NationStates Jolt Archive

DUBLIN, Ireland (CNN) -- At a recent debate over the battle for Islamic ideals in England, a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

"We are the Muslims," said Omar Brooks, an extremist also known as Abu Izzadeen. "We drink the blood of the enemy, and we can face them anywhere. That is Islam and that is jihad."

Anjem Choudary, the public face of Islamist extremism in Britain, added that Muslims have no choice but to take the fight to the West.

"What are Muslims supposed to do when they are being killed in the streets in Afghanistan and Baghdad and Palestine? Do they not have the same rights to defend themselves? In war, people die. People don't make love; they kill each other," he said. (Audio slide show: Preying on Britain's young Muslims)

But in the same debate, held on the prestigious grounds of Dublin's Trinity College in October, many people in the crowd objected.

"These people, ladies and gentleman, have a good look at them. They actually believe if you kill women and children, you will go to heaven," said one young Muslim who waved his finger at the radicals.

"This is not ideology. It's a mental illness." (Watch 'No chance in hell' Video)
'Foreign policy has a lot to do with it'

This war of words is part of a larger debate going on in Britain -- the war within the Muslim community for the hearts and minds of young people. The battle of ideas came to the fore again this week when the trial began for six men who are accused of an "extremist Muslim plot" to target London on July 21, 2005.

The Woolwich Crown Court was told the men plotted to carry out a series of "murderous suicide bombings" on London's public transport system, just 14 days after the carnage of the July 7 London bombings, which killed 52 commuters and four bombers.

While Islamic extremists are believed to be a tiny minority of Britain's 1.6 million Muslims, they have no problem having their criticism heard. They have disdain for democracy -- and, most of all, the Bush administration's war on terror policies.

A poll taken in June 2006 for the Times of London newspaper suggested that 13 percent of British Muslims believe the July 7 London bombers were martyrs.

"Foreign policy has a lot to do with it," said Hanif Qadir, a youth worker and a moderate voice for Islam in Walthamstow, one of London's biggest Muslim neighborhoods. "But it's the minority radical groups that use that to get to our young people."

In August, British police descended on Walthamstow, saying they had foiled a conspiracy to blow up a dozen U.S.-bound airliners with liquid explosives. That set off the biggest security alert since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Police arrested 24 people in connection with the alleged terror plot, although one man was released after it was determined he was an innocent bystander.

Britain's Scotland Yard and MI5 have also said they are aware of at least 30 terrorist cells and potential plots inside Britain.

'Blowing people up is quite cool'

Young Muslims are easy prey, Qadir told CNN, because they believe the British government crackdown has scapegoated them because of their religious beliefs. The youth also can empathize with those who castigate the Bush administration.

There are some who believe "blowing people up is quite cool," Qadir said.

Qadir asked them why that was justified.

"The answers that I got back is: When a bomb goes off in Baghdad or in Afghanistan and innocent women and children are killed over there, who cares for them? So if a bomb goes off in America or in London, what's wrong with that?" he said.

Qadir is trying to get mosque leaders, many still practicing the tribal traditions of Pakistan, to communicate with the younger generation. But he says it is an uphill battle when radicals like Choudary dominate the debate, getting their faces -- and their message -- out in the public.

"Our scholars ... are not coming out of their holes -- their mosques and their holes -- to engage with these people. They're frightened of that," Qadir said.

The message of extremism can also thrive among youth who see no way out of ethnic ghettos.

"They're into all kinds of vices -- street crime, gun crime, drugs, car theft, credit card fraud. But then now you've got another threat," Qadir said.

"The new threat is radicalism. It's a cause. Every young man wants a cause."

Activist calls for Islamic law

Choudary, whose group Al-Mahajiroun disbanded before the British government could outlaw it under its anti-terror laws, spoke to CNN and made clear he wants to see Islamic law for Britain.

"All of the world belongs to Allah, and we will live according to the Sharia wherever we are," said Choudary, a lawyer. "This is a fundamental belief of the Muslims." (Watch a call for Islamic law Video)

Asked if he believes in democracy, he said, "No, I don't at all."

"One day, the Sharia will be implemented in Britain. It's a matter of time."

Choudary cited the videotaped "will" of one of the London subway bombers, Mohammed Sidique Khan, who said, "Until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people, we will not stop this fight."

Choudary said he sides strongly with that statement -- "we have everything we need in those wills" -- and he cited passages from the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that he says justify jihad.

"I happen to be in an ideological and political war," Choudary said. "My brothers in al Qaeda and other Mujahedeen are involved in a military campaign."

While Choudary and other radicals continue to try to spread their beliefs, others say there is no justification for jihad in England. Imam Usama Hasan memorized the Quran by the time he was 11 and at 19, he briefly fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets.

"If you have the wrong intention, you can justify your criminal actions from any text -- whether it's the Quran or Bible or Shakespeare," Hasan said.

He said it makes him "furious" when radicals quote the Quran out of context to justify killing of innocents. It's a "very tiny" minority with such beliefs, he said, but "it only takes a handful, of course, to create devastation."

"Many people are terrified of Muslims. They are terrified of a brother walking down the road with his eastern dress and his hat and his beard, because they have seen these images associated with suicide bombers," he said.

"It is up to us to dispel that fear -- to smile at people to tell them that ... the message of Islam is not about bits of cloth. It is not about the beard or head scarf or the face veil or violence. It is about peace."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.overview/index.html

A video of interest:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5805c9bcdd

Sharia Law in Britain? As Catherine Tate says "What a fucking liberty! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmGmL6mDuIY)" :D

Just to avoid any confusion: I am not Islamophobic, I am not saying these individuals do not have a right to say this inane nonsense. I am not saying this is representative of all Muslims. I am, however, questioning where these idiots get off from. Does faith in Allah deprive them of a mind?

An interesting point made in the article (one I agree with) is that it only takes a small number of upstarts to cause greater problems later.

I think it makes a good point with the young ones being easy prey. You see how a lot of U.S. adolescents have a romanticized view of violence.

And what they said about a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan vs a bomb in London or New York...it's difficult to counter.

I mean we all know that the intention may be different, but that's not exactly a convincing argument when you're talking to someone who feels for and identifies with the "collateral damage".

To be honest, I think the only thing you can do is keep an eye out for radicals trying to inspire people to do violence, and do good police work to prevent those who want to hurt people from actually doing it.

What remains is the price of living in a free society.

Sharia Law in Britain? As Catherine Tate says "What a fucking liberty! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmGmL6mDuIY)" :D
That show is crap. Not as crap as Little Britain, but still crap.

As for Sharia law in Britain, there is no way that will happen in my lifetime (which I'll estimate to be to about 2070). There'll be colonies on Mars before that happens.

To be honest, I think the only thing you can do is keep an eye out for radicals trying to inspire people to do violence, and do good police work to prevent those who want to hurt people from actually doing it.

What remains is the price of living in a free society.
I agree. Moderate Muslims need to become more proactive though - the actions of these few idiots are going to harm them immeasurably over time.

That show is crap. Not as crap as Little Britain, but still crap.
We'll disagree. :)

As for Sharia law in Britain, there is no way that will happen in my lifetime (which I'll estimate to be to about 2070). There'll be colonies on Mars before that happens.
These extremists seem pretty confident it'll happen. Not that they could possibly know this. Still, I am curious as to why they are so adamant on establishing a theocracy in Britain.

Yeah. When your family is killed by foreigners for bullshit political reasons, it really doesn't matter all that much to you whether they say it was "accidental" or not.
Most of these kids in Britain don't have their families killed though.

And what they said about a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan vs a bomb in London or New York...it's difficult to counter.

I mean we all know that the intention may be different, but that's not exactly a convincing argument when you're talking to someone who feels for and identifies with the "collateral damage".


Yeah. When your family is killed by foreigners for bullshit political reasons, it really doesn't matter all that much to you whether they say it was "accidental" or not.

What a bunch of jerks. Sucks for reasonable, moderate Muslims who have to put up with being associated with these nutjobs.

Though, if I was in the latter group, I'd try to be very loud about how little I thought of the extremist headcases.

I thought this one was interesting too:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,460364,00.html
Angst-Ridden Germans Look for Answers -- And Find Them in the Koran

The number of Germans who have converted to Islam has increased fourfold within one year -- despite the negative perception of Islam among the general public.

What a bunch of jerks. Sucks for reasonable, moderate Muslims who have to put up with being associated with these nutjobs.

Though, if I was in the latter group, I'd try to be very loud about how little I thought of the extremist headcases.

Your post is an offense to Allah. A jihad on you.

Though, if I was in the latter group, I'd try to be very loud about how little I thought of the extremist headcases.
These are precisely the individuals that are the least likely to do so though, unfortunately. They like their peace and privacy.

These are precisely the individuals that are the least likely to do so though, unfortunately. They like their peace and privacy.

A jihad on you, as well, and on your favorite music group.

These are precisely the individuals that are the least likely to do so though, unfortunately. They like their peace and privacy.

Yeah, unfortunately, keeping quiet about it gets them grouped in with all the lunatics, though.

Extremism like this will always be around because our government is far too gutless. One one hand they like to talk about how they combat extremism, while on the other hand grovelling to fundamentalist front organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain. At the end of the day the extremists know that no matter what they do the government will carry on crawling, paying lip service to all this politically correct bollocks like multiculturalism, interfaith dialogue, blahblahblah. The extremists have no reason to feel fear. They know they won't be deported because they may face a little rough treatment back home. They know that the police's hands are tied so much that law enforcement will involve taking a few photographs of them.

We need leadership that's strong enough to take on these people head on - and none of that kind of leadership would come from any of the main three parties.

We need leadership that's strong enough to take on these people head on - and none of that kind of leadership would come from any of the main three parties.
*waves BNP flag*

Extremism like this will always be around because our government is far too gutless. One one hand they like to talk about how they combat extremism, while on the other hand grovelling to fundamentalist front organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain. At the end of the day the extremists know that no matter what they do the government will carry on crawling, paying lip service to all this politically correct bollocks like multiculturalism, interfaith dialogue, blahblahblah. The extremists have no reason to feel fear. They know they won't be deported because they may face a little rough treatment back home. They know that the police's hands are tied so much that law enforcement will involve taking a few photographs of them.

We need leadership that's strong enough to take on these people head on - and none of that kind of leadership would come from any of the main three parties.

Muslim Council of Britain is a fundementalist front? LOLOL oh boy...I've heard everything now! LOL

*waves BNP flag*
Now now, no need to jump to conclusions. I don't like those Nazis. But this country does need to use a bit more force when dealing with extremists. Even the French are more ruthless than us. They have no problems with deporting a terrorist back to a country where he may face a little discomfort. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5254016.stm) We need to just ruthlessly trample over these people, it's the only thing they understand.

Muslim Council of Britain is a fundementalist front? LOLOL oh boy...I've heard everything now! LOL
The MCB isn't the voice of moderation they make themselves out to be. A lot of the organisations they collaborate with are very fundamentalist. Hell, even their former leader Iqbal Sacarnie was on record supporting the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. But over here they give scum like that knighthoods.

The MCB isn't the voice of moderation they make themselves out to be. A lot of the organisations they collaborate with are very fundamentalist. Hell, even their former leader Iqbal Sacarnie was on record supporting the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. But over here they give scum like that knighthoods.

Um...only problem with that is the other real fundi/extremist groups hold Sir Iqbal Sacarnie and the MCB in utter contempt.

He also condemns homosexuality. As do a fair number of Anglicans.

Long live Englistan, cccupied Scotland and held Ireland. :p

Chicken..home..roost and all...

Long live Englistan, cccupied Scotland and held Ireland. :p

Chicken..home..roost and all...
I always find it pathetic when politicians and other member's of society's elite scratch their heads wondering why we have so many problems with islamic extremism. Perhaps the morons should look at the way we gave asylum to members of fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood from countries like Syria, Egypt, ect.

Also on topic:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C01%5C16%5Cstory_16-1-2007_pg7_40

Perhaps the morons should look at the way we gave asylum to members of fundamentalist groups like the Muslim Brotherhood from countries like Syria, Egypt, ect.

Not just asylum. For many years, UK was a safe haven for various jihadi groups with the UK govt turning a blind eye...essentially..."as long as you don't start anything here...we don't care what you do". After all UK was the patron of extremist sunni leadership in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Jinnah was guided by Churchill and the Al-Saud family was brought from obscurity and installed in the throne by imperial UK. Suited their foreign policy imperatives of that time....the jihadi dogs had their use...but alas now they are not willing to be leashed anymore..

"Undercover videos" by Channel 4. Take it FWIW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA&mode=related&search=

Now now, no need to jump to conclusions. I don't like those Nazis. But this country does need to use a bit more force when dealing with extremists. Even the French are more ruthless than us. They have no problems with deporting a terrorist back to a country where he may face a little discomfort. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5254016.stm) We need to just ruthlessly trample over these people, it's the only thing they understand.


Yeah, France's policy towards fundies is working perfectly. Mass riots, areas where police can't go, Ambulances being firebombed. I can see why you'd want to emulate them.

Yeah, France's policy towards fundies is working perfectly. Mass riots, areas where police can't go, Ambulances being firebombed. I can see why you'd want to emulate them.
The two issues aren't related. The current ethnic problems in France aren't caused by islamic fundamentalism. The recent riots weren't really anything to do with islam, it was just an assortment of criminal scum looking for an excuse to destroy.

If there's a world left when this is all over, I'd like to buy you a beer.

"The answers that I got back is: When a bomb goes off in Baghdad or in Afghanistan and innocent women and children are killed over there, who cares for them? So if a bomb goes off in America or in London, what's wrong with that?" he said.They do have a point.

Extremism like this will always be around because our government is far too gutless. One one hand they like to talk about how they combat extremism, while on the other hand grovelling to fundamentalist front organisations like the Muslim Council of Britain. At the end of the day the extremists know that no matter what they do the government will carry on crawling, paying lip service to all this politically correct bollocks like multiculturalism, interfaith dialogue, blahblahblah. The extremists have no reason to feel fear. They know they won't be deported because they may face a little rough treatment back home. They know that the police's hands are tied so much that law enforcement will involve taking a few photographs of them.

We need leadership that's strong enough to take on these people head on - and none of that kind of leadership would come from any of the main three parties.

Personally, of course, I'd simply shoot the council, but then again, I like the post.:)

Shouldn't you have replied to the posts made in the dirty muslim thread by now Chris?

Personally, of course, I'd simply shoot the council, but then again, I like the post.:)
Shooting them would be nice but it doesn't really go down well. I'd sooner frame them as paedophiles (A lot of them probably are anyway). Also, the Metropolitan Police used to have this police unit called the Special Patrol Group, they were hard as nails. They had stuff like baseball bats and knuckle dusters. Set some of those guys loose on the extremist scum and they'll soon shut up.

Shouldn't you have replied to the posts made in the dirty muslim thread by now Chris?

Possibly, only just got back from putting up fences.

As for Sharia law in Britain, there is no way that will happen in my lifetime (which I'll estimate to be to about 2070). There'll be colonies on Mars before that happens.

I reckon there will be sharia law in all of Europe in... Muhammed Ali's lifetime.

Shooting them would be nice but it doesn't really go down well. I'd sooner frame them as paedophiles (A lot of them probably are anyway). Also, the Metropolitan Police used to have this police unit called the Special Patrol Group, they were hard as nails. They had stuff like baseball bats and knuckle dusters. Set some of those guys loose on the extremist scum and they'll soon shut up.

That does have its appeal, however, a public execution would have greater effect.

I reckon there will be sharia law in all of Europe in... Muhammed Ali's lifetime.
Only if Muslim extremists start budding.

Proportionally there’s probably the same number of people in the US who want to implement neo-puritan law.

This thread scares me, and it's not the fundies... :(

I agree. Moderate Muslims need to become more proactive though - the actions of these few idiots are going to harm them immeasurably over time.

Moderate Muslims can only do so much when "the liberal media" focuses exclusively on jihadis for coverage.

Moderate Muslims can only do so much when "the liberal media" focuses exclusively on jihadis for coverage.

Maybe you should watch the Channel 4 investigative special that shows moderate Muslims actually talking like radical jihadis when they think that no one is watching them.

Maybe you should watch the Channel 4 investigative special that shows moderate Muslims actually talking like radical jihadis when they think that no one is watching them.

And can you prove that all of them- i.e. every single Muslim in the world- talk like jihadis, Mr. Sterilization? The obcession with The Brown Scare is going on a lot longer than "Reality Shows" and it's an eyeroller.

Did I say "all of them"?

No, I didn't.

And who is Mr. Sterilization?

Maybe you need to watch the Channel 4 documentary.

Oh come on, everyone knows you used to be Deep Kimchi.

And can you prove that all of them- i.e. every single Muslim in the world- talk like jihadis, Mr. Sterilization? The obcession with The Brown Scare is going on a lot longer than "Reality Shows" and it's an eyeroller.

Did I say "all of them"?

No, I didn't.

And who is Mr. Sterilization?

Maybe you need to watch the Channel 4 documentary.

Just to avoid any confusion: I am not Islamophobic, I am not saying these individuals do not have a right to say this inane nonsense. I am not saying this is representative of all Muslims. I am, however, questioning where these idiots get off from. Does faith in Allah deprive them of a mind?

An interesting point made in the article (one I agree with) is that it only takes a small number of upstarts to cause greater problems later.(emphasis mine)

So you're saying that people have the right to say this...a British-born Muslim stood before the crowd and said Prophet Mohammed's message to nonbelievers is: "I come to slaughter all of you."

I don't agree with you there. That's incitement to murder/terrorism. Unacceptable. Period. Unless you want to debate about what the guy really meant. That he really meant 'to slaughter your disbelief'.

Pfft.

Maybe you need to watch the Channel 4 documentary.

don't be silly nobody watches Channel 4 (unless its Niall Ferguson:fluffle: )

Also you do have to ask what the target audience is for a channel that shows big brother no?

Oh come on, everyone knows you used to be Deep Kimchi.

Oh come one. Ask the moderators. I'm not DK, for the umpteenth time.

Your position in this thread seems to be that you don't care that there are imams in the UK who are publicly pretending to be moderate, and in secret are encouraging their followers to kill and wage violent jihad.

When there's video evidence of several of them doing this.

It has nothing to do with Islam as a whole, or "brown people".

It has everything to do with the actions of a few "moderates" pretending to be moderate so they can fool people like you and advance their violent cause.

Oh come one. Ask the moderators. I'm not DK, for the umpteenth time.

Your position in this thread seems to be that you don't care that there are imams in the UK who are publicly pretending to be moderate, and in secret are encouraging their followers to kill and wage violent jihad.

When there's video evidence of several of them doing this.

It has nothing to do with Islam as a whole, or "brown people".

It has everything to do with the actions of a few "moderates" pretending to be moderate so they can fool people like you and advance their violent cause.

My point is "Duh, they're a threat that needs to be dealt with. Why are they getting extra-special attention just because they happen to be Muslim?" That and the constant disingenuous cry of inaction from Moderate Muslims that get backhanded with posts like yours.

And please cite where I advocate their violent cause.

Did I post anywhere about "inaction from Moderate Muslims"?

No, I didn't.

Please link to where I said that.

Did I say you said Moderate Muslims don't do enough? No.

I said that people cry about Moderate Muslims not doing enough, and then when someone either asks for proof they're not or shows proof they are, comments like your "They only pretend to be Moderate on camera" posts backhand any attempted refutations.

People should be able to say and think whatever the hell they want.

Doing it is different. ;)

My point is "Duh, they're a threat that needs to be dealt with. Why are they getting extra-special attention just because they happen to be Muslim?" That and the constant disingenuous cry of inaction from Moderate Muslims that get backhanded with posts like yours.


Did I post anywhere about "inaction from Moderate Muslims"?

No, I didn't.

Please link to where I said that.

Did I say you said Moderate Muslims don't do enough? No.

I said that people cry about Moderate Muslims not doing enough, and then when someone either asks for proof they're not or shows proof they are, comments like your "They only pretend to be Moderate on camera" posts backhand any attempted refutations.

I'm saying that some pretend. There's a difference, you know. You're overreacting.

Oh come one. Ask the moderators. I'm not DK, for the umpteenth time.


Hi DK ;)

And what they said about a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan vs a bomb in London or New York...it's difficult to counter.

I mean we all know that the intention may be different, but that's not exactly a convincing argument when you're talking to someone who feels for and identifies with the "collateral damage".

To be honest, I think the only thing you can do is keep an eye out for radicals trying to inspire people to do violence, and do good police work to prevent those who want to hurt people from actually doing it.

What remains is the price of living in a free society.

Sure, except in both Afghanistan and in Iraq the vast majority of the Muslims killed are killed by other Muslims. I don't underestimate the US's role in creating the environment in Iraq that allows that to happen, but the fact remains that all that nees to happen there is for Muslims to stop killing each other. In Afghanistan the only problem I had with what our country did there is that we didn't finish the mission, which should have been to capture Bin Laden, and that we left to go off on some stupid adventure in Iraq rather than staying long enough to secure the new democracy, one that the people of Afghanistan wanted. Instead, we just abandoned them to go chase a ghost in Iraq.

Moderate Muslims can only do so much when "the liberal media" focuses exclusively on jihadis for coverage.
My point is that they tend not to be the type of individuals who would want such attention.

(emphasis mine)

So you're saying that people have the right to say this...

I don't agree with you there. That's incitement to murder/terrorism. Unacceptable. Period. Unless you want to debate about what the guy really meant. That he really meant 'to slaughter your disbelief'.

Pfft.
As far as I am concerned, it is those who act on the words who are to blame, not the speaker himself. They have the option not to do his bidding.

All that will happen by silencing him is to make him a martyr for his cause, and to allow his sick ideas to hide in the shadows, which is precisely were they are most dangerous and likely to fester.

Moderate Muslims can only do so much when "the liberal media" focuses exclusively on jihadis for coverage

Oh, bullshit. "Moderate" Muslims get press all the time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/01/19/24.muslims.ap/index.html

All they have to do is call the media and say, "we're Muslims and we'll be holding a protest," and there'll be cameras all over the place. The truth is that they spend all their time portesting TV shows and magazine articles and precious little protesting extremist rhetoric and terroist attacks.

The truth is that they spend all their time portesting TV shows and magazine articles and precious little protesting extremist rhetoric and terroist attacks.

Here's what I wonder. Why are Muslims obligated to protest terrorist attacks, but not anyone else? Where is White Christian America protesting terrorism? They must obviously support it.

Here's what I wonder. Why are Muslims obligated to protest terrorist attacks, but not anyone else? Where is White Christian America protesting terrorism? They must obviously support it.Because they are the ones that don't want to be lumped in with extremist muslims not White Christian Americans, who can't be muslim extremists as then tey wouldn't be christians. The muslims get lumped in with the more vocal extreme uslims for the same reason moderate christians get lumped in with the extreme christians, namely the extremests are the more vocal ones and the squecky wheel gets the oil.

Then the problem is not with people not protesting, it is with people "lumping" people arbitrarily into one group.

I don't protest ANYTHING. I've never gone to a protest. There are things I oppose, politically and socially, but never have I protested. Does that mean I support EVERYTHING? This is another example of the fallacy people seem to throw at Muslims. Not protesting = supporting = OMG TERRORIST!

To an extent, but just sitting around and bitching about it isn't going to change the perception for that anymore than moderate christians refusing to try to vocaly seperate themselves from the exremists in their religion will stop people from acting like all christians are bible thumping evangelical fundimentalists.

Because they are the ones that don't want to be lumped in with extremist muslims not White Christian Americans, who can't be muslim extremists as then tey wouldn't be christians. The muslims get lumped in with the more vocal extreme uslims for the same reason moderate christians get lumped in with the extreme christians, namely the extremests are the more vocal ones and the squecky wheel gets the oil.

Then the problem is not with people not protesting, it is with people "lumping" people arbitrarily into one group.

I don't protest ANYTHING. I've never gone to a protest. There are things I oppose, politically and socially, but never have I protested. Does that mean I support EVERYTHING? This is another example of the fallacy people seem to throw at Muslims. Not protesting = supporting = OMG TERRORIST!

Then the problem is not with people not protesting, it is with people "lumping" people arbitrarily into one group.

I don't protest ANYTHING. I've never gone to a protest. There are things I oppose, politically and socially, but never have I protested. Does that mean I support EVERYTHING? This is another example of the fallacy people seem to throw at Muslims. Not protesting = supporting = OMG TERRORIST!

I'm not lumping people arbitrarily into one group. Please read my posts before you come to such a ridiculous conclusion.

Or, read what another journalist has seen:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.amanpour/index.html

Here's what I wonder. Why are Muslims obligated to protest terrorist attacks, but not anyone else? Where is White Christian America protesting terrorism? They must obviously support it.

If they are concerned about the face of their religion in the public eye then they should spend as much time denouncing the extremists in their own religion as they do protesting shows and cartoons.

Then the problem is not with people not protesting, it is with people "lumping" people arbitrarily into one group.

I don't protest ANYTHING. I've never gone to a protest. There are things I oppose, politically and socially, but never have I protested. Does that mean I support EVERYTHING? This is another example of the fallacy people seem to throw at Muslims. Not protesting = supporting = OMG TERRORIST!

You may not protest, but you sit here all day expressing yoru views on internet political chat boards. Go to some of the Muslim chat boards. They are overrun with extremists calling for people to have their heads cut off. Where are the moderates? Why do they not flood these boards with the same venom they have for Danish cartoonists and direct it at the people "hijacking" their religion? The reason they're not there is that they are too busy protesting 24.

You may not protest, but you sit here all day expressing yoru views on internet political chat boards.

For all the good it does. The world is still overrun with people who seem to get off on hating Islam and all Muslims.

Go to some of the Muslim chat boards. They are overrun with extremists calling for people to have their heads cut off.

How do you know they aren't actually white christian trolls who just want to make Islam look bad? I mean, I know, hard to believe - trolls on the internet, and people who want to smear Muslims.

Where are the moderates? Why do they not flood these boards with the same venom they have for Danish cartoonists

You just said the moderates are the extremists. See, you don't bother to distinguish between them, just as many people don't bother to distinguish between terrorist and extremist.

The reason they're not there is that they are too busy protesting 24.

Yeah, or maybe they're not because they know it won't do any good. People will still hate Islam. They'll just hate politically active, "apologist" Muslims. Like me - I'm an "apologist" because I don't mindlessly hate on a huge percentage of the world's population. I'm dismissed. But I'm protected, cuz I'm not a Muslim. If I were a Muslim, I'd be too afraid to express my political views in this country.

more of the same old nonsense regurgitated?

No shit.

Possibly, only just got back from putting up fences.
Seems your top-quality education has made you a real achiever.

For all the good it does. The world is still overrun with people who seem to get off on hating Islam and all Muslims.Is that your crudsade?



How do you know they aren't actually white christian trolls who just want to make Islam look bad? I mean, I know, hard to believe - trolls on the internet, and people who want to smear Muslims.http://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif



You just said the moderates are the extremists. Where? See, you don't bother to distinguish between them, just as many people don't bother to distinguish between terrorist and extremist. I distinguish between them all the time. I said in the thread about the first Muslim in congress that people needed to get a grip and that just because he's Muslim doesn't mean there's any reason to believe he has any connection at all to terrorism. I said in the Obama thread that no one will care about the fact that he went to a Muslim school for a while - and I certainly don't. :confused: I'm simply saying that if I were Muslim I'd be spending a whole lot of time yelling as loud as I could to drown out the voices of the militants.



Yeah, or maybe they're not because they know it won't do any good. People will still hate Islam. They'll just hate politically active, "apologist" Muslims. Like me - I'm an "apologist" because I don't mindlessly hate on a huge percentage of the world's population. I'm dismissed. But I'm protected, cuz I'm not a Muslim. If I were a Muslim, I'd be too afraid to express my political views in this country.

They're obviously not afraid to express their views. I'll tell you what, though. I'd REALLY be afraid to express my views in most Muslim countries. I mean really, really, really afraid.

Is that your crudsade?

Cutting back on stupidity, fear-mongering and bigotry? I guess you could say it is.

http://necroticobsession.com/bb/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif

That's a convincing argument there.

Where? I distinguish between them all the time. I said in the thread about the first Muslim in congress that people needed to get a grip and that just because he's Muslim doesn't mean there's any reason to believe he has any connection at all to terrorism. I said in the Obama thread that no one will care about the fact that he went to a Muslim school for a while - and I certainly don't. :confused: I'm simply saying that if I were Muslim I'd be spending a whole lot of time yelling as loud as I could to drown out the voices of the militants.

That's nice that you would, but it wouldn't do any good if you did. And doing so would just trigger the "Ohnoes, there are Muslims, and they are politically active THEREFORE TAKING OVER!" alarm function bigots have.

I don't think it's their duty at all.

Look, it's not my duty to protest whenever a White Male commits a heinous crime. I don't feel the need to pre-empt some kind of "association" ignorant people will make with me, and that criminal. Why should I? It's obvious to anyone, and if people "lump" me in with them just on the basis of ethnicity, or gender, or religion, or anything else, they're being ignorant.

If I don't "protest" whenever a male commits a rape does that mean I support rape. No. Does that mean I am a rapist in disguise. No. Does that mean I am allowing rape to continue in some way. No. Am I neglecting my duty as a male to vehemently pronounce that I am not a rapist. No.

They're obviously not afraid to express their views.

Oh, obviously. I'm obviously the only one who remembers the waves of "let's nuke all the ragheads" cries in the US for days and weeks after 9/11.

They know that the police's hands are tied so much that law enforcement will involve taking a few photographs of them.

We need leadership that's strong enough to take on these people head on - and none of that kind of leadership would come from any of the main three parties.

mmm, i know. let's get an extremist government in to deal with all those nasty extremists!!!

haha

That's a convincing argument there.because it was a stupid thing to say.



That's nice that you would, but it wouldn't do any good if you did. And doing so would just trigger the "Ohnoes, there are Muslims, and they are politically active THEREFORE TAKING OVER!" alarm function bigots have.

I don't think it's their duty at all.

Look, it's not my duty to protest whenever a White Male commits a heinous crime. I don't feel the need to pre-empt some kind of "association" ignorant people will make with me, and that criminal. Why should I? It's obvious to anyone, and if people "lump" me in with them just on the basis of ethnicity, or gender, or religion, or anything else, they're being ignorant.

If I don't "protest" whenever a male commits a rape does that mean I support rape. No. Does that mean I am a rapist in disguise. No. Does that mean I am allowing rape to continue in some way. No. Am I neglecting my duty as a male to vehemently pronounce that I am not a rapist. No. That's a really bad example. I don't think it's your cross to bare anytime some white guy rapes someone or kills someone any more than I think it's any Muslim's job to protest when a Muslim rapes someone. When you have groups of radical Muslims standing outside a Cathlic church in England with signs that say "The Pope is going to Hell" and threatening to slaughter all catholics in the name of Islam I think it's time for Muslims to stand up and be counted. They seem to have no problem crying from the rooftops when 24 does a show about radicla Muslims commiting a terrorist act - I know it's crazy because we all know nothing like that could ever really happen - they should expend as much energy expelling these people from their ranks. By the way, I'm not just talking about out yelling them. There are groups who call themselves "moderate" who, when asked, say straight out that if they knew of some islmaist plot within their community to commit an act of terrorism that they wouldn't rat the people out because that's not their job. having said that I do know that the plots in Vancouver and London were broken with the help of inside informants. I'd just like to see a lot more of that. I'd like to see CAIR one time come out and condemn an act of terrorism without having to be asked if they do at a press conference where they're condemning a magazine article or TV show.



Oh, obviously. I'm obviously the only one who remembers the waves of "let's nuke all the ragheads" cries in the US for days and weeks after 9/11.

I remember them. I just don't remember Muslims being afraid to express their views.

here's an idea. how about we just ignore the muslim extremists. if our democracy can't handle someone expressing their freedom, then it's not a democracy worth having.

and also, just because one muslim tells other muslims to bomb america and denmark or the pope or catholics, doesn't mean they will.
i've heard BNP "patriotic" ( :confused: ) racists saying i should vote for them so we can kick the poles and other foreigners out and get our country back, but that didn't mean i voted for them.

to be honest, i don't like what some of them say, but they might not like what i say. just as long as i tolerate their right to say it, and then our democracy can succeed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3059365.stm

One of the world's most influential Islamic leaders has condemned all attacks by suicide bombers at an international conference for Islamic scholars.

Grand Sheikh Mohammed Sayed Tantawi of the Al-Azhar mosque of Cairo - which is seen as the highest authority in Sunni Islam - said groups which carried out suicide bombings were the enemies of Islam

http://www.islamfortoday.com/qaradawi02.htm
Qaradawi Rejects Al-Qaeda’s Killing of Innocents
Prominent Muslim scholar Dr. Youssef Al-Qaradawi has condemned Al-Qaeda for their fuel tanker suicide bombing of a centuries-old Jewish synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba in April 2002.

On June 23 in a statement broadcast on the Qatar-based Al-Jazeera television channel., Sulaiman Abu Gaith, a spokesman for the Al-Qaeda network, claimed responsibility for the explosion that killed 14 German tourists. Five local Jews also perished.

Dr. Al Qaradawi said that in Islam it is not permissible to attack places of worship such as churches and synagogues or attack men of religion, even in a state of war.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/adi03.htm
Fanatics and terrorists misguided
"America's fight against terrorism is justified by the Quran", says Imam Tammam Adi Ph.D, Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Eugene, Oregon.

I will try to show that America's fight against terrorism is justified by the Quran, and that fanatics and terrorists misinterpret the Quran to justify their views.

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/abdulhak.htm
http://www.islamfortoday.com/murad04.htm
Bin Laden's violence is a heresy against Islam
"Mainstream theologians have come out unanimously against the terrorists. What we must now ask them is to campaign more strongly against the aberrant doctrines that underpin them", writes British Muslim convert scholar, Abdal-Hakim Murad.

In what sense were the World Trade Centre bombers members of Islam? This question has been sidelined by many Western analysts impatient with the niceties of theology; but it may be the key to understanding the recent attacks, and assessing the long-term prospects for peace in the Muslim world.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/89/story_8987.html

The terrorist attack on Sept. 11th exacerbated a double-bind American Muslims have been feeling for some time. So often, it seems, we have to apologize for reprehensible actions committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. We tell other Americans, "People who do these things (oppression of women, persecution of religious minorities, terrorism) have distorted the 'true' Islam."

http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/bin_laden.html

An Egyptian-born theologian, Sheik Yusuf Abdullah al-Qaradawi, with a history of anti-American militancy even longer than Sheik Fadlallah's, expresses a similar view. From his base in the Persian Gulf state of Qatar, the 75-year-old sheik has issued Islamic fatwas, or decrees, on issues like the need for Muslims to boycott McDonald's restaurants, and on husbands' right to beat their wives as long as they do not draw blood.

But on the Sept. 11 attacks, he has used language similar to that of Mr. Bush and other American politicians.

"Islam, the religion of tolerance, holds the human soul in high esteem, and considers the attack on innocent human beings a grave sin," said. "Even in times of war, Muslims are not allowed to kill anybody save the one who is engaged in face-to-face confrontation with them.

"Killing hundreds of helpless civilians," he added, "is a heinous crime in Islam."


http://www.int-review.org/terr42a.html
Spanish Muslims issue 'fatwa' against bin Laden

(March 12, 2005) Spain's leading Muslim clerics have issued a religious order declaring Usama bin Ladin an apostate and to have forsaken Islam by backing attacks such as the Madrid train bombings.

The Islamic Commission of Spain timed its fatwa to coincide with the first anniversary of the attacks, which killed 191 people and were claimed in the name of al-Qaeda in Europe.

The commission's secretary-general, Mansur Escudero, urged others of their faith worldwide to denounce the al-Qaeda. Escudero said that the group had consulted with Muslim leaders in other countries, such as Morocco – home to most of the jailed suspects in the atrocities – Algeria and Libya, and had their support also. He has called upon all Muslim leaders to now also condemn the terrorists publicly.

They are trying to shout out the extremists.

My point is that they tend not to be the type of individuals who would want such attention.


As far as I am concerned, it is those who act on the words who are to blame, not the speaker himself. They have the option not to do his bidding.

All that will happen by silencing him is to make him a martyr for his cause, and to allow his sick ideas to hide in the shadows, which is precisely were they are most dangerous and likely to fester.It is very easy to withold infomation in isolated communities, and thus poison a person's mind with half truths and incomplete infomation. This can develop easily into a them vs us mentality which creates cycle into which mistrust and paranoia can become so great that even if the whole truth is revealed then the person will not believe it.

I'm also fairly confident that I can use Saddam as an example here, so...
Saddam ordered the executions of many Iraqis during his time as President. Yet, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find him innocent of crimes against humanity simply because he did not carry out the executions himself.

It is why the person who shouts 'fire' in a crowed theatre is guilty of a crime. Yes, people didn't have to act upon the infomation given to him by this person, but they act on trust of this person. Hence, the person who shouted 'fire' has betrayed their trust and thus caused panic in the theatre which could lead to people dying.

It is very easy to withold infomation in isolated communities, and thus poison a person's mind with half truths and incomplete infomation.

Defining Muslims in general as an isolated community is a bit of a big assumption to make; it may be true in specific cases, but not everywhere. There are isolated communities everywhere in Britain; of all races and ethnicities, so it can't be the only factor here.

I quite agree with your use of Saddam Hussein here though; although again it was a different case, he was supreme leader of a sovereign nation with all the tools of a modern state, including armed police, their alternatives were very few; carry out his instructions to kill or to be killed themselves.

They are trying to shout out the extremists.

It's great to see that information: the problem we have in Britain is that these things just aren't reported.
I think of all the stories there, I had only heard of one of them; and I consider myself fairly up-to-date with the news, reading several reputable newspapers every day, as well as news websites.
There is clearly a problem with the media in Britain in the way they report issues like the backlash in Islam against these things.
However the Independent did run a series of articles and op-eds about the backlash against violent protests within Islam after the recent 'cartoon' controversy, which was very informing; although I can't seem to find a weblink for it I'm afraid.

Sure, except in both Afghanistan and in Iraq the vast majority of the Muslims killed are killed by other Muslims...
Definitely in Iraq, but I'm not even that sure in Afghanistan. It seems that the Taliban on the whole get along with the villagers (and especially the poppy farmers), with the exception of people they see as acting immoral.

But what we hear sometimes in terms of collateral damage caused by NATO bombing is quite atrocious, considering that Afghanistan is not exactly urban combat.

http://www.islamfortoday.com/adi03.htm=Fanatics and terrorists misguided
"America's fight against terrorism is justified by the Quran", says Imam Tammam Adi Ph.D, Director of the Islamic Cultural Center of Eugene, Oregon.

I will try to show that America's fight against terrorism is justified by the Quran, and that fanatics and terrorists misinterpret the Quran to justify their views.

They are trying to shout out the extremists.You have quite severely misrepresented Tammam Adi.AUTHOR'S UPDATE June 18, 2003:

I wrote the following article soon after the 9/11 attacks. At the time, I argued that America's response might be considered self defense or "jihad." The passage of time has proved me wrong, given the excesses in Afghanistan and allegations of war crimes, the unprovoked invasion of Iraq, and the unAmerican crackdown on Muslims in the US.

Still, I personally appreciate these scholors efforts to ridicule the rationale between the fallacies of extremists.

Definitely in Iraq, but I'm not even that sure in Afghanistan. It seems that the Taliban on the whole get along with the villagers (and especially the poppy farmers), with the exception of people they see as acting immoral.

But what we hear sometimes in terms of collateral damage caused by NATO bombing is quite atrocious, considering that Afghanistan is not exactly urban combat.

the people of Afghanistan hate the Taliban. They see them as foreign invaders.
they also hate NATO quite a lot, for similar reasons.

Afghanistan may be rural, but most, if not all fighting takes place in and around villages, with the Taliban using Afghanis as human shields. NATO thus cause collateral damage because of their lack of group troops (our fault) and thus need to use overwhelming air power (our fault) as the only effective solution in driving the Taliban out (an aim we share with the Afghan people).

It sucks, but that's the way it is.

the people of Afghanistan hate the Taliban. They see them as foreign invaders.
they also hate NATO quite a lot, for similar reasons.
Precisely. But for whatever reason, the Taliban are able to operate within communities in the south of the country pretty much undisturbed.

Defining Muslims in general as an isolated community is a bit of a big assumption to make; it may be true in specific cases, but not everywhere. There are isolated communities everywhere in Britain; of all races and ethnicities, so it can't be the only factor here.Sorry, I didn't mean to define Muslims as a whole. I was refering simply to isolated communities. I tried not to use either 'Islam' or 'Muslims' in that sentence as I believe what I said is a generic problem of every isolated community. Such as the naval estates in poorer areas of Britain, the Orthodox Jews in North London or the Muslim communities in areas such as Sparkbrook, Birmingham and Girlington, Bradford.

I quite agree with your use of Saddam Hussein here though; although again it was a different case, he was supreme leader of a sovereign nation with all the tools of a modern state, including armed police, their alternatives were very few; carry out his instructions to kill or to be killed themselves.I tried to think of an example for about a minute and he was the best I could come up with.

because it was a stupid thing to say.


Not really. It's the internet. There are trolls. This is not a hard concept.

That's a really bad example. I don't think it's your cross to bare anytime some white guy rapes someone or kills someone any more than I think it's any Muslim's job to protest when a Muslim rapes someone. When you have groups of radical Muslims standing outside a Cathlic church in England with signs that say "The Pope is going to Hell" and threatening to slaughter all catholics in the name of Islam I think it's time for Muslims to stand up and be counted.

Har. OK, so maybe I don't have to do it when one rapist does something. Maybe I just have to do it when a gang rape occurs. Or else I support gang rape. I need to stand up and be counted, or else I condone rape.

There are groups who call themselves "moderate" who, when asked, say straight out that if they knew of some islmaist plot within their community to commit an act of terrorism that they wouldn't rat the people out because that's not their job.

There are groups who call themselves "moderate" and there are groups who are moderate.

Let's see a source for these groups who've said that.


I remember them. I just don't remember Muslims being afraid to express their views.

Our memories differ. I remember being afraid, myself, to express it. Shit, we couldn't be having this argument back then. We'd be drowned out by people calling us BOTH anti-American terrorist raghead-lovers. Kinda like Muslims being drowned out by the "extremist" voice. Except in their case, those extremists can and do target people for their political viewpoint with political violence, which we haven't seen even in the dark post-9/11 days.

You have quite severely misrepresented Tammam Adi.

I apologize, I didn't read that one through well enough.

Definitely in Iraq, but I'm not even that sure in Afghanistan. It seems that the Taliban on the whole get along with the villagers (and especially the poppy farmers), with the exception of people they see as acting immoral.

But what we hear sometimes in terms of collateral damage caused by NATO bombing is quite atrocious, considering that Afghanistan is not exactly urban combat.

If we do a body count after the TaliPak fled and direct conventional war was over, the amount of muslims (Afghan civilians) killed by TaliPaks will be more than those who lost their lives intentionally/"collaterally" by US/NATO action.

Just to put into perspective, TaliPaks have killed more than 100 school teachers....just school teachers, if you include pro-govt clerics, village elders, business contractors etc...the #s far outweigh the "collateral damage" done by US/NATO (every single one of which is severely condemnable...of course and should have been avoided without any excuses)

Precisely. But for whatever reason, the Taliban are able to operate within communities in the south of the country pretty much undisturbed.

TaliPak uses Pashtun nationalism, fear of the northern alliance (Tajiks, Uzbeks and other non-Pashtun) domination, good old money, intimidation, power sharing etc for that. People side with victors and TaliPak has successfully projected that image in the minds of southern Afghan Pashtuns. AFG is sliding fast and nothing short of a big campaign against the TaliPak inside its territory is going to help.

I'm also fairly confident that I can use Saddam as an example here, so...
Saddam ordered the executions of many Iraqis during his time as President. Yet, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find him innocent of crimes against humanity simply because he did not carry out the executions himself.
Except in this case he had coercive powers, didn't he? One had to obey his edicts. Do these hate-preachers have anything near to such power? Or are the sheep that follow them simply too weak-willed to say 'No'?

It is why the person who shouts 'fire' in a crowed theatre is guilty of a crime. Yes, people didn't have to act upon the infomation given to him by this person, but they act on trust of this person. Hence, the person who shouted 'fire' has betrayed their trust and thus caused panic in the theatre which could lead to people dying.
This is primarily a property dispute. On the first count, the individual is disrupting a service clients paid for. They are also disrupting the property-owner's business arrangement. The owner has the fullest right to throw them out. But it isn't a limitation on the freedom of speech ; it's action to avert an aggression against property.

Except in this case he had coercive powers, didn't he? One had to obey his edicts. Do these hate-preachers have anything near to such power? Or are the sheep that follow them simply too weak-willed to say 'No'?The preacher does actually. If the person he is teaching too is a youngster then the parents might hit them if they do not please the preacher. Then the brainwashing begins. Seriously some of the extreme imams preach that a child should be told to pray at 7 and if they still aren't praying when they are ten they should be hit. It's brainwashing and conditioned responses. And like I said before. The Imams withhold infomation and by the time the child begins to gain access to the outside world they could be so paranoid and mistrusting that they will believe any counter argument to be lies or the work of the devil.This is primarily a property dispute. On the first count, the individual is disrupting a service clients paid for. They are also disrupting the property-owner's business arrangement. The owner has the fullest right to throw them out. But it isn't a limitation on the freedom of speech ; it's action to avert an aggression against property.I doubt it. I seem to remember that many theatres in London were very small and lacked easy escape routes. So any panic about a fire would lead to stampedes and people getting crushed. The law may be stated in service and property terms, but it was implemented for safety reasons - back in the georgian era I think.

Bah, you pick me up on all the boring parts of the post. I want to talk about segregated communities and the tensions segregation causes.

The preacher does actually. If the person he is teaching too is a youngster then the parents might hit them if they do not please the preacher. Then the brainwashing begins.
Blame the parents then? Although I could agree with you on one point - if it's brainwashing they're up to, then there is cause for them to be arrested.

The law may be stated in service and property terms, but it was implemented for safety reasons - back in the georgian era I think.
It's just the logic behind it in terms of rights - the law has its own distinct methodology, which often has little to do with rights (in a propertarian society, the right to free speech is subsumed under the right to dispose of your property as you please - meaning on your own property, the property of others who consent, and more controversially, in public areas, you can say what you want). In status quo legal terms you are probably right though.

Bah, you pick me up on all the boring parts of the post. I want to talk about segregated communities and the tensions segregation causes.
Feel free to raise any points you like - I'll engage them to the best of my ability.

Blame the parents then? Although I could agree with you on one point - if it's brainwashing they're up to, then there is cause for them to be arrested.I think the Channel 4's Dispatches on some of the extremism preached by Saudi trained clerics in the country has already linked to in this thread. Though the anti-muslim propaganda of the documentary is about as subtle as a sledge hammer it does depict what is being preached by these Salafists/Wahhibists. When in my more irrational moods I would advocate invading Saudi Arabia to destroy the stronghold of the Wahhabist regime and their source of funding.It's just the logic behind it in terms of rights - the law has its own distinct methodology, which often has little to do with rights (in a propertarian society, the right to free speech is subsumed under the right to dispose of your property as you please - meaning on your own property, the property of others who consent, and more controversially, in public areas, you can say what you want). In status quo legal terms you are probably right though.Oh good. I do so like to be right. <.< But thank you for your view on the issue. No, I'm not being patronising. I do find your views, ones that I might not normally come across, interesting.Feel free to raise any points you like - I'll engage them to the best of my ability.Unfortunately it's a bit late for me to pull together a coherrent sentence. Much less a cohherent argument. Maybe tomorrow. Or later today if you want to be technical.

Seems your top-quality education has made you a real achiever.

In my garden, after those lovely winds we had on thursday.....:rolleyes:

In my garden, after those lovely winds we had on thursday.....:rolleyes:Did you ever respond to my suggestion that you can be as sharp as Prince of Harry of the House of Windsor and still get into places like Eton... I found that about 1 in 25 people who go to Eton fail to get 5 A*-G grades at GCSE... As I'm aware G was is fail... god knows what you have to do to not even get a G at GCSE level...

Did you ever respond to my suggestion that you can be as sharp as Prince of Harry of the House of Windsor and still get into places like Eton... I found that about 1 in 25 people who go to Eton fail to get 5 A*-G grades at GCSE... As I'm aware G was is fail... god knows what you have to do to not even get a G at GCSE level...

In short, no I didn't. My internet's still recovering, but anyhoo, it is possible to get a U. Simply not writing anything tends to the trick, and, in any case, the difference between Eton and selective education is the requisites required for pupils.

In short, no I didn't. My internet's still recovering, but anyhoo, it is possible to get a U. Simply not writing anything tends to the trick, and, in any case, the difference between Eton and selective education is the requisites required for pupils.Eton is a selective school.

Eton is a selective school.

Wherein one has to pay fees. State selective education, grammar schools, require no fees, and tend to attract the best from their particular area.

Wherein one has to pay fees. State selective education, grammar schools, require no fees, and tend to attract the best from their particular area.You haven't stated a causal link between those statements.

Cows are big and produce milk. Goats are small, produce milk and tend to produce better cheese.

edit: I have a better example.

Black people have brains. Black people also have a large amount of melanin in their skin. White people have brains as well, but have less melanin in their skin, and thus require less sunlight to make Vitamim D, and tend to make the best Prime Ministers.

You haven't stated a causal link between those statements.

Cows are big and produce milk. Goats are small, produce milk and tend to produce better cheese.

edit: I have a better example.

Black people have brains. Black people also have a large amount of melanin in their skin. White people have brains as well, but have less melanin in their skin, and thus require less sunlight to make Vitamim D, and tend to make the best Prime Ministers.

My apologies. I ought to have made what was implicitly evident explicit.

Eton, in any case, is fee paying, with no admissions test discernably evident on the website.

In any case, very amusing citation.....:rolleyes:

My apologies. I ought to have made what was implicitly evident explicit.

Eton, in any case, is fee paying, with no admissions test discernably evident on the website.

In any case, very amusing citation.....:rolleyes:
Second link on the side bar of their website.
http://www.etoncollege.com/Eton.asp?state=load&di=39
Further infomation on the registration process
http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=95
Explanation of scholarships
http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=96
Their prospectus
http://www.etoncollege.com/files/FurInf0607.pdf

I humblely request that you provide me with the grammar school definition of 'discernably' and 'evident'.

And what they said about a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan vs a bomb in London or New York...it's difficult to counter.

I mean we all know that the intention may be different, but that's not exactly a convincing argument when you're talking to someone who feels for and identifies with the "collateral damage".


There is a simple answer

1. The bombs going off in Iraq are mostly the insurgents and the Shi'te/Sunni rivallry thing. The Americans when they do attack people are attacking those who intend upon killing. Collateral damage is indeed harsh sounding, but the reason it is maximised is by the fact that those who seek to kill innocnets hide amoung innocents.

2. When the Americans hit innocent civilians, they have missed. When the insurgents/terrorists do, they have hit directly.

And what they said about a bomb in Iraq or Afghanistan vs a bomb in London or New York...it's difficult to counter.

I mean we all know that the intention may be different, but that's not exactly a convincing argument when you're talking to someone who feels for and identifies with the "collateral damage".


There is a simple answer

1. The bombs going off in Iraq are mostly the insurgents and the Shi'te/Sunni rivallry thing. The Americans when they do attack people are attacking those who intend upon killing. Collateral damage is indeed harsh sounding, but the reason it is maximised is by the fact that those who seek to kill innocnets hide amoung innocents.

2. When the Americans hit innocent civilians, they have missed. When the insurgents/terrorists do, they have hit directly. That is the sick diffrence. The terrorists want children, men and women who have nothing to do with the war to die. The Americans do not

Second link on the side bar of their website.
http://www.etoncollege.com/Eton.asp?state=load&di=39
Further infomation on the registration process
http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=95
Explanation of scholarships
http://www.etoncollege.com/eton.asp?di=96
Their prospectus
http://www.etoncollege.com/files/FurInf0607.pdf

I humblely request that you provide me with the grammar school definition of 'discernably' and 'evident'.


My apologies. I couldn't actually find any reference to examinations on the screens I saw. They suggested payment was the sole requisite to entry.

In any case, wouldn't a dictionary suffice?

My apologies. I couldn't actually find any reference to examinations on the screens I saw. They suggested payment was the sole requisite to entry.I'm not sure which pages you were looking at, because I never came across any page that fits your description.

Anyway. My point stands. Just because someone attends a selective school does not guarentee that they are intelligent. In schools that use the 11+ then it could merely mean that the child has been taught how to take the 11+. Similar to how someone can be trained to do better at an IQ test, but could have all the wit of a jellied eel.In any case, wouldn't a dictionary suffice?Evidently not... *runs*

Academic success and common sense have a suprisingly low correlation. Young Chris might have the intelligence to do well in the exam hall but he probably needs a little more in the way of life experience before he translates that into actually having a clue.

I Still, I am curious as to why they are so adamant on establishing a theocracy in Britain.

This is mostly tongue-in-cheek but it can be said that theocracy in Europe worked before :) And I suppose by theocracy, I do mean a state religion, but Church Law was just as supreme as common law in the Middle Ages, especially after 1000 until really, the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which ultimately recognised the rights of nation-states to exist without Church interference.

And depending on the demographics, it can work again. But that is more of a cynical view, pragmatically, again depending on immigration and birth rates, I see a slow, possibly painful compromise in the end... or the other paranoid end, a reactionary problem that ends horribly for one or both sides.

If there's a world left when this is all over, I'd like to buy you a beer.

And even if there is, alcohol may only be allowed in the afterlife... :) On the other hand, it might be nice to start over... with beer.

the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, which ultimately recognised the rights of nation-states to exist without Church interference.

The Treaty of Westphalia didn't do that as far as I was aware. It gave the monarchs of the various European kingdoms the right to choose their own religion. Unless you could demonstrate otherwise

The Treaty of Westphalia didn't do that as far as I was aware. It gave the monarchs of the various European kingdoms the right to choose their own religion. Unless you could demonstrate otherwise

Well, I think it is a matter of interpretation... by being allowed to choose one's own religion, it more or less ended the domination of the Church, and it changed the character of war (at least in Europe)from wars of religion to wars of state. The next major wars fought on the continent were wars of succession, colonial aims and revolution (and later hegenomy once Napoleon took power). And since the it gave them the right to choose their religions, that means they could act without Church interference. (since the Papacy wanted every state to be Catholic)