• Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Azad Ali, part deux


    by Sunny
    22nd January, 2009 at 2:45 am    

    Last week a Muslim civil servant, Azad Ali, was suspended from work because an article in the Daily Mail said he suggested killing British troops in Iraq was justified, on his blog. Sid covered it here. Now, I don’t have sympathy for his views but the Daily Mail were clearly bullshitting. Now they’ve withdrawn the article. Let’s see what happens next…


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties,Religion






    161 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Pickled Politics » How far does Palestinian right to resistance go?

      [...] commenters. So I put the question again to David T of Harry’s Place on this thread and he accepts that, “Palestinians do have the right to defend [...]




    1. Bert Rustle — on 22nd January, 2009 at 7:07 am  

      The Daily Mail also modified and have not since reported on Patrick McGee who was beheaded in Manchester and his head dumped in a wheelie bin.

      The shenanigans are described by Lawrence Auster at http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012134.html

    2. Anton Vowl — on 22nd January, 2009 at 9:13 am  

      The Mail may be many things, but they tend to try and avoid being prosecuted for contempt of court. Which leaving those details in the (beheading) story would have led to.

    3. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 10:38 am  

      http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=98

      Just read Azad Ali’s article again. It is very clear that Azad Ali is endorsing a concept of jihad, directly by reference to leading jihadist thinkers, and specifically by reference to the Huthaifa Azzam quote:

      “If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation. If I found the same soldier over the border in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not. This is my religion and I respect this as the main instruction in my religion for jihad.”

      If - as Azad Ali claims - the phrase the phrase “I sense there is much truth in this” refers only to the words “Muslims cannot be defeated by others. We Muslims are not defeated by our enemies, but instead, we are defeated by our own selves.”, then what is the purpose of including the quotation about killing American or British soldiers that preceeds it?

      The meaning of the quote, and the article is very clear indeed. Read it.

      Azad Ali’s article is about Muslims being defeated by “our own selves” because they do not embrace Jihad. As an example of the “right” kind of Jihad, he quotes Azzam jr’s support for killing British and American soldiers in Iraq.

    4. gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 10:52 am  

      “but the Daily Mail were clearly bullshitting”

      No kidding. Any news on the Pope’s religious beliefs?

      David T
      “The meaning of the quote, and the article is very clear indeed. ”

      To a rabid pro-Israel apologist and Muslim, sorry Islamist, hater like David T its meaning probably is very clear. The fact Azad Ali criticises Israel/defends the Palestinians is of course the real issue

    5. cjcjc — on 22nd January, 2009 at 10:59 am  

      ““If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.”

      Gazan - how would you translate it then?

      Sunny - clear enough?

    6. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:05 am  

      It seems pretty clearcut to me. The Daily Mail has removed the story from its website whilst he is suspended during which Azad Ali can contextualise and befuddle his employers about the reason why he is posting a Huthaifa Azzam quote about killing British and American soldiers to illustrate his point about “jihad” on his IFE blog.

    7. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:21 am  

      Jeez Sid. It sometimes seems as if only you and I are capable of reading and understanding English.

    8. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:22 am  

      I personally think it’s quite clear that he was not defending violent jihad; the first quote is used to illustrate the second by giving an example of when Muslims defeat themselves.

      Huthaifa Azzam’s words are reproduced so they can be criticised rather than praised. The disputed passage ‘I sense much truth in this’ immediately follows ‘We Muslims are not defeated by our enemies, but instead, we are defeated by our own selves’, not the Huthaifa quote.

      Azad Ali is, in this case, mainly guilty of leaving himself open to different interpretation. He may have written some rather disagreeable things in the past, but here he is in fact being quite reasonable if you take the time to read the article properly.

      To ignore past transgressions and draw attention to a post titled ‘Defeating extremism by promoting balance’ and call it an incitement to extremism just makes no sense at all.

    9. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:31 am  

      *shakes head dispassionately*

    10. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:35 am  

      No, read the article again.

      What Azad Ali is saying is that violent Jihad is an indispensable part of Islam. The balance he is promoting is between (a) fighting soldiers on the battlefield (i.e. ‘good Jihad’) and (b) fighting elsewhere (i.e. ‘bad Jihad’)

      In other words, he is opposing acts of terrorism on buses. But he is supporting the killing of soldiers on the battlefield.

      His article opens with an example of “good Jihad”. That example involves killing British and American soldiers in Iraq.

      You have completely misread the article.

    11. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:35 am  

      *nods vehemently*

      Quoting material does not mean you agree with the source. God, if that was true I must be one of Melanie Phillips’ biggest fans.

    12. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:36 am  

      “promoting balance” for Azzam means reclaiming jihad on two fronts:

      Front A: the al-Qaeda/Qutbian interpretation of jihad meaning violent terror aimed indiscrminately at the “kufar”.

      Front B: the quietists, who believe (rightly) that jihad means personal struggle - the greater jihad is about self-improvement by containing the soul.

      Azad Ali’s front is this: jihad is violence against military forces in occupied territories. he quotes:

      “He was against attacks outside the battlefield. The enemy had to be clear and known and you didn’t leave the battlefield to attack elsewhere.”

      This means fighting military forces he regards as anti-Muslim and anti-Islamic. This should be understood as advocating the fighting, and of course killing of American and British soldiers, not civilians.

    13. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:46 am  

      cjcjc,

      If I did this:

      If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation.

      Would you assume it was my view? Well, if you did, you’d be wrong. What I just did was quote you, quoting a statement by some guy called Huthaifa Azzam.

      So, Azad Ali has quoted what someone else has said. I see nothing wrong with that. And neither can or should it be attributed to him.

      Reading through David Ts’ link to Azad Alis’ site, you’d really need to prove that the commentary beneath that quote is supportive of it. I think Azad Ali is trying to argue a different and more balanced position than that, but what do I know?

    14. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:51 am  

      sorry guys but my limited intelligence says that Sid and David T are correct on this one.

      Especially if you read his other entries in the same blog it is quite clear he is far from the moderate figure everyone seems to be promoting.

    15. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:57 am  

      If I can broaden the discussion slightly… this is my real concern.

      I am a fringe politics nerd. I started off following the politics of the extreme Left and the extreme Right. I can tell you why groups split, who their main players were, what their ‘lines’ consisted of. And now I follow the politics of the Islamist far right.

      The politics of the Jamaat-e-Islami front, Islamic Forum Europe, is as extreme as anything you’ll find on the far Left and the far Right.

      Now, the BNP is a matter of extreme concern because it gets councillors elected, and would get a foot in the door under any PR system. I’m worried that, with an economic downturn, its support will pick up. But mostly, it is a rabble. And it is well opposed by anti-fascists who correctly perceive its danger. Centre Left, centre Right - everybody stands firm against the BNP.

      When it comes to the Islamist far right, people are much more relaxed. Their politicos get op eds in liberal papers. Government ministers appear at conferences with them. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips gave a speech at the LMC, the Jamaat-e-Islami base last year. They’re working very hard to recruit, and they’re largely not even bothering to hide their politics.

      What worries me is that supporting/attacking the Islamist far Right will become a Left/Right thing. Only Muslim haters, from the political right, will do it. Anybody - like me - who points out the politics of people like Azad Ali will be called a “Muslim hater”. Moreover, anybody who is Muslim who attacks the Islamist far right, will be called an Uncle Tom.

      So we’ll end up with a situation in which to be properly Left wing, you are either allied with or neutral on the Islamist far right. And anybody who disagrees is no longer considered Left wing or progressive.

      Jamie Sport: I appreciate that you run a blog that attacks the right wing tabloid press. I agree that the Express is atrocious: the Mail pretty bad - although it was quite good on Stephen Lawrence. So, because this article was in the Mail, it must be attacked.

      Frankly, this piece should have been in the Guardian: a paper that has never shied away from attacking and exposing the white far Right.

      However, it wasn’t. And articles like this, never are in the Guardian. That’s really worrying.

    16. cjcjc — on 22nd January, 2009 at 11:58 am  

      douglas - perhaps we have read it differently - but he’s hardly quoting it with disapproval is he?

    17. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

      Thanks David, but I’ve read it quite enough along with the rest of Azad Ali’s posts.

      I disupte your reading of the quote as Ali giving an example of ‘good jihad’, but I suppose that is a matter of opinion.

      I also dispute your assertion that he presents violent jihad as ‘an indispensable part of Islam’. In fact, he says ‘There are some Muslims who go out of their way to deny the full meaning and understanding of the term Jihad’, including ‘those who go out of their way to describe it as just Qital or warfare’.

      Having said that, I do not wish to defend Ali’s views, but I do take issue with deliberate misinterpretations of what he wrote, as printed by The Mail - which is, afterall, what Sunny’s post was orginally about.

      Whether or not Ali supports the practise of jihad on the battlefield, for example when he mentions its usefulness in repelling Soviet occupiers, he did not call for the killing of British and American troops, as was reported in the Mail, and the words that open his post are not his own. Neither does he explicitly condone them.

    18. Refresh — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:05 pm  

      DavidT, did you feed the article to the Daily Mail?

    19. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:07 pm  

      Shamit,

      You may be right. The point would be to address these genuinely immoderate posts, challenging their content - rather than this somewhat less that watertight case.

      Who sneaked him to his employers anyway? If we believe in anything it is in telling people what they don’t want to hear. Isn’t that right Mr T?

    20. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      Whether or not Ali supports the practise of jihad on the battlefield, for example when he mentions its usefulness in repelling Soviet occupiers, he did not call for the killing of British and American troops

      And just as he suggests violence was useful in repelling Soviet occupiers, he is suggesting that it be used again to repel the “foreign” occupiers currently in Muslim lands:

      Just remind yourself of what is taking place around the world and who is going around killing whom?

      No prizes for guessing whom he means.

    21. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:10 pm  

      David T - I entirely agree with your concerns over left/right and what should/shouldn’t be attacked.

      And, yes, I do generally attack the right-wing tabloid press, but I am just as comfortable attacking crap, sensationalist journalism in the Graun, The Times, Indy, whatever.

      The Azad Ali piece in The Mail was just that though - crap and sensationalist, and I take issue with its distortion of what I believe is a very complex issue presented in the Between the Lines blog, just to create another ‘Muslims are bad’ hackjob. If it had been in the Graun it would have been just as bad.

      I will lay my cards down and say I do not agree with Ali. But I will defend (to an extent) his right to say it and not instantly be pilloried by tabloids that can’t be bothered to take the time to actually read their source.

    22. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:13 pm  

      “Whether or not Ali supports the practice of jihad on the battlefield?”

      That is the whole point of his article. That is the “balance” he is promoting. And his opening example is a quote that specifically mentions killing British and American troops on the battlefield.

      I would also defend his ‘right to say’ this sort of thing. In fact, if Azad Ali only expresses his views behind the closed doors of the East London Mosque/LMC, then we won’t know about them, and we won’t be able to expose them.

      So, yes, the Mail on Sunday has written a tabloidish piece - although not one which is unfair to Azad Ali, whose views on jihad are very clear.

      But what is the real concern here? That there’s an arguably sensationalist MoS article? Or that a man who is evidently obsessed with violent Jihad - with views which, were he on the White far right would result in him being confined to the fringes - runs the Civil Service Islamic Society, the Muslim Safety Forum, and is on the board of Liberty?

      So, what do we do about ensuring that these issues aren’t only dealt with by the tabloid right? Because the Left seems to have precious little interest in them.

    23. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

      “Neither does he explicitly condone them.”

      But he finds nothing terribly wrong with them. He has written lines after lines in his blog about how US and British troops are indiscriminately killing civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq. Well thats definitely not the truth —

      Most deaths in Iraq after the 2003 invaison are directly due to attacks by sectarian groups killing Iraqis.

      While he writes about Afghanistan he fails to chastise Taliban for their attrocious governing record in Afghanistan — and how they treat women. No line on how Taliban attacks young girls with acid when they want to go to school

      I agree with Sunny, he did not explicitly call for killing of British and American Soldiers but he does view them as occupying forces even after the democratically elected Governments of the countries concerned have agreements with NATO and UN for those troops to be there.

      This brings me to the point that David makes here about how willing the left is to if not condone but ignore extremist sentiments expressed by certain groups while holding other groups to much higher standards. And as a centre left person who backed the Labour Government and mostly former PM Blair, it is sad to see that the Government has chosen to treat certain communities differently than others.

      I don’t imagine any Minister coming out and saying there is a lot of anger amongst the Hindu/Sikh communities against terrorism in India and the rage is building up. But a minister did that recently about a particular group

      I dont see the Guardian or the Government making comments about how angry the Christian community in Britian is about the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi Christians and attacks on christian missionaries by right wing hindus in India.

      I am all for equality of the law and for all british citizens to be treated the same way. I do have a problem when a British civil servant talks about his hard work in bringing back the caliphate and then people going around and defending him.

    24. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:15 pm  

      …but not one that he necessarily agrees with! This could go on way too long.

    25. qidniz — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:18 pm  

      What Azad Ali is saying is that violent Jihad is an indispensable part of Islam.

      Actually, that violence is an integral part of jihad, it being axiomatic that jihad is indispensable to Islam. The view, suddenly fashionable in some quarters, of jihad being some sort of “inner” struggle against conveniently undefined demons of whatever stripe, is just PC eyewash for the bleeding hearts still wringing hands and wishing desperately that it’s so — in defiance of facts, logic, proof, scripture and history. (Here’s a simple test. Sahih Bukhari has a chapter on Jihad. How many of the traditions do not talk about Azad Ali’s kind of jihad?)

    26. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:19 pm  

      He totally agrees with it. Exhorting violence against military institutions who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan is the “balance” in the jihad he advocates.

    27. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:23 pm  

      cjcjc,

      What the guy seems to be arguing is not a lot different from the Geneva Convention. Combatants should fight each other, and leave the rest of us alone. It is pretty obvious that there are disputes going on in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These ought to be subject to the Geneva Conventions. The fact that they aren’t is what gets you Guantanamo Bay.

      Just so’s you know, I thought the West was justified over Afghanistan, and then messed up terribly, lacking any realistic objective after Kabul fell. Iraq was unnecessary, stupid and ill-timed, and could have been pursued by other means.

    28. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:26 pm  

      Why cant we treat all groups and communities as British and why can’t the politicians treat them the same.

      Interestingly in a recent post, Sonia made an excellent point — about how politicians from different parties sent letters to her residence about their concerns and anger about what happened in Gaza. But they failed to send the same letters to her husband living in the same residence because he has got an English surname.

      Now, we are talking about the Liberal Democrats. The hypocricy and this continued attempt to treat Muslims differently I think is an insult to British Muslims — very few of whom share the views espoused by Mr. Ali.

      I doubt very few people if any were happy with the death and destruction in Gaza. But somehow a Government Minister felt it was okay to say that British Muslims were angered. Sunny and Douglas are enraged and so were millions of others who did not belong to the Muslim faith. Are their anger less justified or relevant — or was there an underlying threat that came with the Minister’s warning. I dont know and I hope not.

      But continually trying to treat British Muslims differently is not helping our country or the British Muslim community in general.

    29. cjcjc — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:29 pm  

      He totally agrees with it. Exhorting violence against military institutions who fight in Iraq and Afghanistan is the “balance” in the jihad he advocates.

      douglas - as sid says - it really is difficult to read it any other way

    30. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:31 pm  

      Imagine what would have happend to a Christian civil servant if he declared similar values such as Mr. Ali or to a Hindu civil servant who declared he wanted a Ram Rajya or to a Sikh civil servant if he declared he was working hard to bring about changes in Britain and the world over dominated by his religion.

      The fault here lies with the Government and the loony left who gives everyone who shares centre left values a bad name. How nice it was of Mr. Miliband to go to the Taj Hotel and say there should not be any war on terror — or saying he did not think there was any culpability on pakistan state agencies with the mumbai attacks. Imagine, terrorists being openly trained — running dry missions getting very sophisticated weapons and getting out to the sea — all without help from any State agencies. Yeah…as I said loony left.

    31. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:34 pm  

      The trouble is of course, Azad Ali is not as great a theological thinker as he thinks he is. He is constantly getting things muddled or plain wrong and defers to others to fill in the blanks in his thinking.

      He is often corrected by his readers and most of his co-bloggers seem a little embarassed by his crazy-man zealotry.

      He’s not a great thinker, but its amazing the places ambition can take the mediocre to.

    32. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:35 pm  

      Some of you really don’t see much of a problem with this at all.

    33. platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

      Here we go again…. ooh Muslims believe in Jihad oooh…

      Damn right we do. The term itself means struggle/strive. There are different types of struggles/strives.

      One of those is a military one, others are spiritual, others are whatever… I’m not a scholar.

      I don’t think a single person in the world should have a problem with the fact that Islam allows it’s followers to engage in military activity. We’re not Buddhists.

      The issue we have is the modern day concept of Jihad. Nobody cringes at the Crusades, the Christians waged a war on the holy land, they eventually lost, it was state on state action. That battle by Muslim’s was a jihad.

      Today the term is first abused by Muslims. Non state actors are waging wars acting on behalf of states/causes/the ummah (notion if a single Muslim body with a single Muslim state)terming them jihads. Some of these people don’t engage in terrorist activities, others do, activities which are not sanctioned by law within war, be it international law or shariah law, but these people bend religion to suit their understandings, as they want justification for their political struggles.

      That is why we have the whole hoo haa about Jihad. Regarding the killing of British soldiers, i won’t condemn Iraqi nationals for killing British or American soldiers in Iraq. At the same time i can express condolences for British soldiers, as soldiers follow orders, the soldiers are not the ones in the wrong, the orders are and the ones who give out those orders.

      Now if a British citizen wants to fight a war in Iraq against the British forces, that’s treason. First they should give up their citizenship, leave Britain, become an Iraqi citizen and then do so.

      However life is not black and white, you and me, can’t declare jihads or wars on people, you need jurisdiction to do people. In the absence of an Islamic state, some people have taken that upon themselves or terrorist messiahs like Bin Laden. you can argue that the government of Iraq is not righting US/UK forces, so the citizens have no right to. At the same time it can be argued that the current government was enforced upon the people of Iraq and anyone who would stand on a platform of wanting to fight UK/US forces would not be allowed to stand for government.

      Lets leave aside British citizens and take the quote of that Jordanian fellow, why would he kill soldiers in Iraq but not in Jordan? What state entity has given him permission to do so in Iraq? If he thinks based on the concept of ummah, then he feels Iraq and Jordan should have no borders, so why stop the fighting at the borders?

      As you can see there are many aspects to the arguments, many levels of thinking, and contradiction after contradiction. I cannot say for 100% what is right or wrong, i would suggest it would be in everyone’s interest to avoid a military conflict in this scenario, but then at the same time, what if that is the only way these people can get their views across. Would the US/UK forces be leaving a peaceful Iraq so soon?

      I don’t want people to take my comments as a fatwa, I want to help you explore your minds and present the different angles that I can think of regarding all this. The if’s and but’s of the matter.

    34. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:43 pm  

      hey platinum, when Pakistan sent its troops to Bangladesh to kill and rape millions of people to preserve and unite the “Muslim state” of Pakistan, was that jihad?

    35. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

      platinum

      For once i agree with you

    36. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:44 pm  

      ‘it really is difficult to read it any other way’

      - Ali does not directly condone attacking soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan in his post.

      The only point at which he even uses the word ‘Iraq’ himself is to describe the hypocrisy of those who applauded jihad in repelling the Soviets but now call it terrorism in Iraq. The exact concept of what jihad is in the first place is another matter too complicated to get into here (and one I am not well read enough about to comment on either way).

      The exhortations for violence come from Huthaifa Azzam, not from Ali. Ali treads dangerous ground by discussing hihad in the first place, and, granted, harbours contraversial opinions, but in this post he does *not* call for immediate violence against British and American soldiers, which the Mail said he did.

      Yes, Sid, he often appears muddled. And yes, David T, it is wrong to read his post and think there is nothing disagreeable there at all.

      But it is also wrong to completely and intentionally misquote and misinterpret somebody’s words as The Mail did, and then to report the person to their employer for it.

    37. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:47 pm  

      Sid

      Absolutely - he’s far more careless about expressing his views than the other bloggers, who are much better at “talking round” the issue, avoiding saying the sorts of things that tend to get you into trouble.

      But yet…

      … despite all this, he has been feted by the establishment. Gus O’Donnell evidently saw nothing wrong with a guy with views like this. The police treat him as a partner. He is on the national council of Liberty. And more.

      This is why he has been so confident. And careless.

      What the Islamist far right are desperate for, is for their politics - not just their position on Jihad, but also their support for a theocratic state - to be accepted as mainstream and legitimate. They want to be treated by the government as the ‘voice of British Islam’. In other words, they want to be able to speak for Sid, when the government is making policy.

      This is a huge issue for them.

      I read an interesting article in a Left journal - Race and Class, I think - talking about the reasons for the BMI splitting off from the MAB. Both are Muslim Brotherhood front organisations.

      The MAB basically took the view that the BMI - essentially Tamimi and Altikriti - were likely to come acropper, by being too outspoken and too radical. So they were told to go off and do their political thing independently, so as not to tarnish the MABs reputation.

      The MAB needn’t have worried. Both Altikriti and Tamimi are speaking at the Progressive London conference, alongside a government minister, a load of MPs, and a bunch of councillors. Along with Inayat Bunglawala, they are basically the only Muslim speakers there!

      http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/01/22/progressive-london-conference-whos-coming/

      To be an Islamist is to be progressive.

    38. platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:48 pm  

      Sid, perhaps you’d like to create a separate topic so whenever you feel like venting about that you can do that just there. Sometimes I’ll entertain you with replies too.

    39. gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

      David T

      “I am a fringe politics nerd. I started off following the politics of the extreme Left and the extreme Right. I can tell you why groups split, who their main players were, what their ‘lines’ consisted of. And now I follow the politics of the Islamist far right. ”

      Yet you never follow the politics of the Hindu or Jewish right (your own community). This pretty much exposes your agenda

      “Now, the BNP is a matter of extreme concern because it gets councillors elected, and would get a foot in the door under any PR system. I’m worried that, with an economic downturn, its support will pick up. But mostly, it is a rabble. And it is well opposed by anti-fascists who correctly perceive its danger. Centre Left, centre Right - everybody stands firm against the BNP.”

      Anyone who believes Jammat islami are more of a threat than the BNP in a country which is 3 % Muslim and 90% white is clearly mad

      “When it comes to the Islamist far right, people are much more relaxed. Their politicos get op eds in liberal papers. Government ministers appear at conferences with them. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips gave a speech at the LMC, the Jamaat-e-Islami base last year. They’re working very hard to recruit, and they’re largely not even bothering to hide their politics. ”

      This from a Mel Phillips fan!!!

      “What worries me is that supporting/attacking the Islamist far Right will become a Left/Right thing. Only Muslim haters, from the political right, will do it. Anybody - like me - who points out the politics of people like Azad Ali will be called a “Muslim hater”.”

      No David T its because you attack “Islamists” when they defend Muslims rights -then claiming Im only attacking Islamists not Muslims. The swimming pool stunt showed that - had nothing to do with politics and everything to do with your obsession with Muslims.
      Of course you never attack or campaign agaisnt Jewsih organistaions which have or call for eruvs or Beth Din courts

      ” Moreover, anybody who is Muslim who attacks the Islamist far right, will be called an Uncle Tom. ”

      You mean like the HP line that anyone who criticises Israel is a self hating jew?

      When they are giving succour to Islamophobes quite right

    40. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:51 pm  

      You couldn’t entertain a cocker spaniel. I suggest you look up ‘jihad al-akbar’ big man.

    41. gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:52 pm  

      Sid

      “hey platinum, when Pakistan sent its troops to Bangladesh to kill and rape millions of people to preserve and unite the “Muslim state” of Pakistan, was that jihad?”

      Seriously Sid if you dont even know what constitutes jihad why are you even posting on Islam?

    42. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:54 pm  

      gazan, why don’t you try and answer the question?

    43. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:57 pm  

      Here’s a question for you.

      If a white person, involved in the BNP, had a blog on which he posted an article that went like this:

      As David Myatt once said “I believe that there will be a race war in my lifetime. The time will come when white patriots will have to kill blacks. But we will fight the blacks on the battlefield, not in their homes”

      Another great thinker said “We aren’t terrorists. We are warriors defending the White Race”

      I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many White people at the grassroots over the last few years.

      Would you say “Well, he didn’t actually call for black people to be killed”.

      You’d be right of course. He merely approvingly quoted somebody who did, as an illustration of his thesis that there is a time and place for killing black people.

    44. gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 12:59 pm  

      David T

      “In other words, he is opposing acts of terrorism on buses. But he is supporting the killing of soldiers on the battlefield.”

      Shocking stuff. How dare Muslims defend themselves when attacked.

      You are basically calling for Muslims to allow themselves to be slaughtered

      From someone who supported Israeli terror in Gaza and the invasions of Iraq this is hardly suprising.

      Its OK for non-Muslims to attack muslim countries.
      It is wrong for Muslim to defend themselves from being atatcked and slaughtered (which is what Azad Ali is saying)

      Tell us David why you dont believe Muslims have a right to defend themselves and why do you think that non-Muslims (Hindus, jews Christians etc) do.

      Then tell us your not a “muslim hater”

    45. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:04 pm  

      Sid @ 26,

      Well, apart from the location, how is this any different from the genuinely felt, by many on here - including you, if memory serves - belief that the Gaza incident was completely and utterly wrong? And that Gaza did have the right to fight back?

      I’m not excusing the stupid rockets. Israel had a legitimate grievance, there is no arguing that.

      You know, ’cause you’ve admitted to reading my posts on here, that I think that what some folk are fighting for in Afghanistan is completely stupid. It is a patriarchal dead end.

      As a last resort, beyond diplomacy, this has to be sorted out. It means that acid attacks, or girls being seen as less than boys, is inhumane. And that it is, in fact, complete fucking lunacy. The folk that do that sort of thing, or subscribe to that sort of thing, ought in my opinion, be utterly rejected by all UK Muslims. It is already rejected by the rest of us.

      So, I can expect a diatribe of comments saying we reject it! It is not us!

      Fair enough.

      But at least stand up against it in an obvious way. The relative silence about what I see as humanitarian crimes and the lack of a response from people I consider fellow liberals is shocking.

      I would be horrified if one commentator on here subscribed to that sort of barbarity.

      No.

      Really.

      I would.

      I kind of despair about stuff like reason over culture. We are not winning.

    46. gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:05 pm  

      David T

      “Here’s a question for you.

      If a white person, involved in the BNP, had a blog on which he posted an article that went like this:

      As David Myatt once said “I believe that there will be a race war in my lifetime. The time will come when white patriots will have to kill blacks. But we will fight the blacks on the battlefield, not in their homes”

      Another great thinker said “We aren’t terrorists. We are warriors defending the White Race”

      I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many White people at the grassroots over the last few years.

      Would you say “Well, he didn’t actually call for black people to be killed”.”

      Except you deliberaelty miss the point that Muslims are defending their land from people who have invaded it. From soldiers.

      Are you suggesting black immigrants to the UK are armed soldiers ,analogous to an invading army?

      Are you suggesting if the UK was attacked by an invading army it would be terrorism for them to defend themselves against that army- since that is what you are saying it is when Muslims do it?

      Answer the question

      The funny thing is replace white with israel and you have a HP blog.

      Israel can aattck Muslim land , the UK and US can invade Muslim land. Muslims cannot defend themselves from this attack. Thats David T/HP in a nutshell and you are from the far right if you disagree

    47. Katy Newton — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:10 pm  

      You couldn’t entertain a cocker spaniel.

      For some reason, I find that line hilarious. From now on I will be shoehorning it into every conversation I have.

    48. cjcjc — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:13 pm  

      That’s excellent.

      Are cockers especially easily entertained?

    49. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:15 pm  

      “Except you deliberaelty miss the point that Muslims are defending their land from people who have invaded it. From soldiers.”

      No, you deliberately miss the point.

      Azad Ali is a civil servant, living in East London. He’s not an Iraqi.

      His blog consists of quote after quote of some of the most politically extreme jihadists, short of Al Qaeda (and in one case, quite possibly Al Qaeda).

      And, he is treated by the police and the civil service as a one of the most important and influential of British Muslims.

      PS: There’s an elected government in Iraq. That’s the context within which the support of attacks on British troops takes place.

    50. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:15 pm  

      “Muslim land” ffs!!!

      Because the Iraqis were hugely grateful to the Ummah for sending Jordanians and Syrians and Saudis over to defend “Muslim land” by murdering Iraqis in recruitment lines and markets.

      This is the state we’re in.

      Azad Ali sees the world precisely as you do. And nice white liberals think:

      “Oh well, the funny foreigners, they get a bit excitable, and who can blame them”

      Meanwhile precisely which civil service and police consultative forums do people like Sid get invited to sit on?

    51. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:17 pm  

      Douglas, I was and still am totally against the indiscrminate killing of civilians in Gaza. I regard it as an act of state terror.

      I am also totally against the Hamas launching rockets at civilians in Sderot and Ashdod in Israel, which is equally an act of terror. But wait, didn’t Azad in this denounce terror? Supposedly, yes.

      Now the latter is wholly supported by Azad Ali, because he regards Israel as a military entity in its entirety. He also regards Gazans as being equal to Hamas. (They have removed a post from Azad Ali’s blog called ‘Gaza = Hamas’). This basically means he has reduced both Israelis and Palestinians into viable military targets unto each other.

      Do you think that that’s a sensible position to adopt? And further, a sensible idea for a civil servant from the Treasury to suggest on his politically affiliated blog?

    52. Ann Frank — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

      Niether Sid nor David T have answered my question as to where Azad Ali said it was ok to Kill British troops in Iraq. The fact that The Mail removed the article kinda answers the question anyways!

      let the internal fighting continue!! whoes correct sid and David T or Sunny and the rest?

    53. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:19 pm  

      David T @ 43,

      As David Myatt once said “I believe that there will be a race war in my lifetime. The time will come when white patriots will have to kill blacks. But we will fight the blacks on the battlefield, not in their homes”

      Another great thinker said “We aren’t terrorists. We are warriors defending the White Race”

      I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many White people at the grassroots over the last few years.

      You are being deliberately thick, are you not?

      If your putative blog continued:

      “this is the most evil, racist shit I have ever read”

      it would be a bit different from:

      “here lies truth”

      Quoting someone is not the same as agreeing with them. Could you please get that through your incredibly thick head?

      The case in point is a bit less certain than the daft option you proposed. I suppose that’s how lawyers make their money.

    54. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:25 pm  

      I notice that Azad Ali’s followers think that it is funny to call themselves things like “Ann Frank”.

      Because what could be funnier than that?

    55. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:26 pm  

      Ann Frank, which blogger are you from ‘Between the Lines’? Not Muhammed Amin, are you?

    56. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:27 pm  

      David T @ 54,

      No.

      That is sick.

      But it doesn’t let you off either.

    57. Rumbold — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:29 pm  

      Enoch Powell also claimed to be quoting constiuents when he made that speech. But it was clear that he was endorsing those views. Mr Ali’s position seems much the same.

    58. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:31 pm  

      Quoting somebody and then saying:

      “I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many Muslims at the grassroots over the last few years.”

      is agreeing with them.

      Azad Ali says that he was only agreeing with the latter of the two statements. But the entire blog is about the need to reject “merely” spiritual jihad, and jihad other than on the battlefield.

      However, the sole function of the quote about killing British troops is to give an example of the “right” sort of Jihad: i.e. against the enemies of Muslims, on the battlefield.

      I get that.

      Sid gets that.

      Even Gazan appreciates what he’s talking about.

      But hey, none of this is a matter of concern. Let’s not worry about the fact that a man who is obsessed with violent Jihad is feted by the police and the civil service, and feels confident enough about his views to write piece after piece in this vein on the website of a Jamaat-e-Islami front organisation. Or that his defenders’ turn up on this blog with jokes about Anne Frank.

      Because - look! - it is just about arguable that the Mail might have misconstrued the meaning of one sentence in its article. That’s the REAL issue!!

    59. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:36 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Well, have you any evidence?

      At the moment, I don’t see it. All I see is a lot of unsubstantiated stuff.

      And you, of all people, should be pointing to the evidence.

    60. Random Guy — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:39 pm  

      @58: I disagree. The context in which the article is written is clear. There is no endorsement for the killing of British soldiers, but there is ample fodder for sensationalist prats to make these accusations because Mr. Ali did not qualify his statements, or clarify that point.

      The interesting thing is to see the backlash, and who is ending up on which side from the posts here - in terms of political affiliation, prejudices etc. In my estimation, its the same old, same old.

    61. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:39 pm  

      “At the moment, I don’t see it.”

      Too right you don’t.

      Do you have the same difficulty with white fascists, or is it only brown ones who confuse you?

    62. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:48 pm  

      Douglas Clark

      “As a last resort, beyond diplomacy, this has to be sorted out. It means that acid attacks, or girls being seen as less than boys, is inhumane. And that it is, in fact, complete fucking lunacy. The folk that do that sort of thing, or subscribe to that sort of thing, ought in my opinion, be utterly rejected by all UK Muslims. It is already rejected by the rest of us.”

      Yes because anyone who thinks Muslims should defend themselves from attackers must be also support the throwing of acid on girls faces and the notion that women are inferior. Are you a Hollywood producer?

      What about opposing the Iraqi/Afghan/Gazan civilians burned by acid bombs Douglas?

      Douglas Clark believes the majority or a substantial number of UK muslims support throwing acid on womens faces or consider boys superior to girls.

    63. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:54 pm  

      This is reminiscent of the debate over the prosecution of Nick Griffin.

      You sound just like the people who kept insisting “Islam isn’t a race so Nick Griffin can’t be racist”

      Which as a matter of law, at the time, was probably correct.

      Except only an idiot would think that Nick Griffin was merely making a philosophical observation about the content of Islamic doctrine, rather than pushing his vile racist worldview.

      Now perhaps the jury brought in the right verdict on Griffin, by acquitting him. After all, they only had the evidence in front of them to consider. And they had to decide the case to the absolute highest standard of proof - beyond reasonable doubt.

      We aren’t in that position. We know a lot about white fascists, and what they believe. We know what the BNP stands for as a party. We know what Nick Griffin believes about ‘race’.

      So we’re capable of applying our intellects to the question.

      But when it comes to Azad Ali, suddenly a lot of people are not quite so sure what he meant. It is all so confusing, isn’t it?

      In the US Right, there’s a debate going on as to whether those who oppose Islamist and Jihadist political movements should make common cause with racist parties like the Vlams Belang, or the BNP. The mainstream US Right commentators very quickly worked out that these guys were racists, hated brown people, and that you should never form an alliance with a fascist.

      Yet on substantial parts of the Left, there’s absolutely no sense that there’s anything wrong with treating the likes of Azad Ali, or Hamas/Muslim Brotherhood or Jamaat-e-Islami as allies.

      What is going on here?

    64. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:54 pm  

      David T

      “Because the Iraqis were hugely grateful to the Ummah for sending Jordanians and Syrians and Saudis over to defend “Muslim land” by murdering Iraqis in recruitment lines and markets.

      This is the state we’re in. ”

      Why is “Muslim land” in brackets . Would you say “Jewish state”

      The Iraqis of course much prefer being killed by US bombs. I never understood why fellow Muslim Arabs or Iranians in Iraq are foreign fighters with no place there but the Christian US soldiers from thousands of miles away arent.

      “PS: There’s an elected government in Iraq. That’s the context within which the support of attacks on British troops takes place.”

      Likewise in Gaza yet you vehemently supported Israeli attacks on the Palestinians there

    65. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:57 pm  

      David T

      “Do you have the same difficulty with white fascists, or is it only brown ones who confuse you?”

      I have difficulty in you calling anyone who opposes Israel a “facsist”

    66. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:58 pm  

      David T,

      This is getting to a ridiculous level of analysis. However, as you want to pretend you are forensic, lets go for it.

      What you said here:

      Quoting somebody and then saying:

      “I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many Muslims at the grassroots over the last few years.”

      Is a calumny. That is not how I see it anyway.

      I am getting really annoyed about having to defend sense against insensibility. Cheers David T.

      Misquoting, or pretending. It is not good enough, Mr T.

    67. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 1:59 pm  

      @ 60 Random Guy hits the nail on the head.

      Azad Ali’s post elicits the most illuminating responses.

    68. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:00 pm  

      David T never answers the questions put to him

      Are you suggesting black immigrants to the UK are armed soldiers ,analogous to an invading army?

      Are you suggesting if the UK was attacked by an invading army it would be terrorism for them to defend themselves against that army- since that is what you are saying it is when Muslims do it?

      Answer the questions

    69. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:09 pm  

      No.

      I just think David T is an idiot. Despite the fact that I quite like him.

      It is not impossible to disagree with someone’s pretentions on the internet and not quite like them as human being.

      So, there you go.

    70. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:11 pm  

      It is Islamist doctrine that there is a single Muslim “Ummah” that transcends national boundaries.

      Islamists sees the presence of British soldiers in Iraq as an attack on the Ummah. This is their view, despite the fact that they are there under a UN mandate and with the consent of the elected Iraqi government.

      Islamists also believe that Muslims in one country have a religious responsibility to defend Muslims in another country.

      That is why Azzam supports attacks on British soldiers “on the battlefield”.

      (I’d be interested to hear if you agree or disagree with any part of this doctrine.)

      So, no: I don’t regard black people as an “invasion” of this country . Neo Nazis do, however.

      Just as Islamists regard the presence of British troops in Iraq as illegitimate: despite the UN mandate and despite the permission of the elected Iraqi government.

    71. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:14 pm  

      On Gaza: this is the legal position. This is the structure within which I view the conflict:

      http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5561997.ece

    72. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:32 pm  

      “Despite the fact that I quite like him.”

      Thank you, and I like you too - but I really do worry that you’re much too sanguine about a political movement that is gunning for everything that liberals and progressives stand for.

    73. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:33 pm  

      David T never answers the questions put to him

      gazan, why don’t you answer the question I asked in #34? I have never got a straight answer to that question from an Islamist and I doubt I ever will.

    74. platinum786 — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:40 pm  

      David T, mentioning the UN makes me laugh, we all know might is right. The UN has never been able to make anyone mighty do something, they are their to blackmail the weak and provide legitimacy for violence against the weak.

      I just want to take you up on the concept of ummah. Your mistaken if you think it’s an Islamist concept, it’s not it’s an Islamic concept, one most Muslims are very much at home with.

      The UN gets it’s legitimacy from it being declared as the verdict of the whole world, ideally what the UN says goes, we follow international law, despite it potentially conflicting with our law. Take Gay marriage as a really flimsy example, under the UN charter, gays probably should not be denied the right to marry, but across much of the world, they are denied the right to marry, even if they are not denied the right to exist as a couple or register a union.

      The concept of an Ummah could be seen as the same thing. If you look at Islamic history, I don’t there there was a time where the entire Muslim world had only 1 ruler, it was ruled by different rulers but they had similar policies and were allies.

      A working concept of the Ummah is not a bloke in a turban sat on a mat on a dune of sand in Saudi, but rather an EU type model, but with greater integration in terms of culture, economy, military and theology.

      The reason idea’s like that do not spring to mind the moment someone says Ummah is because the western world (the world which we all live in) cringe at the hearing the word, because the only people who talk about it are the unpleasant types.

      Just as the English flag has been reclaimed from the right wing, we must claim back the Ummah from the right wing too.

    75. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:42 pm  

      I’d be interested to hear if you agree or disagree with any part of this doctrine

      No, David T, you wouldn’t.

      I do not see killing folk as necessary, or useful.

      In fact, I am totally pissed off with your ridiculous idea that it is a way towards peace.

      It is not. And it is a ridiculous apologism for what is wrong.

      I think I talked Brownie down over his lunatic support for the USA in Iraq.

      Perhaps I didn’t.

      But the point is that, here too you are excusing murder. And that, frankly, Mr T, is not you.

      You are a whole lot better than that.

    76. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:43 pm  

      David T

      “Because the Iraqis were hugely grateful to the Ummah for sending Jordanians and Syrians and Saudis over to defend “Muslim land” by murdering Iraqis in recruitment lines and markets. ”

      Yet Azad Ali specifically condemns attacks on civilians as you yourself stated

      Whenever you get found out you just fabricate

    77. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:45 pm  

      “David T, mentioning the UN makes me laugh, we all know might is right”

      Yes a groupie of Israel (60 + UN resolutions broken) mentioning the UN is rather comical no?

      And he ignores the fact the UN never supported the Iraq invasion and its secretray general Kofi Annan called it illegal

    78. Gazan — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:46 pm  

      sid

      “gazan, why don’t you answer the question I asked in #34?”

      Perhaps because your question was a reply to my question which you declined to answer

      ” I have never got a straight answer to that question from an Islamist and I doubt I ever will.”

      You dont know a thing about me but call me an “Islamist”

    79. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:48 pm  

      Yet Azad Ali specifically condemns attacks on civilians as you yourself stated

      But he says Hamas rockets into civilian territory in southern Israel is perfectly justified. There is a very Azad Ali shaped contradiction in that argument, if it can be called that.

    80. Ravi Naik — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:51 pm  

      “I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many Muslims at the grassroots over the last few years.”

      is agreeing with them.

      Azad Ali says that he was only agreeing with the latter of the two statements. But the entire blog is about the need to reject “merely” spiritual jihad, and jihad other than on the battlefield.

      David T - what you said is correct, but you missed his point all together by only focusing on part of his message. If you look at it at as a whole in a neutral way, his article actually looks moderate.

      The topic of his article is “achieving balance”. He says that this is the desired state that every Muslim should want to achieve: “To ensure that we as Muslims attain our goal of pleasing Allah – we have to be on the balance in respect of all matters.”

      What situations create unbalance? Oppression of the people. There can be no peace if there is unbalance. This is why it is more precise to say that Islam should be the religion of justice, not of peace: “but I am concerned why they could not say Islam is about Justice – peace is related to Justice. What peace does a man have when he is oppressed?

      Hence, in situations of oppression there should be a struggle (Jihad) to reach this balance.

      However, does Jihad mean any sort of violence? Are there rules of engagement? Azad Ali says yes. And he castigates those that follow the extremes: By this approach we have caused disillusionment and in some instances radical and extreme reactions from within. You may take Shaykh Anwar Awlaki as an example. Reading his blogs, one cannot help but feel his frustration at the constant denial of legitimate Islamic principles. Worse is the complete incompetence of some Muslims to distinguish between Jihad and acts of murder.

      So, according to Azad there is a difference between Jihad and extreme violence that amounts to acts of murder. So, what should be the rules? The enemy had to be clear and known and you didn’t leave the battlefield to attack elsewhere

      If you understand what he is saying now, that first quote (which is provocative), you will see that it is not his point to say one should murder British soldiers, but…

      If I saw an American or British man wearing a soldier’s uniform inside Iraq I would kill him because that is my obligation. If I found the same soldier over the border in Jordan I wouldn’t touch him. In Iraq he is a fighter and an occupier, here he is not.

      The point he wanted to make is that Jihad does not justify acts of murder outside the battlefield. Not sure what is radical about what he has written in that article.

    81. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:54 pm  

      But your question was a question in answer to my question. Mine was the first question, so serially speaking, see if you can answer it. You won’t because you can’t. Azad Ali certainly wouldn’t, but he likes to see himself as an expert in jihad. But it is the one contradiction that punctures Jamaat-e-Islami doctrine with the sound a ‘whoopee cushion’ makes.

      You dont know a thing about me but call me an “Islamist”

      Because you’re on this thread defending Azad Ali with Islamist arguments, what else should I call you?

    82. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 2:57 pm  

      David T,

      Missed your post at 71.

      Anyway,

      Brain dead moron @ 62.

      I am saying quite the opposite. I do not believe any UK Muslim believes this:

      Yes because anyone who thinks Muslims should defend themselves from attackers must be also support the throwing of acid on girls faces and the notion that women are inferior. Are you a Hollywood producer?

      What about opposing the Iraqi/Afghan/Gazan civilians burned by acid bombs Douglas?

      Douglas Clark believes the majority or a substantial number of UK muslims support throwing acid on womens faces or consider boys superior to girls.

      It would be ridiculous, wouldn’t it? I don’t believe for a second that UK Muslims think this. It is obviously not true. Why are you arguing with me?

    83. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:08 pm  

      platinum786

      “Just as the English flag has been reclaimed from the right wing, we must claim back the Ummah from the right wing too.”

      Yes, you’re right.

    84. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:11 pm  

      Will the Gulf Arab states be in the Ummah?

    85. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:17 pm  

      “But he says Hamas rockets into civilian territory in southern Israel is perfectly justified. There is a very Azad Ali shaped contradiction in that argument, if it can be called that.”

      There is no contradiction at all for him. There are no Israel civilians, you see. They’re all soldiers, and even the kids will be soldiers one day. Even the ones who are exempt from military service.

      So says Qaradawi.

    86. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:27 pm  

      Well exactly, the “balanced jihad” he talks about is an elastic term which can ultimately be extended to justfiy killing of civilians.

      His reaction to Mumbai was transparent.

      He says:
      “Worse is the complete incompetence of some Muslims to distinguish between Jihad and acts of murder.”

      But he couldn’t bring himself to denounce the “incompetence” of the Mumbai terrorists, calling them “misguided” because he would rather not recognise an act of terrorism when it was perpetrated by Islamists.

    87. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:28 pm  

      David T @ 82,

      For fucks sake.

      just as the English flag has been reclaimed from the right wing, we must claim back the Ummah from the right wing too.

      This is pathetic shite. You do know what an idiot you are becoming?

    88. Rumbold — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:30 pm  

      Douglas:

      Shamit at #23 pretty much sums up my view on the matter.

    89. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:40 pm  

      Rumbold and Shamit,

      I would rarely disagree with either of you. I do, however feel attacked by folk like David T and, sadly, Sid. Neither of whom have an understanding of what we are about. There you go, Wrong again!

    90. Rumbold — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:42 pm  

      Douglas:

      They are not attacking you, just disagreeing with you. If you are not careful, I will have to quote Michael Winner at you. And nobody wants that.

    91. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:43 pm  

      That’s funny douglas because there’s nothing David or I have said which isn’t concurred by Shamit in #23.

    92. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:49 pm  

      Rumbold,

      Who the hell is Michael Winner? And why I am being threatened with him?

      Stop being silly.

    93. The Dude — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:50 pm  

      Let me get this right:

      I’m South African and one day, British Soldiers turn up uninvited on my front door as part of an occupying force and I don’t have the right to run them and defend both my home and my country. Think again! It is this type of arrogance and blinkered thinking that has led us into no end of trouble. There is no offence in self defense. Not in Iraq, not in Gaza, not in Israel.

    94. Rumbold — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:53 pm  

      Douglas:

      He’s the film director (remember Deathwish? Deathwish 2? Er…) and food critic from those insurance adverts. “Calm down dear” he would say. And he would be right. You are intelligent and rational enough to disagree with Sid and Mr T without feeling like they are attacking you.

    95. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:54 pm  

      Sid,

      I don’t really care whether Shamit agrees with you and David T or not. You have both decided that you are right and someone else is wrong. It is just you guys being wankers, that’s all.

    96. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

      I too must invoke Michael Winner now

    97. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:00 pm  

      Rumbold,

      No, I don’t know who he is.

      You are intelligent and rational enough to disagree with Sid and Mr T without feeling like they are attacking you.

      Perhaps, but just say it as it is, please?

      I think they are both way off beam on this.

      What do you think? An aggressive, fact free, narrative is OK with you, is it?

      I’d have though it was at least up for challenge on here. But there you go, someone else that thought PP was better than rubbish….

    98. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:07 pm  

      For fucks sake.

      just as the English flag has been reclaimed from the right wing, we must claim back the Ummah from the right wing too.

      This is pathetic shite. You do know what an idiot you are becomin

      Er- you do appreciate that I’m agreeing with platinum786 at post 73?

    99. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:14 pm  

      The Dude

      Let me get this right:

      I’m South African and one day, British Soldiers turn up uninvited on my front door as part of an occupying force and I don’t have the right to run them and defend both my home and my country.

      Think again!

      Not quite.

      Let’s change the fact pattern.

      I’m Greek and one day, British Soldiers turn up uninvited on the streets of Serbia as part of an occupying force and I don’t have the right to run them and defend both my people. Think again!

      That’s a precise parallel.

      There was, in fact, a contingent of Greek fascists who turned up to fight against the Muslims and Catholic Croats during the break up of Yugoslavia. They did so, explicitly on the basis of a pan-Orthodox brotherhood.

      This is why if you’re a Bangladeshi Islamist, you regard Gaza as “your” fight.

      However, when - to quote Sid - “Pakistan sent its troops to Bangladesh to kill and rape millions of people to preserve and unite the “Muslim state” of Pakistan”… that barely figures for you at all.

      In fact, you never mention it.

      Indeed - as is the case with the IFE lot - you’re an activist with Jamaat-e-Islami, who participated in those rapes and murders of Bangladeshi nationalists.

    100. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:18 pm  

      No David T I had missed, and would have otherwise probably have agreed with this:

      Just as the English flag has been reclaimed from the right wing, we must claim back the Ummah from the right wing too.

      That is a mile away from you earlier views on some guy called Azad Ali is it not? You are not off the hook sir. Stop trying to play with me.

    101. Sunny — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:21 pm  

      I’m with Jamie. I call bullshit on this story. It would never stand up in court.

    102. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:23 pm  

      Luckily he’s not being prosecuted then.

      And I’ll remember this the next time a white fascist appears to be supporting attacks on “brown people”, but then claims that he was ‘misunderstood’.

      I bet you £20 that, in all this fuss, Azad Ali will never state that he opposes attacks on British soldiers “on the battlefield”.

      And I bet that, even if he were to say that he supported attacks on British soldiers, a number of his defenders would say:

      “So what. He’s right!”

    103. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:24 pm  

      Douglas

      Mr. Ali is not really talking about combat forces here.

      Whether one agreed with the Iraq war or not (I supported it in principle but it was the wrong war at the wrong time) — one must accept that today Iraq has a democratically elected Government where over 70% of Iraqis’ under death threats came and voted for their chosen political party. And however fagile there is democracy at work.

      How can one forget the teenagers who come back from School in Anwar province and take over guard duties so that militants don’t come in their area. These kids and their families and their communities back the US led forces in their area.

      In a scenario such as this where the democratically elected Government of Iraq has an agreement with the United States and others on how long they think foreign troops should be there — where is the combat coming into play?

      So, the combatants that Mr. Ali refers to are those who do not support the wishes of Iraqi Government and thereby people and who wish to go and kill foreign soldiers who are now in Iraq following request from the Iraqi Government?

      Where is Mr. Ali taking a similar stance as the Geneva Conventions? I do not see it.

      Right now Iraqis’ are trying to rebuild a country — they don’t need outsiders to come and kill Iraqis’ indiscriminately or their guests (the foreign soldiers).

      What are these so called Islamic fighters trying to defend? Please enlighten me — maybe I am mistaken. But what he is calling for in my book is total anarchy and it does not befit a British Civil Servant especially when his Government has a clearly different view.

      I respect your views as always and if you think I am wrong on my understanding as always I am willing to listen and understand your point of view. Although, I am sure I would try to persuade you towards my thinking.

      Is that fair?

      S

    104. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:29 pm  

      “That is a mile away from you earlier views on some guy called Azad Ali is it not? You are not off the hook sir. Stop trying to play with me.”

      There’s nothing wrong with fellow feeling for co-religionists.

      There’s a difference between that, and the monstrous religious-political edifice that envisages a caliphate, that is the defining belief of Islamists

    105. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:30 pm  

      I’m with Jamie. I call bullshit on this story. It would never stand up in court.

      And I’m pretty sure Azad Ali won’t risk taking this to libel court because then we’d be really be seeing some seriously unsavoury stuff authored by he and the IFE stalwarts.

    106. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

      Yes, not a chance.

      If they have really managed to bamboozle the MoS into backtracking - and it looks as if the editor is now on holiday! - they’ve scored a real victory and all credit to them.

      If Azad Ali wins, then you can look forward to a continuation of the status quo: where an IFE activist is treated by the Police and the Civil Service as the representative of British Muslims.

      That will be great for the likes of Sid and me. We’re really reassured.

    107. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

      Silence on this Mr T?

      David T @ 43,

      As David Myatt once said “I believe that there will be a race war in my lifetime. The time will come when white patriots will have to kill blacks. But we will fight the blacks on the battlefield, not in their homes”

      Another great thinker said “We aren’t terrorists. We are warriors defending the White Race”

      I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many White people at the grassroots over the last few years.

      To which I said:

      You are being deliberately thick, are you not?

      If your putative blog continued:

      “this is the most evil, racist shit I have ever read”

      it would be a bit different from:

      “here lies truth”

      Quoting someone is not the same as agreeing with them. Could you please get that through your incredibly thick head?

      The case in point is a bit less certain than the daft option you proposed. I suppose that’s how lawyers make their money.

      Your rhetoric at 98 is just that. Here you are, rabitting on again.

      It does not answer the shit you posted earlier @ 43:

      if a white person, involved in the BNP, had a blog on which he posted an article that went like this:

      As David Myatt once said “I believe that there will be a race war in my lifetime. The time will come when white patriots will have to kill blacks. But we will fight the blacks on the battlefield, not in their homes”

      Another great thinker said “We aren’t terrorists. We are warriors defending the White Race”

      I sense there is much truth in this from my discussions with many White people at the grassroots over the last few years.

      Would you say “Well, he didn’t actually call for black people to be killed”.

      You’d be right of course. He merely approvingly quoted somebody who did, as an illustration of his thesis that there is a time and place for killing black people.

      Which is bullshit, along with the rest of your legalistic, self serving crap.

      I am white, and I do not think like either of the quotes above. And neither do I think you have the right to ascribe them Mr T. It is you feeding your own paranoia. Get a grip.

    108. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:50 pm  

      I take the words:

      “I sense there is much truth in this”

      to be an endorsement of the content of the preceeding statements

      I appreciate that you think that Azad Ali is merely endorsing the statement by Azzam Sr, that “Muslims cannot be defeated by others. We Muslims are not defeated by our enemies, but instead, we are defeated by our own selves”

      I understand that you think that Azad Ali’s comments do not apply at all to the statement (by an Afghan jihadi) about killing British soldiers (in Iraq).

      In fact, you can’t imagine why Azad Ali quotes Azzam Jr at all. You think, perhaps, he’s quoting the statement about the appropriateness of killing British soldiers on the battlefield because he fundamentally disagrees with it, or for no reason at all.

      In any event, I appreciate that you think that only an idiot would think that, in a piece about the need for “balance” in jihad, Azad Ali is holding up Azzam Jr as a good example.

    109. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:54 pm  

      I once read the following statement: “Douglas Clark, you’re a cretin. You are an idiot. Jesus man, you have shit for brains”

      A great philosopher once said “It is important to tell a stupid person what you think of them or else they’ll never realise what a half wit they are”.

      There is much truth in that.

      Reading comprehension is very important. People who can’t understand and interpret articles are hopeless. They’re probably a bit autistic, to be honest. I pity them.

    110. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 4:57 pm  

      To be fair to douglas, he’s more idiot savant than plain idiot. He’s ahead of the curve. A man out of time. Antimatter to Michael Winner’s matter.

    111. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:00 pm  

      Incidentally,

      I do not think there will be a race war in our lifetime.

      As long as we can shut down idiots like you, men and women will do what seems to come naturally.

      And then your arguement will be we well and truly jiggered.

      Though it might take a little longer than Sunny would be comfortable with.

    112. Sunny — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:01 pm  

      Reading comprehension is very important.

      It is, I’m afraid though that in this case you’re more trying to imagine we would say that on the basis that he says other unsavoury things.

      And frankly, even if it was a BNP type here, I would look at what he / she said and on the statements that were being picked upon, rather than saying they’re BNP so they must have meant it anyway. That’s frankly lazy.

      As for the broader issue, maybe you could answer what I asked in an earlier topic but no one wants to address:

      The real question is: if Israel has a right to defend itself, why don’t the Palestinians? I’ve stated my position on this - the Palestinians are being forcibly denied an independent and secure state they can manage themselves. So what right of self-defence are they allowed? Are Palestinians not allowed to fight for their own statehood, and only Israel is? And if yes, to what extent would their actions in self-defence be proportional?

      Let’s hear it…

    113. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:16 pm  

      Palestinians do have the right to defend themselves.

      Any and all Palestinian political parties should be working very hard for an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, and pressure should be put on both sides to ensure that such a state comes into existence.

      However, as you well know, that isn’t Hamas’ goal.

    114. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:17 pm  

      “To be fair to douglas, he’s more idiot savant than plain idiot. He’s ahead of the curve. A man out of time. Antimatter to Michael Winner’s matter.”

      I’m sorry - what ever makes you think that I was calling douglas an idiot?

      It is a filthy and disgusting lie to suggest that I was saying any such thing and I demand you withdraw your accusation immediately.

    115. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:20 pm  

      David T @ 108,

      Cheers. That is the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me. To be recognized, in the second degree as a complete utter nutter, suggests that you are incapable of recognizing a nutcase in the wild.

      Have you ever had a similarly favorable comment? I’ve read your blog off and on and I don’t remember, don’t recall sort of, anyone beyond the level of a cretin thinking you were in any way a sort of genius? Just asking.

      Probably the other Euston Manifesto folk thought you were. But they were just as mad as you.

      ‘Tis you, dear sir that interprets an article more than you should. Can I just say that you and Sid are reading more into an article than is really there?

      Neither of you have returned fire on the point being made. Apart from a quote, you have sweet fanny adams..

      It is always a joy to talk to you David T. I am really quite fond of you, though I think your brain is up your bottom. What is it about you and trainspotting over the extreme left?

      —————————-

      Sid.

      Hmmm.

    116. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:20 pm  

      Sid

      I AM STILL WAITING!!!!!!

      I see you are running scared. You know that your vile lies about me will not hold up.

      What a disgusting man you are.

    117. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

      douglas

      What can I say?

      You appear to have been taken in by sid’s disgusting attempt to smear me, by making it appear that I was calling you an idiot.

      Let me make it absolutely clear. No such inference can be drawn from anything I have said.

      I am considering my legal options against Sid.

    118. cjcjc — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:27 pm  

      Is it wrong of me to be a tad concerned about the Ummah concept?
      It seems to go just a little beyond “fellow feeling”.

      I don’t feel an over-arching global affinity with white people or co-religionists (in my case the religion of C Hitchens).

    119. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:28 pm  

      As you can all see, David has crumbled into internecine lefty-infighting. I knew it’d end in tears.

      douglas, I’ll have that babysham now.

    120. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

      Sunny

      Palestinians have every right to have a secure State for themselves and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

      And, Israel needs to stop encroaching and building settlments as well as need to release the economic blockade of Gaza. I would also add that until we have some semblance of real governance in Gaza — Israel cannot deny moral responsibility towards the citizens of Gaza.

      An effort was made by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and others (with tacit support of Israel) this last September to create a National Unity Government of Palestinians. And, Abbas was ready to appoint Hamas members in the Government provided they agreed to live by the agreements already in place and let the negotiations with Israel go forward. But Hamas rejected the offers outright and claimed they would not accept the right for Israel to exist. This happened last September.

      There needs to be a two state settlement not a three state one — something which most Palestinians as well as Israel object to. Now, whether elected or not, Hamas is a terrorist outfit by every definition including that of unianimous resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

      And it is an open secret that paymasters of Hamas is Iran — and Iran does not want Hamas to agree to these settlements as that would reduce its influence in the region. But Hamas is a big blockage in the entire peace process and existance of Hamas gives too much ammunition to Israeli right wingers such as Netanyahu.

      In such a situation as I have argued before, why not put an United Nations peace keeping force and establish a UN mission such as East Timor with a mandate to secure Palestinian borders and help with the development of a viable state.

      With regards to Jersualem, let it be a city to be governed by UN mandate with representations from all three major religions — and maybe put law & order situation uin the hands of Swiss guards — not the ceremonial ones.

      The President of the United States could sell this solution to AIPAC and using vast improvement of US national security.

      But Hamas needs to go Sunny. They cannot be a part of this as they dont want a solution but glory in death and destruction.

      What do you think?

    121. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:30 pm  

      David T,

      Was this not under your signature or something?

      I once read the following statement: “Douglas Clark, you’re a cretin. You are an idiot. Jesus man, you have shit for brains”

      A great philosopher once said “It is important to tell a stupid person what you think of them or else they’ll never realise what a half wit they are”.

      There is much truth in that.

      Frankly, I do not think that that is much less than Azad Ali is being accused of.

      And you were wrong about that, just as you are wrong about me :-)

      I am trying to remember what brain dead moron said that on Harry’s Place.

      Maybe it was here, but I don’t think so…

    122. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:31 pm  

      Oh try to change the subject would you, Sid.

      After you accused me without ONE IOTA OF EVIDENCE of calling douglas an idiot.

      Now he appears to believe that I have indeed called him an idiot. That is all your fault.

      What are you going to do about it, Sid?

      I AM WAITING FOR MY APOLOGY!!

    123. bananabrain — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:33 pm  

      i think all of you are now deliberately misunderstanding each other. i don’t really understand why, for the life of me. you’re all basically on the same side, of decency and against extremism. this sort of thing drives me nuts.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    124. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:34 pm  

      “Was this not under your signature or something?”

      It was under my signature. However, I was not saying it. It was a quotation. I expressed no opinion on that quotation whatsoever. I might agree with it or disagree with it. There is simply no way of telling why I quoted those words at all. You most certainly can’t tell from the context of my post, and anybody who says otherwise is a liar.

      Admit it - it was Sid’s fault that you thought I was calling you an idiot, wasn’t it.

      Let’s all blame Sid! I hope we’re agreed on that, douglas?

    125. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:36 pm  

      oh God

    126. Sunny — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:39 pm  

      Palestinians have every right to have a secure State for themselves and anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool.

      To what extent? What are they allowed to do in order to secure their liberty?

    127. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:41 pm  

      douglas, in the name of all that is Decent I didn’t call you a *complete* idiot. The *completeness* was clearly implied in David’s comments. I know I can trust you to discern who’s behind this calumny.

    128. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:43 pm  

      A variety of things, including military action aimed at Israeli soldiers, that is proportionate and likely to achieve the aims of an independent Palestine.

      So far, Hamas hasn’t tried any of this. But then Hamas is mostly interested in keeping the crisis going, while executing members of Fatah, in the hope that they’ll be able to realise their goals, as set out in the Hamas Covenant.

    129. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:44 pm  

      Sid

      “The *completeness* was clearly implied in David’s comments.”

      That is your OPINION it is not a FACT. You do understand the difference between FACT and OPINION don’t you?

      You’re only making it worse for yourself.

    130. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:44 pm  

      As I said follow the East Timor model — they have the right to live freely as a Sovereign state and receive all the help and support of the International Community to develop a viable state and be protected against enemies both internal and external.

      They have the right to education, economic opportunities, live in a society ruled by law — have a criminal justice system in a democratic system of Governance where political parties are not militia groups and are all willing to live by international agreements and rule of law.

      Palestinians cannot defend themselves in any means at this stage. Therefore there is an impetus to put an international peace keeping force (to be honest we the Brits should be paying for the force) as we have been massively responsible for creating this mess in the late 1940s along with Harry S Truman.

      Fair enough

    131. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:46 pm  

      What David T suggests is complete whack because currently there is no way Palestinians can defend themselves and if they try to attack Israel — we would be revisiting the same crisis once more.

      Palestinians have buried enough children already — we dont need to add any more to that.

      But Hamas needs to go or change its approach.

    132. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:47 pm  

      I love Shamit.

      In the middle of all this shit, Shamit just keeps on being serious.

      He or she is either very young or very wise.

      Anyway.

    133. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:54 pm  

      Palestinians do however have the right to fight to secure an independent Palestine. Whether they are more or less likely to achieve that aim by fighting is a matter of debate.

      There’s a good discussion of the legal position of Hamas here:

      “Unlike Israel, Hamas is a non-state actor. Although it has significant popular support among Palestinians in Gaza and is currently the dominant party of the Palestinian Authority, it still lacks international recognition and broad domestic support, both of which are necessary, if Hamas (or any other Palestinian political entity) is to steer an independent Palestine towards statehood.

      Hamas, of course, justifies its rocket and terror attacks on Israel as being in furtherance of its immediate political objective to rid the occupied territories of Israeli forces and also in pursuit of its long term political aim, namely the destruction of Israel.

      Unfortunately for Hamas, such justification for its rocket and terror attacks, beyond Gaza and into Israeli territory, to which Israel has responded, is not recognised by the prevailing international legal and political norms which inform the just war tradition, which is observed by the overwhelming majority of the world’s states.

      For Hamas to gain any form of political legitimacy within the international community and for it to be seen as a credible vehicle through which Palestinian independence and statehood can be achieved, it must subscribe to the same just war doctrine to that which is acknowledged by the rest of the world’s states.”

      http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article5561997.ece

    134. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

      David T @ 123,

      That is the funniest thing ever on Pickled Politics!

      It was under my signature. However, I was not saying it. It was a quotation. I expressed no opinion on that quotation whatsoever. I might agree with it or disagree with it. There is simply no way of telling why I quoted those words at all. You most certainly can’t tell from the context of my post, and anybody who says otherwise is a liar.

      Admit it - it was Sid’s fault that you thought I was calling you an idiot, wasn’t it.

      Let’s all blame Sid! I hope we’re agreed on that, douglas?

      ——————————————

      Hmm…Your not getting away with that you wee rogue. I shall probably comment on your very own web site about the innocence of the Sid!

    135. Shamit — on 22nd January, 2009 at 5:58 pm  

      Thanks Douglas -

      I am a he and not that young anymore and dont feel much wiser either…

      But did leave corporate jobs to run my own company and you can see it here: http://www.egovmonitor.com/aboutpdi

    136. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:01 pm  

      *hugs and make up*

      *kicks Sid*

    137. Sid — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:04 pm  

      *shakes head wearily*

    138. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:06 pm  

      Shamit,

      I have always liked what you had to say on here.

      Just saying.

      I am obviously in need of any friends I can get!

    139. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:11 pm  

      Oh, Sid and David love each other again.

      David T loves Sid.

      And Sid loves David T.

      I feel a bit left out.

      Next post will be really, really nasty……

    140. BenSix — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:15 pm  

      Feel the love, Douglas (but do the nasty post anyway, they’re always fun).

    141. douglas clark — on 22nd January, 2009 at 6:31 pm  

      Cheers, Mr young Mr Ben Six. It seems to me that the winds always blow from London, and that a confluence of breezes is perhaps a bad thing.

    142. David T — on 22nd January, 2009 at 8:24 pm  

      Just a quicky

      The Daily Mail hasn’t withdrawn the article in question:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1120831/Muslim-civil-servant-suspended-killing-British-troops-justified-blog.html

    143. Jamie Sport — on 22nd January, 2009 at 10:42 pm  

      Ooh it’s back! And so is the Julie Moult ctrl+c/ctrl+v version of the same story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1121284/Muslim-civil-servant-backed-fanatics-kill-troops-Iraq.html

      By the way, I like how, having had to leave the debate a good few hours ago and subsequently returned, I can still trace the flow of argument and David T’s increasing rage by his use of caps lock :P

    144. blah — on 23rd January, 2009 at 12:03 am  

      David T

      “I’m Greek and one day, British Soldiers turn up uninvited on the streets of Serbia as part of an occupying force and I don’t have the right to run them and defend both my people. Think again!

      That’s a precise parallel.

      There was, in fact, a contingent of Greek fascists who turned up to fight against the Muslims and Catholic Croats during the break up of Yugoslavia. They did so, explicitly on the basis of a pan-Orthodox brotherhood.

      This is why if you’re a Bangladeshi Islamist, you regard Gaza as “your” fight”

      Or British Jews joining the Israeli army?

      The example you quote of Greeks joining the Serbian army ignores the fact that the Serbs were agreessors invading non-Serb land in Croatia and Bosnia and commiting genocide against non-Serbs. In the case of Iraq it is inavded not invading.

      Big difference

    145. Ann Frank — on 23rd January, 2009 at 12:49 am  

      David T and Sid,

      Why cant you just accept that i am who i am, i dont know who Muhamed Amin is.

      what i do know is that you have lost your argument as you fail to provide any evidence that Azad Ali said it was legitimate to kill british soldiers in Iraq.

      Mention of the UN makes me laugh, when did Isreal take the UN seriously, can some one please tell me how many UN resolutions Isael is breaking?

    146. douglas clark — on 23rd January, 2009 at 1:16 am  

      blah @ 145,

      Is there any evidence whatsoever that British Jews have signed up for the IDF in recent times? I’m not talking about people with dual nationality. I’ve asked this before and have never had a satisfactory answer.

      There is an interesting parallel between your thesis that religion is unification, or some such:

      This is why if you’re a Bangladeshi Islamist, you regard Gaza as “your” fight”

      and the statist wars of much of 19th and 20th c Europe.

      One religion, mostly, many wars.

      It is also interesting that two, largely Muslim nations, Pakistan and Bangladesh found their differences enough to fight over, is it not?

      ‘Tis not that simple, methinks.

    147. Mary — on 23rd January, 2009 at 1:33 am  

      Ooooohiee!

      This has been quite enlightening!
      Despite the tedious love tiff/love fest posts between Sid and David T, it’s been interesting to note that not many people ARE misreading Azad Ali’s blog. Nor are they maliciously slandering him for no reason or in support of such vile behaviour! They have taken the time to actually read the blog in question, formed their own opinion and agree with the correct and popular conclusion - that Azad Ali did not make ‘said’ extreme comment and the press and certain extremists have been BS’ing.

      Blimey, well that’s something!
      Heartening, it really is. Was about to lose some hope for my country and the people of my country for a minute there - I tell no lie!
      But as long as the majority are fair, balanced and sane (not to mention able to read and comprehend correctly!!!), it’s really not so bad that there are a couple of slandering unjust extremists like David T and Sid, who are letting the side down.

      Simply Marvellous!

    148. douglas clark — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:10 am  

      Mary,

      Would it be completely wrong of me to think that you might have an agenda on here? One that is a tad different from the David T / Sid nexus?

      You really shouldn’t lose hope for your country based on a daft web spat.

      But as long as the majority are fair, balanced and sane (not to mention able to read and comprehend correctly!!!), it’s really not so bad that there are a couple of slandering unjust extremists like David T and Sid, who are letting the side down.

      David T has stood up for me against the calumny of the Sidist interventions.

      Or vice versa.

      I forget.

      You really do - honest injun - have to understand that most of the endeavor of trying to persuade people on the internet is down to writing to folk that are not commentating. That is your audience. There are more of them than you think.

      Ask Leon.

    149. Mary — on 23rd January, 2009 at 3:10 am  

      No agenda Douglas me dear.

      I am just glad to see that there are people on this site who have been able to accurately read and comprehend what the Azad Ali blog was about.

      Not such a surprise that I would be celebrating this - You must appreciate that I’ve just come over from those grossly misrepresenting and slandering HP blogs written by David T..
      Hence reading posts that make sense is quite the relief.

    150. Mary — on 23rd January, 2009 at 3:13 am  

      :)

    151. Sid — on 23rd January, 2009 at 9:05 am  

      By the way, I like how, having had to leave the debate a good few hours ago and subsequently returned, I can still trace the flow of argument and David T’s increasing rage by his use of caps lock

      Jamie Sport, that was part of a mock spat to do with giving douglas clark a ribbing. If you have trouble understanding that, I can see why you’re having trouble understanding the writing of Azad Ali. :D

    152. Jamie Sport — on 23rd January, 2009 at 10:13 am  

      Sid, If you have trouble understanding the ironic undertone of my words, I can see why you’re having troube understanding the writing of Azad Ali. :)

    153. Sid — on 23rd January, 2009 at 10:26 am  

      Jamie Sport, if you have trouble understanding the fact that there is no ironic undertone to Azad Ali’s words, I can see why you’re having trouble understanding the writings of Azad Ali. :D

    154. Jamie Sport — on 23rd January, 2009 at 10:43 am  

      If you have trouble understanding the ironic overtures of Sid’s words, I can see why Azad Ali is having trouble understanding the writings of Jamie Sport. :S

    155. ann frank — on 23rd January, 2009 at 2:39 pm  

      lol.

      Ok, lets end this debate here?

      1. Azad Ali did not say it was ok to kill British soldiers in Iraq, nor did he imply it.

      2. The Daily Mail did remove the article(s) in question and have now put them back up.

      3. Will Azad Ali get the sack - we must wait and see - we know he is suspended pendign an investigation.

      4. David T and Sid - have failed to answer the question of where in his blog did Azad Ali say it is ok to kill british soldiers in Iraq.

      5. David T and sid have failed to convince most bloggers (and i assume silent observers) that the “Much truth” is without doubt and explicitly referrign to the killing british soldiers in Iraq quote from HA.

      So basically, after 4/5 blogs in total, it has not been proved, nor have they come close to proving that Azad Ali is an extremist, ‘soft Jihadists’ and with regards the Jammate Islam and Azad Ali’s assiciation - utter silence from DT…

    156. Ann Frank — on 24th January, 2009 at 3:48 am  

      FANTASTIC.

      END OF DEBATE!!

    157. n00b33 — on 24th January, 2009 at 7:11 pm  

      Hi,

      Biggup Sunny Sundal…first of all.

      I have been visiting PP on and off now, infrequently, for up to 18 months or so. I have never had reason to comment, as often, where it is not clear cut you can - to a degree - sympathise with both sides of an argument.

      However, how anyone can support the sensational claims made in the Daily Mail viz. civil servant justifies killing of British soldiers, by reading that blog piece…I cannot fathom.

      There is no explicit mention of Azzad Ali justifying the killing of British soldiers. That is fact.

      He is quoting, in the first and second paragraph to highlight the present polarised nature of ‘jihad’; dependent on who and how the meaning is interpreted. In the third he quotes again to present, in his point of view the inevitability of failure if people do not agree to his doctrine of ‘jihad’; which if you read on is what he goes on to present…hence the use of the, “I sense much truth…” remark directly after the third paragraph.

      I can only interpret him wanting some sort of middle of the road ‘jihad’, which I’m guessing is both an internal struggle (nafs) and a physical resistance.

      He is definitely the victim of some witch hunt…

    158. sonia — on 26th January, 2009 at 5:25 pm  

      just goes to show how stupid it is to marry “resistance” with religion. works for the moment (e.g. afghan mujahedeen) but comes back to bite you in the ass later.

      yes his piece does leave it open to interpretation. it isn’t clear that he said it is ok to kill british solders.

      but still. british soldiers or no british soldiers..

      I wonder what Azad Ali would have thought of anyone resisting the Islamic Empire’s expansion. Who were the “oppressed” then? But it doesn’t matter, its only about “pleasing Allah” after all . and if Allah wants you to massacre a bunch of people so you can take their land and take their wives/etc - does this mean the “oppressed” are not really oppressed? Clearly according to our glorious Islamic history. this is the problem isn’t it? If he wants to take up the mantle of oppression - but only for muslims - and marries it with religion (pleasing Allah) it gets confusing. its no different to States committing violence when it suits them. its being no different to the american war machine.

      these people are all the same. its only “oppression” if its being done to them. If they are doing it, it is to please “Allah”/legitimate in some other way, and therefore fine.

      Pshaw.

    159. sonia — on 26th January, 2009 at 5:28 pm  

      and does anyone ever take the Daily Mail seriously>!

    160. Jamie Sport — on 27th January, 2009 at 10:24 am  

      Unfortunately yes sonia, as absurd as it may be.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.