Christmas in Pakistan

[David Johnson]

"I stand up for and defend Muslims. he stands up for and defends Islam."

Wrong. I do both as appropriate.

" I want Islamic reform. He wants to keep the status quo. "

Wrong. I have no problem with Islamic reform.

"Leftist that he is, when it comes to Islam I'm the progressive and he the conservative. Ideologically, we're polar opposites on this."

Wrong.

So what is correct? You state that you hate Islam. I do not.

[David Johnson]

It is important to understand the Sam Slater view on this.

1. Tony Blair has never been found guilty in a court of law as a war criminal.
2. WIlliam Roache has never been found guilty of kiddie fiddling in a court of law.
3. If William Roache was not found guilty in a court of law and is not viewed as guilty of that crime, then Tony Blair cannot be viewed as a war criminal.

You may find this view strange.

[Sam Slater]

David's view on this:

David believes in innocent until proven guilty, unless it's about someone he doesn't like.

My view on this:

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Full stop.

[Sam Slater]

As everyone can see....David says he defends Muslims and Islam when appropriate.

Fair enough.........although with him it seems always 'appropriate' to defend Islam. In fact, over the years on here I've never come across a time he found it inappropriate. He's never been so vehement in repeatedly defending the Catholic church when it's been ripped into on here. I guess with Islam it's always inappropriate and with Christianity only sometimes inappropriate - which is handy.

As everyone can see, he has just expressed he has no problem with reform and does not want to keep the status quo. This implies that he thinks the current forms of Islam could be improved. I'm glad to hear this. It would be interesting to find out what parts of Islam he doesn't like, which are in need of reform and which parts shouldn't be criticised. That way we can vent our anger at a bronze-aged, made-up old testament rip-off without irking him. Everybody wins!

[Sam Slater]

But on a more important note, Maj General Asim Bajwa has just confirmed that the latest death toll at Peshawar has risen to 145. 132 of them were children.

[David Johnson]

"As everyone can see...."

Yes, I am sure that everyone who uses this forum is hanging on every word, just waiting to "see". I suspect not!

"although with him it seems always 'appropriate' to defend Islam."

Weill to a certain extent that is more than likely to be the case because you are a irrational, 100%, fully paid up "hater" of Islam.

Personally I would like the texts of most ancient books from different religions to be updated to reflect an interpretation more in keeping with modern times and attempt made to avoid having an "imam" who knows as much about modern life as next door's cat. Though I realise that is somewhat unlikely in the current situation given Islam has not been through a "Reformation" like experience.

"That way we can vent our anger at a bronze-aged, made-up old testament rip-off without irking him."

I doubt if a red hot poker up your arse would stop you "venting your anger at a bronze-age, made-up Old Testament rip-off" so I won't waste any time on that endeavour, thank you very much.

[David Johnson]

"David believes in innocent until proven guilty, unless it's about someone he doesn't like.

My view on this:

I believe in innocent until proven guilty. Full stop."

As everyone can see (sorry, Sam!), Mr Slater cannot follow a basic argument that has been explained to him very many times i.e. you can only be found innocent or guilty if a crime is on the statute. So to explain it in terms of Coronation Street to which you are quite keen to compare war crimes , it is as if there is not a crime of kiddie fiddling so WIlliam Roache would have to be found innocent.

Now in that example I doubt if you would be praising William Roach to the rafters for allowing a young girl to suck him off for example if that had been the case, which it appears it wasn't, despite him being "innocent".

"Now when the States Parties sat down to draft the Rome Statute (this is the core document of the International Criminal Court which lays out all the rules) they managed to agree on what the war crimes were and even to write them all down in the statute. Admittedly, they did so in a manner so confusing as to keep law students up at night, but at least it?s something to work with.

What the States Parties somehow could not agree on was what constituted an act of aggression, and the reason they could not agree on this was because Britain and the United States refused to agree on it. Why anyone was listening to what the United States thought about a document it was unlikely to ratify in the same century it signed it is a mystery unto itself, but needless to say, ?country A takes its army and invades country B? is generally considered a pretty good starting point on what constitutes an act of aggression. There are always a few tricky details, but in the main, it isn?t rocket science.

So while the States Parties agreed that aggression was a crime under international law, since it defied definition no one could be tried for it"

Now as "everyone can see" I am bored at repeating myself and will leave to watch the last episode of Missing on the beeb and have a nice glass of port with cake, it being Xmas.

[David Johnson]

Did I miss your righteous indignation at the umpteen thousand Iraqi civilians including children who were "collateral damage" at the hands of Bush and Blair?

Plenty of righteous indignation for those killed by Saddam as I recall, but pretty much zero for those kids blown to bits by the allies.

[Sam Slater]

As everyone can see.......I just post an update to a horrific slaughtering of children and David uses it to attack me.

Sadly predictable and unneeded.

[David Johnson]

"I just post an update to a horrific slaughtering of children and David uses it to attack me".

By your own words, you condemn yourself for the "hater" you are.

"Sadly predictable and unneeded."

Setting aside the righteous indignation you specialise in using to cover your "hate", I await with interest all the links you can provide in which you have condemned on this forum the "collateral damage" of all the kids killed by Blair and Bush and their armed forces.

We can compare that with your endless posts condemning Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad's crimes as a defence for Allies going in and slaughtering innocent men, women and children as part of the "collateral damage".

As you rightly say, no point going over old ground any more.