markhumphrys.com

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

What constitutes "proof"? They're all marxists.

humphrys wrote: »

All you said is he was a marxist and drank alcohol. Pretty weak stuff. He was buried in a Muslim cemetery you know?



Yes it is.
The phrase "I renounce the Prophet, says Leila Khaled" gives no hits.
Can I use your Google?



Well then they ought to have no trouble declaring there is no Allah right?

That nails down the objective test pretty much.

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

Good to see you do quality "research" that the Irish media are afraid to.

I might disagree with Mark on a few things but he did just express thanks for being given evidence which supports his opponent's argument. Not many people have the decency to do that. Had he simply ignored it or stuck his fingers in his ears, you probably would have complained as well.

I'm not interested in contributing to this debate too much but I just want to put it out there that I am a far-left libertarian and we're not all the same: I lament the rest of the left's apologetics for religious lunacy, I am an antitheist and I too hold reason, science and human rights above all else. I'm not sure if it is in the Universal Declaration, but I always considered self-determination to be a human right. That's where the issue isn't so black and white for me. While theocracy (or any other form of totalitarian authority) cannot be tolerated anywhere, I'm not sure if going in with guns blazing is the right thing to do in many cases. I still can't make up my mind whether or not the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable, although I am positively delighted that Saddam's brutal dictatorship is gone.

Unlike many on the left, I make my judgements based on evidence. So yeah, that's all I really wanted to say. There are still some of us leftist Hitchensites out there.

Frank Grimes

humphrys wrote: »

Can I note once again that I do not claim such people (apostate Muslims who are terrorists against Israel) cannot exist. They could exist. There are all sorts of strange humans in the world. What I want to know is do they exist?

I realise that your fixation on 'apostates' from Islam is to 'prove' in your own mind that Muslims (specifically Palestinians) are solely motivated by Islam regardless of what they say or do because no-one (Palestinians in this case) is really an apostate from Islam, even the militant Marxists. You do realise that plenty of atheists simply just do not believe in the existence of god and that's it - they do not always go around making statements declaring themselves apostates of whatever religion they may have been born into.

This whole tangent is completely disingenuous - rather than addressing the fact that not all Palestinians are fanatical Muslims whose motivations are solely influenced by Islam, you've gone off on this ridiculous quest to demand that statements, which may never have been made in the first place, be produced in order to prove what should be glaringly obvious to anyone who isn't completely and utterly biased. And, to pre-empt the main deflection I can see you using, you'll remember I said I was presuming the Marxists are likely to be atheists. My point all along is that reductionist explanations of the actions of Muslims are unhelpful and blind people to the nuances of a given situation. Oh, that and not all Palestinians and Muslims, but those guys are all "fools" though so that doesn't count I guess.

Frank Grimes

Deleted User wrote: »

I might disagree with Mark on a few things but he did just express thanks for being given evidence which supports his opponent's argument. Not many people have the decency to do that. Had he simply ignored it or stuck his fingers in his ears, you probably would have complained as well.

In the context of the whole thread, that is exactly what Mark is doing.

humphrys

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I realise that your fixation on 'apostates' from Islam is to 'prove' in your own mind that Muslims (specifically Palestinians) are solely motivated by Islam regardless of what they say or do because no-one (Palestinians in this case) is really an apostate from Islam, even the militant Marxists.

No there are many apostates from Islam.
How about the poor guy who is being persecuted for apostasy by the Palestinian Authority?
Surely he is an apostate from Islam?
http://markhumphrys.com/israel.defence.html#walid.husayin
But he is not a terrorist against Israel.

My main motivation of this topic was to understand the people who fight for what I see as an Islamic jihad. I was always aware some fool Christians fought for this cause. (At least in the past.) I was curious whether actual atheists - or even more amazing, apostates from Islam - fought for it. You and others angrily claim this is obvious, but you seem to get even angrier when asked for evidence.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

You do realise that plenty of atheists simply just do not believe in the existence of god and that's it - they do not always go around making statements declaring themselves apostates of whatever religion they may have been born into.

As I say, they've the guts to kill Jews, but they don't have the guts to declare Allah doesn't exist?

Frank Grimes wrote: »

This whole tangent is completely disingenuous - rather than addressing the fact that not all Palestinians are fanatical Muslims whose motivations are solely influenced by Islam, you've gone off on this ridiculous quest to demand that statements, which may never have been made in the first place, be produced in order to prove what should be glaringly obvious to anyone who isn't completely and utterly biased.

It's not a diversion. It all started when someone claimed Abu Nidal was an atheist and I was a fool to list his attacks in my list of Islamic terror attacks against the West.

I would be genuinely interested if this was true, but people seem to get angry when asked for proof of this.

This does relate to the big picture about Israel - where the left sees it as a modern struggle of self-determination and anti-imperialism - while the right sees it as basically an old-style Islamic war with some useful idiot allies. I used to find the former view convincing. It was Arafat's intifada that converted me to the latter view.

Frank Grimes

humphrys wrote: »

No there are many apostates from Islam.

I am well aware of this, I was referring to Palestinian 'terrorists' as this is the context within which it is being discussed.

You and others angrily claim this is obvious, but you seem to get even angrier when asked for evidence.

As I said in a previous post, I never claimed to have this evidence you are so obsessed with - I still fail to see how anyone can say groups like the PFLP are motivated solely by Islam when all evidence suggests otherwise.

This does relate to the big picture about Israel - where the left sees it as a modern struggle of self-determination and anti-imperialism

My political position has nothing to do with the fact that you seem incapable of even accepting in principle that Muslims can be motivated by anything other than Islam. And just to clarify, I am not in the SP/SWP nor do I have much sympathy for their politics beyond the socially liberal policies but these are not confined to "the left" either. You should try to move beyond simple dichotomies like left/right, good/evil - it may help in actually understanding the nuances of given situations as the world is rarely understandable in these simplistic terms.

alastair

humphrys wrote: »

I did some research. (That's what I do.)
I searched for "atheist" inside the book:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Father-Was-Freedom-Fighter/dp/0745328822/
And got no hits at all!

Umm - no. You searched for 'atheist' in the select few pages that Amazon shows. Not really the same thing. The person reviewing the book has at least the advantage of having actually read the book.

Eggy Baby!

I find it bizarre that anyone should exclusively cite Israel, (the only Jewish country on Earth) as a country where "your religion is valued higher than your person" when there are 40-something Islamic countries, in which virtually all of them, that description is far more apt.

So we must cite other random theocracies as bad in a discussion about Israel?

Isn't that counterproductive to a discussion....about Israel?

I suppose Nazi Germany isn't that bad because...because...it wasn't as bad as Stalinist Russia.

(I do agree that those countries you mentioned are far worse than Israel however)

As opposed to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Indonesia, virtually every Islamic country on Earth.

Iraq was secular (now its just a disaster). Saudi Arabia is an affront to Islam (headscarves are an ancient Saudi custom which the Saudis have attempted to link with Islam), as is Iran (intolerance of other religions such as the Baha'i is not Islamic) and Afghanistan was a rough justice Wild West state (in which the Taliban enforced their own perceptions of Islam) and Indonesia is ambiguously secular.

CDfm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

In the context of the whole thread, that is exactly what Mark is doing.

That is a bit unfair as his blog has been up for years and he did not start the thread , it was meditraitorwho has closed his account who started the thread.

The Irish left have aligned themselves with the Palestinians as proof as their radical credentials. Whatever your political affiliation , it has to be of interest what they are supporting.

I don't know Mark and have occasionally read his blog as he has posted interesting nuggets on history which I have an interest in.

humphrys

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I still fail to see how anyone can say groups like the PFLP are motivated solely by Islam when all evidence suggests otherwise.

My political position has nothing to do with the fact that you seem incapable of even accepting in principle that Muslims can be motivated by anything other than Islam.

Did you follow the most recent PFLP massacre of the Fogel family?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogel_family_massacre
What on earth about that looks "secular" to you?
It's all blood-lust and Jew-hatred, just like Hamas. They even slit the baby's throat.

I don't see this big clear water between the PFLP and Hamas that you do. I doubt if most Israelis see it either.

humphrys

alastair wrote: »

Umm - no. You searched for 'atheist' in the select few pages that Amazon shows. Not really the same thing. The person reviewing the book has at least the advantage of having actually read the book.

If you were a better researcher you would see that the search box in Amazon (at least in this case) will search the entire book for you, not just selected pages.

The book reviewer was obviously referring to the page I provided in entirety.

Still, feel free to do your own research to prove your case!

humphrys

humphrys wrote: »

If you were a better researcher you would see that the search box in Amazon (at least in this case) will search the entire book for you, not just selected pages.

p.s. You have to register with Amazon and login. That might be your problem.

Frank Grimes

CDfm wrote: »

That is a bit unfair as his blog has been up for years and he did not start the thread , it was meditraitorwho has closed his account who started the thread.

I wasn't referring to his site in that post. I was talking about this thread where he keeps selectively ignoring points I and others are raising, or else he's going off on tangents rather than addressing things that are being put to him. One example is the Muslims only being influenced by Islam point I keep raising.

humphrys wrote: »

Did you follow the most recent PFLP massacre of the Fogel family?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fogel_family_massacre
What on earth about that looks "secular" to you?
It's all blood-lust and Jew-hatred, just like Hamas. They even slit the baby's throat.

I think it was Nodin who asked you earlier, are secular/non-religious groups not capable of committing atrocities?

I don't see this big clear water between the PFLP and Hamas that you do. I doubt if most Israelis see it either.

Yet again. You are claiming (or insinuating in this case) that all Palestinian Muslims are motivated solely by Islam ignoring any other possible motivating factors, this is obviously not the case.

Brown Bomber

Mark, using you're twisted logic and false definition of a jihadi I.e anyone who attacks Israel then yigal amir, Rabin's assasin, a fanatical, Zionist, extremist becomes a defacto jihadi in Humphrey world. How does that work?

Frank Grimes

CDfm wrote: »

The Irish left have aligned themselves with the Palestinians as proof as their radical credentials. Whatever your political affiliation , it has to be of interest what they are supporting.

Just to address this; I have little to no interest in what the Irish left do in relation to Israel/Palestine, the main point I'm continually trying to raise with Mark is that reductionist explanations of Muslims' behaviour, as is common in the ideology he seems to subscribe to, more often than not tell us nothing about the realities of a given situation.

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

All you said is he (.........)to know is do they exist?

Predictable. And of course they've attacked Israel therefore they're a "jihadi", and anyone who disagrees with such a simplistic analysis is "far left".

I note that once more you ignore the vast majority of what's raised, preferring to chase along narrow channels outlined by your rather handy pigeonholing and labelling.

humphrys

Frank Grimes wrote: »

the main point I'm continually trying to raise with Mark is that reductionist explanations of Muslims' behaviour, as is common in the ideology he seems to subscribe to, more often than not tell us nothing about the realities of a given situation.

I don't claim that all Muslim behaviour ever is based on Islam.

But this debate is specifically about the case of Israel. And I am entirely unconvinced by your claim that the PFLP is so different to Hamas. It seems to me that you are projecting western values onto the PFLP that they do not share.

You are aware that the "secular" PFLP carries out suicide bombings of Jews?

Yes, "atheists" (or some sort of secular people) carrying out suicide bombings.
That doesn't make a lot of sense.

I wonder where these alleged "atheist" or "secular" martyrs think they are going to after death!
How will they get those 72 virgins if, as they allegedly believe, there is no afterlife?
Who will reward them for killing the Jew if there is no Allah?

In reality, they would be baffled by these questions since of course they believe in Allah and paradise for martyrdom.

It seems to me that whatever they claim, or supposedly said decades ago, today the PFLP does exactly what Hamas does.
They carry out suicide bombings against civilian Jews.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carmel_Market_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geha_Interchange_bus_stop_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netanya_Market_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karnei_Shomron_Mall_suicide_bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Dimona_suicide_bombing

PFLP, Hamas, Fatah, they're all the same. It's the same war.
As Cox and Forkum said:



You feel very strongly about this, and I do wonder what your politics are.

Nodin

humphrys wrote: »

..........

It seems to me that whatever they claim, or supposedly said decades ago, today the PFLP does exactly what Hamas does.
They carry out suicide bombings against civilian Jews.

...........

Yet suicide bombing and acts of terrorism are not specific to either muslims or the Palestinian struggle so why you keep bringing that up rather escapes me.

Frank Grimes

humphrys wrote: »

I don't claim that all Muslim behaviour ever is based on Islam.

But this debate is specifically about the case of Israel. And I am entirely unconvinced by your claim that the PFLP is so different to Hamas. It seems to me that you are projecting western values onto the PFLP that they do not share.

I really do not see how, by suggesting that the motives they espouse are actually their motives (or part thereof) I am "projecting Western values". You are the one constantly ascribing motives to them, why do you assume that they are lying?

You are aware that the "secular" PFLP carries out suicide bombings of Jews?

Yes, "atheists" (or some sort of secular people) carrying out suicide bombings.
That doesn't make a lot of sense...In reality, they would be baffled by these questions since of course they believe in Allah and paradise for martyrdom.

The PKK have used suicide bombings, the Tamil Tigers pioneered suicide bombings, in Lebanon there were Christian suicide bombers as well as Communist/Socialist suicide bombers, a Sikh suicide bomber - the common thread generally being nationalism, but don't let pesky things like facts get in your way.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

...........

The Irish left have aligned themselves with the Palestinians as proof as their radical credentials.............

A great deal of the planet has "aligned" itself with the Palestinians because they reject colonialism.

CDfm

Frank Grimes wrote: »

I wasn't referring to his site in that post. I was talking about this thread where he keeps selectively ignoring points I and others are raising, or else he's going off on tangents rather than addressing things that are being put to him. One example is the Muslims only being influenced by Islam point I keep raising.

His site is the subject of the thread and there is nothing wrong with him framing an answer .

His site is well referenced enough for someone using history as a discipline to use , which means that if a new "fact" shows up that explains a situation then it gets included, and his interpretation is included.

And he does have a well referenced argument about how he formed his point of view and changed his beliefs.

Nodin wrote: »

A great deal of the planet has "aligned" itself with the Palestinians because they reject colonialism.

I reject colonialism and I find the actions of the Palestinians unsupportable.

People are always asking where Palestine stands on freedom of religion, feminism and homosexuality. Is your argument that they are secular and socially liberal ?

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

............


I reject colonialism and I find the actions of the Palestinians unsupportable.

People are always asking where Palestine stands on freedom of religion, feminism and homosexuality. Is your argument that they are secular and socially liberal ?

My argument is that colonialism in unjustifiable. It includes the historical fact that pointing the ills of the natives is de rigueur for justifying such things.

Frank Grimes

CDfm wrote: »

His site is the subject of the thread and there is nothing wrong with him framing an answer

Like I said, what I was saying in what you quoted earlier has nothing to do with his site, regardless of what this thread's title is - that specific comment I made was related to certain, and consistent, actions of his in this particular thread. I really don't know why you are trying to argue with me over this.

alastair

CDfm wrote: »

His site is well referenced enough for someone using history as a discipline to use , which means that if a new "fact" shows up that explains a situation then it gets included, and his interpretation is included.

You reckon? Because I'm seeing some pretty glaring evasions of facts that don't tally with the whole party line on Islam etc. I'm also seeing some disingenuously selective sources, and precious little revision of patent nonsense once it's been discredited by not only common sense, but the passage of time.

Just because he doesn't subscribe 100% to the 'birther' nonsense relating to Obama, that's no excuse for pushing Pipe's guff about Obama being 'kinda' Muslim, and expounding his own line that Obama is a 'dhimmi'. If this is the variety of dhimmi that grows the military occupation of Afghanistan, and extends drone attacks against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, while finally putting a bullet in the head of 'actual' jihadst Osama bin Laden, then yes - I guess he's quite the success. If on the other hand, he's a 'dhimmi' because he doesn't vilify an entire religion on the back of a tiny minority - then it's a nonsensical accusation - just like labeling anyone with a beef against Israel a 'jihadist' or 'jihad supporter'.

The site is just another outpost of formulaic wingnut touchstones. The only real interest (for me anyway) being the unfashionable, and more importantly, unfathomable, flagwaving for Bertie. Now there's contrarian!.

humphrys

alastair wrote: »

The site is just another outpost of formulaic wingnut touchstones.

Nice quote. I feel like putting that in my banner!

alastair wrote: »

that's no excuse for pushing Pipe's guff about Obama being 'kinda' Muslim, and expounding his own line that Obama is a 'dhimmi'. If this is the variety of dhimmi that grows the military occupation of Afghanistan, and extends drone attacks against Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, while finally putting a bullet in the head of 'actual' jihadst Osama bin Laden, then yes - I guess he's quite the success.

Actually I do note Obama's strange double nature.
He speaks like a craven submissive dhimmi:

Obama's dreadful speech in Cairo:
http://markhumphrys.com/obama.war.html#cairo.speech

And then, despite his awful rhetoric, he slaughters jihadists from the air without trial!
Kill them all and take no prisoners, and Obama won't have to worry about trials and human rights in Guantanamo.
And the left cheers him on!

In defence of Obama:
http://markhumphrys.com/obama.html#defence

So yes, he's not all bad!

alastair

humphrys wrote: »

And the left cheers him on!

They do?

Or are we in a worldview where Democrat voters are 'the left'?

CDfm

Nodin wrote: »

My argument is that colonialism in unjustifiable. It includes the historical fact that pointing the ills of the natives is de rigueur for justifying such things.

But take the colonialism out of the equation and what type of society are you supporting.

CDfm wrote: »

People are always asking where Palestine stands on freedom of religion, feminism and homosexuality. Is your argument that they are secular and socially liberal ?

These are relevant questions.

Frank Grimes wrote: »

Like I said, what I was saying in what you quoted earlier has nothing to do with his site, regardless of what this thread's title is - that specific comment I made was related to certain, and consistent, actions of his in this particular thread. I really don't know why you are trying to argue with me over this.

I am not trying to argue with you but the events he links to are horrific all by themselves.

If organizations ally themselves to other organizations mud sticks in a "tell me who your friends are an I will tell you what you are" way.

On that basis, is it reasonable that his "transactional analysis" would lead him to the conclusions he has made ?. You may not agree with him or like his prose style but is his argument reasonable .

alastair wrote: »

You reckon? Because I'm seeing some pretty glaring evasions of facts that don't tally with the whole party line on Islam etc. I'm also seeing some disingenuously selective sources, and precious little revision of patent nonsense once it's been discredited by not only common sense, but the passage of time...............site is just another outpost of formulaic wingnut touchstones. The only real interest (for me anyway) being the unfashionable, and more importantly, unfathomable, flagwaving for Bertie. Now there's contrarian!.

I am not convinced that the Palestinian establishment and Islam are mutually exclusive from anything I have read here as the arguments are not convincing.

Maybe he is being polite.

Frank Grimes

CDfm wrote: »

I am not trying to argue with you but the events he links to are horrific all by themselves.

If organizations ally themselves to other organizations mud sticks in a "tell me who your friends are an I will tell you what you are" way.

On that basis, is it reasonable that his "transactional analysis" would lead him to the conclusions he has made ?. You may not agree with him or like his prose style but is his argument reasonable

Again, you seem to be missing my point entirely. What I was saying about him had nothing to do with events he linked to etc. - he has been continuously dodging questions and introducing tangents throughout the thread. It has nothing to do with his arguments or prose style but rather how he's conducting the 'debate' more generally.

Nodin

CDfm wrote: »

But take the colonialism out of the equation and what type of society are you supporting.

....a developing one.

CDfm wrote: »

These are relevant questions..

How so?

CDfm wrote: »

I am not trying to argue with you but the events he links to are horrific all by themselves. ..

If I wanted to play the Atrocity Olympics I could come up with a few myself.

alastair

CDfm wrote: »

But take the colonialism out of the equation and what type of society are you supporting.



These are relevant questions .

They're certainly not justifications for another state occupying that territory. It doesn't really matter if Israel is the greatest nation on the planet ever, and the Palestinians had a steaming pile of social issues to work out - it's for Palestinians themselves to sort out. I'm not seeing a huge amount of Israeli advocacy on the ground in the occupied territories (or embargoed Gaza) in relation to any of those concerns btw. You can't take colonisation out of the equation, where it's a clear influence on that society.

CDfm wrote: »

If organizations ally themselves to other organizations mud sticks in a "tell me who your friends are an I will tell you what you are" way.

That's not an argument that's doing our rational atheist any favours tbh.

CDfm wrote: »

I am not convinced that the Palestinian establishment and Islam are mutually exclusive from anything I have read here as the arguments are not convincing.

Has anyone made that argument? Are the Israeli state and Judaism mutually exclusive? The nonsense is to suggest that all actions directed against Israel from Palestine are 'jihad'.