Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

That was easy.

As I said, too easy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html or

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219154/Some-Muslims-support-carry-terror-attacks.html.

 

That was easy.

Oh dear. You really are a very hateful person. Evidently, you also understand nothing about data and statistics - so you're stupid too. That's a pitiful combination.

Oh dear. You really are a very hateful person. Evidently, you also understand nothing about data and statistics - so you're stupid too. That's a pitiful combination.

As I said, too easy.

You didn't bother to read the entire post did you?

Oh dear. You really are a very hateful person. Evidently, you also understand nothing about data and statistics - so you're stupid too. That's a pitiful combination.

how many times have we seen this cycle of posts over the years?

A statement is made the loony liberals don't like, they demand evidence, evidence is provided, they indignantly stamp their feet shouting that the person who made the statement and backed it up is thick, racist/homophobic/sexist etc.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/11433776/Quarter-of-British-Muslims-sympathise-with-Charlie-Hebdo-terrorists.html or

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4219154/Some-Muslims-support-carry-terror-attacks.html.

 

That was easy.

1 in 20 support violence. Less than football fans. I never had you down as pro Islam.

1 in 20 support violence. Less than football fans. I never had you down as pro Islam.

"Some 27 per cent of British Muslims sympathise with Paris gunmen, while more than one in ten say satirical cartoons "deserve" to be attacked". Stick up football fans support and sympathy for murder when you're ready.....

That's an abysmal effort. Have another try.

Ha, why am I not surprised that you refuse to answer the question? It's because you're a total snowflake, far happier sitting in your room behind your computer screen meaning and whining like a small child than having any courage in your convictions. Pathetic.

Every time there's a terrorist attack (Muslim only, no sign of you when there's an attack by any other group) I suspect you're sitting there, rubbing your thighs in your best Vic Reeves style, anticipating with excitement at the renewed opportunity to vent your spleen.

Ha, why am I not surprised that you refuse to answer the question? It's because you're a total snowflake, far happier sitting in your room behind your computer screen meaning and whining like a small child than having any courage in your convictions. Pathetic.

 

Every time there's a terrorist attack (Muslim only, no sign of you when there's an attack by any other group) I suspect you're sitting there, rubbing your thighs in your best Vic Reeves style, anticipating with excitement at the renewed opportunity to vent your spleen.

You do find it really upsetting when someone points out the problem of islamic terrorism and your support of it don't you

Nope, I'm not upset, Sour 'Snowflake' Mash. I will concede to being a little frustrated that you won't answer my question but I guess that's your prerogative. Carry on whining and moaning and definitely don't offer any solutions, whatever you do....

Lol, careful you don't melt

Nope, I'm not upset, Sour 'Snowflake' Mash. I will concede to being a little frustrated that you won't answer my question but I guess that's your prerogative. Carry on whining and moaning and definitely don't offer any solutions, whatever you do....

 

Lol, careful you don't melt

Making up names on a forum f'sake

Ha, continuing to not answer the question, I see. Quelle surprise.

Okay, carry on with your whining and moaning - careful you don't melt.

You cite supposed Muslim "support" for terrorism without providing anything in the way of evidence to back that claim up. As far as this country is concerned a 2005 ICM poll (conducted in the aftermath of the notorious 'July 7th' bombing atrocity) showed that some 99% of British Muslims surveyed thought that the criminals responsible for that horrendous deed were in the wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.htm

 

l don't know about you but I would describe 99% as a "significant proportion". I also see no reason to doubt that a similar poll held today would not produce a very similar outcome. To be fair this same survey also indicated strong support for the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK - which is entirely unacceptable I think - and that 20% of those Muslims asked displayed some level of 'sympathy' towards the feelings and motivations of the young terrorists involved. But there again in the English language the word 'sympathy' is not quite synonymous with the nouns 'approval' or 'support' is it?

 

On the other hand different polls have produced widely differing results on this same question - as ever polling evidence is of limited value and always highly depended upon sample size, the selection methodology employed, and the exact wording of the questions asked. In conclusion, the best that can probably be said about the matter this is that evidence supporting any claim that mass Muslim approval for terrorism exists here in the UK is somewhat inconclusive at this time. Naturally the situation may be very different in other parts of the world.

 

Speaking of the international situation, if you seek to bring Canada into this debate then I must wonder why then you have chosen to overlook the relatively recent Québec City mosque shooting, another appalling crime which left six Muslims dead and scores more injured while they were peacefully at worship. But I don't recall any of the usual suspects on here expressing their disgust at that particular crime - not even one of Batman's (oh-so-familiar) "another day in" posts.

 

Back to Masood, I read this morning that the Police have concluded that he was most probably acting alone. I also see no dispute that this individual was indeed a violent and deeply troubled person - more so than your average "petty criminal" I think. Perhaps he was much like the French psychotic responsible for the similar vehicle based attack in Nice last year. Be that as it may, what I'm not seeing here is a explanation as to why millions of uninvolved Muslims in general are to blame for the actions of a few extremists, or indeed any meaningful solution proposed to the problem of Jihadi extremism. Indeed, is it not true that European nations (such as France) that have attempted to bring the Muslim faith under state control have experienced more terrorist crime than we have?

I certainly agree with you that the polling produces variable results and can be unreliable based on its methodology. Unfortunately, many polls report a significant support for terrorist organisations worldwide beyond the de minimis amount cited in the one poll that you mentioned:

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

And yes, I certainly agree that non-Muslims can commit atrocities based upon religion, extremism and/or hatred, but that is a statement of the obvious, isn't it. We were discussing a lone wolf attack by an isolated radicalized Muslim convert, and I gave another example of a lone wolf attack by an isolated radicalized Muslim convert in Canada. If you would like to play the old-fashioned game of bait and switch, I certainly agree that the attack by an apparent white supremacist in PQ was obviously every bit as odious and evil as the attack in London, and the attacks in Nice and Paris, and the attacks in Germany, and Belgium and in California and Florida. Certainly non-Muslims have done some horrible things in the recent past and they will unfortunately continue to do it. Dylan Roof is another example, and I’m sure there are more. Of course, in the cases of both the PQ attacker and Dylan Roof, it will have been important to assess the role played by extremist ideology and organisations in their attacks (like other countries it has a disturbing presence in Canada), just as it is important to examine the role of extremist ideology in last week's attack.

I run the risk of repeating myself, but ISIS puts out propaganda and information on how to commit terrorist attacks. ISIS have made public their advice to radicalized individuals to use vehicles to commit mass murder on soft targets. These are the methods used by many of the recent lone wolf attackers, which suggests (but does not by itself prove) that they got their ideas and inspiration from organized terrorists. That’s all I was trying to say. From a public security standpoint, it is very dangerous to look at last week’s event in a vacuum.

Re the prevalence of extremism in France, it may also have something more to do with the history of North African colonialism, the relative ease of passage through French borders of both extremists and weaponry (I recall that there was a significant Belgian influence in the Paris attacks), and the marginalized socio-economic status of a large population of Muslim young adults.

You cite supposed Muslim "support" for terrorism without providing anything in the way of evidence to back that claim up. As far as this country is concerned a 2005 ICM poll (conducted in the aftermath of the notorious 'July 7th' bombing atrocity) showed that some 99% of British Muslims surveyed thought that the criminals responsible for that horrendous deed were in the wrong. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.htm

 

l don't know about you but I would describe 99% as a "significant proportion". I also see no reason to doubt that a similar poll held today would not produce a very similar outcome.

So by that survey 1% of UK Muslims thought that blowing up innocent civilians was the right thing to do. That's around 30,000 people living near us who want to see women and kids blown to bits in the name of Islam - nice.

So by that survey 1% of UK Muslims thought that blowing up innocent civilians was the right thing to do. That's around 30,000 people living near us who want to see women and kids blown to bits in the name of Islam - nice.

I daresay a far higher number of white British would support a preemptive nuclear strike against a Muslim country, or the creation of a Muslim detention camp near Dover, or some other similar barbaric act.

You do find it really upsetting when someone points out the problem of islamic terrorism and your support of it don't you

Is making false accusations your way of deflecting from the voice in your head going "I'm no racist but I am actually racist"?

I certainly agree with you that the polling produces variable results and can be unreliable based on its methodology. Unfortunately, many polls report a significant support for terrorist organisations worldwide beyond the de minimis amount cited in the one poll that you mentioned:

 

http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old-assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf#page=60

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2010/12/02/muslims-around-the-world-divided-on-hamas-and-hezbollah/

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/09/10/muslim-publics-share-concerns-about-extremist-groups/

 

And yes, I certainly agree that non-Muslims can commit atrocities based upon religion, extremism and/or hatred, but that is a statement of the obvious, isn't it. We were discussing a lone wolf attack by an isolated radicalized Muslim convert, and I gave another example of a lone wolf attack by an isolated radicalized Muslim convert in Canada. If you would like to play the old-fashioned game of bait and switch, I certainly agree that the attack by an apparent white supremacist in PQ was obviously every bit as odious and evil as the attack in London, and the attacks in Nice and Paris, and the attacks in Germany, and Belgium and in California and Florida. Certainly non-Muslims have done some horrible things in the recent past and they will unfortunately continue to do it. Dylan Roof is another example, and I’m sure there are more. Of course, in the cases of both the PQ attacker and Dylan Roof, it will have been important to assess the role played by extremist ideology and organisations in their attacks (like other countries it has a disturbing presence in Canada), just as it is important to examine the role of extremist ideology in last week's attack.

 

I run the risk of repeating myself, but ISIS puts out propaganda and information on how to commit terrorist attacks. ISIS have made public their advice to radicalized individuals to use vehicles to commit mass murder on soft targets. These are the methods used by many of the recent lone wolf attackers, which suggests (but does not by itself prove) that they got their ideas and inspiration from organized terrorists. That’s all I was trying to say. From a public security standpoint, it is very dangerous to look at last week’s event in a vacuum.

 

Re the prevalence of extremism in France, it may also have something more to do with the history of North African colonialism, the relative ease of passage through French borders of both extremists and weaponry (I recall that there was a significant Belgian influence in the Paris attacks), and the marginalized socio-economic status of a large population of Muslim young adults.

I note that all three links you have provided refer to INTERNATIONAL Muslim opinion on the matter at hand. I on the other hand had gone to some trouble to make clear that it was my intent to address the situation here in the UNITED KINGDOM. We are after all discussing this issue now because a citizen of this nation, a man who was even born here by the way, committed a appalling terrorist crime in the very heart of London last week.

We can all see WHAT terrorist criminals, such as Masood, do. It is obviously also a easy enough matter to condemn their appalling crimes - that I hope is the one 'given' we can all agree with in this entire debate. But simple condemnation of terrorism only gets us so far and to meaningfully progress further we surely need to make some kind of effort to understand WHY some Muslims despise and reject the secular western world and the values it stands for. That question of course is a deep and highly complex one that is more suited perhaps to a substantial research effort rather that a short post on the internet. But I do wonder is it really so very hard to comprehend where at least some of this hatred comes from when news such as this today passes over us all the time with very little comment or meaningful reaction: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html. We employ a clear double-standard I think when we place a massively higher value on Human life lost in Europe compared to the Middle East.

What I still don't see in any of this is how exactly pointing a (metaphorical) finger at millions of uninvolved British Muslims in any way moves us one step closer to solving this problem.

So by that survey 1% of UK Muslims thought that blowing up innocent civilians was the right thing to do. That's around 30,000 people living near us who want to see women and kids blown to bits in the name of Islam - nice.

I suppose 100% agreement that terrorism is indeed unacceptable would be very nice. But the world is a imperfect place alas, and if you can cite any issue in which the 64 million people of this old and diverse nation all agree about then I'd be fascinated to see it.

I suppose 100% agreement that terrorism is indeed unacceptable would be very nice.

I suppose 100% agreement that terrorism is indeed unacceptable would be very nice. But the world is a imperfect place alas, and if you can cite any issue in which the 64 million people of this old and diverse nation all agree about then I'd be fascinated to see it.

Of course there are always a few nut jobs but 30,000 people thinking the 7/7 bombers did the right thing is quite a lot.

This is not people who 'had sympathy for the cause' or 'understood the reasons' etc - the percentages for those are much higher they actually thought it was the correct thing to do. They watched the blood, carnage and misery caused on 7/7 and thought 'great'.

I note that all three links you have provided refer to INTERNATIONAL Muslim opinion on the matter at hand. I on the other hand had gone to some trouble to make clear that it was my intent to address the situation here in the UNITED KINGDOM. We are after all discussing this issue now because a citizen of this nation, a man who was even born here by the way, committed a appalling terrorist crime in the very heart of London last week.

 

We can all see WHAT terrorist criminals, such as Masood, do. It is obviously also a easy enough matter to condemn their appalling crimes - that I hope is the one 'given' we can all agree with in this entire debate. But simple condemnation of terrorism only gets us so far and to meaningfully progress further we surely need to make some kind of effort to understand WHY some Muslims despise and reject the secular western world and the values it stands for. That question of course is a deep and highly complex one that is more suited perhaps to a substantial research effort rather that a short post on the internet. But I do wonder is it really so very hard to comprehend where at least some of this hatred comes from when news such as this today passes over us all the time with very little comment or meaningful reaction: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-air-strike-mosul-200-civilians-killed-isis-northern-iraq-pentagon-central-command-islamic-state-a7651451.html. We employ a clear double-standard I think when we place a massively higher value on Human life lost in Europe compared to the Middle East.

 

What I still don't see in any of this is how exactly pointing a (metaphorical) finger at millions of uninvolved British Muslims in any way moves us one step closer to solving this problem.

I refer you to my original post. You seem to have moved the goal posts on me, again. My original comment was "Significant portions of the Muslim population worldwide support views that are wholly incompatible with western countries," hence the world view references in my subsequent reply to your post. The views of individuals from the nations referred to in the polls on things such as terrorist organisations, Sharia law, freedom of speech, LGBTQ rights and the status of women are relevant given the international nature of communications nowadays, the international nature of open messages issued by terror organisations, and immigration and refugee claims from those nations to western countries. I don't recall raising the metaphorical finger at UK Muslims specifically, and that was an odd comment for you to make given that in the same post you placed significant emphasis on my reliance on opinions from worldwide sources, that you consider to be irrelevant. And yes I would like to see this conversation happen with all organised religions including the Catholic church.

I also said originally "If we continue to blame this on lone idiots, the sole bad apple, and do not at least have a conversation about popular views that help to incubate extremist and isolationist tendencies, we will still be talking about this problem decades into the future." This seems to be pretty close to what you are getting at in your second paragraph. A conversation is required. I am advocating for nothing more than having a conversation, especially as the ISIS problem was created by the second Iraq war. And yes I agree that short posts on footy forums will achieve precisely nothing to resolve a highly complex international issue.

As a liberal of course I oppose the enforcing of wearing or not wearing anything. That doesn't mean I suggest Wahabist muslims should be free to murder gay people and dominate women. It's ridiculous to suggest because we did not want to invade Iraq and oppose Israeli expansion that we are somehow in cahoots with ISIS ans the Saudis!

You didn't read carefully enough. Those sections of the left who espouse the idea, essentially, of 'kill us, we deserve it', which include you I think, are giving the Islamist murderers a free pass.

The argument that the West - especially including the US, the UK and Israel - is 'reaping what it's sown' in attacks like 9/11, 7/7 and the Westminster Bridge murders is also inherently racist and Islamophobic, because it denies agency not just to those Islamists who carry out attacks, but to all Muslims. It's an argument corrupted by the lazy thought that Muslims are so enraged by the injustices meted out to them by the West that they are impelled to attack. It's utter crap.

And this racist/Islamophobic subtext is depressingly mirrored in far-right responses. ISIS and Al Qaeda have historically carried out attacks in the West in order to polarise Muslims from non-Muslims in the West - to make them the objects of hate by the majority population. They do this quite explicitly to drive recruitment. Of course, gimps on the far right are brain-dribblingly doing exactly what ISIS wants them to do. - screaming their fury at innocent Muslims.

One question, incidentally, which will determine the absurdity of your position: if you were an Arab, where would you rather be a citizen: in Israel or Syria? (Just to help you out with this one, over 94% of civilian casualties during the civil war have been inflicted by the Assad regime itself. And when I say 'casualties', keep in mind what a terrible euphemism that is for being blasted to hell by barrel bombs or being tortured to death in one of Assad's many political jails).

You didn't read carefully enough. Those sections of the left who espouse the idea, essentially, of 'kill us, we deserve it', which include you I think, are giving the Islamist murderers a free pass.

 

The argument that the West - especially including the US, the UK and Israel - is 'reaping what it's sown' in attacks like 9/11, 7/7 and the Westminster Bridge murders is also inherently racist and Islamophobic, because it denies agency not just to those Islamists who carry out attacks, but to all Muslims. It's an argument corrupted by the lazy thought that Muslims are so enraged by the injustices meted out to them by the West that they are impelled to attack. It's utter crap.

 

And this racist/Islamophobic subtext is depressingly mirrored in far-right responses. ISIS and Al Qaeda have historically carried out attacks in the West in order to polarise Muslims from non-Muslims in the West - to make them the objects of hate by the majority population. They do this quite explicitly to drive recruitment. Of course, gimps on the far right are brain-dribblingly doing exactly what ISIS wants them to do. - screaming their fury at innocent Muslims.

 

One question, incidentally, which will determine the absurdity of your position: if you were an Arab, where would you rather be a citizen: in Israel or Syria? (Just to help you out with this one, over 94% of civilian casualties during the civil war have been inflicted by the Assad regime itself. And when I say 'casualties', keep in mind what a terrible euphemism that is for being blasted to hell by barrel bombs or being tortured to death in one of Assad's many political jails).

Can I be a citizen in Jordan?

Can I be a citizen in Jordan?

If you're Palestinian, you'd be better off in Lebanon...or Israel. The camps in Amman are desperate.

If you're Bedouin-Jordanian, you may have my camel.

You didn't read carefully enough. Those sections of the left who espouse the idea, essentially, of 'kill us, we deserve it', which include you I think, are giving the Islamist murderers a free pass.

 

The argument that the West - especially including the US, the UK and Israel - is 'reaping what it's sown' in attacks like 9/11, 7/7 and the Westminster Bridge murders is also inherently racist and Islamophobic, because it denies agency not just to those Islamists who carry out attacks, but to all Muslims. It's an argument corrupted by the lazy thought that Muslims are so enraged by the injustices meted out to them by the West that they are impelled to attack. It's utter crap.

 

And this racist/Islamophobic subtext is depressingly mirrored in far-right responses. ISIS and Al Qaeda have historically carried out attacks in the West in order to polarise Muslims from non-Muslims in the West - to make them the objects of hate by the majority population. They do this quite explicitly to drive recruitment. Of course, gimps on the far right are brain-dribblingly doing exactly what ISIS wants them to do. - screaming their fury at innocent Muslims.

 

One question, incidentally, which will determine the absurdity of your position: if you were an Arab, where would you rather be a citizen: in Israel or Syria? (Just to help you out with this one, over 94% of civilian casualties during the civil war have been inflicted by the Assad regime itself. And when I say 'casualties', keep in mind what a terrible euphemism that is for being blasted to hell by barrel bombs or being tortured to death in one of Assad's many political jails).

I understand perfectly. Can you not regard the extreme right in the UK and the extreme right in Muslim countries as the same sliver of their respective societies?

If I was an Arab I'd rather live in England as its the best country in the world. But I'm just glad there is leftist, peace loving thought present in all countries as often seen in my more pleasant Israeli acquaintances.

Israel's treatment of the Palestinians is a better recruitment tool for these nutters than anything right wing nut jobs over here say or do.

This is exactly right in my view. The ideology that turned a petty criminal into a violent and manipulable jihadist can be found in numerous strains of Islam. Wahhabi Islam and its many variants in Salafism are the drivers of this, but it cannot be left there.

 

While many on the liberal left makes a fuss when a woman in France or Germany is denied the right to wear a headscarf, it can't just be ignored that the countries containing the most dangerous fundamentalism are those demanding loudest, on threat of violence and persecution, that women cover their heads and show 'modesty'. A supposed triumph of choice here is oppression of women there. Similar sentiments and violence apply to gays and anyone who questions the theocratic pretensions in the dominant strains of Islam.

 

The first victims of all this are those Muslims who are silenced, beaten, and murdered for defending the idea of a enlightenment in Islam.

 

And this is where many on the left in the West and violent Islamism join forces: denouncing such figures as Ayaan Hirsi Ali and other liberal reformers as 'Islamophobic'. This odd alliance share an anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Israeli outlook. At least partly in consequence, fundamentalist Islam has been given a free pass.

 

The probable rage with which Masood carried out his attack had something to do with a feeling of overwhelming self-righteousness, which told him that the oppression of his adopted religion was real and that any critique of it whatsoever was an attack on all Muslims.

 

A lot of this sentiment comes from those who advocate ISIS-style violence.

 

Some of it comes from those who ally themselves with such fundamentalists and stridently 'conservative' Muslims in the west, as if the latter were somehow the oppressed. They are not.

Great post, which led me to an Ayaan Hirsi Ali debate, which was also very interesting.

As another poster mentioned, I wouldn't have grasped the salafisim angle through the wider media, though Hirsi regards it as Medina

Strange times ahead

Great post, which led me to an Ayaan Hirsi Ali debate, which was also very interesting.

 

As another poster mentioned, I wouldn't have grasped the salafisim angle through the wider media, though Hirsi regards it as Medina

 

Strange times ahead

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a snow white, liberal reformer - good joke Makes you wonder why Fox News is so consistently drawn to her. That said, I don't know who's worse -her or her economically illterate husband.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali - a snow white, liberal reformer - good joke Makes you wonder why Fox News is so consistently drawn to her. That said, I don't know who's worse -her or her economically illterate husband.

Who's that? Verbal?

I refer you to my original post. You seem to have moved the goal posts on me, again. My original comment was "Significant portions of the Muslim population worldwide support views that are wholly incompatible with western countries," hence the world view references in my subsequent reply to your post. The views of individuals from the nations referred to in the polls on things such as terrorist organisations, Sharia law, freedom of speech, LGBTQ rights and the status of women are relevant given the international nature of communications nowadays, the international nature of open messages issued by terror organisations, and immigration and refugee claims from those nations to western countries. I don't recall raising the metaphorical finger at UK Muslims specifically, and that was an odd comment for you to make given that in the same post you placed significant emphasis on my reliance on opinions from worldwide sources, that you consider to be irrelevant. And yes I would like to see this conversation happen with all organised religions including the Catholic church.

 

I also said originally "If we continue to blame this on lone idiots, the sole bad apple, and do not at least have a conversation about popular views that help to incubate extremist and isolationist tendencies, we will still be talking about this problem decades into the future." This seems to be pretty close to what you are getting at in your second paragraph. A conversation is required. I am advocating for nothing more than having a conversation, especially as the ISIS problem was created by the second Iraq war. And yes I agree that short posts on footy forums will achieve precisely nothing to resolve a highly complex international issue.

Another conversation which needs to be had is the racist attitudes a lot of Muslim communities have festered towards Whites/Kafir.

Such attitudes are of course going to contribute towards things like grooming of white girls, and at the upper end of the spectrum terrorism-and make integration impossible.

Somethings gone wrong. Because it seems (some) older conservative Muslims, and mosques, have brought up a second generation to live completely separate and have little regard for 'trashy white Kafir'. For example in how many Muslim households is it widely accepted that daughters would never marry Kafir? Not an insignificant minority i'd suggest. But of course such is the narrative and victim mentality we've fostered, racism is only something that Muslims could have done to them, and it would be a ridiculous assertion to claim some within the Muslim community have been fostering racist attitudes to whites for decades.

I refer you to my original post. You seem to have moved the goal posts on me, again. My original comment was "Significant portions of the Muslim population worldwide support views that are wholly incompatible with western countries," hence the world view references in my subsequent reply to your post. The views of individuals from the nations referred to in the polls on things such as terrorist organisations, Sharia law, freedom of speech, LGBTQ rights and the status of women are relevant given the international nature of communications nowadays, the international nature of open messages issued by terror organisations, and immigration and refugee claims from those nations to western countries. I don't recall raising the metaphorical finger at UK Muslims specifically, and that was an odd comment for you to make given that in the same post you placed significant emphasis on my reliance on opinions from worldwide sources, that you consider to be irrelevant. And yes I would like to see this conversation happen with all organised religions including the Catholic church.

 

I also said originally "If we continue to blame this on lone idiots, the sole bad apple, and do not at least have a conversation about popular views that help to incubate extremist and isolationist tendencies, we will still be talking about this problem decades into the future." This seems to be pretty close to what you are getting at in your second paragraph. A conversation is required. I am advocating for nothing more than having a conversation, especially as the ISIS problem was created by the second Iraq war. And yes I agree that short posts on footy forums will achieve precisely nothing to resolve a highly complex international issue.

Yes as I have attempted to explain before, the specific UK/European terrorist situation is indeed my primary focus here. You on the other hand appear to be engaged in 'painting' Muslims everywhere as some kind of cohesive international community who tend to share a similar uncompromising belief system. Even ignoring the Shia/Sunni divide, to me it makes no more sense to see Muslims in that simplistic way than it does to view Christian populations as all alike somehow - does a right wing fundamentalist from somewhere in the US 'Bible Belt' see the world in exactly the same way as your typical home counties Church of England vicar does? Your brush is too broad Sir.

For that matter, I never claimed that Masood was just some exceptional "lone idiot" (or rather "violent controlling psychopath") anyway. Clearly men like him are very far from being unique alas - some experts in the field have concluded that as many as 1 in every 100 children show distinct signs of a psychopathic personality disorder. However, if terrorists such as Masood, and the Nice attacker Mohamed Bouhlel, do fall into a recognisable Islamist terrorist 'type' then that hardly minimises the crucial influence their own particular personality disorders played in their appalling crimes I think. All the world's great religious faiths - even Buddhism believe it or not - can be employed to justify violence by those inclined to do so. My response to that regrettable fact of modern life would be that we have little choice but to rely on the law to protect us. We should decline I think to implicate the innocent and sane in the crimes of the guilty and psychotic.

One of the supposed 'western values' the extremist minority are seeking to destroy is surely freedom of thought and expression. So you tell me, how do we effectively combat the Islsmist's lilliberal attitudes we both disapprove of without oppressing the very same freedoms we hold so dear for ourselves? Freedom of thought means freedom of thought for everybody does it not - even when some of those 'thoughts' might leave us feeling distinctly uncomfortable. I would suggest that responding to terrorism by resorting to the discriminatory policies of leaders such as Donald Trump, and for that matter those Europeans who believe that legislation into Muslim dress is somehow useful, is likely to only make a bad situation even worse.

That's not what I believe, that's what the Koran says.[/quote

 

Sweetcorn? LOL. Hi Hypo. So tell us, if that is what the Koran says, why aren't the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, including your wife and family, out killing all of us infidels?

That's not what I believe, that's what the Koran says.

 

Sweetcorn? LOL. Hi Hypo. So tell us, if that is what the Koran says, why aren't the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world, including your wife and family, out killing all of us infidels?

Because people in all religions cherrypick the bits they like from their religion and conveniently ignore the bits they don't like.

Yes as I have attempted to explain before, the specific UK/European terrorist situation is indeed my primary focus here. You on the other hand appear to be engaged in 'painting' Muslims everywhere as some kind of cohesive international community who tend to share a similar uncompromising belief system. Even ignoring the Shia/Sunni divide, to me it makes no more sense to see Muslims in that simplistic way than it does to view Christian populations as all alike somehow - does a right wing fundamentalist from somewhere in the US 'Bible Belt' see the world in exactly the same way as your typical home counties Church of England vicar does? Your brush is too broad Sir.

 

For that matter, I never claimed that Masood was just some exceptional "lone idiot" (or rather "violent controlling psychopath") anyway. Clearly men like him are very far from being unique alas - some experts in the field have concluded that as many as 1 in every 100 children show distinct signs of a psychopathic personality disorder. However, if terrorists such as Masood, and the Nice attacker Mohamed Bouhlel, do fall into a recognisable Islamist terrorist 'type' then that hardly minimises the crucial influence their own particular personality disorders played in their appalling crimes I think. All the world's great religious faiths - even Buddhism believe it or not - can be employed to justify violence by those inclined to do so. My response to that regrettable fact of modern life would be that we have little choice but to rely on the law to protect us. We should decline I think to implicate the innocent and sane in the crimes of the guilty and psychotic.

 

One of the supposed 'western values' the extremist minority are seeking to destroy is surely freedom of thought and expression. So you tell me, how do we effectively combat the Islsmist's lilliberal attitudes we both disapprove of without oppressing the very same freedoms we hold so dear for ourselves? Freedom of thought means freedom of thought for everybody does it not - even when some of those 'thoughts' might leave us feeling distinctly uncomfortable. I would suggest that responding to terrorism by resorting to the discriminatory policies of leaders such as Donald Trump, and for that matter those Europeans who believe that legislation into Muslim dress is somehow useful, is likely to only make a bad situation even worse.[/quote

 

It is good to read such a well thought out and well written post, especially in a thread littered with blinkered, Islamophobic and racist agendas.

Because people in all religions cherrypick the bits they like from their religion and conveniently ignore the bits they don't like.

AMEN.

Another conversation which needs to be had is the racist attitudes a lot of Muslim communities have festered towards Whites/Kafir.

Is that before or after they, ( Sunni / Shia ), have stopped killing each other ?

how many times have we seen this cycle of posts over the years?

 

A statement is made the loony liberals don't like, they demand evidence, evidence is provided, they indignantly stamp their feet shouting that the person who made the statement and backed it up is thick, racist/homophobic/sexist etc.

lol there's plenty you say I disagree with but on this you're bang on the money

Another mass casualty event, this time in Russia

but lets not jump to conclusions...

Is it just another day in Europe Batman?

Is it just another day in Europe Batman?

Apparently, Russian civilians don't warrant a #Pray4Russia campaign or candlelight vigils across Europe. For shame!

Apparently, Russian civilians don't warrant a #Pray4Russia campaign or candlelight vigils across Europe. For shame!

Because people in all religions cherrypick the bits they like from their religion and conveniently ignore the bits they don't like.

And atheists conform superbly with all their beliefs jog on son.

Apparently, Russian civilians don't warrant a #Pray4Russia campaign or candlelight vigils across Europe. For shame!

Nor the Turkish apparently.

Another group of people dead...this time ran over in Stockholm

but lets not jump to conclusions......

but lets not jump to conclusions......

But it is one of your most endearing personality traits.

Another group of people dead...this time ran over in Stockholm

 

but lets not jump to conclusions......

You were the one who originally used that phrase.........before jumping to a conclusion in your next post.

Payback for all their activity in the Middle East

Payback for all their activity in the Middle East

yeah, damn the Swedish and their destructive foreign policy

You were the one who originally used that phrase.........before jumping to a conclusion in your next post.

How many Islamic terror attacks across Europe would have to happen before you admitted there was a problem?