George chastises the Colonel.

George is unhappy with the Colonel's post, "The slowwww awakening," and writes:

The Colonel didn't know zip about Islam until about a year ago

That is pretty obvious. You seem to know fuck all about it now.

Was it . . . just possibly mind you . . . a mistake to have imported Muslims into a Western nation, a nation whose values are fundamentally at odds with Islamic values?

No, the mistake - as all in the UK accept - was to go along with Bush's illegal invasion of a sovereign nation on the basis of lies, and then to militarily occupy that nation, engaging in torture, rape, and mass murder.

If the Chinese were to invade Ireland and then treated the Irish as the Iraqis have been treated - torturing them, raping their women and then killing them, slaughtering families like the Haditha massacre, etc - whose side would you be on? The occupying Chinese, or your fellow white [Christian] anglo-saxons? Once you get your head round that, you will understand what is going on.

Thanks for clearing that up for me, George.

So your instruction for me on Islam is that if the Brits (Mongolians) participate directly in the U.S. (Chinese) invasion of Iraq (Ireland) the Brits (Mongolians) have the same culpability as the Americans (Chinese).

Thus, a Muslim (Christian) citizen of Britain (Mongolia) is justified in placing bombs in the trains and buses of Britain (Mongolia) to kill students, businessmen, laborers, officials, tourists, mothers, school children, tourists and the like who might be British (Mongolian) but could also be from other countries not involved.

Also, Muslims (Christians) in Britain (Mongolia) are justified in placing bombs on American (Chinese) airliners departing from Britain (Mongolia) and killing thousands of Brits (Chinese) and any citizens of other countries who might be on board the airliners, such as Nigerians, Saudis, Swedes, Malaysian. There being no way to ensure that an airliner has the requisite citizens from the guilty nations, the deaths of innocent nationals is an ancillary consequence of no importance, and are just necessary or irrelevant losses in your view.

The Muslim logic on the issue of who's responsible is starting to break down a bit here, George. By your logic, American troops (jihadis) in Iraq (Britain) can consider any and all civilians (of any nation) in Iraq (Britain) as complicit. Therefore, the death of someone with no responsibility for actions of the national government (jihadi killers jihadis) is acceptable.

Whence then your tender regard for the victims of the alleged massacre in Hadith? Or is there something more elegant and sanctified about leaving a backpack of explosives and nails in a commuter train compared to rape and small arms fire? You're too sophisticated for me, George, on this hierarchy of mangling deal.

The truth of the incident at Hadith will be dealt with in due course by U.S. military. For now, forgive me if I don't sign on to your particular conclusions about it, given that your analytical powers are not that impressive. If the U.S. troops are convicted (by legal processes that are utterly foreign to any Islamic court anywhere), I will be ok with that, just as I will be happy for the men if they are innocent of these charges and so adjudged. Right now, "press accounts" aren't that persuasive for me on something as important as criminal culpability.

I am sure you are just as horrified by the crimes of the jihadis and other swine in Iraq who are bombing civilians, destroying mosques, and cutting throats with abandon. Are the British-born Muslims calling for the punishment of those blokes? Here's my prediction: hell no they are calling for punishment. What an utterly ridiculous thought.

Those poor aggrieved Muslims in Britain (as opposed to those British Muslims, a concept that seems to me after some little thought to be an oxymoron) are so torqued by the level of violence in Iraq inflicted by the U.S. and the Brits on their co-religionists . . . .

Let's see, twenty-four Iraqis allegedly massacred in Hadith. Let's go with a higher figure of less than 1,000 civilians killed as a result of U.S. action over two years. Call it 1,000, ok?

So, we have at least 24 killed deliberately by a few U.S. troops this year, 976 killed by other U.S. troops by accident over a two-year period.

Furthermore, Aslan points out that:

[C]ivilian deaths in Iraq have been happening in Iraq for 27 years. For the first 24, politicians, leftists and the fourth estate didn’t give a damn.

By Aslan's count, the number of civilians in Iraq who have been saved by the Bush Doctrine is between 75,549 and 178,248. Id.

That's a net reduction in Iraqi civilian deaths of . . . well, you do the math, George.

Bottom line, you think the anger of Muslims in Britain is righteous. It's not, George. It's anger founded in thinking that is utterly illogical.

Wait, belay that thought. It's Slamologic at its best.

It hurt to be chastised by you, George, but I have to hand it to you. Your lesson in Muslim sensibilities and thinking was invaluable.