CB Fry

Gawd knows what you're on about apart from basically agreeing with me. WW2 was not a war based on religion. Thank you. You might want to tell Badgerx16 this obvious and simple point. Cheers.

Here's what you said: So are you going to quantify which people did or didn't die "in God's name" (your words) in World War 2 which was "highjacked" by Christianity (your words), or are we going to assume they all died in God's name? I'm saying WW2 was a complex geopolitical multi lateral conflict, you seem utterly desperate to stitch the while thing up as some religious high jacking. Hilarious that you are using the phrase "convenient excuse" to absolve radical Islam of any culpability in the terror attacks in Paris and London - just random "sociopathic bullies" according to you - but your casting of a pretty complex multi - lateral global conflict into something you've boiled down to people dying in the name of God seems equally convenient. Try harder. Think harder.

You've deliberately misconstrued the aims of the terrorists from last week into "sociopathic bullies" - so that group of people did what they did for the sheer pleasure of it? For no higher purpose, for no other reason? You really sure about that? Don't you think it strange that 7/7 and Boston had "sociopathic bullies" with beliefs in common with those in Paris? Just a crazy, bonkers coincidence then? And you're the one who has misconstrued the second world war - a complex multi lateral conflict about lots of things - nations, territories, arms race, political ideology - which, just because it's convenient to you, you've decided to pretend was, like, all about God after all. Funny really - Islamic terrorism is not religious but the second world war was. I do apologise for my misconstrued view of the world. Yours is must less misconstrued I'm sure.

If religion is a "convenient excuse" what's the real reason for what they're doing? And you're putting WW2 as some kind of religious holy war are you? Clever. Well done on pretty conclusively proving Batman's point.

Who is the "we" that are "not overly bothered" by the actions and beliefs of the Ku Klux Klan?

That's just the kind of post I'd expect from someone like you, who I can only conclude is a supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.

What is "the issue" you're pointing out? Who is the "we" who are "not overly bothered" by the actions of the Ku Klux Klan, and how does this being "not overly bothered" manifest itself? Anytime you feel like explaining your gibberish crack on, or apologise of course.

Who is the "we" who are "not overly bothered" about the activity of the Ku Klux Klan? The fact you have equated the Burkha with the Klan is possibly the single most offensive thing to Muslims on this entire thread. Seriously, well done.

You don't half write some utter horsesh it, don't you.

You want to make out Hitler and the Nazis was a religious fundementalist movement in the same way that IS is a Muslim fundementalist movement then that's really up to you old fruit. During WW2 the British Army, Navy and RAF had Chaplains and everything so probably just as bad as IS, right?

If by moving the goalposts you mean - make the point I was always going to make - they are all utterly isolated incidents with no particular shared goals or intent - then yeah, I gone done moved the goalposts. Well done. What about them Christian Nazis, eh?

This quote is very much worth isolating. Are tou saying they were atheist fly-tippers and shoplifters who accidently found themselves machine gunning civilians at a concert hall?

The point is that you can draw a very easy connecting line between 9/11, Boston, 7/7, the two Paris attacks with the perpetrators and motives being unequivocally linked, with radical Islam and hatred of the west/infidel at its core. So why not yoke together Brevik, Jonestown, Timothy McVeigh and the IRA in the same manner. I mean look at these terrible Christians. Someone find me the international, sustained Christianity terror movement and their multiple atrocities and let's discuss them. As others have said their are senior figures in the Muslim community who accept this is a problem within their religion, so utterly facile rubbish from SOG and CEC on this thread to pretend otherwise. Pretty typical stuff on their part of course. But hey, dig out another swastika chaps. Dem Nazis were, like, so Christian.

I'm not confusing anything. A country/nation's lifestyle is its lifestyle, it comes about through leadership - that'd how the French lifestyle, the British lifestyle exists. There are non-western lifestyles are clearly inferior to western ones. I see you avoided my question. I'd "judge" a lifestyle based on how they treat their old, their sick, their weak, their minorities, how they treat freedom of expression, their life choices, their freedom of movement. I'm a big believer in equality and freedom of expression, that's why I value the French/western lifestyle. That's my "own values". You think a homophbic, woman-hating, high-censorship, low freedom lifestyle have values that are no better than my own values? You think a lifestyle where adulterous women get stoned has values is no better than a French/ Western lifestyle? You sure about that? I mean, sorry for be so awfully judgemental and that. I think they are have values not as good as our Western ones. Pretty weird that you'd disagree.

Are you saying that the, say, North Korean lifestyle or the Cambodian life style or, more pertinently, the Islamic State Caliphate lifestyle is not inferior to the French lifestyle? Which one of those would you move to tomorrow? You'd be happy for a son or especially a daughter to go and live under a Daesh regime because their lifestyle would not be inferior? I've got two daughters and I want them to grow up in a progressive democracy where they have at least a fighting chance if self sufficiency, equality and security, culture, freedom of expression and happiness, marrying who they chose living where they chose, reading, writing, doing and going where they chose. They'd get that in France with a French lifestyle, or in the UK of course or other western democracies. They wouldn't get that in other places because other lifestyles are inferior. Inferior as fu ck. Pretty nuts you think otherwise.

There's a couple more on the bingo card, chaps.

Who estimated we made £48m in profits? When exactly was this?

What are the "Christian" atrocities you are thinking of? And let's be clear they will need to be unequivocally linked to the religion in the same way that Paris, 9/11, 7/7 and similar very clearly and unequivocally are. Also, you've got the last 100 years to work with.

Great post. Nice to see Chapel End Charlie's snivelling point-scoring being taken apart.

In fairness all these people want to do is get round the table and negotiate with us and we're refusing to so really it's definitely all our fault. After all, the Queen had tea with the IRA the day after the Brighton bomb or something.

If the Premier League had not decided to do this at all, do you seriously think a single French person would give a monkeys? If it an attack happened in London how upset would you be if you found out that there wasn't going to be a round of God Save The Queen at every, say, Bundesliga or Ligue 1 match? Would you a) care deeply b) not actually care at all.

Last time I looked that's a mid table kinda position.

Spot on in that you agree with the map?

4.5/10.

Look at me, look at me, all caring and that.