People Of No Particular Religion Attempt To Murder Hundreds In London and Glasgow. How They Were Stopped…

bollard-barbados.jpg

Anyone who has not been asleep, drunk or stoned for the past few days (Hello Cliverton and Dr. Tafari!) 😉 knows that “someone” planted two car bombs full of gas, propane and nails in London’s nightclub district to try and murder hundreds of innocent Brits.

Then we had a flaming Jeep full of gas cylinders deliberately smashed into the passenger terminal at Glasgow in another attempt to murder innocent families and their children as they transited this busy airport.

According to the news media, the attacks failed for two reasons…

1/ Luck… in that the cell phones used to detonate the London car bombs failed to work

and…

2/ Bollards… those retractable or fixed structures used to deny entry to vehicles that have been spouting up like weeds since the Muslim terror attacks of 9/11 and 7/7.

Our comments…

1/ It is good to be lucky, but not good to rely upon luck.

2/ Until the “peaceful vast majority” of Muslims are successful in reforming their religion or doing whatever they need to do to stop religiously-motivated terror attacks against innocent families, stock in bollard companies would seem to be a good investment.

We direct your attention to the following YouTube videos that demonstrate bollards.

Rather neat, actually…

Anti-Terrorist Bollard Test

When Bollards Attack

Other Article Links…

Bollards play a key role in defeating terrorist attack in Glasgow, Scotland

Mobile Phone Calls Failed To Trigger London Blasts: Report

Police Hunted Glasgow Suspect Before Attack

Terror Ringleader Is Brilliant NHS Doctor

angry-canadian-barbados.gif

Thanks to our reader Jason who alerted us to the article by blogger Angry In The Great White North

98 Comments

Filed under Barbados, Crime & Law, Religion

98 responses to “People Of No Particular Religion Attempt To Murder Hundreds In London and Glasgow. How They Were Stopped…

  1. Banned

    Enough already with all this international terrorist garbage. Sometimes I cannot beleave that people can be so gullable

  2. Banned

    That should be believe

  3. Bimbro

    I was n’t gonna say nothin but I hope that you’re convinced now, about them – if you were n’t before!

  4. ?x?

    Gatwick? I think not… try Glasgow

    *****************

    BFP replies…

    Yup… printer’s devil at 3am is now exorcised. 🙂

  5. Straight talk

    2/ Until the “peaceful vast majority” of Muslims are successful in reforming their religion or doing whatever they need to do to stop religiously-motivated terror attacks against innocent families, stock in bollard companies would seem to be a good investment.

    ******************************

    BFP.
    Alternatively :
    2/ Until the “peaceful vast majority” of Americans are successful in reforming their government or doing whatever they need to do to stop oil-motivated terror attacks against innocent families, stock in bollard companies would seem to be a good investment.

  6. BFP

    Hi Straight Talk
    Yes, we thought someone would reply as you did as there are more than a few out there in the West who believe that the attacks are not religiously motivated and that the Americans or the West in general is responsible for the attacks.

    Like a woman who has been raped perhaps dressed a little too provocatively etc…

    See BFP later today and we’ll let a former terrorist explain it all.

    If, after you read that article, you still believe that the terrorists are not trying to impose a world-wide dictatorship, AND that the US quest for oil is what drives Islamists to murder children in London…. hey, that’s your opinion.

  7. herefordian

    BFP – I suspect your racist anti-muslim agenda is a product of having spent a little too much time on an island – get out a bit more (it’ll cure your small town paranoia)

  8. Straight talk

    BFP
    I read it yesterday.
    Interesting, but does not address the root cause of the problem.
    Desperate grabbing of the control of oil reserves.
    Sabre rattling at Iran, veiled threats and sponsored coups against Chavez, the common denominator is oil, but it would be politically incorrect to feed such colonial aspirations to the press, so we are treated to a permanent War against Terror.

    Imagine if substantial oil was discovered off Barbados, and Arthur decided to trade it in Eurodollars, as it commands a higher price against the rapidly devaluing dollar.
    Bush says Arthur is corrupt (What a thought!) and is stealing from his people, to excuse an invasion.
    He then instals a puppet leader (say Commissiong) and occupies Bim to maintain him in power.
    How would we feel?

    This the reality in Iraq, and the injustice of it gives ample ammunition to the fanatics to hit back, in whatever way they can against the strongest power on Earth.

    I do not sympathise with the terorists, but I ca see where they are coming from, and response is more than ineffective it is counter-productive.

    Do we really want to live our lives in fear, or do we search for a different solution?

  9. Bimbro

    GIVE IT TO THEM, BFP! THEY NEED TO WAKE UP! I IN ‘SPEND TOO MUCH TIME IN ANY SMALL ISLAND’. TELL THE IDIOTS TO STOP DREAMING!!!!!!!!!

  10. Straight talk

    I must be on the right path.
    Bimbo disagrees with me!

  11. Bimbro

    Stright Talk, you’ve an excellent imagination, of fiction.

  12. Banned

    Ever gave any thought to the possibility that these spectacular events could be orchestrated by special ops in order to propel a specific political agenda? Remember the Iraqi militia caught a few British operatives dressed in Arab garb and heavily armed a couple of years ago. They were detained by Iraqi police and later freed with the help of a British military operation. No one in our neck of the woods can say with certainty who is responsible for this terror, but it seems to me that the MI6, CIA, SAS, Israel and a hand full of other similar types of institutions are far more likely the culprits than Muslims.

  13. Peltdown Man

    You all make it sound so simple, but you forget that 9/11 happened long before the Iraq war, and the so-called oil-grabbing. The roots of the Muslim backlash really lie in the repeated betrayal of the Palestinians by the Western powers, and the use the Israelis have made of this to grab more land and impose their particular form of apartheid in Palestine. In Northern Ireland, legitimate and peaceful civil rights protests by the catholic minority were hijacked by a group of gangsters alled the IRA, whose only aim was to wreak mayhem and kill and rob, using civil rights as a justification. So it is with Islamic fundamentalism. A group of violent fanatics, using isolated extracts from the Quoran as justification, have latched-on to the legitimate plight of the Palestinians to wreak thier particular brand of mayhem. That Bush and Blair have played into their hands in Iraq is a no-brainer, but please don’t use that as justification for what these hoodlums are doing. They’re just plain killers, and they love it.

  14. Straight talk

    Peltdown Man,
    It may not be simple, but with a little study it is, without doubt, the truth.
    I had not forgotten that 9/11 happened long before the second Iraq War, 9/11 was not the start of this train of events, merely a part of the jigsaw.
    If you have an open mind, consider these events prior to 2001.
    Dec 1979 – Russians invade Afghanistan.
    CIA recruits Bush family friend, Bin Laden, to be the finance conduit for the Mujahadeen resistance.
    1984 – Rumsfeld talks with Saddam re the construction of a pipeline the length of Iraq, to get Caspian Basin oil and gas to the gulf ports.
    1987 – Russians withdraw humiliated by Muslim guerillas.
    The Taliban rise to power.
    1990 – US Ambassador tells Saddam that her government would take no position if Kuwait was invaded. Iraq invades.
    1991 – US concentrates its Desert Storm buildup in the Holy Land of Islam, Saudi Arabia. Its bases are there to this day.
    Dec 1994 – Dick Cheney hosts Taliban government for talks about a US pipeline traversing Afghanistan.
    1996 – US Gov’t paper says an Afghan pipeline is essential
    1998 CIA reports that the Taliban are resisting the pipeline project.
    July 2001 – US militarily threatens Afghanistan over the pipeline.

    Just the bare bones, but with a little research it can easily be fleshed out.

    Ask yourself, what had Iraq to do with 9/11?

    If nothing, then why are the Americans in there, and Afghanistan
    Kazakhstan, Kosovo, Azerbaijan.

    There is only one, three letter, answer.

  15. Bush Tea

    Well put, straight talk. ..and after reviewing alternative analysis of 9/11 I am now not even sure that that the official account of that event has been accurately documented.

  16. Banned

    Got that right. You are being duped by the so-called official account of these various events. But why is it so easy to blame people that just dress diferently to most of us. By the way there is no war in Iraq, it’s an ongoing occupation and all the so-called terror threats are diversions. How can Western trained Medics be accused of radical/extremest/whatever thinking. 9/11, 7/7 Spain, Bali give me break. The biggest criminals are those who readily agree that Arabs and Muslims are responsible. Twats

  17. Yardbroom

    The majority of the people so far arrested – not charged – are from the middle east, and the majority of them are from the medical profession, with a few doctors among them including a young surgeon. This situation is quite different from previous incidents of this kind in the UK, as in the other incidents the people charged were either from Pakistan or born in England, and a couple had a West Indian back ground.

    It is too early at this stage to be sure, but the father of the doctor arrested said in Jordan he was a Muslim, another doctor was arrested in Australia as he was about to board an aircraft for departure.

    It would appear the police have gained quite a lot of information from the cell phones, which were in the car bombs in London which did not explode – I understand these phones were to be used for detonation of the car bombs – hence the quick arrests. It has also been reported that a number of controlled explosions have been carried out by the police at the hospital accommodation where the doctors worked.

  18. Peltdown Man

    Straight Talk
    Conspiracy theorists like yourself and “Banned” will only read into anything what you want to read, and only read the kind of literature that spouts this nonsense. It’s no point arguing with a closed mind, so I won’t. It won’t be long now before we find out from you all that the Bush government was behind 9/11 all along. How do you guys live? Do you send someone ahead to check around every corner before you move forward? Of course oil is a factor, and of course there has been duplicitous dealing by the Americans, but the widespread sentiment against the West held by many Moslems is down to the sense of frustration over Palestine, fuelled by rabble-rousing Moslem clerics, among people, many of whom have little or no education. Fertile ground, to be sure, because when you feel that you are given no hope, and persuaded by these evil people that it is so, why not give up your life for a promise of Heaven?

  19. Its good to be sceptical. This is a natural humanist position. But “Straight Talk” and “Banned” should refrain from presenting opinion as fact.

    Ideology is the problem. Injustices upon those who share the same ideology merely fan the flames.

    Though I argued against the war from day one, I didn’t march or sign a petition, because I didn’t believe that ‘St Tony’ could be so stupid without good reason.

    That was a moment when I personally should have been more sceptical. Now is the time for acknowledging the root problem and dealing with it. That root problem is ideology – not only including religion, but also whatever the neo-cons have the gumption to call themselves these days.

    Inappropriate mindless chatter just makes an unnecessary clash of civilisations more likely. Rational people see no need for this to happen. I wouldn’t know whether to include Kairosfocus in that, but I would very much hope to.

    Incidentally “Banned”, I am married to a doctor, and see no merit in your last post about western trained medics. Plenty of these good, honest professionals economically support certain groups that others might not be pleased about, for example, the Tamil Tigers. These professionals are flesh and blood, just like the rest of us…

    …the difference, is ideology, ideology, ideology.

  20. Straight talk

    Peltdown Man,

    I have no conspiracy theories to offer, only well documented facts.

    If you want to challenge my posted facts, do so, with contradictory proof and references.

    I am, I admit, sceptical about the motives of most politicians, whose decisions affect my life, but I will not that cloud an obvous truth.

    BTW. Was Piltdown Man not a carefully contrived hoax, only bebunked years after being generally accepted.

  21. Hi Straight Talk. It would be good manners to have a pop at me as well please.

    Thanks very much

    g

  22. I worded that wrong, it wasn’t meant to sound confrontational, I just want someone to engage me on my post.
    A lot of effort seems to go into concentrating on the chaff (the symptoms, the byproducts and the less crucial detail). I want someone to challenge me on the assertion that the problem here is ideology, and that religion is not the way forward.

  23. banned

    It’s amazing. You are all very aware of secret government agencies. You are all very aware of how many of their operations have been exposed in the past. Just recently the plan to kill Castro was made public. That must have been a conspiracy as well. There are secret NASA Missions in space. There is the still very secret star wars program. The very secret spy plane program that was recently shut down. As consumers you are told only what is required to propagate a program of fear and suspicion. No the press is not free, they admit this openly- they claim that the conservatives are running the show and they are in the business of making money first. Conspiracist, hell yeah, conspiracy has been the campaign of Western occupiers for Centuries. How else can you accomplish divide and rule- keep people suspicious and in fear of each other. Straight up common sense and information, a hell of a lot more than was presented as bare bones above, all of which is readily available for any who is prepared open his brain and not accuse others of doing exactly what they themselves are guilty of. I am a Conspiracist, proud and with my wits about me.

  24. Straight talk

    Gobeitho

    Do not take it personally that I did not take a pop at you, I enjoy your posts and enjoy a well presented argument.

    However if you accuse me of presenting opinions as fact without checking those same provable facts, then I have little time to engage you.

    In the little time I do have I would not dispute, your own opinion presented as fact, that a clash of ideologies is the root cause of this War on Terror.

    Indeed all wars are clashes of ideologies at some level.
    Each side accusing the other of committing heinous acts, contrary to their own principles, religion, race or whatever.
    Could be Sabra and Chatila, 9/11, Israeli treatment of Palestinians, London bombings
    Makes no difference. Terror is terror.

    If Peltdown Man chooses to be informed by The Nation and Fox News, that’s OK with me, so long as he affords me the same courtesy to make my own analysis of world events.

    I am implacably opposed to any form of terrorism, from whichever side of a conflict.
    Living in the UK however has taught me that the despised terrorists of yesteryear strangely become the statesmen of today, as in the cases of Gerry Adams, Nelson Mandela and Menachem Begin.

    Check out my ”opinions” in your own time, without prejudice, then we can have a meaningful dialogue.

    Shalom

  25. Chase

    Straight Talk:
    And I thought I was alone in thinking this way.
    Too many times history has repeated itself for us not to stand up and take note of the major underlying factors.
    On this site ,if you bring another angle other than the mainstream way of thinking ,you are immediately branded as a conspirator.
    Yet the evidence is clear and well documented.
    I could not have put it in better words…..what you have posted are the thoughts of us who think for ourselves ,rather than have others do it for us.

  26. Oh well

    Even when I am not around, I seem to come up!

    FYI, G: I HOPE we can avert a further full-bore clash of civilisations. (I have little confidence, however, and that which I have is in what I posted in my own blog today — there is such a thing as the power of conscience that overwhelms even the most calculating of power agendas. Just compare the testimony of Hassan Butt, if you don’t believe me.)

    As to the usual conspiracy theorising and spouting of assertions and assumptions as if they were facts, not to mention the even more widespread misreading of the ME situation, we have already been down that road on the JFK thread, and we can see where it goes all too easily: facts make little difference to those whose minds have already been made up. (Onlookers can easily enough link tot hat thread to bring themselves up to speed.)

    And, underlying all, we see that in the region we need Critical Thinking 101 desperately among our so-called educated. Our media people need to take a serious and sobering look in the mirror, having first read Plato’s Parable of the Cave from 2,400 years ago, no less, on the effect of manipulative shadow plays that are projected to seem real to naive onlookers. (So, how can we tell shadow-plays from reality? That is of course the job of critical awareness, and good old fashioned common sense.)

    Okay, have a fine evening.

    GEM of TKI

  27. PS, Here is an excerpt from the Hassan Butt story, from the Daily Miorror, 2nd July 2007, which inter alia gives both the distinction between
    IslamISM and ordinary Muslims, but also for those who read between the lines has troubling implications.

    From the Horse’s mouth:
    ______________

    I was a fanatic…I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist

    When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network – a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology – I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.

    By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this “Blair’s bombs” line did our propaganda work for us.

    More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology . . . . I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers . . . . though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . .

    For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

    But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further. Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).

    Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world . . . . this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief . . . . But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don’t want to talk about theology.

    They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever – and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away . . . . Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.

    A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.

    In other words, individual Muslims don’t have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam . . . . Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists . . . . Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I’d like to term the Land of Co-existence.

    And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
    ____________

    All I add is: resemblances to certain much resented and often dismissed remarks in recent threads is NOT coincidental.

    Time for rethinking, no?

    GEM of TKI

  28. banned

    The Spanish were raping American women on ships so let’s invade Cuba and call it a war- Spanish American. The Japanese attacked and blew up Pearl Harbour (forget about anything that came before) and for good measure they imprison their women. Let’s invade and Bomb them and later call the action part of WWII. Panama’s leadership court drug trafficking, we already took Panama from Columbia so we can take out a leader and imprison him as a common criminal (no one cared). The Vietnamese and Cambodia are going to be overrun by commies, so let’s invade them and occupy them and call it a police action. After all a ship blew up somewhere in one of our ports and one of these people were responsible. Grenada was becoming part of a tripartite assault on democracy in the Caribbean, let’s bomb and invade them and call it a rescue mission, after all a hand full of wealthy US students’ lives are worth more than those of grunts, Cubans and West Indians. The Chinese are godless, let’s bomb them twice. The Muslims have a radical faction, no brainer.

    PSYOPS not ideology.

  29. PPS: Just as I was going to shut off & go back to bed.

    You can’t parody the PC tone better than this AP report:
    __________

    Diverse group allegedly in British plot

    By DAVID RISING, Associated Press Writer

    LONDON – They had diverse backgrounds, coming from countries around the globe, but all shared youth and worked in medicine. They also had a common goal, authorities suspect: to bring havoc and death to the heart of Britain.

    The eight people held Tuesday in the failed car bombing plot include one doctor from Iraq and two from India. There is a physician from Lebanon and a Jordanian doctor and his medical assistant wife. Another doctor and a medical student are thought to be from the Middle East . . . . “To think that these guys were a sleeper cell and somehow were able to plan this operation from the different places they were, and then orchestrate being hired by the NHS so they could get to the UK, then get jobs in the same area — I think that’s a planning impossibility,” said Bob Ayres, a former U.S. intelligence officer now at London’s Chatham House think tank.

    “A much more likely scenario is they were here together, they discovered that they shared some common ideology, and then they decided to act on this while here in the UK,” he said.
    ___________

    Just what “common ideology”? [You will have to read between the lines . . .]

  30. Bimbro

    So duh release Alan Johnston at last! I suppose they’ll be wanting a Nobel Peace Prize now. But fuh wuh, when day should n’t have kidnapped de man in de firze place!!!!!!!!! Steupse!!!!!!!!!

  31. Addendum:

    Overnight, a follow up comment is required on a particularly important side point: the invidious comparison of Israel with Apartheid.

    Now, in the above, there are a great many comments that are in effect smelly red herrings dragged across the track of the issues in the BFP report, several of which lead out to strawman misrepresentations of the general and especially Israeli ME situation. Much of the latter was dealt with in the JFK thread, as I noted last evening.

    But the “Apartheid” accusation is so loaded that it is worth providing a link to the Myths vs Facts site to address it. Onlookers may peruse that to their heart’s content, and the individual who drew the comparison above may find data that may help him reconsider his opinion.

    I excerpt, relatively briefly:
    __________

    MYTH: “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to the treatment of blacks in apartheid South Africa.”

    FACT: Even before the State of Israel was established, Jewish leaders consciously sought to avoid the situation that prevailed in South Africa . . . . Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts (e.g., Ambassador to Finland) and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. And, in South Africa, the government killed blacks who protested against its policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government’s harshest critics are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset.

    The situation of Palestinians in the territories is different. The security requirements of the nation, and a violent insurrection in the territories, forced Israel to impose restrictions on Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that are not necessary inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders. The Palestinians in the territories, typically, dispute Israel’s right to exist whereas blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, only the apartheid regime.

    If Israel were to give Palestinians full citizenship, it would mean the territories had been annexed. No Israeli government has been prepared to take that step. Instead, through negotiations, Israel agreed to give the Palestinians increasing authority over their own affairs. It is likely that a final settlement will allow most Palestinians to become citizens of their own state. The principal impediment to Palestinian independence is not Israeli policy, it is the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to give up terrorism and agree to live in peace beside the State of Israel . . .
    _________

    In short, the Israeli and South African situations are simply not parallel. (NB: Mr Carter, my fellow Christian, was thus way out of line relative to reasonably accessible and public facts in his recent book, and that is why distinguished scholars repudiated him and it is why he suffered a mass resignation in protest from his Board.)

    Additionally, as my often linked 2003 paper notes, Jews and Arabs, including Palestinian Arabs are genetically very close relative to Y-Chromosome studies, i.e there is a “genetic Abraham.” (The only genetically closer group — from more recent studies — is the Kurds who are in just the right place to be a good part of the famous 10 traditionally “lost” tribes. BTW, it also turns out the typical Englishman is genetically very close to the typical Belgian . . .)

    With that injection of credible facts, I trust we can digest a balancing view and amicably return to the topic in chief.

    GEM of TKI

  32. H’mm: A no-mod swallowing. Okay, kindly go here for a few balancing points on the “Apartheid” comment adn several related points. Your attention is invited to the 9th – 12th bullet points.

  33. Backra johnny

    Kairo puts forward some compelling info regarding ideology vs oil
    Oil and the West’s injustices may have been a catalyst, but surely the main reason for these terrorist acts is the warped interpretation of Islamic teachings.
    Its up to mainstream Islam to fix this.
    No one else can.

  34. Peltdown Man

    Kairo – considering the source, it is nothing less than I would expect. The facts, however, tell a completely different story.

  35. Okay:

    A note or two:

    1] BJ: Oil?

    In the article I cited from Mr Butt, a former Islamist extremist, Oil is not the principal focus or even the no 2 one.

    2] P: considering the source, it is nothing less than I would expect. The facts, however, tell a completely different story . . .

    This is a classic dismissal of the source rather than addressing the facts — FYI the truth or falsity of a claim does not depend on WHO said it.

    For instance, the following should be fairly easy to check out and expose, if they are wrong:
    __________

    Today, within Israel, Jews are a majority, but the Arab minority are full citizens who enjoy equal rights. Arabs are represented in the Knesset, and have served in the Cabinet, high-level foreign ministry posts (e.g., Ambassador to Finland) and on the Supreme Court. Under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and were not citizens of the country in which they formed the overwhelming majority of the population. Laws dictated where they could live, work and travel. And, in South Africa, the government killed blacks who protested against its policies. By contrast, Israel allows freedom of movement, assembly and speech. Some of the government’s harshest critics are Israeli Arabs who are members of the Knesset.

    The situation of Palestinians in the territories is different. The security requirements of the nation, and a violent insurrection in the territories, forced Israel to impose restrictions on Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip that are not necessary inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders. The Palestinians in the territories, typically, dispute Israel’s right to exist whereas blacks did not seek the destruction of South Africa, only the apartheid regime.

    If Israel were to give Palestinians full citizenship, it would mean the territories had been annexed. No Israeli government has been prepared to take that step. Instead, through negotiations, Israel agreed to give the Palestinians increasing authority over their own affairs. It is likely that a final settlement will allow most Palestinians to become citizens of their own state. The principal impediment to Palestinian independence is not Israeli policy, it is the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to give up terrorism and agree to live in peace beside the State of Israel.
    _________

    So, if “The facts, however, tell a completely different story” it should be fairly easy to show the abopve and similar facts to be erroneous.

    Failing that, we see here the fallacy of the closed (and possibly hostile) mind.

    GEM of TKI

  36. So, can we get back to the “Doctor’s plot” . . .
    ___________

    Latest, from Times of London, July 4th:

    ‘Those who cure you will kill you’

    An al-Qaeda leader in Iraq boasted before last week’s failed bombings in London and Glasgow that his group was planning to attack British targets and that “those who cure you will kill you”, The Times has learnt.

    The warning was delivered to Canon Andrew White, a senior British cleric working in Baghdad, and could be highly significant as the eight Muslims arrested in the wake of the failed plot are all members of the medical profession . . . . The Times also learnt yesterday that one of the suspects, the Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdulla, had links to radical Islamic groups, and that several of the eight suspects have now been linked to known extremist radicals listed on MI5’s data base. Canon White, who runs Baghdad’s only Anglican parish, said that he met the al-Qaeda leader on the fringes of a meeting about religious reconciliation held in Amman, the Jordanian capital.

    “He talked to me about how they were going to destroy British and Americans. He told me that the plans were already made and they would soon be destroying the British. He said the people who cure you would kill you.”

    The man, who was in his forties and had travelled from Syria for the meeting, said that the plans would come to fruition in the next few weeks and target the British first. He said that the British and Americans were being targeted because of their actions in Iraq. He did not learn the man’s identity until after the meeting, and will not disclose it now, but said: “I met the Devil that day.” . . .
    _________

    Canon White says he passed on the general warning but not the psecific words. (You can easily enough look up the links . . . )

    We need to look back at the statements from the horses’ mouths, and then soberly think about what all of this implies.

    (Include in that the issue that Butt above is distinguishing state and non-state actors in the name of Islam, and that he has observed that “Islam must declare war on unbelief . . . . [which entails, cf. above for details] the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever . . .” )

    GEM of TKI

  37. Peltdown Man

    Kairo
    Ever heard of “lebensraum”? I’ve been to Israel, and I’ve lived in Lebanon. Once the state of Israel was formed, it invited Jewish people world wide to to “come home” if they wished. The inevitable outcome was that there was not enough room to accommodate them all in the pre-1967 borders. The Arab states gave them a perfect excuse to grab land from the Palestinians, and other territories, and proceed to build settlements illegally. What followed was inevitable given that the Palestinian people were given no hope of ever having a truly independent homeland. The continued niggling and cross-border raids by Israel were perfect for fanning the flames of resistance, thereby “justifying” further acts of repression. Why would any Israeli government want to annex Palestinian territory when they can roll in with the tanks any time they wish? Palestinians do not want to be Israeli citizens – they want to be Palestinian citizens.

  38. banned

    If someone mentions ideolgy again I will burp

  39. Pro-Israel

    Peltdown
    What do you think will happen then? Israel will make peace and Palestine will be formed; or there will be war with mutual exclusion and genocide for Israelis and/or Palestinians?

    I have made my own position clear in the NY JFK airport blog that as a Pro-Israel I would work for the mutual good, along the lines of signed peace treaties, even if Israel still has to fight an enemy further down the road.

    You appear to be suggesting a “one-state solution” which is not what has been worked towards during the last 40 to 100 years.

    What is your proposed solution?

  40. Pro-Israel

    Posts in the previous thread about the terror at JFK in New York mentioned Israel.

    https://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2007/06/03/two-seventh-day-adventists-and-one-jew-arrested-in-kennedy-airport-terror-plot-one-catholic-nun-still-being-sought-by-fbi/#comments

    I came onto BFP and debated the legitimacy of Israel, debated its motives and moves towards peace.

    We talked about the early Israel, the moves towards its re-creation 1919-1948. We talked about the relationships between UN resolutions 242, 338 and the Oslo Accords, and how it may relate to an upcoming (hopeful) peace process. We talked about how it is for us, Pro-Israel.

    As a pro-Israel I extended the hand of peace in the hope that someone reading would accept it.

    So reading some of what is written again makes me sad.

    A writer says Israel practises apartheid. In answer to this I can only ask: how can the two parties (Palestine and Israel) make the agreed 2 state solution without making 2 different states?

    So if the creation of Palestine, for the Palestinians, as a country, is Israel’s apartheid crime, where are we going? Are we saying it has to be a one state solution with no Palestine at all- or no Israel? Then no apartheid, to use your word?

    But of course this is a rhetorical question. We have agreed and signed treaties to make a 2 state solution- one Palestine and one Israel.

    Then I would ask readers to inquire: ‘How many Israeli Arab citizens are living in Israel? The answer is more than 1,000,000.

    Afterwards I ask readers to inquire: ‘How many Jews/Israelis are living in Gaza? The answer is 1. His name is Gilad Shalit, the abducted soldier.

    Jews cannot live in Gaza. And I do mean Jews cannot LIVE in Gaza. Think about that.

    A writer says that Israel is the cause of terror in the world (and therefore terror would go away if Israel did).

    This is not true, and one can easily refute using the most recent example of Glasgow as a prime example.

  41. Onlookers:

    I am saddened to see the repetition of what is now a very familiar pattern at BFP, once a post is put up that highlights an issue that goes beyond the “the West is the focus of evil and oppression in the world” mantra so ccommon among “progressive” members of our region’s intelligentsia.

    Dare I say that that is “so 1950’s”?

    While, it’s 2007 now . . .

    Now, for instance, observe a case in point, with P:

    1] He took up the “Apartheid” loaded word, in a context in which I challenged its use as evidently unwarranted by the facts, having cited a useful start-point source.

    2] He dismissed the source, without addressing the factual basis of that dismissal.

    3] On challenging him to address the merits of the “apartheid” term, he now escalates the accusation: “lebensraum”

    –> In case onlookers do not know the underlying context, this term was used by Hitler and co, to justify their attemped conquest of Eastern Europe and slaughter of the existing inhabitants, to foster the territorial and population expansion of Germany there, going back to his infamous Mein Kampf. (Much of the horrors of WW 2 had to do with the attempt to turn that malevolent fantasy into reality on the ground.)

    –> In short by repeated abuse of language to taint the air, P is warping the discussion away from not only the substantial matter [The Doctors’ Plot and the jihad mentality], but also works to so stir rage that the possibility of a reasonable discussion on the merits is sharply reduced.

    This is so bad, that I will take some time to address it, DV, following; noting that nowhere above are the facts and issues on the substantial matter being seriously taken on board in the thread.

    For, the rhetoric at work is a red herring dragged across the track to distract attention from the main point, and leading out to a strawman which P has set out to rhetorically burn and poison the atmosphere. (The effect — and it little matters whether P is calculatingly doing that or is simply careless on the claims and arguments he accepts and passes on as if they were sound — is to taint the atmosphere and foreclose reasonable discussion by stirring up inappropriate rage, hostility and even hate. As Areistotle warned us 2400 years ago in his The Rhetoric, that’s one of the oldest tricks in the rhetor’s bag — and if one does notr know better, it still works: “our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are very different from those we make when we are pained and hostile.”)

    Some atmosphere clearing is thus in order . . . then, let us get back to the substantial issue on the merits: what the Doctors’ plot Jihad case shows us, and that is as is further amplified by Hassan Butt’s telling testimony.

    GEM of TKI

  42. Now, let us take up:

    4] We see P saying: Once the state of Israel was formed, it invited Jewish people world wide to to “come home” if they wished. The inevitable outcome was that there was not enough room to accommodate them all in the pre-1967 borders. The Arab states gave them a perfect excuse to grab land from the Palestinians, and other territories, and proceed to build settlements illegally. What followed was inevitable given that the Palestinian people were given no hope of ever having a truly independent homeland. The continued niggling and cross-border raids by Israel were perfect for fanning the flames of resistance, thereby “justifying” further acts of repression

    This is such a thoroughgoing distortion of the relevant facts and history [cf. my often linked 2003 note on the modern history of Israel, the exchange in the JFK plot thread and in onward links for background details] that it is breathtaking:

    –> First, the 1919 Versailles side-agreement between Weizmann and Feisal, the latter acting as a leader of the emerging Arab nation, is about the mutual recognition of the Jewish and Arab nationalisms in the region, and their mutually supportive development. Had that been followed up the ME would now be an advanced, peaceful and prosperous region. As Aba Eban often observed, Arab nationalism does not exhaust the legitimate nationalisms of the ME.

    –> In that context, as a part of the onward Versailles and League of Nations process, several mandate territories were created out of provinces of the collapsed Ottoman Empire, Palestine [cis and trans-Jordan as a single entity], Iraq and Syria being prominent among these. The Palestinian mandate was then divided with trans-Jordan being reserved for Arabs and put under Feisal Hussein’s brother, Abdullah — 3/4 of the Palestinian mandate forming an Arab state by the mid 1920’s.

    –> Through the impact of violent Arab rejectionism led by the Mufti al Husseini [who later collaborated with Hitler in the Final Solution alluded to in the last comment above, and proposed to Hitler and co to carry forward “the Final Solution” of “the Jewish problem” in the ME; i.e. in genocide], the intended Jewish onward settlement was hampered, and eventually partition was entered into as a solution at the UN level, post WW 2. [My 2003 notes give more details]

    –> On declared genocidal intent [massively documented in the relevant histories] the Arab League set out to invade the infant nation, with five armies, and in so doing invited the Arab population to leave the war zone temporarily. By a miracle, they failed in the attempt, and through onward persecution of long settled Jewish populaitons across the ME, forced 820,000 Jews to leave, of whom 620,000 settled in Israel.

    –> That is, we see here an irreversible exchange of refugee populations, leading to the best solution being mutual resettlement, similar to the many population exchanges of the C20. It also immediately implies a further level of legitimacy to Israel as a land of refuge for a long settled minority population in a hostile region.

    –> The Arab league’s hostility did not stop, and by 1966 – 7, with massive infusion of Soviet arms, they felt themselves ready to complete the genocide, as Nasser et al publicly declared. [Cf the JFK thread for excerpts and onward links.] So they surrounded Israel with a ring of Steel, 2:1 on men, 3:1 on tanks [with most of Israel’s tanks being WW 2 vintage outdated though upgunned Shermans], 4:1 on aircraft, and imposed a blockade of Tiran which posed the challenge of trade and oil strangulation, and was a recognised causus belli. In addition, since 80% of the IDF were reservists, the mobilisation meant Israel locked down its economy. So, it seemed Israel had the alternatives: [a] submit to strangulation, or [b] attack against hopeless odds and suffer the consequences. Of course, Egypt nearly didn’t bother to wait: [c] May 27, they nearly launched an armoured thrust across the Negev, being dissuaded at the last minute by pressure from the US and event he USSR. Then, by June 4, diplomatic initiatives on Tiran plainly and publicly failed.

    –> What the Egyptians did not calculate on was that Israel would be able to knock out their air forces by a Hail Mary attack, operation Moked, which sortied all but 12 of the 196 jets in the Israeli air force — including trainers loaded with bombs and rockets! — as the alternative was sure attrition and destruction. A measure of the risks involved is the nervous breakdown by the chief of IDF staff and the public breakdown of the PM in a national broadcast intended to calm frightened people looking at doom and contemplating in many cases Masada-like suicide. However, the gambit miraculously worked, and as Oren documents, a largely improvised campaign that exploited opportunities as they came up led to the conquest of the Sinai in four days.

    –> Jordan insisted on attacking Israel in spite of pleas ot keep out and a declaration after initial bombardments that Israel would be willing to understand a “salvo of honour,” leading to an even more improvised campaign. In the midst of this, the Israelis hesitated in front of Jerusalem for a full day, and only went in when Hussein’s further actions indicated rejection of a peace offer.

    –> Golan was taken in the last two days of the fighting, as the platform from which bombardments of Israel were undertaken for 20 years and were of course still ongoing.

    –> In short, we are looking not at premeditated campaigns to gain “lebensraum”, but with land taken in desperate and risky wars of defence, in the face of declared intent of destruction and genocide backed up by more than enough cases of murder and massacre to give such words more than empty rhetorical force.

    –> And then, on June 19, Israel offered to give back land, in the context of a peace settlement. [This was similar to post 1948 too.] This was refused by the Arab League at Khartoum: no recognition, no negotiations, no peace. This set the context for the UN SC resolution 242, which set on the table negotiations towards mutually agreed secure borders, and peace.

    [In 1979 and 1994, when peace did come, Israel fully withdrew from Egyptian and Jordanian territory as per settlement. This included dismantling settlements in the former case. In 2000 of course as reasonable a compromise as could be expected was on the table: 97% of pre-1967 WB, with compensating land on the other side of the Green line, and 100% of Gaza, with a timetable for onward negotiations on Jerusalem etc. Arafat walked away and resorted to war and terrorism on a flimsy pretext. His declarations, those of his henchmen and those of Hamas make the underlying reason clear: the existence of Israel is the issue, directly or on a phased basis, not its borders. Hamas’ actions post the unilateral 2005 withdrawal from 100% of Gaza shows this yet again.]

    In short he whole picture painted by P above is false, materially misleading and blame-shifting. Worse, it is mischievously accusatory and atmosphere-poisoning.

    P: accusations are not proofs, and assertions are not evidence. Worse, loaded language distorts the ability to see the truth. In particular, you need to understand that strictly the current land disputes [apart from Golan] do not relate simply to “occupation” of the territory of another state, however captured in defensive war and held pending resolution of the underlying issues, but to DISPUTED TERRITORIES, and unsettled borders, in a context where the pre-1967 Green line repeatedly showed itself insecure and unworkable. [Onlookers, also observe how the “Apartheid” accusation has vanished, and how the evidence I used to note why it is inapplicable is unchallenged on the merits, having been simply dismissed with a hostile wave at the source previously.]

    So, please back down the rhetorical voltage.

    And, let us get back to the Doctors’ plot and address its disturbing implications, including the evidence that there may indeed be links to al Qaeda, based on the Canon’s testimony. Also, the links to certain streams in Islamic theology and the need to address reformation of Islam.

    GEM of TKI

  43. PS: Here is that often linked 2003 note on the modern history of Israel. Here also, is the unfortunately failed 1919 agreement, without which which I am convinced no coherent adn balanced understanding of the ME situation can be developed. (I have put up a copy of it with annotations in the JFK plot thread.]

  44. H’mm:

    Some choice excerpts pre-June 5, 1967:
    _____________

    March 8th 1965 “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand, we shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood” – President of Egypt, Gamal Abdel Nasser

    May 13th 1967 Egypt must expect “an Israeli invasion of Syria immediately after Independence Day, with the aim of overthrowing the Damascus regime” [10] Soviet misinformation delivered to Anwar Sadat in Moscow.

    –> NB: This misinformation was that there was an Israeli mobilisation to invade Syria. Both Israel and the UN provided the obvious refutation — the mobilised troops simply were not “there.”

    –> On th strength of this, Nasser moved 5 inf divs, 2 armoured div, 2 inf Bde and 4 armoured BDE to Sinai, and initiated a plan to cut off Eilat, Israel’s oil port. [Due to US and USSR pressure, the invasion was called off within minutes of its intended launch, May 27]

    –> Nasser also closed the straights of Tiran, the act of war that triggered the 1956 invasion by Israel.

    –> With the other Arabs, Israel was ringed by 500 k troops, 2800 tanks, and 800+ aircraft. Mobilisation long maintained would simply accelerate the starvation of the economy and attack against such odds of 2:1 on men, 3:1 on tanks, and 4:1 on aircraft was evident suicide.

    –> NB: at this time, Israel did not control W Bank or Gaza, and there was no campaign to create a Palestinian state out of territory annexed [but not generally recognised] by Jordan, or held by Egypt.

    –> Israeli raids were RETALIATORY aginst terrorist attacks, and the underlying PLO etc strategy was to use this “cycle of violence” to entangle Israel in a web of escalating Arab hostility, triggering of course war to destroy Israel. That fundamental strategy has continued to date, and “he hit back first,” P is no defence — especially inte context of a walkaway form the 2000 Camp David compromise.

    May 15th 1967 “Israel wants to make it clear to the government of Egypt that it has no aggressive intentions whatsoever against any Arab state at all” – Israel’s Prime Minister Levi Eshkol

    May 18th 1967 “The Zionist barrack in Palestine is about to collapse and be destroyed. Every one of the hundred million Arabs has been living for the past nineteen years on one hope – to live to see the day Israel is liquidated…There is no life, no peace nor hope for the gangs of Zionism to remain in the occupied land.” . . . . “As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel….The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence”. – Cairo Radio’s Voice of the Arabs broadcast

    –> “Final solution,” anyone?

    –> Nasser had asked the UN force in Sinai be removed, and it was, so the buffer that had preserved peace for 10 years was gone.

    –> This also allowed him to cut off Tiran, so Israel could not trade with Africa and Asia, which included Iranian oil shipments [Iran was then under the Shah]

    May 19: Israel [will] not initiate hostilities “…until or unless (Egyptian forces) close the Straits of Tiran to free navigation by Israel” – Prime Minister Levi Eshkol message to France’s President de Gaulle.

    –> Of course that is exactly what was done, in the teeth of International agreements:

    May 22nd 1967 “The Israeli flag shall not go through the Gulf of Aqaba. Our sovereignty over the entrance to the Gulf cannot be disputed” – Egypt’s President Nasser

    May 23rd 1967 “[The Arab blockade of Israel shipping in the Gulf of Aqaba is] illegal and potentially disastrous to the cause of peace. …The purported closing of the Gulf of Aqaba has brought a new and grave dimension to the crisis. The United States considers the gulf to be an international waterway.”President LB Johnson

    –> Of course, the attempt of the int’l community to challenge the blockade by sending though a regatta of maritime nations’ ships, collapsed. Within days of the collapse of such diplomatic efforts, Israel acted in self defence. It did so by launching a Hail Mary strike: they literally bet their entire air force on hitting the Egyptians and knocking out the major opposing air force. It worked, and the rest is history.

    –> After the war, they offered to return territories captured in what was plainly a defensive war in the face of a ring of steel, strangulation by act of war, and openly declared intent to wipe out the nation, once there was peace.

    –> The joint Arab answer: no peace, no recognition, no negotiations.

    –> So, forty years, follow up wars and a lot of tendentious claims notwithstanding, we see here a determined people acting in defence of what they should not have ever had to defend.

    –> Yes there is a Palestinian Arab refugee problem [but there was also a Jewish refugee problem resolved largely by resettlement in Israel], and yes we would like to see peace and the 1947 principle on the ground. But we must face the fact that every time such a settlement has been in the offing, the Palestinians have gone to terrorist campaigns and “popular” uprisings — most recently in 2000. And, unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza has just precipitated more war and terrorism [in response to perceived weakness] not moving to peace.

    _______________

    Okay, I hope that helps us bear in mind some often overlooked points on the balance of the facts on the table.

    GEM of TKI

  45. Thank you “Straight Talk” for not reacting to my unintelligent second post. I have just settled down to forcefully explain why you should refrain from presenting opinion as fact. Unfortunately I have to admit that your presentation of opinion as fact was not as inappropriate as it first seemed. The reason I condemned you is because of the selective nature of your diary of events, plus the inclusion of the US Ambassador giving Saddam the green light to invade Iraq.

    We can still have a full blooded disagreement on the primary location of the real problem. I wouldn’t want to tie the whole thing down to one 3 letter word, but if forced, I would choose G-O-D

    Okay, Dubya has proven to be the most damaging person this world has seen for a long time. (There are countless other leaders who have done more horrible things, but it is because Dubya is running America, that his impact is most felt.) However, the prime reason for Islamic extremism is Islam. This is not too great a leap from saying that the prime reason for Islamic terrorism is religion. We are all familiar with particular facets of Islam which contribute to the problem, but the gap between other world religions and religious extremism is comparatively similar to the gap between Islam and religious extremism.
    I would have thought you have already come to the conclusion that not all war is about ideology – assuming we separate the most basic instincts of personal greed and Machiavellian national interest. I do not believe all war is due to ideology, and I also don’t know what “Banned”’s ‘PYSOPS’ means.
    The point about Mandela et al is home territory for me, I’ve been fascinated by it for the last 20 years.

    The only remark I want to make about the Palestinian question, is that we would all be a lot better off if we recognised just how difficult it is for us to get an objective view of what is going on, and why we got into this mess. I’m a great fan of the BBC, but even they have failed miserably here. (I say this despite the happy coincidence that their obvious bias happens to be in the same direction as my own).

    Kairosfocus – your initial post on this thread was reasonable. Well Played.

  46. Straight talk

    Golbeitho;
    You’re doing it again!

    Give me facts not Fox News waffle.

    Do you dispute what April Glaspie said?

    Check it out, then respond more authoratively.

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ARTICLE5/april.html

  47. Onlookers:

    Observe the off-track tangent to the main issue, and the atmosphere poisoning effect of what is being discussed, how.

    1] BFP: can you provide a messaging facility or a forum which does so — that way tangential issues can be pursued as necessary or desired without side-tracking the main issues?

    2] G & S: Looking on, it seems to me BOTH of you are presenting assertions as if they were established facts. In particular, to assess actions of given individuals on policy matters, one needs to ask what are the credible alternative actions and where would they likely lead. It is improper to try to compare a real world situation with some imaginary ideal. (For instance, consider carefully, in light of his history, the implications of a nuclear weapon and ballistic missile armed SH regime sitting at the head of the Persian Gulf. Recall, as the various reports affirm, the infrastructure to move ahead on this, among other things, was in place once sanctions busting fully succeeded, as it was evidently about to. Factor in the Oil for Food bribery issue.)

    3] Nor is it fair to say that “God” is the issue that is causing the problems. People will always try to “justify” their actions, however wrongful, in the name of doing good. If God is off the table, they will absolutise something else, e.g. the French Revolution’s mockery of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.

    4] Ms Glaspie made an error, which Mr Hussein in his conceit turned into an excuse; such are unfortunately inevitable inthe real world of diplomacy [more than one war traces to such an error, indeed, even the 6-day war may have been held off for a year or two had there notr been a delay in passing King Hussein’s apology over the Nov 11, 1966 terrorist attack. Cf Oren’s discussion]. To twist her statement into a “green light” from the US to invade and conquer Kuwait is to distort history.

    GEM of TKI

  48. Straight talk

    K,
    You are the person twisting her statement into a quote green light unquote and thus are guilty of the distortion of which you are accusing me.
    For clarity, I repeat the US State Department view expressed to Saddam.
    The US would take no position to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait- FACT

  49. Rumplestilskin

    The prime reason for country invasions, bombings etc is power and greed.

    Religion (as distinct from the Almighty) is man-made. Those who use religion for anger use it as an excuse or convenient ‘raison d’etre’.

    The underlying and real cause of such strife is power. Those extremist Imam’s who push the violence and convince these bombers to commit such atrocious acts are acting only in the name of religion, but the underlying reason is power.

    I fully agree foreign policy of the West needs examining and has has an effect on the perception of the West in the Middle East.

    Nevertheless, the reason for extremists’ actions, even if partly driven by reaction against Western foreign policy, is for power. Did spokesperson for the terrorist group not express the wish that the West will ‘fall’?

    So the reason for actions against the West is to destroy the West? Sounds like a phrase based from a desire for comparative strength and power.

    Religion, as usual, provides a convenient force for ‘marshalling’ the minds and bodies of those who do these acts.

    Finally, although I hold to my view that extremism is to blame and extremism can manifest in any form of religion or way of life, although I hold to my view that one should not label any particular race or creed, bigotry begets bigotry and once a person starts with one they will start with all, I will concede one issue.

    That is, the ‘moderate’ Muslim world should stand up against those extremists seeking to show themselves as representing Islam and thereby giving fuel to anti-Muslim hatred while distorting the Muslim ideology to suit their ends.

    Standing aside gives the impression of condoning or at the least abstaining from opinion, at a time when a stand should be taken.

    As is said, all it takes for terrible things to happen is for good men to say nothing.

  50. A couple of brief remarks:

    1] Power tends to corrupt . . .

    R is right to point to power agendas as a decisive issue. Unfortunately, in this case, foundational texts and history [such as Q 9:5, 29] lend themselves to the interpretations that foster such agendas for 1400 years.

    2] Back tot he Doctors’ plot

    Next, the context of the Doctors’ plot, which shows the power of the relevant view of Islamic theology in action among HIGHLY educated people in a profession dedicated to saving not taking lives, is aptly laid out in Hassan Butt’s recently posted article [which BTW also appears in the July 1 Guardian online], as is discussed in the related thread.

    There is in that thread a link onward to a telling Cover Story interview in The Prospect, August 2005, i.e. just before his change of heart that is even more revealing on the jihadi attitude.

    3] Ms Glaspie’s blunder

    A glance at the Wikipedia article — here simply a “first level check” — on Ms Glaspie will show just how she (and the State Dept too) blundered; it also reveals that there are disputed versions of the key section in the transcript. Excerpting:

    >>One version of the transcript has Glaspie saying: “We can see that you have deployed massive numbers of troops in the south. Normally that would be none of our business, but when this happens in the context of your threats against Kuwait, then it would be reasonable for us to be concerned. For this reason, I have received an instruction to ask you, in the spirit of friendship – not confrontation – regarding your intentions: Why are your troops massed so very close to Kuwait’s borders?”

    Later the transcript has Glaspie saying: “We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”

    Another version of the transcript (the one published in the New York Times on 23 September 1990) has Glaspie saying: “But we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via Klibi [Chadli Klibi, Secretary General of the Arab League] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly.”>>

    The controversies over phrasing of the second part do not remove the force of the first part, and as Wiki goes on to cite:

    “Edward Mortimer wrote in the New York Review of Books in November 1990: “It seems far more likely [than the green-light view] that Saddam Hussein went ahead with the invasion because he believed the US would not react with anything more than verbal condemnation. That was an inference he could well have drawn from his meeting with US Ambassador April Glaspie on July 25, and from statements by State Department officials in Washington at the same time publicly disavowing any US security commitments to Kuwait but also from the success of both the Reagan and the Bush administrations in heading off attempts by the US Senate to impose sanctions on Iraq for previous breaches of international law.””

    Further context is provided by a relevant diplomatic sources: “James Akins, the American Saudi Ambassador at the time, offered a slightly different perspective, in a 2000 PBS interview: “[Glaspie] took the straight American line, which is we do not take positions on border disputes between friendly countries. That’s standard. That’s what you always say. You would not have said, “Mr. President, if you really are considering invading Kuwait, by God, we’ll bring down the wrath of God on your palaces and on your country, and you’ll all be destroyed.” She wouldn’t say that, nor would I. Neither would any diplomat.” ”

    Then also, “In April 1991 Glaspie testified before the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate. She said that at the July 25 meeting she had “repeatedly warned Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against using force to settle his dispute with Kuwait.” She also said that Saddam had lied to her by denying he would invade Kuwait. Asked to explain how Saddam could have interpreted her comments as implying U.S. approval for the invasion of Kuwait, she replied: “We foolishly did not realize he [Saddam] was stupid.” “

    In short, the US was not being forceful enough with this particular Arab dictator [one of sadly too many then and now], which led him to imagine that he could seize a major part of the Persian Gulf and put his tanks within striking distance of the Saudi oil fields having already seized major fields, without more than a verbal wrist slap. [In doing so, he probably disregarded the counsel of his own professional military officers, who would have warned him of the obvious — even if only by hints.]

    But, in the event, once the reality of such a geo-strategic situation stared the US, the UK and the rest of the Great Powers in the face, a much more vigorous response was in the offing. Further to this, note that the build-up to the events of Jan – Feb 1991 took several months, during which time Hussein could just as easily have withdrawn his troops, but chose not to.

    Then, after the launching of air attacks, he had further opportunities to do so, but chose not to. Indeed, in the end, it was only when a decisive armoured thrust had been launched that he belatedly sought to save his army [or on a more cynical view, sacrificed his army to save his Republican Guard].

    So, I repeat, there is good reason to draw the conclusion that there was a blunder here. Conspiracy theorists who wish to draw the conclusion that the US was complicit in the invasion, for excellent reason, have a far higher burden of proof to meet, and have simply not met it.

    In turn, sad to say, that is unfortunately revealing on our need for development of critical thinking capacity across our region, including among many of our most educated people. So, I reiterate my call for us to seriously work on how we think and argue about many things.

    GEM of TKI

  51. PS: Perhaps I need to add a note that the forces deployed against SH in 1991 included the French — not likely to be a part of any Anglo-American “conspiracies” — and many others, even the Syrians.

  52. PPS: it is also worth reading this declassified telegram, from the Thatcher Foundation Library on the July 25 meeting, esp p 4 point 10 on — a level 2 check. It makes it plain that the US relationship with Iraq across the 1980’s was always a matter of mixed issues and concerns, not at all a green-light or blanket support.

  53. Peltdown Man

    Kairofocus
    Do you have a job?

  54. ;4)

    ST – I distrust CNN, let alone Fox.

    I am not retreating further till I get time to research…
    “1990 – US Ambassador tells Saddam that her government would take no position if Kuwait was invaded.”

    If I’m wrong I will admit it – and very much hope NOT to have to do that twice on the same thread.

  55. Rumplestilskin

    I see that CNN is reporting a threat against Goldman Sachs in New York.

    They say its not credible due to Goldman Sachs high security.

    Maybe some fool or disgruntled ex-employee trying to cause fear re Goldman Sachs, is what they are thinking?

    They however cannot figure out why the letter was sent to many small and medium sized papers across the Nation.

    I say:

    1) It is not a disgruntled ex employee or investor – such would be too scared of repercussions to run such a hoax. Would you not be scared if it were you?

    2) I think they are looking in the wrong place. Maybe the real purpose of the letter is as a ‘signal’, not a direct threat.

    Hence, Goldman Sachs looks to be a credible threat, enough to cause publication and attention. However, the real purpose may be to pass a sign to ‘previously instructed persons’.

    Why else put such a letter to small and medium sized papers, probably local papers, not national?

    Who reads local papers? People living locally.

    This also avoids the problem of a cellphone being traced as the authorities were able to do in UK.

    Therefore, if there is any attack, there may be a likelihood of a type mirroring those in the UK i.e. small, amateurish but dangerous if effective.

    Modus Operandi also sometimes changes but nevertheless is just that, a modus operandi and this may be the new Modus Operandi.

  56. Iwouldn’t know about this incident, but a significant variable in the theory of treatening the likes of Goldman Sachs is the importance of confidence and stability to financial institutions – never more important than in the high leverage business world of today.

  57. G;

    The CNN headline you cited is plainly wrong relative to the transcripts as already cited.

    GEM of TKI

  58. Back to the substantive issue — the Doctors’ plot:

    Here we see an interesting discussion on the many myths that IFJS sees as exploded by the failed bomb plots.

    These are claimed to include, excerpting:

    “The first myth to go up in smoke after this week’s failed attempts at terror is that radical Islamic theology is the result of poverty and illiteracy . . . It is increasingly clear, however, that many of the men behind the London bombings were physicians. Highly educated with well-paying jobs in a prosperous nation, these men certainly do not fit the profile so often painted of Islamic terrorists. One thing is clear: it is not poverty or ignorance that drives Muslims to terrorism. Even those who are highly educated and trained to “cure” were willing to kill in the name of Allah.”

    Second, on the other side of Western politics:

    “President Bush said in his Second Inaugural Address, “The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies’ defeat.” It now seems clear, however, that even those who enjoy freedom and democracy can be won over by radical theology. The medical professionals implicated in this week’s attacks were living miles away from tyranny and were enjoying all of the benefits of modern Western Democracy. But, it was not enough to blunt their impulse to inflict terror. Their interpretation of Islam inspired them to bomb the very nation which offered them freedom. We must not deceive ourselves into thinking that once men and women live in democracy, then terrorism will cease. It is not that simple.”

    Third:

    “In the wake of this week’s attempted bombings, however, a remarkable article appeared in London’s Daily Mail which provides valuable insight into the minds of radical Muslims. According to the article, written by a former fanatic, Hassan Butt, British Muslim terrorist groups “laugh in celebration” when pundits say that the sole cause of terrorism is our foreign policy. According to Butt, although Western foreign policy did anger him, “what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.” (emphasis added) . . . . Even if every last Westerner left the Middle East, these radicals would still pursue their worldwide Islamic State. Their goal stems from a particular understanding of Islam that has won adherents around the world. These Muslims believe that it is God’s will for them to conquer the whole world, by violence if necessary. ”

    We may indeed wish to debate each of these points, but one thing is crystal clear.

    Namely, it is high time for the many truly moderate Muslims and for the many other concerned people outside the Islamic faith to communicate a clear message: violence and attempted world conquest in the name of any ideology, including religious ones, is unacceptable in today’s world.

    Period.

    GEM of TKI

  59. Straight talk

    K.
    For once we agree;
    “violence and attempted world conquest in the name of any ideology, including religious ones, is unacceptable in today’s world. ”
    Please inform GW Bush as well.

  60. Straight talk

    Chase,

    I have just read your last comment and thank you for your support of free thinkers everywhere.

    What amazes me about some sites, but happily not this one –oh no, is they thrive on gossip and perceived acts of political corruption, but view this as a uniquely local phenomenon, and that Barbados has the only corrupt politicians in the whole world.

    That this little rock of 270,000 supports a kleptocracy stashing millions of dollars.

    Their crackpot theory is that there is a conspiracy among a small group of politicos who, along with their friends and families, have so manipulated government policy, the media, the civil service, the police and the judiciary, that they can run the country pretty much how they please, unfettered, and for their own personal benefit.

    Why don’t these blogs do as Mia says, shut up and get a life?

    But hang on, what if this corrupt behaviour is universal, what would be the pickings in say, the USA?

    If any person actually dares to suggest this corruption is global, and on a mega scale it is dismissed as “conspiracy theory”, always a useful phrase for eliminating articulate dissent and unfortunately it is the standard default position of a closed mind.

    I am not a fanatic, an evangelist or nutcase, just an ordinary Joe who cannot quite see how the pieces given to us are supposed to fit, and I have the determination to find the reasons for this mismatch.

    Any amateur researcher with tenacity and an enquiring mind, may agree with me or draw entirely different conclusions to mine, and that is to be expected and welcomed in order to have a full debate.

    One thing I will guarantee is any valid conclusion one does arrive at, after a little research, will be at odds with the mass media propaganda, we are currently insulted by.

  61. Maat

    Getting back to the “Doctors Plot”; it was first reported that one of these possibly deadly, explosive laden car bombs,was defused by hand by the police.The car was noticed by an ambulance crew that saw smoke coming from the vehicle. We are also told by the BBC that the cars contained petrol, propane and nails/screws and are lead to believe that these components were the explosives. So we have a glorified petrol bomb with a burning rag as a fuse.

    Did the cops that defused the “bomb” just pull the rag out of the slightly open window, or did they have to break the glass to get it out?

    If the so called bomb components as related by the BBC are to believed, then nearly everyone in Barbados and most parts of the World are driving around in potential bombs. How many people may from time to time have an extra container of gasoline in their car, be carrying home their cooking gas and stop by a hardware store to get some nails? Have we really become so pathetic that we cannot think with common sense and discernment?

    Let us say that Tony Blair steps down and a new leader reads out a list of proposals to parliament that may lead to a new era of government management, which includes a reduction in the power of Prime Ministers. Those who are opposed to such change can almost certainly force this new prime minister to concentrate on the agenda that they have committed to (ie waging a war OF terror) by setting up a few petrol bombs in cars.

    The BFP point about the bollards is also useful as it leads any thinking person to ask why on earth would a supposedly intelligent medical student or Doctor drive a car into a set of concrete posts? Surely they would have looked for a place that they would not encounter such an obstacle.

    It is truly amazing that some people that contribute to these blogs and who write in an intelligent manner, do not ask these kinds of questions.

    Knowledge is not wisdom.

    Peace

    ************

    BFP Comments

    Actually, Maat…

    The bomb fuses in the two London autos were connected to cell phones. The officer broke the glass and disconnected the cell phone from the explosive charge that was to set off the works. The terrorists had called several times to set off the bombs, but they had mis-wired the car bombs, thank God.

    The police tracked them down largely through the cell phones that were supposed to have been destroyed in the explosions.

    As to why the doctor drove his car into a bollard and then set the vehicle and himself on fire… well, you’ll have to ask him. As to the doctor being “intelligent”, we may hold differing opinions.

    As to your poo-pooing gasoline and propane laden car bombs, I invite you to look up “BLEVE” – boiling liquid expanding vapour explosion – and re-think your opinion.

    Your comment about “setting up a few petrol bombs” seems to indicate that you believe the London car bomb and Glasgow airport terrorism incidents were set up not by Muslim terrorists, but by government agents or some such nonsense.

    You folks are simply amazing.

  62. Onlookers:

    A few remarks are in order.

    1] BLEVEs and Bomb-making

    It seems that familiarity breeds contempt when it comes to potential devastating bombs!

    –> ONE gallon of petrol is more or less equivalent in explosive power to eight sticks of dynamite. That can do serious damage. (Don’t forget the old Molotov cocktail — named after a former Foreign Minister of the USSR — was an improvised explosive and/or incendiary grenade using a handy sized bottle of petrol. In the hands of someone who knows what he is doing, it can sometimes take out even a tank. There is an excellent reason why possession of such or even publication of details on how to make one lands you in gaol bigtime.)

    –> A boiling liquid and expanding vapour [ the BLEV in BLEVE, the E being “explosion”] can form a variety of fuel-air explosive mix, which is fully capable of being a massively devastating bomb. BTW, even flour dust in sufficient quantity dispersed in air is a similar F-E explosive mix, and in 1988 just such a major building-shattering explosion happened at the Flour Mill in Jamaica near to Rockfort. [Maybe you should take a fresh look at that 100 lb or 25 lb cooking gas cylinder you have next to your house or even in your kitchen as a serious potential fire and explosion hazard. Not to mention the natural gas pipeline to many houses in Barbados.]

    2] Turnabout false accusations

    ST has, sadly, long since removed himself from the circle of civil responsible discussion, but it is worth dissecting his latest rhetorical tactic, a turnabout accusation:

    Citing GEM of TKI: “violence and attempted world conquest in the name of any ideology, including religious ones, is unacceptable in today’s world. ”

    ST, quipping: Please inform GW Bush as well.

    –> In the case of Islamist ideology, it has long since been massively and credibly documented — over the course of 1400 years and starting with foundation documents and examples, e.g. Q 9:5, 29 in context — that we are looking at a violent, ruthless world conquest ideology motivated in the name of Islam.

    –> Onlookers may wish to pass over to the “Former Radical Muslim . . .” thread for details from the horse’s mouth; e.g.: though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . . Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion [NB: all that stuff Jesus said about render to Caesar, render to God . . .] . . . . since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they [the jihadis] have declared war upon the whole world] . . . . this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief . . . . [The August 2005 Cover interview in Prospect Magazine makes it abundantly clear what Mr Butt’s ideology was befoe his change of heart, and the recent Daily Mail and Guardian article — it appeared in both papers — shows why he has now distanced himself from the jihadis. Go to the thread and follow up the links]

    –> By contrast, the attempt to project the same sort of motivation to Mr Bush is seriously and irresponsibly wanting for evidence. FYI — despite the usual fever swamp rantings that unfortunately have distorted the perceptions of many — there is NO evidence of intent on his part to conquer the world.

    –> FYFI, scriptures like Matt 2:18 – 22 [“Render . . .”] and Rom 13:1 – 10 [which directly implies that even a Nero is God’s servant accountable to Him to do us good and to protect us from evildoers, by using the sword if necessary, in a further context that we are all bound by the principle of neighbour-love [cf. here Locke’s interesting discussion in light of citing Hooker’s Ecclesiastical Polity in his 2nd Essay on Civil Gov’t] make it plain that there is a legitimate domain for the state separate from the church [but also accountable before God’s throne of justice], and that the state is authorised to use just force to defend the community from evildoers foreign and domestic. Since attempted world conquest would necessarily violate such strictures, Biblical Christian faith cannot properly be used to make a case for such unjust war. (The Crusades and the like as implemented have utterly no biblical justification, a point long since underscored by St Francis of Assisi who actually went and preached to BOTH sides of the crusades. Though, the basic point is that some defense against the jihads and massacres of Christians and Pilgrims in the Holy Land were justified. We usually don’t hear that part of the story . . .)

    –> Neither is there credible evidence, that his motivation for resorting to defensive war in response to mounting of an attempted US Gov decapitation strike [Afghanistan] and/or to renewal of major military operations in light of material and accelerating armistice violations [Iraq] is the promotion of his Evangelical religious faith globally. (Indeed, on the latter, observe that Mr W J “Bill” Clinton in 1998, resorted to an upsurge in military operations on very similar grounds to Mr Bush’s more serious actions several years later. The obvious point is that if serious but nor major operations were not enough to stop the violations [which had serious implications for the region and wider world], major ops were the indicated next step.)

    –> So, whatever the debates we may wish to have over details of rationale for war in this case, strategy and problems with cases of excesses and even occasional war crimes by US etc soldiers [contrast, the strategic intent to terrorise by Al Qaeda and the like, backed up by consistent deliberate mass targetting and massacres of civilians AND repeated propaganda exploitation of the civilian casualties that inevitably result form their own hiding behind civilians], the two cases simply are not comparable.

    –> But the turnabout accusation that creates a sense of immoral equivalency in the minds of the unwary, is an ever so easy and too often effective rhetorical and propaganda resort.

    GEM of TKI

  63. H’mm: I should clarify some phrasing:

    –> The 9/11 attacks were an attempted — and now more or less admitted — decapitation strike by Al Qaeda against the US Gov’t and its military and financial power bases. That is, it was an act of war by mass murder and terorrism, carried out by Al Qaeda with the complicity of the Taliban Government in Afghanistan. [Don’t forget: the 9/11 operation began with the suicide bombing assassination in northern Afghanistan of Ahmed Shah Massoud (“Lion of the Pansjir”), the most important commander in the opposition to the Taliban in that country.]

    –> The London-Glasgow Doctors’ bomb plot was plainly an attempt to intimidate the UK Government and people just as Mr Brown comes into office, similar to the Madrid Bombing on the eve of the Spanish elections. [BTW, that reflects a very serious misreading of the British character!]

  64. ILLUMINATOR

    st i must agree with you , it is really quite amazing that many bloggers on this site can see so much dirt being done by our local leaders and their associates and find it so difficult to believe that it happens or is possible elsewhere . Especially when the stakes and rewards are sooo much greater. I guess we only have corrupt people here.
    Kairosfocus , your picture should be in a dictionary or something under ‘the official story ‘, as you are a great defender of it . I feel some ‘unofficial’ websites would be good for your world view.

    *****************

    BFP Comments…

    BFP Edited Out The Websites…

    Hello Illuminator

    Several of the websites you posted had materials that fall into “conspiracy theories” that we have previously announced will not be a topic of discussion at Barbados Free Press. You will have to discuss such theories elsewhere.

    Robert

  65. Straight talk

    Illuminator:
    Welcome on board the good ship “Truth”

  66. Illuminator:

    I observe your comments, and say welcome tot he discussion.

    Now, too, you will doubtless observe the action of BFP on your links [BTW, I have no editorial power or behind the scenes influence on it here], and you may doubtless wonder why.

    I suggest a little look at how we should evaluate evidence and claims to come to reasonable conclusions on the merits of the facts and logic, perhaps starting here.

    Then, if you can take apart the issues and points I have put above on those merits, welcome to do so; I will be happy to accept that I have been in error!

    But, such arguments will have to stand up to the scrutiny of factual adequacy, coherence and explanatory power. [Cf the parallel thread on the Hassaan Butt former radical Muslim recantation and confession, to see what I mean in a practical case. Then, compare the always linked account of the issues over Islam, and the frequently linked on the incidental issues of Israel in light of its modern history.]

    Not to mention, the arguments must especially avoid the pernicious error of selective hyper-skepticism, especially in the form of the distracting red herring leading out to a straw-man twisted and impotent caricature, burned so as to cloud the atmosphere with the noxious smoke of closed-minded hostility.

    GEM of TKI

  67. PS: H’mm looks like the link was suppressed: try here; if no link appears we can safely take it BFP has [inadvertently?] turned them off at the WP options for BFP.

  68. PPS: It came through, I must have made a mistake above. Anyway, here, too is the link on selective hyperskepticism.

  69. Bimbro

    Hey, some ugh dum get duh cum-uppance in London, today! Hooray!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30100-1274336,00.html

  70. B (and onlookers):

    Observe from the linked court conviction report, that as long ago as 2004 – 5, evidently al Qaeda linked terrorist cells in the UK were making attempts with “improvised” explosives:
    ___________

    >>Although the men planned to attack just a fortnight after the “carnage” of July 7 – which left 52 innocent people dead – it was not some “hastily arranged copycat”, the prosecution alleged.

    In fact, the plot began nearly a year before.

    In 2004, Ibrahim – the cell’s “emir” or leader – travelled to Pakistan to learn how to carry out an atrocity in the UK, just three months after being granted a British passport.

    He was there at exactly the same time as July 7 ring leader Mohammed Siddique Khan and his fellow suicide bomber Shehzad Tanweer.

    Omar’s one-bedroom flat in New Southgate became the “bomb factory” where the men spent hours boiling hydrogen peroxide to make it more readily explosive.

    On July 21, Ibrahim, Omar met Mohammed at his flat, rigged-up the devices with a detonator and set off with bombs in rucksacks.>>
    __________

    Seems the explosives controls laws in the UK are usually more effective than in the US — no Ammonium Nitrate fertiliser and fuel oil [ANFO] bombs, etc!

    So, given the failure of the inexperienced talent that was “in hand” with H2O2 and dispersed combustible powder [flour], a try with commonly used fuels dispersed in air as a BLEV cloud makes sense as the “next try.” [Seems the electronics went wrong with the London cars, and the bollard and a failure to get the right air-fuel mix ignited stopped the Glasgow one.]

    But, sooner or later “the bombers will get through.”

    That means that only when the root of the bombings are dug out, will the attempts stop. In the meanwhile a lot of innocents, sooner or later, are going to die or get hurt.

    [And, I notice through the usual BBC reports, that the Americans and at least some Caribbean governments are concerned about our cruise ship ports. Let us not forget what happened in Bali. Nor, that tourism can in some cases account for something like 25% each of GDP and employment in a lot of Caribbean economies.]

    GEM of TKI

  71. Kairosfocus – whichever CNN headline you query, it was not posted by me. A response such as “OK, my mistake I apologise” should be sufficient, but if it takes 30 pages to apologise, then we’ll just let it go!

    Maat – that was a remarkable post. Please do come back as its interesting to get an insight into your mind.

    That transcript on Glaspie & Hussain is something new to me. There is so much disinformation around that one has to be cautious, however, lets assume its true. My problem remains that that the calendar of events Straight Talk detailed is too selective. How difficult would it be to put up a calendar of events suggesting the alternative view, that the principal prob is religion ? Obviously, very easy, as one could just reel off the atrocities committed in the name of Islam, and intelligence gathered on radicals spouting off about blowing up the West. However, the selective nature of your calendar does not invalidate it, as it does make a nice point.

    Correct me if I’m wrong Straight Talk, but I see our two big differences as:
    1: You see desperate grabbing of the control of oil reserves as the root cause of the problem.
    I see Ideology as the problem. Injustices upon those who share the same ideology merely fan the flames.

    2: My criticism of you for presenting opinion as fact. My remark was wrong as it was against the spirit of contributing to a forum, as we are all guilty of that. Furthermore, I have been unable to definitively show that any of the points on your calendar of events are incorrect. I will be more careful before reacting to someone in future.

    No one here has come close to making me doubt that the root cause of the problem is anything other than religion. A lot of people on this post seem to believe that the problem is elsewhere, I strongly disagree: We agree on the Bush administration, we also share awareness of the problems with the media, but Islamic terrorism is primarily powered by religious ideology – it feeds upon the injustices (real and perceived) visited upon muslim people, but its is fundamentally a problem of ideology. I invite you to try and prove otherwise

  72. G:

    First of all, sadly, I wish that we could have a serious discussion onthe merits, instead ogf my having to now increasingly speak to rhetorical devices and tactics.

    I must therefore note, having addressed the rhetorical strategy you earlier used to try to discredit Mr Hassan Butt, my disappointment in finding — instead of a reasonable resolution of the matter — silence joined to a moving on to the “next” objection.

    A] On that “next objection,” kindly compare your remarks July 6th, 2007 at 7:11 pm, with my comment of July 7th, 2007 at 8:13 am.

    You gave either the headline or the substance of what you believe as: “1990 – US Ambassador tells Saddam that her government would take no position if Kuwait was invaded.”

    To which I responded on SUBSTANCE — whether you got your point of insistence from CNN or other sources or are summarising your own view directly is immaterial (and I apologise for such a misreading of source of citation on my part if that is what it is) — that transcripts of the exchanges in question already show that this as just cited is not a correct or reasonable interpretation. Indeed, I also linked a declassified telegram above from the Thatcher online site, giving a page and point number reference, which further underscores my point.

    B] You then went on to the “disinformation” argument when the cited evidence (i.e. evidently independent transcripts) does not suit your case. The sources in question include of course the NY Times, which — notoriously — would be much more sympathetic to your view than it is to any major view I would hold.

    The “first level” reference I cited is from of course Wikipedia [which ties into the onward discussion and in any case you may freely look up the web’s offerings through Google etc], which again is unlikely to be sympathetic to Mr Bush [senior or junior] et al, judging by the documented biases on key indicator issues, of that otherwise helpful online reference experiment.

    Some of the onward information includes of course Ms Glasspie’s hearings in Congress. (In short, “disinformation” is highly unlikely — but it is, sadly, very consistent with your repeatedly used “discredit the source” rhetorical tactics. Onlookers, note too who above supplied the major references to and citations from transcripts, and the gap in who is being addressed by G on the point.)

    C] As to the issue that radical islamists say they are acting in the name of their religion and that Mr Butt [cf the Former radical thread for the article and ongoing discussion] underscores:

    1] the connexions between their understanding of their theology and their resort to a ruthless war against the world that fails to distinguish military opponents form civilians,

    2] the general — note his reference to a “handful” of ME scholars trying to rebut — silence on the part of moderate leadership when confronted with the relevant radical theologising [over many decades now, since the founding of the Muslim Brotherhood in the early-mid C20 in Egypt, which just happens to be where the leading university addressing Islamic scholarship, Al Azhar, is located] . . .

    I note that G here shifts focus to ST rather than squarely addressing the issue in the main, not only what we can see “from the horse’s mouth” as well as from the global patterns of terrorism over the past 30 or so years (ever since the Islamist Iranian Revolution).

    That is a plain shifting to a soft target,in effect a strawman argument.

    For, the issue in the main was raised in your first objection and demand for an apology, to which I responded specifically above — inter alia showing that, given the well-known rhetorical device you used to introduce a known fallacious argument to maximum effect while shielding yourself from objections to its fallacious nature; I owe you no apology at all on the point.

    G, kindly address the issues squarely on the merits.

    GEM of TKI

  73. To accuse me of rhetorical devices, tacitcs, red herrings, ad hominems etc etc etc is is insulting and inaccurate.

    Kairosfocus, you are a disgrace.

    Why are you not banned from this forum for destroying every thread you touch ?

    The last time I deconstructed your arguments in detail, everybody got bored. If people want me to do it again then, lets face it, its not difficult and I’m happy to do so.

    Incidentally, your link.. http://www.angelfire.com/pro/kairosfocus/resources/Selective_Hyperskepticism.htm
    …does offer the potential of some good fun!

    I’m not interested in discrediting Mr Butt.

    I have never quoted CNN on this forum, the line you seem to be referring to was a reference to Straight Talk’s post. I resent the thing about shifting focus to Straight Talk because I couldn’t address some argument or other with you. I have never found such arguments with you terribly taxing. Much of my conversation was actually with Straight Talk, so I struggle with your point.
    Part of this conversation was my having the good grace to retract when I realised I couldn’t support my accusation in the way I had accused him. You would do well to learn from this.

    Kairosfocus, you’re a joke.

    Your arguments don’t stack up. Your pretentious abuse of the English language shows no skill in summary, context, or flow. I would never accuse an under educated person of this, as it would be disrespectful, but you are clearly not under educated. The notion that you are a teacher is quite frightening.

    You murder every point you try to make.

    You accuse other people of deviating from the point, when the biggest deviator is always you.

    I don’t want to be too rude, because I feel that would detract from my criticism.
    I would conclude that, not only is it difficult to engage with you in a serious and worthwhile fashion, but also that you are a negative influence on this forum.

    I request that BFP kindly consider advising Kairosfocus on how best to participate in this forum.

  74. G:

    You will understand my initial response on points of accuracy, to . . .
    ________

    Onlookers:

    Kindly examine the current exchange at the derivative thread on the Hassan Butt story, “Former Radical Muslim . . .”

    That thread will, sadly, abundantly show, the factual basis of, the reason for and accuracy of my corrective observations that G has resorted to several rhetorical devices that are misleading and distracting. The above exchange will also do the same.
    _______

    Now, G, back on your latest round of points:

    1] Selective hyperskeptricism

    I think you would benefit by seriously looking at he undelrying challenge that Simon Greenleaf , a founder of Harvard Law School and author of a famous work on evidence, long ago highlighted, and which in my long observation consistently turns up in the thought of many modern skeptics.

    Namely, absolute skepticism is self-defeating, but it is tempting to INCONSISTENTLY apply skeptical devices to arguments and evidence which one does not wish to accept that one would not apply to arguments s/he accepts.

    It is that inconsistency in standards of evidence on matters of fact and the like that immediately exposes the fallacy of selective hyper-skepticism [as I have descriptively termed it — SG didn’t pause to give it a specific name].

    2] I’m not interested in discrediting Mr Butt . . .

    An examination of the other thread, unfortunately, will immediately reveal the opposite to be the case.

    Mr Butt is addressing a major claim in the current discussion in the West, namely the perception/assumption that Islamism is principally a reaction to the oppression of the West. He points out — relative to his own career as a terrorism recruiter and involvement in the jihadism movement for a decade — that in fact, there is a primary religious, world conquest motivation, in light of his decade of involvement in the movement.

    In your response you first attacked the medium in which the article is most accessible, the Daily Mail, while saying in effect “I could argue that . . ., but let’s be generous and accept it for the moment.” Indeed, you used the terms that DM was a “rag” for ” ‘blue-rinse’ reactionaries,” in the other thread, July 5th, 2007 at 8:55 pm. [To that, I responded by pointing out that the same article at the same time appears in the Guardian, a newspaper of the other ideological inclination in the UK, and that Mr Butt has been in the press on matters on this since 2002, first as an Islamist advocate and now as a penitent trying to undo the damage he helped cause.]

    Second, you scanted the principal issue in debate, by dismissing the point as obvious: Islamists are religiously motivated. But in fact that “obvious” fact is precisely what many in the Caribbean and elsewhere are strongly disinclined to accept. So, testimony from the horse’s mouth is very relevant indeed.

    Third, you attempted to subtly promote what Mr Butt reports as a secondary factor and even a propaganda talking-point, substituting for that “obvious” point. To that I then noted that there is a question of whose report to believe and why — yours, or Mr Butt’s.

    Further to that, of course many people resent the sins of the West or feel guilt over them [e.g. the most eminent member of my family was hanged by a British Governor for doing in effect social advocacy, in 1865]. But, that does not motivate me to seek to conquer the world and to in so doing make no distinction between targetting the military and targetting innocent women, children and people going about the ordinary business of life.

    3] Quotes vs substance:

    Of course all of this is well off the main focus for this thread, which is onthe significance of the Doctors’ plot in Glasgow etc. [There is a name for such distractions that change the subject of a discussion . . .]

    Now, on the objection raised.

    You will first note that I apologised if I misunderstood you as citing CNN, but addressed the issue on the substance in your statement [and in your citation of ST! which you were opening up to concede . . .] above, of July 6th, 2007 at 7:11 pm.

    (Note, on clarity: It helps to set off quotes etc by explicitly using quote marks or italics etc, or even double angle brackets: >> . . .>> I acknowledge that I was confused by the absence of a clear demarcation where cite ended and comment began. I apologise, again for that confusion. However, it does not affect the substantial point)

    On that, you will agree that I noted to both ST and you on July 7th regarding the matter on the merits, and then also came back with citations from the transcripts, then underscored the basic point that the historical evidence abundantly warrants:

    . . . the US was not being forceful enough with this particular Arab dictator [one of sadly too many then and now], which led him to imagine that he could seize a major part of the Persian Gulf and put his tanks within striking distance of the Saudi oil fields having already seized major fields, without more than a verbal wrist slap. [In doing so, he probably disregarded the counsel of his own professional military officers, who would have warned him of the obvious — even if only by hints.] [GEM, July 6th, 2007 at 10:38 am]

    Yes, I did intervene in an exchange, and did so on the grounds that both wwere missing a material point, and in a contextt hat was taking the discussion off track, on a topic likely to poison the atmosphere.

    Which, sadly, it plainly has. (Maybe we can get back to a more even tone?)

    4] Distractors:

    I believe the actual theme for this post and discussion is in the BFP headline above: People Of No Particular Religion Attempt To Murder Hundreds In London and Glasgow. How They Were Stopped…

    Israel and Gulf War Campaign I etc, thus came up as tangential at best, and the terms in which they were raised were of such as was likely to cloud the atmosphere, or worse.

    Okay, can we now return to the actual issue at the core of this thread, and issue that is of major importance in a region where we have just been warned about the potential for threats against cruise ship ports?

    GEM of TKI

  75. If people want me to go through a point by point deconstrcution of Kairosfocus, then I will invest the time and do it again.
    I just skipped through the latest round of absurdity posted and am joyfully guessing at the circles in which he moves which allow him to get away with this.
    This is not one of them.

    BFP – do you think it appropriate that Kairosfocus destroy every thread he touches, throw out insults with abandon, misrepresent facts, and wilfully waste everybody’s time on this forum ?
    When we get an obvious idiot crop up who says something stupid in an unintelligent way, you reprimand him. I consider Kairosfocus’s spam posts to be more damaging to this forum, because they drive sensible people away.

    I repeat my earlier assertion Kairosfocus – that it is the likes of you who stand to gain most from bringing on Huntington’s clash of civilisations.

  76. RRRicky

    My my my, Kairosfocus makes some valid points against insane arguments that Islamist radicals are equivalent to your local girl scout troop and don’t really want to impose Islam on the world.

    The trouble with kairosfocus is that he or she is incapable of saying anything in less than 2000 words.

    Can you limit kairosfocus to a response of 2 paragraphs for each post BFP?

  77. Avid Reader

    Gobeithio

    Surely you have a choice – you don’t have to read that drivel put out by Kairofocus. You can do like me and others – just ignore it and skip on to the next post. Just as you have a choice with what TV channels you watch, so you have a choice here. There are people in the world who try to force you to read what they want you to read, like the idiots who flood your e-mail with all kinds of nonsensical attachments. You can shove them into Junk Mail and then delete them, like I do. But you have a choice.

  78. RRRicky – I think everyone says something sensible at some point – if only by the law of averages. Reacing to Islamic terror is a consstent them of Kairosfoucs, and my problem comes when sensible comments are wrappeded in dogmatic tirades which seek to tie sensible arguments in with ones which are clearly not.

    Almost everyone here is not taken in by arguments which defend Islamic extremism, but do you want to go the easy way of Kairosfocus’ 21st Centruy crusade ***(see below) …. or do you want to struggle to find a better solution ?

    ***”ordinary Pops and Moms in emergencies may have to constitute ourselves an impromptu militia unit and launch even a suicidal assault to defend the wider community”

    Good point Avid Reader, and I have been doing so, but that does mean allowing Kairosfocus to get away with misquoting, misrepresenting, spouting fallacies and muddying waters.

    Am undecided whether it is worth the price.

  79. Straight talk

    Gobeitho:

    Don’t you get it?

    Yours is exactly the response K wishes to report upon to his “chairman”, along with every others respondee’s different angles of argument.

    Ignore his comments if they upset you, and don’t be part of his kairosis experiment.

    I see even Bimbro has given up on him.

    If enough do the same, he will be having an esoteric philosphical debate with himself and eventually return to whence he suddenly appeared.

  80. Chase

    Finally the people have seen Kairosfocus for what he truly is…..Praises to the Father!!

    Lots of us have ignored him now for weeks.

  81. Thank you, but emotion doesn’t come into it.

    ignoring him may well be the way to go, but am unsure if it is the best way.

    What about those who are taken in by his grandstanding style ?
    What about those who have the stamina to read some of his posts but have no one to tell them he’s talking nonsense ?
    And most importantly of all, are we right to ignore those who, though they may well be unaware of it themselves, are happily dragging us all toward micro and macro conflicts ?

    Perhaps ignoring him is the best way. Perhaps it is not.

  82. Chase

    That is where someone like you ,who has the discipline and the time comes into play.
    You ,so far seem like the best one to let others see the truth ……..most of us are just tired of it.

  83. Brilliant opponent

    If I were one of the may concerned readers on BFP I would always take plenty of time to read Kairosfocus. Ignore him at your own risk. Many agendas would like him gone, as they cannot handle him.

    The Saudi Al Qaeda links with the Pakistani and global extremist jihadism. Read about the Red Mosque.

    Regarding violent extremism, we should all be working against it, not trying to ignore it.

  84. Straight talk

    Brilliant opponent:

    I must have missed your interesting responses to Kairosfocus,
    but I’m sure if you follow his links you can continue your dialogue.

    Personally the once I tried to engage his fundamentalist christian views I was dismissed as not worthy of reply by K, and abused and had my identity stolen by his supporters.

    In my opinion, fundamentalist religion is a subject to leave well alone, it is too personal and too deeply held by its adherents to engage in serious debate, especially on a blog.

    For this same reason, I cannot support BFP’s crusade against Muslim fundamentalists.

    It only marginalises the good muslims within our country and has no effect whatsoever on the lunatic terrorists, in fact it increases their sense of evangelism, and as we have noticed here it brings out the worst racist tendencies of the insecure amongst our citizens.

    I hold Jesu’s “love thy neighbour as you would wish to be loved”
    as the saving grace for all mankind, Samaritans and all, it is the creed which raises us above the beasts of the field.

  85. Brilliant opponent

    It is normal for opinions to differ. it is also normal to try to abuse and marginalise in order to ‘win’ at arguments.

    Conspiracy theories are held by yourself, and were also held by Hitler. Does that make you someone like Hitler? Maybe, maybe not.

    I have Kairosfocus as a dedicated factitioner. He is not a violent or evil man. He is a wonderful, logical, brilliant writer. And a strong Christian with principles better than most of us.

    Don’t rail on me. Get yer books out!

  86. Straight talk

    As you infer, BO, it takes all sorts to weave this rich tapestry which is life.

    The freedom to plough our own furrow is all anyone can ask.

  87. Onlookers:

    Observe the contrast between the material facts on the seriousness of a global situation — most recently underscored by the “Doctors’ plot” and the “Red Mosque” siege in the Pakistan (of “non-violent forms of Islam” [as per earlier threads]) — and the attempts to dismiss by personal abuse.

    Astute readers will realise at once that, on the evidence of the above, G is lashing out with dismissals after I exposed his rhetorical device used to try to discredit the testimony of Hassan Butt; a “horses’ mouth” testimony that goes to the heart of his own views — and not favourably so.

    As to several other commenters.

    First, it is plain on inspection of their performance across several threads over the past few months that they have made highly irresponsible (but often media-trumpeted) accusations and/or dismissal arguments based on atmosphere poisoning, and in so doing, have been exposed for such false and unwarranted, atmosphere-poisoning accusations and assertions. (For instance, readers over the past few months will recall, there was a certain accusation of “genocide” against Israel in June, that has yet to substantiate itself on facts. Think about the malice that must underlie such a false accusation against the nation that is in significant part populated by descendants of the survivors of the worst attempted genocide of the C20. Then, think about those who would parrot that, and on being confronted with contrary evidence would then simply insist on acting as if nothing has gone wrong in their thinking and writing in public. )

    This sort of accusation, they have had neither the substance to defend on the merits, nor the grace to retract. So, the latest resort to “shunning” and/or attack to the style, and/or even just plain personal attack by accusation that those who do not take time to investigate will usually not recognise for what it is, simply further shows just what they are about.

    (And BTW, it takes more time and effort to responsibly address such attacks than it does to make them, for one has to marshal at least a few material but overlooked facts, and draw out the contrast between valid and invalid chains of inferences thereto.)

    Sad. But, straight out of the play-book that has been used several times over the past months. [Which is what I have reported to my Chairman on; towards further doing something about it, in light of live-fire tested interventions.]

    Last but not least, onlookers: contrast the actual substance of this thread, DFX’s remark at No 2, and what has now played out over several weeks. Namely, red herring distractors, drawn out to convenient strawmen burned to cloud and poison the atmosphere.

    Missing in action: actually addressing the issue — a most serious one — on its merits.

    Then ask your self, why is that so?

    GEM of TKI

  88. PS: To see the “Genocide” etc accusations play out, go to the JFK plot thread, from the post at June 20th, 2007 at 10:21 pm, by DWYT, on. [Put it in the context of the dismissal of the US announcement of the plot, the following preceding side issues/diversions on Israel and response to that, then the onward debates on the UNSC resolutions 242 and 338. Note that all along, the substantial issue for the thread, and the point that Pres Jagdeo, on seeing evidence, was convinced there was a case to answer to, was being diverted from.]

  89. PPS: I must point out to onlookers that if anyone stole ST’s identity [cf the exchange where BFP recently had to intervene, after I first, unsuccessfully, asked for a “cool-off” between two parties going head to head], I had nothing to do with it — and I am unaware of any “supporters” as such; there are some who agree with me on some points and disagree on others, as can be seen from say my exchange with Pro-Israel.

    I have already long since pointed out the destructive, bigotry-feeding smear-word status of the drive-by accusation, “fundamentalist.” Right thinking Caribbean people will not use such lazy, loaded and distorted language. (And, note that ST here admits to using the rhetoric of dismissal instead of addressing issues on the merits of fact and logic. What does that tell us?)

    Brilliant, thanks for the kind words.

  90. Well popped up “Brilliant”. Please do contribute more to the thread.
    I do not believe it is always normal to try to abuse and marginalise in order to ‘win’ at arguments.
    I’m very pleased to hear that “K” is an individual of such good repute, especially as he seems to be in a position to influence impressionable people.

    I have a great deal of respect for many contemporary Christian leaders, but I must assume that “K”‘s undoubted positive qualities are easier to behold in the real world than on this forum.

    Straight Talk, I appreciate the difficulties, but I am in favour of not giving up on the religious hardliners. Every now and again the most barren field can flower if nourished the right way with logic and common sense.
    It could be beneficial all round if religious leaders were reminded not to feel complacent that any of their flock are impervious to this. To his credit, at some level “K” can see this.

  91. ……….Kairosfocus “exposed” me ?

    I don’t see that. I rfufte this rhetorical device thing. Also, I am happy to tell you anything you would reasonably want to know about me, and have already given you my real name. As for my views, I have laid them all on the table and am happy to clarify anything you wish.

    ………The Butt testimony goes to the heart of my views and not favourably so ?

    I don’t see that either. The Butt testimony holds that they were trying to kill people because of Islamic theology. That’s pretty favourable to my point of view.

    I am not aware of having deployed rhetorical devices, and 100% reject those which “K” has accused me of. I am actually rather interested in the art of qualifying bias and the abuse of paracommunication – which is why I balked when Straight Talk asked me not to quote Fox News at him.

    My gratitude to “K” for specifically pointing out that one of his recurring themes must involve a conversation with someone else. Every time someone mentions the little austrian corporal or the land of milk & honey and he goes off on one, he is arguing with someone other than me.

  92. We have just had a week when LA catholics agreed to pay US$660 million to 500 victims of abuse by their officials, when an evangelical preacher in East Africa allegedly tried to import an electric shock machine to make his congregation believe he could pass on the Holy Spirit, and when teenagers kidnap and kill with guns, bombs and rocket launchers in the name of Sharia law in Pakistan.
    Yes Kairosfocus, in a week when all this happens, I don’t feel much inspired to join the pops and moms in your militia of the righteous.
    To be fair, its easy enough to put “K” down, but for other people reading this forum, the question I would ask you is whether we are blame free in just sitting by and watching what these characters do in the name of religion ?
    I believe we are not.

    Everyone has a god given right (!) to follow whichever religion they choose, so long as it doesn’t adversely affect other people – the golden rule, which seems pretty similar to the teaching of Jesus which Straight talk mentions.

    Come on Kairosfocus!!! Lets use a medium which allows less room for “perceived rhetorical devices”. Lets play a game where we ask each other simple direct questions and we give each other simple direct answers.
    The truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

    Hopefully we can do this without need for a chairperson to maintain the rules.

    Who goes first ?

  93. Peltdown Man

    kairofocus and gobeithio

    Do you guys have jobs?

  94. I do Peltdown Man. In addition to supporting family, driving a group and arranging to move house.

    The short answer format suits me. Today was a one off, and yes, I resent the time it takes, so if we can fuse some ecological stuff into this then this would be a more efficient use of my time.

  95. Onlookers:

    Let us go back to the credible testimony of a former Islamist radical, as BFP has put before us for us to reflect on, and as I did as at July 8th, 8:34 pm:
    _____________

    . . . though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice . . . . Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion [NB: all that stuff Jesus said about render to Caesar, render to God . . .] . . . . since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they [the jihadis] have declared war upon the whole world] . . . . this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief . . . . [The August 2005 Cover interview in Prospect Magazine makes it abundantly clear what Mr Butt’s ideology was befoe his change of heart, and the recent Daily Mail and Guardian article — it appeared in both papers — shows why he has now distanced himself from the jihadis. Go to the thread and follow up the links]
    _________

    Now, look back up at this thread’s original post, adsn see what the substantial question is: Islamist radsicals in action, inthis case a circle of Doctors. As an Al Qaeda operative has been cited on the case: “those who cure you will kill you.”

    Contrast, the many side issues and distractions above, and the associated rhetoric of red herrings, leading out to strawmen burned to cloud and poison the atmosphere.

    So, after a late night due to a post-course farewell function, and a too early morning to respond to another issue in another forum, I have to pause for now as insomnia can only carry one so far before going out to meet with clients on a headache of an OD project.

    G, I stand by my comments, and with good reason, as onlookers can verify by simply looking at this thread and the derivative one on the Hassan Butt story, the “Former Radical . . .” thread. [I’ll take a quick glance there and just maybe at the Bull story (where I am trying to help a would-be whistleblower) before signing off for the day ahead.]

    GEM of TKI

  96. Lets ignore the little paragraph you couldn’t resist on red herrings, strawmen etc, and applaud you for making a nice, lucid post Kairosfocus. Sincerely, well done.

    Thank you for improving your standard of contribution.

  97. Now:

    I have now more than substantiated the rhetorical pattern I remark on. (Again, observe what the original post is about, where the commenters have tried to take the thread, and why. My clustering of identified fallacies or irrelevance and antagonism will emerge.)

    Now, on the above over the past day or two, I will note — hoping to “pass” the bar of mod:

    1] G: Kairosfocus “exposed” me . . . . I am not aware of having deployed rhetorical devices, and 100% reject those which “K” has accused me of.

    It will be easy enough to see that in fact, G started his response to the derivative thread on the Hassan Butt testimony by remarking on the cited source, Daily Mail, that it was “a rag” for ‘ ‘blue rinse’ reactionaries.”

    He then cleverly set this in the context of a classic professional level rhetors’ trick: I could say X, but I am not . . . let’s be generous and treat it as if it were true. (But of course, the ball has long since been kicked into play and undermines the testimony by attacking where it appears and making innuendoes over motive.)

    To that I very properly pointed out that the same article appears in the Guardian, not exactly the same sort of rag. Further, Mr Butt has been in several serious media houses over the past 5 years, first as an advocate now as a penitent tryign to undo damage done. Sources such as BBC, CBS and UK’s Perspecitve Magazine.

    So, we are not dealing with empty accusations, but unfortunate but substantiated facts. [Also, observe how post length increases as soon as one has to engage details on the merits, however in outline.]

    2] Every time someone mentions the little austrian corporal or the land of milk & honey and he goes off on one, he is arguing with someone other than me.

    This is a dismissal attempt, in a context in which I have never accused G of making comparisons of Zionism to Nazism, but have explicitly identified threads and posts that do. I spoke to them, for excellent reason,a s their un-apologised for behaviour plainly passes the limits of civility.

    3] We have just had a week when LA catholics agreed to pay US$660 million to 500 victims of abuse by their officials . . .

    Q: Now, what is the relevance of this and the other cases to the substance of the BFP post? [Save for the case where the claimed peaceful Subcontinent form of Islam is now again associated with subversion to unfortunate violence in what Butt speaks of as a declaration of war against the whole world including Islamic states that are not Islamic enough in Islamist eyes?]

    ANS: It allows for the broad-brush accusation against “religion” that dismisses the relevant and vast differences between the worldviews and the general or predominant patterns of behaviour by adherents and leaders. Further, it ducks the point I made in response to an earlier attempt, that there is in fact excellent reason to see that ANY ideal is capable of shocking abuse, including both the Christian Faith and Darwinism or various Secularist movements.

    –> On specifics, of course, the Catholic leadership [I am not a Catholic] made a big mistake several decades ago, on who they let into their seminaries, and then compounded it by giving the benefit of the doubt to those who plainly did not deserve it. Oddly, the Boy Scouts are being lambasted in the same media, courts and agencies of Govt for refusing to make that mistake . . . . [A still- in- mod comment addresses that, but if just this one passes that will be good enough.]

    4] I would ask you is whether we are blame free in just sitting by and watching what these characters do in the name of religion ?

    Observe the broad-brush, immoral equivalency game . . .

    In fact, we can show that Darwinism and Secularism — hardly to be identified with “religion” — have been associated with serious abuses leading to in excess of a 100 million deaths across the last Century. [Prof Rummel of HI has the democide statistics on this.] Unfortunately, several of these abuses as I documented by links, extend some of Darwin’s actual major writings.

    So the issue is not “religion” but a sad fact of human nature: we tend to abuse power and “justify” it in the name of whatever ideals and ideologies are dominant in the relevant social situation. That even includes ideas such as “Democracy,” and “freedom.”

    Thence, let us ask, why is it G has such a fixation on “Religion” — as he does not acknowledge the balancing point — as the prime source of wrongs and on the intent to “regulate” this source of trouble? [Hint: atmosphere clouding and poisoning by a strawman issue, anyone — cf the original issue in BFP’s post].

    4] Rhetoric Games . . .

    I have again outlined and substantiated in outline on the rhetorical devices I have spoken to:

    –> changing the subject through an issue liable to raise emotional temperature and cloud judgement.

    –> Attacking the resulting “soft target”

    –> Clouding the issue and exciting hostile emotions.

    Guess just which fallacies, in just which order, these are . . .

    [Not to mention, just who has for some months now repeatedly emphasised and actually worked at by laying out material but overlooked facts and reasoning validly relative to those facts? In short, the “your’e another” fallacy . . .]

    Time to go out to meet the day

    GEM of TKI

  98. At least one obvious hole can be found in each of the 5 points listed above. (I see 1 post only at time of my reply).

    However, I think more education and entertainment lies in moving on.

    Lets use a medium which allows less room for ‘perceived rhetorical devices’. Lets play a game where we ask each other simple direct questions and we give each other simple direct answers.

    The truth, the whole truth and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH.

    Hopefully we can do this without need for a chairperson to maintain the rules.

    Who goes first ?