Woolich Attack

[Gentleman]

Further information not available at this time or place.

[David Johnson]

1. I think it is quite difficult to have a conversation with you on this topic. Mainly because you do not seem to know what your own view is about Islam.

For example, in one post in this thread you state

"I will defend Muslims from attack by racists, but I can do so while at the same time hating their religion".

Elsewhere you write "I have already stated that I think there is both good and bad in Islam".

Make your mind up, Mr. Slater. Hatred - extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing. I hate the philosophy behind the EDL. I don't see both good and bad in them, but hey, maybe that is just me. I can see good and bad in Christianity but don't "hate the religion.

2. Secondly you do not appear to read my posts to you before responding.

For example in this thread I state in a response to YOU:

"What I am saying in the interest of balance as opposed to blanket generalisations, that the Muslims are sometimes the aggressor and on other occasions, different Asian races such as Hindus and Buddhists are."

Your reply to my very post is

"Islamists are fighting just about everyone they brush up against around the world and you blame everyone but Islamists. That's not balanced, that's biased".

Which is clearly nonsense when I have stated that Muslims are the aggressors on some occasions. And when I point this failure to read my post, your comeback is "In future, if you want to put across a point to me, I suggest you do it directly, as I don't have the time -nor sometimes the inclination- to read every post you submit on these forums."

Err, Mr. Slater, I HAVE PUT ACROSS THE POINT DIRECTLY TO YOU. What would you suggest I do? Copy the same point three times in my post to you on the off chance you might read it before replying?

3. "I know what it was, but I wasn't pitting Islam against US foreign policy. "

I didn't say you were.

4. "If I'd submitted a post being sarcastic about US foreign policy, I doubt you'd have felt the need to produce a rebuttal which included every Islamic massacre and wrongdoing of the last 50 years, all in the name of 'balance'. You're biased."

That's a very easy one to answer. No I wouldn't produce such a list because I can't recall their being hundreds of attacks on US citizens in the UK and US buildings because of their policy but I am aware of hundreds of attacks on Muslims in the UK and their places of worship. Next......

You do not appear to understand the word "balance" in the context of this thread. I am not trying to "balance" a 1kg of sugar with a 1kg of butter. If Fox News took over the BBC and all you got was right wing Tory interpretations of the news people might say "Blimey this isn't very balanced". So when someone produces an endless list of wars which you imply are due to the "joke" of Islamic peacefulness, I add a bit of balance whilst still accepting that Muslims, Islamists or whatever word you deem appropriate can be the aggressor. Next....

"That's not being fundamentalist because I'm willing to change my mind if someone could persuade me to believe treating non-Muslims as secondary citizens, women as chattel, and making homosexuals legitimate targets of hatred and death are somehow good and make the world a better place."

You want have a gander at the Old Testament - stoning prostitutes to death etc. homosexuals and women didn't feature too highly either. Make your toes curl, it will You don't think Tory attitudes to gay marriage just came out of the Sun, do you?

Next......

"No. That's completely and utterly obvious: Because pre 1970 we'd be hard-pressed to meet a Muslim in the West."

Wrong. Not obvious at all. In 1970, the population of Muslims in Eastern Europe. alone was about 10 million and in North Western Europe including UK, round about 3 million. Enough for the odd terrorist outrage if they fancied, don't you think?

Could I politely ask you to have another go at my question, Mr Slater? Next....

5. "And, as I say, some things don't need 'balance'"

Err. clearly anything you believe - however one-sided. Next..

6. "This obsession by some to lay all the blame on themselves for everything that's wrong with the world is unhealthy and sadistic. I'm sure Orwell wrote an essay on this exact phenomena and I will try to seek it out for you for I remember it a good read."

I would be happy Mr Slater if you could just read the posts I bother to make in response to you. That would be fine thank you.

Have a nice day!

[David Johnson]

"I think my attitude and views are more complex than yours, regardless of who's right."

Confused possibly, but not more complex.

Here you state for the second or third time in this thread "I hate Islam" and then elsewhere once or twice you go on about how you can see the good and bad in Islam.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Here you state for the second or third time in this thread "I hate Islam" and then elsewhere once or twice you go on about how you can see the good and bad in Islam.[/quote]

I don't see how that's confusing. Harold Shipman during his career both helped people with their health and illnesses, and also killed people. I think the bad things he did outweighed the good things and so I think it wouldn't be confusing to express a hatred of Harald Shipman.

[David Johnson]

I can see where you are coming from. It just appears a strange juxtaposition.

Bit like Jews saying I can see good and bad in Hitler but overall I hate him.

Or me saying "I hate Nick Griffin but there is good and bad in him. I always remember him helping a very old lady with her shopping trolley across a main road after a BNP rally".

Or to use your example, if I said "That Harold Shipman was a bit of a wrong un for allegedly murdering over a 100 old people. Hateful person. But I can see the good in him because he cleared up a nasty rash I had in no time."

Bit of a clash really.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]1. I think it is quite difficult to have a conversation with you on this topic. Mainly because you do not seem to know what your own view is about Islam.

For example, in one post in this thread you state

"I will defend Muslims from attack by racists, but I can do so while at the same time hating their religion".

Elsewhere you write "I have already stated that I think there is both good and bad in Islam".

Make your mind up, Mr. Slater. Hatred - extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing. I hate the philosophy behind the EDL. I don't see both good and bad in them, but hey, maybe that is just me. I can see good and bad in Christianity but don't "hate the religion. [/quote]

See my reply to you on this with my Harald Shipman scenario. It's very simple to follow if you try.

[quote]2. Secondly you do not appear to read my posts to you before responding.

For example in this thread I state in a response to YOU:

"What I am saying in the interest of balance as opposed to blanket generalisations, that the Muslims are sometimes the aggressor and on other occasions, different Asian races such as Hindus and Buddhists are."

Your reply to my very post is

"Islamists are fighting just about everyone they brush up against around the world and you blame everyone but Islamists. That's not balanced, that's biased".

Which is clearly nonsense when I have stated that Muslims are the aggressors on some occasions. And when I point this failure to read my post, your comeback is "In future, if you want to put across a point to me, I suggest you do it directly, as I don't have the time -nor sometimes the inclination- to read every post you submit on these forums."

Err, Mr. Slater, I HAVE PUT ACROSS THE POINT DIRECTLY TO YOU. What would you suggest I do? Copy the same point three times in my post to you on the off chance you might read it before replying?[/quote]

Firstly, you gave three points in your last reply on in this branch of the thread. You did address one to me (the one you are quoting again) but not the other two. That sentence actually had no bearing on any other post to me before that.

Here are your posts to me, prior to that sentence:







Only after these do you go with the "What I'm saying is Muslims are sometimes bad too" post, here> It's a nice admittion, but a token, really because nothing you'd said to me before then even implied Islam was slightly bad in your eyes. You were too busy defending Islam, having a pop at the USA and calling my posts simplistic and a bit like Arginald.

And while I let it go the first time, I'll not let your gaffe go by uncommented on again as it might be why you have a problem separating Muslims from Islam. You call Hindus and Buddhists 'races'. They are not. Muslims are not a race, either. They are just followers of a certain philosophy on life, like being a Conservative, Marxist or Trekkie. I can convert to any of those tomorrow without changing my race. Remember this.

And, again, while I don't ask you cut and paste posts to me that you may post in conversation with somebody else, I do ask that you don't act all exasperated that I'm not keeping myself up to date with everything you submit to others. I really haven't the time or wish to do so.

[quote]3. "I know what it was, but I wasn't pitting Islam against US foreign policy. "

I didn't say you were.[/quote]

Don't act dumb, David. I was alluding to your post listing every skirmish the US had been involved in on 'Muslim lands'.

[quote]4. "If I'd submitted a post being sarcastic about US foreign policy, I doubt you'd have felt the need to produce a rebuttal which included every Islamic massacre and wrongdoing of the last 50 years, all in the name of 'balance'. You're biased."

That's a very easy one to answer. No I wouldn't produce such a list because I can't recall their being hundreds of attacks on US citizens in the UK and US buildings because of their policy but I am aware of hundreds of attacks on Muslims in the UK and their places of worship. Next......[/quote]

Those wrongdoings from Muslims didn't have to be against US or UK citizens for you to list them, though. Again, I think you're seeing this as a Westerners vs Muslims thing and you feel you need to stick up for Muslims in the name of balance. I don't see it like this. My original, and main point was criticising a theology. You might see yourself as the sole defender of some downtrodden minority, but you're not. You're sticking up for a backward theology that helps subjugate females, that is fascistic in attitudes to others and that helps keep millions ignorant and......well.......downtrodden.

[quote]You do not appear to understand the word "balance" in the context of this thread. I am not trying to "balance" a 1kg of sugar with a 1kg of butter. If Fox News took over the BBC and all you got was right wing Tory interpretations of the news people might say "Blimey this isn't very balanced". So when someone produces an endless list of wars which you imply are due to the "joke" of Islamic peacefulness, I add a bit of balance whilst still accepting that Muslims, Islamists or whatever word you deem appropriate can be the aggressor. Next....[/quote]

Except you made the mistake of using a nation's skirmishes over 50 years against militant Islam. An evolving, democratic system that has elected leaders against a dictatorial theology that has no real leaders and a text of rules written for people in the 8th century. If you wanted to balance out my criticism of Islam you should have shown where Islam IS peaceful, against my accusation that it is not. You didn't. Instead you brought the US's foreign policies into it. You gave links to Buddhist and Hindu skirmishes with Muslims that showed the Muslims in the best possible light. You mistakenly confuse theology and race. I'd have even forgave you for this if the US claimed it was the 'nation of peace'. If it did, I'd find that claim equally as laughable, don't you worry.

[quote]"That's not being fundamentalist because I'm willing to change my mind if someone could persuade me to believe treating non-Muslims as secondary citizens, women as chattel, and making homosexuals legitimate targets of hatred and death are somehow good and make the world a better place."

You want have a gander at the Old Testament - stoning prostitutes to death etc. homosexuals and women didn't feature too highly either. Make your toes curl, it will You don't think Tory attitudes to gay marriage just came out of the Sun, do you?

Next......[/quote]

Except that, as I have stated, and you have admitted, Christianity has had an enlightenment and been beaten back in a way Islam has not. You admit this so no argument here, eh, David? And my point was questioning your accusation that I'm 'fundamentalist'. Your reply wasn't a counter-argument to defend your accusation. It was, all in all, pointless.

[quote]6. "This obsession by some to lay all the blame on themselves for everything that's wrong with the world is unhealthy and sadistic. I'm sure Orwell wrote an essay on this exact phenomena and I will try to seek it out for you for I remember it a good read."

I would be happy Mr Slater if you could just read the posts I bother to make in response to you. That would be fine thank you.[/quote]

It's masochism. Some guys like to be cuckolded. Some don't.

Finally, I'll wrap up:

I started by questioning an often-spouted claim that Islam is a religion of peace. This irked you yet you admit Islam hasn't had the same sort of enlightenment Christianity has. This admission is enough for me, really, given what the enlightenment gave us.

Remember, nothing has killed more Muslims than Islam.

[Sam Slater]

It's no clash. Harald Shipman no doubt did some good, given he was a doctor for decades. However, that good did not excuse the bad and the bad is how I really judge him.

[David Johnson]

"Firstly, you gave three points in your last reply on in this branch of the thread. You did address one to me (the one you are quoting again) but not the other two. That sentence actually had no bearing on any other post to me before that."

Cut the blah, Sam.

Just read my message to you before responding to that message and accusing me of the opposite of what I have stated in the message you reply to. Ok?

Let's just summarise then shall we before you tie yourself any further up in knots.

You believe:

1. Some Muslims are bad and some Muslims are good presumably because some Muslims have carried out a series of appalling crimes. You do not hate Muslims as a whole as followers of the Islamic faith. Correct? No blah. Simple Yes or No can suffice, thank you very much.

2. Some things about Islam are bad and some are good. You hate Islam. Correct? A simple answer. Yes or No. No blah.

3. You explain your hate of Islam e.g. "I'm willing to change my mind if someone could persuade me to believe treating non-Muslims as secondary citizens, women as chattel, and making homosexuals legitimate targets of hatred and death are somehow good and make the world a better place." and "What CAN explain this scuffling with just about everyone they brush up against is an intolerant, backward religion (Islam) that glorifies martyrdom and hasn't had much in the way of reform for a thousand years."

Right, I notice you totally failed to answer a key question that I posed to you which tears to shreds your argument. The question is as follows:

What I suggest you need to consider is

1. If this concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is so nonsensical as you imply in your opening post why is it that it is only in the last 20 or 30 years we have been inundated with stories about radical Islam, terrorism etc etc. Why did we not hear about those in say the period before 1970s?

2. Could a key factor in the growth of militant, radical Islam in the west be down to the endless interventions in the Muslim world undertaken by America and its allies?

You reply something on the lines of "No. That's completely and utterly obvious: Because pre 1970 we'd be hard-pressed to meet a Muslim in the West. "

I've pointed out that this view is total piffle and you are obviously just guessing. There were about 700,000 Muslims in the UK alone in 1970 whereas you suggest that they were as rare as a polo mint without a hole.

So if the Koran exhorts its followers to proselytise non-believers, oppress women in line with the exact literal interpretation of the Koran etc. follow the principle of an eye for an eye as part of jihad and oppress homosexuals, how do you explain, I repeat, the extremely limited number of Islam inspired attacks in the West prior to the seventies?

Please, no answer which goes along the lines of "before 1970 we only got the good Muslims. (After all, am I not right that a good Muslim follows the only one true meaning of the Koran?) After 1990 we got loads of bad ones"

Over to you and remember, no blah, Mr Slater. And make sure you read the post first before replying.

[Essex Lad]

Fucking hell ? you two seriously need to get out more.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Cut the blah, Sam.

Just read my message to you before responding to that message and accusing me of the opposite of what I have stated in the message you reply to. Ok?[/quote]

David, your hanging on to this one sentence ("What I'm saying is Muslims are sometimes bad too") as a defence of your lack of bias, and I admitted you'd said it. You know full well that my point was that it took you five or six posts of attacking the US and finding excuses for Muslims where there were skirmishes between Westerners, Hindus, Buddhists. I was pointing to a general theme to show Islam wasn't a religion of peace. You was only interested in putting the blame on anyone but Islam up to that point. Only then did you come out with the sentence you're clinging to, as if, "sometimes Muslims are bad too" was your main point all along! It wasn't even implied in the five posts before it.

[quote]1. Some Muslims are bad and some Muslims are good presumably because some Muslims have carried out a series of appalling crimes. You do not hate Muslims as a whole as followers of the Islamic faith. Correct? No blah. Simple Yes or No can suffice, thank you very much.[/quote]

A stupid question from someone who has still failed to grasp my point. How can you seriously ask me that question when for years I've defended Muslims on these very boards and been called a 'hand-wringing, heart-bleeding, do-gooder' for my effort? Your question is like me asking you to confirm if you hate all Americans or not. I have VERY clearly and REPEATEDLY stated that I'm attacking a theology, NOT it's followers. I have VERY clearly and REPEATEDLY stated that the main victims of this theology are Muslims. And, again, over the years I have VERY clearly and REPEATEDLY defended and stuck up for Muslims from the BNP-types. I feel you shouldn't have needed to ask it, David.

[quote]2. Some things about Islam are bad and some are good. You hate Islam. Correct? A simple answer. Yes or No. No blah.[/quote]

This question has been answered in previous posts, but since I don't feel this one is a veiled attack on my character, I'm happy to answer it again: Yes. I hate Islam.

[quote]3. You explain your hate of Islam e.g. "I'm willing to change my mind if someone could persuade me to believe treating non-Muslims as secondary citizens, women as chattel, and making homosexuals legitimate targets of hatred and death are somehow good and make the world a better place." and "What CAN explain this scuffling with just about everyone they brush up against is an intolerant, backward religion (Islam) that glorifies martyrdom and hasn't had much in the way of reform for a thousand years."[/quote]

Yes. Which begs the question why you had to ask #2 again?

[quote]Right, I notice you totally failed to answer a key question that I posed to you which tears to shreds your argument.[/quote]

I can't remember failing to answer any question. Tears to shreds, eh? I'm looking forward to this.

[quote]1. If this concept of Islam as a peaceful religion is so nonsensical as you imply in your opening post why is it that it is only in the last 20 or 30 years we have been inundated with stories about radical Islam, terrorism etc etc. Why did we not hear about those in say the period before 1970s?

2. Could a key factor in the growth of militant, radical Islam in the west be down to the endless interventions in the Muslim world undertaken by America and its allies?

You reply something on the lines of "No. That's completely and utterly obvious: Because pre 1970 we'd be hard-pressed to meet a Muslim in the West. "

I've pointed out that this view is total piffle and you are obviously just guessing. There were about 700,000 Muslims in the UK alone in 1970 whereas you suggest that they were as rare as a polo mint without a hole.[/quote]

You said pre-1970. Given Islam is over a thousand years old I think that just using figures of Muslims in the UK for the final year of that time period to back up your argument and provide you with a 'gotcha!' is laughable.

Most came through the '60s but the first quarter of the 20th century, only 10,000 Muslims were in the UK. To put that into perspective, that's like the number of Jains in the UK today (25,000 from census of 2001).

But I can throw your question right back at you. If you're arguing that it wasn't until the US and UK started meddling in Muslim lands that Muslims started terrorist-style activities, then there's rather a large problem left unexplained here: Empire. Don't get me wrong, it's as much a problem for me as it is you, but it is a problem to both our theories. There was as much foreign meddling in the Muslim world from Westerners pre-1970 as post-1970, so why the uprise in terror?

I have my answer: Islam. Have you compared the streets of Cairo and Afghanistan from the '60s to now? These places and it's people are more Islamic than they were. Women could walk round Cairo in skirts. Women in Afghanistan could bare their arms, faces and even hair. Not now. I am of the opinion that as these countries became more religious, they became less tolerant, more backward and less liberal.

Another point, I think, is technology. We see more terrorist-style activities because terrorists these days are usually educated, middle-class Muslims. You look at 90% of those who blow themselves up and they're invariably affluent Muslims who've had an education, but just took their religion much more seriously. If it was all about our meddling you'd have thought terrorists and suicide bombers would be equally from poor backgrounds as being well off. So that squashes any theory that hangs on using poverty and feelings of emasculation for Islamic terrorism.

Now I'll pass on that problem of Empire on to you.

What I hate about all religions is that when they do something good, like get someone off drugs, or feed starving people, they claim it's their religion at work, but when someone does something bad and states religion gave them the motive to do so, they're somehow bad Muslims/Christians etc. I'm sorry but if you have both good and evil messages in your holy books, you cannot just claim the good things done in your religion's name. You also have to be responsible for the bad things. And, again, I think the bad things outweigh the good in most cases and Islam especially has to be reformed in the same way much of Christianity was.