Fresh in from the BBC 10 minutes ago.

Gunmen have seized three British nationals from a house in Baghdad, Iraq's interior ministry has said.

Full story here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3661386.stm)

This looks like being big news.

oops lets hope it's not the beheading brigade that's got 'em.

theres lots of money to be made there, but the risks that go with it are extreme!

Well the hostage takers have just beheaded one of the Americans :(

It doesn't look very good for Ken Bigley

are the ads on the left linked to the postings because it looks like they are or is it just my lack of sleep:loopy: :loopy:

Panda,

The ads are posting related - Google is VERY clever nowadays.

As for teh thread....

It's a useless thing to say now but, basically, people who go their know the risks. I was surprised that the guerilla groups hadn't kidnapped any Brits until the other day - and it's HIGHLY unlikely that they'll get what they want.

The money may be great but it's no good if you can't make use of it. Assuming the Government isn't in to the give them what they want plan, I guess there are a few possible steps :

Pull out anyone there who's there 'for the money'. If they won't come home make it painfully clear to them the consequences.

As for the terrorists, the Government needs to make it clear that, like the Israelis, we will not stop coming for them.

For essential aid workers and such, militarise the operation. Give them troops to guard them, not Iraqi security people who can be subbourned, bribed or scared.

Slap a bloody great big price on the head of the leadership in these terrorist groups, dead or alive. It worked for Saddam.

Put the SAS in on the ground, not in a rescue role but in a 'shoot to kill' role. Basically go on the offensive, similar to what was done (allegedly) in Northern Ireland. The Russians did a similar thing in the 1980s in Beirut and suddenly stopped losing people.

Start using our advantages - technology and firepower. When you find caches of weapons, sabotage or bug them (again, precedents in Cyprus and Northern Ireland) and theneither wait for someone to pick them up and deal with them then or follow the weapons around.

Hearts and Minds - make sure the water works, the electricity works, schools have books, etc. And where appropriate make sure people know that it's the foreigners who are doing the work, not a bunch of gun toting extremists who don't give a toss whether your kid can learn to read or not.

Joe

ISTR that Ken Bigley has worked most of his adult life in the Middle East, so he's hardly just there for the money.

The sad thing about all this is that is might have been avoidable if we hadn't followed the standard USA technique of having absolutely no plan of what to do when the military objective is reached. :(

We used to be really good at diplomacy - what happened?

Hi Tony,

Yup, it could have been avoidable but it wasn't avoided and now we have a problem.

As for Mr Bigley's involvement in the Middle East - it's NEVER been a safe place for Brits / Americans for the last 20 or 30 years. We're tolerated rather than welcomed - if Italian women working for the aid agencies are targetted by these guerillas then British and American men should really take the common sense approach and get the hell out of Dodge.

I have a skill set that would allow me to work in places like Saudi; I'd have no issues about following the law out there - after all, I'm a guest. The reason I haven't taken a job out there, with all the associated advantages, is that I realise and have realised for 20 years that I'd potentially be a target of opportunity everytime my Government or the US Government does something that the locals don't like.

There have been times in the last decade when I've been effectively unemployed and skint here in the UK, when a year in Saudi or the Gulf would basically have wiped out my financial problems. However, my concerns for my personal safety basically said 'No way'. We are dealing with people to whom we're just symbols - not human beings, but symbols - so whether we're there to help, exploit or invade makes no difference. We're all targets.

I feel very, very sorry for Mr Bigley and his family - I hope that the whole issue can be bought to a peaceful conclusion but I'm not sure.

And as for diplomacy, these guys aren't in the negotiating game. It's extortion. They won't give way, and if we negotiate they view it as a future weakness to be exploited.

Joe

Originally posted by Tony
We used to be really good at diplomacy - what happened?

We got involved with a 'bad crowd' and let them dictate our foreign policy.

Originally posted by JoePritchard


And as for diplomacy, these guys aren't in the negotiating game.




Interesting comment on the news just now about how random the request was for all female prisoners to be released. It seems the hostage takers had no idea about the number or the nature of the women being held, suggesting that to them the demand is irrelevant and negotiation is pointless.

Originally posted by alchresearch
We got involved with a 'bad crowd' and let them dictate our foreign policy.

too true.

They are murdering these poor people because it gives them power,they don't care about any hostages being held by us or any other country,the Iraq's went mad when some of there prisoners were stripped & Peed on,ok I know that is in humane,but I would rather be stripped & peed on than have my head cut off.It is time all Governments all over the world sorted these murdering terrorists out once & for all.

I wonder what the Muslim community of Sheffield think about the beheading of westerners in Iraq.Icannot recall reading in the local/national press any condemnation of these atrocities to civilian people or have I missed them.

I for one would love to read what the silent majority think of all the outrages that are being committed under the name of Islam.

We hear and read of so many bad things it would give everyone a hope of peace and living together in harmony if they did speak out against the atrocities.

Originally posted by maxwell
I wonder what the Muslim community of Sheffield think about the beheading of westerners in Iraq.

I would hope that they would be as horrified, shocked and disgusted as any decent person would.

The Muslim Council of Great Britain have said:


MCB Calls for Immediate Release of Hostages In Iraq

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) is shocked and horrified by the killing of the American hostage Eugene Armstrong in Iraq yesterday. We convey our condolences to the family of the deceased as indeed to all the victims of this avoidable conflict. Hostage taking, let alone beheading the prisoner, is not a practice that is permitted under Islamic rules of war.

The MCB reaffirms its call for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Iraq and the restoration of its people's sovereign right to rule themselves.

MCB Deputy Secretary General Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, however, told reporters: "The recent spate of horrific kidnappings and savage beheading of hostages in Iraq has vindicated the well considered view that the continued presence of foreign troops in Iraq and aerial bombings of its cities and villages will engender more violent reaction and human suffering of incalculable proportions."

The MCB registers its fullest support for the appeal made by the family of British hostage Mr Ken Bigley's, both to the hostage-takers and the concerned authorities, to release all women prisoners who are detained incommunicado and without trial. Dr Abdul Bari said: "The fact that such a demand emanates from hostage-takers does not in any way diminish the human rights of these women or our own obligation to abide by international human rights law."


Source (http://www.mcb.org.uk/presstext.php?ann_id=109)

Fair enough regards the quote you replied with,but still no condemnation of the hostage taking from the mcb.

As a British muslim born and bred in Sheffield and proud to live and work in England. I condemn the atrocities that are taking place in Iraq.

I feel that the majority of muslims are shocked just like any other person by watching the horrific and shocking images portrayed on the news and media.

Do you want every muslim in the world to give you this reply? It doesn't matter what your religion or culture a human being can never be happy at other humans being killed.

Kady

Andy

Surely that is my point, we always see messages given out by the Muslim Council but never by any of the silent majority.

In your own words you say 'I would hope'.

Surely with the number of Muslims that are now living here, it would be commendable for them to show some public outrage against the atrocities.

We always see the demonstrations against any western country's actions.

Mod: Similar threads merged.

The 2nd american has now been killed...

I pity the poor family of Ken seen as how Tony Blair couldnt give a toss!

Originally posted by ANGELUS


.......seen as how Tony Blair couldnt give a toss!



I think that's unfair.


I think it’s also unfair the notion that because Muslims in Iraq have committed terrorist atrocities it is the responsibility of every Muslim in the world to actively campaign against them.

Every single Muslim i know is utterly disgusted by these tragic events, yet why should they have to apologise for them, What exactly does it have to with them.

After the Oklahoma bombing did all Christians hold protest marches against timothy McVey.
Was the Pope forced to lead demonstrations denouncing the IRA.

Why should law abiding, peace loving British citizens have to apologise for the actions of people thousands of miles away from them simply because they share the same religion.

It's not a matter of whether he gives a toss! He has said from the outset he will not Bargain with terrorists..

No Im not a Blair fan :suspect:

I don't remember there being a similar call for every member of the Catholic Church to speak out after every IRA atrocity, so why should we single out Muslims and expect them to speak out about what happens in Iraq?

I don't see that Tony Blair can do any more than what he has been doing in appealing on Arab TV etc. Firstly it seems that it is the Americans who are holding the women prisoners, not the British. Secondly, if they were to give in to the hostage-takers demands then how much worse would it make the situation... when the terrorists realise they will get what ever they want if they kill foreigners in Iraq?

Originally posted by ANGELUS
The 2nd american has now been killed...

I pity the poor family of Ken seen as how Tony Blair couldnt give a toss!

I'm not a great fan of Blair but let's face it; the two women mentioned are in the control of the US / Iraqi Provisional Government, not the UK. Apart from influence, I'm not sure how the UK government is supposed to release prisoners it has no control over.

These guys, definitely linked to Al-Quaeda, are just a bunch of bloodthirsty thugs who's behaviour is against the tenets of their religion, and who's actions have been encouraged by the behaviour of other governments who have capitulated to the blackmail.

In addition, one of the women concerned is a germ warfare specialist; would the deal be that she gets to work with Al-Quaeda on some new toys for them? If she's released back in to Iraq, what's to stop her being re-arrested when the hostage gets released?

These guys simply want to kill Westerners in the most gruesome, frightening and humiliating ways possible. As for any justification for their behaviour coming from the presence of Western troops in Iraq, I don't recall there being any Western troops in Iraq when Al-Queda comitted their other acts of terrorism through the 1990s culminating in the September 11th atrocities.

There should be no excuses for this sort of behaviour; if you would seek to justify butchery, you provide succour for the butchers.

Joe

Two points I'd like to make.

One is that the current hostage takers have already declared they will not negotiate, they want action.

The second point is the fact that the two women they want releasing are 'Dr Germ' and 'Dr Death'.

It is frightening to contemplate what horrors these two scientists could inflict on us if they started collaborating with terrorists.

Originally posted by Patchy
I don't remember there being a similar call for every member of the Catholic Church to speak out after every IRA atrocity, so why should we single out Muslims and expect them to speak out about what happens in Iraq?


It's a totally different mind-set. Religion is a far more serious affair to the Muslims than it is to us.

If we see Westerners (of whatever nationality) being oppressed/killed etc in another part of the world, we don't automatically see this as "an attack on Christianity" and urge other "Christians" to take up arms against the oppressors. I would suggest that Muslims are far more likely to do so. They play the "this is an attack on Islam" card at the slightest opportunity.

For example, Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world with 250 million people. Most Indonesian Muslims are different in almost every respect to Arab Muslims. They speak a different language, they are a different race etc. But they share the same religion and to them that's all that matters. They feel they must support all other Muslims in any other part of the globe.

The loudest anti-west outcry against the Iraqi war in the S.E.Asian region came from Indonesia.

Indonesian Muslim extremists working hand in hand with Al Qaeda were also responsible for the Bali bombings and the recent Australian Embassy bombing in Jakarta.

Why is this so? Because they see it as their duty to lend support to their Muslim brothers wherever they are in the world. Regardless of race or nationality.

That is very true.

Erm, isnt that a bit like the British lending a hand to the Americans when they ask for it? Shoulder to Shoulder an all that?

Can't have one standard for us and another for them you know :heyhey:


As for muslims speaking out against hostage taking, its condemned in the religion if you cared to actually find out about it. You know the book has been around some 1400 years or so ;)

The MBC isn't representative of muslims in the UK, in my opinion.
They are a half-baked bunch of (albeit educated) folk, whose words are just there to play for the watching media. They are a group just favoured by the govenrment to provide a 'muslim perspective' but they are simply not media savvy enough to do the job. Its their job to promote integration into the western society, but they are making a hash of it.

As usual if the UK media wanted the 'muslim perspective' they would probably turn to 'captain hook' but they can't do that right now as he is locked up.

Fact is as a muslim you should NOT use the cover of a civilian to have met your demands. Its that simple in real terms. This means you would not take children, women, or innocent men (this means non military, elderly) hostage, to be killed, maimed or otherwise to try and further your cause.

There are actually rules of war in Islam which stipulate that even once an enemy soldier has been killed, their body must be treated with respect, not mutilated or disfigured, and given a dignified transfer back to their base if possible or indeed buried.

I know some people would say all is fair in war, but this guy (Ken) has been in the region 20 years, the Arabs rely on western expertise in many many fields, and they should realise that this really isn't doing them any favours. The point of murering him would be what? Nothing, it proves to serve no purpose. Equally killing the Americans isn't going to change anything. Personally i think they have a 'figure in mind' of the losses they can accept as a nation before the pressuremounts internally and they will pull out.

Alternatively, if you look at the broader picture, if the same people who have been dropping bombs on your homeland are also employing companies to whom billions of dollars worth of contracts are going, you may well feel a little peeved.

What needs to be established are the following:

1. How many more lives the 'rebuilding' of Iraq with US $ backed companies this is going to take.

2. If you break any kind of diplomacy with the 'terrorists' then you have no hope of resolviong the situation peacefully. If the west don't negotiate with terrorists, don't worry they have plenty of puppets in the ME who will on their behalf, so direct or indirect EVERYONE has to deal

3. This Dr. Death and Dr. Germ are just two scientists, both well renouned for their parts in research into bio-warfare. However, these two are not solely responsible for the whole project (of which to date no such large scale project has been found since or during the war). Whats their actual importance, or what knowledge do their yield that these people could not obtain anyway?

4. When is the UK going to take control of its own foreign policy, and do that they do best. Provide for the people of tht country the basic services and get people to like them by working with them in a way which respects their culture. Thats what the Brits are good at.

Discuss.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Erm, isnt that a bit like the British lending a hand to the Americans when they ask for it? Shoulder to Shoulder an all that?

Can't have one standard for us and another for them you know :heyhey:

No, it's not the same at all. There are some fundamental differences.

Most obviously, we do not "lend a hand to the Americans" solely because we share the same religious beliefs as them.

That is an extremely dangerous basis on which to offer support to anyone.

Originally posted by mojoworking
No, it's not the same at all. There are some fundamental differences.

Most obviously, we do not "lend a hand to the Americans" solely because we share the same religious beliefs as them.

That is an extremely dangerous basis on which to offer support to anyone.

Well, not all muslims countries lend a hand to each other. Many have been at war for years, or indeed significantly disagree with each others internal politics. There has to be some common ground to 'lend a hand'. In the British and American case its what exactly that makes them 'lend a hand'? Civilised world, the west? Share of the contracts? who knows?

Maybe they share the same religious beliefs but not only that they may also agree with each others internal politics.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
As for muslims speaking out against hostage taking, its condemned in the religion if you cared to actually find out about it. You know the book has been around some 1400 years or so ;)

Fact is as a muslim you should NOT use the cover of a civilian to have met your demands. Its that simple in real terms. This means you would not take children, women, or innocent men (this means non military, elderly) hostage, to be killed, maimed or otherwise to try and further your cause.

There are actually rules of war in Islam which stipulate that even once an enemy soldier has been killed, their body must be treated with respect, not mutilated or disfigured, and given a dignified transfer back to their base if possible or indeed buried.


I don't see your point. The fact that the Koran says those things are wrong doesn't mean squat.

All the above (and worse) are being done by Muslims every day. And they've been doing them for centuries.

As I'm sure you remember, Muslims were behind the terrible massacre of hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia only a few weeks ago. That's one atrocity even you can't trace back to the USA.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I don't see your point. All these things (and worse) are being done by Muslims every day. And they've been doing them for years.

I'm sure you haven't forgotten, Muslims were behind the terrible massacre of hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia only a few weeks ago. That's one atrocity even you can't trace back to the USA.

I don't believe that anyone here was trying to blame Beslan on the USA.... The people behind the slaughter than were Chechen terrorists who just happened to be nominally Muslim; at least one of their number were killed by their leaders when they voiced concern about what was being done.

And as for 'the point' the point is that these people are HIDING behind Islam; the behaviour of extremists of any religion can't always be laid at the book in which they believe.

And as for all these things and worse being done by Muslims for years, you might as well say that Christians were behind Belsen and Buchenwald. It's a fatuous thing to say.

Joe

Originally posted by JoePritchard
I don't believe that anyone here was trying to blame Beslan on the USA.... The people behind the slaughter than were Chechen terrorists who just happened to be nominally Muslim; at least one of their number were killed by their leaders when they voiced concern about what was being done.

And as for 'the point' the point is that these people are HIDING behind Islam; the behaviour of extremists of any religion can't always be laid at the book in which they believe.

And as for all these things and worse being done by Muslims for years, you might as well say that Christians were behind Belsen and Buchenwald. It's a fatuous thing to say.

Joe

You're missing the point Joe.

You may have noticed that virtually every Islamic atrocity is somehow turned on its head and the blame is then laid firmly at the door of the imperialist Americans. For example, every time a hostage is taken/slaughtered, the response on the forum is "oh well, he shouldn't have been there. He knew the risks". In other words, it's his (ie America's) own fault.

I mentioned the terrible Beslan incident because there was no US involvement, no matter how obliquely (ie they can't be blamed this time).

As for the Chechen terrorists being "nominally Muslim". That's convenient, isn't it? I think you'll find they were funded and organised by Muslim extremists.

I'm quite aware that not all Muslims support terrorism, but the question is, WHY are they (the terrorists) hiding behind Islam? The Nazis did not hide behind Christianity. When we declared war on Germany, did anyone say, "hang on, that's an attack on Christianity". I think not.

The Nazis were not religious extremists, they were political extremists - fascists. It's a very similar thing, when you think about it. And we still despise fascists today, hence the rough treatment the BNP members quite rightly get on this very forum.

Like it or not, terrorism is being carried out in the name of Islam. We see Jihad (Holy War) being threatened virtually every day.

Should have expected it, really....

Whatever you say, mojoworking. :)

However, these terrorists are hiding behind Islam because it validates what they do.

It could be argued that the attitudes of the Nazis with regard to the Jews simply reflected the anti-Jewish attitudes of the organised Christian church that were prevalent from the middle ages onwards. The Nazis were clearly not Christian in their behaviour, but many party members were actually baptised Christians. Many turned their back on their faith, but, nominally, still Christian.

A minority of extremists get the airtime and the media coverage; the majority just get on with their lives.

the 'Holy War' between Islam and Christianity, as you put it, is being fought by a minority. You could just as easily say that during the Northern Ireland troubles a state of war existed between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and it would be just as daft.

Mojoworking, you and I just seem to agree to disagree about everything, so that's it for me.

Joe :)

Originally posted by alisha18
As a British muslim born and bred in Sheffield and proud to live and work in England. I condemn the atrocities that are taking place in Iraq.

I feel that the majority of muslims are shocked just like any other person by watching the horrific and shocking images portrayed on the news and media.

Do you want every muslim in the world to give you this reply? It doesn't matter what your religion or culture a human being can never be happy at other humans being killed.

Kady Well said A.It's like blaming all the Irish for what the IRA Have done over the years,there are good & bad in every society.

Originally posted by JoePritchard
Should have expected it, really....

Whatever you say, mojoworking. :)

However, these terrorists are hiding behind Islam because it validates what they do.

It could be argued that the attitudes of the Nazis with regard to the Jews simply reflected the anti-Jewish attitudes of the organised Christian church that were prevalent from the middle ages onwards. The Nazis were clearly not Christian in their behaviour, but many party members were actually baptised Christians. Many turned their back on their faith, but, nominally, still Christian.

A minority of extremists get the airtime and the media coverage; the majority just get on with their lives.

the 'Holy War' between Islam and Christianity, as you put it, is being fought by a minority. You could just as easily say that during the Northern Ireland troubles a state of war existed between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and it would be just as daft.

Mojoworking, you and I just seem to agree to disagree about everything, so that's it for me.

Joe :)

Sorry Joe, was I supposed to agree with you? You should have said so at the outset :)

Come on Joe, don't take it so seriously. Surely we can have a difference of opinion without unpleasantness creeping in. I hope so, anyway. You seem like a nice bloke, after all :|

Interesting development but new is reporting one of the Dr is to be freed:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3678794.stm


One of al-Queda’s main aim in their war against West is to make it impossible for Muslims to live peacefully in none Western countries. They want Muslims to feel persecuted and isolated so that they turn to the extreme fringes of Islam.

And claiming that all these atrocities are done in the name of Islam sadly does seem to be helping the al-Queda cause of creating greater and greater divisions between Muslim and non-Muslim communities.


After the beheading of 12 Nepalese workers the main mosque in Kahtmandu was burned to the ground by a mob, in the UK this statement has appeared on a ’moderate’ neo nazi website which is focussing blame for this hostage crisis upon the British Muslim minority, i can assure you that far worse is being discussed on other nazi websites not covered by British race hat laws.

“As an increasingly growing voice for the British people the *** calls upon the groups representing Muslims living in Britain, to condemn this brutality....................A failure to condemn such barbarism can only be interpreted as silent approval of the tactics of these terror gangs in Iraq who are preying on western civilians.”

al-queda want British and American people to equate Islam with terrorism, they want ‘us’ to be seen as incompatible with ‘them‘.

How many times have i seen that freak with the Hook held up as the face of Western Islam by certain newspapers, which never represent the reality of the majority of Muslims in the west such as the American Islamic leaders granting permission for Muslims to fight in the war in Afghanistan.

Originally posted by mojoworking

As I'm sure you remember, Muslims were behind the terrible massacre of hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia only a few weeks ago. That's one atrocity even you can't trace back to the USA.

Something drastic was done by the chechens because the world was ignoring all the violence, murder, rape, torture being dished out by the russians to innocent chechens.

If they had kicked a russian soldier up the backside it wouldn't get on the international news now would it.

Anyway, it seems to me like you're just a tad bitter at muslims in general mojo. The thing with the UK & USA is that before 9/11 they weren't used to being attacked and could invade any country they wanted and set their own laws, now theres abit of pressure they're not finding it as easy any more.

By the tone of your comments you seem to imply that 9/11 and the Beslan massacre was ok.

Let us not forget that as well as the Uk and the US invading other countries right or wrong both countries provide a lot of these countries with money, food and assistance.

The UK and the US are not the enemies of these people as a lot of people would make them appear.

I do not read much about the oil rich arab nations giving out much to any of these same countries.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I don't see your point. The fact that the Koran says those things are wrong doesn't mean squat.

All the above (and worse) are being done by Muslims every day. And they've been doing them for centuries.

As I'm sure you remember, Muslims were behind the terrible massacre of hundreds of schoolchildren in Russia only a few weeks ago. That's one atrocity even you can't trace back to the USA.

Doesn't mean squat to you, thats because you probably fall into one of the catagorys below:

1. Have never taken the time to read it
2. Believe the tabloid version of Islam
3. Think every muslim is an extremist

The point which you have so clearly missed by a greater margin then I could have imagined is thus, my good mojo....

You cannot commit these atrocities under the name of Islam. End of. There are no buts, no ifs. If you do this you are considered worse then the enemy which you fight, and you can consider your fate to be the same or worse. Essentially these 'muslim' terrorists are not only terrorising westerners, but also hijackers of the name of Islam.

Furthermore, if I went into a church declared myself Christian, put on a cross and went into a mosque and detonated myself, I wouldnt be representative of the Christian people. I would have 'hijacked' the name of Christianity to provoke inter-religion hatred would I not?

Hence take these people on FACE value - terrorists. And deal with them in the same way they inflict mindless violence on those innocents.

These things can be stopped though. Its not alright to drop bombs on one hand and pump in aid with the other. Thats called hypocrisy, especially when you are killing women, children and other innocents on the opposite side and then say 'collateral damage'.

An innocent life taken is an innocent life taken, be it Iraqi, American, British etc. Remember, God doesn't ask for your passport when you get your one way ticket confirmed to go see him.

:hihi:

Originally posted by PopT
By the tone of your comments you seem to imply that 9/11 and the Beslan massacre was ok.

Let us not forget that as well as the Uk and the US invading other countries right or wrong both countries provide a lot of these countries with money, food and assistance.

The UK and the US are not the enemies of these people as a lot of people would make them appear.

I do not read much about the oil rich arab nations giving out much to any of these same countries.

That's the impression I got too Pop. It appears that the US and UK are to blame for everything, doesn't it? :confused:

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Doesn't mean squat to you, thats because you probably fall into one of the catagorys below:

1. Have never taken the time to read it
2. Believe the tabloid version of Islam
3. Think every muslim is an extremist

The point which you have so clearly missed by a greater margin then I could have imagined is thus, my good mojo....

You cannot commit these atrocities under the name of Islam. End of. There are no buts, no ifs. If you do this you are considered worse then the enemy which you fight, and you can consider your fate to be the same or worse. Essentially these 'muslim' terrorists are not only terrorising westerners, but also hijackers of the name of Islam.

Furthermore, if I went into a church declared myself Christian, put on a cross and went into a mosque and detonated myself, I wouldnt be representative of the Christian people. I would have 'hijacked' the name of Christianity to provoke inter-religion hatred would I not?

Hence take these people on FACE value - terrorists. And deal with them in the same way they inflict mindless violence on those innocents.

These things can be stopped though. Its not alright to drop bombs on one hand and pump in aid with the other. Thats called hypocrisy, especially when you are killing women, children and other innocents on the opposite side and then say 'collateral damage'.

An innocent life taken is an innocent life taken, be it Iraqi, American, British etc. Remember, God doesn't ask for your passport when you get your one way ticket confirmed to go see him.

:hihi:

No, I don't think every Muslim is an extremist, of course not.

But equally, are you saying that those who are committing the acts of terrorism in the name of Islam are not Muslims, or are just pretending to be Muslims? If so, to what purpose?

Your logic is a little skewed when you say that "You cannot commit these atrocities under the name of Islam. End of. There are no buts, no ifs". That's simply not true and you know it. Ask the families of the hostages who were so cruelly butchered if you don't believe me.

Originally posted by mojoworking
But equally, are you saying that those who are committing the acts of terrorism in the name of Islam are not Muslims, or are just pretending to be Muslims? If so, to what purpose?

You've got it in one. They are not muslims nor are they followers of Islam. If there is a god, as both Islam and Christianity, among others, claim, then on the death of these terrorists they will not be allowed in to the kingdom of their god. Their excuse of acting in god's name will hold no water come the big interview.

Thier purpose in claiming to be adherents of Islam is to justify their actions in their own eyes, no one else's.

Do you seriously think Torquemeda and his inquistors would be allowed into a christian god's kingdom despite having tortured and killed across Europe in his name? What about whatshisface, the witch finder general? Killing innocent women in the name of christ, I doubt he'd get past St Peter.

I think Mojo must be an apologist for Russian atrocities in Chechnya...this is after all the logic of Mojo's own argument in which legitimate critics of Bush and Blair are accused of supporting the beheading of abductees bt Al-Queda sympathisers.
So Mojo, 70% of the adult male population of Chechnya killed by the Russians, approx 35000 kids of school-going age also killed and 10,000's women and girls raped.....all before Beslan and you think that there is no connection? I merely reverse your own argument, as you clearly have no sympathy for the victims of these disgusting war crimes, presumably Putin's actions have your full support?
To draw these facts to your attention (and anyone elses) is not to support the atrocity in the school but to look at what may have provoked such an extreme act.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
I think Mojo must be an apologist for Russian atrocities in Chechnya...this is after all the logic of Mojo's own argument in which legitimate critics of Bush and Blair are accused of supporting the beheading of abductees bt Al-Queda sympathisers.
So Mojo, 70% of the adult male population of Chechnya killed by the Russians, approx 35000 kids of school-going age also killed and 10,000's women and girls raped.....all before Beslan and you think that there is no connection? I merely reverse your own argument, as you clearly have no sympathy for the victims of these disgusting war crimes, presumably Putin's actions have your full support?
To draw these facts to your attention (and anyone elses) is not to support the atrocity in the school but to look at what may have provoked such an extreme act.

Nice try Ned, but you obviously haven't thought this through.

Nothing justifies the murder of innocent children and you must be very sick to even suggest it.

Originally posted by mojoworking
No, I don't think every Muslim is an extremist, of course not.

But equally, are you saying that those who are committing the acts of terrorism in the name of Islam are not Muslims, or are just pretending to be Muslims? If so, to what purpose?

Your logic is a little skewed when you say that "You cannot commit these atrocities under the name of Islam. End of. There are no buts, no ifs". That's simply not true and you know it. Ask the families of the hostages who were so cruelly butchered if you don't believe me.

Thats EXACTLY what I am saying Mojo. And ask the question, why as I saying it?

The answer would read as follows: because the very holy book these people claim to be followers of (remember muslim means one who 'submits to the will of god' which is of course in the holy text of the Kor'an).

Now, nowhere in there does it condone these actions, infact to the contrary, you are NOT permitted to kill people in the classifications as mentioned by myself previously, otherwise you are seen as worse then the enemy you are fighting. This is simple fact, not skewed logic or anything else.

Now I bring the next question to you, have you asked the families of those people what they think of the British participation in the war? I believe they are not people to judges a book by its cover. You are not muslim if you think these acts are acceptable, that is the top and bottom of it. You cannot do something in the name of god which he himself has forbidden.
Im beginning to wonder now who's logic is skewed.

As I mentioned before, these people are terrorists, wating to attract the sympathys of the majority in their host nations. Im glad the majority in this case are trying to repel them to some greater or lesser extent according to their capabilities.

From my gathering the families of those British soldiers killed feel they died needlessly. Maybe you can show to the contrary, I would be obliged to see that.

On an additional note, has anybody been round doing a door to door check up round on the women and children maimed, injured, and disabled by western bombs in Iraq?

Nobody is going to like you much as a country, if you drop bombs on one hand, and food parcels on the other. Its makes NO sense when the basic needs of the people on the street are not being met.

The UK Muslim view is simple NOT being projected correctly by this Blairite 'Muslim Council' who the hell elected them anyway? They definately don't speak on my behalf, and its high time people like captain hook and his ilk were locked up for their blatantly blasphemous speeches trying to convince people this kind of thing is okay by God, it isn't and won't ever be.

Hope this helps me get my message across :)

Originally posted by mojoworking
Nice try Ned, but you obviously haven't thought this through.

Nothing justifies the murder of innocent children and you must be very sick to even suggest it.

To attempt to explain is not to justify. You must admit, 70% of the male population is a quite staggering figure - the whole situation in that area of the world, as typified by the massacre, is terrible and very, very sad.

Originally posted by Greenback
To attempt to explain is not to justify. You must admit, 70% of the male population is a quite staggering figure - the whole situation in that area of the world, as typified by the massacre, is terrible and very, very sad.

Yes it is a large figure, but again, it doesn't justify, or even begin to explain how someone could kill so many innocent children.

Is Islam the same peaceful religion that instructs via the Ko'ran that:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made them excel and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient. Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

- Verse 34, Chapter 4, The Women.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Thats EXACTLY what I am saying Mojo. And ask the question, why as I saying it?

The answer would read as follows: because the very holy book these people claim to be followers of (remember muslim means one who 'submits to the will of god' which is of course in the holy text of the Kor'an).

Now, nowhere in there does it condone these actions, infact to the contrary, you are NOT permitted to kill people in the classifications as mentioned by myself previously, otherwise you are seen as worse then the enemy you are fighting. This is simple fact, not skewed logic or anything else.

Now I bring the next question to you, have you asked the families of those people what they think of the British participation in the war? I believe they are not people to judges a book by its cover. You are not muslim if you think these acts are acceptable, that is the top and bottom of it. You cannot do something in the name of god which he himself has forbidden.
Im beginning to wonder now who's logic is skewed.

As I mentioned before, these people are terrorists, wating to attract the sympathys of the majority in their host nations. Im glad the majority in this case are trying to repel them to some greater or lesser extent according to their capabilities.

From my gathering the families of those British soldiers killed feel they died needlessly. Maybe you can show to the contrary, I would be obliged to see that.

On an additional note, has anybody been round doing a door to door check up round on the women and children maimed, injured, and disabled by western bombs in Iraq?

Nobody is going to like you much as a country, if you drop bombs on one hand, and food parcels on the other. Its makes NO sense when the basic needs of the people on the street are not being met.

The UK Muslim view is simple NOT being projected correctly by this Blairite 'Muslim Council' who the hell elected them anyway? They definately don't speak on my behalf, and its high time people like captain hook and his ilk were locked up for their blatantly blasphemous speeches trying to convince people this kind of thing is okay by God, it isn't and won't ever be.

Hope this helps me get my message across :)

Now I'm really confused. So Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are NOT Muslims suddenly, right? Why? Because it suits your anti Bush/Blair rhetoric to say so?

If you feel it helps your argument to claim that Osama et al are just godless terrorist thugs and not Islamic flag bearers, so be it.

By the way, in case you thought otherwise, I'm with you in opposing the war in Iraq. I felt it was a waste of time from the word go.

Iv'e not justified it. That's by whole bloody point. The point made is that people like you accuse critics of state violence of supporting the terrorists (groups largely spawned out of state oppression and violence) I'm afraid when I read Mojo, Pops and yourself I all too readily see how Britain could have provided its' own share of Nazi calloborators to act as concentration camp guards after an invasion. Resistance fighters would have been terrorists and there would have been a need to impose law and order and security
You abhorre vile acts of terrorism but seem quite happy to support the jackboot tactics (and the far greater loss of life) perpetrated by the State.
There is a strong whiff of hypocrisy in situations where state atrocities aren't acknowledged and only the reaction to these by terrorists are condemned (I've not seen anyone justify the Beslan slaughter, but many people won't condemn mass murder by the Russian state, even worse they actually approve of it.

Dont call me sick, just try reading what I've said.

Originally posted by t020
Is Islam the same peaceful religion that instructs via the Ko'ran that:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made them excel and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient. Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

- Verse 34, Chapter 4, The Women.

You could find any number of similar quotes in the Bible.

t020, you are the epitome of Daily Mail Man. Islam bad, white men good. It must be comforting to live in your world, where everything's so simplistic.

Originally posted by Greenback
You could find any number of similar quotes in the Bible.

t020, you are the epitome of Daily Mail Man. Islam bad, white men good. It must be comforting to live in your world, where everything's so simplistic.


When people start claiming how peaceful Islam is though, it's only fair that they see an example of how untrue this is. I accept that similar quotes may exist in the bible, but then I don't see too many christian girls walking around with everything but their eyes covered. I'm not saying one religion is better than another. They're all as bad as each other and are responsible for most of the problems the world has today and has had in the past. "My world" would be a religion free world.

PS. I don't read the Mail, but you're a typical Guardian reader. White man bad, everything else good. Bush? Evil, nasty man. Bin Laden? Well he's killed thousands but lets not blame him, and instead lets look into why. Pffft.

Originally posted by t020
When people start claiming how peaceful Islam is though, it's only fair that they see an example of how untrue this is. I accept that similar quotes may exist in the bible, but then I don't see too many christian girls walking around with everything but their eyes covered. I'm not saying one religion is better than another. They're all as bad as each other and are responsible for most of the problems the world has today and has had in the past. "My world" would be a religion free world.

Do you have any idea how offensive you are? There are 1 billion Muslims in the world, and you're making a blanket assertion that Islam is a violent religion, based on an analysis of a translated sentence in a 4000 year-old document. I'm not even going to start on the hijab, which millions of women actually choose to wear...

Your world is never going to exist, so it's time to make contingency plans.

Ok so in summary, Islam = perfect. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
Is Islam the same peaceful religion that instructs via the Ko'ran that:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made them excel and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient. Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

- Verse 34, Chapter 4, The Women.

Because the Koran was written in the style of seventh-century Arabic, much of it reads more as poetry than straight text. Therefore, some verses will be open to different interpretations.

The first sentence is correct, in that as men were the breadwinners of the seventh century, they were duty bound to be the guardians and protectors of their womenfolk.

As for the second sentence, were you to understand the context it was revealed in, you'd actually interpret it as follows:


To those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them first

Next, refuse to share their beds if they continue to disobey

And as a last resort beat them lightly

but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great.


And as regards the severity of the beating, the Prophet Mohammed tapped a person on the shoulder with a twig, as as example of how much force should be used.

t020, I admit that my translation is not nearly as exciting as yours, but there you go :)

Unfortunately, this thread is turning into one of those moral crusades where the part-time Islamic scholars and full-time Islamophobes can never be wrong, and their opponents can never be right, so I'll just leave my contribution there for this evening.

Good night all

Originally posted by t020
Ok so in summary, Islam = perfect. :rolleyes:

Just time for one more...

"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam."
[Koran Chapter 5, Verse 4]

Yes t020, as spoken by God himself :)

Originally posted by Abdul
Just time for one more...

"This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam."
[Koran Chapter 5, Verse 4]

Yes t020, as spoken by God himself :) Hi Abdul,I am not up on the islamic religion. So can you tell me if Islamic religion preaches non violence such as murder.This is an honest Question.Thankyou

Originally posted by Abdul

And as regards the severity of the beating, the Prophet Mohammed tapped a person on the shoulder with a twig, as as example of how much force should be used.



:lol: :lol: :lol: Come off it! And surely even you can see when words like "beat" are used, the severity is open to interpretation by the reader, which in itself is dangerous. I doubt many disobedient wives and daughters get off with a "tap on the shoulder with a twig". I can think of a few however that have been beaten to death for not going along with arranged marriages, and women being stoned to death for having an affair. Where was the tap on the shoulder??

Iraq killers 'utterly un-Islamic'



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3679080.stm

Originally posted by tosh13
Hi Abdul,I am not up on the islamic religion. So can you tell me if Islamic religion preaches non violence such as murder.This is an honest Question.Thankyou Well I guess I'm not going to get a answer to my Question.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Sorry Joe, was I supposed to agree with you? You should have said so at the outset :)

Come on Joe, don't take it so seriously. Surely we can have a difference of opinion without unpleasantness creeping in. I hope so, anyway. You seem like a nice bloke, after all :|

Good grief, I'd hate it if we were to agree all the time!

I have no issues about disagreements - I just feel that your response sometimes is rather patronising and belittling to those you disagree with. It's not what is said, it's the manner in which it comes over.

As to whether I'm a nice bloke or not, that all depends on who you ask.

Joe

Originally posted by t020
:lol: :lol: :lol: Come off it! And surely even you can see when words like "beat" are used, the severity is open to interpretation by the reader, which in itself is dangerous. I doubt many disobedient wives and daughters get off with a "tap on the shoulder with a twig". I can think of a few however that have been beaten to death for not going along with arranged marriages, and women being stoned to death for having an affair. Where was the tap on the shoulder??

Uh?? Beat can be used in many different context, and its severity can be attributed in different ways. Like if I said 'beat and egg' I don't mean go and get the heavies with bats in to do it.

The prophet also showed the method of doing things, in addition to the Quranic texts.

Your quotes of beaten to death are true, but I want to know exectly who goes looking for the right way to do things by the Koran when they find their missus has been off with another bloke. Im speaking in simplistic terms here now. The sad thing is 'culture' gets mixed with religion. They are two very different things.

If you are a muslim by name only, and you do not adhere to the methods which are allowable, then clearly you are in breach of the laws of that religion.

it is in itself a severe offence to do in the name of islam that which is forbidden. Thats the top and bottom of it, if you do otherwise, then your day of judgement will reflect that.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Now I'm really confused. So Osama Bin Laden and his ilk are NOT Muslims suddenly, right? Why? Because it suits your anti Bush/Blair rhetoric to say so?

If you feel it helps your argument to claim that Osama et al are just godless terrorist thugs and not Islamic flag bearers, so be it.

By the way, in case you thought otherwise, I'm with you in opposing the war in Iraq. I felt it was a waste of time from the word go.

For god sake! Confused?!

What do you mean 'not Muslims suddenly'? Who exactly is saying they are perfect muslims anyway, or indeed muslims at all?

I for one don't think they are, they are neither perfect, nor admirable. i have said time and time again, but again i have to repeat the words to which you remain deaf...

If you don't go by the book, you are not of the book. Do you see what I am saying now?

Additionally you have completely overlooked any of the questions I have put to you in your own small internet crusade. Whether you opposed the Iraq war or not, that doesnt give you the overbearing right to decide whats right or wrong with a religion.

FACT is these people are not muslims. Terrorists yes, but using the name of Islam to justify their means, which in actual fact it doesnt.

Originally posted by Disco_Cat
Iraq killers 'utterly un-Islamic'



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3679080.stm

I look forward to seeing them unite some more by singing together on Songs of Praise. :)

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW

Your quotes of beaten to death are true, but I want to know exectly who goes looking for the right way to do things by the Koran when they find their missus has been off with another bloke.


Well the general reaction in the West is for the husband to thump the other man and then either get a divorce or work through it. I can't remember there being a case of publicly stoning the wife to death though...

Originally posted by t020
Well the general reaction in the West is for the husband to thump the other man and then either get a divorce or work through it. I can't remember there being a case of publicly stoning the wife to death though...


You speak of current times, but don't forget them even the King of England, Henry VIII had a couple of his wives beheaded for adultery. Under what law did he do that? One would assume he used the cover of the C of E at the time?

Add that to the fact that the ME is some years behind the west in its culture and understanding, you get a rough idea of the so called 'justice' dished out. Its not gods fault if people don't adhere to what he tells them! Simply, a case of in name only.

Lets not forget Mr Champion of Womens Rights, its easy to look back and point out whats wrong and right. Facts remain facts, you cannot stone to death, you cannot beat to death, you are able to show however your dissatisfaction with the full force of a twig. Thats the RULES. If you choose not to obey them, thats not the fault of the religion.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
You speak of current times, but don't forget them even the King of England, Henry VIII had a couple of his wives beheaded for adultery. Under what law did he do that? One would assume he used the cover of the C of E at the time?


I think that says it all really. Muslim countries are centuries behind in terms of their civilisation.

I saw that poor Englishman pleading for his life tonight on the TV.

I pray for his deliverance from this evil and I hope every decent Muslim will join me.

It doesn't what our differences are or what we believe in, there is one fact, none of us can justify this evil in God's name no matter what has gone before.

Evil will perpetuate evil and no amount of argument will change that.

If you argued that, 'it's all about lives' you'd find a response being slung back something like, 'it's about principles.' >>Well, tell that to the guy whose waiting to first have his throat cut and then the rest of his head taken off. All this with a short knife and before an audience. So what? some might say, 'We don't give in to terrorists.' No, we don't, but conflict resolution perhaps might well be heading (sorry) toward new dimensions with certain fundamental questions at their core....Such as for example, in Iraq, you could ask who are the oppressors, the invaders.... Maybe those there who arguably weren't invited? Given this scenario, there's fuel added to the fire regarding the justification for hitting back. Given this, whether you agree or don't (though it's always the case that invading armies get clobbered. The French in Algiers, The Soviets in Afghanistan, the Nazis everywhere...) is there not room for consideration of a man's life? Eventually Iraq will revert to an Islamic state akin to that of Sadam, whether the Brits or the Americans need Iraqi oil and have some lame and stupidly costly idea about Westernising the place. Where will 'not negotiating with terrorists' be then? A person's life could have been saved somewhere in the process, through mere gesture.
>>Notice that not one politician who has power (Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al, ad nauseum) have sons nor daughters facing this beheading scenario. Their kin appear to be tucked nicely away from harm. It's OK for them to talk! Perhaps their talking ought to contain different consideration, that of saving a human life.
>>Like I said, if you argue some ideal about who is right and who is wrong in the present moment....Do you not think LIFE is kind of central in the long term? How would you feel with a knife at your throat, your heart beating a millions times per second....knowing your country said, 'Well, we don't negotiate....' 'It's about us and them'. Huh. Blair>>Bet off your arse and do something right.!!!!

Originally posted by t020
I think that says it all really. Muslim countries are centuries behind in terms of their civilisation.


And your point is? Don't you think i actually knew that before I wrote it duh!

Read the paragraph below it, then slap yourself on the head with a wet fish for stating the obvious (which was clearly in my posting). They are years behind, in more ways then one.

They call themselves 'muslim' countries but even that couldn't be further away from the truth!

Of course they are well behind, but you can't bomb them into compliance!

I know you can read what it says, but do you understand it, thats the question.

I understand that people have suffered, often tortured to death, but what would have happened if we (uk/usa) had given in to the hostage takers. Well it's pretty safe to assume that there would have been a huge increase in hostage taking, with the abducters knowing that they can get what they want by beheading someone.

I do not understand if you are anti Blair, anti labour or anti war but either way we are not going to stop the atricities that are going on (by all parties) in this war.

Originally posted by PopT
I saw that poor Englishman pleading for his life tonight on the TV.

I pray for his deliverance from this evil and I hope every decent Muslim will join me.

It doesn't what our differences are or what we believe in, there is one fact, none of us can justify this evil in God's name no matter what has gone before.

Evil will perpetuate evil and no amount of argument will change that.

I join you to hope for this mans early and safe release.

Don't let that fool you Tony Blair into thinking you will make political gain from 'we dont negotiate with terrorists'. You have to negotiate with everyone, either directly or indirectly, otherwise there wouldn't be frantic calls being made and favours called in to ME leaders.

I hope it all plays out well and this guy come back home safe.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
For god sake! Confused?!

What do you mean 'not Muslims suddenly'? Who exactly is saying they are perfect muslims anyway, or indeed muslims at all?

I for one don't think they are, they are neither perfect, nor admirable. i have said time and time again, but again i have to repeat the words to which you remain deaf...

If you don't go by the book, you are not of the book. Do you see what I am saying now?

Additionally you have completely overlooked any of the questions I have put to you in your own small internet crusade. Whether you opposed the Iraq war or not, that doesnt give you the overbearing right to decide whats right or wrong with a religion.

FACT is these people are not muslims. Terrorists yes, but using the name of Islam to justify their means, which in actual fact it doesnt.

I'm reluctant to reply, because I suspect it will simply start you off on yet another pro Islam tirade.

Why are you so aggressively defensive about Islam? Please explain.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I'm reluctant to reply, because I suspect it will simply start you off on yet another pro Islam tirade.

Why are you so aggressively defensive about Islam? Please explain.

You are reluctant to reply because you don't have any answers im afraid Mojo. I have answered your questions you should have the courtesy to do the same, if you can't then don't hide behind this posting about being pro Islam.

Its not about being pro Islam or not, its about whats written and what isn't. I have pointed out whats happening is not right, and in no way can islam be used to justify it.

It could also pose the question why you are so keen to tie Islam and terrorism hand in hand? Its not accepted by the religion we know that much, so how can it be used as a pretext for comitting such atrocities?

Maybe YOU would be so kind as to answer some of my questions now, numerous in number though they are from previous posts.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
You are reluctant to reply because you don't have any answers im afraid Mojo. I have answered your questions you should have the courtesy to do the same, if you can't then don't hide behind this posting about being pro Islam.

Its not about being pro Islam or not, its about whats written and what isn't. I have pointed out whats happening is not right, and in no way can islam be used to justify it.

It could also pose the question why you are so keen to tie Islam and terrorism hand in hand? Its not accepted by the religion we know that much, so how can it be used as a pretext for comitting such atrocities?

Maybe YOU would be so kind as to answer some of my questions now, numerous in number though they are from previous posts.

You haven't really answered any questions. All you've done is quote meaningless chunks of the party manifesto (sorry, the Koran).

You're assuming that anyone other than your good self believes in any of that ****

Simply saying it's true doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

Again, I ask. Why so defensive? Is there something you're not telling us?

Originally posted by mojoworking
You haven't really answered any questions. All you've done is quote meaningless chunks of the party manifesto (sorry, the Koran).

You're assuming that anyone other than your good self believes in any of that ****

Simply saying it's true doesn't make it so, I'm afraid.

Again, I ask. Why so defensive? Is there something you're not telling us?


Whats there to be defensive about? You are basically scared of what you don't know through your own ignorance. I am not here to offer a defence for anything, im not on trial, however as a muslim myself I will not be tarred with the same brush with which you seek to single-handedly show all muslims as being terrorists or having sympathy for those who commit terrorist acts. I don't see why you should make your assumptions not based on the facts. You have dismissed an entire religion based on 'meaningless....party manifesto'. I take it then you have taken the time to read the arabic scriptures and then translate them?

You are saying these people are muslim (or at least you beleive them when they say they are), yet you fail to acknowledge the very core of what a muslim actually is according to this 'Party manifesto' as you describe it in your twisted humour. I could call myself a Rabbi tomorrow, doesn't make me one does it?

Its not my job to make anybody else believe in 'any of that ****' as you so affectionately put it (apart from the majority of the other 1bn decent muslims worldwide, but hey thats nothing too major is it?) but it remains the case as I have said before, and I say again, if you DON'T comply with whats there, you can't be expected to use it as a defence. You are a muslim if you submit to the will of god. That means abiding by the holy book, which you have more of less shed any regard for at all.

If its 'meaningless chunks of party manifesto' as you put it then you shouldn't seek any form of apology from those people who you think then are executing their own blurred vision of 'the word of god'. You are as bad as them in their ignorance of the facts.

I just don't see how I can take any of your comments seriously or have a debate with you any further.

I suggest we leave this one as unagreeable.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Whats there to be defensive about? You are basically scared of what you don't know through your own ignorance. I am not here to offer a defence for anything, im not on trial, however as a muslim myself I will not be tarred with the same brush with which you seek to single-handedly show all muslims as being terrorists or having sympathy for those who commit terrorist acts. I don't see why you should make your assumptions not based on the facts. You have dismissed an entire religion based on 'meaningless....party manifesto'. I take it then you have taken the time to read the arabic scriptures and then translate them?

You are saying these people are muslim (or at least you beleive them when they say they are), yet you fail to acknowledge the very core of what a muslim actually is according to this 'Party manifesto' as you describe it in your twisted humour. I could call myself a Rabbi tomorrow, doesn't make me one does it?

Its not my job to make anybody else believe in 'any of that ****' as you so affectionately put it (apart from the majority of the other 1bn decent muslims worldwide, but hey thats nothing too major is it?) but it remains the case as I have said before, and I say again, if you DON'T comply with whats there, you can't be expected to use it as a defence. You are a muslim if you submit to the will of god. That means abiding by the holy book, which you have more of less shed any regard for at all.

If its 'meaningless chunks of party manifesto' as you put it then you shouldn't seek any form of apology from those people who you think then are executing their own blurred vision of 'the word of god'. You are as bad as them in their ignorance of the facts.

I just don't see how I can take any of your comments seriously or have a debate with you any further.

I suggest we leave this one as unagreeable.

Finally we get at the truth. You have a vested interest. THAT'S why you're so defensive. It explains why you need to mindlessly quote those endless passages from the terrorists' guidebook (sorry, the Koran). :)

As you say, let's leave this one as unagreeable. But I'm glad we got there in the end.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Finally we get at the truth. You have a vested interest. THAT'S why you're so defensive. It explains why you need to mindlessly quote those endless passages from the terrorists' guidebook (sorry, the Koran). :)

As you say, let's leave this one as unagreeable. But I'm glad we got there in the end.


Not a vested interest at all. Im just sick and tired of the ignorance of people like you who can't answer simple questions put to them, then to top it off can't contemplate the fact that just because somebody calls themselves one thing, doesn't mean they are actually what the say they are.

I bet you don't ask the gas man/woman for their I.D when he comes to check your meter do you? Do you just take him / her on face value?

Its not some great truth you have uncovered, I have been posting on other posts regading Islam where I make it clear what my relgious beliefs are. I don't have to post anything, however of course it may help those who want to know a little more about the facts of the book. I'm not asking you to convert you know.

Maybe you COULD bring yourself to answer one question though, what would be the point of genuine muslims in the UK condeming what happened in Beslan, Iraq etc if THIS is the kind of abuse of their holy book is brought into play, and then we are blasted for having a vested interest. We just can't win, and its all really down to ignorance of the facts.

Now its a 'terrorists guidebook' and to add to that i haven't actually quoted ANY passages at all - I have merely given you the simplified version of the actual meaning. I think in all honesty you have clearly demonstrated to the public on this board of your own persuasions, like I said I have nothing to hide on the topic - but clearly your vested interest in creating hatred and a dislike of muslims universally has, I hope, been dealt a blow.

Heres quoting you from earlier in this thread:

Originally posted by mojoworking
No, I don't think every Muslim is an extremist, of course not.

22/09/2004 02:55pm

Yet, you then go on and call the holy book the 'terrorists guidebook'

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but terrorism and extremist actions usually go hand in hand. So whats your subliminal message?

Now I'm off to bed, and before doing so will make a small prayer and hope this gent Ken is released with no further delay. Maybe you too could do something more constructive than try and futher your own political viewpoints through the promotion of hatred, misinformation, ignorance and distrust.



have a good night now :thumbsup:

I wouldn't call it a "vested interest" for a Muslim to condemn terrorists who try to pretend that they are commiting grotesque acts in the name of Islam. I don't believe the hostage- takers are muslims any more than I believe the IRA killers were Christians.

It could just as well be claimed that Mojo has a vested interest in blaming Islam for terrorism... as he/she has made it clear in this and other threads that he/she finds it objectionable that people have religious beliefs or believe in any kind of God.

P.S. Before you ask... No, I am not a Muslim.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Not a vested interest at all. Im just sick and tired of the ignorance of people like you who can't answer simple questions put to them, then to top it off can't contemplate the fact that just because somebody calls themselves one thing, doesn't mean they are actually what the say they are.

I bet you don't ask the gas man/woman for their I.D when he comes to check your meter do you? Do you just take him / her on face value?

Its not some great truth you have uncovered, I have been posting on other posts regading Islam where I make it clear what my relgious beliefs are. I don't have to post anything, however of course it may help those who want to know a little more about the facts of the book. I'm not asking you to convert you know.

Maybe you COULD bring yourself to answer one question though, what would be the point of genuine muslims in the UK condeming what happened in Beslan, Iraq etc if THIS is the kind of abuse of their holy book is brought into play, and then we are blasted for having a vested interest. We just can't win, and its all really down to ignorance of the facts.

Now its a 'terrorists handbook' and to add to that i haven't actually quoted ANY passages at all - I have merely given you the simplified version of the actual meaning. I think in all honesty you have clearly demonstrated to the public on this board of your own persuasions, like I said I have nothing to hide on the topic - but clearly your vested interest in creating hatred and a dislike of muslims universally has, I hope, been dealt a blow.

Of course you have a vested interest. You've been brainwashed into believing that s**t and feel the need to share it with the world.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
70% of the adult male population of Chechnya killed by the Russians, approx 35000 kids of school-going age also killed
They are extraordinary figures. Care to provide some reliable evidence Nedd?

Originally posted by tosh13
Originally posted by tosh13
Hi Abdul,I am not up on the islamic religion. So can you tell me if Islamic religion preaches non violence such as murder.This is an honest Question.Thankyou

Originally posted by tosh13
Well I guess I'm not going to get a answer to my Question.


Tosh, if you'd read my previous posts, you would have noticed I did say I was leaving for the evening, hence you got no reply.


To answer your question, Islam preaches non-violence to those who do not harm them. However, if somebody attacks them first, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves.

Originally posted by Abdul


Tosh, if you'd read my previous posts, you would have noticed I did say I was leaving for the evening, hence you got no reply.


To answer your question, Islam preaches non-violence to those who do not harm them. However, if somebody attacks them first, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves. Apologies for the first & thankyou for the reply,but if it so, what have the 2 USA & the British guy done to warrant having there heads cut off.They have not harmed anyone .The British guy is still alive at 9.47 BST.CHEERS.

1man&hisBMW - Why are you rising to the ignorant? . . He/She/It ( Mojoworking ) clearly does not understand a word of what you are saying, you have put across your points very well and very clearly - I think the rest of Sheffield understands what you're saying except Mojo-tunnel vision - working.

It's funny how Mojo keeps being a hypocrite and only answers you with the same questions over and over again disguised in new words.

The conclusion is that Mojo simply does not have the intelligence nor the facts to answer back correctly. Come to think of it - no respect for other religions either.

Well done 1man&hisBMW. :clap:

Originally posted by tosh13
what have the 2 USA & the British guy done to warrant having there heads cut off.They have not harmed anyone .

They've done nothing wrong, but have been caught up in the same situation as the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who've been killed, abused and imprisoned.

That is, be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get caught up in somebody elses dirty war.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I look forward to seeing them unite some more by singing together on Songs of Praise. :)

Lickszz, I admonish you for conduct unbecoming of a moderator :nono:

Seriously, there are good relations between Christian and Muslim leaders in Liverpool. And I should know, I did work with them for a while :)

Originally posted by Abdul
They've done nothing wrong, but have been caught up in the same situation as the thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians who've been killed, abused and imprisoned.

That is, be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and get caught up in somebody elses dirty war. Ok I take your point,but how many iraqi civilians have have there heads cut off,abuse of all prisoners is terrible ,apparently 2 Italian woman have suffered the same fate.This should be stopped in the name of peace,if not where is it all going to end.

I was having a conversation about interpretation of song lyrics last night and it reminded me of this thread.

I was talking to a group of massive Morrissey fans about the meaning of the lyrics to “Irish Blood English Heart” which are as follows:

Irish blood, English heart, This I'm made of
There is no one on earth I'm afraid of
And no regime can buy or sell me

I've been dreaming of a time when
To be English is not to be baneful
To be standing by the flag not feeling shameful, racist or PARTIAL

Irish blood, English heart, This I'm made of
There is no one on earth I'm afraid of
And I will die with both of my hands untied

I've been dreaming of a time when
The English are sick to death of Labour, And Tories
And spit upon the name Oliver Cromwell
And denounce this royal line that still salute him
And will salute him forever


When i first heard this song on TV i presumed it was a song about wishing for a time when you could be proud to say you were English without Racists trying to hijack the flag and nationality, Lines such as “spit upon the name Oliver Cromwell” made me think it was about rejecting Imperialist English history and such English “Heroes “

But then i found a neo nazi thread on Stormfront dedicated to Morrissey and his lyrics. I’ve seen countless Racists with the lyrics

“Irish blood, English heart, This I'm made of
There is no one on earth I'm afraid of
And I will die with both of my hands untied”

as their signature. And when you look at the song from the Neo-Nazi mindset their are certainly sections of the lyrics that seam to support the BNP almost perfectly:

“I've been dreaming of a time when
The English are sick to death of Labour, And Tories”

When i mentioned this to the group of Morrissey fans they were horrified that certain people are misinterpreting the lyrics in this way and using them to support a cause which not only goes against what so many Morrissey fans believe, but is a complete misrepresentation of what the entire song so is about. My friend went of franticly and bought out a Unite Against fascism leaflet featuring Morrissey a supporter.

And now to get to the point.

If Morrissey can write a song denouncing Nationalism and within a few months have a situation were a tiny minority of his fans have misinterpreted that song and are using it to promote racism, can we be surprised that a text written thousands of years ago can also be abused by a minority of Islamo-Fascists today.

Peaceful people will read a massive text such as the Koran and their interpretations of ambiguous areas will represent their own personal mindset, and vice versa when you get hateful people like Osama Bin Laden or Nick griffin reading the Koran purely to justify their own hate filled opinions of Islam.

If Ken Bigley dies it will be the end of blair and the Labour Party. The prayer vigils in Labour stronghold Liverpool are getting larger by the day.

I'm no intelligence expert but why on earth haven't we tracked down where the hostage is being held yet? The 2nd US hostage's body was dumped in the same place as the 1st. Why wasn't the area being monitored? The people dumping the body could then have been followed back and we would've found the building where the hostage is.

Originally posted by Abdul
To answer your question, Islam preaches non-violence to those who do not harm them. However, if somebody attacks them first, Muslims are allowed to defend themselves.


"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made them excel and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient. Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

- Verse 34, Chapter 4, The Women.

Originally posted by t020
I'm no intelligence expert but why on earth haven't we tracked down where the hostage is being held yet? The 2nd US hostage's body was dumped in the same place as the 1st. Why wasn't the area being monitored? The people dumping the body could then have been followed back and we would've found the building where the hostage is.

Probably because, in the Grand Scheme Of Things™ (such as plundering Iraqi oil wealth for their own greedy interests), Western governments view the hostage as being cannon fodder?

I mean, what was the request made by his captors? To free women prisoners? Gosh, isn't that difficult?

I hope it won't come to this, but I wouldn't be surprised if the western goverments let him rot. In the Grand Scheme Of Things™ it seems acceptable for Western governments to sacrifice some of their own subjects for political purposes...

Originally posted by Abdul

I mean, what was the request made by his captors? To free women prisoners? Gosh, isn't that difficult?



I don't think we should bow to their demands though. These women are in prison for a reason, and bowing to their demands will only increase the likelihood of further hostage taking. I do think though, after all these days and 2 bodies being dropped at the same place, that our so called intelligence agencies could've found where he is being held.

Originally posted by t020
I don't think we should bow to their demands though. These women are in prison for a reason, and bowing to their demands will only increase the likelihood of further hostage taking.

How can you say something like that?

Do you know what the women are in prison for? I'm sure you're aware that wholly innocent Iraqi civilians were arrested, then imprisoned and abused, and I wouldn't be surprised if that is still going on.

This is one of the many reasons I was against the war in Iraq. But no, the blood-thirsty warmongers still went ahead.

Politicians have made this mess, and now innocent civilians from all corners of the globe are paying the ultimate price.

Originally posted by t020
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made them excel and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient. Those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them"

- Verse 34, Chapter 4, The Women.

Sorry, I answered that one before ;)

Although I do respect your attempts at pursuing an alternative career as an Islamic scholar, it's not something you can learn overnight by reading a few Islamophobic websites :)

Well apparently the only 2 women in prison are both chemical weapons scientists from Saddams regime.

Hmm, so should we let them out? Innocent?

It seems the Iraqy government wanted to release the scientists but the USA said no,.What is the point in having a government in iraq if the USA are going to tell them what they can or cannot do.If these scientists have been involved with Saddam then they should stay in prison.But you have got to feel for the guy from Liverpool & his family.What can they do, when the terrorist have never released anyone until they are dead.I feel this guy has got no chance.

Originally posted by Tony
Well apparently the only 2 women in prison are both chemical weapons scientists from Saddams regime.

Hmm, so should we let them out? Innocent?

It depends what they're being held for:

The US military arrested dozens of Iraqi scientists who had been part of Saddam's vast military-industrial complex. The US's aim was to discover Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; some 17 months later it has now become embarrassingly clear, even to Tony Blair, that these weapons don't exist. Despite this, the Bush administration continues to hold a small number of Iraqi scientists - including two women, Rihab Taha, nicknamed Dr Germ, said to have been in charge of Iraq's biological weapons programme in the 1980s, and Huda Ammash, dubbed Mrs Anthrax by US intelligence - at a high-security camp at Baghdad's international airport. None of the scientists has been charged with any crime; the US authorities have refused them legal access.

Taken from the Guardian website (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1310284,00.html)

If they're to be punished for assisting Saddam's weapons programme, then so be it. However, we should also arrest and punish all those who were guilty of installing, supporting and supplying Saddam with those weapons.

If they're being punished for the failure to find any WMD, then they should be freed. Of course, this would be a major embarrasment to the British and Americans governments, but as I mentioned before, in the Grand Scheme Of Things™ 'collateral damage' is acceptable, for the right political price.

Call me cynical but I'm not fully convinced that these are the only two women being held

Channel 4 news carried a report sometime last year alleging that families of suspected militants were being arrested in an attempt to put pressure militants to give themselves up. So when the Americans tell us they only have two female prisoners I remember all the other things we’ve been told, such a British tourists being 45 minutes away from an attack from Weapons of Mass destruction , that the major fighting was over and that during the shock and awe campaign 1,500 cluster bombs had been dropped upon Baghdad resulting in only one civilian casualty.

This makes me shivver.

Who's fault is it that this man is in his present predicament? Is it the result of 9/11- Bush and/ or Blair invading Iraq - Muslin extremists - Christians versus Muslims - Israel and Palestine - Ken Bigley for putting himself in that situation knowing the danger.

And what can be done to save his life, if anything,also, should all foreign national's get out of Iraq now to avoid this happening again ? :help: :help: :help:

Well Hal I might say that this wouldn't have happened if Blair and Bush hadn't made a bad situation a whole lot worse BUT it has happened and little if anything can be done IMO.

If Blair gives in to their demands who next?

Sounds cruel but lets face it Ken Bigley had voluntarily placed himself in a very very dangerous situation. He didn't have to be there unlike the allied forces. He chose to go there to earn BIG money and he has now paid the price. I don't mean to sound callous and my heart goes out to his family especially his mother but I fear the worse for him.

Originally posted by Mo
Well Hal I might say that this wouldn't have happened if Blair and Bush hadn't made a bad situation a whole lot worse BUT it has happened and little if anything can be done IMO.

If Blair gives in to their demands who next?

Sounds cruel but lets face it Ken Bigley had voluntarily placed himself in a very very dangerous situation. He didn't have to be there unlike the allied forces. He chose to go there to earn BIG money and he has now paid the price. I don't mean to sound callous and my heart goes out to his family especially his mother but I fear the worse for him.


I agree with you Mo, the trouble is when one side or the other strikes a blow at the opponent, it descends into a tit for tat situation and things go from bad to worse and always ends in total destruction and murder, sadly, this is human nature and nothing can ever change it.

Originally posted by Abdul
How can you say something like that?



Simple.... because bowing to their demands will only encourage similar hostage taking in the future.

Originally posted by halevan
I agree with you Mo, the trouble is when one side or the other strikes a blow at the opponent, it descends into a tit for tat situation and things go from bad to worse and always ends in total destruction and murder, sadly, this is human nature and nothing can ever change it.
I hope you're wrong, but I know you're right :(

Originally posted by tosh13
What is the point in having a government in iraq if the USA are going to tell them what they can or cannot do.

Surely that was the whole point of the invasion was to replace Saddam with a govt. obedient to the US and secure the vast oil reserves for the 'West'. The spin-off was to be nice, fat, luctrative contracts for reconstruction to be awarded to mostly US companies. The employees of these companies are now targets of insurgents and terrorists determined that the Bush and Blair will not succeed in making Iraq a puppet state or even a secular democracy [which is a pretty alien concept to any country dominated by Islam].

Regardless of whether Bush and Blair have made the situation worse [and a great many conservatives think so, as well as those on the political left], or whether Mr Bigley "knowingly put himself in danger", there is nothing written in the Koran which justifies the murder by beheading, or any other means, of an engineer from Walton. I have read N.A.Dawood's translation of the Holy Book, and taken into consideration possible problems regarding interpretation, and must conclude that the hostage-takers are perverting the word of Allah. If they murder Mr Bigley, they alone are responsible, not the foreign policy of Britain and the USA, the Israelis for their treatment of Palestinians or anyone, anything else. According to the Koran, Allah has given human beings free will, therefore they are fully responsible for their actions. Revenge and murder are seen as absolute sins against Allah. The terrorists deceive themselves if they think they act in the name of Islam.

Originally posted by Lestat
1man&hisBMW - Why are you rising to the ignorant? . . He/She/It ( Mojoworking ) clearly does not understand a word of what you are saying, you have put across your points very well and very clearly - I think the rest of Sheffield understands what you're saying except Mojo-tunnel vision - working.

It's funny how Mojo keeps being a hypocrite and only answers you with the same questions over and over again disguised in new words.

The conclusion is that Mojo simply does not have the intelligence nor the facts to answer back correctly. Come to think of it - no respect for other religions either.

Well done 1man&hisBMW. :clap:

A colourful and hysterical response as usual.

At the risk of repetition: I was simply trying to establish why BMW and his followers on the forum consistently deny that the perpetrators of terrorism are Muslims.

It's a simple question, but all we get in response are passages from the Koran (or simplified versions of the same). That's fine if you're a believer, but it means nothing in reality and doesn't really answer the question at all.

(Please try and keep your response at least half-way civil)

Originally posted by mojoworking
A colourful and hysterical response as usual.

At the risk of repetition: I was simply trying to establish why BMW and his followers on the forum consistently deny that the perpetrators of terrorism are Muslims.

It's a simple question, but all we get in response are passages from the Koran (or simplified versions of the same). That's fine if you're a believer, but it means nothing in reality and doesn't really answer the question at all.

(Please try and keep your response at least half-way civil)

Indeed.

Well, if someone is a christian, what does it mean? Conventionally it means someone who was christened, and believes in a God, and practises worship to some extent. The same goes for muslims (except the christening bit, natch). I think you will agree, its a spectrum, not monochromatic.

But the really interesting question for me lies in the self-identification of being a muslim.

In the same way as any good christian would denounce a the christians who slaughtered muslims, any good muslim would denounce a muslim who slaughtered christians. And they do, both sides.

Many people who would identify themselves as christians, would not be regarded as such by other, more fundamentalist christians. Likewise, many moderate christians would not regard the actions of some fundamentalist christians (i.e video evangelists) as particularly christian.

A similar pattern can be detected in Islam.

So identifying oneself as a member or adherent of a particular religion does not necessarily make you a member, unless you also practise its central tenets and guiding philosophies.

In any holy book, committing violent suicide and murdering a busload of people is not the practise of its central tenets.

The danger with equating islam with terrorism is that it allows us to polarize our attitudes towards others based on their religion, when in fact their religion forbids, expressly, their actions.

It hasn't got anything to do with their religion, but yes - you are correct, they do self identify as muslims.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Indeed.

Well, if someone is a christian, what does it mean? Conventionally it means someone who was christened, and believes in a God, and practises worship to some extent. The same goes for muslims (except the christening bit, natch). I think you will agree, its a spectrum, not monochromatic.

But the really interesting question for me lies in the self-identification of being a muslim.

In the same way as any good christian would denounce a the christians who slaughtered muslims, any good muslim would denounce a muslim who slaughtered christians. And they do, both sides.

Many people who would identify themselves as christians, would not be regarded as such by other, more fundamentalist christians. Likewise, many moderate christians would not regard the actions of some fundamentalist christians (i.e video evangelists) as particularly christian.

A similar pattern can be detected in Islam.

So identifying oneself as a member or adherent of a particular religion does not necessarily make you a member, unless you also practise its central tenets and guiding philosophies.

In any holy book, committing violent suicide and murdering a busload of people is not the practise of its central tenets.

The danger with equating islam with terrorism is that it allows us to polarize our attitudes towards others based on their religion, when in fact their religion forbids, expressly, their actions.

It hasn't got anything to do with their religion, but yes - you are correct, they do self identify as muslims.

Thanks Phan, it's good to read a reasoned, unbiased and measured response.

Iraq has been a Bush mistake.

Future history will reveal a total US scam.

Originally posted by t020
Simple.... because bowing to their demands will only encourage similar hostage taking in the future.

But it's not that simple, is it?

'We do not negotiate with terrorists' is a convenient soundbite that will allow the British governments to wash their hands of this entire affair, while still looking to keep the moral high ground.

And if, God forbid, the hostage is killed, then prepare yourself for many more months of Blair using his death for political purposes.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Thanks Phan, it's good to read a reasoned, unbiased and measured response.

Just as well, mojo, because you have shown yourself to be totally incapable of making them.

Hallelujah Phan, you may have just gotten through to him :clap:

Originally posted by Abdul
Just as well, mojo, because you have shown yourself to be totally incapable of making them.

Hallelujah Phan, you may have just gotten through to him :clap:

I've read phan's response several times and he seems, to me, to be saying what you, oneman and myself have been saying but in a more erudite fashion. Perhaps that's the way forward, keep it complicated. :D

Originally posted by Abdul
Just as well, mojo, because you have shown yourself to be totally incapable of making them.

Hallelujah Phan, you may have just gotten through to him :clap:

The thing is, the terrorists are claiming the Muslims. Like it or not, that's an indisputable fact.

Originally posted by max
I've read phan's response several times and he seems, to me, to be saying what you, oneman and myself have been saying but in a more erudite fashion. Perhaps that's the way forward, keep it complicated. :D

This is what you said max: "They are not muslims nor are they followers of Islam"

It's not really the same thing. In fact the terrorists do claim to be Muslims.

Originally posted by mojoworking
This is what you said max: "They are not muslims nor are they followers of Islam"

It's not really the same thing. In fact the terrorists do claim to be Muslims.

See the difference? They CLAIM to be muslims but, according to the Koran, they can't BE muslims because they do not follow the preachings of their prophet. Look at what you wrote and you'll see that we are saying exactly the same thing.

Originally posted by Abdul
But it's not that simple, is it?

'We do not negotiate with terrorists' is a convenient soundbite that will allow the British governments to wash their hands of this entire affair, while still looking to keep the moral high ground.

And if, God forbid, the hostage is killed, then prepare yourself for many more months of Blair using his death for political purposes.

Their treatment of the plight of this single man in despicable. They wring their hands in anguish now for one man, to show how much they care but offhandedly condemn thousands to death in a pointless war founded on at the very least, desperately shaky intelligence and at the very worst, lies.

Originally posted by max
See the difference? They CLAIM to be muslims but, according to the Koran, they can't BE muslims because they do not follow the preachings of their prophet. Look at what you wrote and you'll see that we are saying exactly the same thing.


Any true muslim will say terrorists cannot be true muslims. It is written. And if the Koran is the source of their faith, it is unequivocal.
An informed non-muslim will agree
The terrorists themselves will disagree
Their masters will disagree
Those who wish to create a climate of fear and suspicion around muslims will also disagree.

I think you and mojo simply disagree on who is right out of that lot.

Originally posted by max
See the difference? They CLAIM to be muslims but, according to the Koran, they can't BE muslims because they do not follow the preachings of their prophet. Look at what you wrote and you'll see that we are saying exactly the same thing.


It's a convenient Catch 22, isn't it?

Well with the disparity in western and middle eastern values, and with extremists on either side (ie, Bush - West / Terrorist - East) does this story (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/09/nato.shtml) help make things any better?

Originally posted by mojoworking
It's a convenient Catch 22, isn't it?

Er, no.

Originally posted by mojoworking
The thing is, the terrorists are claiming the Muslims. Like it or not, that's an indisputable fact.


Doesn't mean its the truth though does it? On one hand, this Jordanian terrorist is an evil despicable man, the very worst kind of sub-human scum one could wish never to meet in a million lifetimes, yet if he says, oh by the way, I'm a practising Muslim you know, then thats taken to be equivocal to the words of the god he says he is serving.

The 'fact' that he says it doesn't make it true does it?

Apparantly Iraq has WMD's, but so far thats turned out to be a bit of a false alarm aswell. Do we go out and say, hang on Mr Blush (Blair and Bush) you're a pair of liars. No because they just sideline it under 'flawed intelligence'.

If you expect every decent muslim in the world to apologize time and time again, for something that is simply not even attributable to a decent muslims' actions, then you will be disappointed. That being the case, maybe everybody in the British Isles (including muslims etc) should apologize ten fold for the number of innocents killed in this war which was brought to front on this 'flawed intelligence' on part of their elected democratic government.

As I understand two egyptians have been abducted today aswell, whats the likelyhood of them being Muslim? Maybe it will go to show that terrorism is indeed not something confined just to westerners but indeed these people are hell bent on killing anybody who they can under the guise of islam, when in actual fact what they are doing couldn't be any further away from islam in reality.

Much of what has been said reminds me of a certain 'political party' who on their website carry an article that condemns the prophet as a 'paedophile', then ask for the muslim community to condemn whats happening in Iraq. Talk about having your cake and eating it. Do we then take this 'political party' to be the word of decent, hard working people in Britian? No, we don't.

Originally posted by Tony
Well with the disparity in western and middle eastern values, and with extremists on either side (ie, Bush - West / Terrorist - East) does this story (http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/09/09/nato.shtml) help make things any better?

Quite possibly the most sickening thing I have read this week!

Originally posted by max
Er, no.

Yes it is.

Because on the one hand the terrorists are claiming to be Muslims. Are we agreed on that?

But on the other you're saying they can't be Muslims because it's impossible to be a Muslim if you're a terrorist.

So if I say I'm a terrorist, I can't also be a Muslim, because by definition Muslims can't also be terrorists. Is that correct?

There's your Catch 22

Originally posted by mojoworking
Yes it is.

Because on the one hand the terrorists are claiming to be Muslims. Are we agreed on that?

But on the other you're saying they can't be Muslims because it's impossible to be a Muslim if you're a terrorist.

So if I say I'm a terrorist, I can't also be a Muslim, because by definition Muslims can't also be terrorists. Is that correct?

There's your Catch 22

Nope you are in a phase of 'fuzzy logic' here!

You are perverting the actual definition of what a Muslim is, and what a terrorist it. You already have it in you mindset that the koran is the 'terrorists handbook' but with that in mind, let me go on once again to try and explain this to you.

I agree the terrorists 'CLAIM' to be Muslims.

However, their actions are in no way condoned, allowed, or accepted by the religion which they CLAIM to follow. Again i repeat myself here for your benefit ' Muslim - One who submits himself to the will of God'. Will of God (for the human), whats in the Qur'anic text.

You can't go under the cover of Islam if you actions directly contradict the words of the book you claim to follow.

You have every right to DEFEND yourself against enemy invasion or attack. Of course the enemy will see this as terrorism etc, dependant on your means and methods.

There will always be an extremist element, thats not to say its right, or to say they represent the majority.

You have clearly crossed the two ideas to make yourself right in your own mind.

What THESE terrorists are doing is simply not acceptable in religion. They are not killing the enemy (in this case you would probably think the invading force), but innocents, bystanders, and even those there to help their countrymen. Thats NOT acceptable, in any shape of form.

In your own way you have combined the two, I hope you get a better sleep now.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Yes it is.

Because on the one hand the terrorists are claiming to be Muslims. Are we agreed on that?

But on the other you're saying they can't be Muslims because it's impossible to be a Muslim if you're a terrorist.

So if I say I'm a terrorist, I can't also be a Muslim, because by definition Muslims can't also be terrorists. Is that correct?

There's your Catch 22

People will always distort religious tenets to fit their needs. Slave-masters frequently used the bible as justification of their actions, Bush often uses religious language as a justification of empire, and terrorists who behead innocents maintain they are doing the work of Allah.

Religion is used as an excuse for wrongful actions all over the world, by every denomination. To blame Islam itself is missing the point; what you should be doing is examining the conditions by which such brutal militancy as that which is taking place in the Middle East is created. Namely: poverty, colonisation and feeling of overwhelming helplessness. Happy people don't need to take up arms.

Incidentally, don't be fooled into thinking that the hostage-taking is confined to Westerners. Many Iraqis have also suffered, and the blame for the situation should be laid straight at the feet of the British and American governments for their bumbling incompetancy right from the start of the whole sorry mess to this day. How they couldn't see, given the full knowledge of what happened in post-war Afghanistan, that a power vacuum would be a haven for border-hopping terrorists, I cannot explain - without concluding that they must believe that, whatever happens, it's worth it to reach the ultimate goal. Which is, another permanent military base and all that untapped black gold...

Originally posted by mojoworking
Yes it is.

Because on the one hand the terrorists are claiming to be Muslims. Are we agreed on that?

But on the other you're saying they can't be Muslims because it's impossible to be a Muslim if you're a terrorist.

So if I say I'm a terrorist, I can't also be a Muslim, because by definition Muslims can't also be terrorists. Is that correct?

There's your Catch 22

I'll concede it may look like a Catch 22 situation but no, it isn't an example of Catch 22. Catch 22 is about circular arguments from which there is no escape. If you recall, the original argument went along the lines of if you want to be relieved of duty the only way is if you are insane, if you claim to be insane then you won't be relieved as you must be sane to want to be relieved of duty.

The muslim/terrorist issue is not circular. You cannot be a terrorist AND a muslim (or christian, hindu, buddhist, etc.) so there is no circularity. I don't understand why you have a problem with this simple statement of fact.

Originally posted by mojoworking
It explains those endless passages from the terrorists' guidebook (sorry, the Koran). :)



Then you call the holy book - 'Meaningless chunks of party manifesto'.

Then you have the nerve to say:- Thanks Phan, it's good to read a reasoned, unbiased and measured response.

Mojo you are a joke. Learn to repect other peoples religions or keep your trap shut.

Originally posted by Lestat
Then you call the holy book - 'Meaningless chunks of party manifesto'.

Then you have the nerve to say:- Thanks Phan, it's good to read a reasoned, unbiased and measured response.

Mojo you are a joke. Learn to repect other peoples religions or keep your trap shut.

:clap:

the actions of this terrorist, who has abducted these people, and committed those atrocities is no more representative of being "Muslim" than the actions of the crusaders in the early part of the last millennium were representative of being "Christian".

We have the situation of people who claim to be Christian, but who have murdered, some being serial killers.

Yet the Ten Commandments state, quite categorically, "Thou shalt not kill". (also, all through the books of Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, the laws are set down about the penalties for killing)

so, someone, *wilfully* taking a life (I am not referring to "manslaughter/ self defence here, but the willful act of taking the life of another person) is acting completely in contradiction with the tenets of the christian faith.

As I am not yet deeply versed in the teachings of the Qur'an, I am not able to quote exactly, chapter and verse of the relevant surahs, so I hope I will be forgiven if I misquote...

The Qur'an has rules on how to act, laid down for most life-situations.

Surah 5, verse 32 states quite clearly that the taking of another's life is forbidden;

"He who takes a single life; it would be as if he has killed all mankind"

and in Surah 17, verse 33, it says:-

"do not kill anyone."

Let us look logically at what is happening...

The man who is committing these atrocities, is not doing it for the "sake of Islam" or any other faith, he is doing it primarily for the exposure, and the notoriety, and to make a name for himself.

This man, unlike the millions of ordinary muslims who are just trying to get on, and live their lives peacefully, is a blood thirsty animal, who has absolutely no regard for the lives of others.

Unfortunately the focus in this latest incident has been the three westerners, we have heard nothing about the fate of the Egyptians who have been abducted. ( I am not saying that any one race is more worthy than another) and that is not on!

Anyone who is a fully-paid-up card-carrying member of the human race, whatever religion (or none) that they subscribe to, is aghast, and outraged at what is happening.

All my true Muslim friends condemn the actions of this terrorist.

PT

I have just read in the paper that the Vatican has denied that the 2 young Italian woman have been executed.Hope not & they get released as I believe all the others should.

Originally posted by Plain Talker
the actions of this terrorist, who has abducted these people, and committed................>>

PT

Sorry to just quote the short bit in the effort to keep this thread from becominga long line of repitition!

PT you might have to be careful for seeing the genuine Islam as it is written, compared to the blurred view many have of it. You might have mojo call MI5 citing he has found a radicalist mullah in the suburbs, claiming Islam is a religion of peace. :hihi:

Originally posted by Lestat
Then you call the holy book - 'Meaningless chunks of party manifesto'.

Then you have the nerve to say:- Thanks Phan, it's good to read a reasoned, unbiased and measured response.

Mojo you are a joke. Learn to repect other peoples religions or keep your trap shut.

Oh dear Lestat. Do you work at being an aggressive prat, or does it come naturally to you?

Originally posted by max
I'll concede it may look like a Catch 22 situation but no, it isn't an example of Catch 22. Catch 22 is about circular arguments from which there is no escape. If you recall, the original argument went along the lines of if you want to be relieved of duty the only way is if you are insane, if you claim to be insane then you won't be relieved as you must be sane to want to be relieved of duty.

The muslim/terrorist issue is not circular. You cannot be a terrorist AND a muslim (or christian, hindu, buddhist, etc.) so there is no circularity. I don't understand why you have a problem with this simple statement of fact.

But it IS a circular argument. viz:

I'm a terrorist. I also claim to be a muslim. But if I claim to be a muslim, then I can't be a terrorist and if I claim to be a terrorist, then I can't be a muslim (and vice versa).

It's a circular argument. I don't understand why you have a problem understanding it.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
Nope you are in a phase of 'fuzzy logic' here!

You are perverting the actual definition of what a Muslim is, and what a terrorist it. You already have it in you mindset that the koran is the 'terrorists handbook' but with that in mind, let me go on once again to try and explain this to you.

I agree the terrorists 'CLAIM' to be Muslims.

However, their actions are in no way condoned, allowed, or accepted by the religion which they CLAIM to follow. Again i repeat myself here for your benefit ' Muslim - One who submits himself to the will of God'. Will of God (for the human), whats in the Qur'anic text.

You can't go under the cover of Islam if you actions directly contradict the words of the book you claim to follow.

You have every right to DEFEND yourself against enemy invasion or attack. Of course the enemy will see this as terrorism etc, dependant on your means and methods.

There will always be an extremist element, thats not to say its right, or to say they represent the majority.

You have clearly crossed the two ideas to make yourself right in your own mind.

What THESE terrorists are doing is simply not acceptable in religion. They are not killing the enemy (in this case you would probably think the invading force), but innocents, bystanders, and even those there to help their countrymen. Thats NOT acceptable, in any shape of form.

In your own way you have combined the two, I hope you get a better sleep now.

I agree with you completely and I thank you for your measured response.

The theory you have outlined makes perfect sense. But unfortunately the theory doesn't always work in practice as we see every day in Iraq.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Oh dear Lestat. Do you work at being an aggressive prat, or does it come naturally to you?

Wow, another great comeback there from the man with no answers.:loopy:

Originally posted by Plain Talker

Unfortunately the focus in this latest incident has been the three westerners, we have heard nothing about the fate of the Egyptians who have been abducted. ( I am not saying that any one race is more worthy than another) and that is not on!



Of course the focus is going to be on a UK hostage - we live in the UK. Why on earth is this unfortunate?

Re-1man and his BMW

Do not dismiss the weapons of mass destruction as being a hoax, it is far more serious than you may be aware.

It is on public record during the 80's and 90's the USA sold a minumum of 40 shipments of deadly virus cultures to Basra, Iraq.

Amongst these were the Russian version of the super Anthrax, Sarin, West Nile, Various Botulins and others.

Once they received these Viruses they started buying Accelerators and all the equipment for growing these cultures.

These were bought from different European and American companies as was the Supergun.

With this equipment they would have the capability of sending loaded missiles to Israel and quite a few European cities.

We may have stopped the Supergun from being fully activated but the Viruses have never been found or any proof of their destruction.

Happy Days

If you are interested in more detail go to

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/west-nile.cfm and other related sites.

Originally posted by PopT
Re-1man and his BMW

Do not dismiss the weapons of mass destruction as being a hoax, it is far more serious than you may be aware.

It is on public record during the 80's and 90's the USA sold a minumum of 40 shipments of deadly virus cultures to Basra, Iraq.

Amongst these were the Russian version of the super Anthrax, Sarin, West Nile, Various Botulins and others.

Once they received these Viruses they started buying Accelerators and all the equipment for growing these cultures.

These were bought from different European and American companies as was the Supergun.

With this equipment they would have the capability of sending loaded missiles to Israel and quite a few European cities.

We may have stopped the Supergun from being fully activated but the Viruses have never been found or any proof of their destruction.

Happy Days

If you are interested in more detail go to

http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/west-nile.cfm and other related sites.

This is a story dated Oct. 28, 2002 - hardly a scoop, is it?

Any fool can see there was (are) no WMD in Iraq. With America and Britain so absolutely desperate to find evidence, there's no doubt that if this wasn't the case we'd have seen proof by now. Blair and Bush as good as admit it, what with the subtle semantic shift from "weapons" to "programmes".

t020 pontificated:-
Of course the focus is going to be on a UK hostage - we live in the UK. Why on earth is this unfortunate?

I have to respectfuly disagree with you on that one, t20.....

the American geezers weren't British nationals, but our screens are full of their plight. what have the Americans to do with being a British national? they aren't British, so why is the focus of the British media on them, too, whilst ignoring the egyptians who were also abducted.

The focus of the media is purely on the western hostages, with no regard for the Egyptian nationals, who are suffering a similar fate at the hands of this monster.

PT

I'd have thought that was obvious. We are linked to the USA in so many ways and they are fellow westerners. Of course our media will report more on UK and USA hostages than Egyptians.

Plaintalker, I respect your views in general [we have met on other threads], but here I must agree with TO20. The Egyptians have been mentioned on several news programmes. It is because of our extremely strong ethnic and cultural ties with the USA that the emphasis is upon Americans. I note your previous point about your muslim friends' expressions of sympathy for Bibley and the others. In Liverpool [we now live in nearby Southport], the muslim community are holding mass prayers for the hostages in the city's only mosque. There are 51 different nationalities within that community itself. We need to make a distinction between the Wahabist interpretation of the Koran followed by many members of the groups involved in terror and hostage-taking, and the Sunni and Shia majority. That is not to call all Wahabists terrorists, but the distinction should be maintained.

Originally posted by t020
I'd have thought that was obvious. We are linked to the USA in so many ways and they are fellow westerners. Of course our media will report more on UK and USA hostages than Egyptians.

And I suppose the fact that the heads of Government on both sides of the big Pond are permanently wedged up each other's posteriors.... At least in a Political sense, is somewhat responsible for the Trans-Atlantic hogging of the limelight :loopy:

Originally posted by Rich
And I suppose the fact that the heads of Government on both sides of the big Pond are permanently wedged up each other's posteriors.... At least in a Political sense, is somewhat responsible for the Trans-Atlantic hogging of the limelight :loopy:


Not at all. The UK and USA have had links for centuries. Our news will always focus on stories affecting the US more so than those affecting somewhere like Egypt.

Rich, I'm sure TO20 and everyone else is aware of the dynamics of the Bush/Blair relationship, but that does not alter the close ethnic and cultural ties between the two countries. Whether the ties will remain when Hispanic Americans outbreed whites towards the end of the century is another matter.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I agree with you completely and I thank you for your measured response.

The theory you have outlined makes perfect sense. But unfortunately the theory doesn't always work in practice as we see every day in Iraq.

Maybe so, BUT your theory of every muslim going hand in hand with terrorism (by this I mean you calling the book which they follow the 'terrorists guidebook') equally is a nice theory in your world Mojo to satisfy your own political / personal aims, but in practise we all know its not true.

Its akin to me saying the words of a certain 'national' party in Britain is seen as the voice of the mass populace throughout the world. If that were the case, the Uk would be seen as a very dire country to live / do business in.

Originally posted by t020
Not at all. The UK and USA have had links for centuries. Our news will always focus on stories affecting the US more so than those affecting somewhere like Egypt.

But the British have also had an interest in Egypt....

..........In 1882, British expeditionary forces crushed a revolt against the Ottoman rulers, marking the beginning of British occupation and the virtual inclusion of Egypt within the British Empire. In deference to growing nationalism, the U.K. unilaterally declared Egyptian independence in 1922. British influence, however, continued to dominate Egypt's political life and fostered fiscal, administrative, and governmental reforms.


Source: http://www.nationbynation.com/Egypt/History2.html

So maybe we SHOULD be bothered, don't you think?

Originally posted by mojoworking
But it IS a circular argument. viz:

I'm a terrorist. I also claim to be a muslim. But if I claim to be a muslim, then I can't be a terrorist and if I claim to be a terrorist, then I can't be a muslim (and vice versa).

It's a circular argument. I don't understand why you have a problem understanding it.

The answer, is in the actual text there!

'CLAIM'.....

you can CLAIM to be whoever you want, you play on the idiocity of people who take you on face value. Intellectuals will seek out what gives you the right to claim, and if no link is found, then you are taken to be whats commonly known as a bull-sh*tter.

They are terrorists, who are preying on innocent life. They deserve no mercy, and I hope they meet the same end which they are unfairly and unjustly dishing out to other in the name of God, with their own perverse interpretations.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW

So maybe we SHOULD be bothered, don't you think?

Of course we should, but not as "bothered" as we should be about a fellow UK citizen (and also, arguably the US citizens).

Originally posted by t020
Of course we should, but not as "bothered" as we should be about a fellow UK citizen (and also, arguably the US citizens).

Really? And why is that then? You don't think that its this precise attitude thats widening the gap between east and west, you know... who cares if a few of them die, its collateral damage. Lets drop a 500lb bomb to kill 30 militants, but if we take out 10 familes with that, then thats accounted for.

You can see then why they must get a little bit peeved over there sometimes.

Balance is whats needed, if you have a worldwide news organisation you should get worldwide news. You hear of the italians, the french all being abducted, so why not the Egyptians. They too are part of someones family.

Originally posted by timo
Whether the ties will remain when Hispanic Americans outbreed whites towards the end of the century is another matter.


Timo

That's an interesting prospect. It's been suggested that a similar fate awaits the western European countries in respect of Islamic Asians, North Africans and Turks; and the looming advent of Turkey to the EU is seen by some as an alarming acceleration of the process.

I don't think any EU govt. has yet had the nerve to produce demographic projections or a likely time scale for our cultural extinction, - perhaps it is a project that Conservative Central Office might like to take up now that immigration is back at the top of their agenda ? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by t020
Of course we should, but not as "bothered" as we should be about a fellow UK citizen (and also, arguably the US citizens).

An Egyptian life is just as important as a British or American life, and I am as "bothered" by Egyptians being taken hostage as I am "bothered" by British or Americans being taken hostage.

Unless the hostage was a personal aquaintance of mine then I would be equally outraged whether he was British, American, Egyptian, Italian, Iraqi, Somalian, Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Religion-Hating Person, etc. They're all fellow human beings, you know! :mad:

Originally posted by Patchy
An Egyptian life is just as important as a British or American life, and I am as "bothered" by Egyptians being taken hostage as I am "bothered" by British or Americans being taken hostage.

Unless the hostage was a personal aquaintance of mine then I would be equally outraged whether he was British, American, Egyptian, Italian, Iraqi, Somalian, Black, White, Christian, Muslim, Religion-Hating Person, etc. They're all fellow human beings, you know! :mad:


Yes but in reality, the majority of people would be more "bothered" (not my word) about a fellow UK citizen because they can relate to them better. It isn't very politically correct, but human emotions go back a lot further than liberal do gooders with idealistic attitudes, and as a result, humans can relate with and empathise with their "own kind" much more closely. Perhaps it is a trait that goes back to tribal behaviour? Who knows. But when UK citizens see an ordinary family from Liverpool, in an average house on an average street, pleading for the life of their relative in the same language, of course they are going to find it easier to empathise with and this is why it gets more news coverage.

Originally posted by t020
Yes but in reality, the majority of people would be more "bothered" (not my word) about a fellow UK citizen because they can relate to them better. It isn't very politically correct, but human emotions go back a lot further than liberal do gooders with idealistic attitudes, and as a result, humans can relate with and empathise with their "own kind" much more closely. Perhaps it is a trait that goes back to tribal behaviour? Who knows. But when UK citizens see an ordinary family from Liverpool, in an average house on an average street, pleading for the life of their relative in the same language, of course they are going to find it easier to empathise with and this is why it gets more news coverage.

Still waiting for your response to my last post!

I think in reality most people in Britain no matter who which cultural, ethnic, religious denomination they are are affected by the killing / abduction of anyone. Like it or not, Britain is a nation of compassionate people, sometimes its not in their favour to be like that I admit, but they are, and its this very thing that kept Ken alive so far I believe. If he was American he would have been killed days ago.

I just feel (and I hope I am proved right) they don't like to kill British hostages as freely as others because of this.

Originally posted by t020
Yes but in reality, the majority of people would be more "bothered" (not my word) about a fellow UK citizen because they can relate to them better. It isn't very politically correct, but human emotions go back a lot further than liberal do gooders with idealistic attitudes, and as a result, humans can relate with and empathise with their "own kind" much more closely. Perhaps it is a trait that goes back to tribal behaviour? Who knows. But when UK citizens see an ordinary family from Liverpool, in an average house on an average street, pleading for the life of their relative in the same language, of course they are going to find it easier to empathise with and this is why it gets more news coverage.

Granted, it does seem to be more natural to be more bothered about people in our own country... but that doesn't mean we "SHOULD" be, which is what you appeared to be saying. And regarding your use of your favourite term "liberal do gooder" to refer to anyone with whom you disagree, I think if you knew me you would realise I am far from that! I suppose I could refer to you as a "left wing do gooder" for your views on banning bloodsports!

Re Greeback's comments

You seem to have missed the point I was making.

My submission about viruses being sold to Iraq wasn't meant to be a 'scoop'.

I am not a fool thinking there is any WMD's left in Iraq but I am not as certain as you seem to be.

The point is what happened to those viruses and with the imminent release of the two Bio Scientists who worked on them, what is the next phase?

If you have any up to date information then let's read it but if you haven't I think it would be foolish to keep stating your opinions as fact.



Y

Apparently the British Embassy in Iraq has distributed thousands of leaflets in Baghdad appealing for the safe release of Ken Bigley, and a group from the Muslim Council of Britain are going to Iraq to try to secure his safe release. I hope and pray they will be successful

Originally posted by PopT
Re Greeback's comments

You seem to have missed the point I was making.

My submission about viruses being sold to Iraq wasn't meant to be a 'scoop'.

I am not a fool thinking there is any WMD's left in Iraq but I am not as certain as you seem to be.

The point is what happened to those viruses and with the imminent release of the two Bio Scientists who worked on them, what is the next phase?

If you have any up to date information then let's read it but if you haven't I think it would be foolish to keep stating your opinions as fact.



Y

Here's some up-to-date info. Seems it's not just me who is certain:

Iraq had no WMD: the final verdict (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1307448,00.html)

Greybeard, sorry to take so long to reply. Yes, I think you are right here; no Western government dare publish the figures. What should we expect after fifty years of systematic evasion and pretence about the effects of mass immigration? I always smile cynically when fellow conservatives quote the G.K.Chesterton lines; "We are the people of England, and we have not spoken yet" in relation to immigration. We have been waiting a long, long time and they haven't spoken yet, despite massive cultural dislocation that nobody gave a social mandate for, horrendous racial tension, and bitter, irremediable grudges between different ethnic groups. They haven't spoken yet about the forbidding of Englishness [EU,political correctness etc] either.

Originally posted by Patchy
Apparently the British Embassy in Iraq has distributed thousands of leaflets in Baghdad appealing for the safe release of Ken Bigley, and a group from the Muslim Council of Britain are going to Iraq to try to secure his safe release. I hope and pray they will be successful

If they are successful, this incident could be the turning point in bringing the British and Muslim communities together.

I can't understand what took the Muslim council so long to act. At least they are making an attempt to do something now though.

Originally posted by Lickszz
I can't understand what took the Muslim council so long to act. At least they are making an attempt to do something now though.

Its called red tape. They need clearance from the Home Office first to go on this humanitarian mission as they put it.

Thankyou for your response Greenback to the question of Viruses being developed to be used as WMD's by Iraq.

I read the Guardian article with interest although I still didn't find its findings as conclusive as you believe.

It will be interesting to read the finished Duefler report when it is made public and to read what evidence they have to make their assumptions also to see what the unanswered questions they have not been able to resolve.

I feel this is such a serious situation I do not think anybody can afford to jump to any premature conclusions.

I would like to put it on record that I still think Blair and Bush acted illegally in going to war and they have no support whatever they find from me.

Happy Days!

The 2 Italian female aid workers have been released,news on 5 Just in,confirmed by the Vatican,well lets hope the Liverpool guy gets the same treatment.

Originally posted by Ned Ludd
I think Mojo must be an apologist for Russian atrocities in Chechnya...this is after all the logic of Mojo's own argument in which legitimate critics of Bush and Blair are accused of supporting the beheading of abductees bt Al-Queda sympathisers.
So Mojo, 70% of the adult male population of Chechnya killed by the Russians, approx 35000 kids of school-going age also killed and 10,000's women and girls raped.....all before Beslan and you think that there is no connection? I merely reverse your own argument, as you clearly have no sympathy for the victims of these disgusting war crimes, presumably Putin's actions have your full support?
To draw these facts to your attention (and anyone elses) is not to support the atrocity in the school but to look at what may have provoked such an extreme act.

Felt like I'd gone 12 rounds with Rocky Bilboa after trawling through this thread. (the rest deleted by me with apologies to Ned)

Originally posted by Abdul
Killian, Ned isn't trying to find a justification or excuse for the killings in Beslan, but is looking to the root cause of the actions (namely, the genocide in Chechnya carried out by the Russian military).

Okay, I apologise to Ned, although I feel he might have worded it differently as I wasn't the only one who picked up on this.
Whatever the root cause, two wrongs don't make a right and I fail to see what the Chechnyans gained out of this apart from the obvious - revenge. if they hoped to gain sympathy for their plight, they went about it the wrong way.

Originally posted by Killian
Maybe so, but he could have worded it better. Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right, or do they?

No they don't, but again, that isn't the point Ned is trying to make either.

Originally posted by Abdul
No they don't, but again, that isn't the point Ned is trying to make either.

Sorry, Abdul, I had a rethink and changed my previous post.

There are many things contained in this thread which I find difficult to understand. 1man& his BMW (lucky you can afford one) may be able to help here. You have stated your case very well, but spoiled things with your interpretation of the 'beating women' thing from the Koran (allegedly??). All this nonsense about touching someone lightly on the shoulder with a stick (have I got that right?) and beating eggs is a ridiculous argument. A wife BEATER, for example, is not someone who taps his wife on the shoulder with a stick or forces her to make an omelette, so lets not twist things round. In this 'Western' society of equal opportunities (of a kind) it is difficult for us to come to terms with a religion which appears to treat women as second-class citizens. For instance, men are allowed to dress exactly as they please, but women must cover themselves. Is this true or not?

Many people have quoted from the Koran only to be told they have read from a poor transaltion or misinterpretation. How many times have I read 'Is this a proper translation or have you just quoted from a web site'? Now I may be sadly disillusioned, but I thought the web was a source of knowledge. My youngest son is encouraged to use the web for his homework and exam work, so are you now saying this is a waste of time? Apparently, the web is a vast source of accurate facts and figures on everything except the Koran. How can this be? Is every single website containing information on the Koran completely flawed? It is odd that the same people who shout FACTS, PLEASE, FACTS at everyone and then back up their arguments with links to different web pages are now saying 'Oh, you got that Koran quote from a web page, I suppose. Well that can't be accurate then, can it?' So where does anyone get an accurate translation from then?

I heard on the news this morning that the Italian girl hostages were released after a large some of money was paid (not substantiated), but the British hostage was in a different situation as he was being held by religious zealots. 1man&hisBMW has said on several occassions that these people are not Muslims. Well, they are certainly claiming to be Muslims and carrying out these deeds in the name of Islam. What I don't understand is this - are you (Mr BMW) saying that they are not Muslims? i.e. are you an official spokesman for the Muslim faith making an authorative statement or are you merely saying that these terrorists have no right to call themselves Muslims?

Just a few points I would like someone to clear up.

I'm walking into a trap here, whereupon any of my comments will be twisted by the bomb-them-and-take-their-oil brigade, but anyway, here we go:

Originally posted by Killian
You have stated your case very well, but spoiled things with your interpretation of the 'beating women' thing from the Koran (allegedly??). All this nonsense about touching someone lightly on the shoulder with a stick (have I got that right?) and beating eggs is a ridiculous argument. A wife BEATER, for example, is not someone who taps his wife on the shoulder with a stick or forces her to make an omelette, so lets not twist things round.

Killian, I went over that point in this (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=173666#post173666) post elsewhere in this thread; you should find the answers there.

In this 'Western' society of equal opportunities (of a kind) it is difficult for us to come to terms with a religion which appears to treat women as second-class citizens. For instance, men are allowed to dress exactly as they please, but women must cover themselves. Is this true or not?

Not strictly true. While Muslim women are supposed to cover all except their face and hands, Muslim men are not quite free to dress as they please, but are required to cover their bodies at least from their navel down to their knees. Remember that historically, women have always been ordered by God to cover their heads since civilisation began. If you see how modestly nuns dress today, and see statues of the Virgin Mary, you'll see how similar they dress to Muslim women. For further info, read 1 Corinthians 11:5.

And as for treating women as second class citizens, in a truly Islamic society women have the following rights:

The right and duty to obtain education.
The right to have their own independent property.
The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.
Equality of reward for equal deeds.
The right to participate fully in public life and have their voices heard by those in power.
The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.
The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him.
The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).
The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
and more...

Many people have quoted from the Koran only to be told they have read from a poor transaltion or misinterpretation. How many times have I read 'Is this a proper translation or have you just quoted from a web site'? Now I may be sadly disillusioned, but I thought the web was a source of knowledge. My youngest son is encouraged to use the web for his homework and exam work, so are you now saying this is a waste of time? Apparently, the web is a vast source of accurate facts and figures on everything except the Koran. How can this be? Is every single website containing information on the Koran completely flawed? It is odd that the same people who shout FACTS, PLEASE, FACTS at everyone and then back up their arguments with links to different web pages are now saying 'Oh, you got that Koran quote from a web page, I suppose. Well that can't be accurate then, can it?' So where does anyone get an accurate translation from then?

Information on the Internet is only accurate as the publisher wishes it to be. And sadly if the publisher has a hidden agenda, you can't always know until it's too late. I can tell you where not to get a translation from...the many Rightwing / Fundamentalist Christian / Islamophobic websites out there. Interesting to note that the same forum users who are the loudest in condemning the BNP and religion in general, will not hesitate to use their tactics such as mis-quoting the Koran...but there you go.

If you want to know more about Islam, start by choosing a decent site such as http://www.islamicity.com/ or http://www.islamworld.net/

For a translation of the Koran, try http://cwis.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

And that's all for today. I'm off home :)

Originally posted by Killian
Whatever the root cause, two wrongs don't make a right and I fail to see what the Chechnyans gained out of this apart from the obvious - revenge. if they hoped to gain sympathy for their plight, they went about it the wrong way.

Just how do people get sympathy for their plight these days? By writing disgruntled letters to the Times? The Chechnyan plight wasn't even in the news until the Beslan massacre.

This is the whole issue, when the world won't do anything to resolve the major problems in the world, people are driven to desperate means to get publicity.

I am not condoning it, just trying to explain why they might have done it.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Abdul
[B]I'm walking into a trap here, whereupon any of my comments will be twisted by the bomb-them-and-take-their-oil brigade, but anyway, here we go:

Many thanks for all the time and trouble, Abdul.

If I got slightly mixed up about who said what in this thread, I apologise and blame it on shell-shock.

A friend of mine at school was always so angry with people assuming that by wearing a Hijab she was in some way more oppressed then other girls. She said she felt more liberated then non Muslim girls because they had to dedicate so much of their time and effort to make up and hair straightening , hair curling etc etc

I think it’s an interesting view and i can see her point. When i wake up in the morning my personal grooming consists of brushing my teeth (i am a bit of a mucky sod) but my sister always had to get up 2 hours before school because she spent so long doing make up and hair. If i made no effort in my appearance no one noticed but if she went to school without and make up or perfect hair people would realise tease her, when you look at certain aspects of our society things aren’t as equal as many people assume.

That's 10 hours a week my sister spent on something our society judges only women need to do, that never seemed very fair to me.

My friend did an interesting thing during an Re lesson when she did a presentation, she held up a picture of nun and asked people what words came into their heads immediately, the nun in her habit looked really miserable but everyone shouted out words like divine, pure and holy. When she held up a picture of a smiling young girl in a Hijab and asked people what they thought of every response was negative, oppressed, restricted punished etc

Made me think hard about how differently we can interpret two people based purely on our prejudices regarding their religion.

I am no authority on religion but I've just read a list of Muslim women's rights as set out in the Koran on one of the postings.

I do not know if my eyes and ears are deceiving me but in most cases that I see and hear about these rights are far different to what is a actually happening to the majority of Muslim women.

I remember the codes of the Taliban in Afganistan.

In the UK the cases of honour killings and abductions over marriages which are largely ignored in Muslim countries.

The stoning of adultresses in Saudi.

The shortage of any Muslim women in education and top jobs in most countries.

The lack of ownership of businesses and the power of buying.

These are just a few examples.

Please educate me in what is going wrong in the Muslim world or am I being deceived by what I read and see?

Originally posted by Killian
Sorry, Abdul, I had a rethink and changed my previous post.


In this 'Western' society of equal opportunities (of a kind) it is difficult for us to come to terms with a religion which appears to treat women as second-class citizens. For instance, men are allowed to dress exactly as they please, but women must cover themselves. Is this true or not?


Not true. The Koran says many things, to what extent they are carried out depends totally on the prevailing local culture. There are female only mosques with female Imams. The culture varies enormously.

Islam is about doing not believing. The Koran is divine and mysterious and is a rich source of theological scholarship of interpretation, which is not governed by a central doctrine.

The Holy Bible - Corinthians.
11:4-7 Or 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with long hair dishonors his head. 5 And every woman who prays or prophesies with no covering on her head dishonors her head--she is just like one of the "shorn women." 6 If a woman has no covering, let her be for now with short hair, but since it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair shorn or shaved, she should grow it again. 7 A man ought not to have long hair



FACTS, PLEASE, FACTS at everyone and then back up their arguments with links to different web pages are now saying 'Oh, you got that Koran quote from a web page, I suppose. Well that can't be accurate then, can it?' So where does anyone get an accurate translation from then?

Well translations from arabic to english differ from one another - this is not surprising. Also remember that the Koran is a much more fragmentary book than the bible or torah, both of which provide a great deal of narrative structure. My 1937 (reprinted 1960) edition of the Koran is full of footnotes like:

"muhammads claim: meccan(?) revised in medina"
and
"Reference uncertain, but probably the meccans. If the verse refers to them the fulfilled conditions of thte hour etc. etc."


I heard on the news this morning that the Italian girl hostages were released after a large some of money was paid (not substantiated), but the British hostage was in a different situation as he was being held by religious zealots. 1man&hisBMW has said on several occassions that these people are not Muslims. Well, they are certainly claiming to be Muslims and carrying out these deeds in the name of Islam. What I don't understand is this - are you (Mr BMW) saying that they are not Muslims? i.e. are you an official spokesman for the Muslim faith making an authorative statement or are you merely saying that these terrorists have no right to call themselves Muslims?


It all depends on what you mean by muslim, they mean by muslim and what I mean by muslim. Safer to just call them kidnappers, or terrorists, even insurgents (or as they may see it, freedom fighters or liberators). discussed in more detail here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?postid=176964#post176964)


Just a few points I would like someone to clear up.

Any good?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme


Any good?

Well, sort of, but I don't think quoting from the Bible (Corinthians) helps as this is ridiculously outdated and (hopefully) Christianity has moved with the times. The Old Testament can be disregarded altogether. Those stories were borrowed from other ancient religions to re-write the Hebrew Book Of Law which was dstroyed when the Jews were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezar. Surely nothing written BC has any relevance today?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Safer to just call them kidnappers, or terrorists, even insurgents (or as they may see it, freedom fighters or liberators).

Safer from whose point of view?

It may be safer for you because it fits in with your increasingly shaky argument that terrorism is not being committed in the name of Islam

Originally posted by Abdul
[B]
Not strictly true. While Muslim women are supposed to cover all except their face and hands, Muslim men are not quite free to dress as they please, but are required to cover their bodies at least from their navel down to their knees. Remember that historically, women have always been ordered by God to cover their heads since civilisation began. If you see how modestly nuns dress today, and see statues of the Virgin Mary, you'll see how similar they dress to Muslim women. For further info, read 1 Corinthians 11:5.

And as for treating women as second class citizens, in a truly Islamic society women have the following rights:

The right and duty to obtain education.
The right to have their own independent property.
The right to work to earn money if they need it or want it.
Equality of reward for equal deeds.
The right to participate fully in public life and have their voices heard by those in power.
The right to provisions from the husband for all her needs and more.
The right to negotiate marriage terms of her choice.
The right to obtain divorce from her husband, even on the grounds that she simply can't stand him.
The right to keep all her own money (she is not responsible to maintain any relations).
The right to get sexual satisfaction from her husband.
and more...

Abdul,

I am curious to what your thoughts are on the following?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3654650.stm

and from the NY times.


By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: September 29, 2004

Mukhtaran Bibi, a Pakistani woman whom a tribal council sentenced to be gang-raped.

MEERWALA, Pakistan — I'm still trying to help out President Bush by tracking down Osama bin Laden. After poking through remote parts of Pakistan, asking for a tall Arab with a beard, I can't say I've earned that $25 million reward.

But I did come across someone even more extraordinary than Osama.

Usually we journalists write about rogues, but Mukhtaran Bibi could not be more altruistic or brave, as the men who gang-raped her discovered. I firmly believe that the central moral challenge of this century, equivalent to the struggles against slavery in the 19th century or against totalitarianism in the 20th, will be to address sex inequality in the third world - and it's the stories of women like Ms. Mukhtaran that convince me this is so.

The plight of women in developing countries isn't addressed much in the West, and it certainly isn't a hot topic in the presidential campaign. But it's a life-and-death matter in villages like Meerwala, a 12-hour drive southeast from Islamabad.

In June 2002, the police say, members of a high-status tribe sexually abused one of Ms. Mukhtaran's brothers and then covered up their crime by falsely accusing him of having an affair with a high-status woman. The village's tribal council determined that the suitable punishment for the supposed affair was for high-status men to rape one of the boy's sisters, so the council sentenced Ms. Mukhtaran to be gang-raped.

As members of the high-status tribe danced in joy, four men stripped her naked and took turns raping her. Then they forced her to walk home naked in front of 300 villagers.

In Pakistan's conservative Muslim society, Ms. Mukhtaran's duty was now clear: she was supposed to commit suicide. "Just like other women, I initially thought of killing myself," said Ms. Mukhtaran, now 30. Her older brother, Hezoor Bux, explained: "A girl who has been raped has no honorable place in the village. Nobody respects the girl, or her parents. There's a stigma, and the only way out is suicide."

A girl in the next village was gang-raped a week after Ms. Mukhtaran, and she took the traditional route: she swallowed a bottle of pesticide and dropped dead.

But instead of killing herself, Ms. Mukhtaran testified against her attackers and propounded the shocking idea that the shame lies in raping, rather than in being raped. The rapists are now on death row, and President Pervez Musharraf presented Ms. Mukhtaran with the equivalent of $8,300 and ordered round-the-clock police protection for her.

Ms. Mukhtaran, who had never gone to school herself, used the money to build one school in the village for girls and another for boys - because, she said, education is the best way to achieve social change. The girls' school is named for her, and she is now studying in its fourth-grade class.

"Why should I have spent the money on myself?" she asked, adding, "This way the money is helping all the girls, all the children."

I wish the story ended there. But the Pakistani government has neglected its pledge to pay the schools' operating expenses. "The government made lots of promises, but it hasn't done much," Ms. Mukhtaran said bluntly.

She has had to buy food for the police who protect her, as well as pay some school expenses. So, she said, "I've run out of money." Unless the schools can raise new funds, they may have to close.

Meanwhile, villagers say that relatives of the rapists are waiting for the police to leave and then will put Ms. Mukhtaran in her place by slaughtering her and her entire family. I walked to the area where the high-status tribesmen live. They denied planning to kill Ms. Mukhtaran, but were unapologetic about her rape.

"Mukhtaran is totally disgraced," Taj Bibi, a matriarch in a high-status family, said with satisfaction. "She has no respect in society."

So although I did not find Osama, I did encounter a much more ubiquitous form of evil and terror: a culture, stretching across about half the globe, that chews up women and spits them out.

We in the West could help chip away at that oppression, with health and literacy programs and by simply speaking out against it, just as we once stood up against slavery and totalitarianism. But instead of standing beside fighters like Ms. Mukhtaran, we're still sitting on the fence.

Originally posted by Killian
Sorry, Abdul, I had a rethink and changed my previous post.

There are many things contained in this thread which I find difficult to understand. 1man& his BMW (lucky you can afford one) may be able to help here. You have stated your case very well, but spoiled things with your interpretation of the 'beating women' thing from the Koran (allegedly??). All this nonsense about touching someone lightly on the shoulder with a stick (have I got that right?) and beating eggs is a ridiculous argument. A wife BEATER, for example, is not someone who taps his wife on the shoulder with a stick or forces her to make an omelette, so lets not twist things round. In this 'Western' society of equal opportunities (of a kind) it is difficult for us to come to terms with a religion which appears to treat women as second-class citizens. For instance, men are allowed to dress exactly as they please, but women must cover themselves. Is this true or not?

I think Abdul has answered the second part of this. Now, let me try and answer the first part. A wife beater as you describe is not someone who 'taps his wife on the shoulder with a stick'.... now I'm wondering by which standard you are setting the term 'beating'..... would it be by western standards?

The koran doesn't say beat her lightly with a stick, rathermore as I beleive Abdul has pointed out previously, the prophet Muhammed, actually pointed out the amount of force you are allowed to use. Namely, the amount of a twig on the shoulder.


Originally posted by Killian

Many people have quoted from the Koran only to be told they have read from a poor transaltion or misinterpretation. How many times have I read 'Is this a proper translation or have you just quoted from a web site'? Now I may be sadly disillusioned, but I thought the web was a source of knowledge. My youngest son is encouraged to use the web for his homework and exam work, so are you now saying this is a waste of time? Apparently, the web is a vast source of accurate facts and figures on everything except the Koran. How can this be? Is every single website containing information on the Koran completely flawed? It is odd that the same people who shout FACTS, PLEASE, FACTS at everyone and then back up their arguments with links to different web pages are now saying 'Oh, you got that Koran quote from a web page, I suppose. Well that can't be accurate then, can it?' So where does anyone get an accurate translation from then?



Not everything you find on the web is true and accurate. If I was from outside the British Isles, and I put say, British National in a google search and came up with a certain political partys' website, should I beleive all people in the UK subscribe to their ideas and manifestos'?

They could use that particular site for example to suggest that everyone in the Uk was homophobic, would that make it true?


Originally posted by Killian


I heard on the news this morning that the Italian girl hostages were released after a large some of money was paid (not substantiated), but the British hostage was in a different situation as he was being held by religious zealots. 1man&hisBMW has said on several occassions that these people are not Muslims. Well, they are certainly claiming to be Muslims and carrying out these deeds in the name of Islam. What I don't understand is this - are you (Mr BMW) saying that they are not Muslims? i.e. are you an official spokesman for the Muslim faith making an authorative statement or are you merely saying that these terrorists have no right to call themselves Muslims?

Just a few points I would like someone to clear up.

I am tired of trying to spell this one out, and its the last time I will do it. Anybody with an ouch of lateral thought can see that faceless, terrorist scum can claim to be anybody they like to be. Thats the benefits of not having people know who you are fully.

If I tomorrow put on a black overcoat, with a black hat went into a church and claimed to be Jewish while filling the priest with lead, that wouldnt make it true would it? Or have I somehow by claiming to be Jewish, suddenly become a Rabbi? No.

I am not an official spokesman, but these are questions you have asked on here specifically quoting my user name. Now, you can dismiss whatever I say as bullsh*t, which by me is fine. Im not here to make excuses for anyone, or excuse anybodys behaviour. What I am saying though is, not everything you see you should believe.

The thing what I find strange is, when these terrorists say they are fighting for their countrymen, people say (& think) thats b*llocks, but if they say they are muslim fighters on a jihad, then everybody automatically assumes they are telling the truth.

I dunno what else to say now, infact I think I have said enough on this topic :rolleyes:

Religion, religion, religion!!!

Time people started getting real instead of living their lives by a bloody book.

The bible is a cracking read but then so is Tom Clancy - the only thing in common is neither of them talk about anything real.

Once religion is out of the way, many years off I fear, then disgusting acts of terrorism will continue be it christian, muslims whatever!

Originally posted by coopster1974
Religion, religion, religion!!!

Time people started getting real instead of living their lives by a bloody book.

The bible is a cracking read but then so is Tom Clancy - the only thing in common is neither of them talk about anything real.

Once religion is out of the way, many years off I fear, then disgusting acts of terrorism will continue be it christian, muslims whatever!

Well said coop, my son! :clap: :thumbsup:

The problem with this kind of "debate" (if I may call it that), is that there's absolutely no common ground. Every statement/reply that the Muslim adherents make has to be put through the "Islam filter" first to make sure it is "Koran approved".

All of which means that logic and real world self-evident truth never enter the discussion.

Originally posted by mojoworking
Well said coop, my son! :clap: :thumbsup:

The problem with this kind of "debate" (if I may call it that), is that there's absolutely no common ground. Every statement/reply that the Muslim adherents make has to be put through the "Islam filter" first to make sure it is "Koran approved".

All of which means that logic and real world self-evident truth never enter the discussion.


Thats because your evidence of this 'real world self-evident truth' is the ramblings of some fringe terrorist organisation who consider themselves muslims but couldn't infact be further away from that. You can't bring yourself to believe that, instead you would rather go on the words of the terrorists themselves, which makes me think exactly what your personal agenda is?

This appears to be your version of the aforementioned 'truth'. If you insist they are muslims Grand Mullah Mojo then I will take your word for it. Sadly though, you know as much about the religion as the next guy who thinks OBL will be sat on his couch when he comes home, watching neighbours having tea and biscuits.

If you believe as you have stated in this thread previously that the koran is the 'terrorist guidebook', and its contents 'don't mean squat', then how do you expect to have 'common ground'? You are simply becoming a victim of your own hypocrisy here I'm afraid!

Your idea of this 'common ground' is classing all those people as 'terrorists' then I presume? So if ALL muslims class ALL westerners as crusaders, and infidels then that too would be okay by you would it? Oh hang on, or would that conflict with your one-sided, clearly hyprcritial view of all things religion. Talk about 'real world' hey? :hihi:

This may be a crazy idea BMW, but have you ever considered thinking for yourself, instead of letting a book do your thinking (and talking) for you?

Originally posted by Killian
Well, sort of, but I don't think quoting from the Bible (Corinthians) helps as this is ridiculously outdated and (hopefully) Christianity has moved with the times. The Old Testament can be disregarded altogether. Those stories were borrowed from other ancient religions to re-write the Hebrew Book Of Law which was dstroyed when the Jews were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezar. Surely nothing written BC has any relevance today?

er, I think Corinthians is in the new Testament (between Romans and Galatians).

The reason i quoted it is as an example of religious guidance ignored by all but a few extreme christian sects because cultural norms have moved on. I think the same follows, in many ways, with the Koran.

Originally posted by mojoworking
This may be a crazy idea BMW, but have you ever considered thinking for yourself, instead of letting a book do your thinking (and talking) for you?

books eh? evil things! Glad you stay away from them Mojo, wouldn't want them disturbing your clear thought, would we?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
books eh? evil things! Glad you stay away from them Mojo, wouldn't want them disturbing your clear thought, would we?

Ho! ho! Phan, very good. Most amusing. Trouble is I don't (stay away from books, that is).

However, neither do I live my life according to a book or books, or quote from them verbatim at the drop of a hat. All those drugs must be clouding your judgement again. :)

so, are the rednecked idiots from the deep south of the USA, who like burning crosses, and lynching black men a good representation/ example of christianity?

are they representative of the ordinary christian in the street?

Are the IRA bombers a good representative/example of Roman Catholic christianity?

were the white african christians in south africa who set Apartheid up, and imprisoned people like Mandela in Robin Island a good representation of the true living out of a christian life?

No, no, and erm..... no! they were not, in any way acting under christian precepts and christian cahrity, of "loving thy neighbour"

Were/ are the followers of Osama bin-laden and the terrorists who hijacked the planes on september 11 2001 acting like true Muslims?

Again, No!

you cannot, as I have said before, judge the faith and lives of one race or religion on the acts of one or two extreme and aberrant groups.

You cannot demonise or lionise one particular faith, eg Islam, because of one person's extremism.


PT

Originally posted by Plain Talker
you cannot, as I have said before, judge the faith and lives of one race or religion on the acts of one or two extreme and aberrant groups.

You cannot demonise or lionise one particular faith, eg Islam, because of one person's extremism.
PT


unfortunately, you can and people do. Its a whole lot easier than thinking and weighing up all sides of the argument. It makes political speeches and newspaper headlines easier too!

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er, I think Corinthians is in the new Testament (between Romans and Galatians).



Yes, I do know that Phan. I added the extra piece about the Old Testament because other people have quoted from that during the course of these discussions.

Re - Killian's remarks

Well, sort of, but I don't think quoting from the Bible (Corinthians) helps as this is ridiculously outdated and (hopefully) Christianity has moved with the times. The Old Testament can be disregarded altogether. Those stories were borrowed from other ancient religions to re-write the Hebrew Book Of Law which was dstroyed when the Jews were taken into captivity by Nebuchadnezar. Surely nothing written BC has any relevance today


I cannot believe what you have written.

You have virtually destroyed the tenets of Judaism and the basis of our legal system in the ten commandments in one sentence

Even the nazis didn't go that far.

You then write that nothing written before Christ has any relevance today.

I think it would do your education a world of good by studying some of the old books before you make such rash statements.

I have read many, many books on ancient religions and know much more than you give me credit for. If you want to get hysterical about it, that's up to you. I am not going to get involved in an argument with you on religion. I am satisfied that I have read enough unbiased literature to enlighten me on various religious aspects, which is why I am a card-carrying atheist and nothing you can say will persuade me otherwise, so don't waste your time trying.

Originally posted by PopT



You then write that nothing written before Christ has any relevance today.



Christ? Oh, yes, the wandering preacher, most probably Essene and bearing the remarkably handy title of 'Christ', which is Christian without the ian. Only his name was actually Yeshu which converted to English is Joshua. Odd that his followers had thier names converted to English - Simon, Peter, etc - but Yeshu didn't. Joshua of Nazareth. Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it.

And what about that ressurection trick? Is that unique or what? Well, no actually. All been done many times before. Mithras managed it quite well, but old Osiris was the bees knees. He even managed it while sewing various body parts together. Pretty nifty, eh?

I'm with Coopster. I love a good fairy story.

Originally posted by mojoworking
This may be a crazy idea BMW, but have you ever considered thinking for yourself, instead of letting a book do your thinking (and talking) for you?

A man is not of much without guidance. Even from birth, you take guidance from your parents, grandparents, other family, teachers etc. You could consider the book a teacher in many ways. It still leaves room for open thought, it doesn't cover EVERY minute eventuality.

The koran states clearly man is made of a free will so to speak. You can either decide to go it alone, or take the teachings of the holy book. Its a matter of personal choice.

I am not a preacher, I respect peoples choice of religion or lack of it. So long as I get the same given in return, everything is fine. I can't see how I can share any common ground with somebody willing to insult something I believe in, I wouldn't care to bestow the same lack of courtesy on them.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
A man is not of much without guidance. Even from birth, you take guidance from your parents, grandparents, other family, teachers etc. You could consider the book a teacher in many ways. It still leaves room for open thought, it doesn't cover EVERY minute eventuality.

The koran states clearly man is made of a free will so to speak. You can either decide to go it alone, or take the teachings of the holy book. Its a matter of personal choice.

I am not a preacher, I respect peoples choice of religion or lack of it. So long as I get the same given in return, everything is fine. I can't see how I can share any common ground with somebody willing to insult something I believe in, I wouldn't care to bestow the same lack of courtesy on them.

I think you're confusing guidance with indoctrination and brainwashing. They did a pretty good job on you it seems.

Killian

You seem to have books, religion and theology all sorted.

I do hope you are right.

According to Shaw, 'The last words of every dying atheist are-

'God help me!'

Don't worry about me. At least I won't be disappointed come the end.

Sorry, got to go, we've got some of those nice Jehovah Witness people at the door..................

God Bless You-Killian

Originally posted by PopT


According to Shaw, 'The last words of every dying atheist are-

'God help me!'

Was this in 'Jaws' or 'From Russia With Love'?

Probably said this just before the shark ate him, I would say.

Originally posted by mojoworking
I think you're confusing guidance with indoctrination and brainwashing. They did a pretty good job on you it seems.

But what you are saying could apply to anything. In much the same way you perceive the koran as a terrorists guidebook, Im sure you didnt conclude that by reading all of its arabic scriptures did you?

No i didnt think so. Like I said, its a choice, you can accept it or not. In your case your reasoning for not is based on somebody elses translations of what it says / means so now tell me who is the one being brainwashed? I have gone out and found out for myself, can you say the same? I think not.

I would carry on this lively chat with you, but now you are beginning to bore me with your half hearted nonsense attempts at a 'comeback'.

You spew the same old every other Islamophobic website has which can be found willy nilly all over the WWW. If you can't accept certain things because your own perception is in stranglehold, then don't ask the questions. I don't care one bit what you think of Islam, I do it for me and not for you :D
What however I won't have uncontested is quite literally the vile spreading of misconceptions though somebodys ignorance to the facts. Hope that is clear enough for you now :)

Originally posted by PopT
God Bless You-Killian

I think you've misjudged the Almighty. Our garden is covered in locusts.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
. I don't care one bit what you think of Islam,

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
What however I won't have uncontested is quite literally the vile spreading of misconceptions though somebodys ignorance to the facts.

Surely these two statements are contradictory, or is it just me?

Originally posted by Killian
Surely these two statements are contradictory, or is it just me?
It's just you.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
You spew the same old every other Islamophobic website has which can be found willy nilly all over the WWW. If you can't accept certain things because your own perception is in stranglehold, then don't ask the questions. I don't care one bit what you think of Islam, I do it for me and not for you :D
What however I won't have uncontested is quite literally the vile spreading of misconceptions though somebodys ignorance to the facts. Hope that is clear enough for you now :) [/B]

Not really, perhaps you could run through the same old tired Islamic dogma one more time. I know how much you enjoy doing that

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
It's just you.

Thought it might be.

Anyway, I don't thinkit's fair for you to log on under 2 different usernames just to support your own arguments. Isn't that a bit schizophrenic?

Originally posted by Killian
Thought it might be.

Anyway, I don't thinkit's fair for you to log on under 2 different usernames just to support your own arguments. Isn't that a bit schizophrenic?

MOD: If you have reason to believe that a user is contravening the forum rules by logging in with 2 separate ids please inform the administration

Originally posted by max
MOD: If you have reason to believe that a user is contravening the forum rules by logging in with 2 separate ids please inform the administration

Well, actually Max this was a joke. I answered a quote from 1dog&hisman and Phan answered it. I guess some people got it and others didn't.

Mod: Please keep this thread on topic.