 sj |
||
|
||
'A different way to speak of persecution
|
|
|
Subject: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:48 PM I don't want to revive the unpleasant wrangling that characterised the thread about persecution that just belatedly dropped out of sight, but I think this news item rounds it off well. From people who actually are facing the reality. Holy Land Catholic leaders: Stop speaking of Christian persecution Catholic News Service | Apr. 3, 2014 JERUSALEM Repeated references to persecution of Christians, "usually referring only to what Christians suffer at the hands of criminals claiming to be Muslims, plays into the hands of extremists," said Catholic leaders in the Holy Land. "In the name of truth, we must point out that Christians are not the only victims of this violence and savagery. Secular Muslims, all those defined as 'heretic,' 'schismatic' or simply 'nonconformist,' are being attacked and murdered in the prevailing chaos," said a statement Thursday from the Assembly of Catholic Ordinaries in the Holy Land, posted on the website of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. "In areas where Sunni extremists dominate, Shiites are being slaughtered. In areas where Shiite extremists dominate, Sunnis are being killed," the bishops said. "Yes, the Christians are at times targeted precisely because they are Christians, having a different set of beliefs and unprotected. However, they fall victim alongside many others who are suffering and dying in these times of death and destruction. They are driven from their homes alongside many others and together they become refugees, in total destitution." |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Joe Offer Date: 04 Apr 14 - 07:54 PM Exactly. It does no good to keep a tally sheet to see which side has more victims. There is injustice everywhere in this world, and we all have a moral obligation to root it out - not just when it affects "our side." -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: gnu Date: 04 Apr 14 - 08:15 PM If only all of our societies were intelligent, logical, compassionate and moral. It is my hope that such may be the case in future. Until then, the barrel of a gun will rule as it has since tyranny and subjugation began... before recorded history. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Bert Date: 04 Apr 14 - 08:22 PM Right Joe. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Apr 14 - 04:26 AM Yes, but why a new thread? No-one on the old thread ever claimed that Christians were the sole victims, and the Sunni/Shia conflict was discussed. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jack Campin Date: 05 Apr 14 - 05:58 AM True enough - I've met Syriac Christians in south-east Turkey, also in a very difficult situation where they can't afford to make any more enemies than they've already got. Meanwhile in the department of spin-doctoring bollocks, the Archbishop of Canterbury exploiting the predicament of African Christians to promote his homophobic agenda: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26894133 (Official homophobia in Uganda is the result of the activities of an American evangelical sect to which Museveni belongs - I don't see Welby condemning them). |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Apr 14 - 06:35 AM Keith, I am not going over that whole thread, but surely the main stream of your view was that Xtians were suffering more than others, wasn't it? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 05 Apr 14 - 08:16 AM Jack just said what I was going to mention. Welby is so used to talking to his flock, he forgets the intelligence of rational people when defending the indefensible. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Stringsinger Date: 05 Apr 14 - 08:58 AM Today, atheists can be put to death in Saudi Arabia, a new law countenanced by King Abdullah and Sharia Law. No Christians are legally bound for execution in Saudi Arabia. Christians are in the majority in the US, hardly persecuted but omnipresent. Today, the American people are being persecuted by an oligarchic few. That's another way of looking at persecution, financial persecution by Christians. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 05 Apr 14 - 09:48 AM "It does no good to keep a tally sheet to see which side has more victims. " Good point Joe All too often, counting body-bags is offered as a defence of persecution, rather than a condemnation of it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:55 AM Richard, yes. I think they are. Stating that does not in anyway suggest that other, equally abhorrent persecution is not being suffered. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 05 Apr 14 - 08:07 PM When a thread turns toxic it is better to leave it to sink away. Persecution is monstrous, whoever is persecuted, and whoever is doing the persecuting. Different communities are subject to persecution in different places and times, and that definitely includes Christian communities. There isn't in reality anything to argue about. Of course that never stops us arguing, it just makes the arguments futile and fatuous. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 05 Apr 14 - 11:33 PM When a thread turns toxic it is better to leave it to sink away The anti-faith axis will always turn any discussion of religious persecution toxic. Restarting the debate will just restart their toxicity. Persecution is monstrous, whoever is persecuted, and whoever is doing the persecuting. Some here argued that Christians should be persecuted, and will do again on this thread if it takes. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,I dont understand the word homophobia Date: 06 Apr 14 - 12:00 AM I dont understand the word homophobia. Phobia is fear. Cant you just dislike a groupe without fearing it? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:13 AM If you don't fear it, there is no reason to hate it. Interesting that Keith has just voiced his fear that these threads end up with his hypocrisy and bigotry exposed. Easy to avoid , Keith. Just don't hand it out and expect it not to be challenged. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:26 AM "When a thread turns toxic it is better to leave it to sink away." I'm afraid I agree totally with this Mac - this thread appears to be heading in the direction of so many in being used as a platform for hate and bigotry; I do wish there was a way of dealing with it Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: akenaton Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:15 AM GUEST, for an answer to your question, read 1984 by George Orwell. "newspeak" |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: akenaton Date: 06 Apr 14 - 04:22 AM A quick guide from Wiki HERE "Newspeak" has been widely adopted by the media and mainly "liberal" factions in Western society |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Apr 14 - 05:51 AM I would be pretty convinced that on a global scale and over time so-called christians have undertaken in the name of their god more oppression and exploitation of others than any other single religion. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: akenaton Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:20 AM To control thought[edit] According to George Orwell, "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."[2] The idea that language influences worldview is linguistic relativity. For example, the word "free" still existed in Newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed as in, "the dog is free from lice" or, "this field is free from weeds." It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in "free choice" or "free will" since these concepts no longer existed. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Any redundancies in the English language were removed.[2] As Orwell further states, "By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."[1] Some examples of Newspeak from the novel include crimethink, doublethink, and Ingsoc. They mean, respectively, "thought-crime," "accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs" and "English socialism" (the official political philosophy of the Party). The word Newspeak itself also comes from the language. Generically, Newspeak has come to mean any attempt to restrict disapproved language by a government or other powerful entity.[3] |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jack Campin Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:14 AM At time he wrote that, Orwell was a paid informer for the British intelligence service, sending them lists of his friends who he believed to be communists. Not much of an example to hold up. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: akenaton Date: 06 Apr 14 - 07:53 AM Newspeak is used at the present time by "liberals" |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:39 AM Richard, does that mean Christians deserve to be persecuted now? These are some of the poorest people in the world and have never persecuted anybody. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:41 AM "Newspeak is used at the present time by "liberals" And there's me thinking 'collateral damage', 'special rendition' and 'friendly fire' were American phrases - must -re-read 1984 sometime Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 06 Apr 14 - 08:47 AM Don't confuse cutting and pasting with understanding what it posts. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 09:01 AM Richard, Can I respectfully suggest that you do not allow Keith to turn this thread into yet another branch of his crusade, as he is obviously trying to do. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Apr 14 - 11:39 AM Good point Jim. And nice choice of word ("crusade") for it! |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 11:51 AM "Good point Jim. And nice choice of word ("crusade") for it!" Only thinking of him Richard - he's got his hands full at the present time attacking the Irish and Irish Americans as 'Brainwashed morons while at the same time trying to defend Israeli war crimes and human rights abuses. Someone's got to look after him Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 06 Apr 14 - 11:56 AM does that mean Christians deserve to be persecuted now? Unequivocally yes. Happy? Now, bugger off back to Dumbfuckistan, like a good lad. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Apr 14 - 12:16 PM Oh, where is he doing that, Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:25 PM Cause of the potao Blight site and the Palestinian Israeli one Don't you dare disturb him - he's doing brilliantly without our help!! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Apr 14 - 01:26 PM Ah, I've been avoiding those. I could get shot on either! |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:10 PM Dip into the 'Blight' one and search 'brainwash' or 'Massachusetts' that'll save you any real pain. On the other hand, it mightn't do you any harm to read the whole thread, knowing your own Achilles Heel Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 06 Apr 14 - 03:10 PM Dip into the 'Blight' one and search 'brainwash' or 'Massachusetts' that'll save you any real pain. On the other hand, it mightn't do you any harm to read the whole thread, knowing your own Achilles Heel Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Apr 14 - 06:04 PM I repeat what I said in my last post: Persecution is monstrous, whoever is persecuted, and whoever is doing the persecuting. Different communities are subject to persecution in different places and times, and that definitely includes Christian communities. There isn't in reality anything to argue about. And I would suggest that the next person posting here should actually be someone who disagrees with it. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 14 - 02:53 AM "And I would suggest that the next person posting here should actually be someone who disagrees with it." Then you've all but put a halt to the thread. I can think of very few people who could disagree with your statement, though I can think of a tiny few who would justify certain aspects of persecution and deny that this is what it is, and then hand out dollops of their own brand. Justifying persecution as "necessary", especially by applying some sliding scale - "but what about other countries, religions... far worse" is a common problem in the world today On this Forum it acts as a barrier to rational discussion big time - it dehumanises us all. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Apr 14 - 07:58 AM Greg F disagrees with it, and you Jim never once commented when he said it was right that Christian people should be persecuted out of existence. Will you now? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 14 - 08:07 AM Stop trying to set one member against another Keith - everybody has the right to disagree And stop prozletyzing on behalf of one religion - it goes against the sentiment of the question In fact stop Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Apr 14 - 12:34 PM And stop prozletyzing on behalf of one religion - I never did Jim. Why will you not condemn Greg's support for the persecution of Christian people? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:04 PM Because I am well aware that someone will turn it into another crusade - not the place here Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:12 PM Can anyone imagine a weaker excuse? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Apr 14 - 01:51 PM So should I take it that you disagree with that statement of mine, Jim? I would be very surprised. There are of course some people who might, including especially those who participate in or encourage persecution of minorities. But I think that "trying to set one member against another " is one thing that a number of people here have in common. The far more important thing we all have in common, I beliefe, is that we all do genuinely deplore any kind of persecution of minorities. A news item today of relevance - Syria: Dutch priest Fr van der Lugt shot dead in Homs. What makes it particularly relevant is that it is equally likely that the killer might have been either a Christian or a Muslim, offended by the attitude he expressed when he told reporters "I don't see people as Muslims or Christian, I see a human being first and foremost." |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 07 Apr 14 - 02:15 PM I guess that's why I find emphasis on running totals per cult abhorrent. Saying that there are more Christians than other cults persecuted may be a statistical fact but what of it? Oh... Said by members of the same club........ At the end of the day, it isn't about which imaginary friend you fear, but which land grab you get in the way of. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 14 - 03:04 PM Sorry - crossed wires Mac Of course I agree with you - it has been my point all along. I believe in tha case of all religions for instance - (not just making it an attack on religion - ), it's not the belief nor the lay believers yo blame for persecution, as often as not, churches are the fault To single one out as being "worst persecuted" is to ignore the fact that persecution comes with political influence of the church, not an inbuilt hatred implanted into the believers. As somebody recently said (may have been here) if you start counting stakes, fires, thumbscrews and body-bags, Christianity comes out as a front-runner in the persecution stakes. Since the fall of the Shah and the rise of fundamentalism, Christianity has fallen back in the line of runners, but I have little doubt that should the opportunity arise, it'll be back among the first three. I watched a fascinating discussion some time ago on the Inquisition - a piece of ancient history. A Bishop on the panel not only justified three centuries of persecution by Christians, but he made it quite clear that, as far as he was concerned, should a similar situation arise, it would be handled similarly. Scratch a dog and you disturb fleas. I hope you weren't referring to me when you talk about setting one contributor against the other. While I'm happy to point out to a one-man-band crusader that he is on his own, I find the growing practice of using other people's opinions as a support for your own pronouncements (this includes, mythical historians, social workers, "experts" and attempts to set one contributor against the other -as has just happened"Why will you not condemn Greg?") Nasty, below the belt stuff on a site that is not discussing specifics. Have a nice one - University Clallenge calls Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 14 - 03:04 PM Sorry - crossed wires Mac Of course I agree with you - it has been my point all along. I believe in tha case of all religions for instance - (not just making it an attack on religion - ), it's not the belief nor the lay believers yo blame for persecution, as often as not, churches are the fault To single one out as being "worst persecuted" is to ignore the fact that persecution comes with political influence of the church, not an inbuilt hatred implanted into the believers. As somebody recently said (may have been here) if you start counting stakes, fires, thumbscrews and body-bags, Christianity comes out as a front-runner in the persecution stakes. Since the fall of the Shah and the rise of fundamentalism, Christianity has fallen back in the line of runners, but I have little doubt that should the opportunity arise, it'll be back among the first three. I watched a fascinating discussion some time ago on the Inquisition - a piece of ancient history. A Bishop on the panel not only justified three centuries of persecution by Christians, but he made it quite clear that, as far as he was concerned, should a similar situation arise, it would be handled similarly. Scratch a dog and you disturb fleas. I hope you weren't referring to me when you talk about setting one contributor against the other. While I'm happy to point out to a one-man-band crusader that he is on his own, I find the growing practice of using other people's opinions as a support for your own pronouncements (this includes, mythical historians, social workers, "experts" and attempts to set one contributor against the other -as has just happened"Why will you not condemn Greg?") Nasty, below the belt stuff on a site that is not discussing specifics. Have a nice one - University Clallenge calls Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 07 Apr 14 - 03:35 PM Q: Why will you not condemn Greg? A: Because I am well aware that someone will turn it into another crusade And perhaps because you can recognize irony when you see it, Jim, unlike FWK ? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 07 Apr 14 - 03:48 PM That too Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Apr 14 - 06:23 PM I give up. Nobody has at any stage said that it's about numbers, or that the only people being persecuted are Christians, Muslims or whatever, or that persecution only matters if it's one minority rather than another. "I hope you weren't referring to me when you talk about setting one contributor against the other." If the cap fits... |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 08 Apr 14 - 07:04 AM Hate to sound like a pedant Kevin, but you have declared it is about minorities. How can you define minorities without reference to numbers? just saying like.... Not really trying to get the usual suspects jumping out of their corners with their dukes up. Just that reality can be a bit boring at times, and Keith gives excellent value, but only if Jim bites and represents reason. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 14 - 09:01 AM " Nobody has at any stage said that it's about numbers, or that the only people being persecuted are Christians," Keith has - persistently, and has used that claim to justify his Islamophobia. "If the cap fits..." In that case - I wouldn't mind a few examples. I have laid out as clearly as I am capable why I believe religious is widespread happens and why it is as common as it is. I could have said that persecution is built into religion because of its definitive nature - an act of faith that demands you only worship one god and if you do not you are a sinner who is condemned to spend all eternity being tortured and tormented. All others are (at best) wrong, and at worst, perverts and a threat to "our way of life and beliefs". When church's are given the opportunity they use their influence to castigate and persecute non-believers or "other" believers. You ask for "a different way to speak of persecution". Whenever the subject comes up it is invariable hi-jacked by a handful (one in particular) of Islamophobes who filibust the subject into silence - always having the last word -go and look at some of the threads and see who makes the most postings and whose are the last. Any attempts to discuss persecution BY Christians on a thread headed "Christian Persecution" was met with bullying attempts to suppress this aspect of the subject - the same with attempts to discuss the reasons persecution happens "off topic". Attempts to discuss what is happening in Palestine are treated the same - "whataboutism" and accusations of "Antisemitism" Attempts to discuss Britain's role in selling weapons to States that indulge in persecution are greeted with accusations of being "Anti British" and on a number of occasions I was told I had no right to comment on British policy because, despite the fact that I was born there ind it was my home up to 15 years ago (over half a century), I had no right to comment on British affairs - this happened up to the point where I threatened to report the culprit to the thread administrators. Recently, the attention has now focused on Irish people who have been describes as "brainwashed, hate-filled" morons whose education system has brought them up to hate Britain - a comparison was made to the wave of witchcraft possessions in 18th century Massachusetts, and was extended to include Irish Americans. There are a small group of people who are now using this forum consistently as a racist platform and who are attempting to manipulate and suppress discussion o this forum As someone coming from an Anglo Irish background I am outraged at the way an extremely valuable and enjoyable forum has fallen into a handful of extremists - I have no idea how I would feel if I was a Muslim contributing to this site. You want "a different way to speak of persecution" - I suggest you look a little nearer home end discuss the home-grown persecution now emanating from this site on a regular basis Now for a bit of fresh air. A somewhat pissed-off Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:00 AM Jim, your ridiculous, rambling and irrelevant post starts with a blatant lie. I have never said, and never would say "that it's about numbers, or that the only people being persecuted are Christians," Yet you say I said it "persistently." You lie. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:08 AM You mention Muslims using this site Jim. I say similar things about gays, and we are ashamed of the same people For the same reason |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:31 AM " I say similar things about gays, and we are ashamed of the same people" I agree wholeheartedly Piss of Keith - it's you I am referring to Your "Muslim implant" Islamophobia is widely know throughout this forum I meant to add that, another disturbing development to all this is the effort to justify attacks on Muslims and Irish people has been accompanied by claims that they are backed up by evidence from "experts" and "historians" If my memory serves me right, six million Jews were sent to their deaths based on "scientific" and "expert" evidence that they were what the Nazis claimed they were - someone correct me on that one if I am wrong please? By the way Dave; I expect evidence of my "setting one member of this forum against another" otherwise I hope for a full retraction and an apology. I really am getting pissed off with some of the things that go on on this site in the pretence of open, friendly discussion. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:31 AM " I say similar things about gays, and we are ashamed of the same people" I agree wholeheartedly Piss of Keith - it's you I am referring to Your "Muslim implant" Islamophobia is widely know throughout this forum I meant to add that, another disturbing development to all this is the effort to justify attacks on Muslims and Irish people has been accompanied by claims that they are backed up by evidence from "experts" and "historians" If my memory serves me right, six million Jews were sent to their deaths based on "scientific" and "expert" evidence that they were what the Nazis claimed they were - someone correct me on that one if I am wrong please? By the way Dave; I expect evidence of my "setting one member of this forum against another" otherwise I hope for a full retraction and an apology. I really am getting pissed off with some of the things that go on on this site in the pretence of open, friendly discussion. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:47 AM I never " justify attacks on Muslims and Irish people" or anyone else and have no Islamophobia. Again you make lying personal attacks when you can not challenge anything that I actually say. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 10:49 AM And, which Dave are you referring to? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 14 - 11:33 AM "I never justify attacks on Muslims and Irish people" No you haven't "justified" you have made them yourself by describing Irish and Irish American people as being "brainwashed to hate Britain by by their biased education system" (unquote) Yo have attempted to back up your racist smears with "historical evidence" You have accused all British Pakistanis as being "culturally implanted" to make them prone to having sex with underage girls. Again, you have attempted to back up this breathtaking racist smear, which would be totally illegal and grounds for prosecution under the 'promotion of race hate' laws, had it been made outside the safety of the internet Dave asked for a different way to speak of persecution - how about clearing it off this form forever - that'd be pretty "new"? By the way - I will happily donate a grand to the favourite charity of anybody who can show me that these statements are not blatant racism as well as being a direct attack on many Irish and Irish American contributors to this forum Have a nice rest of the day. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 11:40 AM There you go again. You can not challenge anything that I actually say, so you grossly distort what things have said in years old threads instead of this one. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 11:44 AM I will happily donate a grand to the favourite charity of anybody who can show me that these statements are not blatant racism Generous offer Jim, but you need to specify the statements. Will you? No, because they do not exist. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:21 PM " Nobody has at any stage said that it's about numbers, or that the only people being persecuted are Christians," Keith has - persistently". But he hasn't. In fact he has persistently said that he hasn't. And while I have a fair number of disagreements with, I see no reason to disagree with him when he says he hasn't, particularly about the last but, because that would be grotesquely stupid. .......... So far with Musket on numbers, as a fully qualified part-time pedant myself, I beg to disagree. In the context "numbers" clearly refers to the numbers of people persecuted, not to population statistics. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 08 Apr 14 - 12:24 PM Real pedants would point to one informing the other so therefore related...... |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 14 - 01:08 PM "But he hasn't. In fact he has persistently said that he hasn't" Yes he has - here and elsewhere He has persistenly to us that more Christians are being being than any other group - even to the extent of claiming that entire Christian communities are being wiped out - that has been his argument all along. Any doubt about this and I suggest you trawl your way through the "Christian Persecution" thread, which was opened specifically in order to make this claim On it, Bobad produced a whole list of supposed "Christian persecution" episodes - hundreds of them, taken directly from the self declared Islamophobic site "Muslim Watch" - Keith announced that there was not one incident that could be disputed, and he gave his unequivocal support for it - remember the name "Christian Persecution" You can take it as read that whenever Keith insists on something it is usually a lie. In your reference to the "last bit" "I see no reason to disagree with him when he says he hasn't, particularly about the last but" Do you really wnat me to produce Keith's accusation that "All British male Pakistanis" are culturally implanted to make them prone to having underage sex ot that all Irish and Irish Americans have been brainwashed by a bigoted education system to hate Britain. I'll happily do so if you wish, but I really didn't think it necessary as I have produced the first one often enough, and as far as the Irish and Irish-American statement is concerned, just open the "Irish Potato Blight thread and search "Massachusetts" - that will take you directly to it. My apologies - I inadvertently addressed a request for an apology to someone named "Dave" when it was intended for you - so 'yr 'tis again. "By the way Dave (Mac); I expect evidence of my "setting one member of this forum against another" otherwise I hope for a full retraction and an apology. I really am getting pissed off with some of the things that go on on this site in the pretence of open, friendly discussion". Qualification or retraction and apology please. Yours in anticipation Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 01:41 PM Jim, I did claim that Christians were suffering the most persecution, and produced supporting links. You said that I "persistently" stated "that the only people being persecuted are Christians," That was a blatant lie. I also never described any education system as bigoted. A blatant lie. I did say, with hard evidence, that NY State and Irish schools taught that Britain was culpable for the famine. As you yourself believe that Jim, what is your objection, and why are we discussing it here?? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 08 Apr 14 - 02:12 PM I repeat my offer – I grand to a chosen charity if someone can show me why these are not culturally and racially abusive -any takers? This site is singlehandedly being turned into a racist cesspit. Jim Carroll Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM RE MUSLIM UNDERAGE SEX (my title – Jim Carroll) Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things. Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb. Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us? Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM Re BRITISH CULPABILITY IN OUTCOME OF THE GREAT IRISH FAMINE (my title - Jim Carroll) "YOU HAVE HAD NOT ONE IOTO OF SUPPORT" Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive. Irish schools at least since 1922 and NY State schools since 1996 by decree. Massachusetts? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Apr 14 - 04:08 PM What you accused Keith of doing, Jim, was persistently claiming that only Chistians were being persecuted. If he had said that clearly he would have been absurdly wrong. When once again he denied ihavibg said that, you adjusted it to imply that you had saifd more Chistians were being persecuted than other religious minorities. That is not in any way the same thing. Whether it is true or not would be extremely hard to determine for certain. It's a matter of statistics, not ideology or sectarianism. Were more women killed on the road or men? Would an opinion in either direction have any implications for feminism? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 08 Apr 14 - 06:43 PM Jim, the first line of the first post. "Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things" (Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing.) The second line. ".... but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people," "Those people" (not me), many from the community, who said it came from the culture. Culture effects all. The second post refers to the FACT that Britain's culpability is taught in those schools, even though it is disputed. You chose not to deny that FACT Jim. Please split your donation between Save The Children and Greenpeace. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 08 Apr 14 - 08:13 PM Wrong thread, FW Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 07:29 AM Sorry folks - all prevarication You have the evidence of Keith's behaviour You have examples of his behavior on the 'Christian Persecution' site, including his insistence that more Christians are persecuted than any other group, and his persistent attempts to block all discussion on persecution by Christians - to the extent of telling the family of the woman who died for the want of a pregnancy termination that if "they didn't like (Religious imposed) Irish laws they could go and live somewhere else" - or words to that effect. You may think that behaviour acceptable and seek to excuse it - I don't and have no respect for those who do. Your "different way of speaking about persecution" appears to either slip it under the carpet or accept it without comment. Now, that apology, if evidence of my setting one member against another isn't on its way, as I assume it isn't Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 07:46 AM It is not true that I attempted to block discussion of persecution by Christians Jim. I specifically asked people to provide examples. I do not think that the laws of a democratic country like Ireland are good examples of it though. I am not alone in believing Christians currently suffer more persecution. I provided links to reputable publications where the same point was made (including Guardian) Again, you can challenge nothing I actually do say, so you make up shit and attack that instead. You are a dishonest fraud Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 08:27 AM Stop lying Keith - that is exactly what you did Are you really so stupid as to deny what is still up for viewing You have no self-respect whatever Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 09:00 AM I do not lie Jim. It is not true that I attempted to block discussion of persecution by Christians Jim. You must have misunderstood. I specifically asked people to provide examples of it. I do not think that democratic Ireland's abortion laws are examples of it. Ireland's people choose to have them. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 09:16 AM I do not lie Jim." I will not argue with you Keith, you lie constantly and are noted for it. Nor will I re-enter on old arguments which you are attempting to use as a diversion away from your outrageous behavior. You want an example of your lying. You have just denied trying to suppress discussion with "thread drift" Now you have said "I do not think that democratic Ireland's abortion laws are examples of it." I don't give a toss what you believe - nobody does. I believe differently and I said so - you attempted to stop it with "thread drift" - over and over again. Go away you stupid little man Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 09:23 AM Because I did not believe it an example of persecution, I refused to discuss it with you on that thread as anyone is entitled to do, but how could I prevent anyone else discussing it? I do not lie Jim. Few on the forum would think of lying. I can not understand those who do. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 09 Apr 14 - 09:33 AM If you can't understand yourself, I suggest lack of intelligence. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 10:49 AM "Because I did not believe it an example of persecution, I refused to discuss it with you on that thread as anyone is entitled to do, but how could I prevent anyone else discussing it?" No screamed thread drift in order to avoid answering "I do not lie Jim."] Yes you do - you just have and you're known for it. "Few on the forum would think of lying." Only yoooo (as the song says - though you constantly accuse others "I can not understand those who do." Indication of a crisis of identity, no doubt Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:00 AM I personally know one gay Muslim folk-ish musician who no longer posts here - at least in part thanks to Keith. I personally know another fine folk-ish musician who no longer posts here because of the way he was politically jumped on for visiting Cyprus. Speaking of persecution. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:03 AM I think not Richard. I have never said anything at all critical about Islam or Muslims. I do not lie Jim. I refused to discuss Ireland's chosen laws in a thread about Christian persecution, but I offered to on another. It would have been thread drift, but I do not scream either. I have no way of preventing any discussion anywhere. I spoke once of my super powers, but it was just a joke Jim. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:15 AM Richard, do you mean the Muslim convert I had a long debate about HIV stats. with? His leaving had nothing to do with me. I repeat, I have never spoken against Islam or Muslims. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 09 Apr 14 - 11:53 AM Other than inferring that persecuted Christians are more important than persecuted Muslims. Other than listing as many atrocities you can find where Islamic origin was the cause. Other than defining Islamism as meaning of terrorist tendency whilst claiming there is no Christian equivalent. No. You're a fucking innocent angel. Jesus truly wants you for a sunbeam Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 12:13 PM You're feeding the troll lads. He'll keep this up until he has the last word if you encourage him - he does this regularly - I've always put it down to lack of attention at home. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 09 Apr 14 - 12:16 PM What a load of bollocks Keith. I know the person in question (not confirming it is the one of whom you speak) and you don't. I know why he no longer posts here, and you don't. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:13 PM Other than inferring that persecuted Christians are more important than persecuted Muslims. Never have. They are not. Other than listing as many atrocities you can find where Islamic origin was the cause. Never have Other than defining Islamism as meaning of terrorist tendency whilst claiming there is no Christian equivalent Never have. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:17 PM Richard, I do know with certainty that nothing I have ever posted would make a person of any faith uncomfortable. I can easily imagine timid people of any faith being driven away by the outpouring of ridicule and vilification from Musket and mates. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:19 PM "Richard, I do know with certainty that nothing I have ever posted would make a person of any faith uncomfortable." Not even all those "implanted" Muslims - or is that still "a lie"? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:20 PM I have ever posted would make a person of any faith uncomfortable. Amusing, FW. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 09 Apr 14 - 01:54 PM Another back-alley brawl thread. He said but he meant..... Oh, goody, goody gumdrop. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 02:05 PM Yes, that is a lie. In that years old thread, I specifically stated, more than once, that Islam was not an issue in that criminality. You know that because you have made the accusation before and I have rubbished it with the actual quotes. I am quite willing to find the quotes again if you persist with that blatant lie. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 02:07 PM Not even all those "implanted" Muslims - or is that still "a lie"? Yes, that is a lie. In that years old thread, I specifically stated, more than once, that Islam was not an issue in that criminality. You know that because you have made the accusation before and I have rubbished it with the actual quotes. I am quite willing to find the quotes again if you persist with that blatant lie. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 09 Apr 14 - 03:18 PM "In that years old thread, I specifically stated, more than once, that Islam was not an issue in that criminality." So they managed to resist their "cultural implant" then - lucky old them!! If I, as a fourth generation Irishman, feel as angry as I do about your racist "brainwashing" smears - how the fuck do you think all those already vulnerable Pakistani families feel about your horrific, totally against British law racist attacks on their people? You only have to see a criticism on British policy on selling arms and chemicals to monsters like Assad and you break out in a rash and accuse us if being anti-British - bet you've got a keyboard shortcut! Even as an anti-monarchist, I see a gleam of hope at the Windsor Castle knees-up happening at the moment - but then I remember that in a couple of months you and your thugs will be out on the streets trying to tear it all down again, like last year, and the year before, and the year before that.... Wonder if you'll blame the children, as you did last time? By the way, did you know that Pres. Michael D - at present rubbing bottoms with her Maj - gawd bless 'er - was one of those hate-filled educationalists who poisoned the minds of generations of Irish and Irish-American children Hope they searched him for a suicide bomb before they let him in! Gawd save the Queen!! "Another back-alley brawl thread." Nah - just waiting around to see if Mac turned up with an apology - left standing at the altar again - ah well Off to watch loads and loads of crap on telly in compensation - wonder if that nice Kate Becket (sighhh) is on? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 09 Apr 14 - 03:55 PM Was the disputed version of famine History decreed to be taught or not Jim. Am I not allowed to refer to it? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Apr 14 - 06:57 PM Will you admit, Jim, that when you accused Keith of having said that only Christians were persecuted you were misstating the position, and what you should have said, and perhaps intended to say, was that he had said that more Christians were being persecuted at this time than members of other religions? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:16 AM Sorry Mac - Keith's position was that he would only discuss Christians being persecuted and he not only refused blankly to discuss persecution by Christians, but he did his best to prevent discussion on that side of the subject. He brought up "thread drift", and demanded that, if we wanted to discuss it we open a new thread. He trivialised actual persecution that was happening today, particularly in the case of the young woman who had recently died in Galway Hospital because of Christian inspired rules preventing her from having a life-saving pregnancy termination, by suggesting that the church had no influence over Irish politics - this is not just a tragic individual case, but a recurring problem way beyond by lifetime. His crowning glory was to suggest that anybody who didn't like Church-influenced Irish law were free to live elsewhere. He also attempted to prevent - with a degree of success - efforts on several peoples' part, to discuss the intrinsic causes of all sectarian and religious persecution. Once again Keith and a couple of others wished to create a platform for their Islamophobia, this time by a display of sympathy for genuine persecution of Christians - lat time it was the tragic death of a British Soldier on the London streets. He did pretty much the same with the victims of Homs - crocodile tears for those being killed, but support for the killers by suggesting there was nothing wrong with selling them weapons and riot-control gear and small arms ammunition - he actually proposed this as a suggestion, reiterated his belief of it as a solution and attempted to seek justification by trawling the internet for like minded groups - he came up with one somewhat eccentric and obscure Australian group of pacifists who argue that if despots are only armed with weaponry to suppress opposition, they might not resort to torture, imprisonment and mass-murder - Assad???? Keith, as far as I know, still holds this view- he has certainly never withdrawn it. His and Bobad's ploy of presenting hundreds and hundreds of claimed cases of Christian persecution by Muslims was defended without question, despite the fact that it was lifted in its entirity directly from a site called "Muslim Watch", which is a self-declared Islamophobic site - as the title suggests. The site is dedicated to showing persecution, real or invented, by Muslims dating back to early Christian times. Despite its enormity, we were challenged to find one instance of the "facts" being incorrect - I immediately found five, without effort - Keith dismissed each one them out-of-hand. None of us are going to live long enough to survive wading through such filth, even if we were prepared to. Let's be clear on this - Keith has consistently presented the Muslim people as a religion of perverted potential terrorists - he has spent a great deal of time, though no intelligence, and certainly no humanity in doing this. His position has been to either deny or to justify the persecution of Muslims, particularly in the case of the Middle East. His, and a few other's arguments are that persecution and depravity are built into Islam, making them a threat as an entire culture. I have no religion and I certainly hold no brief for any sort of persecution, religious or otherwise, but I have frequently been accused by Keith, Bruce, Bobad and others of supporting Muslim terrorism and of being Anti-Semitic. The other two are casual visitors to this Forum - Keith dominates it with his fanatical hatred of Muslims and of all criticism of British policy on amything, which he condemns as "Anti-British". I suggest you pick a site he has let loose on - 'Homs Horror', 'Muslim Persecution', 'Christian Persecution' - or anything on anything on Irish politics, history or sectarianism, (two on the Irish Famine reasonably accessible at present), examine Keith's statements - or simply count them - and come back and tell me we are not in the presence of an extremely disturbed individual. I am still extremely angry at his latest suggestion that the Irish and American Irish people have been indoctrinated "brainwashed" into hating the British people by corruptly biased education systems - that brings Keith's message directly to my doorstep Even if I had not been brought up to hate and fear all kinds of racism and bigotry, this does it for me - I have become one of Keith's victims of persecution and bigotry. Don't take my word for any of this - it's all archived on Mudcat. I have to say that, while I have found myself disagreeing with you on some things during my stay on Mudcat, I'm more than a little gobsmacked at your defending this rotting garbage - sorry Mac, I really am. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:36 AM Keith replies by saying my comments would drive people with faith away. Strange? I have questioned those on here who lead with their God on their shoulder to justify their position. I have questioned the logic of superstition. But I am consistent in saying whatever floats your boat. I always question how people who are decent and caring may be dismayed by the awful actions carried out in the name of what they hold dear. Selective posting again Keith? The snag is, you aren't even any good at it. Far too transparent. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:28 AM "Christians were being persecuted at this time than members of other religions?" Even this is patiently untrue. Persecution takes place in one form or another wherever the Church - any church - has an influence in the affairs of a country. This has never gone away, it is long-term and widespread. It may vary in its immediacy, but it has a direct influence on the lives it affects. You don't believe this - you believe any of the Irish girls who find themselves in trouble and are forced to to jump on the boat to England to seek a legally obtained pregnancy termination. I've raised this before, but there was the horrific case of the 11 year old daughter of the itinerant fruit picking family who was raped by a farmer, was given two sexually transmitted diseases and was made pregnant. Her parents took her to a church run hospital - the staff hid her state from the parents until it was too late to obtain a legal termination, even though they knew that to allow the pregnant to proceed would inevitably lead to the death of the rape victim. On appealing to a local Bishop, the family were told that the child should "embrace her martyrdom" The family had to cross the border into a neighboring country to save the life of the child. This is an extreme individual case but it illustrates a prevailing situation in some church-dominated countries. Keith went to great lengths to challenge the facts of this case, by the way - it took an intervention by Joe Offer to put the record straight. If you have any doubt about Christian church persecution being present today, I suggest you seek out the recent film 'Mea Maxima Culpa' - on the sexual abuse of American Schoolchildren, or The Boys of St Vincents, on what has happened in Canada, or or the ongoing saga of The Magdalene Laundries, or 'Philomena' or - The Raggy Boys - not a thing of the dim and distant past, but still a part of many peoples lives. To set Muslim abuse above all other forms of religious abuse is to ignore what is happening now. You can't make definitive statements without counting all the victims, not just the ones who feature in the scabloid press Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:53 AM Musket, you slipped one true accusation under the radar with all your false ones. Other than defining Islamism as meaning of terrorist tendency whilst claiming there is no Christian equivalent Islamism is not a religious faith. It is a political and religious ideology whose goal is to destroy democracy and impose the Sharia and Islamic rule by force. I do oppose that as do many , if not most, Muslims. I am amazed that you defend it, but it is probably just out of ignorance. I am not aware of a "Christian equivalent." Are you? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 04:59 AM Keith's position was that he would only discuss Christians being persecuted and he not only refused blankly to discuss persecution by Christians, but he did his best to prevent discussion on that side of the subject. You repeat a lie Jim. I did discuss persecution by Christians in CAR, and I did ask people for other examples. All I refused to discuss was Ireland's democratic legal system. I did not prevent anyone discussing anything. How could I? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:05 AM Keith has consistently presented the Muslim people as a religion of perverted potential terrorists More lies against me. I have never, NEVER "presented" any such thing because I do not believe it. Keith dominates it with his fanatical hatred of Muslims Completely untrue. You can challenge nothing I really say, so you make up shit and attack that. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:07 AM "You repeat a lie Jim." And you continue to deny what is freely accessible on Mudcat, which is excellent, as far as I'm concerned as it just adds to your credibility rating - please keep it coming, for all our sakes. "I did not prevent anyone discussing anything." No - of course you didn't, that doesn't stop your trying with squeals of "thread drift" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:31 AM In my opinion, Irish law was thread drift on that thread. We are allowed to express opinions. And you continue to deny what is freely accessible on Mudcat, No it is not. What I have described as lies, are lies. Made up shit because you can not challenge what I really say. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:49 AM According to Keith there is no Christian equivalent to Islamic terrorism. Fucking big Wow! Religious bigotry to go with gay bashing. Aren't we a broad church in Mudcat? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 06:03 AM "We are allowed to express opinions." We are - we should not be allowed to carpet bomb threads with those opinions until everybody elase walks away in despair You have been warned over half a dozen times about your "thread drift" ploy yet you still persist Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 11:35 AM Jim, your massive posts resemble "carpet bombing" much more than my brief missives. Musket, I said I am not aware of a Christian equivalent of Islamism. I asked if you were. Well? I am also not aware of an equivalent in any other religion. Are you? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 11:41 AM In my post today 4.53am I did not intend, " political and religious ideology" I intended to say " political and military ideology" Sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 10 Apr 14 - 11:52 AM Another back-alley brawl thread. Which you just jumped into head-first, Q, with the usual nugatory comment. Proud of yourself, are ye? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:20 PM No Keith. All Christians are angels. We have no need for modern words to describe Christian inspired terrorism. We only need a modern word to describe it when applied to Muslims. zzzz After all, you disgraceful bigoted bastard, old fashioned words such as crusade and inquisition don't adequately describe the attacks on people in Africa in the name of your Jesus. Clapton wept. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 12:27 PM I did not invent the term "islamism" so why should I be blamed for it? It describes a political and military ideology devoted to the destruction of democracy and the forcible imposition of Islamic rule and Sharia law. I said I can not think of any equivalents. I ask again, CAN YOU? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:15 PM "Jim, your massive posts resemble "carpet bombing" much more than my brief missives." I provide documented facts with my arguments - your war of attrition is based on your having the last word and posting interminably until the thread is destroyed - go and look at the ones you have vandalised. Enough of this - I am concerned with stopping your racist and sectarian bile - nothing mre. You have well and truly shit in your own nest this time Stop using this platform for your racism - you would not get away with it outside the social network The Irish are not brainwashed hate merchants as you have described them All male Pakistanis are not culturally implanted to have underage sex, as you have claimed they are. You will, of couse say this is "aal lies - so hear it is again Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 13 Feb 11 - 07:10 AM RE MUSLIM UNDERAGE SEX (my title – Jim Carroll) Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things. Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb. Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us? Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM Re BRITISH CULPABILITY IN OUTCOME OF THE GREAT IRISH FAMINE (my title - Jim Carroll) "YOU HAVE HAD NOT ONE IOTO OF SUPPORT" Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive. Irish schools at least since 1922 and NY State schools since 1996 by decree. Massachusetts? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:23 PM Jim, I have already rubbished those claims. Allow me to rubbish them again. First sentece of the first post. "Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things" (Muslims are all evil, oppressive, chauvinist, paedophile rapists, made so by their cultural upbringing.) The second line. ".... but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people," "Those people" (not me), many from the community, who said it came from the culture. Culture effects all. The second post refers to the FACT that Britain's culpability is taught in those schools, even though it is disputed. You chose not to deny that FACT Jim. Please split your donation between Save The Children and Greenpeace. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 10 Apr 14 - 01:55 PM You didn't answer the question I asked, Jim. Getting things right matters. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 02:37 PM "You didn't answer the question I asked, Jim. Getting things right matters." Yes I did - the fact that you asked it in a yes or no manner really doesn't wash with me I'm afraid. Keith's whole output has been not only to give the impression that Christians are the most persecuted, but that any persucution by Christians does not even measure on his particular richter scale - so much so that he has attempted to suppress it - Let me try your game with you - is this not exactly what Keith has done - yes or no? "".... but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people,"" That is a blatent lie, but even if Mahatma Gandhi had made those statements, they would still be blatantly racist and against British law If a public figure had uttered them in public they would be facing race hate incitement charges If a politician had made them they would never hold public office again Are you seriously suggesting that Britain is such a racist country that it allows public figures - politicians even - to make such horrendous attacks on one million of its citizens as to openly claim that they carry a cultural implant which makes them inclined to have underage sex with young women? It would be against the law in Ireland American personalities making such claims would be serving long sentences (maybe not in Texas!) The British National Party would never dare make such a public statement, though they probably share your views. IT IS YOUR CLAIM AND YOUR CLAIM ALONE - YOU HAVE NEVER EVER PRODUCED A SINGLE QUOTE INVOLVING AN ENTIRE CULTURE - IT IS THE INVENTION OF A VERY SICK MIND Blaming 'experts', historians, social workers.... whoever, is not an act of sheer cowardice, but to go to these lengths is an act of sheer destruction. Now tell us again about this racist state you live in - Britain, did you call it? I bloody well knew this would happen Once again we've allowed this brain-dead little sicko to steer this thread into one of his black holes. Don't we ever fucking learn? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 10 Apr 14 - 03:12 PM Come on Keith - let's have it about the racist Britain that allows politicians and public figures to racially smear an entire British ethnic/cultural group of over a million people. You usually manage to jump in before my fingers stop moving Or maybe you've gone to church - you did claim to be a Christian and offer to pray for us sinners, didn't you? Jim |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 10 Apr 14 - 05:18 PM Jim, those people were mostly British Pakistanis who have spent their whole lives defending their community and speaking out for them. The other two were left wing politicians who represented large Pakistani communities. They all ascribed the offending to aspects of that community's culture. Culture effects everyone. All I said was that they had convinced me. I know nothing about that culture. If I really was a racist, you would not still be trying to make something out of this years old post. In the very first sentence I make clear that I do not believe what you try to claim I do. In the second sentence, I say that it is not my view anyway. I accepted the views of people who did know, as I would accept a diagnosis or a weather forecast. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 02:26 AM So what you are saying is that it is no longer illegal in Britain for public figures, politicians, ex cabinet ministers even, to make sweeping statements which accuse entire ethnic communities of being so culturally corrupted that they have to resist the inner urges of their culture in order not to break the laws concerning sex with minors - do I have that right? I'm really not interested in your 'cultural implant' filth - you are what you are; though I am gratified that you confirm that you still hold those views - "Culture effects everyone.". I am concerned that you are now claiming that the propogation of that filth is no longer against the law and is being openly circulated in Britain today - is that how it is now? It certainly was illegal in 1998, when I moved to Ireland - is that no longer the case? If so, then maybe the racism I encountered when I lived in London, was not as passive as I believed it to be and is far more widespread than I thought. If your persistent claims are true, that such filth can now be peddled openly by public figures, it seems that racism is being generated from the top. Now that really is worrying Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:34 AM My question, Jim, wasn't about whatever Keith might believe or about questions of racism. It was whether you accepted that you were mistaken in saying that Keith had in fact claimed that the only people being persecuted were Christians. You were, so far as I can see. Of course I haven't read every post he has ever made, but none of the posts you have cited show him saying that. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:38 AM Would you accept a diagnosis or weather forecast if it offended your sanctimony or went against that you had preconceived as it telling you? Your track record here suggests a different answer to the one you will undoubtably give... |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Joe Offer Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:40 AM ...one wonders if there might be common ground in this discussion... |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 05:05 AM There is my real track record, which no-one could object to, and the one that Jim and you make up for me Musket. I think someone diagnosed with cancer might accept it as true even if they hoped with all their heart it was not. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 05:28 AM So what you are saying is that it is no longer illegal in Britain for public figures, politicians, ex cabinet ministers even, to make sweeping statements which accuse entire ethnic communities of being so culturally corrupted that they have to resist the inner urges of their culture in order not to break the laws concerning sex with minors - do I have that right? You saw them all Jim. They were much pasted and linked to. Reputable, mainstream media. Eminent, respected writers. How can you think you know more and better than them? Of course I believe them. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:05 AM So Britain has now officially become a cesspit of racism No - I saw no such statements implicating the the entire British Pakistani community - must have been away that week!! You ask me often enough to link back to your statements - perhaps you might return the favour - no - I didn't think so. I am intrigued to learn that your instinct at face-saving over-rides your declared patriotism though - you seem to be happy to accuse Britain of gut-heaving racism before you are prepared to admit to an ongoing lie. Whatever happened to 'Rule Britannia' and all that? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:19 AM You have seen them and commented on them. They all ascribed the offending to the culture, as you well know having been over this so many, many times. We are all effected by our culture to some extent Jim. If I really was a racist you would have more than one years old post that is not in the least racist anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:24 AM In answer to your question Joe, yes probably. However, in the wonderful words of the BBC scriptwriter Johnny Speight, putting words in the mouth of his outrageous old character Alf Garnett "If you want to achieve true democracy, you have to be prepared to shoot some people." Keith's last post sums his own contributions up perfectly. A few talking heads can't be wrong, and neither can lemmings. And perfect is an unfortunate choice of word in his case..... |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 08:44 AM "A few talking heads" No-one found any "talking heads" who said different. Do you know of any Musket? How can you think you know more and better than them? Of course I believe them. On what grounds do you dismiss them? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 09:12 AM You now have painted yourself into the ultimate corner If you produced such statements (you never have and you won't now) - you will have proved that Britain is an extreme racist state that allows attacks on over one million of its citizens by public figures, including leading members of the Government. If you don't (as I said, you never have - I have commented only to deny that they ever existed) you will have confirmed yourself as a racist liar prepared to back up your lies by inventing statements while at the same time smearing the British Establishment by suggesting it was capable of allowing such statements to be made without implementing its own laws on racism. Which is it to be - continue smearing or fess up? Make no mistake Muskie - these statements are purely te sick invention of Keith - nobody has ever made them - they wouldn't have dared to, if if they had been so stupid, they would have hit the headlines and would have been drummed out of office Please do't let this turd off the hook with "talking heads" - they are purely 'all Keith's own work' I would have thought that obvious - he only has to produce them to exonerate himself - he can't and he won't. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 09:32 AM Alibhai-Brown, Lord Ahmed, and Mohamed Shafiq were the ones I quoted at length (apart from Anne Cryer, Jack Straw and the Pakistani Ch4 journalist). They all affirmed that the offending derived from aspects of the culture, i.e. low esteem of women espescially white girls, arranged marriage, girls not being allowed male relationship,.... |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:25 AM So it's to be racist Britain then? Looks like we are better out of it then! How does the song go "you have no heart, you have no shame" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:25 AM So it's to be racist Britain then? Looks like we are better out of it then! How does the song go "you have no heart, you have no shame" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 11:48 AM According to you we are "deeply racist" anyway. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 11 Apr 14 - 01:11 PM If Alibhai-Brown, Ahmed, and Shafiq are racists in Jim's demented world, looks like we are better out of it then! |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:20 PM "According to you we are "deeply racist" anyway." I said I met with a great deal of racism in London whan I worrked there The Daily mail survey revealed that a quarter of the people questioned admitted to to holding racist views and expressing them regularly You have just confirmed that it is part of Government policy to allow racist personalities - even Government ministers to racially abuse over a million people publicly What more is there to say? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 14 - 03:52 PM Of course Britain is, to some extent, a racist country, as you have pointed out, jim. And the Government both reflects that and in some ways underpins it. There are many countries and many Governments which are significantly worse, and a few which are somewhat better. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 11 Apr 14 - 04:34 PM "And the Government both reflects that and in some ways underpins it" Can I be clear about this I observed a great deal of racism when I lived in London, so much so that I was cowardly enough to avoid conversations which I knew would inevitably end up in unpleasant wrangles. I believe that racism was passive - most of the people I heard it from were people I would have no hesitation in sharing a pint with - as long as the conversation never strayed into those particular black area. I believe that racism in Britain has largely been fostered by politicians who have used "them" as an excuse for their own failures - jobs, poor housing, poor health facilities... all due to "overcrowded Britain" - "a threat to our jobs and poncing off our welfare system... yattada, yattada. All has helped to turn a not very stable situation into a mildly xenophobic place. It hasn't helped that my generation was brought up in the recent post-Empire days where we were told the The British Empire set out to civilise the world and save those poor people from their own indolence and ignorance... "to keep their hands from error's chain" as we used to sing at our religious services - and all that crap. I don't think I ever worked with a single individual who would ever have acted on their prejudices (but then again, I never worked on the East London Docks when they marched in support of Eunuch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" garbage. I think Governments, realising the value that immigration has brought to Britain, have been more or less forced to introduce laws to control the worst elements of racism in Britain - sometimes despite their own personal views. I seriously believed Britain had fairly stringent anti race-hate laws, which is what makes Keith's accusation that they would allow politicians and public figures to make such racist attacks as he has made, on over a million people from one single community in Britain - utterly ridiculous. I really believed that this was the stuff of the B.N.P. and the English Defence League. I am confident that he is such a spineless individual that he has not the bollocks to admit that his racist statements are his own invention. Maybe if he keeps it up he will convince us that Britain is inheritance a safe haven for racists - who knows, one day he may even produce actual statements of politicians and community worker actually saying that the believe "all male Pakistanis are culturally implanted to have sex with underage young women" - pigs might fly, but not without the help of Ryanair (or maybe some time when you offer an apology for your somewhat dishonest accusation). By the way - you are sinking into his slime-pit by pointing to "worse countries" If a Britain is racist, it is racist, if France is racist too, Britain and France are racist, if Germany is no different then all three are racist... and so ad infinitum. I believe there are aspects of xenophobia in many countries - people like Keith shames the British people with their own racism disguised as patriotism, then have the temerity to involve the British people in their filth, in Keith's case, to save is face and try to extract himself from the sewer of his own construction. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 11 Apr 14 - 06:12 PM Jim, largely agreed. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 11 Apr 14 - 10:26 PM It seems to me self evident that there is a spectrum of racism, Jim, and as you put it "there are aspects of xenophobia in many countries", and that "racism in Britain has largely been fostered by politicians". And I also believe that these are matters where it is more useful to seek agreement the amplify apparent differences. I also am of the firm opinion that arguments should never be carried over from thread to thread. And any chance of a response to the question I raised about an apparent, no doubt unintentional, misstatement? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 14 - 01:16 AM Jim, you stated "Britain is a deeply racist country" long before this. Are you REALLY claiming that those quotes of Straw, Alibhai-Brown, Ahmed, and Shafiq were racist and illegal ???? Really Jim? Really Richard? So racist that it was racist to refer to them here? These are people whose lives have been dedicated to fighting racism! Your accusations are just ridiculous. You show yourselves incapable of rational judgement on this subject. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:00 AM If you call Alibhai-Brown racist for criticising her own community, how do you address real racism? Do you claim she lies? If she is being honest and truthful, is it still racist? If Alibhai-Brown is a racist, who is not? You devalue the term with your hysterical accusations. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: akenaton Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:28 AM Ah so true Keith, but i'm afraid the "child locks" are engaged at present. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:40 AM "I also am of the firm opinion that arguments should never be carried over from thread to thread." Why? How many times has the issue of Israel/Palestine come up on this forum? I have been involved in arguments with Keith on well over half a dozen of them - each time he displays exactly the same Islamophobic attitude to the Palestinian people - why should that not be relevant to all of those threads? The same with Ireland - same number of threads - the same support for sectarian politics on each one of them - why should that not be relevant to all of them? Whenever the question of Britain's policy comes up on selling arms to terrorist nations, on the numerous threads it has - the same arguments from the few people who defend that trade - mainly Keith - why should Keith's jingoistic support for Britain be relevant to everything he posts on the subject. These threads are not unconnected bubbles - combined, they are all reflections of what we are and what we believe, and it would be wrong - impossible even, not to compare them one with another. Keith would give his right arm to be able to walk away from his "cultural implant" thread - I have no intention of ever letting him do so - that sums up (for me anyway) what he is and what he stands for. That is what I have been brought up to hate and fear - blind, ignorant racist bigotry - the stuff that petrol poured through letter-boxes is made of. Keith has just turned his racist sights on Britain in an attempt to walk away from his "implant" statement, by suggesting that British law would allow such a statement to be made by public figures. Would, as Keith claims, an ex Home Secretary like Jack Straw have been allowed to stay in office had he made such a horrendous pronouncement? Would he not have been prosecuted under Britain's incitement to race hatred laws if he had declared that all British male Pakistanis carried an implant from their culture that makes them prone to having sex with under-age women, which they have to resist? Would any social worker, journalist, member of the House of Lords.... (no matter what their status or ethnic origin) be allowed to continue unchecked and unprosecuted if they had made such a declaration publicly? Of course they bloody well wouldn't - whatever I believe to be Britain's failings, I know enough about my country and her laws to know they would be shot out of all positions of responsibility before their feet touched the ground - out of embarrassment to the political parties and organisations if for nothing else. Think back to what happened to Eunuch Powell after his 'Rivers of Blood' diatribe - and that was well before Britain's race laws were made as stringent as they now are. It is utter nonsense to suggest that any public figure would be allowed to make such a public declaration. Keith pronounced that "I now believe" (his words)....., then, when the enormity of his statement was pointed out to him he scrambled around for public figures to hide behind, and took a few vague statements that had referred to aspects of Muslim culture that might be contributory factors to the actions of around 150 criminals from a community of (now) 1,500,000, and applied them to the entire British/Pakistani population Each of those statements of opinion from the people Keith has alluded to came with a warning that in no way could those opinions be taken as having any cultural or ethnic significance - sated over and over again - this is exactly what Keith has done - despite the respect he claims to have for his "witnesses". Jack Straw - Keith's star witness, actually put the crimes down to "testosterone fizzing young men acting as young men do" or some such words. Yet Keith has continued to maintain his All male Pakistani-cultural implant" stance, and has now added that Britain's laws would allow such a statement to be made publicly - that is the picture he is now painting of his and my country. There is a simple litmus test to be applied to Keith's claim. Is such a suggestion racist? If it is, would it be ignored if it was made by prominent people? If it is not, why not? You might also add - why has Keith never reproduced such a statement and why will he not do so now - wouldn't that solve all his problems? This is an invention by Keith and it runs through all his contributions on the subject of race like "Blackpool" runs through rock. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 14 - 03:47 AM "And any chance of a response to the question I raised about an apparent, no doubt unintentional, misstatement?" About as much of a chance as I have of getting an explanation or an apology for your suggestion that I set one contributor against another apparently Remind me what your question was please - I overlooked it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:38 AM You said that Keith had stated that the only people being persecuted were Christians, which he had not. In a follow up post when challenged you argued that he had said that more Christians were being persecuted at this time than other religious communities, and implied that this confirmed what you had previously said. It just isn't. It may not be accurate - it would be remarkably hard to get accurate figures on that - but more is not the same as all. And my repeated question was whether you accepted that yiu had, no doubt unintentionally, misstated. We return to the same controversies on different threads. I believe it makes for a better and more inclusive discussion if we start anew each time. Why? Essentially because.pulling in quotes from previous threads and carrying over arguments leads to to threads like this one. And it shuts out people who do not have the obsessive committment to trawl back through previous threads which have gone the same way. Turning to Jack Straw as an ethical model for anything is a bit extreme. Who next. - Tony Blair? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:28 AM You said that Keith had stated that the only people being persecuted were Christians, which he had not." And I said that he not only presented massive 'evidence' of Christian persecution, the bulk of it taken from an Islamophobic site and defended vehemently, that evidence as all being true. When I and others pointed out that Christians were equally capable of persecution, he denied it, dismissed the examples provided as not being Christian, and that those being persecuted were free to go and live somewhere else. He then attempted to prevent discussion on persecution by Christians with a campaign of "thread drift" accusations - he had to be warned off before he desisted. He has always defended the persecution of Muslims by minimising it,and by defending the persecutors - usually the Israelis. The only other group that he has ever accepted as being persecuted is - guess who - the Israelis. If you wish to be pedantic - he has not actually said that Christians are the only ones being persecuted, but in essence, his postings have indicated quite clearly that as far as he is concerned, they are the only ones undergoing persecution. I have misunderstood or misinterpreted nothing - I have merely taken his behaviour to its logical conclusion. " believe it makes for a better and more inclusive discussion if we start anew each time." You, of course, are entitled to hold whatever opinions you wish - they are not mine. If Keith showed any flexibility whatever to any single subject you might have a point. If he was an occasional poster to this forum. you might also have a point. The sheer weight of his postings, the habit he has developed in taking onto himself the practice of answering virtually every single posting, and his insistence on having the last word on every single thread - puts him apart from other contributors to this forum - he is a man on a mission, and that mission has a theme - racial, religious and cultural intolerance. You could virtually write every of Keith's postings in advance, he has become so predictable. I am not prepared to sit back while he uses Mudcat as a platform of hate and intolerance - sorry - you do as you wish. I am not a little disappointed that you choose to defend Keith's behaviour with minutia, while totally ignoring the points I have just made about the logic of his 'implant' claims. I suppose I am going to have to accept your continuing silence on your accusation of my having set members against each other as an admission that is wasn't true. Ah well Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:28 AM You said that Keith had stated that the only people being persecuted were Christians, which he had not." And I said that he not only presented massive 'evidence' of Christian persecution, the bulk of it taken from an Islamophobic site and defended vehemently, that evidence as all being true. When I and others pointed out that Christians were equally capable of persecution, he denied it, dismissed the examples provided as not being Christian, and that those being persecuted were free to go and live somewhere else. He then attempted to prevent discussion on persecution by Christians with a campaign of "thread drift" accusations - he had to be warned off before he desisted. He has always defended the persecution of Muslims by minimising it,and by defending the persecutors - usually the Israelis. The only other group that he has ever accepted as being persecuted is - guess who - the Israelis. If you wish to be pedantic - he has not actually said that Christians are the only ones being persecuted, but in essence, his postings have indicated quite clearly that as far as he is concerned, they are the only ones undergoing persecution. I have misunderstood or misinterpreted nothing - I have merely taken his behaviour to its logical conclusion. " believe it makes for a better and more inclusive discussion if we start anew each time." You, of course, are entitled to hold whatever opinions you wish - they are not mine. If Keith showed any flexibility whatever to any single subject you might have a point. If he was an occasional poster to this forum. you might also have a point. The sheer weight of his postings, the habit he has developed in taking onto himself the practice of answering virtually every single posting, and his insistence on having the last word on every single thread - puts him apart from other contributors to this forum - he is a man on a mission, and that mission has a theme - racial, religious and cultural intolerance. You could virtually write every of Keith's postings in advance, he has become so predictable. I am not prepared to sit back while he uses Mudcat as a platform of hate and intolerance - sorry - you do as you wish. I am not a little disappointed that you choose to defend Keith's behaviour with minutia, while totally ignoring the points I have just made about the logic of his 'implant' claims. I suppose I am going to have to accept your continuing silence on your accusation of my having set members against each other as an admission that is wasn't true. Ah well Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 12 Apr 14 - 09:29 PM Insisting on accuracy should not be airily dismissed as "pedantry". We greatly weaken the force of any argument by having a false accusation as a significant part. "It's all the same thing" doesn't work. "You could virtually write every of Keith's postings in advance, he has become so predictable." I am afraid that is true of quite a lot of people. We should all do well to consider if the cap fits. In an earlier post I said that I believe that all of us, including Keith as well as yourself, share the view that "Persecution is monstrous, whoever is persecuted, and whoever is doing the persecuting. Different communities are subject to persecution in different places and times, and that definitely includes Christian communities." It does seem to me, Jim, that arguing against this belief of mine and trying to convince others that Keith is lying when he says he shares that view about persecution, does add up to trying to set members against each other. And I say this in face of being aware that on a wide range of matters my views are probably significantly closer to you than to Keith. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 12 Apr 14 - 10:42 PM Each of those statements of opinion from the people Keith has alluded to came with a warning that in no way could those opinions be taken as having any cultural or ethnic significance Of courses no "ethnic" significance, but the statements specifically DID say that culture was the significant factor. When I and others pointed out that Christians were equally capable of persecution, he denied it, Not true. We did discuss persecution by Christians in CAR, and I asked more than once for other examples to discuss. Not believing that Ireland's democratically legislated laws were an example I did refuse to discuss it on that thread. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Musket Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:24 AM Funny how relative , subjective interpretations of such terms as racism are put in the clear unequivocal categories of lies and truth by Keith and his pet. Says more about their shallow minds and infantile reasoning than it does about the subject in hand. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 04:39 AM Like Jim, you accuse of non-existent racism because you can not challenge anything I actually say. Or can you Musket? Will you? Confident prediction-No. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:26 AM "Insisting on accuracy should not be airily dismissed as "pedantry". " It should be when is is being used as a "get out of jail" card for an individual's continuing racist outpourings. "all of us, including Keith as well as yourself, share the view that "Persecution is monstrous," There you have it clearly stated - Keith apparently has another 'out of the closet' crusader for his merry band. Keith has never uttered anything resembling the rest of that sentence. "Keith is lying when he says he shares that view about persecution," You have enough evidence to the contrary to fill a library of 'Mein Kampfs' So opposing Keith's racism is "setting one member against another" - is that it Sorry mac - I think we're finished here - sadly. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 06:33 AM A last question How do you square Keith's 'Pakistani implant' and "Irish brainwashing" statements, if they are not a part of his racist persecution? I won't hold my breath for an answer considering the time it took to come up with a feeble excuse for your last foot-in-mouth. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:05 AM Keith has never uttered anything resembling the rest of that sentence. ("Persecution is monstrous,") Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 08 Oct 13 - 11:58 AM Imagine for a moment that I have no hidden agenda. Just imagine that what I say here is indeed what I actually feel. Persecution of any group is abhorrent. Religious persecution no less so. I singled out Christians because they are said to be suffering most and their plight under reported. We should be able to agree on this |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:09 AM The idea that that culture led to certain offending did not come from me, so stop shooting the messenger. Do you deny that schools in Ireland were instructed to teach that Britain was culpable for the famine, a disputed version of History? Do you Jim? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:38 AM Your mealy-mouthed sympathy is reflective of someone who will shed crocodile tears over people being massacred by sniper fire on the streets of Homs and then go on to excuse the sale of sniper rifles to the regime doing the killing - then top it off by proposing that the same feller should be supplied with riot control gear, armoured cars and water cannon The same performance was repeated when Assad was using chemical weapons against his opposition and the same feller (guess who) said it was OK to sell him the chemicals that went into the making of those weapons. Britain was culpable of the Famine - that has been long established. Teachers thought history (partially) - the question of apportioning blame is a relatively new phenomenon, as your historians have all pointed out. "We should be able to agree on this" We can agree on nothing until the long-term and widespread persecution of all countries where religion is taken into account. Until we know the extent of all religious persecution, we can only look at those which ahve been headlined - or - in your case, conjured up by such extremist sites as 'Muslim Watch' Sorry - no intention of wading in that particular cess-pit with you. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:41 AM Sorry should be "taught history (partially)" Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 08:52 AM Famine historians dispute culpability, and most deny it. Keith has never uttered anything resembling... Yes I have and just gave you an example. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 09:57 AM "Famine historians dispute culpability, and most deny it." Oh dear o they do not One more time - which of those things have listed - closed warehouses - closed workhouses - exporting of food - racketeering merchants - evictions - Trevalyan -is under dispute by anybody other than you? Answers on a plain postcard please Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:31 AM On the relevant thread Jim, you yourself posted an eminent historian stating that no culpability was the dominant view and long had been. Also I posted historians who disputed culpability. It makes you look very silly to keep claiming it is not disputed when it demonstrably and obviously is. (Why must you discuss it on two threads at once? That makes you look very silly too!) |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:57 AM Just posted a summary of what was being taught in Irish schools, and what is happening today Don't forget to tell us which of the points I have made are under dispute I suppose you realise that, after accusing Britain of allowing prominent figures to make horrendous accusations against an entire British ethnic group without taking action, you will never again be able to accuse any of us of being "anti - British" again Doesn't come any more "Anti-British than that, I'm afraid. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:06 AM Just posted a summary of what was being taught in Irish schools Only since 1995. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 11:11 AM No - up to 1995 Read the ******* thing That is what my family were taught - ulnless you want to call them liars as well as brainwashed morons Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 12:40 PM I am only going to discuss that subject on that thread. I found the source of that massive paste job and it is not any kind of school curriculum. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 13 Apr 14 - 02:44 PM "I found the source of that massive paste job and it is not any kind of school curriculum." Exits left - the dreaded thread drift again "I found the source of that massive paste job and it is not any kind of school curriculum." "If you say nasty things about Britain, I'll shut my eyes and hold my breath and scweam and scweam and scweam" I thought you might be more at home with Just William rather than all those complicated "historians" you have been hiding behind Absolutely pathetic What the **** are you even discussing these subjects for if you haven't the ability to read something that has been written for schoolchildren. All you can hope for now is Mac to come galloping along on his white charger and tell us that you are not a gut racist with an instinctive hatred of all not British That just about does it, I think that'll do nicely, thank you very much. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 13 Apr 14 - 03:50 PM It is a History site for kids. It gives one version. It tells us nothing about how the famine has been taught in schools for the last seventy years. This is the wrong thread Jim. Is it so hard for you to comprehend? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 13 Apr 14 - 10:10 PM Quite where the Famine comes into it, and the extent of responsibility for it that the Government of the time in Westminster should carry for it, beats me. Obviously an ineffectual government that presides over a massive famine on its doorstep carries a lot of responsibility for that, just as it would if it happened in the Home Counties, and it quite reasonably gets blamed for that by the victims and their successors. But that's a whole different issue that can only be dragged in here by pretty tortuous logic. ............ While I can recognise significant differences in how Jim sees many things and how Keith does, and more of the time I am probably more in line with Jim, I just cannot see that in reality these are sufficient to justify a campaign of empassioned denunciation worthy of Ian Paisley in his prime. There are real racists, and real sectarian fanatics, and real persecutors out there. I've seen nothing in any post by Keith which would lead me to believe that in any way he was not honest when back in October he wrote "Persecution of any group is abhorrent. Religious persecution no less so. " And since Jim clearly believes that as well ( along with everyone else here, I am pretty sure) the real disagreements are in comparison trivial, and should be recognised as such. And that should reasonably be reflected in the kinds of rhetoric used to explore them. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 03:25 AM "It is a History site for kids." That is the history that has been taught in Irish schools for the best part of my lifetime - it is what you have claimed has "brainwashed" the Irish and Irish American people to fill them with hate for the English. You have said everything you needed to say here - you don't know anything and you don't what to know anything - that is exactly what you have articulated; it is probable the most accurate and honest statement you have made. You have been asked to challenge the written facts on the Famine - you have refused. You have been given a summing up of the Irish version of famine history taught in schools - you refuse to read it. You have been asked to provide an alternative to the many facts you have been presented with - you refuse to do so. You wallow in you own ignorance and bigotry and in the process, you insult the people who disagree with you and racially abuse entire communities and racial groups. It really will not happen again on this forum if I can possibly prevent it. Your meglomanic arrogance appears to have gotten out of control and should not be allowed to foul up what is an enjoyable and educational forum - learn to respect the views and the rights of others or stay away. "I just cannot see that in reality these are sufficient to justify a campaign of empassioned denunciation worthy of Ian Paisley in his prime. " Then you haven't read through the argument. If there is any denunciation, it is of the Government of the day - not the British people; it would be equally as valid if the Famine had taken place in the Home Counties. Despite Keith's accusation of "a people brainwashed to hate the English" the only hatred displayed throughout this discussion is his own towards the "brainwashed" Irish and Irish Americans (and his mate's towards the whining and gullible Irish who were lazy and stupid enough to deserve what they got" - a million+ dead and a century and a half of emigration. I've been personally associated with this country for forty years; during that time I have never experienced hatred towards the British people in any form whatever; on the contrary, the Irish people are noted for their "céad míle fáilte". There is no "hate" attached to wanting to understand and discuss your history - there is a great deal of hate in attempting to distort and re-write that history to cover up crimes of politicians, landlords and entrepreneurs who happen to be British and, in the minds of some people, above reproach. The full history of The Great Famine has been suppressed for a century and a half because of the need for Ireland not to antagonise its nearest neigbours for the sake of those still forced to emigrate because of the legacy Britain left behind - that is the message that all of Keith's historians have postulated. 1995 brought a sea change in Irish historical studies and that situation has trodden on the toes of bigots and Empire Loyalists like Keith My sympathy goes out to him and his kind. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:29 AM You have been given a summing up of the Irish version of famine history taught in schools - you refuse to read it. I did read it. It is not "a summing up of the Irish version of famine history taught in schools." It is a one sided bit of propaganda aimed at inculcating that version into kids heads. It mercifully has nothing to do with Ireland's curriculum. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:41 AM "It is not "a summing up of the Irish version of famine history taught in schools." Yes it ******* is - it was put up on that site by a cousin and was taken from her old school text books - that's how I came to know about it in the first place The text I posted was one she sent me - I wasn't sure whether it had been altered in any way for the site. Do not contradict what you have no knowledge of and have no intention of substantiating. If you have evidence of what you believe was taught in Irish schools please provide us with your own examples so we can be as "infallible as you are. Is there no end to your arrogance? ou are an obscenely racist shit and it really is time you were removed from this forum - you foul up every thread you touch Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 14 - 04:47 AM If you have evidence of what you believe was taught in Irish schools I will put something on the relevant thread. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:45 AM I think this is a thread that would definitely be better closed. I apologise for starting it. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:50 AM "I think this is a thread that would definitely be better closed." Why - it seems the only reason to close it if because you have failed to make your point - whatever it was No apologies needed - but at lweast it was an apology Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 14 Apr 14 - 08:16 AM As I said at the start, "The anti-faith axis will always turn any discussion of religious persecution toxic. Restarting the debate will just restart their toxicity." |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 09:01 AM Oh dear - anti British and anti-faith. Must go to confession and unburden my soul! Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 14 Apr 14 - 10:39 AM "In an earlier post I said that I believe that all of us, including Keith as well as yourself, share the view that "Persecution is monstrous, whoever is persecuted, and whoever is doing the persecuting." Oh sure MGrath, K A of H DOES share that view, quite volubly when claiming to be racially tolerant. He can afford to share that view, because whenever some group HE doesn't like is being persecuted, he fall s back on the "It isn't persecution, because others are treated worse" Then, when that fails to convince, there is always the claim that it happened too long ago to be considered and anyway he doesn't believe it's persecution. The man simply has an adamantine bias in favour of Israel and Christians, combined with contempt for both Muslims and those who do not share his prejudice. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 14 Apr 14 - 10:44 AM "Imagine for a moment that I have no hidden agenda. Just imagine that what I say here is indeed what I actually feel. Persecution of any group is abhorrent. Religious persecution no less so." I've tried, and can only conclude that this claim too is imaginary. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 14 - 11:26 AM I can't remember a post when Keith said "It isn't persecution, because others are treated worse" , and I find it hard to conceive of anybody making such a totally illogical statement. It's logically equivalent to saying "this can't be a telephone box because there's a pub round the corner". There is just no connection between the two halves of the sentence. We can reasonably disagree with people on the basis of what they have said. Bb Rather more questionably, we can reach a judgement as to what they believe, but have not said, on the basis of other evidence. Evidence of what they have done is strong evidence, evidence of other things they have said are less strong. But what we cannot do is use words which they have not said as if they had said them, and treat that as proof of what they. "The man simply has an adamantine bias in favour of Israel and Christians, combined with contempt for both Muslims and those who do not share his prejudice." The first part of that sentence might indeed be true, but so what ? Most of us can fairly be recognised to have prejudices. We tend to see the fixed views which we hold ourselves as justified. But as for the second part of the sentence, it just doesn't correspond with what I have seen. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 01:37 PM "It isn't persecution, because others are treated worse" Has anybody suggested he has - your quotation marks indicate someone has? What has been said is that he has presented Christians as being the most persecuted, dismissed other forms of persecution as being not persecution or avoidable my moving somewhere else, then launched a campaign (on a thread entitled "Christian Persecution") to disallow any discussion on persecution by Christians; good ol' "thread drift" - one of his favourite weapons On the same thread, he attempted to prevent any discussion on the reaso for religious persecution - good ol' "thread drift" again, which is, as far as I'm concerned, a fairly natural development of any discussion on persecution If you insist on advocating on Keith's behalf, can you amke an effort to get it right Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 01:45 PM Sorry - missed a bit It is also his regular practice - though he is not alone, to justify persecutionby the causes he supports (Britain- Israel) because others also persecute - he claims, usually without qualification, that 'them over theyre persecute mare than.....' as if it mattered - persecution is persecution, whoever indulges in it. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 14 Apr 14 - 01:52 PM What the flying fuck is an anti faith axis? You paranoid little squirt. No such thing. You either have a delusion and good luck to you or you haven't. If those who need such crutches use it for themselves, then fine. But when it creeps out of the churches and mosques, that's when decent normal people have the right to comment and put it back in its place. You really are a weird bloke Keith. I suppose you understand yourself but fuck me, you really use this outlet for your wasted energy. I bet Kevin really thanks himself for starting this thread. He knew as well as anybody else that it would become an outlet for a Punch and Judy show, with Mr Punch being more obnoxious than normal. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 14 Apr 14 - 02:22 PM What the flying fuck is an anti faith axis? Obviously, the coalition headed by Germany, Italy, and Japan that opposed the Allied Powers in World War II. You must rememker FWK is an eminent historian. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 14 Apr 14 - 03:04 PM Am I alone in being thoroughly pissed of at seeing a potentially good thread turned into a discussion about someone whose intolerant and irrational behaviour his naused up many threads with that behaviour - sort of another notch to his six-shooter. Keith is a racist and a bigot and, should his Islamophobic and now, anti-Irish attacks have been made away from the safety of the social network would be totally illegal I have drafted a letter of complaint to the administrators of this site asking that he be either disciplined or removed, but, haviing never made such a complaint before, I have held off posting it in anticipation of his changing his attitude. He is, at present, on another site accusing we "anti-faith axis" (obliquely) of persecuting him and claiming to be only defending Christian values from the attacks by us bigots. Having been caught out in a blatant lie - another nasty habit he has acquired down the years, he appears to have done yet another runner from th Irish Famine site - he will, o doubt, wait till the dust settles before he takes up the cudgels in defence of the Empire. Frankly, I have had enough. I have no objection to strong argument, but I can no longer cope with someone who comes with his mind up and, when he is put in a corner, throws yup his hands, confesses ignorance of the subject and only takes the stance he does because "experts" told him his line was the correct one - he has done this at least three times this year. Keith's statements on "implanted Muslims" and brainwashed Irish and Irish-Americans would be illegal in Britain, if publicly expressed. The latter affects me and my family - and a great number of members of this forum, it has been suggested that the former has been instrumental in driving off one of the few Muslims who posted here - I certainly would find it insulting and infuriating to be in Keith's presence. Sorry - gripe over. Let's talk about "a different way to speak about persecution" rather than focusing on our resident persecutor. Must go - some work to do before 'Murdoch' starts (oooo that lovely Julia....) Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 14 - 05:22 PM I rather foolishly had a better opinion of the people who've been flailing around here, about what appear to me essentially marginal differences, by pointing to someone whom everyone could find common ground in admiring. More particularly, I wanted to flag up the killing of an admirable man, whose death was an example of persecution of a Christian but without any identified source or direction of the persecution, since the killer could just as easily be Christian or Muslim. Persecution is a horrible thing, wherever it happens. Sometimes those engaged in it do not recognise what they are doing. I shouldn't have started the thread, that is clear enough. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Richard Bridge Date: 14 Apr 14 - 07:02 PM I regret to differ from McGrath. Living, as I do, In England I am quite clear that the bulk of those persecuted are non-white, non-straight, non-Xtian. The people Keith persistently picks on. It's rather like HNWI claiming to be persecuted. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 14 Apr 14 - 10:35 PM All persecution is wrong, regardless of the religion of those persecuted, and there is an awful lot of it in the world today. Whether worldwide persecution of Christian communities is greater than that of others is probably unknowable, and completely irrelevant. Trivialising any of it is never justified. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 14 - 03:18 AM "I shouldn't have started the thread, that is clear enough" I really can't see why Mac - if you are right, any discussion on persecution is a no-go area because it will stir up a hornet's nest. I believe that this Forum has been targeted by a tiny number of individuals who are prepared to spend time and effort advocating for their own particular brand of persecution. In the past, the target for their hate campaigns have been Muslims and gays, now it has spilled over to include the Irish. Some of the statements made, recently and in the past, would be illegal under Britain's incitement race and sectarian hate laws and would be liable to prosecution, had they not been made within the safety of the social network. This is essentially a music site which should be capable of attracting contributors from all cultures - if I were a Muslim, I doubt if I would come anywhere near Mudcat following some of the comments on that culture that are continually being made. My roots are Irish; I have recently been provoked into a fury by comments made against Irish and Irish American people. These are a form of persecution in themselves and they have now been directed against members of this forum. The statement in your opening posting was an extremely moving and apposite one, but like many others, it has become bogged down in squabbles involving individuals rather than issues. If postings like yours cannot be made, then all such views become taboo, and this handful of extremists will have won - I'm not prepared to see that happen without voicing my misgivings about what I believe to be happening. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Apr 14 - 01:18 PM It did indeed become bogged down in squabbles, Jim, and I wish very much that those who carried them on and had escalated them had been able to restrain themselves. Or at the very least had done not used this thread to carry on a running battle that most newcomers would find hard to make sense of, or to appreciate. The term "extremist" has several meanings. I think it is wise to consider whether it is only other people who are extremists. This is a thread which would serve to put off anyone coming to it from wishing to frequent the Mudcat. That is as good a reason as any to regret having started it. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 15 Apr 14 - 02:40 PM "I wish very much that those who carried them on and had escalated them had been able to restrain themselves." Can I remind you that it is you who took it upon yourself to defend Keith's racism My First posting was to agree with Joe, my second was to agree with you, my third was to comment on Ake's attributing Newspeak to "liberals", my forth was to request that Richard didn't encourage Keith by humouring him...... Keith and others were at it well underway before I joined in the melee. "I think it is wise to consider whether it is only other people who are extremists." I won't ask you to qualify what you're alluding to - I realise that you don't do that sort of thing My definition of "extremist" is that which I apply to the things I have mentioned above - what's yours? I still reckon there's life in this thread if you set out what you expect of us rather than your present underhand sniping Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 15 Apr 14 - 07:29 PM So far extremism goes, Jim, so far as I can see only one person has posted in this thread advocating persecution, not Keith, but Greg F 06 Apr 14 - 11:56 AM. I requested you to modify a false accusation against Keith, and eventually you did so, very reluctantly. That was not "defending Keith's racism" - false accusations should never be allowed to stand, whoever they are directed at. (I think that the term "racist" should be used far more sparingly, and that it is not in fact appropriate to use it in this particular case.) How do I define extremism? Essentially it means taking things too far. Even righteous indignation. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Steve Shaw Date: 15 Apr 14 - 07:48 PM This is a thread which would serve to put off anyone coming to it from wishing to frequent the Mudcat. As of this moment, there are seventy-four active threads here just on today's page. I'm not going to do a survey, but I'm guessing that over sixty are non-controversial. There is no law that says you should seek out material that might offend you. Equally, there is no law that says you should torture yourself by continuing to read a thread that you find disagreeable. Maybe we don't really need persons who are so delicate in the way you suggest. And I'm actually supporting your thread here. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 14 - 07:41 AM "not Keith" How exactly do you square Keith's "Implanted" Pakinstanis and Brainwashed Irish? Botthe would be illegal outside the bounds of the internet despite Keith's lying his claims that public figures and historians prompted him to make the claims "RE MUSLIM UNDERAGE SEX (my title – Jim Carroll) Don, no one on this thread has claimed any of those things. Don I do now " believe that all male Pakistani Muslims have a culturally implanted tendency" but only because of the testimony of all those knowledgeable people, and always acknowledging that only a tiny minority succumb. Do you dismiss all that just because it does not fit your preconceptions, or do you have some powerful evidence to the contrary that you have not shared with us? Subject: RE: BS: Irish Potato Blight- Cause found From: Keith A of Hertford - PM Date: 12 Mar 14 - 07:13 AM Re BRITISH CULPABILITY IN OUTCOME OF THE GREAT IRISH FAMINE (my title - Jim Carroll) "YOU HAVE HAD NOT ONE IOTO OF SUPPORT" Not surprising when generations of school children have been brainwashed to believe Britain should be blamed, keeping hate alive. Irish schools at least since 1922 and NY State schools since 1996 by decree. Massachusetts?" Not really expecting an answer - just interested to see whether you will ignore my question or bluster your way around it As for Greg's hatred of Keith - even if if I didn't agree with his view (which I do) it is pretty small potatoes comared to branding an entire British community as potential pedophiles - or maybe you think protecting a racist is more important than simple humanity? Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 16 Apr 14 - 09:09 AM only one person has posted in this thread advocating persecution, not Keith, but Greg F Apparently you missed the point and don't "get it" either, Kevin. I don't hate Keith, Jim - that would require motre effort than its worth. Basically, I DISMISS Keith, his hubris, and his idiocy. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 14 - 10:09 AM "I DISMISS Keith, his hubris, and his idiocy." I don't dismiss him, but I seriously hope the owners of Mudcat do if he continues the way he is going at present I certainly hate everything he stands for. Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 16 Apr 14 - 04:33 PM Whatever those quotes from Keith might mean, they certainly do not add up to "advocating persecution". Unlike the post from Greg which I indicated. Of course he might not have meant it when he said he favoured persecuting Christians, but in a time when some terrible things are happening out in the real world, at the hands of people who actually do believe that, it is unwise to be too free with attempted irony. I would doubt that a claim to favour persecution of Muslims or Jews would be shrugged off too easily. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 16 Apr 14 - 04:39 PM " Ask any Pakistani who's had petrol poured though his letterbox Mac. Anyway - all academic now I've gone from this forum I no longer want my name associated with a forum that allows itself with hate peddlers or their apologists ("if the cap fits" - as you rightly put it) can't afford anti-rabies shots on my pension, thanks all the same Enjoy Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Elmore Date: 16 Apr 14 - 06:07 PM Found this thread depressing. Listened to an hour of music by Leonard Cohen. Feeling much better now. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Greg F. Date: 16 Apr 14 - 06:33 PM Found this thread depressing. Listened to an hour of music by Leonard Cohen. Feeling much better now. Asolutely priceless! |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 16 Apr 14 - 07:27 PM Jim, I hope you will reconsider. You would be a real loss to us. I admire your work and am in awe of your knowledge of our music. I know I am wasting my breath but you are wrong about me. I love Ireland and everything Irish. I have yet to meet an Irish person I do not like and have a lovely Irish daughter-in-law. We in the Church of England hate racism, never tolerate racists and defend minorities. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Ed T Date: 16 Apr 14 - 07:35 PM I totally enjoy Leonard Cohens higher vocal range, though he rarely gets into it in public. A shy fellow, I suspect, who does not wish to grand stand. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Elmore Date: 16 Apr 14 - 07:59 PM vocal Range? |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: GUEST,Troubadour Date: 16 Apr 14 - 08:15 PM I can't remember a post when Keith said "It isn't persecution, because others are treated worse" Then I suggest you take another look at his comments on treatment of Bedouins in the Negev, Palestinians in Gaza and actions of Christians against Muslims in CAR McGrath |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Jim Carroll Date: 17 Apr 14 - 08:26 AM "You would be a real loss to us." Oh - please Keith - give us a break Jim Carroll |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 17 Apr 14 - 08:58 AM Yes you would. Joe has said the same. |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Musket Date: 17 Apr 14 - 09:44 AM "We in The Church of England defend minorities." Yeah, I love how you defended the right for gay people to enjoy marriage. I love how you made sure at the earliest opportunity that women could have the same access to the top jobs in your church as men. I notice your boss still takes communion with racist dictators then? In fact, he opposes the law on gay marriage here in order not to offend them, according to his own words. He is putting communion with monsters above observing the law of the land where he lives. Rock on.... zzzzzzzzzz |
|
Subject: RE: 'A different way to speak of persecution From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 18 Apr 14 - 08:12 AM The Church of England does indeed care for, support and defend minorites. Most members also share your view that it needs to change some dogma, and I believe those changes will soon come about. We already have women priests, gay priests and bishops, a welcoming, inclusive view of our gay members and blessing of their unions. These are changes unprecedented in centuries of History. I am sorry it is too slow for you, but it really has nothing to do with you how our church is run. I notice your boss still takes communion with racist dictators then? In fact, he opposes the law on gay marriage here in order not to offend them, according to his own words. You made that bit up Musket. |
| Share Thread: |
