Terrorist Attacks - WARNING: CONTAINS DISTRESSING IMAGES

I thought I was ruining this forum and reading my posts were making you upset. What's changed?

I didn't say that I was upset. You are spoiling any sensible debate with your endless purile questioning routine and dumb-headed ramblings though.

It would be funny if it wasn't a bit sad. Let me leave you with this....

if your posts on here do accurately reflect your outlook and intellect then I have to tell you this: you are a terrorist's wet dream; you are pure Jihadi-puppet master fodder. Bellicose and confused. Absolute terrorism-target gold. No wonder you're scared.

I didn't say that I was upset. You are spoiling any sensible debate with your endless purile questioning routine and dumb-headed ramblings though.

 

It would be funny if it wasn't a bit sad. Let me leave you with this....

 

if your posts on here do accurately reflect your outlook and intellect then I have to tell you this: you are a terrorist's wet dream; you are pure Jihadi-puppet master fodder. Bellicose and confused. Absolute terrorism-target gold. No wonder you're scared.

mass immigration of mostly young muslim economic migrant men is causing problems to major parts of Europe. Just look at the state of Paris

mass immigration of mostly young muslim economic migrant men is causing problems to major parts of Europe. Just look at the state of Paris

Glad to see you're not at all upset.

I'm not.

Posts like the one you just did make you look like a child. That doesn't upset me. It does make me feel a bit sorry for you though.

1) Why do only muslim women choose to cover their heads regardless of the weather or what they're doing and no other religion/culture?

2) Follow the thread. Christian terrorism isn't a threat to western Europe. Islamic terror is.

3) Yes, it does equal taking over and the trend as you rightly point out is only heading in one direction. Out of interest, what percentage of population being muslim would you consider too high?

1) Jewish and Christian women in some cultures cover their heads. Plenty of Muslim women don't. So, factually wrong there, aren't you?

2) Define 'a threat to Europe'. Will civilisation collapse? Incidentally, Europol calculates that religiously motivated terrorism makes up approximately 2% of all terrorism in Europe between 2006-2013, with separatist, left wing and right wing terrorism making up the majority of terrorist attacks in Europe. So, it would seem that separatists are the biggest threat to Europe.

3) So, we come down to what equates to 'taking over'. If the percentage is under 50% then how can they have taken over? If the overall Muslim population of Britain is about 4.5% how is that 'taking over'? And I don't think there is a 'too many' number. 100%. Well, there you go, it's a free country and people are free to live as and where they choose. They mostly Brits. So they're 'taking over' their own country. You could equally ask how many is too many Jews, Or too many Hindus, or whatever. If people born in Britain choose to practice Islam, then that is up to them. If 100% of the population chose to be Muslim, then that is up to them. Or do you disagree? And if so, why?

1) Jewish and Christian women in some cultures cover their heads. Plenty of Muslim women don't. So, factually wrong there, aren't you?

2) Define 'a threat to Europe'. Will civilisation collapse? Incidentally, Europol calculates that religiously motivated terrorism makes up approximately 2% of all terrorism in Europe between 2006-2013, with separatist, left wing and right wing terrorism making up the majority of terrorist attacks in Europe. So, it would seem that separatists are the biggest threat to Europe.

3) So, we come down to what equates to 'taking over'. If the percentage is under 50% then how can they have taken over? If the overall Muslim population of Britain is about 4.5% how is that 'taking over'? And I don't think there is a 'too many' number. 100%. Well, there you go, it's a free country and people are free to live as and where they choose. They mostly Brits. So they're 'taking over' their own country. You could equally ask how many is too many Jews, Or too many Hindus, or whatever. If people born in Britain choose to practice Islam, then that is up to them. If 100% of the population chose to be Muslim, then that is up to them. Or do you disagree? And if so, why?

Top stuff, that's the best one yet.

You think there are as many Christian/Jewish as muslim women walking around with their heads covered, that Islamic terrorism is a tiny threat in western Europe compared to other kinds of terrorism and you'd be happy with the UK being 100% muslim.

 

Top stuff, that's the best one yet.

Right, so you agree that women in Christian and Jewish cultures (and pretty much every other culture) cover their heads. Good, glad we've established that it isn't unique to Muslims. I didn't say there were as many - not in Western Europe, anyway, just that it is not unknown (and, in fact, until relatively recently, was commonplace).

I do indeed think Islamic terrorism is a tiny threat. I think European society and institutions are strong and resilient. We have excellent police forces and counter-terrorism systems. The 2% figure isn't something I just made up, btw, It is data from Europol - take a look at their website if you're interested https://www.europol.europa.eu/ They acknowledge that Jihadi terrorism is an issue but so are a lot of other things. It is one of many threats. Along with Jihadi terrorism they also list right wing terrorism and ethno-centric terrorism as being major issues which they have to deal with. So, I guess I have more confidence in the systems and institutions of Western Europe than you.

Finally, I have no problem with people doing what they choose. But, you didn't answer my questions, did you? You just clicked on some lol emoticons. So, go on, have a go. Try answering my questions.

If British-born people choose to practice Islam so what? Isn't that their choice? And if that is a problem, why?

Oh, and let's add to that numbers. I've answered your question, now you provide an answer. How many is too many? Is 4.5% of the British population too many Muslims? If so, why?

(Oh, and try to answer without clicking on emoticons. See whether you can answer using words.)

Right, so you agree that women in Christian and Jewish cultures (and pretty much every other culture) cover their heads. Good, glad we've established that it isn't unique to Muslims. I didn't say there were as many - not in Western Europe, anyway, just that it is not unknown (and, in fact, until relatively recently, was commonplace).

 

I do indeed think Islamic terrorism is a tiny threat. I think European society and institutions are strong and resilient. We have excellent police forces and counter-terrorism systems. The 2% figure isn't something I just made up, btw, It is data from Europol - take a look at their website if you're interested https://www.europol.europa.eu/ They acknowledge that Jihadi terrorism is an issue but so are a lot of other things. It is one of many threats. Along with Jihadi terrorism they also list right wing terrorism and ethno-centric terrorism as being major issues which they have to deal with. So, I guess I have more confidence in the systems and institutions of Western Europe than you.

 

Finally, I have no problem with people doing what they choose. But, you didn't answer my questions, did you? You just clicked on some lol emoticons. So, go on, have a go. Try answering my questions.

 

If British-born people choose to practice Islam so what? Isn't that their choice? And if that is a problem, why?

Oh, and let's add to that numbers. I've answered your question, now you provide an answer. How many is too many? Is 4.5% of the British population too many Muslims? If so, why?

 

(Oh, and try to answer without clicking on emoticons. See whether you can answer using words.)

Right, so you agree that women in Christian and Jewish cultures (and pretty much every other culture) cover their heads. Good, glad we've established that it isn't unique to Muslims. I didn't say there were as many - not in Western Europe, anyway, just that it is not unknown (and, in fact, until relatively recently, was commonplace).

 

I do indeed think Islamic terrorism is a tiny threat. I think European society and institutions are strong and resilient. We have excellent police forces and counter-terrorism systems. The 2% figure isn't something I just made up, btw, It is data from Europol - take a look at their website if you're interested https://www.europol.europa.eu/ They acknowledge that Jihadi terrorism is an issue but so are a lot of other things. It is one of many threats. Along with Jihadi terrorism they also list right wing terrorism and ethno-centric terrorism as being major issues which they have to deal with. So, I guess I have more confidence in the systems and institutions of Western Europe than you.

 

Finally, I have no problem with people doing what they choose. But, you didn't answer my questions, did you? You just clicked on some lol emoticons. So, go on, have a go. Try answering my questions.

 

If British-born people choose to practice Islam so what? Isn't that their choice? And if that is a problem, why?

Oh, and let's add to that numbers. I've answered your question, now you provide an answer. How many is too many? Is 4.5% of the British population too many Muslims? If so, why?

 

(Oh, and try to answer without clicking on emoticons. See whether you can answer using words.)

There is little point looking for answers or formed views from Sour Mash. He's stuck at wishing Britain still looked like it did in the 1950s. He has no solution or ideas for policy, just a bleat about the way things are presently repeated on a loop.

Meanwhile, a new advertising campaign appears in London...

Meanwhile, a new advertising campaign appears in London...

Seems sensible enough to me?

Seems sensible enough to me?

Yeah seems sensible:

The Qur’an allows (or, perhaps, commands) men to beat their wives into subservience. If a wife doesn’t listen to her husband, the husband should admonish her. If that doesn’t work, he is to make her sleep in a separate bed. However, if the wife still doesn’t respect her husband’s authority, even after she has been banished to another bed, the husband is told to physically punish her.

Muhammad offered women little hope for the afterlife. Indeed, he clearly states that most of the inhabitants of hell are women who were ungrateful to their husbands (though he never suggests that ungrateful husbands will receive similar punishment. This means that, after being admonished, banished to a separate bed, and beaten by her husband, a willful woman can look forward to an eternity in hell

The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those "whom their right hands possess"). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives.

It's an old ad by the way but the point still stands.

Yeah seems sensible:

 

The Qur’an allows (or, perhaps, commands) men to beat their wives into subservience. If a wife doesn’t listen to her husband, the husband should admonish her. If that doesn’t work, he is to make her sleep in a separate bed. However, if the wife still doesn’t respect her husband’s authority, even after she has been banished to another bed, the husband is told to physically punish her.

 

Muhammad offered women little hope for the afterlife. Indeed, he clearly states that most of the inhabitants of hell are women who were ungrateful to their husbands (though he never suggests that ungrateful husbands will receive similar punishment. This means that, after being admonished, banished to a separate bed, and beaten by her husband, a willful woman can look forward to an eternity in hell

 

The Qur’an permits Muslims to have sex with their female captives and slaves (i.e. those "whom their right hands possess"). As the Muslim armies raided town after town, they captured many women, who would often be sold or traded. Yet, since the Muslim men were a long way from their wives, they needed wisdom from God to guide them in their treatment of their female captives.

Thats the trouble with getting your 'facts' from Facebook. You make an arse of yourself.

https://www.facebook.com/YassminAbdelMagied/posts/798723856948352

Maybe read this instead.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/koran-carla-power/

Thats the trouble with getting your 'facts' from Facebook. You make an arse of yourself.

https://www.facebook.com/YassminAbdelMagied/posts/798723856948352

 

 

Maybe read this instead.

http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/koran-carla-power/

I didn't get it from facebook. You've certainly convinced me though, he was truly a champion of women's rights:

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

Got anymore illuminating links about the worlds most progressive religion? Anything on racial descrimination?

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk."

There are many other verses championing the Muslim faith as a kind and tolerant religion as I'm sure you know.

I didn't get it from facebook. You've certainly convinced me though, he was truly a champion of women's rights:

 

"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great."

 

Got anymore illuminating links about the worlds most progressive religion? Anything on racial descrimination?

 

"O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk."

There are many other verses championing the Muslim faith as a kind and tolerant religion as I'm sure you know.

 

Better to remain silent than to remove any doubt. 1,400 years eh? blink of eye.

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything." (Ephesians 5:22-24)

"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." (I Timothy 2:11-14)

"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die (Deuteronomy 22:22)

What relevance do Bible quotes have to Islamic extemism? Start a new thread on what's wrong with the bible and Christian extemists who commit terrorist attacks and I'll be on there to agree with you.

What relevance do Bible quotes have to Islamic extemism? Start a new thread on what's wrong with the bible and Christian extemists who commit terrorist attacks and I'll be on there to agree with you.

Trouble with that attempted wriggle out is that you didnt post Koran quotes about about terrorists attacks, because you tried and failed to find any, so instead you posted about women's rights. I posted similar from the bible. Both products of their time.

What relevance do Bible quotes have to Islamic extemism? Start a new thread on what's wrong with the bible and Christian extemists who commit terrorist attacks and I'll be on there to agree with you.

They are the ones using the scripture how it was meant, it is the large number of religious cherrypickers that aren't following the scripture and putting their on 21st century created moral system on it. Killing infidels & non-believers are endorsed by the Koran & The Bible.

Both the Koran & Bible are horrendous books with horrendous teachings that should really be banned from publication under UK law for inciting a lot of criminal acts (homophobia, sexism, slavery, genocide and murder etc etc)

They are the ones using the scripture how it was meant, it is the large number of religious cherrypickers that aren't following the scripture and putting their on 21st century created moral system on it. Killing infidels & non-believers are endorsed by the Koran & The Bible.

 

Both the Koran & Bible are horrendous books with horrendous teachings that should really be banned from publication under UK law for inciting a lot of criminal acts (homophobia, sexism, slavery, genocide and murder etc etc)

They are the ones using the scripture how it was meant, it is the large number of religious cherrypickers that aren't following the scripture and putting their on 21st century created moral system on it. Killing infidels & non-believers are endorsed by the Koran & The Bible.

 

Both the Koran & Bible are horrendous books with horrendous teachings that should really be banned from publication under UK law for inciting a lot of criminal acts (homophobia, sexism, slavery, genocide and murder etc etc)

Good for you mlg. When pointing out insidious text from the qaran and suggesting there may be a link to that and the various intolerant attitudes we see today across Islamic populations, pointing at Christianity and effectively saying "they are bad too" isn't a valid rebuttal. Start a thread on the evils of Christianity if you like, I'm sure there will be no shortage of contributors but calling some Christian teaching deranged or suggesting that extremist Christian have committed atrocities doesn't excuse Islam.

Trouble with that attempted wriggle out is that you didnt post Koran quotes about about terrorists attacks, because you tried and failed to find any, so instead you posted about women's rights. I posted similar from the bible. Both products of their time.

No I didn't, I made no attempt to do what you claim, rather I was seeking to show how regressive the qaran is which really isn't hard to do. The Bible's failings have nothing to do with the Islamic holy book or the fact that we have such a large problem with Islamic terrorism and that women, gays and minorities are treated so horribly in the vast vast majority of Islamic societies.

How old was Mo's wife Aisha when married her?

I'm interested because Mo "believed in women 'a rights"

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apologies if I didn't make it clear, I can't take you or anyone else that thinks there are much more significant forms of terrorism currently affecting western Europe than that inflicted in the name of islam. You're on a wind-up, but you need to get better at it.

Well, surprise, surprise - you've failed (again) to answer the (perfectly reasonable) questions asked of you. And, it seems, you just can't resist clicking on that old emoticon, so here's one for you....

I guess, as Tim suggests, it's pointless trying to get any answers out of you. You seem far happier moaning and whining than actually outlining what you want to happen. Either you're bereft of ideas or a little bit dim. I really can't think of any other reason why you might refuse to answer the questions.

How old was Mo's wife Aisha when married her?

 

I'm interested because Mo "believed in women 'a rights"

She was probably 7, a year older than Isabella when King Richard II of England married her.

She was probably 7, a year older than Isabella when King Richard II of England married her.

With national stability secured, Richard began negotiating a permanent peace with France. A proposal put forward in 1393 would have greatly expanded the territory of Aquitaine possessed by the English crown. However, the plan failed because it included a requirement that the English king pay homage to the King of France – a condition that proved unacceptable to the English public.^[51] Instead, in 1396, a truce was agreed to, which was to last 28 years.^[52] As part of the truce, Richard agreed to marry Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France, when she came of age. There were some misgivings about the betrothal, in particular because the princess was then only six years old, and thus would not be able to produce an heir to the throne of England for many years

With national stability secured, Richard began negotiating a permanent peace with France. A proposal put forward in 1393 would have greatly expanded the territory of Aquitaine possessed by the English crown. However, the plan failed because it included a requirement that the English king pay homage to the King of France – a condition that proved unacceptable to the English public.^[51] Instead, in 1396, a truce was agreed to, which was to last 28 years.^[52] As part of the truce, Richard agreed to marry Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France, when she came of age. There were some misgivings about the betrothal, in particular because the princess was then only six years old, and thus would not be able to produce an heir to the throne of England for many years

Wrong. They were married on 4th November 1396 at Ardres. She was six he was 29.

At least it wasn't creepy. Oh.

Wrong. They were married on 4th November 1396 at Ardres. She was six he was 29.

How is this wrong? Are you suggesting that the original proposal did not include the conditions under which the marriage was proposed . The article actually lists the estimated age of marriage as six. So obviously it was accelerated. But to suggest the context is 'wrong' is incorrect.

How is this wrong? Are you suggesting that the original proposal did not include the conditions under which the marriage was proposed . The article actually lists the estimated age of marriage as six. So obviously it was accelerated. But to suggest the context is 'wrong' is incorrect.

You wrote "Richard agreed to marry Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France, when she came of age". You even highlighted it in bold. So unless you think six is "of age" you were wrong. Either wrong or creepy.

Some cultural enrichment foiled in London this afty.

Just do NOT, what ever you do, for goodness sake, jump to any conclusions

This thread has been brilliant. We've learnt that:

Islamic terrorism is only a tiny threat to Western Europe compared to other types of terror.

Mass sex attacks and rape across Cologne on New Year's eve was just like an ordinary Saturday night in Maidstone.

Islam is brilliant for women's rights.

Many would be happy to see the UK be a 100% muslim country.

Top work lads.

She was probably 7, a year older than Isabella when King Richard II of England married her.

With national stability secured, Richard began negotiating a permanent peace with France. A proposal put forward in 1393 would have greatly expanded the territory of Aquitaine possessed by the English crown. However, the plan failed because it included a requirement that the English king pay homage to the King of France – a condition that proved unacceptable to the English public.^[51] Instead, in 1396, a truce was agreed to, which was to last 28 years.^[52] As part of the truce, Richard agreed to marry Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France, when she came of age. There were some misgivings about the betrothal, in particular because the princess was then only six years old, and thus would not be able to produce an heir to the throne of England for many years

Wrong. They were married on 4th November 1396 at Ardres. She was six he was 29.

How is this wrong? Are you suggesting that the original proposal did not include the conditions under which the marriage was proposed . The article actually lists the estimated age of marriage as six. So obviously it was accelerated. But to suggest the context is 'wrong' is incorrect.

You wrote "Richard agreed to marry Isabella, daughter of Charles VI of France, when she came of age". You even highlighted it in bold. So unless you think six is "of age" you were wrong. Either wrong or creepy.

So you're trying to frame it like that are you? Superb. First of all, I didn't write the article. It does have some excellent sources though. I merely copied over a paragraph to show that he was betrothed (and married) Isabella as part of a truce deal, brokered after the original proposals failed. So i highlighted the sentence about the truce, and how the proposal was arranged

Oddly enough, in your attempt to frame 'my' (in actuality the articles) words as 'creepy' you leave out "As part of the truce" that begins the sentence, and claim it as you quoting me. Dishonest to say the least.

I then go on to mention that the marriage went ahead earlier than the original agreement (this was with the encouragement of Charles VI, to solidify the truce) You can see it quoted directly above "So obviously it was accelerated". But i think you already knew that, and that you have tried to twist my giving context to the betrothal and marriage as a diplomatic move into my somehow supporting/approving of the marriage of six year old girls. How regrettable on your part.

Some cultural enrichment foiled in London this afty.

 

Just do NOT, what ever you do, for goodness sake, jump to any conclusions

Well, surprise, surprise - you've failed (again) to answer the (perfectly reasonable) questions asked of you. And, it seems, you just can't resist clicking on that old emoticon, so here's one for you....

 

I guess, as Tim suggests, it's pointless trying to get any answers out of you. You seem far happier moaning and whining than actually outlining what you want to happen. Either you're bereft of ideas or a little bit dim. I really can't think of any other reason why you might refuse to answer the questions.

She was probably 7, a year older than Isabella when King Richard II of England married her.

"mohammed had sex with a child." "Christians did it too."

So? If King Richard had sex with a 6 year old then he is equally sick and depraved, it doesn't lessen the original crime.

I must have missed all the adverts, worship, millions of followers, terrorism in the name of Richard II.

Nobody is saying Richard believed in women's rights. The propaganda claimed Mo did.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm just pointing out that you're on a wind-up, probably not even a Saints fan, so its pretty clear why you're posting on here.

Oh, I see, you're a troll. Now it all makes sense. As they say, the obvious troll is obvious - and there's you, hiding in plain sight, as it were.

Ok, as you were. Troll away, dear Sour Grapes. Here's a poster just for you....

This thread has been brilliant. We've learnt that:

 

Islamic terrorism is only a tiny threat to Western Europe compared to other types of terror.

Mass sex attacks and rape across Cologne on New Year's eve was just like an ordinary Saturday night in Maidstone.

Islam is brilliant for women's rights.

Many would be happy to see the UK be a 100% muslim country.

 

Top work lads.

Once more you make things up to suit your own bigoted agenda. I didn't say that Cologne was like a Saturday night in Maidstone. I pointed out that these things go on all the time here but you only seem bothered if crimes are carried out by Muslims or migrants. Also please tell me out of the "mass sex attacks and rape across Cologne" how many people were charged and convicted with sexual assault and rape. It should be hard for you because there were so many.

Whatever is going on it is clearly disturbing as the police are saying that they cannot guarantee security for women there.

The women of Cologne have certainly made their voices heard. Surely Merkel doesn't think that she can sweep this under the carpet?

Of course I understand that there is a difference in cultures. But after working in the CPS for 8 years and seeing the cases being prosecuted I also know that this kind of behaviour is not the preserve of Muslim men. Go out in Maidstone on a Friday or Saturday night and it is like a scene from an old Wild West town.

Sadoldgit stating that mass rape and sexual assault is comparable to Maidstone on a Friday/Saturday night.

Sadoldgit stating that mass rape and sexual assault is comparable to Maidstone on a Friday/Saturday night.

Where exactly do I say that the incidents in Cologne were compatible to Maidstone on a Friday/Saturday night? What I say is that the behaviour of that night isn't the preserve of Muslim men. I also say that Maidstone town centre on the weekends is like a scene from an old Wild West town. I didn't say that it was like Cologne. It is something you have imagined. And thanks for showing that I didn't condone what happened that night. But you said that there were "masses" of rapes and sexual assaults, so once again, please tell us how many men were charged and convicted of rape or sexual assault that night? After all, there were "masses" so it cant be too hard.

Since the weekend at least 4 people have been stabbed to death in London, the latest was found on a bus. I assume that none of these attacks have been carried out by Muslim terrorists as I am sure Batman would have pointed them out to us. Every day women are raped and beaten in this country by what you would term as one of us (ie not Muslims or migrants). Every day there are cases of GBH, ABH, aggravated burglary, theft etc etc by people who are not Muslim or migrants. But yet you only seem to be outraged when Muslims or migrants are involved in wrong doing. I will say again following your kind recap of my quote, this behaviour is not the preserve of Muslim men (and I should have added or migrants). Most rational people understand that, but you and a few other people here seem to think that because someone happens to be a Muslim or a migrant, they are more likely to commit crimes and that their behaviour is somehow worse and more comment worthy than crimes committed by others.

Oh, and its not just Maidstone town centre that is rowdy at weekends - towns all over the UK get lively, have you never been in a town centre at chucking out time from the pubs?

Where exactly do I say that the incidents in Cologne were compatible to Maidstone on a Friday/Saturday night? What I say is that the behaviour of that night isn't the preserve of Muslim men. I also say that Maidstone town centre on the weekends is like a scene from an old Wild West town. I didn't say that it was like Cologne. It is something you have imagined. And thanks for showing that I didn't condone what happened that night. But you said that there were "masses" of rapes and sexual assaults, so once again, please tell us how many men were charged and convicted of rape or sexual assault that night? After all, there were "masses" so it cant be too hard.

 

Since the weekend at least 4 people have been stabbed to death in London, the latest was found on a bus. I assume that none of these attacks have been carried out by Muslim terrorists as I am sure Batman would have pointed them out to us. Every day women are raped and beaten in this country by what you would term as one of us (ie not Muslims or migrants). Every day there are cases of GBH, ABH, aggravated burglary, theft etc etc by people who are not Muslim or migrants. But yet you only seem to be outraged when Muslims or migrants are involved in wrong doing. I will say again following your kind recap of my quote, this behaviour is not the preserve of Muslim men (and I should have added or migrants). Most rational people understand that, but you and a few other people here seem to think that because someone happens to be a Muslim or a migrant, they are more likely to commit crimes and that their behaviour is somehow worse and more comment worthy than crimes committed by others.

 

Oh, and its not just Maidstone town centre that is rowdy at weekends - towns all over the UK get lively, have you never been in a town centre at chucking out time from the pubs?

Quite sad how much this means to him

Regular Islamic terrorism is a price well worth paying according to Sadoldgit and Chapel End Charlie, we've just got to accept it as part of opening our doors to islam.

I suppose I should be pleased to see myself downgraded from the enthusiastic supporter of murder and mayhem on our streets that I (apparently) was the other day, to just someone who is indifferent to serious crime - those of course are the only possible explanations as to why anyone on here would dare oppose your particular brand of knuckle-dragging xenophobia are they not?

Anyone reading your stuff (who didn't know better) might also fall into the error of assuming that you had put forward some meaningful well thought out proposals to address the very real problem of 21st century islamist terrorism. But the truth is the only idea I have managed to extract from you is that you wanted to see a immigration policy based on religion/ethnicity imposed - a useless and essentially racist idea that not even UKIP would dare propose at the coming General Election. Furthermore, such a measure would almost certainly be rapidly declared illegal under both UK and international law - even should Parliament ever be mad enough to vote for it that is. As for your side-kick Batman ... well his master anti terrorism plan is so secret even he doesn't know what it is.

So while your distaste for living in modern multi-racial Britain is perfectly clear for all to see, unfortunately your only obvious choices here are to either emigrate to some other nation will have you and that is more in tune with your particular viewpoint, or put up with living in 'blighty' because the millions of British Muslims - almost all of whom are not involved in terrorism of course - are not going away and in this wonderful old nation they (like everybody else) are perfectly entitled to practice their religion as they see fit to within the limit of the law. However much that behaviour may upset you.

On your previous form I await the usual (bogus) allegations of misrepresenting you, or not answering some question that you have come up with, or losing my temper again blah blah blah ...

I suppose I should be pleased to see myself downgraded from the enthusiastic supporter of murder and mayhem on our streets that I (apparently) was the other day, to just someone who is indifferent to serious crime - those of course are the only possible explanations as to why anyone on here would dare oppose your particular brand of knuckle-dragging xenophobia are they not?

 

Anyone reading your stuff (who didn't know better) might also fall into the error of assuming that you had put forward some meaningful well thought out proposals to address the very real problem of 21st century islamist terrorism. But the truth is the only idea I have managed to extract from you is that you wanted to see a immigration policy based on religion/ethnicity imposed - a useless and essentially racist idea that not even UKIP would dare propose at the coming General Election. Furthermore, such a measure would almost certainly be rapidly declared illegal under both UK and international law - even should Parliament ever be mad enough to vote for it that is. As for your side-kick Batman ... well his master anti terrorism plan is so secret even he doesn't know what it is.

 

So while your distaste for living in modern multi-racial Britain is perfectly clear for all to see, unfortunately your only obvious choices here are to either emigrate to some other nation will have you and that is more in tune with your particular viewpoint, or put up with living in 'blighty' because the millions of British Muslims - almost all of whom are not involved in terrorism of course - are not going away and in this wonderful old nation they (like everybody else) are perfectly entitled to practice their religion as they see fit to within the limit of the law. However much that behaviour may upset you.

 

On your previous form I await the usual (bogus) allegations of misrepresenting you, or not answering some question that you have come up with, or losing my temper again blah blah blah ...

Or the emoticon. He likes an emoticon when he's stumped.

I didn't say you said they were compatible, you said they were comparable. You think drunk people on a Saturday night in England are the same as mass rape and sexual assault, to the extent of "police are saying that they cannot guarantee security for women there." and "The women of Cologne have certainly made their voices heard. Surely Merkel doesn't think that she can sweep this under the carpet?". Your words there in black and white.

Mass rape and sexual assaults. How many were charged and convicted? Third time of asking.

I did not say that they were comparable. I said **** happens here too. Very frequently. But you ignore this and focus on the behaviour of Muslims and migrants as if some how that is worse.

I suppose I should be pleased to see myself downgraded from the enthusiastic supporter of murder and mayhem on our streets that I (apparently) was the other day, to just someone who is indifferent to serious crime - those of course are the only possible explanations as to why anyone on here would dare oppose your particular brand of knuckle-dragging xenophobia are they not?

 

Anyone reading your stuff (who didn't know better) might also fall into the error of assuming that you had put forward some meaningful well thought out proposals to address the very real problem of 21st century islamist terrorism. But the truth is the only idea I have managed to extract from you is that you wanted to see a immigration policy based on religion/ethnicity imposed - a useless and essentially racist idea that not even UKIP would dare propose at the coming General Election. Furthermore, such a measure would almost certainly be rapidly declared illegal under both UK and international law - even should Parliament ever be mad enough to vote for it that is. As for your side-kick Batman ... well his master anti terrorism plan is so secret even he doesn't know what it is.

 

So while your distaste for living in modern multi-racial Britain is perfectly clear for all to see, unfortunately your only obvious choices here are to either emigrate to some other nation will have you and that is more in tune with your particular viewpoint, or put up with living in 'blighty' because the millions of British Muslims - almost all of whom are not involved in terrorism of course - are not going away and in this wonderful old nation they (like everybody else) are perfectly entitled to practice their religion as they see fit to within the limit of the law. However much that behaviour may upset you.

 

On your previous form I await the usual (bogus) allegations of misrepresenting you, or not answering some question that you have come up with, or losing my temper again blah blah blah ...

Mass rape and sexual assaults. How many were charged and convicted? Third time of asking.

 

I did not say that they were comparable. I said **** happens here too. Very frequently. But you ignore this and focus on the behaviour of Muslims and migrants as if some how that is worse.

Why have you now changed your mind?

Which towns and cities are comparable to what happened in Cologne on that New Year's eve, if you've now changed your mind about Maidstone?

Why are you asking me. It was you that stated the following; "police are saying that they cannot guarantee security for women there." and "The women of Cologne have certainly made their voices heard. Surely Merkel doesn't think that she can sweep this under the carpet?". And you said the same happens in English towns and cities.

 

Why have you now changed your mind?

 

Which towns and cities are comparable to what happened in Cologne on that New Year's eve, if you've now changed your mind about Maidstone?

You're absolutely loving it, aren't you pal. You're in your element.