News

Butchered soldier: Muslim Council of Britain condemns ‘truly barbaric act’

A MAN thought to be a serving British soldier was killed by two armed men in a frenzied attack in Woolwich, south London earlier today.

Witnesses, according to this report, told of a gruesome scene in which the man was hit by a car, then hacked with cleavers and his body dumped in the middle of the road in Woolwich, southeast London.

The two suspects in the killing were injured in a confrontation with police and have been taken to two hospitals, where they are being treated.

CNN affiliate ITN aired a video showing a man with bloody hands and holding a meat cleaver, who says:

We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you.

The man adds:

The only reasons we killed this man this is because Muslims are dying daily. This British soldier is an eye for an eye a tooth for tooth.

We apologize that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you.

One of the two alleged killers, pictured with a knife and cleaver on one hand

One of the two alleged killers, pictured with a knife and cleaver on one hand

The victim is believed to be a serving soldier who was based at a nearby barracks, Nick Raynsford, a member of Parliament, told CNN.

The soldier had apparently been on duty in central London and was returning to the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich when he was attacked, Raynsford said.

One eye witness posted the following Tweet, reproduced in this report:

tweet

And George Galloway, Respect Member of Parliament (MP) for Bradford West, added this Tweet:

tweet-2

Speaking in Paris, Prime Minister David Cameron said there were “strong indications” that the man’s killing was a terrorist incident.

He said he would be returning early from the official trip to handle the situation and will be back in London tonight

“It is the most appalling crime,” he said, speaking alongside French President Francois Hollande, who pledged solidarity with Britain in the face of terrorist threats.

The Muslim Council of Britain issued the following statement:

This is a truly barbaric act that has no basis in Islam and we condemn this unreservedly. Our thoughts are with the victim and his family. We understand the victim is a serving member of the Armed Forces. Muslims have long served in this country’s Armed Forces, proudly and with honour. This attack on a member of the Armed Forces is dishonourable, and no cause justifies this murder.

This action will no doubt heighten tensions on the streets of the United Kingdom. We call on all our communities, Muslim and non-Muslim, to come together in solidarity to ensure the forces of hatred do not prevail. It is important we allow our police authorities to do their job without speculation. We also urge the utmost vigilance and ask the police authorities to calm tensions.

A very graphic account of the killing appears here (thanks BarrieJohn).

Given the extreme sensitivity of this incident, I would ask readers PLEASE not to post racist or hateful comments. They will be removed.

 

 

146 responses to “Butchered soldier: Muslim Council of Britain condemns ‘truly barbaric act’”

  1. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Since I am not talking about punishment here, I am at a loss as to why you think I am punishing the mentally ill of Muslim fame?

    How blind of you not to see the inherent bias in your remarks.
    You equate living in your country as some sort of right, as if it were a human right of all people, including your most deadly enemies, to live in your neighborhoods, completely missing the mark.

    Were this a deadly disease you wouldn’t pretend to give the disease some sort of right to life as a legal entity, would you?

    I do not see how it is to anyone’s benefit on either side of the problem to have violent culture clashes in the name of what, exactly?? Bad laws will not protect you after the fact.

    Why insist on having people so violently opposed live within reach of each other?
    When children fight, do you let them fight it out or do you separate them?

    These things do not happen in a vacuum.
    Their culture is like poison to yours.
    It is irresponsible to let in the worst of all the crime-oriented cultures in the modern world, and then cry foul when they didn’t magically become lovely Brits.

    You can view this as cultural, and the Muslim religion is a cult and a culture, a set of RULES that is more analogous to computer code that can be beaten into a victim quite quickly in their case. It is like this in all religions, yes, but those other religions are no longer so poisonous to yours now.
    But they used to be. History can be your friend.

    Here, then, is your dilemma..
    Your world is dominated by people who have differing levels of schizophrenia, who indoctrinate others easily because of how our brains work.
    We are all vulnerable to brainwashing because of this.

    They, having been brainwashed in varying degrees to believe that things they don’t understand are magical, thanks again to how our brains deal with information, have no knowledge in many cases of the trap they are in, or how badly they are being used and abused, their human rights violated some time in the past when they first started being indoctrinated.

    If they were children, their indoctrination was child abuse, plain and simple as well as violating many other rights.
    The right to be free from abuse is not on your agenda today?

    If they were adults, their indoctrination violates their human rights to be free from criminal acts being visited upon them.

    But where is the right to live in any particular country?
    To show them, and their culture, the door, in a polite and non-violent way violates NONE of their human rights.

    This is a culture war you…wonderful person, you.
    To advocate for multi-culturalism in the middle of an attack is to allow the infiltration of your country in a bid to be more multi-cultural than is rational if one considers one’s safety to be a rational goal.

    Maybe you don’t view your safety as a rational goal and prefer, instead, to invite international criminals to babysit your children, never to be seen again as they pat you on the back and say “gosh, isn’t it a shame your children have disappeared / been murdered.”, so you can pat yourself on the back for being so criminally open-minded and gullible in accepting anything anyone says about themselves.

    Naiveté, thy name is multi-culturalism.

    I am not punishing all the Muslims in seeking to remove them from non-Muslim societies.
    Please get that through your thick skull.
    I am seeking to protect all non-Muslim societies by removing Muslims. It is purely a military decision to even bring it up.
    If you insist on letting schizophrenic people, who are no longer responsible for their actions, to have unfettered access to your children and your adults, then I guess I’ll just sit back and watch, right?

    No.

  2. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Since I am not talking about punishment here, I am at a loss as to why you think I am punishing the mentally ill of Muslim fame?

    How blind of you not to see the inherent bias in your remarks.
    You equate living in your country as some sort of right, as if it were a human right of all people, including your most deadly enemies, to live in your neighborhoods, completely missing the mark.

    Were this a deadly disease you wouldn’t pretend to give the disease some sort of right to life as a legal entity, would you?

    I do not see how it is to anyone’s benefit on either side of the problem to have violent culture clashes in the name of what, exactly??

    Bad laws will not protect you after the fact.
    Something of which I’m not really sure you are aware.

  3. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Sorry, I missed the first question. My answer is NO.
    Okay? Thanks. Expulsion is not punishment and it is only your nationalism that makes you think so. Sorry for the walls of text.

  4. Daz says:

    Sorry, I missed the first question. My answer is NO.
    Okay? Thanks. Expulsion is not punishment and it is only your nationalism that makes you think so.

    Okay, if we’re going to play Narrow Definitions™, rather than argue the definition of “punishment,” I’ll simply rephrase the question. Would you expel all Christians for the crimes committed by an individual Christian?

    Living in my country is certainly not a “natural human right.” Those who wish to stay however, once they’ve been allowed in, should not be forced to leave against their will or otherwise have their personal freedom interfered with, unless they have committed a crime.

  5. Equality Jack says:

    @L+S – You are sounding more and more like an apologist.

    You conflate my desire for safety in a world filled with schizophrenic madness with the desire to be even more insane than anyone else.

    Bravo, I’ve only seen that sort of thing a thousand times before.

    You seek to undermine security in the name of what?
    Do you need to feel like you are so edgy and cool and worldly by having every sort of culture inside your borders?

    Can you bring just ONE reason that makes sense to the table instead of labeling me as the next Hitler?
    I’ve been trying real hard not to be insulting, here.

    I agree that religion is the problem, but you are missing the underlying fact of religion – that it is a psychological condition, not a crime, not just some airy-fairy ideology that is all just a matter of persuasion.

    I am not against the people suffering from mental illness, in this case the Muslims, no matter what they do, bad or good.

    If you continue to accuse me of being some vicious fuck, then expect a shit-ton of crap headed your way. Just letting you know.

  6. Daz says:

    If you continue to accuse me of being some vicious fuck, then expect a shit-ton of crap headed your way. Just letting you know.

    If it walks like a duck…

  7. Daz says:

    Seriously EJ, you need to consider your debating technique. Let’s fisk your last comment as an example:

    @L+S – You are sounding more and more like an apologist.

    This is a baseless accusation. To apologise, in this context, means to excuse certain acts because of their religious nature. Please provide an example of where Susan has done so, as I can’t find one. Ironically, your definition of religion as “mental illness,” if taken literally, would offer valid excuse.

    You conflate my desire for safety in a world filled with schizophrenic madness with the desire to be even more insane than anyone else.

    This is an unjust accusation. We merely point out that to punish the innocent in the name of personal security against what you imagine they might do is unjust.

    You seek to undermine security in the name of what?
    Do you need to feel like you are so edgy and cool and worldly by having every sort of culture inside your borders?

    This isn’t even a debating point, merely a childish attempt at ridicule.

    Can you bring just ONE reason that makes sense to the table instead of labeling me as the next Hitler?
    I’ve been trying real hard not to be insulting, here.

    This is an appeal to personal exemption from having one’s arguments judged on merit. It’s akin to “I’m not a racist but…” You are aware, I hope, that expulsion was part of the Nazi policy? That Jews were indeed expelled from Germany. Thus Susan’s allusion to the Final Solution, whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, is apt. If you want to argue that it’s not apt, please feel free to do so; but provide evidence or argument, not statements about how hard-done-to you feel.

    I agree that religion is the problem, but you are missing the underlying fact of religion – that it is a psychological condition, not a crime, not just some airy-fairy ideology that is all just a matter of persuasion.

    This is the only actual on-topic point you make in the whole comment. It’s a bad point, as discussed elsewhere, but hey: at least you managed a point.

    I am not against the people suffering from mental illness, in this case the Muslims, no matter what they do, bad or good.

    And again, “I’m not a racist, but…”

    If you continue to accuse me of being some vicious fuck, then expect a shit-ton of crap headed your way. Just letting you know.

    Argument by threat. Bravo!

  8. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – No, I would not expel all Christians for the actions of one.
    Okay? Jeez.
    I suppose next you’ll say something like, “well why are you doing it to Muslims? Durr!”

    They have done nothing criminal, so how could I be expelling them for a criminal act? It is the religious who punish innocent people for the crimes of someone else, not me.

    No, this is nothing less than military triage, separating the worst threat from amongst all parties and sending them off quite peacefully and respectfully and not letting any of them take anyone with them…get me?

    Let’s say, as a scenario, instead of the UK, you are a walled city with a very large moat, but the drawbridge is broken, and you ignore that, and you let enemy soldiers come and go, and you ignore the fact that they are enemies, and they raise families next to yours and steal your children so they can torture them to death instead of openly opposing you, which you also ignore and appear to have zero clue is happening.

    Who is being stupid here?
    They are being insane criminals, which you ignore.
    They are beating their kids into bruised maniacs, which you ignore.
    They are grabbing your children and raping and torturing them to death behind closed doors, which you also ignore.
    They demand the right to have their extremely violent religion be above your secular law, and you ignore that as well, letting them have their way while ignoring your own safety, ignoring every bit of sense, of rational self-defense, and you let them live next to you, with the screams behind closed doors, and you do nothing but let it get worse.

    This is mental illness run amok, Daz. It is not crime.

    And in military terms, it is a total cock-up to have let it get this far. Your country has real enemies. Why do you let them into yours like you want to be taken over?

    And why do you not recognize them as having an ideology that is nothing less than anti-education, anti-freedom, and try and tell me that their culture is worth keeping in your country simply because you haven’t written a law that rejects your enemies even if they haven’t acted individually but bring their families to use as shields?

    You want to be like Israel, always treating Muslims like Nazis treated Jews simply because you refuse to take the most basic military precautions and place your enemies as far away as possible? Go ahead. You’re well on your way.
    Soon you will need to put up 60-foot walls around these neighborhoods and search everyone instead of simply kicking them out of the country. Well done. So glad I don’t live there.

  9. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Okay, you’ve crossed the line. I’m done here.

  10. Daz says:

    @Daz – No, I would not expel all Christians for the actions of one.

    Well then, your proposed policy is hypocritical.

  11. Lazy+Susan says:

    Equality Jack – “They have done nothing criminal, so how could I be expelling them for a criminal act? It is the religious who punish innocent people for the crimes of someone else, not me.” I could not make sense of this at first.

    Then I realised that “They have done nothing criminal” refers to Christians, whom you favour, not Muslims, whom you class as criminals by association, or by thought crime.

    Next, I realised that you hold that “Expulsion is not punishment.” Well, try telling that to the Asians expelled from Uganda in 1972, or indeed to my grandparents who were expelled from Egypt by Nasser in 1956 (for the crime of being Jewish) after having lived and worked there as civil engineers for about 50 years.

    I don’t doubt that Islam makes problems to be solved, but your solution is worse. Here are some reasons:

    • It is inhuman: it almost certainly is illegal and contravenes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    • It is impossible to carry out.

    • It would have enormous repercussions throughout the world, and I don’t think any of them would be good.

    K?

  12. Daz says:

    Lazy+Susan

    The geek in me really really wants to know; how do you create bullet-points? (I’m assuming that an html list-tag wouldn’t work in comments-boards.)

  13. Matt+Westwood says:

    “Should we not be a little careful in what we post on this. I see from the local news this morning ( Central TV) that the Police are investigating whether postings by some people on social media about this tragedy are against the law. It is against the law to stir up race or religious hate, so I guess we should be careful”

    People like you should be silent because we all hate you.

  14. Matt+Westwood says:

    “Expulsion is not punishment.”

    Restricting the right of any human being from living where they want to is an infringement, and therefore an unwarranted punishment. By which I mean: national boundaries are a medieval anachronism. I’m the king of the castle, get down you dirty rascal.

    Although why anyone would *want* to live in the festering cess-pit of political fascist filth that laughingly calls itself the “united” states is a complete mystery to me.

  15. Lazy+Susan says:

    Daz – I didn’t try to use html tags. My bullets are just typed. It’s alt-8 on a Mac.

    Some boards allow list tags. It’s worth a try, so here goes:

    This is item 1.
    …and item 2

    I bet it did not work.

  16. Lazy+Susan says:

    … no, it did not work.

  17. Daz says:

    After googling:

    • Alt+0149 on Windows.
    • • is the html entity.

  18. Equality Jack says:

    @Matt – “Restricting the right of any human being from living where they want to is an infringement, and therefore an unwarranted punishment.”

    I like you, Matt. You’ve got a great sense of humour, and I often enjoy your jokes when I visit here.

    What you hear is my outrage at how children are treated in this world. I do not hate you guys. The UK has much I like, but I would truly be in fear for my life were I to visit because of your large Muslim population.

    When your friends avoid you and tell you it is because of the smell of dead bodies and the lurking murderers, don’t take it so personally, okay? I know better than you just how bad the USA is in terms of a place to live. My language would be far worse than yours in describing the faults of my country, never fear.

    I want you guys to be SAFE. I want your children to be SAFE.
    So consider how insulted I feel when I am accused falsely of being a racist (when a religion is not a race), of being a latent Nazi (when I am only saying to push them away as nicely as possible and not harm them), of favoring Christians over Muslims due to hate (when it is only a threat analysis, not an emotional one), and on and on.

    Seriously, my words already explained my reasons well enough that these errors should not occur with rational discourse, and yet here I am insulted without cause, slandered by at least one apologist, and basically without any real opposing arguments for what I have written so far.

    Everyone seems more intent on ignoring my words and questions than in answering them with cogent argument, choosing instead to make baseless, yes BASELESS, accusations against my words and me.

    Gee, that almost never happens on the internet. I am shocked.

  19. Lazy+Susan says:

    Daz – I see what you did there.

  20. Daz says:

    I want you guys to be SAFE. I want your children to be SAFE.

    We and they are safe. There’s a reason stories like the OP, for all that they are horrific, make international news. Because, in Western democracies, at least, such occurrences are rare. If you really want to address the chances of UK citizens dying a violent death, your efforts might be better directed toward road safety. (2,605 deaths in RTAs in 2009 was the first result of my hasty Google search.)

    If you’re complaining that I called you a racist, look again. I used racism as an analogy. “Sectarianism” would be the closest word I can think of.

    choosing instead to make baseless, yes BASELESS, accusations against my words and me.

    If lots of people accuse you of making bad arguments, you might well be advised to examine them for faults, instead of repeating them ad nauseam and claiming to be persecuted.

    we’ve made two basic claims about your proposed policy.
    • It’s unjust because it punishes or otherwise needlessly harms the innocent.
    • Religion is not a mental illness.

    In order to justify the first, all you’ve managed to come out with is that the ends (security) justify the means (unjust use of pre-emptive force by the state). States which use such policies are known by various names. Tyranny would probably be the best fitting.

    In order to justify the second, you’ve had to redefine a medical term so that it fits your own private definition.

    And, by the way, if we accept (for the sake of argument) your definition of religion as a mental illness, then the correct procedure would be treatment, not punishment.

  21. Daz says:

    Lazy+Susan

    *wondering if I did summat clever/stupid/funny without noticing*

    Erm, what did I did?

  22. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Skipping to number 2 for the moment, let me turn your attention to the dictionary definition of delusion:

    World English Dictionary
    —n
    1. a mistaken or misleading opinion, idea, belief, etc: he has delusions of grandeur
    2. psychiatry illusion See also hallucination a belief held in the face of evidence to the contrary, that is resistant to all reason
    3. the act of deluding or state of being deluded
    ——–
    In addition:
    Word Origin & History
    delusion
    “act of misleading someone,” early 15c.; as a form of mental derangement, 1550s. See delude. Technically, delusion is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth; illusion is an impression that, though false, is entertained
    ————–
    Medical Dictionary
    delusion
    n.
    A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.
    —–
    Science Dictionary
    delusion
    A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness, as in schizophrenia.
    —–
    Cultural Dictionary
    delusion definition
    A false belief held despite strong evidence against it; self-deception. Delusions are common in some forms of psychosis.
    —-
    Encyclopedia

    delusion

    in psychology, a rigid system of beliefs with which a person is preoccupied and to which the person firmly holds, despite the logical absurdity of the beliefs and a lack of supporting evidence. Delusions are symptomatic of such mental disorders as paranoia, schizophrenia, and major depression and of such physiological conditions as senile psychosis and delirium. They vary in intensity, extent, and coherence and may represent pathological exaggeration of normal tendencies to rationalization, wishful thinking, and the like. Among the most common are delusions of persecution and grandeur; others include delusions of bodily functioning, guilt, love, and control
    ======================
    Religion = delusion = mental illness
    And if you continue to be an ignorant fuck about mental illness after all my hard work of copypasting, you’re nothing but a fucking troll. Every religion is nothing but mental illness you gill-necked fuckwit. Okay, had to get that off my chest….

    “It’s unjust because it punishes or otherwise needlessly harms the innocent.”
    Well, that makes you overwhelming wrong on “unjust”, mischaracterizes the action as punishment (and I’ve warned you about this and explained already you thick fuck),
    and totally ignores, incredibly stupidly, the FACT that there is a NEED to move these people, with or without harm.
    So shove that up your tight-assed sphincter you lying cunt.

  23. Daz says:

    Wow

    Religion = delusion = mental illness

    You are aware, I hope, that not all delusion is pathological?

    Well, that makes you overwhelming wrong on “unjust”, mischaracterizes the action as punishment (and I’ve warned you about this and explained already you thick fuck),

    You don’t think that unneedul harm or punishment of the innocent is unjust?

    You having “explained” something to me does not make your explanation magically correct.

    the FACT that there is a NEED to move these people, with or without harm.

    I disagree about the need for unjust treatment of anyone. I don’t want to live in a state where such things happen. And “the end justifies the means” is the sophistry of tyrants.

    So shove that up your tight-assed sphincter you lying cunt.

    The condition of my sphincter is no concern of yours. Please stop publicly fantasizing about it.

  24. Angela_K says:

    Equality Jack, I don’t want to split hairs but I suggest “Religious belief is a mental illness” is possibly a better statement and one which I whole heartedly agree. I even have several badges attached to my various Motorcycle jackets with that very slogan.

  25. Lazy+Susan says:

    EJ – I think most atheist blogs would agree that religious faith is a delusion. I would. I’m not so happy about going the next step and calling faith a mental illness, because it is obvious that most believers live well-adjusted lives, holding down jobs, maintaining marriages, bringing up families and so on. They may go to church or mosque or whatever and meet up with like-minded fellows, but to call them mentally ill is over the top. Religion brings a lot of benefit to some people. It’s not *all* bad – it’s baby and bath-water. Yes, I would like to see the end of it, but not at any cost.

    What you propose would have an enormous cost. I can give another reason against it:

    • You do not address whatever it is that fosters religion in the first place. So even if you expel all the Muslims, you have done nothing to prevent something even worse from taking Islam’s place.

    Since religions are in the world of ideas, I think they have to be countered in the world of ideas, or at least, not in the physical world. History would suggest that attempts to eradicate religions by force do not work well.

    I am worried by the thought that even more powerful self-perpetuating ideas than religion may arise in the future. Islam is doing well because it prospers in ignorance and poverty, and it promotes ignorance and poverty. That scares me. The self-perpetuating idea of science is not the opposite of religion. Science is about discovery of knowledge, not about its application to improve the lot of humanity. Science is against ignorance, but it is neutral regarding poverty, and even neutral regarding mass education. What is the self-perpetuating idea that uses scientific knowledge to make life better?

  26. Equality Jack says:

    Sure, just blow off everything I ever said and give fuck-all any argument. Well done.

  27. Lazy+Susan says:

    Daz – What did you? Made a bulleted list about bullets. I thought you were being clever!

  28. Daz says:

    What did you? Made a bulleted list about bullets. I thought you were being clever!

    Oh how I wish. I don’t s’pose there’s any way I could convincingly pretend I was being clever…?

    Nah, thought not. Me own worst enemy, I am!

  29. Lazy+Susan says:

    EJ – “Sure, just blow off everything I ever said and give fuck-all any argument. Well done.”

    You speakin’ to me?

  30. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – “If lots of people accuse you of making bad arguments, you might well be advised to examine them for faults, instead of repeating them ad nauseam and claiming to be persecuted.”

    You are quite right, of course, and I apologize for being such a giant gob of douche quite unreservedly to everyone.

    .. I was tired at that point, long past time I should have drifted off to bed and was clearly being nothing short of a prat.

    Well, that’s what I’m here for, I guess.

    I can only keep trying to explain the basic problem, which is a total mess to even investigate, from different angles and I see now that I perhapsdefinitely should have taken more time to think on how I wanted to say what it was that has me so worked up and even bothering to mention it at all.
    **
    I will return to the military angle. (don’t laugh)
    • Your country has to defend itself against hostile enemies, large or small.
    • A large number of foreign countries are theocracies.
    • Every theocracy is your enemy or a very serious danger to you.
    • Agents of a theocracy are going to be part of a theocratic military organization, and will view religion as a weapon, among other things.
    • Their actions will be overtly religious to the untrained eye.
    • Their agenda will always be hostile to your interests.
    • These enemies, using religion as a weapon, have already disarmed you with your blessing, i.e. religion is now beyond all criticism and complaining will get you arrested.
    • To disregard any enemy agent within your borders is to be derelict in your duty to your country.
    • To belabor the point, these military agents from a hostile foreign power are using religion as a tool and weapon which blinds the living fuck out of everyone’s ability to see danger, somehow conflating religion with a lack of threat simply because it is religion.
    • To ignore the fact that they are actual deadly enemies and are doing everything in their power to destroy your way of life and substitute theirs one way or another, is fail in your duty.
    • Enemies can use any weapon, any tactic, any strategy that they want in a bid to win any battle, any war. There are no rules to war, no don’t even go there. Ignore this at your peril.
    • It is very easy to lull people into a false sense of security or safety.
    • Religion is nothing more than ritualized schizophrenia and has no legitimacy whatsoever.
    • In using religion as a weapon and tool of statecraft, both you and your enemies are guilty of heinous crimes against humanity.
    • You’ve stopped most of this, but they are still going full blast.
    • If you want to protect yourself, you must push aside your usual biases in how you view religion, because you have been gently steered into giving free license to madness in this fashion.

    ???????
    Your military security is being run by people who refuse to defend against any enemy theocracy simply because they are all smiles and are using religion as a front, a tool, and a weapon, and your laws have already been gutted to allow this to happen long ago….the very laws you keep quoting at me as if this meant something in the middle of a real military battle.

    I consider that those laws protecting religion are automatically superseded by military necessity, and any human rights, which incidently are not supported by any religion (how about that?), are secondary to the need to address any military threat.

    And I also consider your laws protecting religion to be null and void anyway, since religion is nothing if not fraud supported by lies, with nothing to back it up were the question be put in court.
    These foreign hostile enemy agents, filled with madness and violence, seeking only your death or slavery, are a deadly threat to your safety.
    Making an argument about their rights has a place here, but only in treating them humanely as they are ejected forcefully from the country. Their rights are not with a basis in reason, so how can you reason that they have a right to their religion being used as a weapon to attack and kill you in the street or by sheer numbers after you’ve lost the ability to defend yourself from these sorts of attacks by theocracies?

    @L+S – I was lashing out at everyone in frustration.

  31. Equality Jack says:

    @L+S – I should add that in viewing the threat condition of Islam compared to, say, the RCC shows different threat levels and techniques.
    Thus, in “favoring” Christians, as you so charmingly put it, I am merely ignoring their threat to everyone’s health and safety in favor of the greater threat.
    I despise all religion. Getting rid of the worst as soon as possible is only called for because it is due to active hostile theocracies, and the religion itself adds to the threat level due to its overwhelming brutality and hostility to all non-Muslims.

    Were this the days of yore, when the RCC ruled with a bloody iron fist that burned children to death, I would give them the priority, depending on my security situation, just as I do for any threat regardless of source.

    Criminal conduct hiding behind the cloak of religion should never be allowed to exist.
    Unless you have any better ideas, I do wish you wouldn’t bang on about how you don’t like mine without showing some way of addressing all modern problems caused by religion, including hostile theocracies and the present threat condition of having these agents and their families within your borders and living wherever they like simply because they have a bit of money.

    You can’t protect children from enemies by letting them play soccer with your kids. That is just insane.

  32. Equality Jack says:

    *You can’t protect your children from your enemies by letting their children play soccer with your children.

    Fixed. I had to laugh when I saw how badly that was written before.
    And it really is just insane. This is not the sort of peaceful world where we could sensibly do such a thing, I’m sorry to say.
    But I do have hope for your future more than I did last week.
    Good luck.

  33. DredOne says:

    Egoist America’s mental illness is manifest destiny.
    Ethnic cleansing a frequent tool, whether practiced or provoked, shows her logic a one-way street. Truth only matters when to her advantage.
    Dead America yet swings her tail. Be still awhile & she will cease.
    Her enemy long provoked, she would make ours that we at end be tired, too tired to withstand her continued rampage. Fi her constant threat to feed her fat.
    ~Remember June 1st starts International Penis Awareness Week. Wear a light baby-blue ribbon & remember that early detection is key!
    *I was told recently, never argue with a fool; they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience 🙂

  34. barriejohn says:

    Never argue with a fool; they will drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

    That’s a good one. I don’t know why people can’t just ignore plain stupidity on the internet!

  35. Daz says:

    EJ

    If I accepted the premise that every Muslim should be viewed as a probable military threat, I might agree with you. Needless to say, I do not accept that premise.

    Gonna cut this short, as I’m busy doing other stuff, but:

    You can’t protect children from enemies by letting them play soccer with your kids.

    Actually, you can. My contention is that removing the self-ghettoising influence of segregated faith schools, allowing kids to mix with kids of different backgrounds, will lead to those children growing up much less fearful of The Other.

  36. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – I agree with you about letting kids play to some extent, but kids have parents, and if those parents are following brutal and violent rules, do you really want them anywhere near your children?
    Do you let the wife-beater who not only bullies and beats his children but his children’s playmates, get within reach of any child, even his own? Really?

    I’m not even talking religion here, just everyday mental illness, because I know you have this massive fucking blind spot where religion is concerned.
    You draw the line somewhere, I hope, in how close you are willing to let a clearly dangerous person get to a child?
    What then if this can be forced upon someone?
    Brainwashing…hello!! Brick thru yer window again!

    You appear to have little appreciation for the danger that brainwashing can be or what our common vulnerabilities to brainwashing mean in terms of real threats to everyone’s freedom.

    Oh, wait, I forgot you can’t hardly say anything at all because you already have lost many freedoms. No, I don’t want you to get arrested for simply complaining either. Never mind.

  37. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Sorry, I shouldn’t be twitting you about the things you cannot control.
    And I noticed that many of you seem to automatically equate the idea of Muslims with dark skin or ethnicity.
    I don’t do that, but then I live in America where Muslims prefer to proselytize to people who resemble them, drawing them out from Christianity with sympathetic anger and hate, and I have seen too many different cultures to equate melanin levels with anything but melanin levels.
    But I am a strange duck, it seems, as regards common forms of bigotry. I do not equate any brainwashing with the victim, or crime with the criminal. I should stop expecting people to be reasonable, that’s my problem…

  38. Daz says:

    EJ, I suggest you learn something about the UK and its citizens before pronouncing on them. Try something other than the Daily Mail website, which is where most of your ideas about us appear to emanate from.

    I’m taking DredOne’s advice. I’m done here.

  39. Equality Jack says:

    @Daz – Well, good on you for stating the obvious, yet what have I “pronounced upon you” that you feel obligated to make vague noises about now?
    Did I piss in your fucking cornflakes again? Well, I wasn’t trying to. Did you consider that before writing that lame ad hominem?

  40. Equality Jack says:

    Well, I see I’m not welcome here.
    Your children do not deserve such fucking sods as you held over them, that much is clear. Bunch of fucking idiots without a fucking goddamned clue as to how to treat other people.
    Just sod off and die, then.

  41. Lazy+Susan says:

    EJ – I don’t think you are unwelcome. All that has happened is that more or less everyone disagrees with you. That is frustrating and infuriating – I know from experience – but you get used to it. Using foul language and telling everyone to “sod off and die” won’t win any arguments or friends. If you believe you are right, you need to find a better way to convince people than by insulting them.

    You are not the first lone voice in the world.

  42. Lazy+Susan says:

    One of the points I have not seen made about this murder is that the “alleged” killer justified his actions on the grounds that British troops are killing Muslims somewhere or other – Afghanistan, probably.

    But the fighting that is going on is not anti-Muslim. The British Army is not engaged in a war on Islam. In fact the recent events show this very clearly, starting with, say, the first Gulf War to liberate Kuwait and return it to its Muslim owners, then in the Balkans to protect Muslims from Serbs (I hope I got that one right, I am not clear on who did what to whom), then in Iraq, where the country has been handed over to Muslims, and now Afghanistan, where again the aim is to let locals, who happen to be Muslims, run their own country.

    But should one Muslim be killed by any non-Muslim, the whole Western World becomes a target, because the Muslims have an over-developed sense of victimhood. The soldier who was killed, was killed because of his religion or nationality. Muslims who are killed by soldiers are killed because they are shooting or blowing things up. See the difference?

    Only Muslims are allowed to kill other Muslims.

  43. Angela_K says:

    “Only Muslims are allowed to kill other Muslims” Which they do very well in the thousands, without the West. They love killing and maiming and flogging and stoning…

  44. Equality Jack says:

    @Lazy+Susan – Thank you for not flinging poo at me and for having a bit of sympathy. It has been rare for me as I go stomping around and cursing at everyone trying to get a bit of blood moving in their sluggish brains long enough to think about the things I say.

    As to my arguments, I’ve done a lot of them quite politely yet continue to encounter cherished bias and comforting fallacy in those I wish to persuade. It is frustrating and maddening.

    You make an excellent point about how things are viewed and how our actions have not been to target Muslims overtly yet are viewed that way to further their own propaganda.

    Culture wars are the foggiest sorts of things to deal with, and so my expectations are often lowered due to the impact simple ignorance can play in discussing such hard-to-discuss topics or problems that need to be addressed.
    In fighting my own biases and fallacies, I have come to many rational and logical findings that I use when relevant, always ready for that uncomfortable moment when I find an error I have made and have to face it and revise my calculations.
    Sometimes this can take years, sometimes mere seconds.

    Having others support me in finding solutions is fraught with risks, but is a necessary thing that helps keep me focused on trying to be as objective and non-partisan as possible.
    I am only concerned with making the world a better place to live for everyone even though we all have our developmental problems as part of the mix. My own life is no longer as important to me as I grow older and want the best for the sake of all children.
    A few cuss words shouldn’t cause such blindness. I have hopes that some others might try to work around or fix these stumbling blocks to discussion…

  45. Denis says:

    I will hazard a guess that the perpetrators of this horror are the alienated, loners who are nearly always prey to some form of hate. If not killing people in the name of some fanatical cause they would be gang members or football hooligans. They have no stake in society and only hate seems to give their lives meaning.

  46. Equality Jack says:

    @Denis – I would add anyone feeling disaffected to that list.

    As a species, we have little control over our instinctual reactions, especially those regarding status in some group-identity of some sort.
    Being disaffected can cause a number of reactions according to the individual and how they have developed over time.

    I would also add a few other types, such as anyone wanting to pretend a belief for some reason, since there is no way to tell when someone is lying…and no one is willing to research that, of course, because then they’d have to go into hiding and maybe lose everything, so you’ll never see a TruthMachine™ anytime soon.
    Or those who are delusional already and just need a “home group” of some sort, or even hungry people treated like animals looking for a home..
    “Any old thing will do! Just hand me that roast lamb! I’ve been bloody starving. Oh, yeah, Allah. Yay.”

    So austerity is directly feeding some of this. Hunger makes me irritable as does fatigue. If the only place that would feed me was a mosque, do you blame the mosque or the society that does not take care of people’s welfare?
    (I’m just talking on a soapbox here. Aren’t comment sections fun?)