hypochondriac

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.

Just because they would like to commit genocide in Europe does not mean that they have. Other than that it's another stating the obvious post. Everyone already knows this.

Christ I see there has been little change on here. People desperately scrabbling around trying to compare a massacre that happened over 20 years ago with the Paris attacks. Why is it so difficult for certain posters to admit that there is clearly a radical element within Islam that is a problem that doesn't currently exist in the same way among other world religions. Here and now. In 2016.its really not a particularly difficult thing to grasp but it's caused ever such a lot of problems seemingly.

I don't think anyone on this thread has denied that there are not extremists in all world religions- you'd have to be fairly dumb not to know that. There does appear to be a particular problem with Islamic extremism though which I think was the point being made (rather than any implied racism that you and soggy want to jump on.)

Sour mash has even confirmed that he wasn't referring to all Muslims right here.