CHAPEL END CHARLIE

Catholic Ireland's long and rather problematic relationship with Protestant Britain defies simple analysis of this sort - which is kind of the point I'm trying to make here. As it happens I don't believe for one moment that the IRA members who planted that bomb in Warrington back in 1993 were thinking much about the suppression of the Catholic Mass during the 16th century reformation while they went about their murderous work. That would be absurd. I'm equally doubtful that the teachings of the Muhammed in antiquity are of more significance than the current political turmoil that is engulfing much of the middle east is to today's terrorism. This world of ours is a complicated (and increasing dangerous) place and simple solutions - workable ones that is - are pretty rare on the ground.

My post was based on your response - which is now a matter of record. But history shows us that Manchester has been bombed before - by the Luftwaffe in WWII of course and by the IRA, who also bombed the town of Warrington killing two innocent children in the process. So if all Muslims are somehow responsible for last night's appalling murder of innocent children - even if they have nothing at all to do with it - then presumably you will also feel that all British Catholics were equally culpable for the murder of little Jonathan Ball and Tim Parry back in 1993. That after all is the logic of your position is it not? In response to Warrington, and other terrorist outrages, do you think that the state should have attempted to suppress the Catholic faith, or even ban any further immigration from Ireland? Would such a sectarian (if not racist) policy response have solved the problem of IRA terror, or just made a bad situation even worse? But if that is all wrong and this is not your opinion, then by all means do please explain to the forum what the difference is here.

Please explain why you blame innocent Muslims for the crimes of terrorists - for you information the Muslims I have met at work today are as appalled by this crime as everyone else is. For that matter why are you assuming this attack was conducted by a immigrant?

Good post. Judging from (a minority thankfully) of comments posted on here today it is not just ISIS seeking the outcome you fear but some Saints fans too. As for the attack itself, I can only echo what so many others have already said and express how despicable I find this crime.

Being a big fan of Ridley Scott and the series I just had to go and see the great director's latest film "Alien Covenant" of course - and I must say it was worth the effort. Set a decade or so after the enigmatic and mildly disappointing "Prometheus", the action here starts aboard a massive colony ship (the "Covenant" of the title) carrying a cargo of hibernating humans and the usual android or "synthetic" crew member "Walter" (Michael Fassbender) to their new home world far away in deep space. Much as in the original 1979 "Alien" film before reaching its objective the ship receives a mysterious message that prompts the crew to divert from their planed mission and investigate the signal's origin on a stormy uncharted planet - with disastrous results for all concerned naturally! Without giving too much of the plot away, if you have seen "Prometheus" you will remember that that film ended with the last surviving human from the mission Dr Elizabeth Scott and the dismembered android "David" (Fassbender again), setting off to discover why the statuesque alien race that genetically created mankind from their own DNA long ago in the Earth's prehistory (the so-called "Engineers") were so intent on destroying us - employing H. R. Giger's fearsome predatory monsters as their chosen tool. I don't really think this film answers that key question for some reason - but we do soon meet "David" again and although he may have been reassembled by the (now deceased) Dr Scott, that does not mean he is perfectly well ... In a way "Covenant" is a significantly more satisfactory film than "Prometheus" because the action here is tighter and the plot rather more easily comprehensible. On the other hand you can perhaps see the influence of previous films in this series a little too clearly at times and apart from the David/Walter "synthetic" characters the rest of the (largely unknown) cast seem sketchily drawn and primarily there to provide a ready supply of victims for the aliens to slaughter in their usual brutal and uncompromising manner - you certainly can't compare the "Dany" character in this film to Sigourney Weaver's iconic "Ripley" for instance. As for the production design and special effect aspects of the film they are as fantastic as they nearly always are now with big budget Sci Fi movies - we live in a age of cinematic wonders that we take for granted. That said, watching "Covenant" is a intense and exciting experience that should leave most devotees of series feeling well satisfied I would think - indeed I can hardly wait for the next instalment.

Flip this argument on its head and we would have a Taliban fighter ruthlessly "finishing off" a wounded British soldier. I wonder if some on here are so comfortable with that notion too? History shows us that stuff like this always happens on battlefields and I'm thinking that those of us who are fortunate enough not to be placed in this situation should be careful before criticising those who are. You should walk a mile in another man's shoes before judging him they say. But in the final analysis a war crime is a war crime - even when it involves one of our soldiers.

I bet not many of you have ever seen this odd 1970 'made for TV effort' : https://youtu.be/VqxZoVLn6Tg - which by the way is not to be confused with the later teen horror of the same title. This film is (loosely) based on a real WWII incident involving a lost B-24D Liberator bomber - search "Lady be Good" for more details.

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 ...

Before pursuing your little campaign any further, the demands of good housekeeping require that you make at least some token effort to acknowledge this (rather large) error of judgement: http://www.espnfc.com/borussia-dortmund/story/3108585/german-officials-borussia-dortmund-bomb-attack-suspect-acted-out-of-greed

We live in strange times for sure, but right now I can't see anything other than a Tory win here - quite possibly of "landslide" proportions. For Labour its looks like electoral disaster awaits - but that might be just what the Party needs to start on the long road to recovery under a new leader that is acceptable to the British public I also expect a Lib-Dem resurgence - 30 seats perhaps? What is UKIP for now?

I've been perfectly calm all day - but thanks for the show of concern. As for claiming that I (or indeed anybody else on here) is at all "happy" that terrorism exists in society today - well I will just let others form their own judgement as to the character of somebody who would say such a wicked thing.

Again, recent terrorist attacks in this country are not the work of "immigrants". This is indisputable - as is your bigotry. You seem incapable of grasping either point.

My dear Mash - whenever you find yourself in a hole this is a recognisable tactic of yours - i.e pretend that some question of yours has not been answered regardless of whether it has or not. I must say this pattern of behaviour is rather odd. I can even predict what your next post will be based on this experience.

To be frank Mash you really are not all that much of a "struggle" to deal with. As for employing the term "few" to describe the proportion of our Muslim heritage population engaged in terrorism this seems a perfectly appropriate term to employ. The record shows that almost 3 million Muslims (4% of our population) live here now and the percentage of that number convicted of any terrorist offence here in the UK must be tiny. If you feel that is wrong then prove it. I await your reply with some interest - if not much expectation of reasonable behaviour.

This is not a answer to the question. Very much a 'no change there' situation with you today alas.

But I have often expressed on here how I abhor terrorism and criminality in general - do try to keep up!

Great to see you back Batman - have you managed to remember where you set out your counter terrorism policies yet?

You are a rather vague type of fellow - which post do you feel is evidence that supports your latest contention?

What may be "obvious" to you may not be to others. Give your reasons why you feel that I have resorted to ranting and cite some evidence to support your contention.

But I'm not all all upset old boy - why on earth would you think otherwise?

My response to the problem terrorism is that we should all support the forces of law and order in their efforts to protect us and punish the guilty. Your attitude seems to be that we should blame and discriminate against millions of innocent Muslims just because they happen to share the same religious heritage as the terrorists. Charles Dickins once wrote that want and ignorance were both 'children' to be feared, but that of the two ignorance was by far the worst. Your every post today cements your reputation on here as perhaps the most consistently bigoted and ignorant forum member we have.

So many millions of Christian and Muslim heritage Europeans living together harmoniously is cancelled out by the crimes of a few terrorists? Do at least make some kind of effort to make sense.

You seem to be specialising today in replies that bare no relationship to the original question. YOU asked me for Islamic "impacts" on Europe and I have just given you one very personal one. Now you clearly disapprove of my reply, but there again I never promised that you would like it did I?

Oh I'm very happy to answer your little question - I had just assumed that you didn't really want a reply and this was just a tactic for avoiding the question put to you. But as you ask - and on a personal note you understand - this coming Easter I shall be visiting my Nephew and his (quite lovely) Muslim wife in Oxford. I consider the two beautiful little children they are raising together as one very positive result of our modern multi-racial society - and a valuable reminder that your hate full attitudes are becoming a thing of the past for so many of our young and unprejudiced.

You see - it's really was not all that difficult was it. As you (and indeed Donald Trump) should know by now any immigration policy based on such a discriminatory (if not racist) basis would soon be declared illegal by the Supreme Court under UK law. You might also attempt to explain to the forum how this proposed measure of yours would address the problem of terrorism in the UK when in reality many recent incidents here have in fact been carried out by UK born British citizens?