Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

You realise that being "brain washed" and being mentally ill can be mutually exclusive? Not everyone who has been taken in by the rubbish spouted by extremist Islam is mentally ill. There is a chance that they are and I don't have any figures to hand but I would suggest that those who commit terrorism do not do it primarily because they are mentally ill.

 

Unfortunately it's hard to get a diagnosis of an exploded body so it will remain a matter for debate.

Clearly anyone who does this sort of thing is deranged in some way. Paddock has not been diagnosed as mentally ill but it does appear no cause driving it other than hatred of the human race.

Terrorists are believing in a cause - the difference is clear. However if Paddock was called Abdul Mukbhar then no one would be saying motive was unclear.

Were Gerry Adams & his cohorts mentally ill or terrorists? Why was Peter Sutcliffe considered a nutter & not Martin Mcguiness? Did mental illness have a part to play in Irish republicanism or did they just want a United Irish state, and just wanted to create fear and terror amongst its civilian“enemies “.

 

It’s great how apologists for Islam try and equate their terrorism with random nut jobs. FFS they’d be defining Harold Shipman as a terrorist nowadays. Michael Ryan wasn’t a terrorist but IRA blokes who shot innocent civilians were. It’s that simple.

 

Muslim terrorists tell us why they are committing these acts, they even tell us in whose name they are committing these acts. We know exactly why they are doing it , just as we knew exactly why Adams and his cronies were doing what they did. There must be an element of mental illness in any killing , whether terror related or not. You can’t stop calling people who want to destroy our western way of life, set up a caliphate, strike terror in the heart of our towns & cities, killing I n the name of Islam , terrorists, just because some nut job non Muslim kills a load of innocents.

 

Don’t really buy this.

 

Not sure how much you can infer from your IRA example, assuming it’s correct. The IRA was largely motivated by very material and political grievances over land in much the same way as the Palestinians are in the occupied territories. ISIS, by contrast, is a millenarian cause with an apocalyptic worldview - one that is likely to attract a certain type of adherent that the IRA wouldn’t have done, even in its violent heyday.

 

Second, even within the same organisation, the psychological makeup and predisposition of a terrorist is found to vary systematically by the role that he or she plays. Being a bomb-maker is different from being a bomb-planter; going to fight overseas is not the same as carrying out attacks on the homeland; or against particular targets e.g. festivals and pop concerts; being a terrorist organiser or financier is different from being a gunman; being a gunman, in turn, is different from being a suicide bomber or a terrorist murderer who can see the whites of his victims eyes; being a lone-wolf is different from being a group-actor and so on.

 

In short, demonstrating that Gerry Adams was psychologically stable doesn’t prove that others in the IRA were also psychologically stable.

 

Third it’s a fallacy to claim that because you can say why you’re committing a certain act or in whose name you’re committing it, you have no mental issues. The mentally ill can come up with the most elaborate, internally consistent explanations for their behaviour. It appears you’re confusing mental illness with insanity.

 

Needless to say terrorism and radicalisation have multiple explanations. They certainly can’t be reduced to mental health -no pun intended that’s batshît crazy. But nor is it irrelevant - indeed you clearly understate it’s importance. If you don’t believe me, ask the Chief Constable who heads up the Prevent programme. Sorry if that doesn’t fit your or others prejudices.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/may/20/police-study-radicalisation-mental-health-problems

 

Where I do agree is in avoiding the temptation to call mass murders like the Las Vegas shooting an act of terrorism. It doesn’t appear to have been justified by a cause or ideology separate from the act itself, though doubt that makes much of a difference to the victims or their friends and families.

Edited 7 October, 2017 by shurlock

You must have missed the bit where I wrote that in my opinion some degree of mental illness must be prevalent in any murderer. My basic premise is that killing for a United ireland or destroying western civilisation, is different than being a nut job ala Fred West or Michael Ryan . One is terrorism one is not

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You must have missed the bit where I wrote that in my opinion some degree of mental illness must be prevalent in any murderer. My basic premise is that killing for a United ireland or destroying western civilisation, is different than being a nut job ala Fred West or Michael Ryan . One is terrorism one is not

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

You were making two different points - whether or not mental illness plays a role in terrorist murders (which is the point Bexy originally made and you responded to) and whether or not the Las Vegas shooting was an act of terrorism (as far as I can tell Bexy didn’t wade in on this question).

 

I suggest that people interpreted your post as claiming that mental illness was marginal to terrorism, as demonstrated by Hypo’s moronic little meme and his subsequent posts, among others.

Edited 7 October, 2017 by shurlock

Were Gerry Adams & his cohorts mentally ill or terrorists? Why was Peter Sutcliffe considered a nutter & not Martin Mcguiness? Did mental illness have a part to play in Irish republicanism or did they just want a United Irish state, and just wanted to create fear and terror amongst its civilian“enemies “.

 

It’s great how apologists for Islam try and equate their terrorism with random nut jobs. FFS they’d be defining Harold Shipman as a terrorist nowadays. Michael Ryan wasn’t a terrorist but IRA blokes who shot innocent civilians were. It’s that simple.

 

Muslim terrorists tell us why they are committing these acts, they even tell us in whose name they are committing these acts. We know exactly why they are doing it , just as we knew exactly why Adams and his cronies were doing what they did. There must be an element of mental illness in any killing , whether terror related or not. You can’t stop calling people who want to destroy our western way of life, set up a caliphate, strike terror in the heart of our towns & cities, killing I n the name of Islam , terrorists, just because some nut job non Muslim kills a load of innocents.

 

I think you misunderstand the point I am making. I'm not talking about the people at the very top, I'm referring to the foot soldiers, the pawns, the suicide bombers themselves. I have no doubt that the ISIS top brass are clever and manipulative enough to influence other people to carry out their bidding for them. They know exactly how to prey on the vulnerable to convince them that blowing themselves up in the name of the cause is a noble and honourable act that will guarantee their entry into paradise. What I am interested in is what makes these people vulnerable enough to accept this in the first place, because anybody who believes that murdering a load of innocent people and blowing themselves up in the process, because some magic man in the sky will reward them in the afterlife is a great idea, is quite obviously not of sound mind and judgement.

 

Not an important point is it though and hopefully LD’s explanation clarifies.

 

Yes it is and no it doesn't.

 

This is clearly a very contentious issue that polarises opinion, as demonstrated by this long-running thread. But one thing that I think we can all agree on - to a man - is that none of us supports terrorist activity and we all want to see it reduced or eliminated completely. For that to happen we need to look at all the potential reasons why people choose that life path in the first place, and that means exploring all avenues and being open to all possibilities. We need to identify the root causes of the behaviour so we can prevent people from becoming radicalised in the first place, and I firmly believe that mental health is one area that needs to be seriously considered in that respect.

 

In the UK at least, why is it that the people who carry out these attacks are almost always young and from under-privileged backgrounds? Why do these young people feel so disenfranchised and disillusioned with society that they feel it necessary to look to this alternative narrative being promoted by ISIS? Is it possible that there is a correlation between the rising numbers of attacks in recent years and the cuts to public services that have severely restricted access to youth mental health services?

 

These are all very important questions that need investigating if we are ever to get to the root cause of the problem IMO.

There's a big difference though between having some issues with mental health and being mentally ill. If you accept that those who commit terrorist acts have an odd way of looking at things you can't then suggest that every one of them are insane or mentally ill. That abdicates responsibility from the likes of breivik who believed some mental things but clearly was not "mental." He knew exactly what he was dong and why he was doing it and he was prepared to sacrifice his freedom and potentially his life for that cause.

There's a big difference though between having some issues with mental health and being mentally ill. If you accept that those who commit terrorist acts have an odd way of looking at things you can't then suggest that every one of them are insane or mentally ill. That abdicates responsibility from the likes of breivik who believed some mental things but clearly was not "mental." He knew exactly what he was dong and why he was doing it and he was prepared to sacrifice his freedom and potentially his life for that cause.

 

Yes, I agree. The key phrase in my original post was "in some cases at least". I'm not suggesting that it applies to all cases and nor would I. I just think that it is a very important avenue of investigation when trying to identify the root causes of radicalisation.

Armed officers attending an “ incident” in London . Religion of peace striking again, or traffic accident ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Armed officers attending an “ incident” in London . Religion of peace striking again, or traffic accident ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Metropolitan Police

metpoliceuk

 

 

The incident in #ExhibitionRoad #SouthKensington earlier is not being treated as a terror-related incident. It is a road traffic collision.

Armed officers attending an “ incident” in London . Religion of peace striking again, or traffic accident ?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Looks like a traffic accident. I guess armed police attending & putting streets on lockdown is a sign of the times, better safe than sorry I guess

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't see the point in marching against ISIS, we all know they are bad already, not sure what it is hoping to achieve.

 

It's like marching against murderers, or earthquakes.

 

It might not 'achieve' anything I agree, but does that mean it's not a good thing?

 

I think it's great to see thousands uniting together to stick two fingers up at the extremism festering across our island, saying we're still f*cking here and we're not going to just bend over and take this in silence.

 

Like couldn't you say is there anything 'achieved' in congregating at war memorials across the country on remembrance day, to stand in the cold and lay a wreath once a year? Nothing is achieved as such, but it's still a valuable thing.

Looks like a traffic accident. I guess armed police attending & putting streets on lockdown is a sign of the times, better safe than sorry I guess

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Says a pony trying to style it out.

It might not 'achieve' anything I agree, but does that mean it's not a good thing?

 

I think it's great to see thousands uniting together to stick two fingers up at the extremism festering across our island, saying we're still f*cking here and we're not going to just bend over and take this in silence.

 

Like couldn't you say is there anything 'achieved' in congregating at war memorials across the country on remembrance day, to stand in the cold and lay a wreath once a year? Nothing is achieved as such, but it's still a valuable thing.

 

Katie Hopkins and some anti Muslims on this thread think that non terrorist Muslims are not doing enough to distance themselves from the terrorists. I am not sure what more they can do, but certainly going on a protest march is something.

Katie Hopkins and some anti Muslims on this thread think that non terrorist Muslims are not doing enough to distance themselves from the terrorists. I am not sure what more they can do, but certainly going on a protest march is something.

Agreeing that the teachings in the religion and people reading the teachings literally is a problem would be a good thing for non radical Muslims to do (many already do this like Maajid on lbc but many more ring in to challenge him which shows it is still a big problem.)

 

publicly backing measures to install more liberal imams and encouraging liberal mosques where men, women and gays are allowed would be another positive step (this sort of thing is happening in Germany for example: https://www.politico.eu/article/berlin-feminist-mosque-ibn-rushd-goethe-germany-first-liberal-mosque-sparks-debate-in-berlin/amp/)

 

If I were a practising Muslim, I'd be outraged that extremists are blackening the name of my religion like Maajid and others are and I'd be backing more surveillance in mosques, greater self policing and encouraging greater reporting of imams who encourage this stuff (of which there are a significant number- some of whom have been a problem for a number of years.) The problem is that whilst there are many Muslims who should be commended for their efforts to combat this, it is clear that there are many who whilst they do not actively support regressive views and terrorist attitudes, they quietly agree with many of the ideas behind the attacks and regressive attitudes towards gay people, Jewish people, converts etc. Look how many Muslims who will refuse to answer the question that "in an ideal world if the sharia conditions are met, is stoning for adultery permissable?" many living in britain believe that to be the case.

 

Islam needs as many loud reforming voices as possible and the more we hear publicly from the likes of the Quillium foundation putting pressure on the government and fellow Muslims to speak out, acknowledge the problem and fight to eradicate it then the better. The more this happens, the better relations will be between Muslims and non Muslims.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vast-majority-of-british-muslims-do-not-sympathise-with-suicide-bombers-survey-shows-a6977826.html

 

96% of Muslims do not sympathise with terrorist attackers, but 4% do. 3 million Muslims = 120,000 the population of Winchester do.

 

7%, 210,000 an amount the population of Portsmouth would strongly support sharia law

 

22% or 660,000 don't want to integrate into British life, a Sheffield sized amount of people

 

66% wouldn't inform the police if they knew someone who was connected to terrorism. Nearly 2m would stand back and let someone potentially commit a terrorist attack without reporting they were suspicious of it, more than the combined population of Birmingham and Leeds

 

Then of course almost half of them think homosexuality should be banned

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vast-majority-of-british-muslims-do-not-sympathise-with-suicide-bombers-survey-shows-a6977826.html

 

96% of Muslims do not sympathise with terrorist attackers, but 4% do. 3 million Muslims = 120,000 the population of Winchester do.

 

7%, 210,000 an amount the population of Portsmouth would strongly support sharia law

 

22% or 660,000 don't want to integrate into British life, a Sheffield sized amount of people

 

66% wouldn't inform the police if they knew someone who was connected to terrorism. Nearly 2m would stand back and let someone potentially commit a terrorist attack without reporting they were suspicious of it, more than the combined population of Birmingham and Leeds

Then of course almost half of them think homosexuality should be banned

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

 

Be interesting how the history books write that one up. Socially liberal 'progressive' lefties, in bed with socially authoritarian radical Muslims.

 

Maybe that their fanaticism for 'multiculturalism' trumped everything else.

Be interesting how the history books write that one up. Socially liberal 'progressive' lefties, in bed with socially authoritarian radical Muslims.

 

Maybe that their fanaticism for 'multiculturalism' trumped everything else.

"diversity is our strength."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/vast-majority-of-british-muslims-do-not-sympathise-with-suicide-bombers-survey-shows-a6977826.html

 

96% of Muslims do not sympathise with terrorist attackers, but 4% do. 3 million Muslims = 120,000 the population of Winchester do.

 

7%, 210,000 an amount the population of Portsmouth would strongly support sharia law

 

22% or 660,000 don't want to integrate into British life, a Sheffield sized amount of people

 

66% wouldn't inform the police if they knew someone who was connected to terrorism. Nearly 2m would stand back and let someone potentially commit a terrorist attack without reporting they were suspicious of it, more than the combined population of Birmingham and Leeds

 

Then of course almost half of them think homosexuality should be banned

 

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT.

 

Spread the population of Winchester around the world and you get an idea of what that means. The main thing is that 96% of Muslims do not support the terrorists. The vast majority of Muslims in your figures clearly want a normal peaceful life and behave like the rest of us. But that doesn't work for those who think that there is a problem with Muslims per se. Those who have a problem with diversity clearly no nothing of history and just how diverse most of the civilisations on this planet are.

Spread the population of Winchester around the world and you get an idea of what that means. The main thing is that 96% of Muslims do not support the terrorists. The vast majority of Muslims in your figures clearly want a normal peaceful life and behave like the rest of us. But that doesn't work for those who think that there is a problem with Muslims per se. Those who have a problem with diversity clearly no nothing of history and just how diverse most of the civilisations on this planet are.

 

Why spread it round the world when it specifically applied to Britain?

 

Are we supposed to rejoice that only 4% of Muslims support blowing our children up?

 

You claim the vast majority want a peaceful life, just like us. I call pony, when 68% of the medieval twts won’t report a terrorist.

 

52% don’t think homosexuality should be legal, how does that sit with you leftie apologists

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 11 October, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

Spread the population of Winchester around the world and you get an idea of what that means. The main thing is that 96% of Muslims do not support the terrorists. The vast majority of Muslims in your figures clearly want a normal peaceful life and behave like the rest of us. But that doesn't work for those who think that there is a problem with Muslims per se. Those who have a problem with diversity clearly no nothing of history and just how diverse most of the civilisations on this planet are.

No one has a problem with all diversity, but blithely uttering something as glib as diversity is our strength as if something which is diverse is automatically better is idiotic. Diversity CAN be a strength but clearly not in every case abd the potential negative consequences of too much diversity should be acknowledged so that we can have an honest conversation about where the west and Europe in particular is heading. If you don't reply to my previous post by the way I trust you won't be using the "what else can Muslims do?" line again because that's about the tenth time you brought it up in this thread alone and it's been refuted every time.

Why spread it round the world when it specifically applied to Britain?

 

Are we supposed to rejoice that only 4% of Muslims support blowing our children up?

 

You claim the vast majority want a peaceful life, just like us. I call pony, when 68% of the medieval twts won’t report a terrorist

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

The population of Winchester are not all Muslims and do not support terrorism so it is a moot point. As for the rest, you know exactly the point I am making but in the same blinkered way that xenophobes think, you tar everyone with the same brush. I call pony on you tired 1970s bull****.

No one has a problem with all diversity, but blithely uttering something as glib as diversity is our strength as if something which is diverse is automatically better is idiotic. Diversity CAN be a strength but clearly not in every case abd the potential negative consequences of too much diversity should be acknowledged so that we can have an honest conversation about where the west and Europe in particular is heading. If you don't reply to my previous post by the way I trust you won't be using the "what else can Muslims do?" line again because that's about the tenth time you brought it up in this thread alone and it's been refuted every time.

 

Refuted by the likes of you who somehow have come to believe that all Muslims are responsible for the minority who commit these acts.

Didn’t that survey get hammered for its lack of rigour? That it only polled areas with very high concentrations of Muslims (>20%) which are typically poorer and more conservative -in short, they’re likely shîthôles- rather than being truly representative of the UK Muslim population.

Edited 11 October, 2017 by shurlock

Refuted by the likes of you who somehow have come to believe that all Muslims are responsible for the minority who commit these acts.

Despite my post literally saying the opposite to that. You only read what you want to see rather than the content of the post and I suspect you are beyond hope. What specific suggestion in my post did you take issue with? For the benefit of others though if soggy come out with "what else can Muslims do?" again, let's remember it already been answered on numerous occasions and so far he has ignored the responses.

Didn’t that survey get hammered for its lack of rigour? That it only polled areas with very high concentrations of Muslims (>20%) which are typically poorer and more conservative -in short, they’re likely shîthôles- rather than being truly representative of the UK Muslim population.

 

It did indeed.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/channel-4-british-muslims_uk_570badf0e4b0fa55639d65a9

 

The most damning quote from the pollsters is this:

 

ICM, the research company which carried out the survey for Channel 4, admitted that including areas with lower concentration of Muslims would have given a “subjective, better figure”. But it explained this was not possible within the budget.

 

'Not possible within the budget,' in this case, meant producing a poll that was bound to get a sensationalist write-up in the listings pages.

 

Still, at least C4's dodgy poll pandered successfully to the brown-people-hating halfwits on here. Job done.

 

Still, at least C4's dodgy poll pandered successfully to the brown-people-hating halfwits on here. Job done.

 

What’s the colour of anyone’s skin got to do with their religion? Assuming only brown people are Muslims is incredibly prejudiced.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The results are still concerning even if it only includes Muslims from inner city areas IMO.

 

52% think being gay should be illegal - **** me how can any of you defend that?

What’s the colour of anyone’s skin got to do with their religion? Assuming only brown people are Muslims is incredibly prejudiced.

 

Adjust your dog whistle, Lord Pony. Place all of Britain's Muslim population in a single neighbourhood and what colour, in general, do you think they'd be?

 

The results are still concerning even if it only includes Muslims from inner city areas IMO.

 

52% think being gay should be illegal - **** me how can any of you defend that?

 

Gosh, how can I possibly defend an opinion I don't agree with?

Even if that poll looks dodgy - and that does appear to be the case- everyone knows that a worryingly high percentage or Muslims have extremely regressive attitudes, particularly regarding homosexuals and so called "apostates". More liberal Muslims - ones who should be supported more- have recognised that these attitudes are a problem and have publicly denounced these views which are undoubtedly a barrier between Muslims with these views and the general public. The point is not the specific numbers from a dodgy poll, it's that these sort of views are held proportionally much higher in the Muslim population and its a problem that needs sorting.

Place all of Britain's Muslim population in a single neighbourhood and what colour, in general, do you think they'd be?

 

 

 

What do you want, the exact shade? You need to confront your prejudice, Muslims are white, black , brown, light brown, dark brown all sorts. Exactly like the human race. I don't make any presumptions of anybody or any neighbourhoods colour. You seem the type of bloke that before meeting a Bob Smith would automatically assume he was white. I'm more open minded than that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited 11 October, 2017 by Lord Duckhunter

 

52% think being gay should be illegal - **** me how can any of you defend that?

According to the Washington Post, 20% of Americans feel the same way.

The results are still concerning even if it only includes Muslims from inner city areas IMO.

 

52% think being gay should be illegal - **** me how can any of you defend that?

 

They'll carry on burying their heads in the sand, whilst shouting down anyone who calls it out. What they've done for decades and what's got us in this mess.

Spread the population of Winchester around the world and you get an idea of what that means. The main thing is that 96% of Muslims do not support the terrorists. The vast majority of Muslims in your figures clearly want a normal peaceful life and behave like the rest of us. But that doesn't work for those who think that there is a problem with Muslims per se. Those who have a problem with diversity clearly no nothing of history and just how diverse most of the civilisations on this planet are.

 

This only applies to Britain old boy not sure what the world has to do with it, 120,000 people would happily kill you and your children and your grand children for no reason. Then there are 2m people who would let someone kill you and know they were going to do it but do nothing about it. It might "only" be 4% who say they don't support them but 66% would stand back and let them do it. In a court of law if you know someone is going to commit a crime and don't report it you are guilty of being "knowingly concerned" so I'd suggest there are a lot more than 4% happy to see you and me dead pal.

What do you want, the exact shade? You need to confront your prejudice, Muslims are white, black , brown, light brown, dark brown all sorts. Exactly like the human race. I don't make any presumptions of anybody or any neighbourhoods colour. You seem the type of bloke that before meeting a Bob Smith would automatically assume he was white. I'm more open minded than that.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Nah, most of them would be brown mate.

Hilarious how this survey of over 1,000 Muslims is now being slammed as meaningless because it was made In an area where there were some poor Muslims. Yet another example of lefties stamping their feet when something they don't like doesn't to their way.

 

And another thing, Why aren't these Muslims being slammed as thick racists who hate their kids like white English people from poor areas were when they voted for Brexit?

According to the Washington Post, 20% of Americans feel the same way.

 

Does that include American Muslims?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sally Jones killed in a drone strike. Good news...

Sally Jones killed in a drone strike. Good news...

 

Stupid cow got exactly what she deserved. Wonder why it's taken so long for it to be announced.

Does that include American Muslims?

I don't know if the Gallup poll that the Post reports on holds that detail, but it does say that 47% of those who view homosexuality as illegal stated that their religion was the basis for their opinion.

This only applies to Britain old boy not sure what the world has to do with it, 120,000 people would happily kill you and your children and your grand children for no reason. Then there are 2m people who would let someone kill you and know they were going to do it but do nothing about it. It might "only" be 4% who say they don't support them but 66% would stand back and let them do it. In a court of law if you know someone is going to commit a crime and don't report it you are guilty of being "knowingly concerned" so I'd suggest there are a lot more than 4% happy to see you and me dead pal.

 

You do realise per the same survey that 70% of the general British public wouldn’t report a terrorist to the police either? They’d stand back and let them do it. By your faultless reasoning, 46 million people would be happy to see you and me dead. That’s like 220x the size of Portsmouth or something

 

Of course, the reality is a bit more complex and a bit less apocalyptic pal. Nowhere does the survey suggest that not reporting someone suspected to be involved with terrorism amounts to doing nothing: thus 46% of Muslims would talk to the person directly about it to dissuade them; 37% would look for help; 27% wouldn’t do anything but only because they don’t think anyone close to them would get involved with people who supported terrorism. Similar attitudes are found among the British public at large.

 

Are there problems within sections of the Muslim community, particularly with respect to social attitudes. Absolutely and they should be called out in unambiguous terms. We should treat every community the same, including affording them similar opportunities, shouldn’t we pal? Therefore, perhaps you’ll show equal interest in the persistent racial (and class-based) inequalities in British life -from education, housing, employment to criminal justice that yesterday’s landmark government audit highlighted.

Edited 11 October, 2017 by shurlock

Sally Jones killed in a drone strike. Good news...

 

You play with fire, you’ll literally get burnt. Just deserts.

According to the Washington Post, 20% of Americans feel the same way.

 

Probably 75% of American Christians.

According to the Washington Post, 20% of Americans feel the same way.

... .

Even if that poll looks dodgy - and that does appear to be the case- everyone knows that a worryingly high percentage or Muslims have extremely regressive attitudes, particularly regarding homosexuals and so called "apostates". More liberal Muslims - ones who should be supported more- have recognised that these attitudes are a problem and have publicly denounced these views which are undoubtedly a barrier between Muslims with these views and the general public. The point is not the specific numbers from a dodgy poll, it's that these sort of views are held proportionally much higher in the Muslim population and its a problem that needs sorting.

 

Funny, the decades of homophobia I've encountered in everyday life has all come from white English people.

Funny, the decades of homophobia I've encountered in everyday life has all come from white English people.

Are you suggesting that on average Muslims do not have more regressive views with regards to homosexuality than the rest of the UK population? Because even many Muslims would disagree with you there if that is what you are saying and there are studies that show this rather than your anecdotal evidence of all the evil white male homophobes. Did you see the gay Muslim bloke last month who supposedly married his partner? Immediately received a tide of death threats. Edited 11 October, 2017 by hypochondriac

Are you suggesting that on average Muslims do not have more regressive views with regards to homosexuality than the rest of the UK population? Because even many Muslims would disagree with you there if that is what you are saying and there are studies that show this rather than your anecdotal evidence of all the evil white male homophobes. Did you see the gay Muslim bloke last month who supposedly married his partner? Immediately received a tide of death threats.

 

How many was a tide? Multiple accounts? All UK residents?

How many was a tide? Multiple accounts? All UK residents?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/muslim-islam-gay-marriage-relationships-faith-pride-christianity-culture-a7835671.html%3Famp

 

Many argue that to be gay and Muslim is an utter irreconcilability – “no Muslim is gay” was a remark I saw on*Twitter today. When one learns that The Muslim Council of Britain opposed same-sex marriage in 2013, we understand how these views are generated.

 

So again I ask, are you suggesting that on average, UK Muslims do not hold more regressive views regarding homosexuality than the rest of the UK population? If you are suggesting that then you're just denying facts at this point and I would suggest are being wilfully ignorant.

Probably 75% of American Christians.

 

Many naively seem to think that religious views change easily with the times and get shocked by polls that show the contrary. To expect Muslims to be pro homosexuality is naive in the extreme just as it would be to think the US Bible Belt is going to embrace it.

Love a good poll though as condemnation fodder, 99% of Hindus believe in reincarnation. Haven’t these idiots read A Brief History of Time and know we have proved we know everything and God is dead. And if he is alive he has been a liberal since the 60s.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/muslim-islam-gay-marriage-relationships-faith-pride-christianity-culture-a7835671.html%3Famp

 

Many argue that to be gay and Muslim is an utter irreconcilability – “no Muslim is gay” was a remark I saw on*Twitter today. When one learns that The Muslim Council of Britain opposed same-sex marriage in 2013, we understand how these views are generated.

 

So again I ask, are you suggesting that on average, UK Muslims do not hold more regressive views regarding homosexuality than the rest of the UK population? If you are suggesting that then you're just denying facts at this point and I would suggest are being wilfully ignorant.

 

Do you expect the Muslim Council to endorse gay marriage?