Maybe but I think a lot of it is to do with just defending the brown pplz (because as we learned on here recently, Islam is a race) as well though.

:banghead:

Islam is a religion, Muslims are people. It is possible to think Islam is a c*nt of a religion without thinking every single Muslim or even most of them is a c*nt with extremist views in the same way people can think religion in general is retarded without judging every single religious person. As you were asked the other day who is actually doing this? A few of the posters on here who have posted criticisms of Islam on this thread are from places in England with significant to high Muslim populations, have probably gone to school and college with them, worked with them, went round their house and had tea with them and know full well they aren't all arseholes. You are pissing in the wind trying to make this point about 'not all Muslims'.

Is there a single poster on here who thinks every single Muslim is an extremist?

How about the FACT that the overwhelmingly vast percentage of people who practice the Islamic religion are not actually c*nts?

So calling Islam a c*nt religion is a pretty ignorant and bigoted thing to say.

Classic broad brush mentality.

No it's not it's an opinion on the religion without necessarily having an opinion on the people who follow it (to whatever extent). You are simply incapable of separating ideas from people.

Some people like Morrisey as a singer. I don't. All of his fans are therefore c*nts.

There's is absolutely no difference between this statement and you calling Islam a c*nt religion.

Don't talk down to me when it's you tripping all over yourself trying justify your ignorant comments.

Abortion doctor and worker killers, Timothy McVeigh (an admitted believer in God) = Christianity is a c*nt religion.

I didn't say that though :D

I didn't say 'a c*nt religion', that's something you've pulled out of your arse. The words used were 'a c*nt of a religion' so maybe this is why you are confusing yourself. The point of my original post was that they (a religion and it's followers) are not the same thing, and you can have a negative opinion of the religion without having a negative opinion of it's followers.

I can and I will.

I'm not though, it's not my fault you have difficulty reading mate.

That's not what I'm arguing :o:

Read this a few times in the morning when you are totally clear headed and then get back to me.

Just nailed my point for me. Why would anyone have a negative opinion of Islam?

Goodnight.

tf are you on about? It is morning, don't know if you've noticed but I live in the UK :confused:

What I posted makes perfect sense.

Not necessarily because of it's followers if that's what you're getting at. Again you are not capable of separating one from the other.

Bit rhetorical

Monkey

Chula has to be below level IQ. He doesn't even realize he's not dealing with what you're saying. He tries desperately to hang on to a point no matter how deep a hole he has dug.

If I were Monkey I'd be slamming my head into a wall at this point.

Let's try to get this back on a constructive path. How ideologically unified would you say the sects of Islam are?

Hamas Charter

Democratically elected. Commence with excuses.

It's their words, man.

Well then explain the clause about shipping in Indonesians?

Well I believe the Jews are entitled to that land. But I'm not advocating genocide against the Palestinians. That would be indefensible. What Hamas is saying is that Allah has already predestined the upcoming genocide against the Israelis.

And you're asking me if I know the history and background of this situation?

I mean, you're not even claiming that Hamas isn't a legitimate part the Muslim world. Instead you reduce a group of genocidal terrorists to simply people with a land dispute. While it may be you calling into question my knowledge the fact that you didn't immediately distance yourself from the ideology of Hamas at least suggests ignorance.

They're religious fanatics! And their religion is Islam!

I'm out. You intellectuals hammer away. I'm going to go color for a while and then maybe play some pong.

Bye Chula

From Winston Churchill in his 1899 book 'The River War.'

Hey guy, you do realize that on may 1st hamas released a new document detailing how they would be ok with a Palestine based on the 67 borders right?

How kind.

Great quote from Churchill btw

I guess my Islam Vs The World: Terrorism Game Thread was deleted

We can continue here though

Didn't take long for Islam to score the first goal

Egypt Coptic Christians killed in bus attack - BBC News

"Gunmen have attacked a bus carrying Coptic Christians in central Egypt, killing at least 28 people and wounding 25 others, officials say."

I think that's more carnage than Manchester. Less than 48 hours later. Commence with excuses or don't bother.

Islam: 1
World: 0

Playing to ten...

Hawk ban coming in....

Nah.

Someday

U.S.-led airstrike on Syrian city kills more than 100; criticism of air campaign mounts - LA Times

America shames itself again...

Islam: 1
World: 1

Speaking of Muzzers and scores, you reminded me that the World Cup in five years is in Qatar, absolute scenes if Israel qualify for it https://kristiannp1.files.wordpress....1/slf.gif?w=42

Witnesses: Man Cut the Throats of Two MAX Passengers Who Tried to Stop Anti-Muslim Bullying of Women on Northeast Portland Train - Willamette Week

Islam: 1
World: 2

The highly favored Muslim faith drops to an early one point disadvantage as the rest of the world carries on with unstereotypical barbarism. Could the world win this thing? Can Islam be out extremed and out radicalized? Stay tuned!!!

Afghanistan war: At least 13 dead in Khost bombing - BBC News

Goal! Islam strikes back with an attack against their own!


Islam: 2
World: 2

Well-played on the quick counterattack Islam!

you seen this kid?



he's from Iran not Israel, but he's still looking like he's gonna be a monster player. british tabloids started calling him Iranian Messi :laughing:

So here's the thing. FA Cup Final yesterday, I see everyone with "Heart MCR" placards and the two teams and everyone have a minute's silence before the match, and later I see the display roar "We stand together", and there's nothing wrong with those sentiments, but are they empty? I know it would have been horribly ironic, but still, had the final been bombed it would not have surprised me (still amazed/relieved a match has not been targeted yet).

The question I have is, is this it? Is it going to be like this every time an atrocity is committed, that everyone holds hands and cries and throws hashtags and memes around, or is anyone going to actually do anything to stop the next attack, or try to minimise the possibility of one? I know the UK can't fly off to bomb some random country or invade the first oil-rich region they find, but is there an answer, or is it just going to be a repetition of these, frankly pathetic scenes of people "standing together"? Does that help the victims, and will it help the next ones?

No, I have no answers, but I just wonder what everyone thinks? Are there measures that can be put in place, steps that can be taken, or is it just going to be the old "stiff upper lip" every time? I mean, I hate to break it to these people, but terrorists don't give a **** for your "stand together" #WeWillNotBreak or whatever the **** other useless gestures you make. They're just going to keep on doing this until something is done to stop them. But I see no evidence of anything being done, other than the threat level being raised. Sure, that will help, but it will be temporary, and any enemy knows you don't attack when you're expected to: you wait till the other party is off their guard and then go in for the kill. So once the terror threat level is reduced, will we see this repeat itself?

Answers on a postcard...

The people who actually want to do something about it are the same people voting for Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump. Count your ****ing blessings that so many people aren't doing anything.

Yes. Pointless.

It's only a matter of time. An attempt was made on the Stade de France if you remember but that one failed.

There are things you can do but it's difficult. Do you have any ideas TH?

Yeah, obviously I don't mean a "final solution" sort of thing like those people advocate, and let's hope they never get into pow ... oh. Well, anyway...
Right? It's almost like people standing up to bullies when they know they're going to get their arses handed to them. Completely empty gesture, even if made in the right spirit.
Oh yeah, I forgot that one. I kind of meant a successful (from the terrorists' point of view) one. But yeah.
It's easy to sit here on the sidelines and preach. Luckily nothing has yet happened in Ireland, but it may only be a matter of time. I'm hoping we're too small to bother with: we can do nothing on our own, but then, as part of a group force maybe we're legitimate targets.

Hard to know where to draw the line between personal freedom/civil rights and security. You can't screen everyone going into a concert or a football match, but perhaps there could be some sort of detection system like they have in airports? Would people be prepared, do you think, to be delayed getting into a venue in order to be able to exit it alive? Deeper security checks but for ****'s sake when someone is on the radar DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. How many of these attackers were "being watched by the police"? What help is that? I'm sure that for every attack that carries through there are ten foiled, but that doesn't help the parents of those kids, or anyone else bereaved by one of these attacks.

Deportation for political views? I don't know: if you've been proven to be linked with terror organisations or hate speech, maybe there's a case for that. Not easy to take someone's home away. But there must be something that can be done, other than just holding up banners after the dead have been buried.

How about life sentences for attempting to carry out an attack and deportation for anyone who knew of that person's motives and aided them in any way (housing, funds, etc.) or failing to turn them in. I imagine that the latter is difficult to establish and could be abused. It'd need to be fine tuned for sure.

There definitely should be some tough sentencing for aiding and abetting. Like yer man in Libya, that bomber's brother, who said he knew beforehand what his brother intended to do. Legally, at the moment, I'm not sure how that would work: accessory before the fact? Is that an enforcable law? Also, I know it might make freedom of speech difficult, but anyone posting congratulatory messages or celebratory messages, if in the UK, should be arrested too. Again, as you say, hard to enforce but maybe worth looking at?

I think as far as congratulatory messages go, if they are directly sent to a terrorist or their network, that would be enforceable. Things like social media posts are too murky to even get into imo.

They did this at Villa. After whatever the most recent attack was in France and Germany at the time, the club made an announcement to supporters to turn up half an hour early and wear as little clothing as possible &no bags so that it's less time to search everyone. Think it was about three games until the end of the season.

Not possible for every game people will just start turning up at kick off and take ages getting in, searching 30k+ people. And also this guy came in at the end of the concert, when they are more relaxed with security as everyone is coming out (same at football they just open the large gates), so he didn't even have to go through the security.

Agree mate apparently this guy was reported five times. Look how long it took for Anjem Choudary to be sent to prison as well.

Seen some suggestions on the regulation of mosques and hate preachers but not sure how workable it all is.

Integration is an issue imo.

What would you think about targeting mosques that known terrorists have associated with?