egafd.com

Porn Baron wrote:

> I don't like or believe we are achieving anything in Afganistan
> or Iraq either. Protest and use your democratic vote if you
> don't like it. That's what we all do. But we don't murder
> people. Nor do real muslims.

100% in agreement with you.

>
> I am sure this guy is behind lots of this hatred. Follow him
> everywhere
>
Yes, I am sure he is too. Along with the other 2,000 or so people that MI5 apparently has under surveillance. But we mustn't fall into the trap of giving him more power than he actually has. He does not speak for more than a tiny percentage of Muslims and to give him a platform when some atrocity happens makes some people believe that he is speaking for Islam. Never mind the oxygen of publicity, it's a shame he has to have the oxygen of oxygen.

Bloody hell, Essex Lad. Are you really equating horoscope reading while eating your cornflakes to organised religion?

I've never seen so much as a punch thrown in an argument over a horoscope.

And I'd garner the local pub landlord had a closer ear to the ground about what the 'community' was thinking and feeling than the local Vicar and Bishop. And in times of need, many turn to alcohol!

Your reply to my quote doesn't seem to match up.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Bloody hell, Essex Lad. Are you really equating horoscope
> reading while eating your cornflakes to organised religion?

You're underestimating the power of astrology. I have known women end relationships because their stars were not "favourable".

> I've never seen so much as a punch thrown in an argument over a
> horoscope.

Not a punch perhaps but if you read Donald Regan's book on the Reagan White House For The Record you'll see that Nancy (the power behind the throne) relied on horoscopes when Ronnie was "making decisions". That's a bit more serious than throwing a punch.

>
> And I'd garner the local pub landlord had a closer ear to the
> ground about what the 'community' was thinking and feeling than
> the local Vicar and Bishop. And in times of need, many turn to
> alcohol!
>
He won't know what the local Muslim community is thinking...

"I'm glad you're all for one sidedness but the irony is that while your advocating this the very same religion that your defending if allowed to continue in the way it is now wouldn't be shaking you by the hand and saying thank you."

You mean I am all for an even-handed approach, I assume?

"but the irony is that while your advocating this the very same religion that your defending if allowed to continue in the way it is now wouldn't be shaking you by the hand and saying thank you."

And what evidence have you to support this statement?

I do find it very strange the way people view Islam and people who are Muslims as a homogenous grouping as if all Muslims came out of an Identikit mould. Do you think of Hindus, Sikhs and Christians in the same way?

I have worked with Muslims on projects for many years. Some were very religious and had been on the Hadj and wanted to work in Saudi Arabia. Some were right piss artists. Some had a bit of a coke problem and some didn't fit into any of those groups.

And you know what? In all the time I have worked with Muslims in the last 10 years not a single one has attempted to stab or decapitate me.

Why is that I ask myself? Because Muslims are not a homogenous grouping. And the same with imams. Some of them make mediaeval preachers look progressive whilst others are much more balanced and condemn the attacks in the UK wholeheartedly.

"but a vile ideology based on the subjection and institutional ignorance cannot ever be defended."

Perhaps you should ask yourself the following:

Given the number of years since the invasion of Iraq, given the number of Muslims that there are in the UK, given the ready availability of guns in our cities, why has there only been 50+ deaths in the UK at a time when there have been hundreds of thousands in the likes of Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the answer is, Gentleman?

This is a meaningless response. You sound like Argie talking about Liverpool supporters.

I could make the same blanket generalisation about any side fighting in any war providing the same excuses.

"Ah........so if Muslims fight with Hindus it's the Hindus' fault."

Again very simplistic.

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.

And the same applies in terms of the relationships with western nation states.

Also young British men going off to fight in Syria to rebel against the Assad regime. They can come back to the UK and import those skills they?ve learned. So this is seen a threat by the security services on one side. On the other MI6 and the British government is now pushing to arm and help these rebels still further. So they are sort of producing the problem they want to fight.

Yes, just as the British government sided with Saddam in the war with Iran and supported the forerunner of the Taliban with training, arms and funding when the Russians invaded Afghanistan.

Islamic allies one year, "Islamist" terrorists threatening our freedoms the next. Same people, different political situation.

Sam Slater wrote:

> Bloody hell, Essex Lad. Are you really equating horoscope
> reading while eating your cornflakes to organised religion?
>
> I've never seen so much as a punch thrown in an argument over a
> horoscope.
>
The other person who believed in horoscopes and caused slightly more than a punch up was Adolf Hitler.