Thursday, May 25, 2017


My good friend and co-blogger Psycho Milt wrote in a recent post that he 'dislikes Islam'.    I don't.   What I dislike are radical Islamists who have perverted the teachings of the Koran in order to justify their 12th century view of the world.  

There's good and bad in every religion.   Growing up in small town New Zealand in the 1950's and I can remember the ditty directed at those who attended St Joseph's Catholic School down the road ... something along the lines of Catholic dogs, sitting on logs, eating the innards out of frogs.   That didn't sit well with me.   They were our neighbors.   They were the people who played rugby with me.   They were members of my Scout Troop.  In short, why were they to be defined in such terms?

People are people. Judge people not on their religion but on how they live their lives, what they do, how they treat others.

Put simply, there are good Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Buddhists/whatever/whatever just as there are bad Christians/Muslims/Hindus/Buddists/whatever/whatever.    There is far too much hate in this world to condemn a religion per se.   Let's reserve our condemnation and more for those who, in the name of religion, by thought and deed encourage violence as a means to an end.    That I can readily sign up to.

I anticipate some reaction.   


Anonymous said...

I should imagine that any sane thinking person would agree with those sentiments. The ones that don't usually are those who themselves have been radicalised by the alt right and hate sites and unable or unwilling to research fake news or statistics.

Where common sense should prevail we have censored or deleted posts on DLT's blog which reflects badly on No Minister as a whole. He must learn to accept criticism if the only thing that is accurate in his posts is the date.

Good post Vet,

Lord Egbut

Psycho Milt said...

Veteran - that's exactly the conclusion the moderators at The Standard came to and banned me for: that someone who finds Islam a blight on society must perforce hate the followers of Islam. That doesn't necessarily follow at all - I also dislike conservatism and right-wing politics, and you're not fond of socialism, but that doesn't prevent us getting along, because as you point out, people are people, not stereotypes. It's those who can't distinguish between abstract ideologies and individual humans who have a failing that needs addressing, not those of us who can distinguish between the two (certain Standard moderators spring to mind in that respect).

paul scott said...

Death to Islam. No Islamic immigrants or refugees to New Zealand. Send them over to egg, he will look after them.

Anonymous said...

The problem with Islam is that its a system that dictates, via an uneducated thug from AD700, how followers should live out their lives today. Its a shitty, tribal based political system pretending to be a religious belief system. If you want to sign up to it you should be accountable when your fellow believers do what Islam says is required to bring about its expressed goals and not be given a free pass because your feelings might be hurt when confronted with the barbarity of it.

The secular world simply doesn't get that Islam cannot "reform" to be nice without collapsing so its a case of what you have seen for the last 1400 years continuing. It has, in my view, no place in western civilisation.


Barry said...

I agree with Paul Scott and May 26 6:15 AM Anonymous.

The Veteran said...

Paul ... can I respectfully suggest that the sentiments you express represent the best recruiting tool that radical Islamists can hope and pray for.

Can you explain to me please in coherent terms what the difference is between your call for 'Death to Islam' and the radical Islamists call for 'Death to all Infidels'?

Is it thought vs deed? The problem is that with 'nutters' thought can easily morph into deed. You're not a nutter are you?

Alex Masterley said...

I agree with Milts comments regarding Islam.
My view is that Islam is crying out for a reformation similar to that imposed on Christianity when Martin Luther wrote in 1517 his "Disputation on the Power of Indulgences". This lead to him being tried for Heresy and excommunication in 1521.
I can't see anyone being brave enough to do that however. The masses are likely to bellow Allahu Akbar and lop of the head of such a person.
As an aside Luther did not like Islam a a tool of the devil, he was ambivalent about it's practice, as was with the Catholic faith.

The Realist said...

A wee bit off-topic but the logo attached to Psycho Milt's comment looks suspiciously like that of the KKK.

Psycho Milt said...

The Realist: it's actually an anarchist symbol representing anti-authoritarianism, and also a logo of one of the great punk bands - background here.

Jobson Growth said...

I have a problem with Islam and Muslims, Christianity and Christians, Hinduism and Hindus, and so forth.

Every religion is a tool of control and a cover for evil. Hatred, bigotry and violence are dressed up in religious terms. I don't care if it is ISIS, The Lord's Resistance Army, Abhinav Bharat, 969 Movement, or Jeff Sessions, each of them uses religion as a cover for hatred.

There is no such thing as a moderate religious believer. If they do not adhere to all the fundamentals of the religion then they are on their way out of it. They are, to coin a phrase, Cafeteria Believers.

Jobson Growth said...

Anon 3:16 - your description of early Islam is identical to that of early Judaism. A shitty, tribal, authoritarian system presided over by a genocidal maniac.

Martin Luther not only hated Islam, he also hated Jews. Martin Luther poisoned Germany with his anti-Jew writings that ultimately led directly to the holocaust. Every Lutheran up to and including that carnage was morally culpable for perpetuating the hatred of Jews.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I never cease to be amazed at how much these rabid fundamentalist nutcase atheists know about we moderate Christians.

Anonymous said...

Even Ataturk had no illusions about Islam. He called it "the theology of an immoral Arab" and determined he was not going to have it rule Turkey.


Noel said...

" Catholic dogs, sitting on logs, eating the innards out of frogs"
Stick and no stones far better than some Palestinians have to face from Israeli children, simply because they refused to sell up and are now surrounded by Israeli settlers.

I suppose the most galling aspect would be pleading with the Israeli soldiers to do something to no effect.

David said...

Adolf, I'd be interested to know what you as a "moderate Christian" actually believes.

Is the Bible the inerrant word of God? Or is it a set of suggestions?

Do you believe in a 6 day creation, a talking snake, original sin?

How do you reconcile the things in the Gospels that have no affirmation from alternate sources?

How does your moderate christianity differ from the moderate christianity of the other sects?

Could be a good post for you to make.

paul scott said...

Vet [8.04] "Can you explain to me please in coherent terms what the difference is between your call for 'Death to Islam' and the radical Islamists call for 'Death to all Infidels'?

A = too easy
As PM Turkey Erdogan says " there is no such thing as moderate Islam, there is only Islam"
The Koran specifucally dictates " kill the infidel " " conquer the world "
Where I live I have no doubt about their intentions and readers will have noticed the continued Colonisaton and violence to achieve that all over the world .
Sweden and Britain just starting to wake up to the nightmare.
The communist bitch Merkel will need .... > I would do it
Death to Islam

paul scott said...

There are three positions on Islam
1. Islamists >> and all their collaborators . Collaborators are all the Islam apologists, believers in "moderate" Islam, and the nonsense of progressive peace, pyjama vigils, peace brother religion and love.

2. Dreamers >> eg Psycho Milt and Alex Masterly who think Islam can be tamed, moderated, or like to fluff around with the reality of Islam ambition.

3. Patriots >> who claim the right to identity of existing culture, and Nationhood, and controlled Immigration. ie Poland, Russia, some Westerners. We know from history that Islam has been conquering by the blade since about 600 AD.

Death to Islam

David said...

I know that this is far to intelligent for ps to understand, but I hope that veteran, Milt, et al will find it informative.

IF YOU WANT to defeat ISIS, listen to former ISIS hostage Nicolas Henin. The group is “heartened by every sign of overreaction, of division, of fear, of racism, of xenophobia … [and] drawn to any examples of ugliness on social media,” the French journalist wrote in November 2015 in the wake of the Paris attacks. “Central to their world view is the belief that communities cannot live together with Muslims, and every day their antennae will be tuned towards finding supporting evidence.”

Get that? Islamophobia plays right into the hands of ISIS. Wittingly or unwittingly, anti-Muslim bigots have become recruiting sergeants for a group they profess to hate and claim to want to destroy. The Islamophobes, to borrow a line from Lenin, are ISIS’s useful idiots.


As my colleague Murtaza Hussain has observed, it is “perverse and counterproductive to lump [the West’s Muslims] together with ISIS and blame them for the group’s actions.” To do so is to “grant the Islamic State a propaganda coup, implicitly endorsing the group’s narrative of Muslims and Westerners collectively at war with one another.”

When ISIS claims that it represents “true” Islam, or depicts Islam as a violent religion, or suggests Western Muslims owe their loyalties to the group and not to the West, the Islamophobes fall over one another to endorse each and every one of these points. Shamefully, the latter don’t pay any attention, for example, to the Muslim cab drivers who ferried survivors home from the Manchester Arena for free, or to the Muslim hospital doctors who worked through the night to treat the wounded. That there must have been young Muslim fans of Ariana Grande who also happened to be attending her concert in Manchester on Monday night when the bomb exploded is perhaps also beyond their comprehension.

The fact of the matter is that ISIS wants to sow division and discord in Western societies, and its useful idiots in the West are only too happy to help it do so. “Cohesion, tolerance — it is not what [ISIS members] want to see,” pointed out former hostage Henin back in 2015. “What they fear,” he concluded, “is unity.”

Read the whole article.

The Veteran said...

Paul Scott 2.16 ... your answer is no answer. I will repeat the question s l o w l y
... w h a t ' s t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n y o u s a y i n g
d e a t h t o I s l a m a n d t h e I s l a m i s t r a d i c a l
c a l l i n g f o r d e a t h t o a l l i n f i d e l s.

A coherent response would be appreciated.

David said...

Paul Scott would be right at home with Josh Bernstein.

Josh Bernstein is one of Adolf's "moderates".

Anonymous said...

Islamic State by itself is not the cause of Islamophobia and the current fashionable trend of advocating the final solution. It has been used with great effect in both the Trump and Brexit campaigns, fear of the unknown and hatred bolstered by fake statistics and verses from the Koran taken out of time and context.

The use of divide and conquer is not new and this time around the main culprit is Russia who is feeding the flames of Islamophobia through saturation coverage of Twitter Facebook and blog comment sections by hundreds of paid trolls pretending to be concerned citizens and those who pretend to have privileged information.

The fact that some of us actually try and reason with known trolls gives them a credibility they do not deserve and a platform to spread their divisiveness. Funnily enough I don't believe that they believe their own's just a job to promote their countries interests.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

This is how the UK government is protecting its citizens from terror attacks.

3 - The number of Accident and Emergency departments closed in Manchester since the Conservatives entered government.

4 - The number of Greater Manchester Police stations sold off to plug funding gaps since 2010.

10 - The number of Police station front desks Greater Manchester Police have had to close because of budget cuts in the same period.

2246 - the number of officers Greater Manchester Police have had to let go since 2010, formerly 8200, now cut to 5,954.

£134,000,000 - the cut applied to Greater Manchester Police’s annual budget between 2011 and 2015.

Emergency services in Manchester did an amazing job on Monday night, but take Theresa May’s condolences with a hefty slug of salt because this is how she and her party have consistently attacked those same emergency services over the last 7 years. This is why the UK has soldiers on the streets, because the UK has 11.7% fewer police officers than it did when it last had a Labour government.

H/T Kate Smurthwaite

Anonymous said...

Corbyn, it seems, is on the right side of history again... Can't refute this summation even if it is not popular....telling the truth rarely is.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... Corbyn on the right side of history ... give me strength. Corbyn is attempting to justify the bombing by blaming successive UK governments. In doing so he is in effect seeking to legitimise the action of the terrorists. Not suprising given his past record of support for various terrorist organisations. He is unfit to be Prime Minister and the electorate will deal to him accordingly.

Just as concerning and clearly now this was no lone wolf attack. Added to this the advice that the bomber had been reported to the authorities as someone representing a possible terrorist threat. The fact that none of the counter-terrorism agencies picked up any 'chatter' indicating an attack suggests either (1) a high level of sophistication in the terrorist cell or (2) a failure by those agencies. No doubt there will be some considerable soul searching over this.

Yes Anon 7.08 pm ... there have been cuts to various police budgets in recent years but not to the counter-terrorism budgets. Remember too the 43 police forces in the UK are funded jointly by central and local government. In the case of the Greater Manchester Police Authority it is part funded by the Labour dominated Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

Anonymous said...

Veteran ..I'm afraid your grasp on recent history loosening somewhat. From the ex boss of MI5 at the Iraq enquiry...."At the Iraq Inquiry in 2010, Baroness Manningham-Buller, the former head of MI5, said the invasion had “substantially” increased the terrorist threat to the UK, by radicalising young people.".....

Corbyn said that in 2005....

Listen and watch this clip. He has gone on record as saying he has never met with the IRA and has never supported their aims...he like many others has talked to Sinn Fein the political wing in order to reach out and stop the senseless slaughter that in part was driven by pointless nationalism on both sides..

Lord Egbut

Al Kida said...

paul scott said...

The differnce between "death to Islam and death to Infidels" is that I am not proposing slaughter of people.
Now that could be difficult for progressives, collaborators and dreamers to understand of course.

Psycho Milt said...

The Tories never can cope with someone actually being honest about an issue. From a Guardian piece about May saying pretty much the same thing Veteran does above, here's the non-Tory-propaganda version:

A Corbyn spokesman accus[ed] the prime minister of “not telling the truth” in her interpretation of Corbyn’s remarks, made earlier in the day at an address in Westminster.

“In his speech, Jeremy said protecting this country requires us to be both strong against terrorism and strong against the causes of terrorism,” the spokesman said. “The blame is with the terrorists, but if we are to protect our people we must be honest about what threatens our security.”

Corbyn added that he had been making a point that UK interventions have created “huge ungoverned spaces” in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, when he was pressed by Andrew Neil in a BBC1 interview about whether the Manchester attack was the result of UK foreign policy.

“The attack on Manchester was shocking, appalling, indefensible, wrong in every possible way,” the Labour leader said. “The parallel I was drawing this morning was that a number of people ever since the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq have drawn attention to the links with foreign policy, including Boris Johnson in 2005, two former heads of MI5, and of course the foreign affairs select committee.”

So, yes, the UK election does give a clear choice: between someone who's willing to think about complex issues and be honest about them, and someone who bleats "Four legs good, two legs bad!" Given human nature, I won't be surprised if the simplistic bleater ends up running things.

The Veteran said...

Paul ... what are you proposing then with your call?

Egbut ... my simple point. You blame successive British governments for the atrocity and you are, in effect, providing the terrorist with a certain legitimacy.

I accept though the concept may be a little difficult for Corbyn apologists to grasp.

The Tuatara Talibani said...

"Egbut ... my simple point. You blame successive British governments for the atrocity and you are, in effect, providing the terrorist with a certain legitimacy. "

Horsecrap, Veteran. Utter horsecrap.

Connecting the dots to show cause and effect does not mean that one condones either the cause or the effect. It is quite clear that without the US/UK/AU Axis of Evil that ISIS would never have been born.

How many Islamist terror attacks were there in The UK or Australia before the destruction of Iran?

Anonymous said...


Lord Egbut

The Tuatara Talibani said...

Thank you m'Lord, yes, I did mean Iraq.

Veteran will probably just put this down to "fog of war" but I see cause and effect.

"A Pentagon investigation has found more than 100 civilians were killed in a US bombing in Mosul, Iraq, in March, making it one of the largest incidents of civilian death since the US air campaign against Isis began in 2014.

The military reports 101 civilians in the building were killed, and another four died in a nearby building. Thirty-six civilians remain unaccounted for."

More fog of war

"At least 35 civilians were killed by US-led airstrikes in Syria on Thursday evening, according to state media. The UN’s human rights chief has called on all sides to take greater care to protect civilian lives in the war-torn country.
The airstrikes in Deir-ez-Zor province hit the market in the city of Mayadeen, as well as a four-story building that was completely destroyed, Sana news agency reported.

According to the news agency, at least 35 civilians were killed, most of whom were women and children. Injuries have also been reported."