Hundreds of Muslims gather to celebrate funeral of man who beheaded French teacher

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

I think your comprehension of why and what people are posting is lacking.

Posters like yourself are trying to minimise the very same crimes by constantly saying that ISIS, etc are much worse.
The reality is that it doesn't matter who commits these crimes, be they white, black, muslim, catholic, whatever they should be treated the exact same way.

Failing to do this simple thing is what causes problems as people (rightly) point out the inconsistencies in handling these issues. No one is saying that any party should get away with committing these crimes, but people like you are determined to say that we should focus on the Muslim based ones.

For the life of me I cant understand your "logic" here.

Oh and btw, its not "A muslim child sex abuse gang", its a "child sex abuse gang where (some) people within it were Muslim.
That you cant see the difference is why people like me reply to your posts.

They didnt abuse children because they were Muslim, they did it because they are perverted scum bags.

Read the links in my post that comprehensively prove what I said.

Perhaps you would do well to step back for a moment and realise that you are wrong, and give some thought to how you look at these issues in future. From claiming that disliking beheading is racist, to demonstrating a complete and utter ignorance of the causes of the crusades, and on to attempting to equate completely different situations, you have shown nothing but ignorance and hubris in this thread.
Have some humility, and see that damage you are doing.

RWCNT

GreeBo wrote: »

Btw, what are your thoughts on the Kingsmill massacre and the various other tit-for-tat attacks on Protestants and Catholics by IRA and UDA/F?

Seems kinda religious to me...

I'm finished talking about it with you, particularly as in your last response you've accused me of attempting to justify the murders carried about by the IRA and a bizarre comparison to domestic violence to boot. Don't bother coming back to try and explain why you're in fact correct - your reasoning is clear to all reading. Understanding of your points is not the issue here.

When people have pointed out that your analysis is completely detached from any reasonable level of understanding of the context and nuances of the conflict your response is to say "Yes of course it is, those things don't matter". I really don't see how you can reasonably expect people to engage with you in a discussion on historical matters under those terms, so I'm out. Sorry.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Do you disagree? If so why?

Sorry, who has decided this for all mankind? Did I miss a memo on something? Who decides what the global morals are? Is your idea that everyone aligns with your ideas on morality? I know another group who hold beliefs like this, cant put my finger on their name at the moment.

As for over throwing an oppressor making something legitimate, as I pointed out earlier, if you go back far enough, everyone is an oppressor of someone else. The lines of land ownership and rule have changed constantly since the concept first appeared.

Your argument again boils down to "yeah but I kinda agreed with the IRA, so I dont want to compare them to ISIS, coz everyone hates ISIS". There is no logic to back it up at all.

I dont distinguish between any murdering terrorists, thats kinda the been the point all along?:rolleyes:

Emoji and all.


You've long stopped making any sense. Your whole modus is a mixed bag of gas lighting, strawmanning, false dichotomous, sprinkled with nonsense.

And youre starting to show your hand a bit more than you realise, your response to my last question is telling.

Not only are you unable to contemplate there might be a difference between IRA, PIRA, CIRA, you're unwilling to educate yourself of what they are, yet persist in soap boxing, saying the IRA is the same as ISIS.

You are unable to grasp the nuanced points people (not just me) are making, and persist in misrepresentations or actual misquotes of what they've told you.

Its clear you don't care about contrary viewpoints, only seek to drag the thread off topic for a now very obvious reason.

Going by your recent activity, you're afraid to countenance any criticism of anything committed by a Muslim, for fear of having to deal with some uncomfortable truths, about certain individuals of that faith.

GreeBo

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Emoji and all.


You've long stopped making any sense. Your whole modus is a mixed bag of gas lighting, strawmanning, false dichotomous, sprinkled with nonsense.

And youre starting to show your hand a bit more than you realise, your response to my last question is telling.

Not only are you unable to contemplate there might be a difference between IRA, PIRA, CIRA, you're unwilling to educate yourself of what they are, yet persist in soap boxing, saying the IRA is the same as ISIS.

You are unable to grasp the nuanced points people (not just me) are making, and persist in misrepresentations or actual misquotes of what they've told you.

Its clear you don't care about contrary viewpoints, only seek to drag the thread off topic for a now very obvious reason.

Going by your recent activity, you're afraid to countenance any criticism of anything committed by a Muslim, for fear of having to deal with some uncomfortable truths, about certain individuals of that faith.

I haven't altered my point one iota on this thread.

You can keep strawmanning that I am some Isis sympathiser, without anything to back it up mind you, and yet the fact remains that I have never condoned, pardoned or legitimised a single act they have carried out. Unlike I might point out, yourself and others wrt the IRA.

I have been clear from the start that any terrorists are reprehensible to me, you now accuse me of being afraid to accept truths about some individuals of that faith... Based on what exactly? Based on me condemning then repeatedly?

Why can't you accept that I hold all terrorists to the same level?
Including the IRA and UDF for that matter.

Why would I further segregate terrorists from Northern Ireland into sub divisions? Again what end does that serve?

I have zero problem with people campaigning for a United Ireland or unionism, but bring violence or threats into it and you have already lost. Same for religions, race or anything else.


The uncomfortable truth on this thread is that you and others are willing to condone one group of murdering terrorists because you happen to agree with their goals.
In a sane society we treat all murderers the same way.

Do you think the Spanish tourists murdered in Omagh care for your distinctions between the various incarnations of the IRA or that their families see them any differently to any other terrorists?
Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

...distinctions between the various incarnations of the IRA or that their families see them any differently to any other terrorists?
Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

But they're "terrorists" too....
No?

donaghs

seamus wrote: »

I don't give a fvck, they have some justification. There always is.

Do please enlighten us on the justifications for what ISIS do? Maybe set up a new thread. I think this needs to be explored further.

RandRuns

Some of the posters (one in particular) trying to derail, deflect, and outright lie on this thread are up to even more disgusting shenanigans on the muslim rape gang thread. One has to ask why anyone would be so determined to defend the indefensible.

Kivaro

RandRuns wrote: »

Some of the posters (one in particular) trying to derail, deflect, and outright lie on this thread are up to even more disgusting shenanigans on the muslim rape gang thread. One has to ask why anyone would be so determined to defend the indefensible.

I could try to offer an explanation, and you will see it in other facets of life too.
Many defend the indefensible because of Sunk Cost Fallacy. They continue with this behaviour because of the time, effort, dedication, and commitment already devoted to a certain topic/situation in their lives. They will continue down this path because to reverse the course would be too detrimental in their minds, even though it may be the correct thing to do. For people like this, even with irrefutable and conclusive proof shown to them, they will not change their minds.

I think he's avoiding this thread after painting himself into a corner

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

Some of the posters (one in particular) trying to derail, deflect, and outright lie on this thread are up to even more disgusting shenanigans on the muslim rape gang thread. One has to ask why anyone would be so determined to defend the indefensible.

Point to a single post where anyone defends any acts that any Muslim terrorist has carried out?

I'll then share the posts that condone the actions of the IRA.

GreeBo

Kivaro wrote: »

I could try to offer an explanation, and you will see it in other facets of life too.
Many defend the indefensible because of Sunk Cost Fallacy. They continue with this behaviour because of the time, effort, dedication, and commitment already devoted to a certain topic/situation in their lives. They will continue down this path because to reverse the course would be too detrimental in their minds, even though it may be the correct thing to do. For people like this, even with irrefutable and conclusive proof shown to them, they will not change their minds.

What's the irrefutable proof that the IRA murders are different to any other terrorist groups murders?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

Why wouldn't the old IRA be under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

You wouldn't/couldn't acknowledge a difference between the various IRA factions earlier , something about them all being terrorists...

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

What's the irrefutable proof that the IRA murders are different to any other terrorist groups murders?

Whats the irrefutable proof they are the same?



See, anyone can play your game.

Mr Meanor

Kivaro wrote: »

I could try to offer an explanation, and you will see it in other facets of life too.
Many defend the indefensible because of Sunk Cost Fallacy. They continue with this behaviour because of the time, effort, dedication, and commitment already devoted to a certain topic/situation in their lives. They will continue down this path because to reverse the course would be too detrimental in their minds, even though it may be the correct thing to do. For people like this, even with irrefutable and conclusive proof shown to them, they will not change their minds.

This may go some way to explaining some individuals
A research paper
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920303238

Quote from the study paper:


(TIV) tendency for interpersonal victimhood

'The study distinguishes TIV from narcissism. Narcissistic individuals also experience moral superiority and vengeful desires, but these feelings tend to spring from the belief that their authority, capability, or grandiosity is being undermined. TIV, on the other hand, is associated with low self-esteem. And while narcissists do not want to be victimized, high-TIV individuals lash out when their victimhood is questioned.'

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

Whats the irrefutable proof they are the same?



See, anyone can play your game.

They are both murdering terrorist groups.
Or perhaps you don't agree that the IRA are terrorists who murder people?

RandRuns

GreeBo wrote: »

They are both murdering terrorist groups.
Or perhaps you don't agree that the IRA are terrorists who murder people?

Hitler and Che Guevara were both murderers with facial hair, are they the same?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Your argument again boils down to "yeah but I kinda agreed with the IRA, so I dont want to compare them to ISIS, coz everyone hates ISIS". There is no logic to back it up at all.

I dont distinguish between any murdering terrorists, thats kinda the been the point all along?:rolleyes:

GreeBo wrote: »

Why can't you accept that I hold all terrorists to the same level?
Including the IRA and UDF for that matter.

I have zero problem with people campaigning for a United Ireland or unionism, but bring violence or threats into it and you have already lost. Same for religions, race or anything else.

Do you think the Spanish tourists murdered in Omagh care for your distinctions between the various incarnations of the IRA or that their families see them any differently to any other terrorists?
Or that you seem to want to hide them all behind the old IRA from 19-22, when clearly they are not under discussion in a thread about terrorists.

GreeBo wrote: »

They are both murdering terrorist groups.
Or perhaps you don't agree that the IRA are terrorists who murder people?

Youre soap boxing now.

After claiming theres no difference between any IRA faction, you've differentiated between the IRA of 1921, yet won't back up why...

seamus

donaghs wrote: »

Do please enlighten us on the justifications for what ISIS do? Maybe set up a new thread. I think this needs to be explored further.

If you want to explore the justifications, then off you go. I've no interest in spending time charting a complex tapestry of hypocrisy and religious nutjobbery which is ultimately just a cover for xenophobia and violence.

biko

Does threads in forums in Spain have similar people going "but what about the ETA?"
Does threads in forums in Colombia have similar people going "but what about the FARC?"
Does threads in forums in Peru have similar people going "but what about the Shining Path?"
Does threads in forums in Germany have similar people going "but what about the Baader-Meinhof Gang?"

Wow, writing this I realise there has been a LOT of socialist terror groups around, not just IRA.

Banana Republic 1

biko wrote: »

Does threads in forums in Spain have similar people going "but what about the ETA?"
Does threads in forums in Colombia have similar people going "but what about the FARC?"
Does threads in forums in Peru have similar people going "but what about the Shining Path?"
Does threads in forums in Germany have similar people going "but what about the Baader-Meinhof Gang?"

Wow, writing this I realise there has been a LOT of socialist terror groups around, not just IRA.

Didn’t the IRA teach many of those how to do terrorism?

biko

The IRA was built upon two ideas, nationalism and socialism. And so it is for FARC and the others, particularly ETA.

These days globalism is the biggest threat to many sovereign nations but you'll find that no-one is creating terror groups to combat globalism.

Well, Antifa did but they have now turned 180 degrees and are now for globalism.



Mods, I understand we are straying from the Chechen beheaded funeral topic but the guy is in the ground and as western journalists lose interest, so will the western public.

theballz

Islam is a serious problem that is going to get much worse.
It is not a religion of peace and will continually spread hate.

Call me racist all you like, I’ve read the Quran and I’ve studied many religions. I can say comfortably that Islam is evil and total ideology of hate and fear.

The worst part is, their is little or nothing we can do to stop it.

Banana Republic 1

biko wrote: »

The IRA was built upon two ideas, nationalism and socialism. And so it is for FARC and the others, particularly ETA.

These days globalism is the biggest threat to many sovereign nations but you'll find that no-one is creating terror groups to combat globalism.

Well, Antifa did but they have now turned 180 degrees and are now for globalism.



Mods, I understand we are straying from the Chechen beheaded funeral topic but the guy is in the ground and as western journalists lose interest, so will the western public.

Antifa are not a group

GreeBo

RandRuns wrote: »

Hitler and Che Guevara were both murderers with facial hair, are they the same?

In the context of murderers with facial hair, yes they are.
It really depends on what exactly you are discussing.
For example, men and women are the same when talking about species, but they are not the same when talking about genders.

This thread is about terrorist groups who murder innocent people.

GreeBo

biko wrote: »

Wow, writing this I realise there has been a LOT of socialist terror groups around, not just IRA.

Yep, and they are all the same, groups of murdering bastards.

Banana Republic 1

theballz wrote: »

Islam is a serious problem that is going to get much worse.
It is not a religion of peace and will continually spread hate.

Call me racist all you like, I’ve read the Quran and I’ve studied many religions. I can say comfortably that Islam is evil and total ideology of hate and fear.

The worst part is, their is little or nothing we can do to stop it.

There are white people who follow Islam just the same as there is African, Asian and Middle Eastern people who follow Christianity.Islam considers Jesus a prophet is he evil or what about the angel Gabriel . You say you’ve read the Quran, where on WhatsApp!

biko

GreeBo wrote: »

Yep, and they are all the same, groups of murdering bastards.

But how do we get the socialists to stop killing people?
How can you get young idiots with Che on their t-shirts to not glorify political murder?

jmreire

GreeBo wrote: »

Yep, and they are all the same, groups of murdering bastards.

(A) When a long suffering people decide to revolt and throw off the murderous shackles of a despotic regime, would you call them murdering bastards? Because that's what the British did not only here in Ireland, but in any Country they ruled. America, Kenya etc. All fought for their independence. And the Irish Republican Army were instrumental in getting rid of them. And in each case, in each Country, the method was the same: Revolution.

(B) Or put them on the same level of people who kill solely on the instructions of their God to kill the unbelievers??

(C) And in the here and now present time, how would you rate your chances of being killed by an IRA bomb, knife or bullWeet?, versus being killed by an Islamic terrorist in the same manner?

We will extrapolate a little bit further, closer to home. You are attacked in your own home, in the middle of the night by an armed robber, who threatens you and your family with violence, and indeed fires the gun, narrowly missing one of your family, just to impress you that he means business. You tackle him, and in the altercation, you manage to get the gun of him, and in the melee, shoot him dead. Does that make you a murderous bastard

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

Yep, and they are all the same, groups of murdering bastards.

Ah they're not though, are they.

jmreire

MikeOxsgreen wrote: »

Ah they're not though, are they.

Context is everything.....

Signore Fancy Pants

RandRuns wrote: »

What Islamic countries have Sweden invaded? How many Muslims are Swedes responsible for killing?

Swedish troops have served on NATO, EU and UN missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, UNTSO (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel) and Western Sahara.

While Swedes may not have killed any Muslims, they have trained indiginous troops to do just that (Well AQ & ISIL). This has resulted in at least one confirmed Islamist terror attack in Sweden (2017), specifically motivated by Swedish troops training the Iraqi military.


Also, anyone who truely believes that terrorists are "all the same", have a limited understanding and very simplistic view of terrorism.

Gervais08

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Swedish troops have served on NATO, EU and UN missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, UNTSO (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel) and Western Sahara.

While Swedes may not have killed any Muslims, they have trained indiginous troops to do just that (Well AQ & ISIL). This has resulted in at least one confirmed Islamist terror attack in Sweden (2017), specifically motivated by Swedish troops training the Iraqi military.

So the attacks are justified then ??? Jesus Christ.

Signore Fancy Pants

Gervais08 wrote: »

So the attacks are justified then ??? Jesus Christ.

Is that what I said? Or is that what you think I said?

CinemaGuy45

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Swedish troops have served on NATO, EU and UN missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, UNTSO (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel) and Western Sahara.

While Swedes may not have killed any Muslims, they have trained indiginous troops to do just that (Well AQ & ISIL). This has resulted in at least one confirmed Islamist terror attack in Sweden (2017), specifically motivated by Swedish troops training the Iraqi military.

I posted once in this thread so far to stare what I though of the evil killer and those who defend that kind of scum.

I know you are replying to somebody else so this is not aimed at you.:)

However your post in the last in a series of posts that I have not read from many posters.

My question and my point is what has this line of conversation got to do with an innocent teacher being beheaded for showing a silly picture to kids?

We have shows like Father Ted and movies like the Life of Brian but everybody gets their knickers in a twist over this.



Beheading people because of it just makes it even more sure people will mock and reject the backward violent ideology.

Gervais08

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Is that what I said? Or is that what you think I said?

My apologies, I misread that. There’s been attempts at justification for attacks here.

Sorry.

Gervais08

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I posted once in this thread so far to stare what I though of the evil killer and those who defend that kind of scum.

I know you are replying to somebody else so this is not aimed at you.:)

However your post in the last in a series of posts that I have not read from many posters.

My question and my point is what has this line of conversation got to do with an innocent teacher being beheaded for showing a silly picture to kids?

We have shows like Father Ted and movies like the Life of Brian but everybody gets their knickers in a twist over this.



Beheading people because of it just makes it even more sure people will mock and reject the backward violent ideology.

I’m Catholic and I wet myself laughing still at the Life of Brian.

I’ve never wanted to shoot up the film production offices or attack dear Graham Chapman while he was alive.

Signore Fancy Pants

Gervais08 wrote: »

My apologies, I misread that. There’s been attempts at justification for attacks here.

Sorry.

No apology required. I shouldnt have edited the post I was quoting, it lacked context.

jmreire

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Swedish troops have served on NATO, EU and UN missions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Mali, Somalia, Yemen, UNTSO (Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Israel) and Western Sahara.

While Swedes may not have killed any Muslims, they have trained indiginous troops to do just that (Well AQ & ISIL). This has resulted in at least one confirmed Islamist terror attack in Sweden (2017), specifically motivated by Swedish troops training the Iraqi military.


Also, anyone who truely believes that terrorists are "all the same", have a limited understanding and very simplistic view of terrorism.

I met the Irish Troop's in Liberia, and they were on the Golan and in the past Lebanon...but what other Country's on your list were they in??

Gervais08

jmreire wrote: »

I met the Irish Troop's in Liberia, and they were on the Golan and in the past Lebanon...but what other Country's on your list were they in??

I had a pint with a young guy who was going to Chad but that was a couple of years back.

CinemaGuy45

Gervais08 wrote: »

I’m Catholic and I wet myself laughing still at the Life of Brian.

I’ve never wanted to shoot up the film production offices or attack dear Graham Chapman while he was alive.

I could not even kill an animal never mind behead another innocent person.

I could not even bring myself to kill an evil beast that would do such a thing.

But he carried out this evil act because he wanted to strike the fear of God into all of us not to mock his phoney religion.

If we shy away from and bend over backwards from daring to speak against this evil for fear of offending this evil we give the terrorists what they want.

When an innocent person is killed for the so called sin of offending Islam millions of pictures like this should go up everywhere.
Killing innocent people should bring about the exact opposite of what they evil killers want.

Let the peaceful Muslims show their outrage at murder instead of a harmless cartoon.

Signore Fancy Pants

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I posted once in this thread so far to stare what I though of the evil killer and those who defend that kind of scum.

I know you are replying to somebody else so this is not aimed at you.:)

However your post in the last in a series of posts that I have not read from many posters.

My question and my point is what has this line of conversation got to do with an innocent teacher being beheaded for showing a silly picture to kids?

We have shows like Father Ted and movies like the Life of Brian but everybody gets their knickers in a twist over this.



Beheading people because of it just makes it even more sure people will mock and reject the backward violent ideology.

Well, in simplistic terms it is about extremism and radicalisation.

Jihadist/Islamist extremism is transnational in nature. It transcends boundaries, borders and societies due to its ideology. It exists and is intermixed among moderate or peaceful Muslim communities.

To disrespect the Prophet is a serious offence to those of the Muslim faith with archaic extremist views, its sacred and must not go unpunished.

What is a "silly picture" to you and I, is a red line for some.

The issue is the regular calls by ISIL to believers in "the West", to conduct attacks against "non believers". A display of the Prophet and in this specific context of freedom of expression (from Mr. Paty) was enough to warrant the attack (in the attackers view)

Also, theres literally nothing stopping a Catholic extremist doing the same thing on seeing Father Ted and taking insult to it.

CinemaGuy45

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Well, in simplistic terms it is about extremism and radicalisation.

Jihadist/Islamist extremism is transnational in nature. It transcends boundaries, borders and societies due to its ideology. It exists and is intermixed among moderate or peaceful Muslim communities.

To disrespect the Prophet is a serious offence to those of the Muslim faith with archaic extremist views, its sacred and must not go unpunished.

What is a "silly picture" to you and I, is a red line for some.

The issue is the regular calls by ISIL to believers in "the West", to conduct attacks against "non believers". A display of the Prophet and in this specific context of freedom of expression (from Mr. Paty) was enough to warrant the attack (in the attackers view)

Also, theres literally nothing stopping a Catholic extremist doing the same thing on seeing Father Ted and taking insult to it.

Killing innocent people is the red line for me.

How can people defend this kind of thing and then try to proclaim the moral high ground and condemn images and words?

There are many religions in the world some more silly than others but they do not murder non believers.

Signore Fancy Pants

jmreire wrote: »

I met the Irish Troop's in Liberia, and they were on the Golan and in the past Lebanon...but what other Country's on your list were they in??

Still in Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Mali.

Previously in Afghanistan, Somalia, Iran, Egypt, Iraq, Palestine, Kuwait...and a few more.

Was in Liberia in 05-06, were you there then?

CinemaGuy45

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

Also, theres literally nothing stopping a Catholic extremist doing the same thing on seeing Father Ted and taking insult to it.

This would be funny if the subject was not so serious.:(

Signore Fancy Pants

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

Killing innocent people is the red line for me.

How can people defend this kind of thing and then try to proclaim the moral high ground and condemn images and words?

There are many religions in the world some more silly than others but they do not murder non believers.

I agree but "Jihad" against non believers (including other Muslims) is encouraged in the Quran. These non believers are basically the followers of Satan, because we believe in a different "God"....and not Allah, we are non believers and legitimate targets.

CinemaGuy45

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

I agree but "Jihad" against non believers is encouraged in the Quran. These non believers are basically the followers of Satan, because we believe in a different "God"....and not Allah, we are non believers and legitimate targets.

I don't have the answers here and I will admit that.

I do know giving into the wishes of evil killers only shows that killing people gets them what they want.

Whatever happened to not giving into the demands of terrorists?

Banana Republic 1

Signore Fancy Pants wrote: »

I agree but "Jihad" against non believers (including other Muslims) is encouraged in the Quran. These non believers are basically the followers of Satan, because we believe in a different "God"....and not Allah, we are non believers and legitimate targets.

Moronic statement. These terrorist cults kill far more fellow Muslims than any other grouping.

Gervais08

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Moronic statement. These terrorist cults kill far more fellow Muslims than any other grouping.

How is it moronic? It’s accurate!

Signore Fancy Pants

Banana Republic 1 wrote: »

Moronic statement. These terrorist cults kill far more fellow Muslims than any other grouping.

It's not a "moronic" statement and you should probably retract that part of your post, less you look moronic yourself.

I agree, they do kill far more Muslims (mainly because of their area of operations), there is absilutely no denying that.

To Jihadist/Islamist fundamentalists, we (the West) are legitimate targets because we dont believe what they believe.

Its factual, not moronic.

Also, the Crusades killed between 5-9 Million Muslims, I dont think ISIL has got that far yet.

Gervais08

CinemaGuy45 wrote: »

I don't have the answers here and I will admit that.

I do know giving into the wishes of evil killers only shows that killing people gets them what they want.

Whatever happened to not giving into the demands of terrorists?

After the Charlie Hebdo murders there was a social media campaign to show the cover - sadly I’m not sure you’d get as big a response as now.

There’s no two way equal respect. My club like many others have been taking the knee for months now. Yet the captain wore a rainbow armband this weekend and a picture was posted.

I noted the vilest homophobic abuse came from black countries (Kenya was the worst by far). How can you as a people demand respect and yet be so vile to another group ? And why is it never called out??