Woolich Attack

[Gentleman]

"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."

The thousands of deaths you mention just to clarify are we talking deaths caused by the evil western oppressors and their henchmen or the Taliban?

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> 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.

But that has always been and always will be the reality. I remember Alan Clark on Open to Queston being quizzed by kids and they were shocked when he said that. Are the "rebels" in Syria terrorists or freedom fighters? (Rhetorical question)

[max_tranmere]

There are idiots on YouTube who are already saying the Woolwich attack was a hoax. Inevitable I suppose. There are some real tools on the internet.

[Gentleman]

"There are idiots on YouTube who are already saying the Woolwich attack was a hoax. Inevitable I suppose. There are some real tools on the internet."

I think they maybe Onto something as if you the woolich video carefully you will see one of the perpetrators have to stop during his rendition of "Swanee river" to touch up his black make up.

Yep another conspiracy courtesy of the western decadent honky white man.

[steve56]

Woman talking said more riots EDL,BMP I can see it this summer too

[Sam Slater]

How can my post be any more meaningless than yours? That's rather arrogant if you're suggesting your post has more meaning or significance than mine, don't you think? Are you mixing up 'meaningless' with something like 'senseless'?

My views are less simplistic than yours as I distinguish Muslims from Islam. I support Muslims. I hate Islam. You lump the two together.

I recognise the good in Islam but also the bad, and for me the bad things outweigh the good. You only see the good and make excuses, deny or ignore the bad because in your eyes, the theology and the followers are inseparable. I think my attitude and views are more complex than yours, regardless of who's right.

Please remember the biggest victims of Islamism in the world are Muslims.

[Sam Slater]

So what? It was a over a thousand years of Christian anti-semitism in Europe that contributed to many turning a blind eye when he started gassing Jews, not horoscope belief.

[Sam Slater]

Interest of balance? Please. 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.

When we started this discussion you set-off with the expressing your feeling that the Woolwich crime: "Yesterday's attack in Woolwich was a vile, disgusting, indefensible crime."

You then went on to list all conflicts, wars and interferences the US had been involved in in Islamic lands for the last 50 years. Without expressing your feelings about the Woolwich murder, I respect you enough to know that that long list of US fighting and bombing was in no way an attempt to excuse that murder. Unfortunately, you don't give me a similar respect when I criticise Islam. I can only guess that because you feel the need to 'give balance' every time I mention Islam in a bad light that you think I'm unaware that Hindus, Christians and Buddhists can be at fault, too.

Not that long ago the BBC was accused of giving as much consideration for non-Man-made climate change. . This shows how one can lose their way chasing 'balance'. At some point you lose perspective and say Genesis should be taught next to the Big Bang Theory as equal views; you put homeopathy on a par with chemotherapy when it comes to cancer treatment; you support a fascistic, dictatorial religion that glorifies martyrs and subjugates women when you're supposed to be a supporter of feminism and democracy.

Balance is only the right goal when things are in fact equally true/false/right/wrong..........and that is rare. If you skim over certain things on one side, downplay or exaggerate other things just to get 'balance' then while you might feel pleased with yourself you are in fact being disingenuous, unfair, unobjective, idealistic and sometimes harmful.

Life would be simpler if Islam was exactly as good/bad as Christianity, and Christianity was exactly as good/bad as Judaism, and Judaism was exactly as good/bad as Hinduism, which was exactly as good/bad as Buddhism, US foreign policy, British Imperialism, Stalin's Russia, the Roman Empire and Aztec human sacrifices. Unfortunately, it's a lot more complex. Again, if anybody suffers from simplistic views, it is you. You can't get more simple than 'Islam, good - everyone else, bad'.

[David Johnson]

I have answered that here



The Lancet survey estimated 200,000 Iraqi deaths due to the coalition alone.

Going to answer my question now?

[Gentleman]

Seeing you didn't ask kindly that I should answer your question I don't I'm going to bother after all especially as your M/O will only ever lead to you producing more and stats via cut and pastes and frankly I'm not as interested in spending so much time trying to justify my opinion to some unknown on a forum.

I suppose i could murder some German tourists cos their ancestors may have gassed some of mine or maybe a pole as some of them assisted the nazis.

Anyway I feel its better to leave you to the tender and far more acute mercies of Mr Slater who seems to touching a raw nerve regarding your even less simple view of the world than mine regarding the wonders of Islam and how innocent it is.