Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
May 23, 2013

Woolwich: All That Confusion Over Michael Adebolajo’s Soldier Cool


“I have never seen anything like this before, or even heard of it happening before. For two suspects to carry out a brutal attack like this then stand around in plain sight waiting for the police is crazy.”

– Former Detective Chief Inspector Peter Kirkham (Guardian)

Are they or aren’t they terrorists? Were they or weren’t they seeking publicity? Instead of arguing “no” and “no,” I’ll just say that both questions confuse and obscure how unique the event in Woolwich was in the annals of political violence and the lens. (Whether it also signals a new paradigm is impossible to know.)

This attack in Woolwich, though, seemed to break the rules on four scores. One involved time. One, identifiability. Another, evacuation strategy. And still another, “sociability,” if you can believe that.

Adebolajo 2

The episode seemed to demonstrate the absence of haste. When do you remember an act of violence in which the perpetrator is not pushing on the clock to either escape or to somehow meet the 40 virgins? The killer on video seemed to also have little instinct for personal attention or self-aggrandizement as much as his encounter with the camera had the quality of an impromptu man-on-the-street interview. And then, I know many will feel I’m out of my mind to ascribe sociability to a guy who just hacked another man to death. What was so extremely odd, outside the extreme prejudice toward the soldier, is how Mr. Adebolajo did not present as particularly antagonistic at all. This was evidenced in speaking to this citizen with the camera, and in his chat with the citizen who approached him after getting off the bus. (The media is attributed the uniqueness of the encounter to Ms. Loyau-Kennett’s temperament, but my sense is that it wasn’t just her.)


His sidewalk comments on video and the way this attacker approached the situation would be easy to write off if he was either a dyed-in-the-wool sociopath or simply delusional. All that psychological profiling goes out the window, however, seeing Mr. Adebolajo as himself a soldier.

What’s so novel and unique about the footage is how this man looked and sounded so rational, even deferential and slightly apologetic after butchering the British soldier. Could it be that we’re entering a post-9/11 or 7/7 era of jihad/war on Muslim extremism in which both sides have transitioned from shock-and-awe to a more targeted, methodical and pragmatic attitude? Is a smart guy like Mr. Adebolajo simply exhibiting the cool and detached, but not quite robotic lethality of the workaday drone operator?

(screenshots: ITV.)

  • jonst

    so, you are equating the act of firing the drone, or, directing the drone, to what this grandiose psychopath did? Interesting.

    I don’t know about that equation…but I do have a hunch where, if that equation goes ‘mainstream’, the conflict will be heading.

    If nothing else…I am not arguing the logical here, but if what I believe will prove to be ‘the facts’ in the long run…not only did Lee Rigby (I noticed his name did not make it into the post) die in the streets of London…but most certainly, ‘gun reform laws’ in America died with him.

    I think the ‘restraints’ are coming off…

    • Glennis Waterman

      No, he’s not equating the act of firing the drone to what Adebolojo did, but I’m not surprised that someone would willfully misinterpret this post to promote the pro-gun agenda.

    • davemclane

      I think what’s being called similar is the cool and detached, but not
      quite robotic lethality of the workaday drone operator and the cool and
      detached, but not quite robotic lethality of Mr. Adebolajo.

    • parakeet sounds

      very bad…we all are humans!

  • bystander

    Interesting take, Michael. This whole situation calls for some real out-of-the-box thinking. The conventional wisdom does not seem to explain this circumstance. It just – literally – blows my mind that the attacker can visit the degree of barbarity that he did on the soldier, and be so rationally attentive to passerby and witnesses. It’s a psychological state I’ve never seen, or heard of before. Your parallel to drone operators is kind of fascinating, but the targeting aside, I can’t quite mash up the profound personal nature of hacking someone to death with the clinical distance of a computer console. It’s one thing to be drenched in your victims blood, and quite another to see a red mist on your computer monitor. Don’t know if I can make that leap, but it’s a leap worth thinking about.

  • Credo

    Mr. Adebolajo as himself a soldier….

    • jonst

      Is he a “solider” at war with British soldiers? Or at war with NATO military forces? And if the answer is ‘yes’, then to the extent like minded people can be identified with some reasonable assurance, should they beheaded on where they are found? When they are not armed? Or does it just run one way?

  • Stanco55

    You nailed it Michael- stone age tech vs 21st century. This guy “regrets” that women had to see this, and the innocent deaths of Obama’s drone war will “haunt” him forever. Both desperate rationalizations for horrendous, murderous deeds.

    Only question- who has more blood on their hands?

    One thing’s for sure… we won’t see a photo of Obama standing next to the innocent, dead children that died in his name.

  • Clifton Hamilton

    Actually you’ve got it completely wrong.

    You seem to have some idea that this sociopathic behavior comes from being trained to be a “soldier.” What you fail to consider is that his desire to be a “soldier” comes from his sociopathy.

    First consider he has no actual “soldier” training. He did want to go to the middle-east and be trained, but this did not work out for some reason. So he has no background/training that would allow him to so calmly execute someone.

    Also consider this:
    Sociopaths look for places where their behavior will be tolerated. This man was raised in a devoutly Christian household. He even spent some time at a University, and working blue collar work. He failed at both of these. He also had a history of drugs, theft, and violence prior to “converting” to be a Muslim. And he did not convert to be a Muslim, he went under the wing of a radical cleric that encouraged violence against innocents. It gave the sociopath an excuse for the antisocial and violent behavior he had already been showing.

    As for how he seemed rational, and semi-apologetic… these too are the characteristics of a sociopath. He felt absolutely no remorse, but he realizes this is unacceptable. He is feigning the remorse he knows society expects him to feel, which is why he only appears “semi-apologetic” and not actually apologetic. He doesn’t feel emotions like you and I.

    This murder has nothing to do with wars in the middle-east, the Muslim religion, drones, or anything else that you, I, or our respective nations have done. This has to do with a sociopath carrying out his most carnal and disgusting desires, and finding some excuse by which he can claim it is the victim’s fault, not his own. This, too, is sociopathic behavior.

    • AngelaE8654

      I think you’ve got it down better than most. Good post.


    • A.T.H. Webber

      “Sociopaths look for places where their behavior will be tolerated”

      My concern is not so much that this guy (Adebelajo) found such a place.

      My concern is that such a place can harbour such hatred, and yet still be able to exist. Particularly in a world of meta-knowledge (not sure if that is a term, just go with it though if you don’t mind) where nothing is truly hidden.

      Moreso if one takes into account the low degrees of separation that would probably be found in a close-knit religious community. In that such a situation should suggest that there are a lot of peaceful folk about who know, or at least suspect, the goings on involving a mad cleric and his disciples.

      I suspect that it is fear that stops the quiet ones from speaking up, but if they continue to duck their heads I believe that things are going to get very ugly indeed.

  • Scarabus

    All the comments thus far focus on the killer(s). I’m equally interested in the public. Think about it: You have an armed man who has just committed a grisly murder. His hands and weapons are covered with the victim’s blood. Would you walk up to him calmly, video his “street testimony”? Not I! I’d run like hell!

    So what’s going on here? Did the people not believe they were dealing with real butchery, but instead with street theater or a sociology experiment? Yeah, the guy’s “sociability” might have been a factor. But they had to trust him and the other guy sufficiently to stick around and experience his “personality.”

    To walk past calmly, ignoring him and the dead soldier? No need for a cop to say, “Nothing to see here, folks. Just move along.” Or to approach the guy as if he were on a soapbox in Hyde Park, using a camera to record him and his speech? Anyone know about interviews or expert theories?

    • Minor Heretic

      My father was a judge for many years. I once asked him if he was nervous when he had a murderer in court. He said no, because “he’s done with his killing.” Husbands in contested divorces were dangerous.

      Also, it seems that we live in a smartphone era, where life is mediated through video. The real isn’t real until it is recorded. Then the blood spattered murderer is just a character in your movie.

  • stevelaudig

    Is there a parallel in the ’straight’ world? How about a ‘propagandist’ err prison spokesperson, reading from a prepared statement at a press conference to a group of reporters about an execution that was just performed. Or a state department flack, at a presser, reading from a prepared statement to a gaggle of scriveners, err reporters, about a drone attack that just offed a ‘dangerous’ terrorist [and his/her family, sorry it's war]. It’s a guy giving his justification for a murder/s done for socio/politico/religio/economic reasons. The pols, because their position depends upon feigning ignorance or incomprehension, cannot be seen to draw the obviously correct answer that interference in other’s business causes blow back.

  • GeorgeMokray

    Reminds me of Rwanda’s genocide and that’s where I think we’re heading.

  • Bill Wolfe

    scarabus – based on viewing the video and before reading this post and seeing the photos, I had a similar take as you. Look at the crowd. Look at their relaxed posture and some are gawking, almost as if a celebrity stopped at Starbucks for a cup of coffee or bagel. Some are calmly talking to the murderers. Others just seem to go about their business as usual. I’ve seen people on the street more distraught over a bird getting winged by a passing car. Or more concern with a dead dog lying in the street – throw a towel over the body or try to minister to its suffering or poor dead soul.

    What can possibly explain this street setting and response?

    But, after reading this post, maybe were are in such a mess that the murderous drone machine killing really is linked -

    A culure that could do the drone program and ignore the destruction of civilization while cooking the planet and partying on is surely doomed.

  • Truth

    As disturbing as it has been to watch that video to be honest with you this is all quite clear to me. The manner in which this attack was carried out is obviously a lesson or at least it should be to the leaders of today that you can’t lead by twisted examples and have one law for yourselves and another for everyone else. What, tell me, is the difference between the act of this young man and the acts of the soldier he had just murdered? Why is it that one of them is allowed to adorn himself in the garb of an official of the government and in so doing kill innocent people under the cloak of war?

    Its all well and good to gasp in horror at the acts of this young man but I think it is high time we stop pussyfooting around the issue and address the fact that war is never the answer and the war in Afghanistan needs to end immediately. How could it be that by the acts of a few people thousands are killed for over a decade and it is apparently ok?

    What makes you think the civilians who die in places like Afghanistan even agree with 9/11 in the first place? How can you tell me that people who are apparently educated can not stop for a moment to ask themselves about the perspectives of thier so called enemies? Does the fact that we don’t speak the same language, look the same or even see things from the same perspective mean that the other person is automatically wrong?

    I think this is an opportune time for the government to take a good look at its current actions and ask itself the sort of example it is setting to the youth and society as a whole. Is it really ok to send young people to go around killing people as they do your dirty work for you? Is it ok to to resort to attacking people as a justifiable solution to your problems? And if its alright for you to do it then why isn’t it alright for everyone else?

    I imagine many will persecute me for my comments but I believe in peace and acceptance of all people in spite of our differences but I also imagine that the young men who committed this act are going to face life in prison at the very least but then as they do so we should ask ourselves why there is a war and whose freedom they are actually fighting for. They say two wrongs don’t make a right so then tell me why is the immediate reaction to an attack of America all out war? And why is it this very same war is still ongoing today? Whatever happened to forgiveness and peace and settling disputes non-violently? How many more crazy acts like this are we going to be subjected to before things actually start to change?

  • Green Zizzle

    We seem to be missing the point here people.

    garage rentals

  • kabir

    The students of 15th batch are informed that their
    internship Viva-Voice will be held on 13th july 2013 (Monday) at 3.00 PM in Dhaka

  • Hicham Dà selva

    really that is not humain !

  • Devon Miranda


    Businesses and Organizations use the ZoALert Online Messaging
    Platform to send a variety of messages aimed at improving the way they interact
    with customers or prospects.

    Send All-In-One Messages using our Platform.

    Use the ZoAlert Online Messaging Platform to
    send a variety of messages aimed at improving the way you interact with
    customers or prospects.

    Mobile Text Messaging

    Voice Broadcast Marketing

    MMS Picture Messaging

    Email Marketing

    Social Media Marketing

    Instant Message Marketing

  • johanne_gray

    find out how you can generate 35 $ a day from your home swiftly go to: surveymoneymaker dot net

  • Ryan

    Whatever his reason is not enough to kill Lee Rigby.


  • online education programmes

    a little over analysing, the fact was he was stupid brainwashed and under educated which drove him to such evil acts, and his comments were dribble, wrong and arragant

  • Harvey

    It’s a slam dunk that the man is a murderer. Whether he’s a terrorist, or whatever. It doesn’t matter that he killed for religious reasons. Bottom line, a man is dead and his life was taken from him by this psycho.

  • sub7-hi@

    nice post
    X-men days of future past streaming

  • sub7-hi@
  • sub7-hi@

    nice post
    X-men days of future past streaming

  • jonst

    You know…Michael might see fit to delete this post of mine, and I would not blame him, totally…but yours is a truly ignorant, and arrogant, statement….I HAVE NO ‘pro gun’ agenda. Just the opposite…and a long track record of just the opposite. I was noting, and lamenting, the possible irony of it all.

    Your accusation is devoid of reasoning. And as to your initial assertion, if this statement: “Is a smart guy like Mr. Adebolajo simply exhibiting the cool and
    detached, but not quite robotic lethality of the workaday drone
    operator?” is open to wide interpretation, and I think it is, surely it is not a wild leap to postulate that, yes, indeed Michael is equating the two behaviors…or the emotions that accompany the respective behaviors. And perhaps Michael has sound reasons for doing so…I 100% disagree with that equation…but that was not my point in the initial reply. My point was, and is, to extent equation does become the norm, there will profound consequences…it will be open season on a lot of people, on both sides of the equation. And if anyone thinks it is “open season” now, I challenge them and say ‘you don’t know what real combat is’. Or can be.

  • Scarabus

    Yeah. They might argue about which is #1, and which #2, but most cops seem to agree that the two most dangerous situations for them are domestic disputes and unknown vehicle stops. [Not that I would know. But I'd heard that, and just checked it on the "intertubes" (pace the late Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska)]. Not surprised a judge like your dad would say that about the domestic dispute/divorce thing.

  • Clifton Hamilton

    thanks Angela,

    And A.T.H.,
    The Muslim community knows of Anjem Choudary. The Muslim community has reported Anjem Choudary for inciting violence. MI5 knows of Anjem Choudary. He and many of his followers (including these killers) have been investigated by Anjem Choudary.

    The problem is the fine line between “free speech” and “inciting violence.” Apparently this entire group has done a good job of toeing that line.

    England is pretty good about keeping radicals out of their nation. That’s why Geert Wilders isn’t allowed to visit England. Unfortunately these radicals are British citizens, so until they break the law, there’s nothing the British government can do.

    Unless you change the laws to further restrict free speech, there isn’t much you can do without literally getting the radicals on tape planning the murders ahead of time.

  • A.T.H. Webber

    It is a slippery slope.

    To censor and protect the rights and liberties of the public.

    Or to not censor and protect the rights of a potentially criminal element.

    My point remains though, and is stronger now that you’ve pointed out the sheer visibility of the group.

    The Muslim community needs to stand against those that intend to commit crimes and justify it with a poor interpretation of the religion they love.

    BUT – the situation might have already gone too far – fear of reprisals would always be on the minds of those speaking out.

    And while they can educate their sons and daughters to stay away from the viciousness of men and leaders like Choudary, it seems that there is no stopping one who feels the need to join – from any walk of life.

    As a side bar: I wonder if there is a correlation between those joining an aggressive religious sect and joining an outlaw motorcycle club. (I’m talking bad-ass bikers, not wild hogs, if you take my meaning).

    It seems the reward would be the same:
    Live outside the law of the land, but stay strong to some really defined codes of conduct.
    A sense of power.
    A feeling of brotherhood.
    The ability to control others by fear…

    I might be drawing a long bow, but the similarities are there…

  • Clifton Hamilton

    I agree with most of what you’re saying ATH, EXCEPT the partial condemnation of the Muslim community. Please google for news with the terms condemn Muslims UK soldier. You’ll see a host of articles about Muslims condemning the killing of the soldier. You’ll see articles where moderate Muslim clerics are pleading with MI5 to arrest Choudary.

    What more can they do? Should they violate the law and kill their fellow Muslims if they fear they’re too radical and may at some point become dangerous?

    And why must all Muslims speak out, apologize, and explain themselves after these tragedies?
    After a Christian fundamentalist killed 92 people in Norway, did all the Christian churches have to come out and publicly condemn the man’s actions? Did they have to assure the public that this one psychopath’s actions did not represent their beliefs?
    After a Christian white supremacist killed several people at a Sikh Temple in Wisconsin, did American Christians have to distance themselves from him and apologize for his actions?

  • A.T.H. Webber

    Partial condemnation?

    While I am concerned that the giant leap you have made from what I wrote in linking a more proactive Muslim populace to a call to arms by non-radicals against radicals might be a new and exciting troll technique, I’ll answer anyway.

    The idea that the non-radical Muslims should radicalise their actions by killing MORE radical muslims is absurd, so I hope that at least that question is a rhetorical one.

    What more can they do? For as long as there are whackos butchering people in the streets and then staring glassy eyed into a camera and calmly stating that it is Allah’s work that they are doing, and working in a variation of “an eye for an eye” to the conversation – there is ALWAYS more that can be done.

    I have a bit to do with Muslims, and for the most part they are a nice bunch. Generous with their smile, always good for a wave hello when I pass them in the street – but in the 4.5 years I have lived here in Abu Dhabi (the capital of the United Arab Emirates) while I have been shown great courtesy (mostly) I am very much aware that theirs is a closed community.

    No matter where my Muslim friends come from (and I’ve got a few) – whether local to here, or Pakistan or Egypt or Lebanon or Saudi – the community is the same when it comes to the day to day doings within the Islamic faith.

    And I’m down with that, because I am not a Muslim… and I am made to feel, AND am happy to accept, that it isn’t any of my business.

    But I live here. A Muslim nation, governed entirely by Sharia law. There really isn’t much for me to talk about regarding how things should be done. There is no violence or crime here, because the government spends a lot of time when it comes to discouraging radical/criminal behaviour.

    London is a different place.

    While I have spent a lot of time in London, none of my Muslim friends live there, so I can’t compare the two Muslim communities directly but i would suggest that the situation would be very similar.

    They are a group that LIKE to deal with their own troubles.

    I fear though that in the current state of play, that this incident is only the spearhead of, many work-a-day Muslims are likely to be fearful of speaking out.

    Not all. But many.

    As to the odd extrapolation that I was also calling on them to apologise (again I might have missed the rhetoric) – No. They don’t have to apologise. Choudary maybe, but the rest of the mosques? No.

    Your queries regarding the disgusting act of Breivik in Norway? I’m not surprised that the church didn’t try to distance themselves – Norway is mostly a Christian country. The likelihood that they would have had some odd retaliation thing going on would be low – all agree though that Anders was (and probably still is) a nut-job – Christian or otherwise, and none think that what he did was actually motivated by faith.

    And the Sikh temple in Wisconsin?
    The church didn’t have to apologise, but some did anyway.
    While the local situation might have been contained – there are a lot of Christians in the Punjab region that no doubt would have been a little alarmed at one of their number throwing rocks at a Sikh laden hornet’s nest.

    So perhaps it was a intercontinental insurance policy lest some poor sap is going about his business in down town Daulatpur only to gets run over by some nut-job because of the goings on in a far away country.

    There needs to be more dialogue.
    More needs to be done.

    I have spoken to friends in London, the US and my home country – Australia.

    None of whom are war mongering kill-em-all freaks.

    All of them are worried for their own Muslim friends and those non Muslims who live near Muslim neighbourhoods

    There is a dark undercurrent that is gaining momentum every day… a lot of it toward Muslims. If the situation blows up, the spill over will affect a lot more than a couple of people who don’t like each other. We aren’t talking bar fights here.

    The MORE that people talk about it, the MORE people work together to stop it as a community of people rather than our separate partitions of life, the less likely things like Lee Rigby dying in Woolwich will happen.

    Midnight here.
    I am going to bed.

  • Clifton Hamilton

    Yes, my statements were largely rhetorical. No, I don’t think you want Muslims going around hunting other Muslims that they fear might be extreme.

    I knew you’d dislike my statement of “partial condemnation,” but my vocabulary failed me and I couldn’t find a better way to describe your assertion that the Muslim community at large has some responsibility for not doing more. “Partial condemnation” was stronger than I wanted, so sorry for that use.

    I agree we need dialogue. I like that you’re openly discussing it and have what I personally judge to be a relatively open-mind about it. Again, I agree with the majority of what you say.

    My major point of contention, again, is simply the idea that the Muslim community at large harbors any responsibility at all. I don’t believe they do. MI5 had been alerted about both this cleric and at least one of the killers, and had done a thorough investigation. One of the two Boston bombers had had authorities alerted about his behavior in both Russia and the United States. He had also been forced out of a neighborhood mosque for his extremist beliefs. The underwear bomber’s own father had contacted the FBI over fear his son was being radicalized. Seriously, the Muslim community did everything they legally could to stop these terrorists.

    As for the closed communities… don’t we all live in closed communities? I thought of going through examples of how most everyone self segregates… but I decided against it. I will point to Northern Ireland, which is clearly a great example of white Christians self segregating into neighborhoods based on their specific denomination. The same happens in Muslim communities with radicals, moderate Sunnis, and moderate Shiites all collecting into their separate groups. Blaming moderate Sunnis for radical Shiites makes no more sense than blaming moderate Protestants for extremist Catholics.

  • Clifton Hamilton

    The last sentence is just an example. I also refuse to blame moderate Catholics for extremists Catholics, or moderate Shiites for extremist Shiites. Assuming the moderate group has purged radicals from their group and condemned their action, then they’ve done their part. If the radicals all get together into a new subsection of Shiites and continue their extremist actions/words, the main branch of Shiites that rejected this behavior are not responsible. They are just as much victims as the rest of the citizens of the U.K., especially considering many of their own are serving in the military defending the U.K., and therefore could have just as likely been the victim of this brutal attack.

    Sleep well.

    I enjoyed the discussion, and I hope you did as well.

  • whatalife1

    I’ll give you my two penneth though you don’t seem like a person who will want to engage with a contrary opinion (despite all your blather about tolerance).

    There are clearly issues around and about Islam. Intolerance and aggression seem to follow Islam around and not just coincidentally. There is a martial, dominating, and dominating aspect to the history (and perhaps more importantly) the intrinsic message of Islam. There are various concepts within Islam such as the idea of the Ummah, apostasy, jihad, and of the role and purpose of the dhimmi which are (shall we say) matters of concern. There are plenty more – such as the mixing of state and religion, the desire to impose (a fixed and rigid) sharia law etc. etc.

    I’m sure that most of your thoughts are concerned with appeasement, with the idea of relativising everything and keeping everyone “happy” but sometimes (and often) you need to recognise that there are problems and that there are differences. Sometimes facts are better than blather.

  • Clifton Hamilton

    Tolerance does not require the acceptance nor recognition of intolerant and bigoted positions. Tolerance of such things would actually be practicing a form of intolerance, and therefore a very basic contradiction.

    Also, describing someone’s words as “blather” is not really the best method of converting people to your opinion. It also is not a “fact”, it is a subjective opinion.

    The rest of what you say is just as trash. You know nothing of Islam and making blanket assertions about their religion effectively being founded on violence, which is absolutely not the case. It has the exact same foundation as Christianity and Judaism, which you completely ignore in your entire diatribe.

    Let’s do a few comparisons:
    Mixing of the state and religion: Israel, Vatican City, the UNITED KINGDOM (Oh yeah, forget the former King created his own church in order to divorce and remarry? I guess you conveniently forgot that), Republicans in the United States continually speak of a “Judeo-Christian foundation”, the Plymouth colonies, the Roman empire at various times, and several other historical empires in European history. So your complaint that Muslims mix religion and state is hypocritical.

    Violence inspired by the good book:
    THE CRUSADES. Oh yeah, and how about this biblical quote: Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

    So cherry picking a few quotations of the Q’uran and claiming that Islam is thus a religion of intolerance is crap, and you’d know that if your vision wasn’t so clouded with bigotry and fear. All three of these religions have the same foundation, all are primarily about love, acceptance, and worship. All three have been used to excuse murder, rape, and intolerance. All three have a sprinkling of hateful words within their religious text that were used to justify murder, rape, and intolerance.

    Those are the facts, but you’re not interested in that. You’re interested in hate speech, and demanding people be tolerant of your hatred.


  • whatalife1

    Hilarious. More blather followed by a stream of nonsensical (and ignorant) relativism.

    You did not address any of the points I made and just bundle them up as that I said that Islam is “founded upon violence” – I never said that (I just said that it is domineering and that it is not pacifistic as are some other religions).

    Christianity is a pacifistic religion (as are the teachings of Christ upon which the Christian faith is founded). All your claptrap about “rape” is exactly that – and nothing to do with what I am talking about.

    I am more intolerant of blather and of blatherers than I am of Islam!!

  • Clifton Hamilton

    A) You admit you’re intolerant of Islam.
    Good job, wear your bigotry like a badge of honor.
    B) I specifically mentioned the Christian Crusades, which you have ignored.
    C) I also specifically listed nations with mixtures of religion and state, which you specifically said was specifically an Islamic thing. You seem to have ignored that.
    D) You have given absolutely no evidence for any of your assertions, nor any evidence to disprove mine. Which is funny, since I actually gave evidence.
    E) I was never actually speaking about “tolerance” in the first place. So your pathetic attempt at a straw man argument is amusing at best. I was speaking about the foundations of this one man’s hatred, intolerance, and bigotry. I was pointing out that his hatred, intolerance, and bigotry predated his conversion to Islam.
    You, of course, have completely ignored this entire argument, and instead attempted to divert the conversation to what the principles of Islam are, and what the principles are Christianity are.

    After you become both a biblical and Islamic scholar, you can come back and tell me what the true meaning of each religion is. Until then, you’re just some bigot, just like the hate filled Jihadists you pretend represent all Muslims. If both the extremist Christians like you, and the Extremist Muslims like Al Qaeda could all just expatriate yourselves to an island and fight it out… you’d really do the rest of us moderates a huge favor. We want no part in your holy war.

    The vast majority of the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world want no part of a war against Christianity, and the vast majority of Christians want no part of a war against Muslims. We want to provide for our families, and worship our respective gods. Those of you that want to kill one another, please leave the rest of us out of it.


  • whatalife1

    You are clearly just an ignoramus. An example of your ignorance is that you seem to see the Crusades as being an act of Christian aggression rather than as a response to Islamic expansion.

    So anyone who challenges your vacuous and vapid opinions is a “bigot” and “extremist Christian”. You are hilarious.

  • Clifton Hamilton

    I think you can call off your search for the troll.

    Bigot- “one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
    whatalife1: “I am more intolerant of blather and of blatherers than I am of Islam!!”

    I didn’t make the English language, I merely use it.

  • whatalife1

    You get funnier and funnier. Yes, you should certainly stand up for “blatherer rights”. As regards “tolerance” of Islam this is fine as long as Islam reflects upon itself (if it can) and learns to tolerate such things as “apostasy” (people converting from Islam to other faiths), it it learns to tolerate criticism and disagreement with its beliefs, and if its practitioners learn to stop attacking and persecuting people who have different faiths (or no faith) and opinions than their own. There is, incidentally, a difference between criticising (and not tolerating aspects of) an ideology and hating an ethnic group (though such subtlety may be lost upon you). As I said, I dislike blatherers (of any race) more than I dislike the ideological presumptions of Islam.

  • parakeet sounds
  • LH H Bowl

    I agree with you Angela.


  • sub7-hi@

    nice post
    X-men days of future past

  • sub7-hi@
Refresh Archives

Random Notes