Comments by Roger Stanyard

Comment #297883 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 5:07 am

I need some help! Something has come up this morning which mare prove to be very significant.

Could anyone (and everyone) in here quickly check and see what happens with they try and go to the two following URLs:

http://www.mothwo.blogspot.com

http://bcse-revealed.blogspot.com

I don't know what's happening so I can't explain what I think might be going on but it is important.

102. The Axis of Evo

Comment #297875 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 4:13 am

cryolophosaurus - methinks that many fundies do have a problem in understanding it, not least because the social culture of fundamentalism denies children and teenagers access to it.

Moreover, the theory is frequently utterly mis-represented by fundies.

More than a few I have come across believe that evolution happens because a species suddenly starts breeding another species. Kangaroos, for example, suddenly start giving birth to cattle or whatever. Once the nutters believe that, then, of course, the whole of evolutionary theory must be "rubbish".

In the culture of ignorance of fundamentalism, it is not surprising that so many don't "get it". Fundes not only don't understand science, they don't "understand" their own creationist arguments and don't understand religion either.

They are not asked or required to do so.

(See Wooter.)

103. Richard Dawkins and Aubrey Manning

Comment #297836 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 2:56 am

Alan Baylis - Nah, Wooter is just a dumb pilloch.

He is so dumb and incoherent that his postings can't even make it on to Fundies Say The Darndest Things. He makes the Rapture Readyites sound erudite.

(Shakes head.)

104. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #297823 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 2:34 am

Shostag "Some one said something about Kentucky Fried Chicken. Any one know where the first KFC was built. Wait for it. Wait for it. Salt Lake City Utah."

So Colonel Saunders married more than one of his sisters?

105. Terrorism That's Personal

Comment #297821 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 2:30 am

LaurieB says "The reason that fundamentalists are not acting on their God given holy book edicts is because, if you're talking about the American ones, they would be arrested and thrown in jail for the acts that their God requires. Islamic Fundamentalists sometimes DO act in accordance with their holy book and the results are disgusting to any decent human being. Their governments allow this. Ours does not."

That is simply wrong. As far as I am ware, on;y Iran is a theocracy amongst the Muslim states. There are, in all Muslim states, very severe restrictions on the ability to implement Islamic law because it is massively open to interpretation.

Many, if not nearly all Muslim states, have secular constitutional arrangements on which law is based. If you visit them, you don't expect to be killed because you're a "kaffir".

106. Richard Dawkins and Aubrey Manning

Comment #297817 by Roger Stanyard on December 6, 2008 at 2:15 am

Wooter - w'e still waiting for you to tell us what a transitional fossil is.

On account of you being incredibly dense and displaying all the arrogance of ignorance, it's not worth us bothering answering again.

Please continue to be the cretinist clown in this forum. It answers everybody's suspicion that all crenists are basically as dim aa a Toc H lamp.

107. The Axis of Evo

Comment #297734 by Roger Stanyard on December 5, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Blueollie - I don't think so. Nobody accepts Lamarkism.

108. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #297590 by Roger Stanyard on December 5, 2008 at 6:53 am

Evilcor "BTW, were you aware that your first name is a verb?"

No? really?

Better change my name to Isaac Hunt then.

109. Odontochelys, a transitional turtle

Comment #297398 by Roger Stanyard on December 5, 2008 at 2:00 am

srenedi[ity1 "Roger, unfortunately I fear that particular head would be in the sand if presented with the above discovery, as with Tiktaalik, et al ……

I'll continue to try to present the evidence to those who are open to it and to ridicule those CHOOSE to ignore it ..... "

Um, you missed the point. Perhaps you would like to ask the person how his religious views are compatible with the BNP and how do his political views involve education.

As I have long said, creationism is a political issue.

110. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #297174 by Roger Stanyard on December 4, 2008 at 3:25 pm

The 9/11 Commission Report basically avoids any mention that the people behind 9/11 did what they did because they were strongly motivated by their belief in God.

As the Economist newspaper pointed out when the report was produced, it thus avoided the central issue so as not to offend the majority of Americans because they also believed in God and thought religion benign.

America simply could not handled the fact that firm Abrahamic religious belief was involved.

Kentucky's problem is that belief in God is far more likely to result in a terrorism attack in Kentucky than lack of belief. God is far from protecting Kentucky. He is putting it at risk.

111. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #297159 by Roger Stanyard on December 4, 2008 at 2:29 pm

splink says "So you guys are saying Barack Obama is NOT a Muslim?"

Yes. Why do you ask?

112. Win Ben Stein's Mind

Comment #297072 by Roger Stanyard on December 4, 2008 at 10:26 am

Win Ben Stein's Mind

1st Prize - cinema ticket to watch Expelled.

2nd Prize - two cinema tickets to watch Expelled.

113. Odontochelys, a transitional turtle

Comment #297057 by Roger Stanyard on December 4, 2008 at 9:53 am

serendipity1 Um, why don't you contact the head of the Biblical Creation Society in the UK pointing this out?

His name is Paul Garner and he is also scientific advisor to Truth in Science which is trying to get creationism taught in British school science lessons.

I've got Mr Garner's postal address and email
address if you need it.

Got them from the list of BNP members now on the Internet.

Pip pip

114. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #296471 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 3:46 pm

KRKBAN says "Actually, I think cheap american beer is the "guts" part. It's so weak, that guys drink about 10 of them 'cause it's like water, instead of drinking a few proper brews. I drink a Porter made by the Smuttynose Brewery in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Ohhh it's tasty. I believe there's a Portsmouth in England also. Gee... izzn't that strange?"

The beer that most dring this side of the pond is weak and used to be even weaker (come could have passed for near-beer during prohibition).

Portsmouth in the UK is a naval town. Interesting but scruffy place. The local brews used to be Brickwoods and Gales. Former went out of production 30 years or so ago. Latter about a year ago. Still, there are now plenty of micro-brewers in the area.

115. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296467 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Al rawandi "Roger is a cry baby. How sad. Don't parents toughen their children up anymore' What happened to sports and all that'"

keep 'em coming. I'm sure the rest in here can make up their own mind.

116. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296466 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Steve says "But I don't think anyone should condemn another for not using their real name. There may be very good reasons, and they are none of our business."

Agreed. I take that back.

117. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296441 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Al rawandi claims "Everyone sees you for what you are. You simply can't give your opinion on an issue upon which you have spent two days commenting."

Oh, go on then rest of this group. Tell me and Al Rawandi exactly what you think of me.

How about your reaction to the following claims from the Al-Rawandi (who, incidentally, has never even given his real name to this group);

1. Snivelling

2. Coward

3. Twat

4. Pisser and moaner

5. Pathetic

6. Intentionally dense

7. "unwilling to defend innocents"

As I say, you are a nasty piece of work and haven't the humility to recognise it.

118. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296430 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Al Rawandi says "This is the upteenth run in where you have behaved the sniveling coward. YOU used the term ENGLAND first. Not me."

As I have said before, you are a very nasty opinionated piece of work. I said it weeks ago, I won't retract it, and I stick by it.

119. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296424 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 2:26 pm

yet again Al Rwandi illustrates his rather nasty poinioated persona "As for your answer to my France/Britain question (should have been Britain, sorry) you are a pathetic twat."

OK, I'll spell it out for dimwits. Terrorism is not war between nation states that is resolved by military warfare. France has NEVER engaged in organising terrorism in the UK.

If Basque seperatists based in Southern France want to cause terrorism in the UK, the daftest reaction in history would be for the UK to declare war against France.

Now do you get the difference?

120. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296420 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Al rawandi "What a twat. Are you even serious(qm)

I am deadly serious about that. Why might you think I am?

Ypu can scream as much as you like about "twats" that you disagree with but it exactly points out what you are.

121. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296310 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Al Rawandi "I would be loathe to know someone like you, who is unwilling to defend innocents from violent attacks, would ever be in any position of authority. Terrifying really."

Where did I ever say I was unwilling to defend innocents?

For what it is worth, I have first hand experience of terrorism and its aftermath and both me and my father risked our lives to protect two innocent Irish people after such an attack.

Yep, we had rifles showed in our faces on that one. Frightend the crap out of all four of is and we we lucky to get away with it.

I aslo helped pick up the bits of bodies after the attack.

So if you want to bogusly slander people in this forum, I suggest that you think before you do so instead of trying to convince everyone how clever you are and how stupid/immoral/cowardly people who disagree with you are.

122. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296301 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 12:15 pm

Al Rawandi "Now I have a question for you: If you are prime minister of Israel and across the border in Gaza ..."

I'm not the head of state of any country and neither are you.

Don't try and pretend to everyone in here that you know what to do if you were.

You don't.

Just like everyone in this forum.

Unless, of course, you would like to tell everyone why you know the answers and they don't.

123. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296298 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 12:08 pm

Al Rawandi "If France attacks England, does England have the right to defend itself... "

Nope, for one minor point, England is not a nation state with a government who could take such a decision.

Secondly, France has international treaty obligations so that it won't attack the UK. We are not living in the 18th century anymore.

Thirdly, the very idea of a nation state in this part of the world has been decling over the last 50 years.

Perhaps you naming this place as "England" that shows your real utter lack of knowledge or the rest of the world. Are you actually aware of the name of the country I live in and what the actual position is in Northern Ireland?

If you want to keep screaming at me again, start with thinking before you do so.

This is the second run in I have had with you where you have been screaming insults.

124. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296292 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 11:56 am

Al Rawandi "I have asked REPEATEDLY for Roger's solution, he has refused to answer. This is common, criticize solutions while refusing to offer any. Pathetic and lazy."

Pathetic it may be. Lazy it is not. I've spent a lot of time in the last few of hours on this.

Nope, I don't have the answers to the Israeli/palestine question. Why the heck should ANYBODY in this forum "know" the answers. You may think you have but I find you unconvincing.

I'll ask the rest of the forum:

1. Do you know the answers to the Israeli/Palestinian issue?

2. If not, do you think you are pathetic?

3. If you don't have the answers to any and all other political issues, do you think you are pathetic?

4. Do you think the Palestinian/Israel problem has a simple answer which only pathetic people don't get?

125. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296284 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 11:38 am

Al Rawandi "If a neighboring country attacks England, does England have the right to retaliate against relevant targets, both those responsible for decision making and military attacks, which I SPECIFICALLY identified."

No. It doesn't. Much of the terrorism against Britain (not the same as England) during the troubles in Northern Ireland were undertaken by citizens of the Republic of Ireland or who used the Republic as a base.

Indeed, politicans in Dublin were involved (see Charlie Haughy's track record - he ended up as head of state).

The troubles were a policing issue, not a military issue which justified war against a sovereign state.

One minor point is that the Republic is a fellow member of the EU. EU states do not declare war against each other. The whole point of the EU is to prevent wars between member states.

When we both signed up, the international treaty obligations involved signing away the rights to go to war against EU member states. Nation states do not as practice, break international treaty obligations unless under extreme duress. It's a no-no in international relations.

There's another problem here. Maybe 10% of the population of the UK are irish in some way or other - origin, descendancy, marriage, etc. very few British people don't have Irish people in their family or as friends. A war with the Republic of Ireland could not ever have been delivered to the electorate. The Irish are "different" from the English but not that different. The English tend to like them quite strongly.

The whole issue of a full scale military war against Ireland in the last 40 years was utterly politically unrealistic.

126. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296278 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 11:11 am

righton - I don't have a solution. As I said, I am no genius who thinks he knows the answer.

Go ask an Israeli or a Palestinian for some answers.

What I did conclude in 1977 was that the troubles in Northern Ireland would blow themselves out eventually without reunification. I got that one right (and with a lot less experience of life as well). But then I had Irish friends and family connections to call upon and the matter was much closer to home.

I suppose the best I can say, for what it is worth (not a lot) is that a settlement over the Isreali/Palestinian issue is probably a necessary but not sufficient condition for peace in that area.

I'm neither a Palestinian nor an Israeli so I am out of my depth on the matter.

127. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296261 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 10:46 am

Al Rawandi says "That is my solution. Hand the Palestinians what they "claim" they want, a state. If they continue with violence, annhilate the enemy."

Um, a call for genocide by the Israelis (of all people).

Anyone else agree with this, er "solution"?

128. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296256 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 10:42 am

"Recent archaeological discoveries suggest that Israelites were not a foreign people, that they were in fact Canaanites, and the mythos of Egypt etc... was developed to seperate themselves from the concurrent rulers of Canaan and to establish a seperate national identity. So in that sense, the original inhabitants ARE resettled, and the Arabs are the conquerors and invaders."

Oh well, let's just hand over England to the Welsh.

129. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296241 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 10:02 am

Peacebeuponme - yep. There are similarities with the colonisation of the Americas, Australiasia, Africa and whatever.

The Europeans, notably the Brits, were centre stage in buggering up the Middle East. In a sense, we did promise the Palestinians their own state insofar as the Arabs were offered their independence in the region for their sterling efforts in the Arab Revolute against the Ottomans.

With true British hypocracy, we then tore the agreement up and carved up the near Middle East with the French.

The more I look at the Middle East the more I conclude that the mess has been substantially and repeatedly caused by the West. My grandad paid for it with his life "protecting" British interests in iraq in 1921.

The scam we had was to call Mesopotamia a "protectorate", just like we did with Palestine.

Arguably the current "war" in Iraq is the third by the West. No wonder so many in the region are pissed off with the West.

Me? I'm not clever enough (by a massive margin) to provide answers.

130. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296233 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 9:37 am

Al Rawandi - I happen to think that Jordan's involvement has been utterly hypocritical -as has that of other states in the region.

"That everytime Israel has given back land it has been rewarded with waves of violence."

Sounds like Northern Ireland Prods - "No Surrender, not an inch, no compromises, Home Rule is Rome Rule, Never." Heard it all before.

"Palestine was never a state."

Neither ever was pre-1922 Ireland an independent nation state (except under a brief period of Brian Boru over a millenium ago).

Most nation states are modern constructions, including Israel.

So what's your "solution" to the Israel/Palestine problem?

131. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296175 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 8:01 am

Al Rawandi "Israel left Gaza, the first order of business for Palestinians was to advance to the border and begin launching rockets into Israel."

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.

132. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #296158 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 7:37 am

chewedbarber - you may well be right.

The best I can say in my defence is that I am not trying to equate Hamas with the Provos. My comments were generalisations about the alleged threat of Islam and Al Rawandi's claim that the west should use all out military force.

In general, I take the view that terrorism rarely works because it is not a politically effective strategy.

However, I don't think the cause of the troubles in NI from NI were the "fault" of the British military and police. I put the blame much more squarely on the unionist movement which failed to provide Catholics with their place in the sun.

(Remember, I am English, not Irish or Scots-Irish - I don't see things the same way as many of them.)

Seems to me that province was already collapsing into chaos when Callaghan sent the troops in. IIRC he commented at the time that the outcome would either be the Nationalists shooting them or the Unionists shooting them.

I would go along with nationalists who even today suggest that the province is, and always has been, so artifical that it isn't politically or economically viable.

The offer of a place in the sun for Catholics was made by the mid-1970s. The Provos, and the Unionists, rejected it. We had to wait another generation for Sunningdale to be reserrected.

My understanding comes from nationalists from the province. Maybe they are bullshitting.

"Do you think that support for violence against Israel is due in part or whole to its military presence in Palestine?"

I don't know. Best to ask Palestinians.

Seems to me that if there were no Israeli military/police presence in the West Bank it would be, de facto, a Palestinian homeland and nation state.

Whether that would have ended the troubles I can't say.

Incidentally, my approcah is not a technical analysis. They are the comments of a layman in geo-politics and military matters. (The nearest I've been to a professional understanding is in international relations and that has been from an economic perspective so that doesn't contribute much to really understand the issues in Palestine/Israel. I've tried it - the whole business is a snake pit and is largely incomprehensible to me.)

133. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #296120 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 6:58 am

therob. Oh no, not again. (sigh)

It was said with of irony and humour.

Well, clearly all Christians are pig ignorant.

(Shakes head.)

134. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #296039 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 5:56 am

therob - how could anyone in here be prejudice against Kentucky? That's outrageous!

Why, we are all enraptured by its world-beating Answers in Genesis museum.

I'd love to move there, marry my sister and raise 17 barefoot children in a wooden shack equipped with a gun and the Bible - and get the kids a good home-schooled edumacation.

When's the next turnip truck due to depart for Kentucky?

135. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #296023 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 5:47 am

DG says "That's an idea; why don't you try it? (Even though what I find far more relevant to discuss are the ethical ideas that have the power to move humanity and hence are mentioned and debated in popular media, rather than the ethical ideas which may be all the rage in today's philosophical departments but don't have much practical relevance - and which your suggested method will mainly measure.)"

That's just an appeal to anti-intellectualism and ignorance.

You lose.

136. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #295962 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 4:57 am

DG "Sorry, but I still don't see how the above argument, namely a description of what happens in respectable philosophy-departments, is not arguing from authority."

Arguing from a religious viewpoint based on the Bible, is arguing from authority. That's why it isn't done in academia.

Ethics come from philosophy, not from religion.

137. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #295957 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 4:51 am

DG says "Certainly sounds like arguing from authority for me."

He's talking about a university offering academic courses, not a bible studies school indoctrinating Christianity.

Unelss of course, you are saying that bible studies should be offered on all academic courses.

138. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #295937 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 4:31 am

DG says "But do so thinking for yourself, and not being impressed by thoughts such as "all my profs are atheists" or "all my profs think that idealism is ridiculous", etc. I suppose the very first thing for a philosopher, indeed for a freethinker, is to reject the comfort of following authority."#

That is a staggering patronising and ignorant comment. Argument from authority holds no water in academic circles and hasn't for centuries. Not in any discipline. MPhil has not attempted to argue from authority.

Your crude attempt at a put-down of MPhil is ludicrous. It shows you up to be a rank amateur.

139. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #295924 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 4:11 am

Evilcor says "Actually I have a lot of respect for London cabbies. If London is laid out anywhere near as bad as they say, that job must be harder than Russian spellchecker. I understand it takes years to qualify for one of those jobs."

The system is called "the knowledge". It's a monopoly trick.

I ask one question. Why are all London cabbles white?

140. Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Comment #295919 by Roger Stanyard on December 3, 2008 at 4:02 am

Evilcor says "I've never met bigger racists than L.A. cabbies. Apparently everybody deserves to be deported except for them."

Then you've obviously never met London cabbles then!

They are the fount of all wisdom, experts on everything, with the answer to all know problems "string 'em up".

Ask Bertie Einstein, cab number emc2, next time you are in London.

141. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295625 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Brian says "It worries me a bit Roger. We're happy to sell them all this technology, a lot of it potentially quite dangerous, but they then go one to use it so they can prostrate themselves in the right direction 5 times a day. Sigh, 21st century technology to obey 7th century superstition...."

It's a point although I happen to think that electronic communications are very liberating technologies.

In the broader thinking, spread of technology has always resulted in what can be described as subjective mis-use - right back, no doubt, to when the first hand axes or bronze knives were produced. They were no doubt used to sustain or promote some vile form of religion or whatever.

142. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295613 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Brian - I get what you mean, now.

Yep, you're probably right but there is a lot of hypocracy in it. Young people avidly look to the cultures of the most developed countries (especially the USA) wherever they are in the world.

143. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295603 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Brian English says "Roger, I think a lot of societies want to modernise, but don't want the immoral (as they see it) lifestyle that seems to come with it."

There are very few nation states in that category. Maybe Afghanistan, maybe Iran. That's about it from the top of my head.

Most if not all of the nation states I am aware of that have failed to modernise have done so for other reasons such as being run by a dictator or oligarchy or rampant corruption.

144. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295591 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Al rawanadi - the man's subject to severe scrutiny by the security services. Military action against him is irrelevent.

He's a public figure because he is such a bigot and nobody is under any illusions about him.

PS - when it comes to politics, the man is simple minded. IIRC he's out of a tin-pot university and didn't even finish his degree.

145. Forced to Marry

Comment #295586 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

ev-Love - the reason why BBC World TV is not available free of charge abroad is that it is not funded out of either licence fees or general taxation. The BBC's international radio services are funded out of general taxation.

IIRC, the Conservative govt blocked the BBC from using licence fee money for its international TV services. They are basically paid for by subscriptions (pay-TV) even though the BBC hates the very idea of pay-TV.

146. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295584 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Brian English - there is a huge difference between some Muslim clerics and their followers wanting to return to the 7th century or some golden age and the ambitions of predominantly Muslim states.

The vast majority of Muslim states are dead keen to "modernise" and keep up with the advanced economies and societies of the world (not all of which are Western).Moreover, many of them have a proven track record in doing so.

There are some "problem" Muslim countries - such as Afghanistan, yeme, Solamia and Pakistan (Iran also, if you like). There are also non-Muslim countries that are a problem to the rest of the world - North Korea, for example.

But international relations have always been like that.

The neo-cons might rant and rave about how we live in a dangerous world but they have had their day and their recommendations have, rightly, been confined to the dustbin. They were always nine-tenths bonkers.

As a matter of interest, who in here now takes Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden as serious threats to the rest of the world?

147. 'Atheist bus' more like a bandwagon on highway to hell

Comment #295573 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 12:48 pm

Splink - Baby P. London at its worst. it's much sadder than you think. He was a small child that was treated with unbelievable cruelty by a bunch of illiterate and pig shit ignorant morons before he died. To say the matter was distressing to all would be a gross under-statement.

148. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295569 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Al Rwandi "I didn't say that. I see a combination as the solution."

OK, then which Muslim countries do you propose the West goes to war against, when and what likely successful military strategy should be used. Once the west "wins", then what? How do you police them afterwards and set them up as havens of peace?

What are the consequences of these actions?

How do they differ from those used with Iraq?

Who are gonna be your military allies in the Islamic world?

149. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295568 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 12:28 pm

Al Rawandi "The difference(qm) They idolize a 7th Century model of life. It defines backwards looking and cannot be reconciled with modern life."

That is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever heard. It's a sweeping generalisation to the point of absolute absurdity.

Countries like Turkey, Tunisia, Malaysia, the Gulf States and a whole pile of others are simply not living in the 7th Century because they don't want to and have made the effort to modernise.

150. The Religion of Peace Strikes Again

Comment #295564 by Roger Stanyard on December 2, 2008 at 12:18 pm

Al rawandi "If you are certain, and no evidence can change your mind, I can't help. The fact that you think that because Christianity did it that Islam will do it, shows a complete lack of attention to detail. Christianity is not Islam, the sooner that gets through peoples' heads the better."

I never said that. But politics exists everywhere and I said that the solution was ultimately political not military.

If you think that the only solution is large scale international war, so be it.

I'm the same as most people here, I fear Muslim extremism. (Shrug.)