accused.

Apart from the moral implications, as I've already said we tried that in the 1970's. Result: massive propaganda coup for the Provos.

I am afraid the use of Diplock courts are still alive and kicking in the UK, that is, trial by jury is suspended.

And a happy new year to Munster folk....

Diplock Courts are an unfortunate reminder that the legacy of the "Troubles" remains in that intimidation by paramilitaries on both sides of the divide remains an issue.

Of course the Republic has a perfect legal system and all judicial appointments are purely on merit without any political consideration....

DC's are not the sole jurisdiction of Irish judicial expedience

Interesting what might have happened if the gun-running, GUBU, Minister of "Justice" 1961-66 had appeared before a non politically appointed DC...Dunne and dusted probably

OK guy's, there comes a time when lightly popping your partners head against a headboard, is infinitely better than banging your head against a brickwall ( paraphrased from Rachael 'Friends ). Or in this case, quietly moving on..............

7by7

I liked your thread simply because you didn't call him 'Reverend' I.P

Ian Paisley....there's a reason to let Ulster "Loyalists" stew in the problem of their own making. Luckily most residents of N.Ireland are a world apart from such low-life on either side of the divide.

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

They should allow a second trail , as if he is found guilty for a second time , which I am pretty sure he will be , it will be without doubt he is guilty ( plus he was recorded Killing the solider ) and re instate the death penalty for this vile man !

Sent from my iPhone 6

using ThaiVisa app

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

Well naturally, whilst incarcerated he is adopting the only avenue of Jihad left open to him, namely tying up the resources of the infidel in any way possible. The Fort Hood Workplace violencist Nidal Hasan is doing just that by submitting an endless stream of complaints. A bullet rolled in pig fat would put an end to it in both cases.

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

Well naturally, whilst incarcerated he is adopting the only avenue of Jihad left open to him, namely tying up the resources of the infidel in any way possible. The Fort Hood Workplace violencist Nidal Hasan is doing just that by submitting an endless stream of complaints. A bullet rolled in pig fat would put an end to it in both cases.

And I'll bet that when the appeal has been rejected, then the appeal to the Supreme Court upholds the sentence, the ECHR will interfere and say that we are infringing on his human rights.

We should uphold his human rights - feed him three times a day - bacon for breakfast, pork chops for lunch, pork loin for evening meal, all served with a Waitrose wine. No one can say that that ain't healthy. And a shower every day.

Who here has been to Headchopper Square in Old Jeddah? On a Friday after midday prayers. Now that's how to practice human rights.

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

Well naturally, whilst incarcerated he is adopting the only avenue of Jihad left open to him, namely tying up the resources of the infidel in any way possible. The Fort Hood Workplace violencist Nidal Hasan is doing just that by submitting an endless stream of complaints. A bullet rolled in pig fat would put an end to it in both cases.

Adebolajo, like any person found guilty in a British court, has the right to appeal. Whether or not this bid is accepted is up to the judge who studies the merit of the appeal. Even scum like Adebolajo are entitled to the full extent of the law. That's what separates a nation, where the rule of law actually operates for all, from nations where it is barely visible such as LOS.

"A criminal appeal takes between six weeks and three months to come to hearing - but there is no guarantee that Adebolajo will get one.

His team will have to file papers to the court setting out all the reasons why the conviction is unsafe which will have to relate to some part of the trial being unfair.

It could be to do with the evidence or a particular ruling made by the judge that affected the way the trial was conducted. Once those papers are lodged, they will be considered behind the scenes by a single judge who will be either grant or refuse permission." (Dominic Casciani, 30 Jan 2014)

Hasan has been found guilty on 13 charges of murder and 32 cases of attempted murder. He is currently on death row in Fort Leavenworth awaiting his lethal injection. At least the US military have gone through the full mechanics of the legal process to get to this stage. Somewhat different from the 18 US troops executed in HMP Shepton Mallet during WW2. In a an army 90% white, 10 were black and 2 Hispanic, and 6 were executed for rape. Some of the trials were brief and at best sketchy with the evidence. But then again there was a war on and things in the Deep South at the time were little different.

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

Well naturally, whilst incarcerated he is adopting the only avenue of Jihad left open to him, namely tying up the resources of the infidel in any way possible. The Fort Hood Workplace violencist Nidal Hasan is doing just that by submitting an endless stream of complaints. A bullet rolled in pig fat would put an end to it in both cases.

And I'll bet that when the appeal has been rejected, then the appeal to the Supreme Court upholds the sentence, the ECHR will interfere and say that we are infringing on his human rights.

We should uphold his human rights - feed him three times a day - bacon for breakfast, pork chops for lunch, pork loin for evening meal, all served with a Waitrose wine. No one can say that that ain't healthy. And a shower every day.

Who here has been to Headchopper Square in Old Jeddah? On a Friday after midday prayers. Now that's how to practice human rights.

Teenage style response....

Michael Adebolajo has launched an appeal against his conviction.

Well naturally, whilst incarcerated he is adopting the only avenue of Jihad left open to him, namely tying up the resources of the infidel in any way possible. The Fort Hood Workplace violencist Nidal Hasan is doing just that by submitting an endless stream of complaints. A bullet rolled in pig fat would put an end to it in both cases.

And I'll bet that when the appeal has been rejected, then the appeal to the Supreme Court upholds the sentence, the ECHR will interfere and say that we are infringing on his human rights.

We should uphold his human rights - feed him three times a day - bacon for breakfast, pork chops for lunch, pork loin for evening meal, all served with a Waitrose wine. No one can say that that ain't healthy. And a shower every day.

Who here has been to Headchopper Square in Old Jeddah? On a Friday after midday prayers. Now that's how to practice human rights.

So you want to drag the UK back into the Middle Ages?