hypochondriac

Indeed. As if we needed any further reminders! Must be awful seeing phantom racists everywhere.

I spend a fair amount of time attacking imbeciles who post stupid things (you). I don't class you as a "moderate" at all, just an ignorant and ill informed poster who talks rubbish and things he is on the side of moderate Muslims when actually his posts have nothing to do with that. I've answered every false claim you've made and I'm still posting now- the very opposite of running away. But pretend I am if it makes you feel better. I know you'd rather some of the more stupid things you have posted in this thread were quietly forgotten but when you keep posting and pretending you are some moderate voice of reason they should keep being highlighted to counter this view.

You're rambling on and making no sense again. If you remember I picked you up about your ridiculous nazi claims at the time so nothing to do with anyone else. As I already told you, if by coincidence I share the view with other posters that you talk utter rubbish the majority of the time and we use similar arguments to highlight where you have been a fool then it's not because we are some little club that gets together and hatches a plot to gang up on you- it's because we have independently arrived at the same conclusions based on what you've written in this thread. No one has said that terrorism is the sole preserve of Islam so chalk that you as one of your fantasies again. Your tactic when you have more than one person telling you you're talking rubbish is to pretend that either they are the same person or that they are all friends and trolling you. Neither tactic has been very successful. Your claim that nazis are Christian is not even the most silly claim you have made regarding Christianity in this thread. That corker goes to when you claimed that Katie Hopkins is clearly a Christian because she claimed she was Jesus's Christ and that's before we mention your tactic to sort the mess in the Middle East which absolutely does not mean violence against IS and probably means something else but you aren't sure what because you aren't qualified to come up with a plan. You've had an absolute mare on this thread, it's been amusing to watch but it's been a total car crash.

I'd much rather be on the side (if any "sides" exist which I doubt- just a random collection of posters who share the common view that soggy talks b*llocks) of people who accept there is a problem and aren't desperately trying to be apologists and look for Christian atrocities from world war 2 and over two decades ago who try to equate that with what is happening now. You can twist all you like to pretend that those who share that sort of view are all racist and evil who want to pounce on people for defending moderate Muslims but it's all a fiction in your own head I'm afraid.

You do. You miss the point all the time and completely lack self awareness. I disagree, I think the article makes some interesting points, points that are largely lost on you as you trawl the Internet for historic Christian atrocities and bring up the nazis. I wouldn't expect you to understand that though.

How was I stating the obvious? I think it was an interesting article in the telegraph. I don't care who posted it. If you thought it was about hammering Muslims then you've missed the point. Again.

I think I'm comfortable with the likes of you, two pints and Chapel end Charlie thanks notice a pattern with the amount of people who have called you out on your bullsh*t?

I think the point is that all religions can be persecuted and can do the persecuting. It does appear however that Islam has a particular problem within their religion at the moment.

He's been absolutely superb for us.

Very interesting article which I largely agree with. Particularly this bit: The*problem of Islamic extremism*is caused – astonishingly enough – by Islamic extremism. As France, Belgium and many other societies can now attest, the larger your Muslim population, the larger your Islamic extremism problem. Not because most Muslims are terrorists. Obviously not. But because that “small minority” we always hear about grows proportionally bigger the larger the community is.

It's not odd. You told me why you didn't reply but I didn't believe you.

I was challenging your reason for choosing not to reply, not requesting one.

Course you did. Nothing at all to do with having no evidence at all for your claims and embarrassing yourself. No sir.

Well I expected some sort of rebuttal considering you had no trouble replying to all the other posts and it speaks volumes that that particular post is the one you avoided but I'm not overly bothered either way.

Sorry but you had no trouble attempting an answer with any of the others so I assumed you didn't have a proper response so chose to ignore it. It appears that was the correct assumption. I see you're using your stock reply for things like this - calling the other poster confused or saying they make no sense when you don't have a coherent response. It would have been much easier and more decent to simply apologise for your earlier claims that you had no evidence for but that was clearly too much to hope for. I don't have a specific post in mind when I said I found some of his views extreme, I just remember reading some views from earlier in the thread and not agreeing. This thread is now months old and it doesn't have enough of a consequence on my life for me to remember every post that I disagreed with.

I notice you ignored my previous post to you but I expect if you were going to reply, you would just make up what has been said again. Par for the course for you I think.

Steady on...

Even if that post does say what you claim (which it quite clearly doesn't - you're just deciding to read something into the post that it doesn't say) it was posted AFTER you made your silly claims and this is irrelevant when asking for proof of what you say. You can pretend that this post proves Whelk has difficulty in understanding that all religions are capable of breeding extremists but it very clearly doesn't. It's just basic comprehension and you are demonstrating once again that certain posters on here will just read what they want to read regardless of what is actually being said.

Except you haven't produced any evidence of any kind.

Where in that post has he shown a difficulty in understanding that all religions are capable of breeding extremists? You also said that I had difficulty with this but I never posted it. He quite simply hasn't either and once again you are inventing things. Even if this did justify what you saying (which it doesn't) it was posted after you had made your ridiculous claims. As I said, I didn't have any hope that you would do the decent thing and apologise for your rashness.

We do. I've never denied that. We do have a specific problem with Islamic extremism at the moment though which was the point raised earlier.

It's quite bizarre. I swear that some posters read a post and then a filter in their brain changes that post into what they want it to say. It doesn't matter how many times you protest, there are still posters who believe that other posters have denied that atrocities have occurred in other world religions, or that atrocities are only committed in the name of religion or that posters have been shot down for attempting to defend moderate Muslims when none of this has happened. It's really odd behaviour.

Tbf I believe he was referring specifically to the religious text rather than the wider religion. But I take your point.

Absolutely agreed. There are objectionable passages within most old religious texts. Not sure why that is relevant though.

Where has anyone- especially myself and whelk- shown the slightest difficulty in understanding that people from all religions are capable of horrific deeds? You've invented that difficulty in your own head. Please point out a post where either I or Whelk have shown a difficulty in understanding that extremists from all religions are capable of horrific deeds. When you can't do that you could have the decency to apologise but that's probably expecting too much.