Alan Henning 'killed by Islamic State'

[H1w4yR1da]

The EDL are a violent, fascist organisation whose thuggish members repeatedly turn to violence.

Then why is it that the pro-Islamist demonstrators like those from the UAF and Hate Not Hope make up the vast majority of arrests at these demos?

[7by7]

There is no proof at all that the EDL were involved in the first clip and even if they were how does it make them 'fascists' a couple of stones thrown at a window?

Running from an EDL demo after breaking through police lines and they are nothing to do with the EDL?

Breaking windows not fascist?

Not always, but the only business attacked was a Muslim one; make an excuse for that.

Ever heard of Kristallnacht?

[7by7]

The EDL are a violent, fascist organisation whose thuggish members repeatedly turn to violence.

Then why is it that the pro-Islamist demonstrators like those from the UAF and Hate Not Hope make up the vast majority of arrests at these demos?

You have evidence of this?

[H1w4yR1da]

The EDL are a violent, fascist organisation whose thuggish members repeatedly turn to violence.

Then why is it that the pro-Islamist demonstrators like those from the UAF and Hate Not Hope make up the vast majority of arrests at these demos?

You have evidence of this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1259409/Police-attack-right-wing-group-anti-fascists-clash-violent-street-protests.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/10122496/Anti-fascists-fuel-the-fire-of-hate.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Unite_Against_Fascism

http://www.qaster.com/q/376578023744864256/So+Ten+times+more+uaf+supporters+arrested+than+the+EDL+yesterday+Whos+the+troublemakers

http://www.weareplanc.org/report-from-the-anti-edl-demonstration-in-tower-hamlets-7-9-13#.VDe758mkfqA

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League

And many more to be found with a simple search.

[jacky54]

so anyone damaging a window is a fascist now then, what a laugh. In that case better a fascist than a beheading islamist, suicide bomber or flying a plane into the WTC. Islam is the most fascist doctrine in the world today, not a few blokes in Leicester demonstrating against it.

Edited October 10, 2014 by jacky54

[simple1]

so anyone damaging a window is a fascist now then, what a laugh. In that case better a fascist than a beheading islamist, suicide bomber or flying a plane into the WTC. Islam is the most fascist doctrine in the world today, not a few blokes in Leicester demonstrating against it.

It is not anyone, but a known right wing organisation. You really believe that if, god forbid, EDL, were able to gain power they would stop at condemning Islam? Fascist political parties use violence & oppression against anyone who oppose their ideology and power base.

I don’t know if 7x7 is correct in claiming EDL have had placards calling for violence against Muslims. However, EDL are a right wing organisation who deliberately endeavour to cause conflict within UK society and deserve rejection & condemnation.

From an interview with an ex EDL leader who resigned last year...

Speaking on the BBC's 5 Live radio later, he said he was tired of being associated with "morons" who advocate violence against Muslims.

“When some moron lifts up his top and has got a picture of a mosque saying boom and it's all over the national newspapers.”

“I acknowledge the dangers of far right extremism and the ongoing need to counter Islamist ideology not with violence but with better, democratic ideas.”

Above taken from an article headed “The two leaders of the English Defence League are to end their involvement with the far right group after accepting it has been taken over by neo-Nazis.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/435209/EDL-leader-Tommy-Robinson-QUITS-and-brands-violent-anti-Muslim-supporters-morons

EDL members have been convicted for assault against police and other acts of violence e.g.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/birmingham-edl-trial-police-came-7911866

Edited October 10, 2014 by simple1

[jacky54]

so anyone damaging a window is a fascist now then, what a laugh. In that case better a fascist than a beheading islamist, suicide bomber or flying a plane into the WTC. Islam is the most fascist doctrine in the world today, not a few blokes in Leicester demonstrating against it.

It is not anyone, but a known right wing organisation. You really believe that if, god forbid, EDL, were able to gain power they would stop at condemning Islam? Fascist political parties use violence & oppression against anyone who oppose their ideology and power base.

I

Just because EDL are anti Islam does not make them 'right wing' or fascists that's the speel of the socialist workers party. Of course neither are they racist as they have quite a few black and Indian members, but that does not stop them being vilified. Do you actually know what they believe in at all?

[7by7]

H1w4yR1da, your links in general seem to show that police action against UAF is different to that against the EDL.

With the UAF they subject them to mass arrests, while with the EDL they kettle them and then allow them to disperse.

One has to wonder why.

However, I will concede that UAF are guilty at times of violence; but that does not excuse the violence perpetrated by the EDL.

Speaking of whom; from Wikipedia

As noted above, the EDL's official line is that it opposes Islamic extremism. However, there are factors which arguably make it more accurate to describe the organisation as simply anti-Islamic.

Leader Stephen Lennon has stated that "We are against the building of all mosques because they preach homophobia and anti-Semitism which we should not tolerate in this country."[4]

EDL activists have chanted "We hate Muslims" during a London protest[5] and "I hate Pakis more than you".[6] A demo in Luton ended with EDL supporters attacking Asian-owned businesses.[7]

At the official EDL forum general consensus appears to be that Islam in general is the problem, not just extremists. This leads to such charming sights as someone cheering on the deaths of Muslims in the Pakistani floods in 2010.[8]

I notice that you have not provided any links to reports of violence by Hope not Hate.

Although you called them Hate not Hope! A different organisation altogether!

[simple1]

so anyone damaging a window is a fascist now then, what a laugh. In that case better a fascist than a beheading islamist, suicide bomber or flying a plane into the WTC. Islam is the most fascist doctrine in the world today, not a few blokes in Leicester demonstrating against it.

It is not anyone, but a known right wing organisation. You really believe that if, god forbid, EDL, were able to gain power they would stop at condemning Islam? Fascist political parties use violence & oppression against anyone who oppose their ideology and power base.

I

Just because EDL are anti Islam does not make them 'right wing' or fascists that's the speel of the socialist workers party. Of course neither are they racist as they have quite a few black and Indian members, but that does not stop them being vilified. Do you actually know what they believe in at all?

I'll go with the ex leadership who described EDL as having neo Nazi tendancies & are far right, not you.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts with personal comments directed at other members have been deleted along with replies.

Please stay on topic.

[JockPieandBeans]

Has Boris lost his marbles or does he speak the truth ?

The security services are monitoring “thousands” of terrorist suspects in London, Boris Johnson has disclosed, suggesting the threat from Islamist extremists may be far greater than has previously been admitted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11154733/Security-services-monitoring-thousands-of-terrorism-suspects-in-London-says-Boris-Johnson.html

Anyone who knows anything about terrorism will tell you that for every suspect that has been identified, there are at least 2 that have not been identified. That equates to a large amount of " suspected terrorists " cutting about London.

Specific Intelligence ?

Police across the UK have been put on an unprecedented alert amid fears Islamist terrorists may be planning to kill an officer on the street.

Officers and civilian staff have been told to remain extra vigilant to “any possible dangers” fuelling fears intelligence has suggested a plan to attack them.

The warning comes four days after five young terror suspects were arrested in London as part of an investigation in to an alleged Isil-linked terror plot. Detectives have also recovered a gun.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/11155009/Police-on-alert-amid-fears-Isil-inspired-terrorists-may-target-them.html

Never mind, according to some, its all good in the hood.

[jacky54]

when has Islam ever meant peace, when has it ever caused peace, when will it ever?

[JockPieandBeans]

7x7

Having heard of the EDL, but not actually knowing anything about them, research was needed.

Having carried out some research, I can state that I do not agree with anything that they stand for. This was a fascinating discovery for me. I actually thought that the EDL had been around long before 2009.

This quote is from wikipedia, that I will take at face value.

The EDL originated from a group known as the "United Peoples of Luton" (UPL). The UPL had been formed in response to a demonstration organized by the extremist Islamic organization, Al-Muhajiroun, against the war in Afghanistan, held in March 2009 as the Royal Anglian Regiment marched through the town after a tour of duty in the Helmand province campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League

Luton ? You beginning to see a pattern here ?

Why were they formed ?

Who was demonstrating against " British Troops " ?

Unfortunately, if the British authorities allow such demonstrations against British Troops, then groups such as EDL will spring up.

[Jingthing]

when has Islam ever meant peace, when has it ever caused peace, when will it ever?

Well, here is a more optimistic historical look at that important question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

It suggests there is hope for the future within Islam based on the history of Islam. I certainly hope so!

That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach — reform coupled with respect — will work with Islam over time.

[jacky54]

well I don't see where the hope is and certainly none in the need to reform Islam.1400 hundred years and over 500 battles against the infidel and still ongoing. Maybe a good start would be to throw out all the abrogated suras, ah but then the problem is we would only be left with the more violent ones so that would be no help. Islam has had 1400 hundred years to reform and try to make itself into the peaceful and tolerant religion it pretends to be, if it is going to where is the evidence?

[Jingthing]

I can't predict the future but the world has so many Muslims and most are not ever going to convert or become atheists, so they are not going away. People who say just nuke them are of course blind haters. So while I don't see any kind of meaningful solution SOON to problems with so many Muslims TODAY I don't see anything wrong with discussing how potential future solutions could be found by looking both within the potential peaceful elements of Islam and also the history of Islam which as Zakaria argues shows a culture not always behind, but sometimes AHEAD in civilizing influences. What other choice really? That doesn't preclude dealing with terrorists with force ... that's necessary, but does it really have to be endless?

Edited October 11, 2014 by Jingthing

[boomerangutang]

I was kinda hoping the popularity of the internet would help lessen tensions between people. Particularly with Youtube and its endless # of videos, it's as clear as ever that people are generally the same, regardless of country, color, religion, affliction, age, gender, sexual preference, whatever. In most applications, I think the internet has helped heal much of the problems of 'otherness' that our species as been saddled with since the bowl was invented. Yet, my little theory seems to have no bearing on the wicked hot-heads of IS.

[7by7]

<snip>

Unfortunately, if the British authorities allow such demonstrations against British Troops, then groups such as EDL will spring up.

I cannot speak for the group you mention; but many people in such anti war demonstrations were not Muslim at all, let alone radical Islamists.

These people made it clear it was government policy they were against; not the troops themselves.

One of the rights we have in a free society is the right to demonstrate and to protest; a right which also applies to those with whom we disagree.

You seem, from what you say, to want some form of restriction to the rights and freedoms enjoyed in the UK so that only those with whom you agree can demonstrate, protest or express their views in other ways; I don't.

But maybe I have misunderstood your view; if so perhaps you can clarify it.

This does not mean I believe that anyone can say anything anywhere; of course I don't. Demonstrations etc. do need to remain within the law; i.e. be non violent, not incite people to violence or hate etc.

Unfortunately, demonstrations by radical Islamists, the EDL and others do not always stay within the law. Sometimes this is because the organisers had no intention of so doing, often it is because of infiltration by outsiders whose sole purpose is to cause trouble.

This has been the case for many years; three examples from recent history which had nothing to do with Islamists nor the EDL; Grosvenor Square, Orgreave, the poll tax riots.

Edited October 11, 2014 by 7by7

[transam]

<snip>

Unfortunately, if the British authorities allow such demonstrations against British Troops, then groups such as EDL will spring up.

I cannot speak for the group you mention; but many people in such anti war demonstrations were not Muslim at all, let alone radical Islamists.

These people made it clear it was government policy they were against; not the troops themselves.

One of the rights we have in a free society is the right to demonstrate and to protest; a right which also applies to those with whom we disagree.

You seem, from what you say, to want some form of restriction to the rights and freedoms enjoyed in the UK so that only those with whom you agree can demonstrate, protest or express their views in other ways; I don't.

But maybe I have misunderstood your view; if so perhaps you can clarify it.

This does not mean I believe that anyone can say anything anywhere; of course I don't. Demonstrations etc. do need to remain within the law; i.e. be non violent, not incite people to violence or hate etc.

Unfortunately, demonstrations by radical Islamists, the EDL and others do not always stay within the law. Sometimes this is because the organisers had no intention of so doing, often it is because of infiltration by outsiders whose sole purpose is to cause trouble.

This has been the case for many years; three examples from recent history which had nothing to do with Islamists nor the EDL; Grosvenor Square, Orgreave, the poll tax riots.

, more excuses......................

[7by7]

when has Islam ever meant peace, when has it ever caused peace, when will it ever?

Well, here is a more optimistic historical look at that important question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

It suggests there is hope for the future within Islam based on the history of Islam. I certainly hope so!

That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach reform coupled with respect will work with Islam over time.

As the article says, millions of Muslims live all over the world in peace. It is the Middle east, parts of S.E. Asia and parts of North Africa which are the major problem areas. This strongly suggests it is politics which really motivates the terrorists, and they use their religion as an excuse for their actions and to fool the gullible into supporting or joining them.

And of course fooling the gullible non Muslims into blaming all Muslims, thus increasing the tensions and recruiting even more to the Jihadists ranks!

'Twas ever thus, for all religions.

As shown before in this and other topics, Muslim leaders and Imams all over the world are denouncing radical groups such as IS as un Islamic; are preaching against them; are trying to prevent young Muslims from joining such groups.

Unfortunately, as has been seen by the posts from certain members in this and similar topics, some people are filled with so much hate that they cannot accept that the majority of Muslims condemn the extremists, that the majority of Muslims want to live in peace with others. (Edit; the above post, which appeared while I was typing this, proves this point perfectly.)

So they will dismiss the article you have linked to as yet more Islamist lies designed to fool us all while in the background all Muslims plot to establish the world wide caliphate.

Of course, such paranoid ramblings on a forum such as this have an infinitesimal effect upon the wider world; but when public figures, such as Maher, repeatedly espouse them, then it will.

Hate breeds hate.

I have quoted Adnan Sarwar's essay before; but it is worth repeating this line

I swore to defend this country even after the lads at school had kicked my head around in a backstreet shouting Paki.

A remarkable young man; how many others after being subject to such treatment would join the army to defend this country? For how many others has such treatment turned them into radicals?

Muslims and non Muslims need to work together to defeat the scourge of Jihadism. Blaming Islam itself and therefore all Muslims will not help defeat this cancer; it will only help it spread.

Edited October 11, 2014 by 7by7

[arjunadawn]

when has Islam ever meant peace, when has it ever caused peace, when will it ever?

Well, here is a more optimistic historical look at that important question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

It suggests there is hope for the future within Islam based on the history of Islam. I certainly hope so!

That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach — reform coupled with respect — will work with Islam over time.

I am sorry if this was addressed already, and I missed it: Islam does not mean "Peace;" it never did. This mistake is based on the suspected connection between Islam and Salam, as root words. However, Islam derives from a very different root word, rather than the root word for the common exchange of peace in the world today- salamat, salam, etc.

Islam actually means "submission," and any Arabic speaker is keenly aware of this. The mistake is hardly offensive, and so it has been overlooked. However, if not muslim, it is overlooked at one's own peril. Submission in Islam is not a bad thing (for muslims) and not entirely earthly either; it imparts the submission that is made to Allah, and secondarily of course, His Shar' ia on earth, empowered by its wise rulers and imams. Submission is subjugation and any arguments to the contrary are a fool's errand. This is not a matter of faith, rather fact.

Also know it does not requires one "submit" to Islam. Islam is binding on you irrespective of your will to be subject to Allah. Shar'ia is most definitely created for the Muslim and Non-Mulsim equally, your roles in this grand politicomilitary socioreligious drama are specifically spelled out: You are subject, dhimmi, or dead. This is the foundation upon which Alan's death derives its legitimacy, #3, DEAD!

Edited October 11, 2014 by arjunadawn

[7by7]

Yet again, my points about hatred and ignorance are proven for me.

Thank you.

FYI; the only people who think Alan Henning's murder, and those of the other victims, have any legitimacy are the murderers themselves.

These murders have been roundly condemned by Muslim leaders, imams etc. worldwide.

Edited October 11, 2014 by 7by7

[transam]

Well, here is a more optimistic historical look at that important question:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-islam-has-a-problem-right-now-but-heres-why-bill-maher-is-wrong/2014/10/09/b6302a14-4fe6-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

It suggests there is hope for the future within Islam based on the history of Islam. I certainly hope so!

That is not how Christianity moved from its centuries-long embrace of violence, crusades, inquisitions, witch-burning and intolerance to its modern state. On the contrary, intellectuals and theologians celebrated the elements of the religion that were tolerant, liberal and modern, and emphasized them, while giving devout Christians reasons to take pride in their faith. A similar approach reform coupled with respect will work with Islam over time.

As the article says, millions of Muslims live all over the world in peace. It is the Middle east, parts of S.E. Asia and parts of North Africa which are the major problem areas. This strongly suggests it is politics which really motivates the terrorists, and they use their religion as an excuse for their actions and to fool the gullible into supporting or joining them.

And of course fooling the gullible non Muslims into blaming all Muslims, thus increasing the tensions and recruiting even more to the Jihadists ranks!

'Twas ever thus, for all religions.

As shown before in this and other topics, Muslim leaders and Imams all over the world are denouncing radical groups such as IS as un Islamic; are preaching against them; are trying to prevent young Muslims from joining such groups.

Unfortunately, as has been seen by the posts from certain members in this and similar topics, some people are filled with so much hate that they cannot accept that the majority of Muslims condemn the extremists, that the majority of Muslims want to live in peace with others. (Edit; the above post, which appeared while I was typing this, proves this point perfectly.)

So they will dismiss the article you have linked to as yet more Islamist lies designed to fool us all while in the background all Muslims plot to establish the world wide caliphate.

Of course, such paranoid ramblings on a forum such as this have an infinitesimal effect upon the wider world; but when public figures, such as Maher, repeatedly espouse them, then it will.

Hate breeds hate.

I have quoted Adnan Sarwar's essay before; but it is worth repeating this line

I swore to defend this country even after the lads at school had kicked my head around in a backstreet shouting Paki.

A remarkable young man; how many others after being subject to such treatment would join the army to defend this country? For how many others has such treatment turned them into radicals?

Muslims and non Muslims need to work together to defeat the scourge of Jihadism. Blaming Islam itself and therefore all Muslims will not help defeat this cancer; it will only help it spread.

So tell me, is the world wide killing of innocent folk the work of Jihad Muslim folk or not......?

Edited October 11, 2014 by transam

[Credo]

I don't necessarily have any problem in submitting to the will of Allah, but I do have a problem with submitting to the will of some of his followers.

[arjunadawn]

Yet again, my points about hatred and ignorance are proven for me.

Thank you.

If this is a reference to the immediate proceeding post, mine, then this is curious, and revealing. I rarely slip into the space between hate and disdain. I know this as equally as do most of the other posters on TV; I just don't feel that inside me. I don't work from that mindset, and so what does that mean for your post? Really? Your post contributes nothing other than to suggest... declare a pejorative... that I hate? really. I hate no thing on earth.

I point out some facts regarding linguistics, the application of shar'ia, Alan's death in that context, and spiritual context in which the word Islam fundamentally applies, as slaves of Allah (a good thing for a believer, not a negative on this point- its all each choice). However, Islam is in fact much more than a collection of scriptures, practices, and a highly evolved eschatology. Islam is also a very highly developed legal and social and political system that is as much about ruling men as it is about serving their god. These are points that could pretty much be called "stipulated."

Things that could be stipulated are such as "the sun will rise tomorrow," "The moon is that round thing in the sky," and "rain falls down, not up." Things stipulated are devoid of emotional context, such as you have imparted. They are observable facts that when subject to observation, behave the same always. Hate? How revealing. I assure you the men that killed Alan probably did not hate him by the time they killed him. You seem to know little about the human condition and the sources of hate; look closer.

[7by7]

(embedded lengthy quotes removed for clarity and to comply with forum software)

So tell me, is the world wide killing of innocent folk the work of Jihad Muslim folk or not......?

Many innocent people are killed worldwide by many groups and individuals.

Many of these murderers, and in the context of this topic all of them, are Jihadist Muslims.

Despite the many accusations from some here to the contrary; I have never denied that. The opposite, in fact.

All Jihadists are, or claim to be, Muslim; but not all Muslims are Jihadists; most are not.

Only the ignorant and prejudiced can possibly believe otherwise.

[Ulysses G.]

Yet again, my points about hatred and ignorance are proven for me.

Ignorance? arjunadawn seems to know much more factual information about Islam than you do - or at least he is a lot more honest about what he does know.

[7by7]

Yet again, my points about hatred and ignorance are proven for me.

Thank you.

If this is a reference to the immediate proceeding post, mine, then this is curious, and revealing. ........

Your post appeared to be an obvious attempt to justify the hate and prejudice directed toward all Muslims by certain members here.

If it wasn't; what point were you trying to make?

[Ulysses G.]

All Jihadists are, or claim to be, Muslim; but not all Muslims are Jihadists; most are not.

Your usual Strawman. We are all very aware that not all Muslims are jihadists, but too many Muslims are and too many Muslims support their actions directly or indirectly and too many Muslims do not condemn what they are doing.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[7by7]

Why do you, UlyssesG, constantly ignore or, more often, dismiss as lies the many, many links and quotes provided by myself and other posters showing that the vast majority of Muslims are not jihadists, do not support jihadism and actually roundly condemn it?

Why do you say things like "I don't blame all Muslims, I blame Islam which all Muslims have to follow" (I am paraphrasing, so don't dismiss this yet again by claiming you never said it in those exact words!) and 'like' the posts where others say similar?

Why do you attack posters by calling them 'straw man' or 'apologist' or accuse them of 'making excuses' instead of actually attempting to deal with the points raised?

On the rare occasions when you do actually attempt to deal with something actually said, why do you quote out of context; as you have above, in an attempt to twist what was actually said?

Is it all due to your ignorance and prejudice, or is there another reason?

BTW, you've plenty of time to think of answers, I've more important things to do now; though you'll probably ignore the questions as you usually do with those you can't answer.

Edited October 11, 2014 by 7by7