[Archived] Hang Em High

[PAFELL]

You're only considered an enemy of Islam if you directly harm other Muslims in large numbers. In such cases a Muslim is allowed to defend themselves and their families how they see fit. In all other cases only God(or Allah) can cast judgement or punishment upon anybody. It's pretty simple.

As I said, if there were a lot of Muslims who believed what you think they believe, there would be a hell of a lot more bloodshed across the UK. There's obviously a lot shed in the Middle-East but that's because we've rocked up there and killed thousands upon thousands of Muslims in the name of "freedom" (read:oil), so what do you expect?

I should note I'm not defending the Qur'an or Islam entirely here - much like Christianity, their holy book contains some very concerning and violent verses which cannot simply be put down to mistranslation or error. All i'm saying is, much like Chrstians, the majority of followers of Islam in the UK are peaceful people. They choose the verses from their holy book which they feel best represent them and ignore those which are difficult to explain. No modern Christian can justify much of what is in the Old Testament, and I'm sure there are Muslims who are uncomfortable with parts of the Qur'an, too.

I wonder what harm the workers who went to work in the tower blocks in USA had done to harm Muslims.

Or those taking part or watching the marathon in Boston. Etc etc etc There is no justification for such acts of indiscriminate murder. They don't do these things to defend a religion or a book. The extremists do these things, including those who encourage them to do them, because they are scum.

One question I have is what are the so called decent Muslims doing to remove or expose these extremists from their mosques, communities etc. Instead we often see their preachers, defend and justify their actions.

[DE.]

I wonder what harm the workers who went to work in the tower blocks in USA had done to harm Muslims.

Or those taking part or watching the marathon in Boston. Etc etc etc There is no justification for such acts of indiscriminate murder. They don't do these things to defend a religion or a book. The extremists do these things, including those who encourage them to do them, because they are scum.

I agree entirely there, but do you think "many" Muslims would do these same actions? Your assertion was that many Muslims think the same way, so surely by that logic people should be being murdered by Muslims in the UK on a daily basis - why do you think that isn't happening? Are they just lazy?

[thenodrog]

Why is there always someone ready and willing to defend the indefensible when it comes down to criticism of the muslim world. Virtually everytime I pick up a paper or switch on the TV there is some sh1t going on and perpetrated in the name of Islam. Hindu's, Buddhists, Jews and Christians hardly figure in any atrocities on the newsreels do they? Might I suggest that muslims all around the world have much to learn from other religions before they can ever dare to preach how peaceful and harmless they all are to the rest of us.

[DE.]

Or maybe it highlights the bias of the British media?

Speaking of which, here's another wonderful part of our legacy in Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/iraqis-cant-turn-backs-on-deadly-legacy

Obviously, though, this won't get as much attention as Kim Kardashian or Princess Kate going to a garden show.

[Steve Moss]

Or maybe it highlights the bias of the British media?

Speaking of which, here's another wonderful part of our legacy in Iraq: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/26/iraqis-cant-turn-backs-on-deadly-legacy

Obviously, though, this won't get as much attention as Kim Kardashian or Princess Kate going to a garden show.

Two items raised in the article:

1. Increase in cancer rates; and,

2. 14% of the children in Iraq are missing one or both parents.

Both are laid at the feet of the UK and USA, with precious little evidence.

As to the high orphan rate, perhaps the Guardian should consider the Iraqi's propensitty for killing each other both before and after Saddam was removed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/20/iraq-car-bombings-kill-dozens

Sunnis, Shias and Kurds all have a very hard time getting along. The country really should have been partitioned.

As to the cancer, it is assumed that depleted uranium shells was the cause. Not a word about entire oilfields being set afire or Saddam's indiscrimanate use of chemical weapons in the 70s and 80s as being potential culprits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program

It seeems to me the author of the piece had more than a bit of an agenda.

[JAL]

Why is there always someone ready and willing to defend the indefensible when it comes down to criticism of the muslim world. Virtually everytime I pick up a paper or switch on the TV there is some sh1t going on and perpetrated in the name of Islam. Hindu's, Buddhists, Jews and Christians hardly figure in any atrocities on the newsreels do they? Might I suggest that muslims all around the world have much to learn from other religions before they can ever dare to preach how peaceful and harmless they all are to the rest of us.

Come on Theno... Jews and Christians control the newsreels around these parts.

[T.J.Newton]

I agree entirely there, but do you think "many" Muslims would do these same actions? Your assertion was that many Muslims think the same way, so surely by that logic people should be being murdered by Muslims in the UK on a daily basis - why do you think that isn't happening? Are they just lazy?

Nothing I hate more than a lazy jihadist Muslim terrorist

Seriously though, religion aside the middle eastern world has every right to hate us(uk, usa and our allies) and want us dead because of the things our GOVERNMENTS(and the corporations there under the thumb of) have done to there countries and their innocent citizens in the last 100 years or so(though the last 10 years alone should be enough!)

[Jeru tha Damaja]

If Iraq needed to be partitioned then that was our responsibility quite a long time ago and we failed. When we went back more recently we could have set that straight, but having apparently identified the likelihood of sectarian violence we still failed to rectify a 100 year old error.

If you want to know why we only see radical Muslims on TV then ask why the BBC feel the need to give the likes of Anjem Choudary so much airtime, completely ignoring a wealth of more qualified scholars whose views are considerably less extreme. In fact, Choudary appears to not really be a scholar of Islam at all, he is like so many others who know a little Qur'an and a few hadith and assume that this gives them a license to make rulings. In reality, Muslims should be very careful about interpreting the Qur'an, since whatever they say they are attributing it to God, so if they make a mistake the price is rather a heavy one. Properly qualified jurors in Islam study the proper way to interpret the Qur'an and hadith for years, but I haven't seen many of them on Sky or the BBC.

If you want to know what the people in the Twin Towers had done to Muslims then perhaps you should also ask what the average man in Fallujah had done to America. The point being that the actions of a few should not be held against the whole.

If you want to see Jews or Buddhists killing people, perhaps you should turn your attention to Gaza or Burma. As for Christianity, does it still exist? Certainly its laws and the spiritual message it preaches have been diluted and distorted to the point where it seems that we only pay lip service to it; a religion that people lean on when it is convenient, but that fades into the background when we'd prefer to concern ourselves with more important things. Most people I know who claim to be Christian only pray when they are in trouble, and they only remember their faith for Christmas, Easter, Christenings, weddings and funerals; the rest of the time they worship material wealth (and that's hardly a peaceful force in the world).

[Paul]

Two items raised in the article:

1. Increase in cancer rates; and,

2. 14% of the children in Iraq are missing one or both parents.

Both are laid at the feet of the UK and USA, with precious little evidence.

As to the high orphan rate, perhaps the Guardian should consider the Iraqi's propensitty for killing each other both before and after Saddam was removed. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/20/iraq-car-bombings-kill-dozens

Sunnis, Shias and Kurds all have a very hard time getting along. The country really should have been partitioned.

As to the cancer, it is assumed that depleted uranium shells was the cause. Not a word about entire oilfields being set afire or Saddam's indiscrimanate use of chemical weapons in the 70s and 80s as being potential culprits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program

It seeems to me the author of the piece had more than a bit of an agenda.

John Pilger has long been a strong critic of American, British and Australian foreign policy so it's hardly surprising he might be considered to have an agenda? I have no proof but I think it likely both Iraqi and US/UK actions of the past 35-40 years are responsible for environmental damage, radioactive or chemical pollution and deaths which have left children orphaned and people dieing of unusual cancers.

Surely the real point, regardless of the cause of the cancers and deaths, is both the UK and US have a long histories of "intervening" in countries and when we've finished walking away leaving the local population to clear up the mess both physically and socially.

As for partioning the country? We, the British, tried that in India with such great success that India and Pakistan are still holding peace talks 65 years on!! The Geneva Accord which partitioned Vietnam was hardly a great success? I'm not sure if these could be described as true partitioning but the British and French carved up the Middle East, Israel as a modern state was "created" by outside forces. North and south Korea "created" by the Soviets cannot be used as a positive example. I wouldn't pretend to know the answers but I don't think there is a country in the world were one could point to a successful attempt at any form of partition or state "creation."

If the local people believe their land has been taken away sooner or later extremists, terrorists and rebels will begin the fight to take it back. Partitioning Iraq would only have stored up another set of problems for the world to solve in a few decades.

[Steve Moss]

Surely the real point, regardless of the cause of the cancers and deaths, is both the UK and US have a long histories of "intervening" in countries and when we've finished walking away leaving the local population to clear up the mess both physically and socially.

I agree with you about the uptick in cancers. It's probablity fairer to identify a multitude of possible causes and then conduct a study to narrow the field. If Mr. Pilger had suggested such a course he'd have a lot more credibility. As it is, he doesn't. Which is a shame as it appears to be a matter worth looking into.

As to intervening a leaving a mess, I agree that's the end result. But we shouldn't forget the USA wanted to stay longer but the Iraqi government insisted on the right to try Americans in their courts if we did. We declined that suggestion and left, for the most part. The country is their responsibilty now.

[PAFELL]

I agree entirely there, but do you think "many" Muslims would do these same actions? Your assertion was that many Muslims think the same way, so surely by that logic people should be being murdered by Muslims in the UK on a daily basis - why do you think that isn't happening? Are they just lazy?

Depends on your use of the word 'many'. I use it as there are lots of them willing to harm others for the sake of Islam. There maybe a few in comparison to those who live peacefully. But there are still a lot, therefore many, who don't. When somebody blows themselves up. Fly planes into an office building etc. There will probable always be somebody else to replace them.

[ABBEY]

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/SKM40715.htm

[DE.]

Depends on your use of the word 'many'. I use it as there are lots of them willing to harm others for the sake of Islam. There maybe a few in comparison to those who live peacefully. But there are still a lot, therefore many, who don't. When somebody blows themselves up. Fly planes into an office building etc. There will probable always be somebody else to replace them.

Worldwide you may be right, PAFELL, though IMO it's quite understandable given the heavy handed and brutish force with which Western Governments have gone to Middle-Eastern lands and interfered, rarely for the better. If we narrow it down to the UK though, do you think this is true of Muslims here? I'd say there are few in general as well as in comparison, as otherwise there is no logical explanation as to why we're not seeing murders of non-Muslims by Muslims on at the very least a weekly or even monthly basis. If many Muslims wanted to cause harm to non-Muslims, there would be far more violence than there currently is. I'd say the vast majority of Muslims in the UK are happy to live peacefully, even though they often seclude and isolate themselves.

You made the point of Muslims being more pro-active about removing extremist elements from their Mosques, and in some ways I agree. I think the Muslim community is aware of that too, though I imagine neither of us know exactly what they're doing or have done to try to root these people out. It must be difficult - extremists won't just walk into a Mosque and announce their intentions, because the average Muslim would not support those actions. It wouldn't make sense to - these attacks cause nothing but grief for most Muslims, so why would they support something which they know will cause them harm and create more anger and hate towards them? From what I've read and been told people who consider themselves Muslim extremists don't visit normal Mosques or talk to average Muslims because they don't believe these people are worth talking to. They shrink into smaller sects or act completely alone, fuelled by the YouTube rants of Saudi clerics and know-nothing idiots like Anjem Choudary. I'd imagine it's almost impossible to monitor or keep track of people like this, as they won't show what they're capable of until it's too late. Be too pro-active and you end up in a thought-police situation of pointing fingers at anyone you suspect might have the potential to do something awful - and that type of rhetoric surely would need to apply to all areas, as it isn't just Muslims who commit terrible crimes. In fact, in the UK it makes up an extremely small minority, the press just blow it up to make it seem like a huge pandemic.

Also, Steve - I take your point that Saddam to an extent is also likely responsible for the upsurge in cancer in Iraq, but I don't think it can be denied the US/UK have played their own part both in terms of that disease and certainly orphaning a large portion of Iraqi children through airstrikes, ground missions, etc. There's blame to be had in numerous quarters, but the overall consensus has to be that we have had a vastly negative impact on Iraq in numerous ways and will unfortunately reap the consequences of this in the form of revenge attacks in the coming years and perhaps even decades.

[T.J.Newton]

If there's people on here that have such a low opinion of the uk Muslim community and only judge them on the propaganda they see on tv(or in the tabloids, internet articles) then can I suggest you simply go to one of our local mosques, community centres, ect.. and actually meet and speak to people there(they don't bite!).

yes there are social problems in their communities, but there are just as many problems in mainly white communities, on both sides the problems are largely due to poverty(relatively speaking)

[LeChuck]

Been in Spain for a bit, had the news on in the hotel. EDL plastered all over it. What a complete embarrassment to this country those inbred yobs are.

[ABBEY]

More embarrassing than be heading a soldier on the street ?

[LeChuck]

Given the volume of people involved, yes.

Nobody sees an act carried out by 2 nutjobs as a problem with the English.

The EDL just wait for any excuse.

[cn174]

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/05/27/edl-york-mosque-cup-of-tea-woolwich-_n_3341891.html

[ABBEY]

Given the volume of people involved, yes.

Nobody sees an act carried out by 2 nutjobs as a problem with the English.

The EDL just wait for any excuse.

So how many murders have the edl committed ?

Surely murder is worse !? It is in my world,

[LeChuck]

I'd like to say I'm surprised you've missed the point, but I'm not. I'm not wasting time going round in circles.

[Amo]

If Iraq needed to be partitioned then that was our responsibility quite a long time ago and we failed. When we went back more recently we could have set that straight, but having apparently identified the likelihood of sectarian violence we still failed to rectify a 100 year old error.

If you want to know why we only see radical Muslims on TV then ask why the BBC feel the need to give the likes of Anjem Choudary so much airtime, completely ignoring a wealth of more qualified scholars whose views are considerably less extreme. In fact, Choudary appears to not really be a scholar of Islam at all, he is like so many others who know a little Qur'an and a few hadith and assume that this gives them a license to make rulings. In reality, Muslims should be very careful about interpreting the Qur'an, since whatever they say they are attributing it to God, so if they make a mistake the price is rather a heavy one. Properly qualified jurors in Islam study the proper way to interpret the Qur'an and hadith for years, but I haven't seen many of them on Sky or the BBC.

If you want to know what the people in the Twin Towers had done to Muslims then perhaps you should also ask what the average man in Fallujah had done to America. The point being that the actions of a few should not be held against the whole.

If you want to see Jews or Buddhists killing people, perhaps you should turn your attention to Gaza or Burma. As for Christianity, does it still exist? Certainly its laws and the spiritual message it preaches have been diluted and distorted to the point where it seems that we only pay lip service to it; a religion that people lean on when it is convenient, but that fades into the background when we'd prefer to concern ourselves with more important things. Most people I know who claim to be Christian only pray when they are in trouble, and they only remember their faith for Christmas, Easter, Christenings, weddings and funerals; the rest of the time they worship material wealth (and that's hardly a peaceful force in the world).

+1

That's why you're one of my favourite posters.

[T.J.Newton]

Bob on Jeru.

[Steve Moss]

Another article which I think hits a home run:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/nobodys_listening/#.UaKiFSjhJJM.twitter

[JAL]

More embarrassing than be heading a soldier on the street ?

Couldnt really tell from the pictures abbey if that was true. Been looking for more youtube footage and still havent found anything to back it up other than seeing someone lying on the the floor with his back turned to the camera.

[Paul]

Think you're right there. The beheading aspect is headline stuff and not reality as far as I've been able to establish.