hypochondriac

But this is relevant to what happened yesterday because your response is that a large part of the reason for the atrocities was the fault of Israel. Of course persecution and indeed many actions can lead to extremism. Given that I've answered your request can you answer a question for me? Do you think that the Charlie Hebdo victims need to take some responsibility for their murder because they depicted Muhammed in a cartoon? They were warned after all and they still did it.

Pretty much agree with that. I'd like to hear more discourse generally about how we encourage a turn away from this version of Islam because it's dangerous and a real threat.

Interesting response. I mentioned Breivik because the reasoning is the same. Grievance can be part of the story, but we still treat the ideology — and the individual — as the cause. Applying different standards depending on who commits the violence isn't what we should be doing because otherwise we end up providing something of a justification for horrible extremists like Breivik and I'm sure nobody wants that.

Cough cough.

Do we apply that same logic to the likes of Anders Breivik? He believed that his actions were in retribution for the actions of left wing political parties and crimes in Europe committed by Muslims. Surely you could argue that this retributive attack would not have happened were it not for the actions of those governments and the actions of some Muslims and that they had to take their share of the blame? Or do we conclude that the ideology that Breivik subscribed to was evil and wrong and was the primary cause of his actions?

Egg said that in his view the reason that Islam is a common factor in all these attacks is because it has been the most persecuted religion since WW2.

His point is that extremist Islam is a serious problem and would still be a serious problem even if Israel didn't exist. Muslims being persecuted after WW2 isn't to blame for the Charlie Hebdo shooting or Salman Rushdie, it's because people are teaching medieval barbarism and many 'true believers' swallow it.

Prevent doesn’t say that at all.

Western leaders have pointed to extremist Islamic ideology as the problem that needs resolving in order to reduce attacks?

Fine with me. Just saying that if they decide he's the one to be backup then I'm OK with it. Barring getting really unlucky he won't play much.

Yes but that would be the issue whoever we had.

Andrew not famed for his accuracy. I preferred it when the pharaoh was portrayed as Elvis.

Apologies I misread your post.

Edit: I misread the post.

"My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

Many are. I know that surveys show that an alarming amount have some very dodgy views on homosexuals and equality of women but in fairness I'm not sure if that actually translates to open discrimination or prejudice. I am sure that the majority are just normal people. That doesn't mean that extremist Islam and it's teachings aren't a huge problem and that there aren't real problems from its adherents in the UK.

He also went apeshit and threw criminals out of the temple.

Why is that important?

So nothing to do with the perverted teachings of some within the religion itself? The reason that almost all terror attacks in the West are committed by extremist Islamists is because the religion has been persecuted since the end of WW2?

You asked me who and I answered who. Not sure why you think my post didn't answer the question or was a weird tangent.

So then why is Islam a common factor in so many of these attacks?

That's a good point. If some racist white guy kills a bunch of black people no one would have any issue with calling out the far right ideology that influenced him or any government initiative looking to deradicalise similar individuals. You wouldn't say something like "well these unrelated black people had moved into parts of the white guys country and committed crimes and raped some people so even though we aren't justifying his killings it's kind of the inevitable consequence of allowing these things to occur."

I didn't say it's the only factor but there a reason why the overwhelming majority of these attacks originate from the same source. It's because we have extremist religious nutters spewing hatred and ideology that hates the West and who we are. Some of these people will consider themselves devout believers, some will have unfortunate personal circumstances that push them in that direction and some will use the religion as an excuse but the existence of the ideology and the continued promotion of it is in my view the primary factor and it's rarely called out explicitly by those with the power to do something about it.

I'm genuinely fine with that if it's clear he's backup, they get someone else in and move McCarthy on. Bazunu is perfectly fine as a number 2 keeper. The problem is when we have to play him so much.

What's my assumption? There's no assumption involved in knowing that Islamic extremists are involved in loads of terror attacks because their fucked reading of Islam tells them to kill people. Are you saying that there aren't many examples in recent history of terror attacks committed in the name of Islam? What terror attacks have been committed in the west in the name of other major religions that are comparable to 9/11? London bombings? Manchester arena bombings? Bataclan? Charlie Hebdo? Christmas Market rammings? That's just off the top of my head, we know that if I looked it up I could find probably 100 more examples. Attacks of that type that threaten innocent people in the west is absolutely something that comes overwhelmingly from extremist Islam.