Terrorist Attack on Britain

[TheQuietRiot]

I watched this on the news. Horrible tragedy made worse by government disarming their citizens and police, so that terrorists the world over know they'll hardly meet any armed resistance.

Mr.Rigby lived through his military service and was butchered on the street of his home country by an enemy his nation allies against with the U.S.

This is a shame on many fronts. Including the one wherein an armed citizen resistance is no longer legal.

The stupidity in government that thought that was a genius idea given the conflicts in Muslim countries that GB is involved in deserves to be studied for signs of chronic mental illness.

Especially with the Muslim conflicts that already occur in GB wherein "Sharia Law Zones" are being established unofficially by a terrorist Muslim agenda and it's agents.

People like you, who think that a gun on every persons hip is the solution are actually part of the problem. We have progressed beyond the wild wild west, in a modern civilised country people should feel safe without everyone having to walk around tooled up to the 9's with heavy weaponry.

I'd rather see instances such as these than sandy hook, dunblane or Colorado cinema shooting.

 

[MagicSabbath]

People like you, who think that a gun on every persons hip is the solution are actually part of the problem. We have progressed beyond the wild wild west, in a modern civilised country people should feel safe without everyone having to walk around tooled up to the 9's with heavy weaponry.

I'd rather see instances such as these than sandy hook, dunblane or Colorado cinema shooting.

That's sick. And no doubt would not be so if it were your family member beheaded.

To rather see psychotics butcher a citizen in broad daylight in your streets than having the option for even your police to save that victim is simply sick.

I'd rather not see you on the streets in my country. I'd certainly prefer you never own a gun. Minds like yours are what are dangerous at the trigger.

Here we have respect for life and we don't accept that our government decrees the law abiding can't be trusted, while conceding, per the crime statistics there, that they are unable to apply crime control.


As a post script, how is it you all missed the antisemitic tag attached to this thread?

 

[TheQuietRiot]

That's sick. And no doubt would not be so if it were your family member beheaded.

I try to use reason, rather than emotion.

How is it sick? It is callous at worse to say it is better 1 person is stabbed to death in the street then to have 10 people shot dead.

To rather see psychotics butcher a citizen in broad daylight in your streets than having the option for even your police to save that victim is simply sick.

Your reading comprehension needs work. At no point did I even mention armed police (which I agree with).

You also failed to grasp the point.

Psychotics will kill people whatever weapon is available. Allowing them easy access to firearms would make it far easier for them to kill far more people.

Why do you want to go back to the wild west?

I'd rather not see you on the streets in my country. I'd certainly prefer you never own a gun. Minds like yours are what are dangerous at the trigger.

I actually find that quite hilarious.

What you prefer or don't prefer is no concern of mine. I'm surprised you would think that I even care that some random person on a internet forum doesnt want me to visit their country or own a firearm, all because I don't share the opinion that firearms are the solution to violent incidences such as these.

I'd rather see a society where we don't need to walk around with firearms to be and feel safe.

Here we have respect for life and we don't accept that our government decrees the law abiding can't be trusted, while conceding, per the crime statistics there, that they are unable to apply crime control.

I think guns provide the means to dramatically escalate violent situations causing more loss of life than in a situation where there are no guns.

In any case, I doubt I will endeavour to respond to you again. I always attempt to be polite and try my best not to be rude to others who share different viewpoints to me. It is only a forum after all, its not like we can change to world by expressing our opinions here.

But I find discourse with people like you to be unsatisfying. You are rude, full of insults and seem completely unwilling to consider a point contrary to your own. I've been a member of a few discussion sites, but surprisingly my most unpleasant experiences have been on this site with Christians like you.

So maybe next time maybe wait for abit more information about another's viewpoints before you decide to label them as sick, dangerous. Makes you look kind of petty.

 

[MagicSabbath]

,,,,,

Great demonstration of immature vulgarity using a keyboard as a weapon. You really don't need an icon to announce atheism as a characteristic.

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Great demonstration of immature vulgarity using a keyboard as a weapon. You really don't need an icon to announce atheism as a characteristic.

As I suspected, nothing to say of substance just more baseless insults.

Good luck on your journey on the internet, your going to need far thicker skin than what you have displayed here.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The immediate jump to Islam as a problem should be avoided by everyone, regardless of what side of the fence they are on regarding Islam in general. Terrorism is political. It has been dressed up as all sorts of things, in these cases religion, but in the end it always boils down to politics.

Yes, terrorism is political. So is Islam.

Go all the way back to 9/11, and the reasons given by Bin Laden himself for the attack were political. If we keep going after Islam as the root cause of the problem, then everyone misses the point. For those who are against what they see as constant attacks on innocent Muslims, this thinking hurts people who have no relation to terrorism. For those who consider Muslims a constant threat, this thinking fails to correctly identify the terrorists. Either way, whatever opinion you have, going after Islam misses the point - we should be considering politics. It's a lot more complicated, but the reality often is.

Is terrorism the only, or even the main problem with Islam? Is the ultimate goal of Islam, the imposition of Shariah law, something worth opposing in itself, or only if advanced by force of arms?

Well, I'm sure they will all end up genocidal if we start acting like they all are.

If every chance to prove otherwise is denied them because of our fear and stereotyping, the only place we'll have left to them is the radicals.

Actually, that may be the only way to stop them from ending up genocidal. What do you mean by "radicals" anyway? Remember what LoveBeingAMuslimah said back in post #86? Straight from the horse's mouth:

Newsflash: Becoming a Muslim means becoming a member of the entire Muslim nation. And this Muslim nation, as told by the Prophet Muhammad, is like one body. When one part of it is in pain, then the rest of it also shows sleeplessness and fever.

Yet we still insist on clinging to this dichotomy of "good, moderate Islam" and "bad radical Islam". Islam is Islam; just because some individual Muslim may adhere to their creed more devoutly than others doesn't prove the existence of these two different "Islams".

Because it's still not that socially mobile and is stratified by income - there's a rather obvious correlation between immigrants and income level which you are ignoring.

When was there ever a society that wasn't stratified by income to some degree? Modern Sweden is just about the most egalitarian society the world has ever known, what does it say about them if they're stuck at the bottom there? Anyway those immigrants make far more in Sweden than they ever did in their home countries, so it's a moot point. If they don't like it, they can leave.

You missed one out: we bomb their families and invade their countries.

How did those countries become Muslim in the first place though? Point being is that they started it. They're hardly in any position to complain about having to taste their own medicine.

 

[TheDag]

How did those countries become Muslim in the first place though? Point being is that they started it. They're hardly in any position to complain about having to taste their own medicine.

Any evidence that children made the decision for the 9/11 attacks then? I am ever so thankful that I by pure chance was born in Australia rather than Afghanistan or China or numerous other countries.

They started it? Really??? That is a typical argument used by 8 year olds. When I refereed sport I would send of any player who threw a punch in a fight. When they complained they didn't start it I told them they had the choice to improve the situation or make it worse and they chose to make it worse. That is all the "they started it" comment is doing. Making things worse because it is not trying to solve the problem and prevent it from happening in the first place.

 

[TheDag]

Muslim cuts off a british soldiers head of and yet here you are claiming that the whole thing is overblown because white people are racist.

As a fellow Christian I would appreciate you actually reading posts and considering the points made so I don't look bad due to your actions.

Would you like everyone to judge you because of the actions of Westboro Baptist? That is essentially what you are doing to muslims.

Maybe it would be overblown if it was an isolated incident, but it wasn't.

and your evidence for this claim is what? just saying other attacks were done by muslims and these guys are muslims is not good enough as we would not hold Christians to that standard or white people in general.

Maybe it would be overblown if muslims actually wanted to integrate into our societies, but they don't. Muslims who are terrorists are a tiny minority it's true, but muslims who have extremist views is not a minority at all.

Really all the ones I know happily integrate. It is a real pity because I would have liked to work with at least one guy who was not obsessed by women. It was the white staff who boasted of sitting next to a nun on a train reading inappropriate contento mags not the muslims. Of course they didn't integrate in that they didn't drink alcohol. I don't see that as a bad thing.

 

[Oafman]

When was there ever a society that wasn't stratified by income to some degree? Modern Sweden is just about the most egalitarian society the world has ever known, what does it say about them if they're stuck at the bottom there? .

Your view of Sweden is at least a decade out of date. They have now embraced neoliberalism as much as the rest of us. Income inequality in Sweden is rising faster than in almost all other developed nations, and social unrest is the inevitable result.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

They started it? Really??? That is a typical argument used by 8 year olds. When I refereed sport I would send of any player who threw a punch in a fight. When they complained they didn't start it I told them they had the choice to improve the situation or make it worse and they chose to make it worse. That is all the "they started it" comment is doing. Making things worse because it is not trying to solve the problem and prevent it from happening in the first place.

Listen to what I said. I didn't say "They started it, the West is justified in any military response they make". I said "They started it. They're hardly in a position to complain about having to taste their own medicine." Following your example, when you have an 8 year old who is habitually starting fights, what do you say when cries about somebody giving him a bloody nose? Shouldn't that be a opportunity to reflect on his own behavior? The point is how ridiculous and hypocritical it is for Muslims to whine about reaping what they sow.

 

[Phileas]

Yes, terrorism is political. So is Islam.
Is terrorism the only, or even the main problem with Islam? Is the ultimate goal of Islam, the imposition of Shariah law, something worth opposing in itself, or only if advanced by force of arms?

Yet again you seem to be taking the views of one political subsection of one denomination of Islam and superimposing it over the entire religion of over a billion people. The aims you describe are those primarily of the Salafi movement. As others have already stated time and time and time again this is akin to taking the Westboro Baptist Church and claiming that All Christians act the same way.[/quote]

Actually, that may be the only way to stop them from ending up genocidal. What do you mean by "radicals" anyway? Remember what LoveBeingAMuslimah said back in post #86? Straight from the horse's mouth:

"Newsflash: Becoming a Muslim means becoming a member of the entire Muslim nation. And this Muslim nation, as told by the Prophet Muhammad, is like one body. When one part of it is in pain, then the rest of it also shows sleeplessness and fever."

Yet we still insist on clinging to this dichotomy of "good, moderate Islam" and "bad radical Islam". Islam is Islam; just because some individual Muslim may adhere to their creed more devoutly than others doesn't prove the existence of these two different "Islams".

And Christians claim that they are part of the one body of Christ. When the church is persecuted in other parts of the world it causes great pain to the whole body and consternation resulting in intervention and prayer. What exactly is the difference? Also as a matter of fact there are two different major Islamic denominations, Shia and Sunni, and many multiple schools of law and theology equally as diverse as the Christian Church. Perhaps you should research something before passing judgement upon it

You can't alienate and disenfrancise a whole section of society and then moan when some of them become isolated and fail to integrate. Young people who cannot see a future, who feel they're worthless to society, who are pilloried and targeted become a fertile ground for extremist violence. It could be Fundamentalist religion; it could be gang culture; it could be nationalist movements. These things give them a sense of worth and an aim in life. Perhaps if we, as a society, attempted to offer the same respect and value we could attack one of the root causes of extremism in all its forms. But instead we so often jerk the knee and heap on a whole lot more finger pointing alienation.

 

[Gadarene]

Actually, that may be the only way to stop them from ending up genocidal. What do you mean by "radicals" anyway? Remember what LoveBeingAMuslimah said back in post #86? Straight from the horse's mouth:

Yet we still insist on clinging to this dichotomy of "good, moderate Islam" and "bad radical Islam". Islam is Islam; just because some individual Muslim may adhere to their creed more devoutly than others doesn't prove the existence of these two different "Islams".

You've just admitted that it can be adhered to in multiple ways. No-one is claiming there are two Islams, one good and one bad. You're forgetting that I think even the better adherence is still wrong and would prefer all religions this reliant on subjective readings of a text to upgrade to something a little better. I'm saying neither is especially true - the problem is the method. But that goes for a lot more than just Islam.

It doesn't change the fact however that adherents of Islam that commit terrorism are still a miniscule minority, so there is no logic in treating them as indicative of the behaviour of the whole. And I maintain that given that we both think Islam is entirely false, it is utterly daft to maintain it has a true meaning - a threatening one - that we can use to justify wholesale stereotyping of another group.

I haven't forgotten what LBAM said, and I addressed it specifically. And Phileas has done so again, and in the same correct way. It is no different to Christians feeling the suffering of other Christians in other countries in a way that transcends nationality. And yet they seem quite capable of discerning that Christians have good eggs and bad eggs and that the latter shouldn't be treated as necessarily representative of the whole, especially when they're a minority. But that's the advantage of being part of the same group you're evaluating. It is in your own self-interest to be more charitable.

The difference is, relative to you and me, Christianity is "us" - a bigger part of our culture; Islam is "them", a belief that has not been part of culture in the same way. Even though members of two groups engage in similar behaviours, when talking about the other group the conclusions about what these behaviours imply are very different because of this bias.

I'm sure many there are more than a few Muslims who are a bit leery of Christians when the ostensibly Christian "them" of the west (or at least, are led by people who claim to be Christian) as they perceive them keep invading them, and yet the reality is more complicated than that. Same bias.

 

[All Englands Skies]

I haven't forgotten what LBAM said, and I addressed it specifically. And Phileas has done so again, and in the same correct way. It is no different to Christians feeling the suffering of other Christians in other countries in a way that transcends nationality. And yet they seem quite capable of discerning that Christians have good eggs and bad eggs and that the latter shouldn't be treated as necessarily representative of the whole, especially when they're a minority. But that's the advantage of being part of the same group you're evaluating. It is in your own self-interest to be more charitable..

The context she said it in was justifying the London extremists, I made an attack on them being hypocrites, how they dont care when Muslims dish out injustice, bu moan at percieved injustice, even going as far as violence.

Her comments then referred to them being a "family" and "caring about each other", showing she sees the link between that type of person and loyality to Islam.

Cross reference that with on any post where someone is Muslim does wrong, all she does is find articles that twist the blame around to the west (foreign policy, MI5 hassling him, etc), you get a fair idea her line of thinking. especially as in other threads she defends blashpemy laws.

She then goes on to even sound like shes rooting for bin laden, saying he "warned the USA" like it was a legitimate action, oddly its those type of people who kill more Muslims than anybody else, funny how thats overlooked, if you cared about persecution of Muslims, you'd go first to confront the Islamic extremists. If she didnt think the 9/11 attacks were justified in anyway, she would not say the stuff she did, simple as, as someone else pointed out "straight from the horses mouth"

Her line of thinking she most likely believes spain should still be Islamic and then anybody who leaves Islam for another faith should be punished (never replies to that one)

Now it highlights the fact you defend her and actually try to make out shes reasonable and just "doing what you're doing", yet we all know for a fact you'd never defend a Christian with equivilent views, which makes your comments about "being consistant" laughable at best.

Her line of thinking would find the equivilent in lets say an EDL member murderering a Muslim, then a fellow EDL member posting reports on a forum like "EDL is a response to Extremists and Muslim violence", saying stuff like "while the attack is wrong, really we should remember its Islam, with its viewpoints that caused this"

The only people who would entertain such responses would be fellow EDL members and people of the same mindset, you'd say they were scaremongering and finding scapegoats and being racist. Yet you defend someone who tries over and over to shift the blame onto who she percieves the "true aggressor".

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

^Get a grip and be honest.

You said,

This pair werent even born muslim, they chose to convert, they aint also afghans or iraqis either.

as if not being raised as Muslims means that they should not care about other Muslims.

So either you were being intentionally dishonest when you said the following or you need some help in comprehending your own posts and following conversations:

The context she said it in was justifying the London extremists, I made an attack on them being hypocrites, how they dont care when Muslims dish out injustice, bu moan at percieved injustice, even going as far as violence.

Way to change the facts on a forum where one can easily go back to verify.

She then goes on to even sound like shes rooting for bin laden, saying he "warned the USA" like it was a legitimate action, oddly its those type of people who kill more Muslims than anybody else, funny how thats overlooked, if you cared about persecution of Muslims, you'd go first to confront the Islamic extremists. If she didnt think the 9/11 attacks were justified in anyway, she would not say the stuff she did, simple as, as someone else pointed out "straight from the horses mouth"

Are you seriously forgetting that you said this,

The whole reason the US got the excuse to raid afghanistan and iraq is because Muslims gave them one on 9/11, but as usual that gets forgotten.

And THEN I responded saying that Usama warned the U.S. to stop meddling in Muslim countries and helping to kill Muslims or else he would attack.

So basically, the whole reason Bin Laden got the excuse to attack America is because America gave him one with its foreign policy against the Muslims (please notice the near word-for-word quoting....I just changed a few of the nouns). Does that mean that I agreed with what happened on 9/11? No, because Islaamically Muslims aren't allowed to intentionally target non-combatant women or children. But I am also logical enough to realize that most people don't do these types of things unless they were agitated. If a person beats another person to a pulp, it should come as no surprise if that other person retaliates. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't like my response, by extension you should be against your own post.

Her line of thinking she most likely believes spain should still be Islamic and then anybody who leaves Islam for another faith should be punished (never replies to that one)

I never replied to "that one" because I was never asked on this sub-forum (or if I was, I didn't see the post).

I wish that Spain was still under Islaamic rule, yes. The Spanish Inquisition where the Christians persecuted the Jews and the Muslims put an end to it, but I still wish it was still there. Interestingly, the Ottoman Empire took in the Muslims and Jews from Spain. So this should show you that we care for each other, even if we are complete strangers.

As for apostasy, yes, it should be punished in an Islaamic state. Otherwise it wouldn't be an Islaamic state, would it? To be Islaamic, one needs to obey God's legislation. And before you have the audacity to become indignant, please don't forget that you have blasphemy/apostasy laws in your own religion (or did, if you believe the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament).

Her line of thinking would find the equivilent in lets say an EDL member murderering a Muslim, then a fellow EDL member posting reports on a forum like "EDL is a response to Extremists and Muslim violence", saying stuff like "while the attack is wrong, really we should remember its Islam, with its viewpoints that caused this"

No, my line of thinking is that we need to get to the root of problems instead of trying to focusing on and attacking/blaming symptoms. If you haven't noticed, that's what a lot of political analysts do.

Also, you can't expect to invade, kill, torture, send people to be further tortured in countries known for their cruelty, imprison unjustly, use depleted uranium and other weapons of mass destruction (which will have detrimental consequences for years to come because of things like depleted uranium settling into dust), increase cancer rates and birth deformities due to these weapons, prop up and support dictators (until things like the Arab spring happen and then suddenly the tune changes and those dictators were evil) etc. and get away with these atrocities scot-free. That people would feign shock when others retaliate is almost amusing if it were not for the seriousness of the situation.

The only people who would entertain such responses would be fellow EDL members and people of the same mindset, you'd say they were scaremongering and finding scapegoats and being racist. Yet you defend someone who tries over and over to shift the blame onto who she percieves the "true aggressor".

Let's see here:

The whole reason the US got the excuse to raid afghanistan and iraq is because Muslims gave them one on 9/11, but as usual that gets forgotten.

Oops!!!

 

[Picky Picky]

^Get a grip and be honest.

You said,



as if not being raised as Muslims means that they should not care about other Muslims.

So either you were being intentionally dishonest when you said the following or you need some help in comprehending your own posts and following conversations:



Way to change the facts on a forum where one can easily go back to verify.

Are you seriously forgetting that you said this,



And THEN I responded saying that Usama warned the U.S. to stop meddling in Muslim countries and helping to kill Muslims or else he would attack.

So basically, the whole reason Bin Laden got the excuse to attack America is because America gave him one with its foreign policy against the Muslims (please notice the near word-for-word quoting....I just changed a few of the nouns). Does that mean that I agreed with what happened on 9/11? No, because Islaamically Muslims aren't allowed to intentionally target non-combatant women or children. But I am also logical enough to realize that most people don't do these types of things unless they were agitated. If a person beats another person to a pulp, it should come as no surprise if that other person retaliates. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you don't like my response, by extension you should be against your own post.



I never replied to "that one" because I was never asked on this sub-forum (or if I was, I didn't see the post).

I wish that Spain was still under Islaamic rule, yes. The Spanish Inquisition where the Christians persecuted the Jews and the Muslims put an end to it, but I still wish it was still there. Interestingly, the Ottoman Empire took in the Muslims and Jews from Spain. So this should show you that we care for each other, even if we are complete strangers.

As for apostasy, yes, it should be punished in an Islaamic state. Otherwise it wouldn't be an Islaamic state, would it? To be Islaamic, one needs to obey God's legislation. And before you have the audacity to become indignant, please don't forget that you have blasphemy/apostasy laws in your own religion (or did, if you believe the New Testament abrogates the Old Testament).



No, my line of thinking is that we need to get to the root of problems instead of trying to focusing on and attacking/blaming symptoms. If you haven't noticed, that's what a lot of political analysts do.

Also, you can't expect to invade, kill, torture, send people to be further tortured in countries known for their cruelty, imprison unjustly, use depleted uranium and other weapons of mass destruction (which will have detrimental consequences for years to come because of things like depleted uranium settling into dust), increase cancer rates and birth deformities due to these weapons, prop up and support dictators (until things like the Arab spring happen and then suddenly the tune changes and those dictators were evil) etc. and get away with these atrocities scot-free. That people would feign shock when others retaliate is almost amusing if it were not for the seriousness of the situation.



Let's see here:



Oops!!!

I'm sure you understand, LBAM, that those of us who are as offended as you by the anti-Muslim nonsense that has been spouted here will be offended also by your defence of punishment for apostasy. Our concern (if I can speak for those who've taken a similar line to me here – which perhaps I can't!) is for the freedom of each individual to hold his/her religious views without persecution or demonisation. That applies (for us, I suggest) also to those brought up in the faith of Islam who decide they can no longer believe – whether they live in Muslim countries or not. If you wanted to persuade us otherwise, you would have some work to do, I think.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

They started it? Really??? That is a typical argument used by 8 year olds. When I refereed sport I would send of any player who threw a punch in a fight. When they complained they didn't start it I told them they had the choice to improve the situation or make it worse and they chose to make it worse. That is all the "they started it" comment is doing. Making things worse because it is not trying to solve the problem and prevent it from happening in the first place.

So, Hitler should have just been allowed to run rampant across Europe, because it's bad to fight back?

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

I, for one, am happy that the islamic invaders were kicked out of France (732) and Spain (1492). For nearly 800 years, Spain was under the iron heel of islam, with Christians being second-class citizens in their own country.

For sure, much of what happened post-Reconquiesta was downright immoral, yes, but that does not change the fact that the Reconquiesta was just.
Same goes for the Crusades.

 

[TheDag]

So, Hitler should have just been allowed to run rampant across Europe, because it's bad to fight back?

Either learn some basic comprehension or don't reply to my posts please. That is nowhere near what I said and your attempt to twist my words is not appreciated.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yes, terrorism is political. So is Islam.

So is Christianity, so is gun control, so is town planning. Everything is political to some degree. The point is that it's politics that drives terrorism; the religion provides the justification after the fact. The reasoning behind Islamic terrorism is never just "the Qur'an told me to".

Is terrorism the only, or even the main problem with Islam? Is the ultimate goal of Islam, the imposition of Shariah law, something worth opposing in itself, or only if advanced by force of arms?

And here we see the other problem with how we're dealing with Islamic terrorism: not only do we fail to understand the reasons why it is happening, we completely fail to understand the reason that we're pretending is the cause. There are people in power who think like this; who have somehow managed to be incorrect about their incorrect conclusions. Sharia law is not the ultimate goal of Islam, by any stretch of the imagination.

This willful ignorance, shared by many in power, is why we've failed to win the "War on Terror". It's impossible to win if you don't understand who it is that you're trying to defeat. Too many people are under the delusion that Islam is the enemy, which is a misjudgment akin to thinking that every Christian is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. If you can't bring yourself to care about innocent Muslims being caught up in this, care about all the other victims of terrorism who could potentially be still alive if we stopped going after the wrong people.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

=

The point is that it's politics that drives terrorism; the religion provides the justification after the fact.

When we're talking about Islam, the politics and the religion are one and the same thing. It's a common mistake to take the Western distinction between religion and secular politics and try to apply it to Islam.

Sharia law is not the ultimate goal of Islam, by any stretch of the imagination.

What else do you suppose it would be?

Too many people are under the delusion that Islam is the enemy, which is a misjudgment akin to thinking that every Christian is a member of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Care to substantiate the claim that it is a delusion? Islam has been the enemy of the West for nearly fourteen centuries. Throughout history, whenever it was able, it waged wars of aggression against the West and their other non-Islamic neighbors. I see no evidence that this is changing or any reason why it would.

If you can't bring yourself to care about innocent Muslims being caught up in this, care about all the other victims of terrorism who could potentially be still alive if we stopped going after the wrong people.

It's not a question of whether I care, it's a question of whether Muslims care. You're still trying to make excuses for Islam and shift the blame on the West. It's our fault for not being good little dhminnis and doing what they want. For the life of me I can't understand why. Do you realize what would lie in store for you if Islam were to prevail? It's like playing with fire and not knowing that fire is hot.

Incidentally, why is this thread tagged "Jewish propaganda" and "Jews rule Britain"?