Bath Saint

You have to wonder about someone who just likes to hurl out abuse rather than actually argue the points - and who seems to think that number of posts on and internet forum equates to support of a football club. Seriously odd behaviour. But there we are. He is obviously unable to grasp simple maths or understand simple concepts (or answer straightforward questions, for that matter) if they undermine or, in any way, challenge his ideology. I'm going to leave this rather dense individual to his generalised, bigoted witterings and go back to the football forum I normally post on (HA, in your face, Sour Grapes).

Here's an interesting article reporting on academic research into the subject. https://psmag.com/social-justice/whats-the-real-goal-of-islamic-terrorists The way it runs is that hardline Islamists see the West as the enemy but even worse are the moderate, westernised Muslims. To the terrorists, they are the worst of the worst - sellouts. So, they take the view that Muslims in the west either go on Jihad, leave the West, get killed/expelled or convert to something else and no longer call themselves Muslims. A way of bringing this about is to ferment terror in the West such that they turn all the other demographics against the Western Muslims. They hope that if they can turn everyone else against the Muslims, they'll be backed into a corner, feel oppressed and then turn to terrorism themselves. They actually NEED people like Sour Grapes to hate Muslims. It finishes their job off for them.

1. You think posting on a football forum equates to supporting the team? Odd. You are probably one of those guys who never goes to games. 2. You really are astonishingly thick. You said that there is a higher proportion of rapists among muslims than other groups - but provide no evidence. Grooming gangs does not mean there's more rapists among that demographic. Sheesh, can't you get this into your thick head? Do you really not understand that basic concept? I even tried to make it easy for you by demonstrating it with basic maths. I guess you were too thick to even get a GCSE. Blimey, some people. 3. I have never said there isn't a problem with Islamist terrorism. Just like when there was a problem back in the 70s through to the early 90s with IRA terrorism, there is now a problem with Islamist terrorism. What I do say is that only a tiny proportion of Muslims would even dream of terrorism. So, just like we didn't blame all the Irish back in the 70s and 80s, I don't blame all Muslims. Tell me this, do you blame all Muslims for terrorism? 4. You blamed me for rape - go figure. Actually, I do see you as working hand-in-hand with the terrorists. Their aim is to sow division in Western society and turn everyone against the Muslims. Guess what - you're doing exactly what they want. They LOVE you.

Ha, thought as much, you're unable to the simple maths problem. You see, that is the crux of the thing. You say (as fact, but with no evidence to support this) that there are more rapists among the Muslim population than others. You then point to some rape gangs in various cities up and down the country as evidence. That is NOT evidence, those are incidents that happen to have been reported. It does not mean that there are more rapists among the Muslim population than any other. You are clearly too thick to understand this - or just don't want to understand it as it doesn't support your bigoted narrative. Not sure why you want to know why I post on here. I support Southampton (duh - more evidence of you being thick). Why do you post on here? Shouldn't you find some nice, cosy EDL forum to post on? I didn't say that there wasn't a problem with Islamic terrorism. In fact, I said there was a problem. You have obviously failed to read that bit of my earlier post. Maybe you have trouble reading - most EDL-type right-wing extremist thugs like you are a bit thick, after all, and you're doing nothing to disprove that. Of course, the truth is that you're an extremist and are aiding and abetting the Islamist terrorists with your views. You're no better than them. In fact, you're worse - you're a traitor to our country. That is a FACT; that is the truth! Chew on that.

Okay, you're obviously too thick to work this out. Let me try to explain as I would to a child. I'll set you a Year 3 maths problem. See whether you can answer it. You're not allowed to ask for help. You have to work it all out on your own. See whether you can be a big boy and get the right answer. Imagine you have 100 Christian men and 100 Muslim men. with me so far? Okay, now one of the Christian men rapes a woman. Meanwhile, one of the Muslim men rapes 5 women. How many rapists are in each group? When you've worked that out, maybe you can get your head around this one. Facts require evidence. You are unable to provide any - and that is, as you would say, a FACT. So, come back when you have some evidence (I won't hold my breath). Bye for now.

So you can't provide any evidence? Thought not. A list of gangs DOES NOT mean that there is a higher incidence of rape amongst that group. You're obviously too thick to understand this point (or purposely obfuscating). Still, you carry on diverting attention away from all the other rape that goes on and just blame one ethnic group. Hope you're happy that you're, in part, helping to facilitate rape by other groups in society – does that make you proud? YOU’RE the one who is helping to cover up rape. You’re the one who is guilty. My conscience, on the other hand is clear. Oh, and see you have no data on the claim you made about terrorism either. Quelle surprise. So, essentially, it's all guess work fuelled by prejudice. Well, I guess we all know what you are but this has simply confirmed what we all already know.

Okay, first of all, there were two questions (well, three question marks but two questions) neither of which you have satisfactorily answered in my opinion. Firstly, you said that there is a higher incidence of rape among Muslims. You didn't mention rape gangs or anything like that. I suspect there are as many rapists in every community but that in other communities they tend to act along rather than in gangs. I don't know this for sure but I wasn't the one who said that Muslims are more likely to commit rape. I don't think they are and won't think so until I am shown the evidence. So, until you can prove otherwise, there is no difference in terms of proportions between white, East Asian, South Asian Muslim, Christian, Buddhist etc. groups in terms of incidence of rape. I agree that rape gangs are/were a problem, just like the Christian church having a load of paedophile rapists is a problem. Doesn't mean I blame an entire religious group. In terms of culture (to answer your question) I think that is far more likely an explanation of behaviour than religion. Just like not all Chritstians are the same, neither are all Buddhists, Muslim and so on. Sure, we have a terrorist problem. Well, again you've used that word 'FACT' without providing any evidence whatsoever. Look, I can do it too. You're a racist - Fact. You're a bigot - Fact. You read the Daily Mail - Fact. See, easy, isn't it? I can also use the word 'fact' with no evidence whatsoever, and it means that everything is reduced to opinions and prejudice rather than.... well, facts. lol Second generation immigrants were born in the this country and are British. Can you prove that most of the terrorists are second generation or first gen immigrants anyway? Are there any statistics on this or is your 'fact' really just a guess? And, I choose not to allow the actions of a tiny minority to colour my views of the great majority. I can throw accusations as well. People like YOU, focusing all your attention on Muslim immigration, are allowing the horrors of rape by people of other communities to go unchallenged. You are partly guilty for that. People like YOU are partly guilty for allowing far-right terrorist groups to increase their activities and become emboldened. See, easy to throw allegations, isn't it?

Fact? You sure? Okay, so show me the evidence that Muslims are more likely to commit rape. By evidence, I mean official/robustly collected statistics (not random news reports). Not only that, but that the incidence of rape committed by Muslims is statistically significantly higher than other religious groups. Secondly, in terms of terrorism, as I said earlier, we continued to let Irish people come here during the height of the the IRA bombings. Risk was slightly increased, yes, but we didn't castigate an entire people for the crimes of a tiny minority (well, quite a few people did, actually, as they suffered a lot of prejudice and still do). Also (and this is anecdotal, although feel free to find the statistics if you want to prove otherwise) but aren't most of the Islamist terrorists in the UK (just like the right wing terrorists) 'home grown'? By that, I mean they were born and raised in Britain (or have been here since they were very young). So we have a terrorism problem of our own making - both right wing and Islamist (which is also right wing, in my view). I'm not sure how stopping a specific group of people entering the country will stop our own people committing terrorism. So, I don't think your fact is a fact unless you can provide unequivocal evidence and (like a lot of slightly thick people) simply saying FACT doesn't make anything a fact. I prefer robust, scientific evidence to your random prejudice. Anyway, a few questions there for you to answer. See whether you can manage it. I've shown you how..... So, there are a few questions for you there.

As usual, not answering the questions. Really, it isn't difficult. I did earlier and will answer your follow up question in a moment. I guess I take the view that, by showing you how to answer questions you may, one day, learn for yourself. They call it teaching by doing. HTH

I have absolutely no problem accepting Muslim people into the country just like the Irish continued to enter the country at the height of IRA terrorism. See, it isn't difficult to answer a question, is it? Maybe you should give it a try.

Good to see you back - you were missed. I think codpieces are much more comfy when they're stuffed with fishfingers. What say you?

Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you personally. I was using the word 'you' in the same way as the Royal 'we', as a generalisation (mainly of Daily Mail readers, where the term 'snowflake' seems so prevalent).

In truth, I don't think the 'kids of today' are nearly as dreadful as people make out. I was moaning the other day about my own kids being obsessed with blokes like DanTDM and Stampy on youtube (if you don't know who they are, look them up - and gringe) but someone pointed out to me that, when I was a kid my parents must have equally despaired about the **** I used to watch on tv. Teenagers and young adults are fixated by materialist goods but that's the society we have jointly created for them. I see a lot of students who are under incredible pressure to get a 'good' degree and a 'good' job and think back to when I was a student and a third was 'gentleman's degree'. But, while I don't envy the kids of today and the society they live in, they don't live under the constant threat of a nuclear holocaust, most don't experience serious, grinding poverty. They are exposed to all sorts of experiences and opportunities that we could never have dreamt of. I also wonder, Nick, whether it is the threat of predators that worries parents or the fact that there are loads of cars everywhere. Another powerful disincentive for parents to let their kids roam is the opprobrium of their peers (i.e. other parents). Would I let my young kids go cycling down the roads around where I live? What about the traffic? What about the response of other parents? Frankly, I think calling kids 'snowflakes' and bemoaning the younger generation (who, incidentally, will be paying for our pensions) is a bit pathetic and disheartening, but if you are going to resort to this kind of deprecation of them, you should first look to yourself - ultimately, our kids are a reflection of us, for good or ill.

Likewise. But is is my parent's generation and mine who have developed a sense of entitlement among the 'kids of today'. Easy to moan about it but we and our parents are culpable (not as individuals, obviously, but as a group). I am always amused when people accuse kids of being 'snowflakes'. They need to look to themselves and their peers, who created said snowflakes.

And their parent's generation are the ones who developed and designed those institutions and taught in them. And their parent's generation are the ones who voted for the governments who introduced those institutions. If you want to blame the kids, look at the parents.

Ah, so what you're saying is that people of your generation have failed. You have failed to raise your children to be self-sufficient go-getters. Thing is, the 'younger generation' are a reflection of their parents: the values and ethics inculcated in them by their parents. Their failings are your failings.

You're doing the job the terrorists want. They rub their hands together with glee everytime they see or hear something like this. This is EXACTLY what they want to happen. Every outrage provokes an anti-Muslim backlash... which feeds further alienation/radicalisation. And where that backlash impacts on the vast, vast majority of normal, law-abiding Muslims (and, in the eyes of ISIS, even more deserving of death than the infidel Western crusaders) the happier they are. It's been working for them for a while now, and I'm sure it will carry on working for them into the future. People like you are proof of it. Here's an interesting article on how ISIS are looking to "eliminate the 'greyzone' of peaceful coexistance" between Muslims and non-Muslims in the West. https://theintercept.com/2015/11/17/islamic-states-goal-eliminating-the-grayzone-of-coexistence-between-muslims-and-the-west/

That's a well-reasoned response, thank you. Having seen the footage, as others have said, he stops, thinks about it, then shoots the man. Than he talks about it to his colleagues. Presumably, he knew he and others were carrying recording devices. So, one has to assume either he felt he had the latitude to act in that way or felt he wouldn't be caught. I just wanted to check though. Do you think, from a detached perspective, that what he did was wrong?

So you're saying that our troops should behave like the insurgents and ignore the convention? If a hundred insurgents surrender, should they all be shot down in cold blood? Just checking that you think that is how our troops should behave.

Ha ha ha, good ol' Sour Grapes can't resist an emoticon when actually asked to suggest any ideas.

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....

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.

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.)

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?

Right, you're using several terms in a rather inexact way here. 1. Women are forced to do all sorts of things, whether they're Muslim or not. Most Muslim women are not forced to cover their heads in public. They choose to do it. 2. Christianity is in decline in Western Europe with the rise of secularism. And? So what? 3. Islam is spreading. Well, it is, but currently represents 6% of the population of Europe and is set to rise to 8% by 2030 (and that includes predominantly Muslim countries like Albania and Bosnia). But define 'taking over' towns and cities. The biggest Muslim population in any town in Britain is Bradford with a Muslim population of about 24% according to the last census. In Blackburn it is 19%, in Birmingham about 22%, in Slough 23% and in London it is about 12%. Does this equal 'taking over'? And, in any case, what does 'taking over' even mean. These are mostly British people who happen to be Muslim.