British Values

[Altfish]

Talk about propaganda. Islam takes some beating in that department.

Are your sites as up to date on the killings in the name of Islam as the ROP website?

You could learn a lot about your favourite hobbyhorse from the ROP website - Comparing Islamic Terror to Northern Ireland

Of course...
The Green Book (IRA) - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

Of course...
The Green Book (IRA) - Wikipedia

Whats the chances he will pretend you didn't post that just as he deliberately ignores all the posts that pop his bubble...?

 

[ChristineM]

Talk about propaganda. Islam takes some beating in that department.

Are your sites as up to date on the killings in the name of Islam as the ROP website?

You could learn a lot about your favourite hobbyhorse from the ROP website - Comparing Islamic Terror to Northern Ireland

Is there any reason that you considered Christian terrorist (ira) to be independent to Christianity but refuse to separate Muslim terrorist from islam?

 

[Altfish]

Whats the chances he will pretend you didn't post that just as he deliberately ignores all the posts that pop his bubble...?

I wouldn't put money on NAN acknowledging the post

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That's about regimes rather than religions.

Regimes which base their laws on religious beliefs. I'm at a loss for words that you don't understand there's a religious component to theocracies and pseudo-theocratic countries. The UK is technically a theocracy or pseudo-theocracy as our head of state is also the head of the state church, and unelected bishops make our laws.

The west is primarily Christian. Christian 'diktat' (as you call it) was the basis of government here for 1,500 years. During that time many atrocities took place.

That's true. Your point?

The west is now more advanced and liberal while the predominantly Muslim countries have a little catching up to do.
That's economics and western world domination - not religion.

Islam's inherent hostility to change (i.e. bi'dah) and differing opinions is also a contributing factor to this slow change.

Back at ya babe

Unable to articulate a response that goes beyond shovelling what people say to you back at them like snow from a driveway? Not surprising.

You've gone wrong for blaming a whole religion for the acts of a few of its followers

I'm pointing out that there's a connection between behaviour & belief. Not really sure why you find this so hard to understand.

True - but I have come across some truly obnoxious posters here. Atheists, Christians and neo-pagans spring to mind. But I won't fall into your trap and condemn ALL Atheists, Christians or neo-pagans because of these fruitcakes.

Good luck finding a central doctrine of either atheism or Neo-Paganism to connect to being truly obnoxious.

Again, this is government at fault, not religion. I draw your attention to my first paragraph in this post.

A religion that claims to be complete, perfect and an all-encompassing way of life.

Criticising Islam is OK - so long as you make the same criticisms of other faiths and don't just single out the one.

I do so that's fine then. Also, what if there's a criticism I can level against Islam that doesn't fit when applied against other faiths? Am I not allowed to make it then?

I always address each point you make.

Oh, you mean like you did here?

Back at ya babe

Don't strain yourself now.

Not quite sure what you mean by 'make it out about everybody else but and'

'Make it out about everybody else but [Islam] and

Once again, that's the government - not the religion.

And Volume 9, Book 84, Verse 57 of Sahih Bukhari claims Muhammad commanded that "Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him."

If it was the religion then Christianity is evil for all the acts dne by governments in its name. Can you not get this simple point?

Christianity can rightly be considered evil for the suffering it has encouraged its followers to inflict upon numerous cultures around the world.

I get it. Nutters will use their beliefs to justify their actions. Look at Hitler - a Christian/Atheist. He believed he was doing the right thing.

Hitler used Christian-inspired anti-Semitism to justify his killing of Jews and Christian-inspired homophobia to justify killing gays. There's a connection between his Christian beliefs and what he did.

If there were less internet trolls verbally attacking Muslims, then we could save the word for more serious occasions. Sadly, those trolls keep posting their diatribe on forums like this.

Considering you seem to think anybody who disagrees with you must be a troll, it's not surprising you feel this way. There are some here who can explain pretty eloquently about why they're not fans of Islam like @LuisDantas but no doubt he's a troll.

They have their own agenda too.

I don't think I've ever seen such a weak excuse for dismissing a source before. Literally everybody has "their own agenda" in one sense or another. In the case of CEMB that agenda is striving to ensure that ex-Muslims should be allowed to feel safe, live their own lives freely and not have to worry about their friends & family trying to harm them for leaving their religion. It's hardly surprising that people who grew up in a religion that says for apostates to be killed would be angry or resent the threats or treatment they've received.

How about 'The Independent,' 'The Guardian' or 'The Times'?

For whatever reason they've decided not to touch the story so far as I can tell. How about PinkNews or the National Secular Society instead? Or are they out because 'they have their own agendas' too?

Which organisation is that?
If you mean the Islamic faith then you are casting your net very wide indeed.

... I was referring to the Catholic Church. You know, that organisation I mentioned in my previous post that you said you didn't think was criminal?

The Mafia are Christians aren't they? Are Christians then criminals?

Can you find any doctrinal justification in Christian scripture or tradition for what the Mafia are doing? Strangely enough, Islamic scripture does actually justify a criminal practice: the extorting of protection money aka the jizyah.

No - you're saving all your vitriol for the Muslims.

I just said I think the Catholic Church is a criminal organisation and you accuse me of this. You lie.

It can be plainly deduced from your words.

Plainly deduce it by pointing out where I said it then.

Hooray! - I've managed to shut you up at last!!!!!!!

Not surprising that you want to silence those who refuse to let you lie about their positions and misrepresent them. Islam has serious problems and could do with significant improvement.

Indeed - I used to play years ago. Wasn't the Emperor a living corpse, whose followers were bent on controlling the universe by wiping out other races?
Seems an apt title for you then.

Actually the Emperor was an incredibly rational human who had a utopian goal for the human race; one which included chucking religions out the window because they're superstitious garbage which actually strengthens Chaos. His beliefs were later twisted and manipulated by less educated people to say something they did not. People who were not intellectually capable of dealing with dissenting opinions so they tried to silence them.

But that's not why I like him. I think his background, origins and the overall story of how he came to be the Emperor of Man is fascinating.

Also, I don't believe wiping anybody out is the solution to anything and I resent the implication.

 

[Notanumber]

Of course...
The Green Book (IRA) - Wikipedia

How does this equate to Islam and the Quran?

Because the IRA and later republican groupings have been identified as illegal organisations (the PIRA, IRA & Cumann na mBan have been proscribed - declared illegal - in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and a number of other countries)[1][2][3][4] The Green Book has been distributed and published secretly. It is published at unknown printing presses and distributed to or shared with IRA volunteers as they are accepted for active duty. Due to this secrecy only two editions of the Green Book have so far been released into the public domain. The first, published in 1956, appears to be intact. The second, publication date unknown but dating to the 1977 detention of then IRA Chief of Staff Seamus Twomey, has only been released in three parts (referred to here as the 1977 edition). With the beginning of the latest IRA ceasefire and the 2005 ending of their campaign, it seems unlikely that a new edition of the manual will have been issued in recent years by the IRA. However, it is possible that known/unknown groupings have issued a more recent version.

 

[Notanumber]

Some of these have already been used by those on here that are Islamic apologists, but here are some more for your armoury - Games Muslims Play

 

[LionLooking]

Regimes which base their laws on religious beliefs. I'm at a loss for words that you don't understand there's a religious component to theocracies ...

You obviously don't get this so I'll try to make it simple for you.
Because some form of evil (be it a regime, a terrorist, a murderer etc.) bases their actions on a religion, that does not make the religion bad. It is the people who are interpreting it to suit their own wishes that are bad,
Got it now?

That's true. Your point?

Is that (as I've said before numerous times but you still haven't grasped), if you are to condemn Muslims because of harsh governments, then you must also condemn Christians, pagans and Jews too because all of these have spawned horrendous governments. Why single out just one of them?

Unable to articulate a response that goes beyond shovelling what people say to you back at them like snow from a driveway? Not surprising.

You accused me of being blind with the words, 'you can't or won't see it'.
My reply was a perfect response as I have made the same point many times to you but you seem incapable of understanding. That's why I used simple words for you.

I'm pointing out that there's a connection between behaviour & belief. Not really sure why you find this so hard to understand.

I've already agreed with you about that. I said 'Nutters will use their beliefs to justify their actions. Look at Hitler - a Christian/Atheist. He believed he was doing the right thing.'
Not really sure why you don't understand basic English.

Good luck finding a central doctrine of either atheism or Neo-Paganism to connect to being truly obnoxious.

There isn't one. Just as there isn't one for Islam, despite your wanting there to be.

A religion that claims to be complete, perfect and an all-encompassing way of life.

You could say the same about Christianity and Judaism too.

Also, what if there's a criticism I can level against Islam that doesn't fit when applied against other faiths? Am I not allowed to make it then?

If it's a valid criticism of the faith, rather than blaming the faith for the actions of a few of its followers as you have been doing on here.

Oh, you mean like you did here? 'back at ya babe' ? Don't strain yourself now.

When I've repeated myself several times and you still keep crowing, then to save time, I sum it up briefly. Was it too difficult for you to translate? Sorry, I'll stick to infant school vocabulary to make it easier for you.

... Muhammad commanded that "Whoever changes his (Islamic) religion, kill him."

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - "If a man or woman living among you ...has worshipped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

Christianity can rightly be considered evil for the suffering it has encouraged its followers to inflict upon numerous cultures around the world.

No it can't. Those who caused the suffering might be considered evil, not the religion itself.
How many times must I repeat this before it gets though your thick skull?

Hitler used Christian-inspired anti-Semitism to justify his killing of Jews and Christian-inspired homophobia to justify killing gays. There's a connection between his Christian beliefs and what he did.

Yup, although he had a Christian upbringing, he was an atheist in later life.. Again, must I repeat?
'Nutters will use their beliefs to justify their actions. Look at Hitler - a Christian/Atheist. He believed he was doing the right thing.'

Considering you seem to think anybody who disagrees with you must be a troll,

No, only those who spout hatred.

There are some here who can explain pretty eloquently about why they're not fans of Islam like @LuisDantas but no doubt he's a troll.

What's up - can't speak for yourself?

For whatever reason they've decided not to touch the story so far as I can tell.

Maybe because it didn't happen?

... I was referring to the Catholic Church. You know, that organisation I mentioned in my previous post that you said you didn't think was criminal?

I see. It's hard to say who you are having a go at - you seem to have enough hatred for everybody.

Can you find any doctrinal justification in Christian scripture or tradition for what the Mafia are doing?

No, but I can find doctrinal justification in Christian scripture for all of these terrible acts:
Slavery
Mysogeny
Death penalty for being raped
Death penalty for working on the Sabbath
There's plenty more of this. Have a look for yourself. Most Christians and Jews do not follow these verses, just as most Muslims don't follow similar commands in their book.

I just said I think the Catholic Church is a criminal organisation and you accuse me of this. You lie.

Not lie - misunderstand.
I now know you hate Catholics as much as you hate Muslims.
Sorry for my error.

Plainly deduce it by pointing out where I said it then.

There's a skill we use in the English language - it's called 'reading comprehension'. From the words, punctuation and style, you can deduce the inner meaning of text. You should try it. Start somewhere simple though - the Janet and John books might help.

Not surprising that you want to silence those who refuse to let you lie about their positions and misrepresent them.

I want to silence hate-mongers.

Actually the Emperor was an incredibly rational human who had a utopian goal for the human race; one which included chucking religions out the window ...

Thank goodness he is just a fictitious character. We have enough anti-religion nutters here in reality.

Also, I don't believe wiping anybody out is the solution to anything and I resent the implication.

As long as you continue to spout anti-Muslim rhetoric, then people will place you in the box reserved for xenophobes - you know, BNP, Nazis, KKK etc.
If you don't like their company then watch your words more carefully.

 

[Altfish]

How does this equate to Islam and the Quran?

Because the IRA and later republican groupings have been identified as illegal organisations (the PIRA, IRA & Cumann na mBan have been proscribed - declared illegal - in the UK, the Republic of Ireland and a number of other countries)[1][2][3][4] The Green Book has been distributed and published secretly. It is published at unknown printing presses and distributed to or shared with IRA volunteers as they are accepted for active duty. Due to this secrecy only two editions of the Green Book have so far been released into the public domain. The first, published in 1956, appears to be intact. The second, publication date unknown but dating to the 1977 detention of then IRA Chief of Staff Seamus Twomey, has only been released in three parts (referred to here as the 1977 edition). With the beginning of the latest IRA ceasefire and the 2005 ending of their campaign, it seems unlikely that a new edition of the manual will have been issued in recent years by the IRA. However, it is possible that known/unknown groupings have issued a more recent version.

You asked for, and I quote...."I presume you must have a link to this informative document or you would not have posted."

I provided that, but needless to say it does not satisfy your demands because it contradicts your narrative.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You obviously don't get this so I'll try to make it simple for you.
Because some form of evil (be it a regime, a terrorist, a murderer etc.) bases their actions on a religion, that does not make the religion bad. It is the people who are interpreting it to suit their own wishes that are bad,
Got it now?

And if that evil action is based on theology, beliefs or history that actually are a part of that religion (i.e. the Quranic verses which call for violence against non-believers, forcing them to pay the jizyah or emulating the spread of Islam across Persia or the Levant) in its early history as opposed to just twisting beliefs that don't encourage violence until it says they do (like in the case of Buddhism) then that religion needs to be examined & critiqued. Got it now?

Is that (as I've said before numerous times but you still haven't grasped), if you are to condemn Muslims because of harsh governments, then you must also condemn Christians, pagans and Jews too because all of these have spawned horrendous governments. Why single out just one of them?

I condemn Islam for motivating & justifying their behaviour; I don't bring other religions in every single time (i.e. "Islam does this, but so does Christianity, Judaism etc) because I refuse to appeal to basic whataboutery and depending on the context, other religions don't justify some things now e.g. killing apostates.

You accused me of being blind with the words, 'you can't or won't see it'.
My reply was a perfect response as I have made the same point many times to you but you seem incapable of understanding. That's why I used simple words for you.

No. Your reply was lazy because you fail to consider the fact that your average Muslim does not get to decide what is Islamic doctrine or scripture. It's dictated for them and anybody who raises a dissenting voice risks being accused of 'religious innovation' which is heretical in Islam.

I've already agreed with you about that. I said 'Nutters will use their beliefs to justify their actions. Look at Hitler - a Christian/Atheist. He believed he was doing the right thing.'
Not really sure why you don't understand basic English.

At the same time you've been saying constantly that we shouldn't be critiquing their beliefs (well, you've been saying that about Islam) or considering that they may be a factor. Please try to be consistent.

There isn't one. Just as there isn't one for Islam, despite your wanting there to be.

Haha, what?! Islam doesn't have a unifying doctrine? You'd better get on to Al Jazeera or one of myriad Islam websites; get the news spread and we'll get this straightened out right away.

• Monotheism, monotheism, monotheism;
• Everyone is born Muslim so our religion is right;
• Aniconism (which often leads to iconoclasm);
• Muhammad is God's messenger so he is a moral exemplar all people should strive to emulate;
• The Quran is the eternally true, inviolable word of God.

You could say the same about Christianity and Judaism too.

Except you can't because I've not heard of Christianity or Judaism handing down religious laws when it comes to things like running financial institutes (e.g. laws describing how borrowing ought to work) etc. There are Islamic banks run in accordance with aspects of Sharia, sure. Where are the banks run according to Jewish or Christian law?

If it's a valid criticism of the faith, rather than blaming the faith for the actions of a few of its followers as you have been doing on here.

Why would a religion be credited for the peaceful actions of its followers which are in keeping with certain aspects of its traditions but not be to blame for the violent actions of a few of its followers which are also in keeping with its traditions?

When I've repeated myself several times and you still keep crowing, then to save time, I sum it up briefly. Was it too difficult for you to translate? Sorry, I'll stick to infant school vocabulary to make it easier for you.

You've repeated arguments based in whataboutery and deflection several times. No matter how often you repeat them, be it a dozen, a hundred or a thousand times, they won't be cogent or relevant.

Deuteronomy 17:2-5 - "If a man or woman living among you ...has worshipped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death."

How many non-Muslim countries apply this diktat as law? None. Other religions have moved on. Islam has not.

No it can't. Those who caused the suffering might be considered evil, not the religion itself.

I agree with blaming the person but why shouldn't we blame a religion if it motivates their action? You're saying this here but up above you're saying (in the case of Hitler) that their beliefs do motivate their actions. Can you please be consistent?

How many times must I repeat this before it gets though your thick skull?

Keep making petty insults to prove your intellectual superiority.

Yup, although he had a Christian upbringing, he was an atheist in later life.. Again, must I repeat?
'Nutters will use their beliefs to justify their actions. Look at Hitler - a Christian/Atheist. He believed he was doing the right thing.'

Right, so Christianity is to blame for Hitler's anti-semitism.

No, only those who spout hatred.

Ah, of course. I've got concerns about Islam so I'm "spouting hatred". Excellent deductive reasoning, Watson.

What's up - can't speak for yourself?

Of course I can. The only thing that fending off your constant whataboutery and snide condescension is taxing is my patience. My point is that characterising those who are worried about Islam as 'hateful trolls' is extremely ignorant and lazy. You make it sound as though we have no reason to be worried about a religion which views outsiders in such malicious terms. The fact that someone like Luis (who is rather eloquent, definitely more so than I am) has concerns also suggests that your attempts to caricature us as "we hate Islam becuz is diffrent" is wrong.

Maybe because it didn't happen?

So because the Independent, the Guardian or the Times didn't cover an event it didn't happen? Wow. So I guess groups like Pink News who are an LGBT-dedicated news site or the National Secular Society must be lying? I guess they just made up those pictures?

All the snide inferences to my intellect you've made truly ring hollow in light of what you just said. Just because the mainstream media doesn't report on something doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I see. It's hard to say who you are having a go at

Not sure why exactly you find it difficult, really. It's easy if you read back on what you and I were responding to in each respective post.

- you seem to have enough hatred for everybody.

Could we dispense with the hyperbole? Firstly, Catholics & Muslims aren't 'everybody'; secondly, I don't hate them so much as I view their respective faiths rather warily. And with good reason.

No, but I can find doctrinal justification in Christian scripture for all of these terrible acts:
Slavery
Mysogeny
Death penalty for being raped
Death penalty for working on the Sabbath
There's plenty more of this. Have a look for yourself. Most Christians and Jews do not follow these verses, just as most Muslims don't follow similar commands in their book.

These are good points which secularists like myself need to be aware of; particularly now that dominionists are making inroads into American governance and right wing ******** are again spreading like a virus across Eastern Europe. And yet many Muslims-majority countries criminalise apostasy (leaving Islam), have blasphemy laws (yes, in some cases these are examples of colonialism but frankly these Muslim-majority countries have had plenty of time to do away with them) because that is what Islamic scripture teaches.

Not lie - misunderstand.

You've consistently insisted that because I have concerns about one or two religions that I must hate their respective adherents. Not only have I insisted this is incorrect (and since I know my own mind better I'm also not projecting warped emotions onto words someone else types on a screen), I have pointed out why this is so (i.e. that most Muslims, as you say, do not follow the violent parts of Islam). You've ignored this and continued to insist you know my mind & position better than I do. You're doing this despite not knowing my post history, not wanting to know what I think and in scant regard for what I'm telling you.

Therefore you are lying about me.

I now know you hate Catholics as much as you hate Muslims.
Sorry for my error.

No need to apologise because you are not mistaken here. I do hate Muslims as much as I hate Catholics: I don't hate them at all.

There's a skill we use in the English language - it's called 'reading comprehension'. From the words, punctuation and style, you can deduce the inner meaning of text. You should try it. Start somewhere simple though - the Janet and John books might help.

There's also this thing called honesty. When you accused me of saying I think Islam is evil I asked you to point out where I said this. Your immediate response is "Well, you didn't actually say that..."

Deceit at its finest. And considering that further down your post you lump me in with the BNP, the Nazis or the KKK, I think it's safe to say your ability to read between the lines is... stunted, to say the absolute least.

I want to silence hate-mongers.

And misrepresent people who disagree with you to the best of your ability. You're doing a great job so far.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

As long as you continue to spout anti-Muslim rhetoric, then people will place you in the box reserved for xenophobes - you know, BNP, Nazis, KKK etc.
If you don't like their company then watch your words more carefully.

Wow. I don't know how you managed to get from "I have concerns about Islam" to "I ****ing hate Muslims because they're brown and **** foreigners". Quite frankly that unsubstantiated leap should be classed as a new religion of its very own. I know you aren't interested in anything I say that contradicts your preconceived idea that I must be a Nazi or some other far-right ********* but:

• I'm a liberal who is also a dues-paying member of the Scottish Green Party;
• I don't have concerns about Islam because it's a foreign religion - I more than most enjoy the irony of Christians railing against the spread of Islam because they're simply members of one violently intolerant Middle Eastern monotheism railing against another violently intolerant Middle Eastern monotheism;
• I don't have concerns about Islam because I hate "brown people";
• I have concerns about Islam because of the vindictive manner in which the doctrine views other faiths. 'Worship is for Allah alone and anybody who says otherwise is not to be indulged'. I'm also concerned about how Islam manifests itself in politics; and how that could potentially impact the rest of us over time. Why else do you think the nations of the Islamic world rejected the UN Declaration of Human Rights and drafted their own, the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam which is more in keeping with prevailing Islamic norms?
• To be clear I don't think Muslims are a fifth column in the West, actively seeking to overthrow our governments and establish a global Caliphate. I do think, however, that Western intervention in the Middle East is making a bad situation worse what with our propping up of corrupt Islamic dictatorships like the Gaddafi, Saudi Arabia (allowing them to spread obnoxious Wahabbism here in exchange for oil, for instance) & (increasingly) Turkey, and that eventually this is going to backfire on us spectacularly. Much like how Ottoman intervention in Europe led to that Empire's eventual collapse after it got involved in what was until that point a conflict between European empires. Perhaps we ought to reexamine that particular episode of history and take lessons of 'get the **** out and mind our own business' from it?;
• As a liberal, I do not see the sense in apologising for a belief system that is so conservative that it is inimical to change, dissent or the presence of other beliefs. I refuse to throw minorities like LGBTs, ex-Muslims & atheists under the bus by refusing to point out the way Islamic & Muslim-majority countries treat them for fear of being accused of 'punching downward' against the second largest religion on the planet. Just as I refuse to apologise for Christianity or Judaism (while simultaneously feeling sympathy for the plight of Christians & Jews who are persecuted), I refuse to engage in apologetics regarding Islam while simultaneously feeling sympathy for the plight of Muslims who are persecuted and accepting that believers of these religions are still people with their own hopes, dreams & fears. I do not need to hate them in order to criticise or view their religions with anything less than awe.

At this point I'm invoking Godwin's Law for your lumping me in with Nazis & other far-right scum. I didn't do it before with your references to Hitler because you were using him as a valid example of someone who was motivated by his beliefs but now I am because your Islamic apologetics have descended to preposterously base levels with this unfounded inference.

You have consistently shown that you cannot engage with someone without deceitfully misrepresenting their position, making snide remarks about their intellect and falsely accusing them of belonging to hate groups. On to the ignore list you go.

 

[Altfish]

Right, so Christianity is to blame for Hitler's anti-semitism.

Almost certainly.
He was a Catholic and backed by the Catholic Church

 

[Notanumber]

Almost certainly.
He was a Catholic and backed by the Catholic Church

Therefore, he took advantage of religion. Just like Muhammad.

The big difference being that Hitler no longer has many fanatical followers that believe he is the perfect role model.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Therefore, he took advantage of religion. Just like Muhammad.

The big difference being that Hitler no longer has many fanatical followers that believe he is the perfect role model.

NaN, Neo-Nazis from around the globe are on line 2. They'd like a word.

 

[Notanumber]

NaN, Neo-Nazis from around the globe are on line 2. They'd like a word.

How many of those are carrying out terrorist attacks on the same scale as Islam?

Islamic Terror: In the Name of Allah

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

How many of those are carrying out terrorist attacks on the same scale as Islam?

Islamic Terror: In the Name of Allah

White supremacists have killed more people in America than Muslims have. And a far-right Britain First sympathiser murdered a sitting MP here in the UK.

Maybe it's not fair to compare one or two countries to a global trend but there's no denying that far-right extremists are way way more active than those on the right would like us to think. Last time I checked, both are a threat and it's okay to treat them as such.

By your 'logic' of claiming all Muslims are a potential threat because of Islam, does this mean all us white dudes are a potential threat thanks to Neo-Nazism?

 

[Notanumber]

White supremacists have killed more people in America than Muslims have. And a far-right Britain First sympathiser murdered a sitting MP here in the UK.

Maybe it's not fair to compare one or two countries to a global trend but there's no denying that far-right extremists are way way more active than those on the right would like us to think. Last time I checked, both are a threat and it's okay to treat them as such.

By your 'logic' of claiming all Muslims are a potential threat because of Islam, does this mean all us white dudes are a potential threat thanks to Neo-Nazism?

You are very good at putting words in other people’s mouths but where have I claimed that all Muslims are a potential threat because of Islam?

I have claimed that I believe many Muslims agree with me, was I wrong to do so?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

*eyeroll*

Can't respond to a point? Play the semantics card.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You are very good at putting words in other people’s mouths but where have I claimed that all Muslims are a potential threat because of Islam?

Right here. You've basically said Muslims are more dangerous than someone who drives a van into a crowd of innocent people. And Islam's to blame for that.

I have just heard on the radio that an Imam has claimed that Muslims are now living in fear after that van mounted the kerb.

I say that they only have Islam to blame for that.

Just think of all the Muslims that Islam has driven to carry out similar atrocious acts.

As @Luca85 says, it is psychological terrorism and according to the Mayor of London we should get used to it, but I do not agree with that.

 

[Notanumber]

Right here. You've basically said Muslims are more dangerous than someone who drives a van into a crowd of innocent people. And Islam's to blame for that.

I would expect Muslims would have something to be concerned about if we started a religion that targeted them in the same way that Islam targets non-Muslims.

Can you refute that Islam is a driving force when it comes to terrorism?

BTW, as I said, I do not agree with the Mayor of London when he says that we should get used to terrorism in the UK.