sadoldgit

I thought that Rupert and Gordon got on?

river

Id be interested to know what others think!

http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news/john-pilger-the-root-causes-of-terrorism-and-what-we-can-do-about-it Some of you may remember John Pilger's reports from Indo China during the 60s and 70s. A pinko bleeding heart liberal maybe, but worth a read in these knee jerk times.

Are the figures from the same survey showing loyalty to Britain and obeying British law high enough? If you feel that Christianity can claim a higher moral ground since its conception that's fine if that is what you think. As you know, we have a completely different culture and are happy to laugh at ourselves and religions, as the French do. Of course the poll would be different but it is interesting that a cross section of people I spoke to without any agendas felt that the Charlie Hebdo had gone too far.

Or 5% are disloyal and 7% say that they should not obey British Law

What exactly were the questions and how were they framed? They might not be high enough for you but in a stats world I would say that they were quite conclusive. We elect people to run a country with less votes.

And 90% is a much, much bigger number of people who disapprove. I spoke to a number of Christians and some atheists after the attack who also think that the cartoonists went too far.

Oh and even with my rudimentary maths, 9 in 10 is a much huger number than 1 in 10 n'est pas?

You are an intelligent man CB Fry I believe. You will know that there are certain ways of presenting stats to get a certain response. If the post had said that 73% of Muslims polled were against the terrorists and 90% were against the attack on Charlie H do you think it would have had the same effect? I have not put any spin on the figures at all. They are as they stand.

I don't know. I am not the one spinning the figures here though am I? The majority of people in both cases are against the attack. Is that not correct?

black

So 73% didn't sympathise with the terrorists and 90% thought it was wrong to attack the cartoonists?

No, if you read what I say I said that you don't have to go back to the Middle Ages. Earlier I cited atrocities committed by Christian Americans in the Vietnam War - late 60 early 70s. There were plenty of atrocities committed by Christians against Christians in Northern Ireland in the 70s. And actually, what is wrong for bringing those NAZIs convicted of war crimes to justice?

You sound like you have spend a lot of time in the Middle East?

Absolutely.

We were talking about one religion being violent. Many are violent at times and you don't have to look as far back as the middle ages to find Christians behaving savagely. It isn't exclusive to Muslims.

Hi Verbal, perhaps we should help to distance them from that religion by calling them Daesh?

I think it means God Is With Us

For clarification Guan (and Hypo although I know you wont be interested) it was a tongue in cheek response to what had gone before. Someone said that there were 6 million Muslims living in France and it was a remark aimed at what had gone before in terms of what was said about the Koran and their supposed religious beliefs. Perhaps I should have added a smiley face! In fact I don't think I even referred to Griffo but I am sure Hypo will find evidence if I did!

Where is anyone apologising for the action of anyone carrying our terrorist attacks?

But it is written in their Holy Book and if they follow that book religiously does it not follow that they all pose a threat? That seems to be his point.

I said that Christianity was no more or less a violent religion than Islam and was told I was bonkers because of what is written in their Holy Book. Apparently those who follow Islam are supposed to kill all of us non believers.

The beheading carried out by exremists is also medieval and backward. It wasn't uncommon for GIs to cut off the ears of the dead VC and hang them around their necks. They also cut off breasts from Vietnamese women. That also was medieval and backward. Perhaps it has more to do with man's own basic instincts rather than an allegiance to any religion?

Government minister on the news just now. Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam and it is not a state. There you go then, this from over very own Government.