mudcat.org: BS: Muslim Violence
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]


BS: Muslim Violence

Musket 03 Jul 14 - 05:32 AM
Jim Carroll 03 Jul 14 - 04:32 AM
Richard Bridge 03 Jul 14 - 03:52 AM
GUEST,Eliza 03 Jul 14 - 03:44 AM
GUEST,Teribus 01 Mar 12 - 11:05 AM
Richard Bridge 16 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM
Backwoodsman 16 Feb 12 - 03:18 AM
GUEST 15 Feb 12 - 06:01 PM
Richard Bridge 15 Feb 12 - 03:29 PM
GUEST 15 Feb 12 - 03:16 PM
Richard Bridge 15 Feb 12 - 01:36 PM
Musket 15 Feb 12 - 11:40 AM
Backwoodsman 15 Feb 12 - 10:24 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 15 Feb 12 - 10:12 AM
Backwoodsman 15 Feb 12 - 08:15 AM
GUEST 15 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM
Backwoodsman 15 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM
Musket 15 Feb 12 - 07:57 AM
Backwoodsman 15 Feb 12 - 07:04 AM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 PM
GUEST,Eliza 14 Feb 12 - 06:41 AM
Richard Bridge 14 Feb 12 - 05:10 AM
Musket 14 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM
Keith A of Hertford 14 Feb 12 - 03:01 AM
Richard Bridge 14 Feb 12 - 02:20 AM
GUEST,Bluesman 13 Feb 12 - 07:36 PM
Richard Bridge 13 Feb 12 - 06:52 PM
GUEST,Bluesman 13 Feb 12 - 06:39 PM
Richard Bridge 13 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM
GUEST,Bluesman 13 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM
Keith A of Hertford 13 Feb 12 - 01:46 PM
Richard Bridge 13 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM
GUEST,Bluesman 13 Feb 12 - 09:14 AM
GUEST 24 Nov 05 - 09:32 PM
Wolfgang 24 Nov 05 - 12:08 PM
Wolfgang 24 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM
CarolC 22 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM
robomatic 22 Nov 05 - 01:03 PM
CarolC 22 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM
Wolfgang 22 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM
CarolC 19 Nov 05 - 08:09 PM
robomatic 18 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM
Ebbie 17 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM
Wolfgang 17 Nov 05 - 06:40 AM
CarolC 16 Nov 05 - 11:55 PM
CarolC 16 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM
robomatic 16 Nov 05 - 10:35 PM
CarolC 16 Nov 05 - 08:13 PM
robomatic 16 Nov 05 - 05:13 PM
CarolC 16 Nov 05 - 03:22 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 05:32 AM

Can I claim royalties from this person pretending to be Musket?

Or will the moderators kindly check IP addresses and remove them?

It isn't hard to remove them. You do it often enough to my genuine posts.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 04:32 AM

"Internment, non-jury trials? The precedent was set in Ireland by Eamon De Valera and Gerald Boland in January 1940."
Both commonly used by Britain in regard to Ireland - and I don't exactly believe Guantanamo is an overseas branch of Butlins.
A recent programme on interrogation methods used by Britain while detaining suspects showed that they constituted torture and were first developed in Kenya for use on Mau Mau suspects
Britain has recently payed a large sum in compensation to detainees who were castrated while under detention.
Jim Carroll


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 03:52 AM

Oh look - a thread from Martin Gobson - gone but not regretted.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 03 Jul 14 - 03:44 AM

Oh crumbs! My husband will be travelling in 3 weeks' time back to Ivory Coast to visit his family. He's going via Amsterdam and Paris. As his name is very Muslim, and he's black, I just hope he doesn't run into any difficulties or delays, or he'll miss his onward flights. He'll have tons of luggage too, 2x 23Kg, plus 12Kg flight bag, and they may want to rummage through the lot. Also, the French Traffic Controllers are doing their annual strike action; It'll be a miracle if he gets there at all! He has a UK passport, but that probably won't make much difference. The 'home-grown' fundamentalist terrorists have UK passports too!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 01 Mar 12 - 11:05 AM

Internment, non-jury trials? The precedent was set in Ireland by Eamon De Valera and Gerald Boland in January 1940.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:57 AM

So, Guest, the UK government did abide by the rule of law after legal challenge, on the basis of what you assert. Is that not so?

Your original point (assuming you are the same guest) was that internment as such was contrary to the rule of law. You do not appear to have made any progress towards showing that to be so.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 16 Feb 12 - 03:18 AM

"Must make up for it and sing some songs of slaughtering Johnny Foreigner at Epworth Folk Club tonight. (Plug for Eric & his leg.)"

Damn and blast! Missed that one!
I'd hoped to make your acquaintance at the recent Crooked Billet singaround/session I attended, Ian, but alas not.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 06:01 PM

Thank you Richard. I understood it as, The internments were initially carried out under Regulations 11 and 12 of 1956 and Regulation 10 of 1957 (the Special Powers Regulations), made under the authority of the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act (Northern Ireland) 1922 (the Special Powers Act). The Detention of Terrorists (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (the Detention of Terrorists Order) of 7 November 1972, made under the authority of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 (the Temporary Provisions Act), was used after direct rule was instituted. Thus illegal, the British Government under Prime Minister Edward Heath had to suspend the Northern Ireland Government and replace it with direct rule from Westminster as Ulster Unionists were more or less out of control against th Nationalist community.

One point to remember is, th British government were found guilty of torturing these innocent men.

The Irish Government, on behalf of the men who had been subject to the five techniques, took a case to the European Commission on Human Rights (Ireland v. United Kingdom, 1976 Y.B. Eur. Conv. on Hum. Rts. 512, 748, 788-94 (Eur. Comm'n of Hum. Rts.)). The Commission stated that it...unanimously considered the combined use of the five methods to amount to torture, on the grounds that (1) the intensity of the stress caused by techniques creating sensory deprivation "directly affects the personality physically and mentally"; and (2) "the systematic application of the techniques for the purpose of inducing a person to give information shows a clear resemblance to those methods of systematic torture which have been known over the ages...a modern system of torture falling into the same category as those systems applied in previous times as a means of obtaining information and confessions.[17][18]


The Commissions findings were appealed. In 1978 in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) trial Ireland v. the United Kingdom (Case No. 5310/71),[19] the facts were not in dispute and the judges court published the following in their judgement:

These methods, sometimes termed "disorientation" or "sensory deprivation" techniques, were not used in any cases other than the fourteen so indicated above. It emerges from the Commission's establishment of the facts that the techniques consisted of:

(a) wall-standing: forcing the detainees to remain for periods of some hours in a "stress position", described by those who underwent it as being "spreadeagled against the wall, with their fingers put high above the head against the wall, the legs spread apart and the feet back, causing them to stand on their toes with the weight of the body mainly on the fingers";
       (b) hooding: putting a black or navy coloured bag over the detainees' heads and, at least initially, keeping it there all the time except during interrogation;
       (c) subjection to noise: pending their interrogations, holding the detainees in a room where there was a continuous loud and hissing noise;
       (d) deprivation of sleep: pending their interrogations, depriving the detainees of sleep;
       (e) deprivation of food and drink: subjecting the detainees to a reduced diet during their stay at the centre and pending interrogations.

These (a to e) were the 'five techniques' referred to above. The court ruled:

    167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ... 168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of [the European Convention on Human Rights] Article 3 (art. 3).

On 8 February 1977, in proceedings before the ECHR, and in line with the findings of the Parker Report and UK Government policy, the Attorney-General of the United Kingdom stated:

    The Government of the United Kingdom have considered the question of the use of the 'five techniques' with very great care and with particular regard to Article 3 (art. 3) of the Convention. They now give this unqualified undertaking, that the 'five techniques' will not in any circumstances be reintroduced as an aid to interrogation.

Richard, read a book by John McGuffin called "The Guineapigs" for more information.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:29 PM

Der - guest, the authority derived from Parliamentary enactment and any internee could mount a legal challenge. Can you read?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 03:16 PM

The British had internment camps in Ulster between 1971 and 1975. That took questionables off the streets. Where was the rule of law there Richard ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 01:36 PM

Yes. He should be tried. In a court with proper rules of evidence. When he's found guilty I'll know he committed the crime (unless it's one of the plainly disgraceful verdicts like the treason verdict on Lord Haw-Haw). I'd guess it was probably a good runner, but the courts have not always agreed with me on that particular topic!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 11:40 AM

Just to note GUEST's post.

Everybody physically in the jurisdiction of UK law is subject to it, so a foreigner inciting hatred on UK soil can be prosecuted. Obvious exceptions would include treason I suppose, but not inciting hatred. Hatred is not a nationalistic offence, but conspiracy to encouraging lawbreaking of other natures, (riot, murder, arson..)

Backwoodsman. I wasn't saying you were suggesting his guilt. (Must be an easier way of saying that?) I agreed that is was a good question and gave my bar room barrister tuppence worth.

I feel better for saying it and I seem to come over all humanitarian. Must make up for it and sing some songs of slaughtering Johnny Foreigner at Epworth Folk Club tonight. (Plug for Eric & his leg.) I feel a Crimean ditty coming on....


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:24 AM

True enough Don, but the law should be applied even-handedly whenever, and by whoever, it's broken.

If it's right to prosecute a certain J. Terry Esq. for making racist remarks (and we're still awaiting the outcome of deliberations about whether to go ahead with that one), it must also be right to prosecute Abu Qatada.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 10:12 AM

""Isn't it the case that, by his utterances, he has probably broken the UK's 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' law(s).""

I would say yes, in multiple ways on multiple occasions, though I don't suppose the penalties would be too onerous, or likely to represent a long term solution.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 08:15 AM

And it was a genuine question, not a 'hiding under the bridge with a blow-torch' jobbie!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM

He isn't British, so he can say what he likes, plenty of groups will support his "freedom of speech" it is only home grown Brits that face action over expressing facts of reality in this country.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 08:09 AM

Ian, I wasn't suggesting that his guilt, if that's what it turned out to be, was justification for deporting him to Jordan. I was asking the question as a result of our learned friend's queries regarding what, if any, offences he has committed.

However, I do believe that our laws against racist behaviour and language should apply equally, right across the board and, if he has 'Incited racial hatred' by his behaviour and things he has said, then he should be punished in the appropriate manner, exactly the same as anyone else, of any ethnicity, origin or background, who was guilty of breaking those laws.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:57 AM

He quite possibly has. In which case, a prosecution and successful conviction would lead to either imprisonment, fine or community service as per the sentencing guidelines.

It wouldn't, unless I am mistaken, have much bearing on the decision as to whether Jordan can be trusted not to torture its prisoners. If we knowingly send someone to a regime where torture is used, we are complicit in that torture. By condoning it, who knows? We might even embrace it.. It is a short step between condoning behaviour of a regime and copying them. We have enough questions regarding rendition to answer as it is without going further..

This bloke is a threat, but by addressing it we lose. Every freedom measure curtailed is a victory for terrorism. The object of terrorism is to terrorise, as Lenin succinctly put it. Hence whenever you are inconvenienced at airport security, you put up with it, but you are on edge. Every time you are at a high profile public event, you are on edge. That is the victory of terrorism.

The minimum law changing and freedom curtailing is the minimum victory for terrorism. The more we curtail freedom, the higher the victory for terrorism.

Bit of a bugger really...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 15 Feb 12 - 07:04 AM

Isn't it the case that, by his utterances, he has probably broken the UK's 'Incitement to Racial Hatred' law(s).

That's a question, BTW, not a statement.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 09:17 PM

While agreeing that our laws are too soft on those who would bite the hand that currently feeds them, I must (with the most profound reluctance) concur.

If we allow these people to force us away from what we know to be right, we are hardly better than they.

Having said that, it should not be beyond the capabilities of our authorities to make his life so restricted and uncomfortable as to encourage his departure to one of the countries which support his kind.

I would suggest that MI5 have a ticket to Iran ready for his use.

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 06:41 AM

The Law applies to this man as much as to anyone here in UK. If he has indeed broken the Law he should and would be prosecuted, tried, convicted and punished. On release, he is not bound to be deported to a country where he would be tortured or executed. I can see no fault in this. Even if people do 'play the Law like a fiddle', our system must stand. Wasn't it Thomas More in 'A Man For All Seasons' who said "If we cut down trees in the forest of the Law, where shall we shelter when the wind starts to blow?" Changing or ignoring our legal system could rebound on us all. I agree with Richard on this.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 05:10 AM

Damn, all this agreement between Mither and me is getting quite alarming. Apart from the gingerist prejudice. My daughter is a ginger ninja.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Musket
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 04:58 AM

Oh shit. Ok Bridge, I fully agree. As someone who has been known to be outspoken myself, I take comfort in the fact that we have a judicial system that although far from perfect, is blind enough to insist on transgressions of the law as it stands before agreeing an conviction.

We should be grateful for that.

Even if scrotes like this bloke benefit from it.

At the risk of "here we go again, Mather reminding us he is an ex miner to wedge the fact into an unrelated thread..." Th*tcher once called me and my colleagues "the enemy within." When you are a citizen of a free country and your elected leader says that, it can be quite chilling. I reckon it was about then that I welcomed the blind impartial justice system.

Regarding "Muslim" violence. I was in Glasgow recently. I was shocked about all the "ginger" violence. Something should be done about these radical ginger people.

zzzzz


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 03:01 AM

He is wanted for Terror crimes in Jordan.
He is being held awaiting extradition.
If he is deeply involved in an aggressive terrorist organisation he poses a threat to the people of this country


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 14 Feb 12 - 02:20 AM

What UK law has this man broken? Why is he not prosecuted for it?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 07:36 PM

Richard, you know as well as I do, that guys like this play the PC UK laws like a fiddle.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:52 PM

So? What is the offence? Has anyone been tried or convicted? I didn't say I liked him, but he is as entitled to the rule of law as the rest of us and when governments can dispose of any of us without legal accountability they are dangerous times.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:39 PM

Here is a link to the story Richard. Hope you are feeling a bit better this evening.

Keith.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5109904/Abu-Qatada-smuggling-statements-out-of-prison.html


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 06:30 PM

If it's true, White Man, then let him be convicted. If what you say reveals a crime.

Keith - first comes the question whether such "deportations" are lawful.    How much do you trust governments? I know I upset this one. And the last one. And the one before that. I am quite happy that the UK subscribes to the rule of law.

Secondly, there is a very interesting point. I was hoping to go to a dinner tonight to discuss it with an eminent academic but I did not feel well enough so did not.

Where, in English law, is the obligation to obey the ECHR?

The Human Rights Act confers certain rights but they yield to sufficiently clear primary legislation. In that ultimate eventuality the UK courts can merely issue a declaration of non-conformity.

The European Communities Act is not so limited, but European Court of Human Rights decisions are not made part of English law by the ECA unless they form part of European law. Until recently it was clear that they did not form part of the acquis communautaire. The vital question is whether recent treaty changes have changed that.

If they do, then pursuant to the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty, an aptly worded statute could, either by express repeal or by implied repeal, reverse that effect. The recourse of other EU nations would be under the EC treaty, which does not as such save via the ECA affect UK law.

What, then, would our masters which art in Brussels do? Send a gunboat?

What would other parties to the ECHR do?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 02:18 PM

When he was inside Long Lartin high-security jail, Abu Qatada issued a 6,000-word statement to his followers which he had smuggled out through a vistor and had posted on jihadi websites.

In it he praised the Mujahidin and the 'martyrs of Hamas' and claims his treatment is helping to radicalise a new generation of young British Muslims.

In the statement he says: ' A new generation of the Muslim youth has been raised and especially amongst our brothers who originate from the Indian subcontinent, who were no longer mesmerised by the English authority, nor English values - rather they hate it and they know its enmity towards them, so they have become enemies towards it.'

He also boasts that prison has helped him lose more than 50lb in weight and he has been cured of diabetes and back problems.

The cleric claims that Bilal Abdullah, the NHS doctor jailed for the car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow in 2007, told him he was heavily influenced by his taped sermons.


It could only happen here in the UK !


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:46 PM

Other liberal democracies are able to deport people like that.
There are few countries in the world who treat suspects and criminals well enough to allow us to deport or extradite.
Hamza is claiming immunity from extradition to USA.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 01:35 PM

He has not been convicted of any crime, but has spent over 6 years in gaol despite that. That is why the English courts ruled he must be released.   If there is a crime let him be properly tried. No conviction that admits any evidence based on torture is proper (or reliable). If he is properly convicted then let him be punished in accordance with law. Nulla poena sine lege.

I am very happy that the UK benefits from the rule of law and that governments and police can (usually) be held to account by law. Without that they are not to be trusted.

English law has had three flirtations with abandonment of the rule of law: the court of Star Chamber; the divine right of kings, and peine forte et dure for those who refused to plead and were "mute of malice". All are correctly today reviled, as are those who would permit a secret police, like the Gestapo, to exist outside the law.

It is a shame however that this and the previous government have not got the courage or honesty to try someone who they say is a danger to the fabric of society. He may very well be that.

It is a shame that Jordan (or a front man) will not mount a private prosecution here (if there are alleged crimes it knows of that might be justiciable under English law) so that it could try to prove a case without resort to evidence obtained by torture.

The man may very well be all the evil things he is said to be - but how often do governments lie? If they are allowed to lie and our courts help them to do so we are all at risk of government oppression.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST,Bluesman
Date: 13 Feb 12 - 09:14 AM

I see the radical cleric, Abu Qatada has hit the streets again today. He is out of prison and back into the community thanks to European judges.

The 51-year-old Palestinian was released from Long Lartin prison in Worcestershire by prison authorities. He has been described as Al Qaeda's spiritual leader in Europe.

The Home Secretary has described him as posing a "real threat to the UK's national security".

The cleric is fighting deportation to Jordan, where he has been convicted of terrorism charges in his absence.

Human Rights judges in Europe ruled he could not be deported to Jordan without assurances from the authorities there that evidence gained through torture was not and will not be used against him to secure a conviction.

Welcome to soft touch Britain.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 09:32 PM

Nice try


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 12:08 PM

(translated from DER SPIEGEL)

Southeast Asia's peaceful co-existence among religions is under siege, from Bangkok to Jakarta.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 24 Nov 05 - 11:37 AM

I can't think of any reason other than to encourage ill will toward Muslims. (Carol)

I think you are right there, Carol, you can't. And my experience in other threads about this theme with you is that no amount of explaining will change that.

So I'll add nothing to the only point of my last post: You have been making two wrong assumptions. Period.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM

I really can't see how a concerted effort to single out one group of people for continual and repeated attacks (like this thread, for instance) can produce any result other than bigotry and prejudice, robomatic. That's the tactic employed whenever governments and other groups want to turn entire groups of people into scapegoats and objects of hate. And it's a tactic that works, as we can see from history. That's why we have to show this tactic for what it is whenever we see it being employed, like here in this thread. The very people who are trying to defend this practice as it is used against Muslims here in the Mudcat, are the first to attack its use when the group or groups to which they belong are the ones being spotlighted in this way. It's not just wrong when the other guy does it... it's wrong when you do it, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 01:03 PM

Carol:

Thanks for coming back to the subject of this thread. Unfortunately for you it is called "Muslim Violence". This does not mean there is no other violence but it is open to a particular characterization of violence. You might feel that it is persecutorial, which is your right, but that doesn't mean that anyone who so asserts is a bigot.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 12:42 PM

So what's the point of only discussing domestic violence among Muslims (and ignoring domestic violence among all other people) here in the Mudcat, Wolfgang? Why isolate domestic violence among Muslims for discussion here in this thread and in other threads, instead of addressing it as a global problem that exists everywhere and among all peoples and groups?

I can't think of any reason other than to encourage ill will toward Muslims.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 22 Nov 05 - 10:14 AM

Do you think you help women by ignoring domestic violence in other parts of the world, by other peoples, just so you can give Mulsims a black eye in this thread? (Carol)

You are making assumptions, Carol, namely that I ignore domestic violence in other parts of the world and about my motives. Both assumptions are wrong.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Nov 05 - 08:09 PM

Your assertions are bogus.

Ad hominem

You have provided a quotathon of Israeli leaders no doubt trying to de-emphasize the sense of peril that Israel was in in the days prior to the Six Day War.

This is speculation, and not born out by the facts or the evidence. If I were to engage in what you are doing with this statement, you would call it propaganda.

You have attacked a book about the war by quoting another book about the first book.

There is nothing wrong with doing this. If the first book addresses the same points that are being debated in this thread, and if the second book effectively refutes what is asserted in the first book, it is a perfectly legitimate for me to use the information, the FACTS, the documentation, and even the arguments as they are presented in the second book to support my argments here in this thread.

These are indeed references, but as usual you have not related your references or your quotes to reality or valid historical analysis.

Ad hominem. Had you actually read the piece by Mr. Finkelstein, you would know that this statement by you is incorrect.

That sense of peril was real and palpable to the participants. Your assertions that Israel knew she was in no danger is honestly laughable.

Your assertion that it was is what is laughable. Yes, for many people in Israel, the sense of peril was real and palpable, because that served the purposes of the Israeli government. But many members of the Israeli government have said, many times, that this was a ruse that they had made up and that it was not true. And the facts on the ground bear this out. Again, if you had actually read the piece by Finklestein, you would know how ridiculous your assertions are to the contrary.

Since this little back and forth between us is unrelated to the thread topic of Muslim Violence I am not going to address it in this thread any more. Kindly start a thread over Origins of the Six Day War and I'll 'join' with you there.

As I have repeatedly said, I am not interested in conducting a separate debate on the 1967 war. My debate is about whether or not Arabs are the "enemy". Had you actually read any of my posts, you would know this already. But I don't have any problem with you extricating yourself from this discussion.


Wolfgang, I don't understand what you think will be served by only addressing domestic violence as it occurs in one part of the world, or by only one segment of society. Do you think you help women by ignoring domestic violence in other parts of the world, by other peoples, just so you can give Mulsims a black eye in this thread?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 18 Nov 05 - 01:18 PM

CarolC:

Carol you wrote:
And now you are pointing fingers again at Arabs about something that people you support are also guilty of.

That's your specialty. You need to be more specific as I'm not aware of myself doing that, just you doing that.

Your assertions are bogus. You have provided a quotathon of Israeli leaders no doubt trying to de-emphasize the sense of peril that Israel was in in the days prior to the Six Day War. You have attacked a book about the war by quoting another book about the first book. These are indeed references, but as usual you have not related your references or your quotes to reality or valid historical analysis.

That sense of peril was real and palpable to the participants. Your assertions that Israel knew she was in no danger is honestly laughable.

Since this little back and forth between us is unrelated to the thread topic of Muslim Violence I am not going to address it in this thread any more. Kindly start a thread over Origins of the Six Day War and I'll 'join' with you there.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Ebbie
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 05:15 PM

Wolfgang, somebody ought to rescue that woman before she gets killed again. :)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: Wolfgang
Date: 17 Nov 05 - 06:40 AM

Last week, a Turkish woman was shot by her father after she had complained in a TV magazine about domestic violence in her family. That was the third murder of a woman within one year in Turkey after a TV appearance complaining about male violence in her family. One TV series, titled 'The voice of the woman', has been discontinued due to these murders.

Wolfgang


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:55 PM

I must be getting tired. Forgot to respond to this bit...

I think that Israel was probably well aware of Egyptian fighting tactics when she made the decisions requisite to preserve her life and her people.

Ok... I'll look into this one, also. But you have not provided any documentation that shows the government of Israel was concerned about this during the buildup to the war, while I have provided quite a bit of documentation showing that the Israeli military and government were not concerned about Egypt as a threat during the buildup for the war. And I have also provided quite a bit of documentation showing that the Israelis didn't think that Nasser was planning to attack first. And I have also provided documenation showing that Nasser was still working with the government of the US to try to prevent war during the days just before the war (he sent his vice president to the US for this purpose), while Israel rejected any negotiations, prefering to attack instead. And they even said why they prefered to attack (to take territory, and to weaken the other countries in the region). You really ought to read that book review from Norman Finkelstein. You would look a lot less uninformed if you did.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 11:26 PM

Nope. Wrong again. My posts have nothing whatever to do with the person himself. My posts are entirely about what he said. I respond in exactly the same way no matter who makes those kinds of broad, sweeping, WRONG, and prejudiced statements about any group of people. And when I disagreed, people requested that I support my stance. I did, and now you are criticizing me for it. Tricky, tricky, robomatic.

And now you are pointing fingers again at Arabs about something that people you support are also guilty of. That's hypocrisy. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But since you brought the subject of poison gas into the conversation in such a one-sided way, I guess I'll have to go find some documentation to support my assertion that you are being hypocritical. No problem.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 10:35 PM

CarolC:

Okay, so it's pretty clear your motivation was not so much in addressing the topic as in opposing the initiator of the thread. I think that is borne out by the character of your response, which was not contributive to the thread but diversionary in that you have all but accused certain people, myself included as being anti-Arab, merely because we disagreed with your revisionist history based on selected quotes of selected sources.

Had you been more creative in your original approach, and less prone to a (perfectly understandable) antagonism to the original poster, you could have steered this thread to a more enlightened perspective by distinguishing between Arab-Israeli wars and the actual topic:

Muslim violence

As you are well aware, not all Muslims are Arabs, so it is warping the thread to go on and on about Arabs. And as you are well aware, there is a lot of Muslim on Muslim violence.

As for your image of Nasser the enlightened and defensive, are you aware of Nasser the user of poison gas attacks?:

1963-1967 (Egypt, Yemen)
Egypt employs chemical weapons in attacks against royalist forces in the Yemen civil war. Reports indicate that Egypt uses mustard gas, phosgene, and tear gas in the attacks. Egypt uses Soviet-built AOKh-25 aerial bombs to deliver phosgene, and Soviet-built KHAB-200 R5 aerial bombs as well as artillery shells abandoned by British forces after World War I to deliver mustard gas. Some reports also suggest that Egypt uses a nerve agent.

I think that Israel was probably well aware of Egyptian fighting tactics when she made the decisions requisite to preserve her life and her people.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 08:13 PM

I'm amazed that you think one writer's debunking of another writer constitutes an acceptable reply to the points that have already been brought out on this thread.

I can't imagine why, robomatic. The points he debunks are the same ones that I have been refuting here in this thread. He does a far better job of presenting the facts than I am able to do. And the beauty part is, as often as not, he uses documetation in Oren's book as his evidence.

From your pearl string of entries that are nothing but quotations I conclude that the 'debunking' is bunk. It is at least as slanted as it claims the original material to be.

I take that to mean you have not read it. But either way, your response is an ad hominem argument. However, since that's the only kind of response you ever give to my posts on this subject, I'm not at all surprised.

Quoting a political screed from Gamal Abdel Nasser in the fifties has little to do with the '67 war.

I am not just addressing the 1967 war. I am defending my position that the person who started this thread is wrong when he says that all Arabs are the enemy. Nasser's screed? Can't you do any better than make snide, ad hominem attacks? Sounds like you hate Arabs, too. Nasser's speech shows the consistancy of the defensive posture of the Arab countries in question. Together with the speech from King Hussein and the material presented by Mr. Finkelstein, it shows the continuity of the attitudes of the Arabs in the region from the very beginning until the present day. Again, you are attempting to ignore the whole so that you can deny the parts. It won't work.

This train of accusations and counter accusations is outside the topic of this thread. If you are unwilling to start your own thread on "who started the 1967 Arab-Israeli war" I am not willing to further your smoke-screening effort against this thread. As I wrote earlier you should address the thread topic on its own merits or lack thereof, and save your attacks on Israel and the Israelis for your own thread.

Who died and made you God? As I said before, the person who started this thread made the thread about Arabs when he declared all Arabs to be the enemy. I am saying that all Arabs are not the enemy, and I am providing the documentation that has been requested by others here in this thread to defend my position. You don't get to decide what this thread is about and what it's not about. And you don't get to decide whether it is permissable for anyone to defend a group of people who have been unjustly attacked here in this thread.

I don't have any desire to start a thread for the purpose of attacking anyone (unlike the person who started this thread). I am only interested in defending people who are being unjustly attacked by others. That's all. If you don't like that, too bad. And it is you who is engaging in the smoke-screening effort. Or maybe white-wash would be a better term. Actually, I think you are doing both. Your last post contained nothing of substance, and consists intirely of diversionary tactics and ad hominem attacks.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: robomatic
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 05:13 PM

Carol:

I'm amazed that you think one writer's debunking of another writer constitutes an acceptable reply to the points that have already been brought out on this thread. From your pearl string of entries that are nothing but quotations I conclude that the 'debunking' is bunk. It is at least as slanted as it claims the original material to be.

Quoting a political screed from Gamal Abdel Nasser in the fifties has little to do with the '67 war.

This train of accusations and counter accusations is outside the topic of this thread. If you are unwilling to start your own thread on "who started the 1967 Arab-Israeli war" I am not willing to further your smoke-screening effort against this thread. As I wrote earlier you should address the thread topic on its own merits or lack thereof, and save your attacks on Israel and the Israelis for your own thread.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim Violence
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Nov 05 - 03:22 PM

Wolfgang, I am aware that Syria lost territory. The term "got their asses kicked" can refer to either the action or the result of the action. I used it to refer to the result of the action. In Syria's case, I wouldn't use the phrase "got their asses kicked" to refer to the amount of territory they lost, in comparison to what Jordan and Egypt lost. So I still wouldn't use that term in reference to Syria. You can disagree with my use of the term if you want to, but that is what I meant by it. If I were to try to come up with a euphemism for what happened to Syria, I would probably say that they were robbed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 27 May 3:18 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.