Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The verdant valley where Sharia law now rules

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 February 2009
ISLAMABAD has caved in to the demands of Islamic militants fighting in Pakistan's beautiful but volatile Swat Valley region, agreeing to implement Sharia law in a move that will bring concerns about the government's writ in an area less than 100 miles from the capital.
The decision on Islamic justice is likely to draw criticism from the United States and other western powers worried that appeasement will play into the hands of religious conservatives who sympathise with the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

But the governm
ent fears that use of force to impose its will would only fuel an Islamist insurgency radiating out of tribal areas bordering Afghanistan, and believes compromise was the best option to restore order in Swat.

"Those who adopted militancy should move towards peace now the agreement has been reached," Amir Haider Khan Hoti, the chief minister of the North West Frontier Province, told reporters yesterday after his government reached agreement with Islamists at a meeting in Peshawar.

"Our whole struggle is for the enforcement of Sharia law," said Muslim Khan, a Swat Taleban spokesman. "If this brings us the implementation of Sharia, we will fully co-operate with it."

Taleban militants in Swat, once a tourist paradise, called a ten-day ceasefire the night before the talks and, in another gesture of goodwill, on Saturday released a Chinese engineer kidnapped five months earlier.

The uprising erupted in late 2007 in Swat, an alpine beauty spot favoured by honeymooners and trekkers alike, and militants now control the valley 80 miles north-west of Islamabad.

They have destroyed more than 200 girls' schools in a campaign against female education, and tens of thousands of people have fled their homes.

Asif Ali Zardari, the president of Pakistan, had given his agreement in principle for the NWFP government to make this concession to the Islamists, but will sign it only when he is sure peace has been established, officials said. However, while Islamists saw the move as a victory, Sheree Rehman, the information minister, said that the principal changes for the people of Swat would be that they could have speedy justice and that an appellate bench would be established in Peshawar.

The laws that will be applied were written into the Pakistani constitution after an uprising in Swat in the 1990s, but were not implemented, she said.

Officials said the government was neither setting up new courts nor appointing Islamic scholars, and existing judges would carry on in their role.

Analysts said the courts were unlikely to hand down sentences like those meted out by the Taleban in Pakistani tribal areas and Swat, where thieves' hands were chopped off.

Religious conservatives in Swat have long fought for Sharia to replace Pakistan's secular laws, which came into force after the former princely state was absorbed into the Pakistani federation in 1969. Yesterday's agreement was reached with Maulana Sufi Mohammad, who led the revolt in the early 1990s. He was later imprisoned after leading thousands of fighters in a vain attempt to stop US-backed forces from ousting the Taleban from power in Afghanistan in 2001.

A spokesman for Tehrik-e-Taleban Pakistan, an umbrella group for various Taleban factions, said the agreement signed by Mr Mohammad was acceptable, and he vowed the struggle would continue until Islamic law was applied across Pakistan.

The government hopes that, by compromising with militants who have laid down their arms, it will be able to isolate hardliners who have forged ties with the Taleban and al-Qaeda.


BACKGROUND

WITH meadows, high mountains and clear lakes, Swat is a favourite tourist destination, often called "the Switzerland of Pakistan". Like the rest of the north-west, Swat has historically been a conservative region but a large number of its population is educated thanks to schools set up by the former native rulers, the Waalis.

Swatis are ethnic Pashtuns. Under British colonial rule, Swat was a princely state meaning it was not directly governed by the British but through a native ruler, the Waali. The Waali system continued after Pakistan was created in 1947 but it was abolished in 1969 when Swat was absorbed into the Pakistani federation and made a district of Northwest Frontier Province.

Under the Waali system, an Islamic scholar, a Qazi, acted as judge and laws were based on local tradition, mostly drawn from the sharia law.



Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 February 2009 9:50 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Sharia Law
 
1

W Smith,

Middle East 17/02/2009 00:29:17
Mr Salmond claims to be for womens rights (eg his little rant against R&A).

He is not smart enough to know that Sharia Law, by its very nature, goes against the West's definition and understanding of womens rights.

He just can't bring himself to say anything against Islam (the Left's Favourite Religion).

If he's that thick then he shouldn't be First Minister, he should be First Janitor - to enter Holyrood when everyone has gone home to empty the bins.
2

,

17/02/2009 00:31:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

duelay no more,

perth 17/02/2009 00:41:49
Its coming to a town near you..if you continue to be so complacent about YOUR rights as a UK citizen, Englishman, Scotsman, Irishman, or Welshman.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

A scotsman.
4

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 00:54:06
Duelay no more @3
That you mentioned Ireland, I think it would be a damned cold day in hell when an Irishman would let sharia step foot on the green isle, but considering the EU supporters in the government, maybe even Ireland is a goner.
5

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 17/02/2009 02:12:29
Carolyn1 wrote - "I wonder how far the sharia agenda can be advanced in the eight years of Obama's 'soft power' diplomacy?"

It remains to be seen, he's only just taken over. What we know for a fact is that islamic extremism has flourished across the muslim world under the last 8 years of Bush's foreign policy.
6

Leadership,

London, UK 17/02/2009 02:20:40
Is the commenter @3 not aware that Sharia Law already exists 100/200 miles from most of us in the UK? There are 5 sharia courts already up and running in Britain - mainly in the Midlands of England, with one due in Glasgow and another in London soon.

Only, they insist, for small family issues (like divorces? ... whereupon the mother loses rights to her child when he reaches 7).

Wake up and smell the coffee. With most of our home grown banks presently failing I do not think it will be long before a resurgent East will be handing us Sharia Finance too - and many of will find it comparatively attractive. In the short term.

Barclay's is already part-owned and controlled by Sharia practioners.

If you thought we had problems with the English - that was only a dry run for this struggle, believe me.

Don't fall for it - ANY of it.

Yours,

A Scot exiled to the south

This website, even if you baulk at its title, holds more on this.

http://keeptonyblairforpm.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/how-many-eu-countries-use-sharia-courts-you-dont-want-to-know/

This paragraph from the article could have been written by some of our fellow countrymen. In fact, possibly was:

"Our whole struggle is for the enforcement of Sharia law," said Muslim Khan, a Swat Taleban spokesman. "If this brings us the implementation of Sharia, we will fully co-operate with it."
7

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 17/02/2009 02:44:54
Ali Zardari is starting to look like the Pakistani version of Neville Chamberlain. "Peace in our time."

Appeasment didn't work with Hitler and there is no reason to think it will work with the Taliban.

The Obama administration needs to read Zardari the riot act.

Either you get serious about defeating the terrorists operating on your territory or kiss the military aid goodbye.
8

,

17/02/2009 02:47:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

,

17/02/2009 02:49:20
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

SouthernGent,

17/02/2009 02:55:48
5

"What we know for a fact is that islamic extremism has flourished across the muslim world under the last 8 years of Bush's foreign policy. "

So if it flourished under Bush, then it will absolutely explode under Obama's do nothing approach - correct?
11

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 17/02/2009 03:08:52
Carolyn 1:

You wrote - "The point is, after 9-11, and 7 years under GWB watch, this country was not attacked, and we didn't pass one Sharia law."

The more significant point is, surely, that 9-11 happened on Bush's watch? But anyway, I wasn't talking about whether America has been attacked since 9-11, I was talking about how Islamic extremism has flourished around the globe in the last 8 years under Bush's foreign policy.
12

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 03:09:01
@9 Detached Observer

-you haven't read what I think about Afghanistan.
Yes, the US and NATO needs to get its nose out of Pakistan. My daughter has a lot of friends in the military, two have died. I want these kids home. Immediately.
Afghanistan is not worth the loss of one life. It's a country of thugs and drug lords.
Legalize the poppy.
Bring the kids home.
13

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 17/02/2009 03:12:25
Southern Gent

you wrote - "So if it flourished under Bush, then it will absolutely explode under Obama's do nothing approach - correct?"

It remains to be seen, and it remains to be seen what Obama's approach will be, he's only been in office for a few weeks! What is it he hasn't been doing so far that you think he should be doing?
14

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 03:17:54
Angus @11
I'm not going to argue over the intelligence that Clinton and Albright had, and did nothing.
This Islamic radicalism goes back to OBL wanting to be important, THE leader. Mind games and Battles long brewing for supremacy between shia and sunni, al queda and Taliban.
It's doubtful anything could have stopped it. Really, they're all a bunch of thugs hijacking religion for their personal glory. How do you stop that? The last time religion was hijacked resulted with World War II.
15

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 17/02/2009 04:13:05
Carolyn 1

"I'm not going to argue over the intelligence that Clinton and Albright had, and did nothing."

Neither am I, I'm talking about Bush's failure to prevent 9/11. He had been president for at least 6 months when it happened. He would be the first to admit that he was ultimately responsible for the performance of his own intelligence agencies.

"This Islamic radicalism goes back to OBL wanting to be important, THE leader. Mind games and Battles long brewing for supremacy between shia and sunni, al queda and Taliban.
It's doubtful anything could have stopped it."

Bin Laden is one of many dangerous extremists with personal ambition. Most don't get anywhere. Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network have flourished in certain favourable conditions - unprecedented hatred of America in the muslim world becuase of Bush's foreign policy. Under Bush, America has slaughtered tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, practised torture of muslims at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and supported Israel almost unquestioningly in its war on the Palestinians. Bush's foreign policy has been of great benefit to muslim extremism.

"The last time religion was hijacked resulted with World War II."

You've lost me there, the nazis were atheists.






16

Finnking,

Lempäälä 17/02/2009 08:07:48
Groan......

1. A tiny part of an impoverished nation decides to allow a type of law based upon local religious beleifs and all of a sudden it's "The Mooslims are a comin'!"

2. "Under the Waali system, an Islamic scholar, a Qazi, acted as judge and laws were based on local tradition, mostly drawn from the sharia law."--- A system that was there before 1969. But that doesn't stop comments such as "...so now sharia law has a nuclear arsenal (Carolyn), "Its coming to a town near you" (Duelay).

2. 500 million people in Europe with countelss legal systems. 40 Million Muslims there, the vast majority of whom simply get on with life. Can any of you anti-semites explain to me how Sharia will suddenly take over?

3. "There are 5 sharia courts already up and running in Britain - mainly in the Midlands of England, with one due in Glasgow and another in London soon." "Wake up and smell the coffee. "(Leadership)-----a) These are only for highly restrictive civil cases where all parties agree to the process, b)I notice that you didn't mention the MANY Jewish courts in 'uk' that have the same powers. Why not? Surely you agree that Jewish Fundamentalism is dreadful, too? Or do you focus your ire on one religious group only? When was teh last time that happened? Look up: "Kahanism" for a real laugh.

4. And then Carolyn finds an article about a man who is suspected of beheading his wife. Instead of putting this down to insanity, she promotes/regurgitates the notion that he did it because of his religion. Completely ignoring the fact that his Muslim wife wasn't forced to wear head-dress etc and, therefore, the two of them were far from fundamentalist.

5. I still can't buy alcohol on a sunday. Less that 5% of Finns go to kirk BUT THEY ARE TAKING OVER THE LAWS!The US executes more criminals than the Muslim countries do. Homosexual acts are either still illegal in the west or only recently decriminalised. How was women's rights 100 years ago in the west?

6. Still, I k
17

Finnking,

Lempäälä 17/02/2009 08:11:43
6. Still, I know that you neo-nazis love to demonise a single religion.

7."This Islamic radicalism goes back to OBL wanting to be important" (Carolyn)---Aye, and history only started on 911.
18

paulr,

edinburgh 17/02/2009 08:29:57
#16 Sharia is an evil which currently gets more publicity than most, it just means that girls in the swat area will revert to being uneducated slaves and easier for men to control.
All religious fanatiscism is evil and should be wiped out be it moslem, jewish, christian or any other variety you can think of.
19

Silence of the Yams,

17/02/2009 08:47:27
Islam and Sharia is fine in the Muslim heartlands, but not here! The sad thing is leftists pander to these fascists because of racism.
20

greenhill,

17/02/2009 10:34:29
Re Detached Observer,17/02/2009 02:49:20


Shame on you for implying that Pakistani people choose to live the way they are forced to by tyranical maniacs.

You back a misogynist and homophobic power structure and impute that outlook into the minds of all Pakistanis.

You view is evil and racist.
21

greenhill,

17/02/2009 10:47:08
RE Finnking,Lempäälä 17/02/2009 08:07:48

You fully subscribe to the "two wrongs make a right" fallacy. It is one of the favourite methods of debate used by inhuman cultural relativists. You are as slippery as an eel in a bucket grease.
22

oder,

Scotland 17/02/2009 10:52:26
16 Finnking,Lempäälä

forever the apologist! aye right if posters dont agree with your view they are neo-nazi`s or some other dimunitive, just as it say`s in their Koran you converted yet?
23

Globetrotter_scot,

17/02/2009 11:05:19
19. Silence. 22. Oder.

And why don't you counter every point in the post instead of resorting to the usual right-wing rhetoric?

Oh thats right. You cannot.
24

greenhill,

17/02/2009 12:11:45
RE Finnking,Lempäälä 17/02/2009 08:07:48

The biggest load of tosh put forward by Finnking is on Sharia law. There should be no place this barbaric legal system anywhere in the world and we should have no element of it in the UK.

Those in favor say litigants freely choose sharia courts. In reality, many of those dealt with by such courts are women from the most marginalized parts of society with poor English and no understanding of their rights under British law. Sharia law discriminates against women and children and is heavily biased in favor of men

Women are pressured into going to these courts and abiding by their decisions because of the social pressures in the patriarchal Bantustans they are forced to live in due to ill judged multicultural policies imposed by halfwit governments.

In such marginalized societies those who fail to make use of Sharia law will be shunned and regarded as apostates .

In those apartheid communities women are brought up to think of themselves as being second best and subhuman so even if sharia was freely selected
( which is not the case in reality) the discriminatory nature of the courts means they should be abolished.
25

oder,

Scotland 17/02/2009 12:24:35
Globetrotter_scot,17

since most of his points are nonsense I wont attempt to answer them all! take the last one

5. I still can't buy alcohol on a sunday. Less that 5% of Finns go to kirk BUT THEY ARE TAKING OVER THE LAWS!The US executes more criminals than the Muslim countries do. Homosexual acts are either still illegal in the west or only recently decriminalised.How was women's rights 100 years ago in the west?

does he not know that he can buy alcohol the other six days in the week! where under Sharia you cant buy it at all? does he know the difference? do you? Homosexuals are permitted to live under secular laws, were under Sharia they are killed! do you see the difference? would you know which one is better? apparently not!

women`s rights in the west a hundred years ago? they started to get the vote! he doesn't know this !a few weeks ago they stoned a woman to death in Iran under sharia law as the have done 1000 years ago! you don't understand the difference?

as for "the usual right-wing rhetoric?" if you lefties actually could offer reasonably thought out argument it might help instead of the usual PC rubbish that has become the norm! Next time you take a trip down the Amazon river take your hat off every have hour and let the fresh air get in.
26

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 12:26:28
My comment from #2 (Deleted by Detached Observer?)

Carolyn 1,
17/02/2009 00:31:12
...so now sharia law has a nuclear arsenal...
for years I've been saying the war is about advancing sharia across the globe...
it's happening as we sit from afar and watch, unable to stop it.
one giant step forward for men ... one giant leap backward for mankind.

I wonder how far the sharia agenda can be advanced in the eight years of Obama's 'soft power' diplomacy?
In a matter of 8 years, America could be an island in a sea of sharia and nuclear proliferation
27

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 12:28:17
My comment from #8 (deleted by Detached Observer)

Carolyn 1,
17/02/2009 02:47:36
Angus Coull @5

If you didn't see the headline, a Muslim businessman, in Buffalo, New York, who started a television station to "help portray Muslims in a more positive light" just chopped off his wife's head because she asked for a divorce and had received a restraining order. Needless to say the restraining order was useless.

This guy, a promoter of the Religion of Peace, is not going to see twelve seconds in a Sharia Court.
He's going to stand trial under New York State law, and he's going to get life in prison.
I bet the guards won't care which way his toilet is facing.

The point is, after 9-11, and 7 years under GWB watch, this country was not attacked, and we didn't pass one Sharia law.
28

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 12:44:33
Angus Coull, San Francisco @15

As I said, hijacked a religion.
WWII propagated a hatred of the Jews as a means to obtain cash, wealth, property, land. The easiest way to raise oneself up is to cut down the person beside you. The Nazis took it a step further and eliminated the problem.
This hatred of a race and a religion (Jewish) is going to be the dearth of mankind, in the Middle East and Europe.
The megalomaniacs have hijacked the Muslim faith to erase the Jewish faith. To not understand that they have hijacked religion as a means to power is naive.
29

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 17/02/2009 13:05:44
The people I live near have been under Shire law for many a year now and there doesn't seem to be a problem.
30

Globetrotter_scot,

17/02/2009 13:15:37
25. Oder.

His points to me do not seem that nonsensical if you actually read them. Or is this just defensive so you can divert the comments on to topics you do have an answer for?

Take No. 1 and 2: People are whipping themselves up into a paranoid frenzy based on some delusional belief that Islam is taking over the west. Is there some sort of Islamic conspiracy world wide? Is Islam going to take over the US?
If you ask me, this is nonsensical. Read the points.

2 again: 40 million Muslims and the vast majority don’t bother anybody in Europe. Is Sharia ‘taking over’?
3: What about Jewish courts? Do these not deserve a mention? Or do you just target Islam to justify some sense of in-built racism?

5. “The US executes more criminals than the Muslim countries do”. I am never defending Sharia law – it is barbaric and laws are based centuries ago. But since you find so much time to denounce Sharia, why don’t you take some time to denounce some of the barbarity based in the west?
Already we have had illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US tortures civilians.
Oh that’s right – you actually defend this. Interesting hypocrisy.


“as for "the usual right-wing rhetoric?" if you lefties actually could offer reasonably thought out argument it might help instead of the usual PC rubbish that has become the norm! Next time you take a trip down the Amazon river take your hat off every have hour and let the fresh air get in.”

‘Offer a reasonably thought out argument’, ‘Lefties’, ‘PC rubbish’. All are examples of the rhetoric that typify a right wing argument. Are you capable of making a reasonable argument without rhetoric? Unlikely, since you couldn’t even make a reasonable response to 16.

Oh, I never chose the name on this forum, and I wont be travelling for some time.
31

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 13:25:38

Finnking, Lempäälä @17 and 16
7."This Islamic radicalism goes back to OBL wanting to be important" (Carolyn)---Aye, and history only started on 911.


"...and battles long brewing..." when you misquote, it devalues your comment to a worthlessness.

...man who is suspected of beheading his wife"

No, she was beheaded and he confessed. He's going to jail, no mention of being crazy.

32

SouthernGent,

17/02/2009 13:33:04
30

Unfortunately, your points are all short-sighted.

"Sharia", "Muslims", etc are not going to just take over the west. But, long term, the odds are it will.

Birth rate has a lot to do with politics/religion. The "west" has a birth rate that has slowed down considerably for many years, while the "east's" birth rate has increased in comparison. Eventually, over time, the "majority" will vote in whatever "system" they prefer, and "old western values" will become extinct.

The only way to win the "silent war", is to outbirth the oppostion. With the decline of religion in the west, the silent war will be lost - count on it.
33

,

17/02/2009 13:41:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
34

greenhill,

17/02/2009 13:43:50
RE:Globetrotter_scot,17/02/2009 13:15:37


WE should not follow the warped agenda of a cultural relativist who goes for "two wrongs make right comparisons" time and time again.

Two wrongs make a right can be applied to just about any argument but cultural relativists do it all the time. People like that are totally slippery. If we answer point by point then we are playing along with the evasion and obfuscation.

We end up chasing our tails refuting viewpoints which we never held in the first place and going way off topic in order to counter the smug assumptions of the relativist.

People like Finnking are intellectually bankrupt because they constantly seek to introduce irrelevance and glibly level distinctions.
35

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 14:04:02
@34....
WE should not follow the warped agenda of a cultural relativist who goes for "two wrongs make right comparisons" time and time again."
>>
Finnking, a Philosopher?
hardly. To say that he's a moral relativist is incorrect, he's a racist, bigoted anti-Semitic and little more; it dominates his existence.
He's irrelevant if he can't find a place to express the hatred.
"People like Finnking are intellectually bankrupt"
No, therein lies the tragedy, he's not intellectually bankrupt, but he is morally empty.
36

,

17/02/2009 14:26:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
37

greenhill,

17/02/2009 14:29:53
RE:Carolyn 1,17/02/2009 14:04:02

Relativism has filtered down from "intellectuals" to lesser malcontents .Finnkings drivel is of a relativist nature.

I would say moral relativists are often racists who assume themselves to be anti-racist. They do tend to be anti-Semitic and are always anti-western.

In fact their main motivation is white liberal guilt about past sins of colonialism. This leads to a warped witchunt outlook.

Their anti-Semitism gets to be really confusing because they conflate Jewish ethnicity with Judaism, Zionism and whatever is going on in the state of Israel. They cannot make distinctions and it is hard to get to grips with such stupidity.

38

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 14:57:59
Greenhill @37
As a hard core rationalist, ethics not being a fuzzy area for me, I have to agree with you.

But, I would add, moral witch-hunts (good word) or bankruptcy has to be taught or acquired, kids aren't born racist.
I always wonder where or how and why did they acquire this junk "stupidity", because until we figure that out, the world will never know peace
39

oder,

Scotland 17/02/2009 14:59:07
30 Globetrotter_scot,

Take No. 1 and 2: People are whipping themselves up into a paranoid frenzy
please give an example in relation to this?

for example! the world wide murder and mayhem caused by a carton in a newspaper! or the paranoid frenzy caused by a teddy bear! no such thing has happened any where in the west and where it did happen it was Muslims that where in a "frenzy"

he`s over exaggerating! and if you agree with it so are you!

"2 again: 40 million Muslims and the vast majority don’t bother anybody in Europe. Is Sharia ‘taking over"

the argument was about "sharia law" not all Muslim states have it and that fine!it isn't about Muslim per-se not all follow Sharia! and to imply it is is very shallow indeed!.... its still nonsense! no matter how you try to "dress" it.

3: What about Jewish courts? Do these not deserve a mention? Or do you just target Islam to justify some sense of in-built racism?

are you aware of Jewish courts in this country that treats women or deals with them in any similar way to Sharia courts? Sharia courts in this country would not be allowed under British law to reduce women to half value as does Sharia courts do! again another attempt to justify that Sharia/Islam is equal to secular law !it isn`t and to do so is nonsense!

like the rest of the PC BRIGADE if they don't agree with you its racism or a phobia of some kind that we all suffer from..... another load of nonsense!

. “The US executes more criminals than the Muslim countries do”. I am never defending Sharia law – it is barbaric and laws are based centuries ago. But since you find so much time to denounce Sharia, why don’t you take some time to denounce some of the barbarity based in the west?

yes maybe they do! but how many stoning of women, public whippings of women in particular or cutting of of limbs in the US , the west may not be perfect but I would not elevate Sharia law because of the failing in western law.

illegal war! says who? the
40

oder,

Scotland 17/02/2009 15:02:59
the Senior British Legal authority in this country has not said it was! you imply that poster Finnking and you know something that the head Advocate General does not on some aspect of law? just because people claim it is does not make it so!

The US tortures civilians. maybe the do! the Taliban take no prisoners do they? chancers are if your caught by the American you will live! would not happen if you were a US/British/Israeli soldier, looking at these facts I still think muslims that get the better deal.
after all the westeners get their heads chopped off.. women too!

Oh that’s right – you actually defend this. Interesting hypocrisy.

No actually I don't! but unlike Sharia the US government can be changed voted out and made better by the will of the people, which does not happen under Sharia/Islamic law, so I don't accept the equality of Sharia, interesting to note that you would defend such a legal system, as the other posters have said two "wrongs don't make a right" not the wisest philosophy to follow! most people with commonsense wouldn't.



41

greenhill,

17/02/2009 16:02:37
RE Carolyn 1,17/02/2009 14:57:59


I reckon the stupidity is partly innate but also filters down from intellectuals with false conceptions of the truth e.g. Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead in the case of relativism.

Such ideas get a grip on people like teachers, lecturers and professors from primary to university and other professionals. Worst of all politicians put forward such falsity.

The answer to this is discourse. Total discourse with constant debate within societies and between societies. The underlying assumption will be that we are not all equal and some societies are better but only debate will sort that out. Even lesser societies will have something to contribute.

We need to make comparisons and we should all feel confident about making judgements. In the long run we will all improve.

I am sure that most racism is learned. On the other hand perhaps we are born with such propensities existing in our DNA. I think the Jewish theological outlook is that a child is not born a sinner. Christianity posits that we are born sinners.

However I am an atheist and I guess that there is a combination of nature and nurture but mostly nurture. Nevertheless I would rather it was the case that the Jewish outlook was correct.
42

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 17/02/2009 21:57:30
Carolyn 1 #28

"As I said, hijacked a religion.
WWII propagated a hatred of the Jews as a means to obtain cash, wealth, property, land. The easiest way to raise oneself up is to cut down the person beside you. The Nazis took it a step further and eliminated the problem."

That's not hijacking a religion, that's hijacking hatred of a religion. The Nazis didn't have a religion, they were atheists. WW2 and the war against Al Qaeda are just not the same set of circumstances. They are different struggles which require different approaches.

"This hatred of a race and a religion (Jewish) is going to be the dearth of mankind, in the Middle East and Europe."

Maybe so, but there is hatred coming from both sides. There is plenty of hatred of muslims and Palestinians coming from Israelis and their supporters. There will only be a solution to that conflict when both sides are willing to make serious compromises. Bush's less than even-handed approach was seriously not helping.

"The megalomaniacs have hijacked the Muslim faith to erase the Jewish faith. To not understand that they have hijacked religion as a means to power is naive."

I completely agree. The question is how do you best defeat the megalomaniacs trying to hijack Islam? Bush's foreign policy has helped the extremists to hijack Islam by making ordinary muslims more resentful of America and the West than ever before.
43

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 22:31:10
greenhill @41
...I think the Jewish theological outlook is that a child is not born a sinner. Christianity posits that we are born sinners... "

not all Christian faiths believe in original sin.
Original sin is not all that great a burden, it's the religion compounding it, perpetuating the myth that people have no free will that irritates me.

As a transcendentalist, I believe in free will. Free will isn't easy- it requires responsibility, accountability, self-reliance.
Free will was taken away from man in the effort to control them and it's lasted too long. That's the bigger problem than sin. I'm too philosophical today....but I definitely believe those who are power hungry hijack people's lives through religion.

I cannot understand why a woman doesn't run for her life to get away from a sharia government, it has to be the brainwashing of predeteriminism that keeps these women in subjugation. There is no other explanation


44

Carolyn 1,

17/02/2009 22:48:07
Angus @42
....There is plenty of hatred of muslims and Palestinians coming from Israelis and their supporters. There will only be a solution to that conflict when both sides are willing to make serious compromises. Bush's less than even-handed approach was seriously not helping."

There's hatred everywhere if you give it 15 minutes, a name and a story on the front page of the newspaper. Your assertion about compromise, etc. etc. is a false assertion and wears pretty thin as a mantra-

No outsider can settle a peace or a future for the Palestinians. Only the Palestinians can determine their future. When they're ready for a better life and shed the corruption and bigotry that manipulates them, they will bloom in the desert, no different than the Jews who live alongside.
45

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 17/02/2009 23:20:40
Carolyn 1 @44

"There's hatred everywhere if you give it 15 minutes, a name and a story on the front page of the newspaper. Your assertion about compromise, etc. etc. is a false assertion and wears pretty thin as a mantra-"

So far as I'm aware I only made the point about compromise once, I'm not sure where you're hearing a mantra.

"No outsider can settle a peace or a future for the Palestinians. Only the Palestinians can determine their future. When they're ready for a better life and shed the corruption and bigotry that manipulates them, they will bloom in the desert, no different than the Jews who live alongside."

In other words, what you're saying is that the conflict is all the Palestinians fault and the responsibility for peace lies entirely with them. The conflict can't possibly have anything to do with Israel's illegal occupation and settlement building on the West bank, the thousands of Palestinians killed by Israel and the many thousands more driven off their land by Israel.

No doubt extremists on the Palestinian side are saying exactly the same thing as you - 'it's all the other side's fault and peace is entirely their responsibility'.

So long as both sides take that attitude, neither side will ever know peace.



46

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 00:40:36
Angus @45
I did not say or infer 'it's all the other side's fault and peace is entirely their responsibility'." - yet you say I did.
Therein lies the problem, Words matter, and if you don't see it, then all I can say is that is part of the problem.
The sniping at me is knee jerk answers produced from years of repeated mantra.

47

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 00:52:28
Bush's foreign policy has helped the extremists to hijack Islam by making ordinary muslims more resentful of America and the West than ever before."...


I think you mean PROPAGANDA made the Muslims resent the west. -Propaganda produced by the extremists who hijacked a religion because they do not want another country with ties to the evil America in the middle of a perfectly wonderful desert of dictatorships. Sometimes the truth is so real it just kicks you in the asse.
48

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 02:02:53
Carolyn1 @ 46

"I did not say or infer 'it's all the other side's fault and peace is entirely their responsibility'." - yet you say I did.
Therein lies the problem, Words matter, and if you don't see it, then all I can say is that is part of the problem.
The sniping at me is knee jerk answers produced from years of repeated mantra."

First of all, just because someone expresses a difference of opinion with you does not mean they are sniping at you. Don't take it personally.

Secondly, what is this mantra thing you keep talking about? Years of repeated mantra? So far as I'm aware we've only been having this discussion over the last 2 days! You're developing a bit of mantra here talking about mantras.
49

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 02:06:05
Carolyn1 @ 46

If you're not saying it's all the Palestinians fault then I apologise for suggesting you were. It's just that you seemed to be focusing entirely on the things the Palestinians need to do to get their house in order, and that was what lead to me getting the wrong impression. I presume then that you accept that the Israelis are at fault also and there are things they need to do to help achieve peace also?
50

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 02:33:54
@48
perhaps mantra was the wrong word, but I meant that the answer was the predictable answer, oft repeated and after a while it's just words and not an answer. At some point, one has to wonder why the answers are like a tape recorder. Is someone stealing our ability to think for ourselves? (yes)
-Also please take into consideration I've fried my brain interpreting and researching antiquity and the pagan symbols of eastern Europe and the Ukraine for a few days, and I used a 'religious' term and I should have used a common term:))
As for the difference of opinion, you changed my words, not my opinion.
51

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 02:36:57
Carolyn 1 @47

"I think you mean PROPAGANDA made the Muslims resent the west."

No I definitely meant Bush's foreign policy.

"Propaganda produced by the extremists who hijacked a religion because they do not want another country with ties to the evil America in the middle of a perfectly wonderful desert of dictatorships."

Sure, but propaganda by itself doesn't necessarily persuade people. Propaganda + Outside events (such as the invasion of Iraq) is far more likely to.

"Sometimes the truth is so real it just kicks you in the asse."

Well that sounds kind of cool, but it doesn't actually add any weight to your argument. You need actual facts to do that. We're not in a movie you know!




52

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 03:01:14
Carolyn 1 @50

"....was the predictable answer, oft repeated and after a while it's just words and not an answer. At some point, one has to wonder why the answers are like a tape recorder. Is someone stealing our ability to think for ourselves? (yes)"

Just because something has been said many times before by other people doesn't mean it isn't true. But so far as I am aware, no-one has stolen my ability to think for myself! The problem is, you can always answer someone you disagree with by saying they've been 'brainwashed'. But that doesn't actually answer the point they're making.

"As for the difference of opinion, you changed my words, not my opinion."

Which just goes to show that propaganda by itself (in this case mine) doesn't necessarily change people's minds. Outside circumstances play a role in that too.
53

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 03:04:11
Angus @51
No I definitely meant Propaganda.
I'm sure if Gore and Lieberman were in the White House, the attacks and threats to the US would have been far more threatening. With Bush in office, bin Ladin was looking for a way to raise his celebrity status, but if Lieberman had been VP, ...

And, by the way, I've got the minutes from the general assembly for the UN urging Bush, before he was in office, to do something about Saddam. I keep the book handy because the truth is a powerful thing.

well, this puppy needs to rack for the night.
Debate another time:) or tomorrow,
Assuming the comments aren't deleted.)
54

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 03:36:24
Carolyn 1 @53

"I'm sure if Gore and Lieberman were in the White House, the attacks and threats to the US would have been far more threatening."

I'm not sure why you're sure of this. Gore was VP for most of the 90's and America suffered nothing on the scale of 9/11 during that period.

"And, by the way, I've got the minutes from the general assembly for the UN urging Bush, before he was in office, to do something about Saddam. I keep the book handy because the truth is a powerful thing."

Just because the UN wanted to 'do something about Saddam' does not mean they wanted to invade Iraq. America invaded iraq illegally, without UN authorisation.

"well, this puppy needs to rack for the night.
Debate another time:) or tomorrow,
Assuming the comments aren't deleted.)"

Fair enough. Goodnight and feel free to respond at your leisure.


55

greenhill,

18/02/2009 03:39:34
Re Angus Coull,San Francisco 17/02/2009 21:57:30

You are mistaken about the Nazis being atheists. Hitler was a Roman Catholic right up to 1941 when he totally rejected that faith.

In his speeches he often referred to his Christianity because he knew that went down well with the German people. In one speech he referred to the Jews as "Christ Killers"

Even when he gave up on Christianity he started to consider Islam and Buddhism .Then the information trail runs cold until just before their suicide Eva Braun commented to others that it was enough for her give up her belief in God.

Hitler was the sort of religious person who heard the voice of God in his head. He felt his life was a mission and he was being looked after by God. If he had won the war I speculate that he would have declared himself to be a divinely inspired prophet and anyone who disagreed would be killed.

Even if he was never a Christian he would still have had to declare himself as one in order to maintain the backing of the German people. German army WW2 belt buckles were stamped “GOTT MIT UNS”: God with us. Soldiers had to swear an oath with the words: I SWEAR BY GOD THIS HOLY OATH....TO ADOLF HITLER....
56

Dragonhead,

Dalian, China 18/02/2009 04:03:18
..and when the Taleban do destabilize Pakistan and it implodes, what then? Islamic extremists with their fingers on the nuclear trigger! Doesn't that send even a twinge of a warning through the thick skulls of those still blaming Bush etc?
The folk no one seems to blame for anything are the ones who are experts at misinformation and propoganda, the muslim extremists. Blind as bats to the real threat.You would have reaped the whirlwind even had you done nothing.The extremists have won, they pray on the gullible causing dissent and division, and the good old democratic hanky-wringers fall for it, hook, line and sinker!You will pay for your stupidity big time.
57

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 04:03:30
Greenhill @55

"You are mistaken about the Nazis being atheists. Hitler was a Roman Catholic right up to 1941 when he totally rejected that faith."

Hitler was RAISED a Roman Catholic. He did not remain one into his adult life however. Here is what he had to say on the matter of God:

"We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."

The Nazi regime may well have used religion at certain points for its own political ends, but Nazism as a political movement and as a philosophy was essentially godless.





58

Dragonhead,

Dalian, China 18/02/2009 04:04:12
typo it should be prey on the gullible..
59

Dragonhead,

Dalian, China 18/02/2009 04:05:17
..and when the Taleban do destabilize Pakistan and it implodes, what then? Islamic extremists with their fingers on the nuclear trigger! Doesn't that send even a twinge of a warning through the thick skulls of those still blaming Bush etc?
The folk no one seems to blame for anything are the ones who are experts at misinformation and propoganda, the muslim extremists. Blind as bats to the real threat.You would have reaped the whirlwind even had you done nothing.The extremists have won, they prey on the gullible causing dissent and division, and the good old democratic hanky-wringers fall for it, hook, line and sinker!You will pay for your stupidity big time.
60

greenhill,

18/02/2009 09:29:52
Re Angus Coull,San Francisco 18/02/2009 04:03:30

You are still mistaken. Hitler went through many "dark nights of the soul" until the big one in 1941 (at the height of his power).Christians who seek to deny the truth take quotes from these periods.

Germany was a predominantly Christian country and the common hatred of Jews was faith based. The German Protestant Church gave him even more support than the Catholics and he gave money out his pocket to the Methodists.

The clincher is genocide. God frequently commits and encourages genocide in the bible. So that makes the Nazis very godly.

However Hitler would only kill you once. It could be slow and painful but only once. The prospect of eternal torture does not appear in the Old Testament but is brought to us by the “Gentle Nazarene”. The Nazis never did match the horrors threatened by God.
61

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 09:32:42
35
Carolyn 1,


"Finnking, a Philosopher?
hardly. To say that he's a moral relativist is incorrect, he's a racist, bigoted anti-Semitic and little more; it dominates his existence.
He's irrelevant if he can't find a place to express the hatred."People like Finnking are intellectually bankrupt"
No, therein lies the tragedy, he's not intellectually bankrupt, but he is morally empty."

---Really? Name me one group of people I have demonised, CJ? Point me to anything I have written that is based upon ignorance and hatred, please.

You can't because I don't.

Now, you however:

12, CJ, on the subject of Afghanistan: "It's a country of thugs and drug lords. "

4, CJ, on EU: "but considering the EU supporters in the government, maybe even Ireland is a goner."

On the subject of Palestine: "No outsider can settle a peace or a future for the Palestinians. Only the Palestinians can determine their future. When they're ready for a better life and shed the corruption and bigotry that manipulates them, they will bloom in the desert, no different than the Jews who live alongside."

Great stuff, CJ.

Now, you called me a racist and anti-semite. Prove it or apologise, please.
62

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 09:35:13
Greenhill: Two wrongs make a right? Where did I ever promote that notion?
63

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 09:50:18
Oder at 25

It may be the Christian indoctrination I endured as a kid, but the phrases "cast the first stone" and "glass houses" may aid you in grasping the meaning of my comments.

Globetrotting Scot

Thanks. Amazing, aye? There seems to be this binary thinking the now, mixed with with an apparent rejection of critical analysis. "You are either with us or against us!". No middle ground nor wider views. If you are critical of the current thinking you are "with the enemy!". I can't think of a better definition of "fundamentalism"; an ethos these people say they hate.

64

greenhill,

18/02/2009 10:07:34
RE Finnking,Lempäälä 18/02/2009 09:35:13:"Greenhill: Two wrongs make a right? Where did I ever promote that notion?"

Where? I will tell you exactly where:in your head.

"Two wrongs make a right" is your mindset.In fact you introduce lots of comparitive wrongs and level distinctions on a regular basis.

You are a master of evasion via obfuscation.
65

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 11:58:29
Greenhill

Really?

"Evasion"

"a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth"

Obfuscation

"the activity of obscuring people's understanding, leaving them baffled or bewildered "

But you are happy to repeat, " "Two wrongs make a right" is your mindset.In fact you introduce lots of comparitive wrongs and level distinctions on a regular basis." - in response to my question asking you where I had ever promoted such a notion.

You say i'm guilty of "action A"
I ask you to demonstrate it
You reply with "action a"

Almost perfect "evasion via obfuscation". Mirror mirror, Greenhill.
66

greenhill,

18/02/2009 14:43:50
Oh dear pure pedantic chop logic from someone with no personal insight. I do wonder if you are just an odd person or perhaps you have a real mental problem.
I had hoped you would look back, apply your "mind" and work it out for yourself.

The main problem with getting into specifics with someone of your mindset is that you do not do specifics and will take every opportunity to go off on an evasive tangent. So we end up chasing our tails.

I will indulge you to a certain extent. Take a look at the post currently labelled #16 and see how you go in for pathetic two wrongs evasion on numerous occasions.

I will not go into them all because you would go off like the sorcerer’s apprentice and sophist up all sorts of irrelevance.

However against my better judgement :

..............................................
3. "There are 5 sharia courts already up and running in Britain - ... These are only for highly restrictive civil cases where all parties agree to the process, b)I notice that you didn't mention the MANY Jewish courts in 'uk' that have the same powers. Why not? Surely you agree that Jewish Fundamentalism is dreadful, too?
..................................................

This is classic relativist evasion where an additional negative is introduced to weaken a clear judgement made by someone else.

You also get it very wrong about all parties agreeing. In practice these courts are mostly used by Islamic women because they are forced to go to court in order to get a divorce. This is because women have lesser rights under Islamic law. Under Sharia law a man does not have to go to court.

These UK courts have also been used for domestic violence cases with the women getting lesser standards of justice.

Sharia Law is the cornerstone of the oppression of women in Islam. Bringing up the subject of other religious courts does not mitigate that fact in any way.


67

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 15:38:17
Angus @54
.....I'm not sure why you're sure of this. Gore was VP for most of the 90's and America suffered nothing on the scale of 9/11 during that period."
>
1.) To not acknowledge that Lieberman as a Jewish VP after 9-11 would have had resulted in a much different foreign policy, and world view is redunculous

"Just because the UN wanted to 'do something about Saddam' does not mean they wanted to invade Iraq. America invaded iraq illegally, without UN authorisation."

2.)The words the UN used in 2000 were "must deal with Saddam and the WMDS." Canada called Iraq a "rule of terror"

- and if you forgot, high level UN officials by the time of 2003 were gorging their pockets with cash, along with France, in making deals with Saddam in the Oil for Food Scandal...
-not a pretty sight, but one liberals gloss over or for the most part, misremember.
>>
"As for the difference of opinion, you changed my words, not my opinion."

Which just goes to show that propaganda by itself (in this case mine) doesn't necessarily change people's minds. Outside circumstances play a role in that too.

3.) I had stated an aphorism, not an opinion; All you did was manipulate another falsely based answer
68

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 15:42:09
@52

No, it wasn't propaganda. You deliberately altered the meaning of what I wrote, which was not an opinion. I was stating a truth.
I said:

No outsider can settle a peace or a future for the Palestinians. Only the Palestinians can determine their future. When they're ready for a better life and shed the corruption and bigotry that manipulates them, they will bloom in the desert, no different than the Jews who live alongside.

Which you converted to:
In other words, what you're saying is that the conflict is all the Palestinians fault and the responsibility for peace lies entirely with them

You were spitting out a typical and recited knee jerk answer, and one you fabricated for your own convenience. It's dishonest and stops conversation.
69

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 15:43:23
@66
brilliant

70

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 16:05:12
Finnking @61
The day you stated that the deaths of my relatives in the kilns of Nazism were magical and emotive, was the day you became a non-entity.
-A non-entity being a thing that cannot think for itself, and therefore does not exist as a human being
71

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 16:34:41
greenhill

@ 20 "You view is evil and racist."
@ 21 "You are as slippery as an eel in a bucket grease."
@ 34 "People like Finnking are intellectually bankrupt "

And then at 66, when asked for the 2nd time to explain a comment, "I do wonder if you are just an odd person or perhaps you have a real mental problem." -LMAO!


My Question, for the THIRD time is "Where have I shown a beleif that implies 2 wrongs make a right?"

Your reply at 66 doesn't even come close to demonstrating your claim. Apart from the usual Nomad57-ian insults you offer some screed on the issue of 'relativism'. The question was the '2 wrongs comment'; pure Evasion" , Greenhill.


"This is classic evasion where an additional negative is introduced to weaken a clear judgement made by someone else"

--Assumption from you: I regard it as a negative.
--Clear Judgement? Well, someone was fearing the rise of Islamic courts (they said they were Sharia)demonstrates that Islam is taking over. Is that a "clear judgement" in your opinion? Hardly.
---Let me explain it to you: person x says that Islamic courts are set up in 'uk' and this is the sign of impending take over. By introducing some facts concerning another religious group with the SAME legal right, I provided COMPARISON. Since I don't regard either court system negatively, bang goes your argument about 'relativism'.

THen you write:"You also get it very wrong about all parties agreeing."

---No, I didn't get it wrong. If one party in a dispute wants to go via the over-riding legal system, they cannot be forced to go through the Islamic/Jewish courts.

" In practice these courts are mostly used by Islamic women because they are forced to go to court in order to get a divorce."

---And that makes sense to you? If they want divorce outside these courts, they can simply go through the main legal system. Yes, there may be social impediments but those, too, will apply to ALL legal systems.

"This is because women have lesser
72

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 16:36:31
cont

"This is because women have lesser rights under Islamic law. "

---Well, that depends on where the "Islamic Law" is conducted; BUT....I concur. I am no fan of Sharia,

---All such courts, Islam or Judaic, in the 'uk' must have decisions rubber stamped by either English, Scottish, UK and/or European legal process.

Relativism: A theory, especially in ethics or aesthetics, that conceptions of truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them.

So, in actuality, the very opposite of what I have been saying.

If using definitions is "pedantic", what word do you suggest for a vulgarian who forms an argument around a term he/she doesn't comprehend?
73

greenhill,

18/02/2009 16:55:57
RE Carolyn@69 1,18/02/2009 15:43:23

Thanks for that. I would advise you not to debate with this guy because he either has a personality disorder or some kind of mental illness or condition. We cannot improve ourselves by debating with him.

I will ignore him from now on.

74

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 17:25:10
Carolyn 1


"The day you stated that the deaths of my relatives in the kilns of Nazism were magical and emotive, was the day you became a non-entity. "

---That's a lie, CJ. I spoke of the magical and emotive number; not the people or the action. As you say above, "when you misquote, it devalues your comment to a worthlessness."

(Quite happy to re-post all your comments on FH that you wanted deleted: just ask!)

You continue:
"A non-entity being a thing that cannot think for itself, and therefore does not exist as a human being"

---You mean Untermensch?

So, I repeat the question: point to where I have ever been racist and anti-semitic?

You can't.
75

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 17:31:01
73 greenhill,

LMAO! At least I can answer simple questions and I know what relativism is-all without calling people names, too!

"I will ignore him from now on."

So that wont, in any way, reflect your definitions of "Evasion" & "Obfuscation"? --LMAO@U

76

oder,

Scotland 18/02/2009 18:30:24
63 Finnking,Lempäälä

"cast the first stone" and "glass houses" may aid you in grasping the meaning of my comments."

No they don't really!


17 Finnking,Lempäälä 17/02/2009 08:11:43
6. Still, I know that you neo-nazis love to demonise a single religion.

sticks and stones springs to mind here!

cast the first stone and glass houses? aye! I know the meaning well! not to sure you do!

63 Finnking,Lempäälä 18
" If you are critical of the current thinking you are "with the enemy!". I can't think of a better definition of "fundamentalism"; an ethos these people say they hate."

and likewise anyone critical of your view are haters neo nazi`s etc, does the same philosophy apply to you too or is it a one way street?

you pick this up in the Koran? precisely the ethos used by militant fundamental fanatic`s, your right I do hate it, but unlike you I understand what and why I disapprove.

74 Finnking,Lempäälä

"So, I repeat the question: point to where I have ever been racist and anti-semitic?"

You can't.

"6. Still, I know that you neo-nazis love to demonise a single religion."

no racist or abusive view this then? and you also mention in your post "Surely you agree that Jewish Fundamentalism is dreadful too?

so calling Jewish Fundamentalism "dreadful" is not anti Semitic? all religion are fundamentalist as an atheist you should know this,

you had obviously made up your mind before you asked that question in your post @74 you being slightly less than honest? your not very convincing!





77

Finnking,

Lempäälä 18/02/2009 19:25:12
Oder

"Neo Nazis"...

---Your entire screed on the subject assumes I am against neo-nazis. Wrong. I disagree with their views. I simply wish they would express them properly and stop trying to couch them in fuzzy logic. I wish they would just say, "Aye, I know it's basically impossible for the Muslims to take over Europe, but I just have an irrational hatred of them and I feel that white Christians are far superior. But, sadly, while i'm encouraged to spew forth drivel about 'nukes' and 'sharia in EU', tragically, i'm not allowed simply express my foundation views. Such are these constrained times we live in. Ah, well...back to stomping on puppies....."

""6. Still, I know that you neo-nazis love to demonise a single religion.""


"no racist or abusive view this then?"

---Nope, none whatsoever. Besides, my point actually stated, " point to where I have ever been racist and anti-semitic?", not abusive.

".. and you also mention in your post "Surely you agree that Jewish Fundamentalism is dreadful too?"
so calling Jewish Fundamentalism "dreadful" is not anti Semitic?"

---Well, again, if you actually read what i wrote, you will find that I didn't make any derogatory comment on jewish fundamentalism. I asked him a question, in context. Also, how could I be anti-semitic if I was against JF? Am I anti soft drinks if I dislike Coca cola?

"... all religion are fundamentalist as an atheist you should know this,"

---I simply don't care. My point, should you bother to actually think and read, is clear: if one is to spread fear and ignorance and hatred of a single religious group, that's fine with me; i'm against it, but each to their own. However, if you crit such a group for an action as part of your 'evidence', logic dictates that the same critical analysis and conclusions be applied and drawn with another group.

"...your not very convincing"

---actually reading the comments made does help. I hope the above clarifies the obvious for you.

78

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 20:29:14
Greenhill @ 60

"You are still mistaken. Hitler went through many "dark nights of the soul" until the big one in 1941 (at the height of his power).Christians who seek to deny the truth take quotes from these periods."

The problem with this approach is that you can always put any anti-christian and atheistic quotes from Hitler down to him having a 'dark night of the soul'. You might as well say 'he didn't really mean it, he was just having a funny turn'. Anyway Hitler was the leader of a wider political movement and philosophy called Nazism. Again, Nazism may well have used religion at certain points for its own political ends, but it was essentially an atheistic worldview.

"Germany was a predominantly Christian country and the common hatred of Jews was faith based. The German Protestant Church gave him even more support than the Catholics and he gave money out his pocket to the Methodists."

That's not what's in dispute here, this can essentially be seen as a tactic on the Nazis part. It doesn't mean they themselves were christians.

"The clincher is genocide. God frequently commits and encourages genocide in the bible. So that makes the Nazis very godly."

In the bible, God does lots of things. In real life, God does not have a monopoly on genocide by any means, and neither does religion. Even putting aside the 'were the nazis religious' argument, plenty of the worst atrocities of the last century were committed by undisputably atheist regimes - Stalin, Pol Pot, chairman Mao etc.

"However Hitler would only kill you once. It could be slow and painful but only once. The prospect of eternal torture does not appear in the Old Testament but is brought to us by the “Gentle Nazarene”. The Nazis never did match the horrors threatened by God"

The key here is in the word 'threatened'. First of all, even putting aside the question of whether God exists, we have no idea what God actually does with people after they die. Secondly, threats in the Bible were w
79

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 20:38:45
Greenhill @ 60

Sorry, just noticed the last part of my reply cut out. Continued....

"However Hitler would only kill you once. It could be slow and painful but only once. The prospect of eternal torture does not appear in the Old Testament but is brought to us by the “Gentle Nazarene”. The Nazis never did match the horrors threatened by God"

The key here is in the word 'threatened'. First of all, even putting aside the question of whether God exists, we have no idea what God actually does with people after they die. Secondly, threats in the Bible were written down by men claiming to speak on God's behalf. Whether they really were is debatable. Thirdly, the written threats from 'God' in the bible just don't quite match the ACTUAL horrors carried out by human beings throughout history, both in the name of religion and in the name of atheism. It's simply unfair to single out christianity or even religion itself for exclusive blame. Human beings are the problem, not what God they believe in or don't believe in.
80

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 20:55:33
Carolyn 1 @ 67

"1.) To not acknowledge that Lieberman as a Jewish VP after 9-11 would have had resulted in a much different foreign policy, and world view is redunculous"

Sure, by all means Gore and Lieberman's foreign policy would have been different. The question is would it have been better or worse than Bush's. As for Lieberman being Jewish, please elaborate - what do you think a Democratic presidency post 9-11 would have done differently specifically as a result of Lieberman being Jewish?

"2.)The words the UN used in 2000 were "must deal with Saddam and the WMDS." Canada called Iraq a "rule of terror""

And the words they did NOT use were 'let's invade Iraq'.

"and if you forgot, high level UN officials by the time of 2003 were gorging their pockets with cash, along with France, in making deals with Saddam in the Oil for Food Scandal..."

No, I haven't forgot. So the UN, just like most institutions - including the White House - is prone to corruption and bribery. This doesn't alter the fact that the invasion of Iraq was illegal.

"not a pretty sight, but one liberals gloss over or for the most part, misremember."

Perhaps they do. I'm speaking for myself, no-one else. You're case against my case doesn't become stronger by putting a label on me.


"3.) I had stated an aphorism, not an opinion; All you did was manipulate another falsely based answer"

I'm not manipulating anything, I'm pointing out that your statement undermines the assertion that propaganda by itself can change people's minds. You seem to be arguing that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have advances their cause by the power of their propaganda alone. Clearly outside circumstances have played a part in that too - including American foreign policy.
81

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 21:03:04
Carolyn 1 @ 68

"You deliberately altered the meaning of what I wrote"

You seem very quick to judge my character given the short period of time in which we have been talking. Have you never heard of anyone genuinely misinterpreting what someone else is saying? Questioning my motives doesn't add any weight to your argument.

"You were spitting out a typical and recited knee jerk answer, and one you fabricated for your own convenience. It's dishonest and stops conversation."

So now I'm dishonest aswell? Insults are a sure-fire sign that someone is losing the argument.
82

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 18/02/2009 22:26:39
The point about Sharia is this:

The United States is still condemned for slavery, which was brought to the southern part country by the British. The slaves and women were property when the new American Constitution and Bill of Rights were written. 85 years later the slaves were free and had voting rights. Lincoln had the courage this tragedy.

Women did not become individuals for another 60 years and only with a lot of protests did we get the right to vote. My grandmother was a mother before she could vote. That is not so long ago.
The problem is- I don't see a Lincoln on the horizon, any where in the world, who will protect the rights of women now.

I have spent my life trying to be equal, first just to get into a good college, then the long fight to make sexual harassment illegal in the work place, then the long struggle to receive equal pay. It's been a long slow progress but I think women were treated almost equal in the 1990's. It was a relief!

Things have changed since 9-11.
One difference, is now I'm looked down on because I'm a feminine woman, as if being feminine is the ultimate insult to women and women's rights.

Another is subjugation. Television programming and the Hollywood culture have introduced the new woman as two parts of a menage a trois. Everyone does it and if you don't you're not mint, according to my daughter. In just a few years, to be straight with only two in a bed became so yesterday. The culturally correct metros are not happy with gay marriage, they want marriage with multiple wives, currently illegal in the United States. Where did this come from? Should I be brash and say maybe it came from Hollywood and the acceptance of Muslim belief?

83

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 22:29:09
I'm a mother. What do I say to my daughter?
I've decided to be a bigot, and not tolerate the Muslim faith because it is not compatible with human rights.

I don't need to nuance the meaning of human rights; I don't need an intellectual think tank, under the cloak of moral relativism or cultural relativism to tell me what is and what is not moral.

Subjugation of women is just a wrong as subjugation of black people under slavery was 150 years.
Sharia Law is just as wrong as slavery.
Where's the outrage?

If a 'religion' or a belief system is incompatible with human rights, I don't care, the life and dignity of a human being is more important than a religion.
Women are not property. Period.
84

Carolyn 1,

18/02/2009 22:33:49
Angus @81
That you thought it was an argument, .... ?

There can't be honest 'conversation' when the other person presupposes the answers. I guess that's why you thought you had an argument going- you were already guessing the answers.
85

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 18/02/2009 23:04:05
Carolyn 1 @84

"There can't be honest 'conversation' when the other person presupposes the answers. I guess that's why you thought you had an argument going- you were already guessing the answers."

This is sophistry, we can call it a debate or a conversation if you prefer. I was not guessing your answers, I accidentally misinterpreted one sentence of yours (the one you made about the Palestinians). For you to extrapolate from this that I am somehow deliberately manipulating our debate or 'fabricating' anything is ludicrous. If you don't want to debate any longer or answer any of my points then fair enough, but your insults say more about the weakness of your own argument than they do about me.
86

Carolyn 1,

Woods Hole, Massachusetts 18/02/2009 23:06:01
greenhill @73

I do think some people embrace the Muslim faith or the Muslim political position because it allows them to be politically correct in their anti-semitism, which is important to them; and others embrace the Muslim faith because they really do want to subjugate women. Finnking, as a holocaust denier, is in the first category.


87

oder,

scotland 19/02/2009 00:24:48
77 Finnking,Lempäälä

"Neo Nazis"... I don't assume anything concerning your opinions on these people, merely that its offensive to refer to them as "neo-nazis" because the don't share your view of the world.

"Aye, I know it's basically impossible for the Muslims to take over Europe, (but I just have an irrational hatred of them and I feel that white Christians are far superior. utter garbage!)



"this is not correct! statistics released by the European Union show this, for example the Netherlands will have a Muslim majority by 2025 and most of Europe some where around 2075, I would be quite happy to repeat what you say when the statistics show it,after all why would you want facts to get in the way of opinion especially if its wrong! unless you can convince me that the statistic`s are wrong then there is no logical reason to accept your view which is based on your opinion not fact, so referring to people as neo nazi`s based on the wrong assumption is offensive, biased and disingenuous you can dress it up any way you like!


"I didn't make any derogatory comment on jewish fundamentalism. I asked him a question,"


"Surely you agree that Jewish Fundamentalism is dreadful too?"

this indicates you passed "judgement" and reached the conclusion that it is bad/wrong/not right, based on what? since you supply no facts for to back up your assertion that its "dreadful" the only logical verdict is that its "suspect" and derogatory, in most societies racism is considered "abuse" but you apparently think different! its just every one else is wrong and your right! must be very frustrating for you!


having read your posts again your still not very convincing!








88

Finnking,

Lempäälä 19/02/2009 04:25:16
Carolyn1

"Finnking, as a holocaust denier, is in the first category."

--Really?

You called me racist, anti-semitic and now a holocaust denier: all in one single thread.

You couldn't show me one single bit of proof for the first two when asked.

Now, show me when I have ever denied the holocaust.

You wouldn't be telling lies, again, would you CJ?
89

Finnking,

Lempäälä 19/02/2009 04:27:04
Oder

Sorry, I assumed you could read and interpret.

No worries.
90

Finnking,

Lempäälä 19/02/2009 04:43:45
Carolyn1

Racist, anti-semite, holocaust denier, a non-entity and inhuman.---all of them bogus insults you fired at me on this thread alone.

"....but your insults say more about the weakness of your own argument than they do about me."

--True, how true. Mirror mirror, CJ.
91

oder,

any town 19/02/2009 09:18:54
89 Finnking,Lempäälä

a common enough side effect for people like yourself who may suffer from any one of various kinds of personality disorder and claim the problem is something or someone else!
92

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 16:18:57
Angus @60
"1.) To not acknowledge that Lieberman as a Jewish VP after 9-11 would have had resulted in a much different foreign policy, and world view is redunculous"

Sure, by all means Gore and Lieberman's foreign policy would have been different. The question is would it have been better or worse than Bush's. As for Lieberman being Jewish, please elaborate - what do you think a Democratic presidency post 9-11 would have done differently specifically as a result of Lieberman being Jewish?

"2.)The words the UN used in 2000 were "must deal with Saddam and the WMDS." Canada called Iraq a "rule of terror""

And the words they did NOT use were 'let's invade Iraq'."....

Last fall in a personal conversation with a Senator, (who was trained originally to go into CIA service and decided not to) said that plans were made in 1999 and 2000 to remove Saddam Hussein. No, he did not say exactly what the plans were. Considering what I have read in the minutes from the UN along with other Navy and DoD information I had in 2003, along with stuff coming out of MIT, combining all those sources, I believed the senator when he told me this- although it was the first time it was told me by a government representative.
93

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 16:20:34
continued...


To judge in hindsight is easy, because we as citizens only receive information and facts the politicians want us to know. But if you subtract the politics and brainwashing and look at the facts, the truth remains this: there was massive amounts of intelligence about Hussein coming from many sources for many years, that one of the earliest to set the alarm were the human rights organizations in the UN who even put their concern in writing.
These many sources of intelligence, MI6, Mossad, UN, FBI, CIA, etc. would not have magically changed according to who won the presidency in 2000: Bush/Cheney or Gore/Lieberman. Agencies don't back track and rewrite years of intelligence, but they knew something was going to happen, not what, when or where. That Clinton did nothing is of exasperation to the UN which they recorded in their minutes.

As for propaganda, -
(not intelligence) what was subject to change was the rhetoric and propaganda from the Middle East as to why we were attacked.
My opinion is that instead of the conspiracy-theory, that Bush manipulated the 9-11 attacks, if we had a Jewish VP, Joe Lieberman, the Middle East would have railed against the US evil empire having a Jewish man in office. There would have been vast amounts of propaganda that the attack was because of the Jews, and propagated in a way that this country could have become openly anti-Semitic.
94

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 16:24:01
Which should read Angus @80
(not 60)
95

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 16:29:15
I'm not manipulating anything, I'm pointing out that your statement undermines the assertion that propaganda by itself can change people's minds. You seem to be arguing that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have advances their cause by the power of their propaganda alone....

SO my answer is yes, propaganda alone can change people's minds, and yes propaganda with a cumulative effect can determine the fate of a country and its foreign policy.
96

Finlang,

South China 19/02/2009 16:32:51
#26, 27 Carolyn 1

Whether or not your comment was deleted by Detached Observer is beside the point. The poster calling himself Detached Observer is in fact Postmark 55. Recognise the style? He uses other aliases to talk to himself (badly disguised as the work of illiterates), and vilify other posters in disagreement with his generally pretty vile posts. The disguise is too thin though. Check the "supporting" comments in close proximity to his vilifications, by new-name posters who apppear out of the ether. He addresses them as "old mate", "old buddy" and such tripe-laden fakery.

I have had problems with this evil person and have taken appropriate action (not only on this site). You should take similar action. This forum was once almost civilised. People like Postmark-55 (or whatever variation he uses tomorrow) have wrecked sane debate through petty, childishly ignorant insult. He has already disgraced his (alleged) new country of residence to a degree that makes me want to vomit. That country is one that I have inhabited for many years and my indigenous colleagues there are not pleased.
97

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 19/02/2009 18:31:51
Carolyn 1 @ 92

"Last fall in a personal conversation with a Senator, (who was trained originally to go into CIA service and decided not to) said that plans were made in 1999 and 2000 to remove Saddam Hussein."

Plans were made by who? The UN?



98

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 19/02/2009 18:57:53
Carolyn 1 @ 93

"Agencies don't back track and rewrite years of intelligence, but they knew something was going to happen, not what, when or where. That Clinton did nothing is of exasperation to the UN which they recorded in their minutes."

Let me just clarify what you're talking about here - are you talking about 9/11 or intelligence on Iraq?

"My opinion is that instead of the conspiracy-theory, that Bush manipulated the 9-11 attacks, if we had a Jewish VP, Joe Lieberman, the Middle East would have railed against the US evil empire having a Jewish man in office. There would have been vast amounts of propaganda that the attack was because of the Jews, and propagated in a way that this country could have become openly anti-Semitic."

There was vast amounts of propaganda that the attack was because of the Jews anyway. People in the USA (correct me if I'm wrong but I'm guessing you mean the USA by 'this country' - and no, that doesn't mean I'm trying to manipulate the debate!)didn't pay a great deal of attention to such propaganda. I'm not sure why you think that many people would have leant such propaganda more credence just because we had a Jewish VP. New York has one of the biggest populations of Jews in any city in the world. People in New York by and large knew that the attackers may well have targeted NY specifically because it had a large Jewish population. Did they blame the twin towers attack on the Jews in their city? No, they rightly blamed Al Qaeda. I don't think people in America are as easily manipulated by propaganda as you seem to be suggesting.

"SO my answer is yes, propaganda alone can change people's minds, and yes propaganda with a cumulative effect can determine the fate of a country and its foreign policy."

So do you think that the muslim world, regardless of American foreign policy, would have inevitably turned against us? purely as a result of Bin Laden's propaganda? Do you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of
99

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 19/02/2009 18:59:30
Carolyn 1 @ 93

Sorry, the message cut out. My last question was do you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of thinking for themselves?
100

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 19:00:59
@97
in the context and scope of what we were talking about at the time, I understood his statement to mean the DoD, because the DoD is the agency that would be responsible for that kind of planning as well as the preparation of the troops and equipment (well in advance)
101

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 19:17:20
Let me just clarify what you're talking about here - are you talking about 9/11 or intelligence on Iraq?"..

>the 911 commission reported that the CIA and the FBI knew something was coming, but not when where or how and with no specifics of any kind

"....do you believe that Muslims are somehow inherently incapable of thinking for themselves?"

> Of course not. Every human being is born able to think. It is how they are taught that determines if a person can think for himself. I think the Muslims are a controlled society through their education, religion and government.
The US military analysts calls it a 'force field'.

For example, in the last millennium, only 100,000 books were translated into Arabic. in any ONE YEAR, 100,000 books are translated into Spanish. If a country only reads books within its own culture which is controlled by a government....I do think that is a form of oppression
102

Angus Coull,

San Francisco 19/02/2009 19:32:09
Carolyn 1 @ 100

"in the context and scope of what we were talking about at the time, I understood his statement to mean the DoD, because the DoD is the agency that would be responsible for that kind of planning as well as the preparation of the troops and equipment (well in advance)"

So what this means (assuming that this Senator was correct) is that the American government made plans in 1999 and 2000 to remove Saddam. This doesn't come as a surprise. In fact it would be surprising if the American government hadn't had such plans. I don't really see what it has to do with our disagreement. It doesn't mean the UN wanted to invade Iraq. And just because a Gore/Lieberman white house might have carried out such plans, does not excuse the fact that Bush DID. Invading Iraq, regardless of whether Bush or Gore had done it, was always likely to inflame hatred of America in the muslim world, and by doing so benefit Al Qaeda.
103

Angus Coull,

SF 19/02/2009 20:01:51
Carolyn 1 @ 101

">the 911 commission reported that the CIA and the FBI knew something was coming, but not when where or how and with no specifics of any kind"

Ok, so you're talking about 9/11, which brings me back to your previous statement:

"That Clinton did nothing is of exasperation to the UN which they recorded in their minutes."

What exactly was Clinton supposed to do when you have said yourself that there was no specifics of any kind to go on? But if there was something that could have been done, why single out Clinton? Bush also had a good 6 months to do something.

"> Of course not. Every human being is born able to think. It is how they are taught that determines if a person can think for himself. I think the Muslims are a controlled society through their education, religion and government.
The US military analysts calls it a 'force field'."

The wisdom of US military analysts' understanding of Islamic society is debatable given how Iraq was handled. Muslims opinions, just like anyone elses, are of course likely to be influenced by their education, religion and government. However, that's not the only thing that influences their opinions.

If muslims views really were completely controlled by their rulers then there would never have been any rebellions in the Middle East (for example, the Young Turks rebellion which overthrew Ottoman rule in Turkey and established a secular state).

Another issue here is that if the governments of the Middle East were always able to control Muslims opinions then Al Qaeda and Bin Laden would have no support (Bin Laden not being in government anywhere and having the support of virtually no government in the Middle East). Your theory doesn't explain the rise of Al Qaeda post-Iraq. American foreign policy under Bush does.

"For example, in the last millennium, only 100,000 books were translated into Arabic. in any ONE YEAR, 100,000 books are translated into Spanish. If a country only reads books withi
104

Angus Coull,

SF 19/02/2009 20:10:35
Carolyn 1 @ 101 continued...

"For example, in the last millennium, only 100,000 books were translated into Arabic. in any ONE YEAR, 100,000 books are translated into Spanish. If a country only reads books within its own culture which is controlled by a government....I do think that is a form of oppression"

Yes the suppression of books from other cultures is indeed a form of oppression. And there are sadly many oppressive governments in the Middle East, some of them supported by the USA. However, that still does not explain the rise of Al Qaeda post-Iraq. Virtually all of the governments in the Middle East are enemies of Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Al Qaeda is trying to overthrow these governments. Why would these governments indoctrinate their people to support their enemies?

105

Carolyn 1,

19/02/2009 20:28:42
Considering I have been absolutely crystal clear, yet once again you twisted facts to fit your agenda: or it could be you're just too dense

For the 3rd time and final time:

- In reference to the 9-11 attacks, the 9-11 commission reported that the CIA and the FBI knew something was coming, but not when where or how and but had no specifics and failed to link data. That's common knowledge


You wrote this foolish gem:

What exactly was Clinton supposed to do when you have said yourself that there was no specifics of any kind to go on? But if there was something that could have been done, why single out Clinton? Bush also had a good 6 months to do something."
???

- Since 9-11 had not happened, how could the UN blame Clinton?? Can you really be this uninformed????

It is the following, that the UN published in their minutes from the 1999-2000 general assembly when it blamed Clinton for failure to "deal with Saddam:"
The UN, since as early as 1991, had cited Saddam Hussein as violating human rights. By 2000, before Bush took office, there was massive amounts of intelligence from many sources, of WMD build-up combined with the human rights violations, and based on all that intelligence according to the Senator the DoD started to plan the removal of Saddam.



106

Angus Coull,

SF 19/02/2009 21:21:37
"Considering I have been absolutely crystal clear, yet once again you twisted facts to fit your agenda: or it could be you're just too dense"

Oh dear, looks like the insults are coming out again. Have you ever heard of the concept of a civil conversation? Perhaps you'll learn more about it when you grow up.

"For the 3rd time and final time:

In reference to the 9-11 attacks, the 9-11 commission reported that the CIA and the FBI knew something was coming, but not when where or how and but had no specifics and failed to link data. That's common knowledge"

That's not for the 3rd and final time - at no point before did you say 'and failed to link data'. Now your point makes some sense. In which case the intelligence agencies under BOTH Clinton and Bush failed to link data. So again why single out Clinton?

" Since 9-11 had not happened, how could the UN blame Clinton?? Can you really be this uninformed????"

Feel free to tell me where I said that the UN blamed Clinton for 9/11. Otherwise it is you that is uninformed.

"It is the following, that the UN published in their minutes from the 1999-2000 general assembly when it blamed Clinton for failure to "deal with Saddam:"
The UN, since as early as 1991, had cited Saddam Hussein as violating human rights. By 2000, before Bush took office, there was massive amounts of intelligence from many sources, of WMD build-up combined with the human rights violations, and based on all that intelligence according to the Senator the DoD started to plan the removal of Saddam."

As I have already pointed out, dealing with Saddam does not necessarily mean the same thing as invading Iraq. The UN may well have wanted to deal with Saddam, but that does not mean they wanted to invade Iraq. When America invaded Iraq, it did so illegally, without UN authorisation.
107

Zilperhonka,

28/03/2009 05:05:33
Sharia law wouldn't concern so many people if the governments of Europe were not admitting Muslims in vast numbers and encouraging them that they can set up Saudi Arabia here (and the same goes for Africans and Pentacostalism and other examples), why is it that governments speak with several faces on this issue?

One the one hand they let them in, then they want to stir up paranoia about them to encourage people to support laws that destroy civil liberties (terror threat) or wars thousands of miles away. Go to those Muslim marches and i betcha some of those guys are wearing fake beards!


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.