Blah serious questions about the religion blah can it coexist with civilised society blah serious questions to community leaders blah can we trust these people… oh, wait.
Blah serious questions about the religion blah can it coexist with civilised society blah serious questions to community leaders blah can we trust these people… oh, wait.
Perhaps the difference is that people like him have influential supporters in the media. How many right-wing blogs link to Ann Coulter, who said "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building"? Asked if she regretted it, she said she regretted not adding ‘after everyone but editor and reports had left the building’.
I wonder if I can nominate "A former soldier with extreme views on abortion and homosexuality," as this week’s clearest statement of the bleeding obvious?
I think we should demand that so-called ‘moderate’ xtians come out and demonstrate against the cancer within their community. If they’re not part of the solution, they must be part of the problem, no?
Yawn! Yeah, right. Christians are just as bad. After all, the seven killed in attacks on abortion clinics, well that’s about half the number killed over the Koran flushing that never was.
Morons.
Not sure why I’m bothering, but…
Old Peculier: you’re comparing, I believe, the actions of a Christian nutter in the USA (a 1st world country, to many, the very definition of that term) with the actions of a mob of Muslim nutters in Afganistan (a 3rd world country, ditto the definition comment). Right. I suppose I’m not allowed to hence mention any of the atrocities committed by Christians in other 3rd world countries (like half of Africa or Indonesia). You could at least have compared Eric Rudolph to the London attacks (although the ratio of dead to number of terrorists doesn’t work in your favour here).
Wrong, yet again. The London bombers were in a first world country, were they not? And the September 11 hijackers, if not from a first world country, were wealthy and educated. And the attempted suicide bombing at Mike’s Place – two Brits. And the guy involved in Daniel Pearl’s murder – British, public school educated.
And the shoe bomber. And the would be shoe bomber. Both British, one public school educated.
Versus one nutter.
Difference. Ideology. Islam teaches terrorism. Muhammed was a terrorist.
OP… but surely you’d agree that if Eric Rudolph could have planted a bomb that murdered a hundred thousand gay men and abortion doctors, that he would have done.
So really, the difference is merely in the abilities of the terrorists in question to "get the job done". You seem – in essence – to be celebrating christian incompetence.
What twaddle. Rudolph wasn’t acting in accordance with a centuries old ideology that tells him to kill unbelievers. He’s a nutter. The London bombers and all the other Muslim terrorists are doing, logically what the Koran tells them to do.
And it isn’t Christian countries that stone gays and adulterers, is it?
What’s more, while in Muslim countries they danced in the street at Sept 11, Christians condemn the random acts of murder of the very, very rare nutters in their midst.
Onward Christian soldiers, marching as to war
With the cross of Jesus going on before…
In further shocking revelations, learn how evil infiltrators masquerading as ordinary moderate teachers FORCED Yorkshire schoolchildren to sing this blatant incitement to extremist religious violence in fascist-style mass rallies known as "assemblies" throughout the 1980s and even well into the 1990s. In fact, it may still be going on!
I call upon the Christian community to denounce this cancer in their backyard! Otherwise, you’re obviously objectively pro-fascist and should be deported to the Vatican, or somewhere.
OP, you might like to think about how – say – Serbia found so many lone Christian nutters they could form entire divisions, nay, complete Army Corps willing to slaughter, expel and rape people right, left and centre for being, well, unbelievers (either Bosnian or Kosovar Muslims or Croat Roman Catholics, or even Slovenian Lutherans and Catholics). And (evenhandedness time) how the Croats found if not whole corps, then at least a few brigades’ worth of bad apples in the Christian bag to do much the same to Orthodox Serbs.
And everyone knows how vigorously the Northern Irish Protestant Church condemned the UVF. Well, we do, don’t we? And there were never, ever, any Roman Catholics who would have had any truck with the IRA. No, sir.
The Lebanese Christian Falangists who hacked the sign of the cross into their victims at Chatila were, as is well known, really PLO agents provocateurs. Or atheists. Or, well, something, eh? Franz Stangl, the commandant of Treblinka, signed a document declaring that although he renounced the authority of the Pope (as was required of SS members) he was a Gottgläubiger, a believer in God, entirely because….he didn’t believe in God at all, clearly. And the Wehrmacht uniform belt buckle was stamped Gott mit uns (God goes with us) because they had a lot left over from the first world war. Obviously.
Because they were all entirely unrepresentative nutters whose actions were COMPLETELY unconnected with their religion, unlike those eeeevil Muslims doing logically what the Koran tells them to do.
I hope that is completely clear.
Because they were all entirely unrepresentative nutters whose actions were COMPLETELY unconnected with their religion, unlike those eeeevil Muslims doing logically what the Koran tells them to do.
Yes, that is absolutely true. They were immitating Mohammed rather than Christ.
Like for like comparison would be people growing up in an advanced liberal democracy with full human rights and relative wealth. British Christians. According to the last census, 75%, though this must include nominal Christians. So let’s call it 50%, ie 30 million Christians. How many terrorists? None. Zero. Nada. British Muslims: 2 million. Shouldn’t even be one, now should there. But there are quite a few.
Ah, but it’s ‘cos of racism, innit. No. British Hindus – about one million. Skin colour largely the same as British Muslims. Terrorists? None.
Moron.
OP even by your own dismal standards that reply to Alex’s excellent post is piss-poor in the extreme. History (including recent history) is chock-full of people doing appalling things in the name of Christianity (or some denomination thereof), and since the Bible contains such delights as Leviticus 20:13 (in which it sanctions the execution of gays) these people can as often as not make a case that they’re merely logically doing what the Bible tells them to do.
None? Zero? David Copeland? Sean Kelly? Billy Wright? Johnny Adair? Or are they only terrorists if they aren’t white?
Christianity derives from the New Testament, which supersedes Leviticus.
Wrong again.
Other than describing my post as piss poor, do you or any of the other moral equivalence merchants posting on this rubbish dump of a website have any coherent arguments to offer why British Muslims, but not British Hindus or British Quakers or whatever, have turned to terrorism? All other factor are the same. The crap about racism applies equally to Hindus. The crap about poverty, lack of democracy doesn’t apply at all. The only difference is Islam.
Thought not.
Were they all Christians, then? Still nowhere near as many as Muslims, though proportionally you’d expect 50 times as many.
Random nutters, not following Christianity at all, versus systematic terrorists following the Koran to the letter.
Christianity derives from the New Testament, which supersedes Leviticus.
The entire Bible, and not just the New Testament, is the Christian holy book (inconvenient though this may be for your "argument"). Some Christians would agree with you that Leviticus is superseded by the NT, others would not. Similarly Muslims will differ as to which bits of the Koran they consider central to it, and which bits are sidelines.
You focus on all the nice bits from the Bible and say that is Christianity, and similarly take all the horrible bits from the Koran and say that is Islam.
All other factor are the same.
OLD PECULIAR IN "TALKING HORSESHIT" SHOCKER.
Tell you what I bet if we’d invaded India instead of Iraq, we’d see a hell of a lot more Hindu terrorism than we’re currently experiencing.
You focus on all the nice bits from the Bible and say that is Christianity, and similarly take all the horrible bits from the Koran and say that is Islam.
First off, the New Testament is the main book of Christianity and there is nothing at all like what is in the Koran. You have not read either and are not in a position to comment. Even the Old Testament’s bloodthirsty stuff is limited in time and place to specific tribes. The Koran, by contrast says slay all unbelievers wherever you find them. This command is open ended and for eternity.
Tell you what I bet if we’d invaded India instead of Iraq, we’d see a hell of a lot more Hindu terrorism than we’re currently experiencing.
Now that really is silly. If British Hindus were to get violent because Britain invaded India, that would be understandable because British Hindus are originally from India.
For British Muslims, who are nearly all originally from Pakistan, to get violent because we invaded, not Pakistan, but Iraq, a totally different country, is completely irrational – except that it isn’t. Iraq is a Muslim country. Religion is the only factor.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
Even the Old Testament’s bloodthirsty stuff is limited in time and place to specific tribes.
Really. How convenient. Well perhaps you’ll quote me the bit in Leviticus when it says "only kill gay people for the next 50 years and if you’re a member of such-and-such a tribe, otherwise don’t".
Now that really is silly.
I was taking issue with your as ever brain-dead assertion that "All other factor are the same", which they quite obviously aren’t.
By the way are you goinbg to deal with Christianity’s spectacularly bloody history, or are you going to continue to try to laughably pass it off as 2 thousand years’ worth of "Random nutters, not following Christianity at all"?
Are you going to answer the point about British Muslims and British Hindus?
Thought not. You can’t. Because all other factors ARE the same except for the religion.
Leviticus applied only to the Jews. Sharia law applies to the whole world, which the Koran commands Muslims to bring under the control of Islam.
Big, big difference.
But carry on living in your little dream world. I’m sure you’re right. The next London suicide bomber is every bit as likely to be a Christian as a Muslim, isn’t he?
So fundamentalists killing people and justifying it with Islam are typical Muslims, whereas fundamentalists killing people and justifying it with Christianity are not really Christians at all. Why? Because Old Peculier said so. It’s not a double standard! It’s not!
Leviticus applied only to the Jews.
Find me a quote in the Bible where it says that. Can’t oh well I’m sure you’re right.
The history of Christianity is a bloody story of brutality, torture, and violence.
I’m sorry if these inconvenient facts injects a little objective truth to your raving mad position.
Our foreign policy currently involves killing large numbers of Muslims, and zero Hindus. Zero. Nil. Nada. Big, big difference. Change that and we’ll soon see some home-grown Hindu terrorism, and no doubt you’ll come back here ranting about how true Hinduism is a brutal religion about sacrificing humans to Kali, whereas Islam, like Christianity, is a religion of peace and tolerance.
OP amusing misses my point entirely. I suggested her initial analogy was crap: she replies with a whole load of (better) analogies, as if this somehow invalidated my point.
The wider issue is this: in the last few years, the majority of terrorist attacks on the west have been from muslim fanatics who do use their religion as some sort of justification. Now, I don’t believe this is true if we look at, say, the living memory of the majority of our population. This suggests that maybe politics (which changes on a short time-scale) and not religion (which does not) is to blame.
More widely, if we don’t concentrate on the West, but look at people being killed in the name of religion, then I’m utterly unconvienced that all the religions don’t come out as being terrible. It seems that Islam is no better or worse than others.
The original post suggested that because this one nutter has been convicted of the Atlanta bombings, we should look critically at all Churches, Christian community leaders etc. This is blatantly and obviously not the case, when the danger is coming from Muslims in our midst, 6% of whom, in the UK, say terrorist attacks on Britain are justified.
The comparision is utterly absurd.
Even though people posting on this site are pretty stupid, I don’t believe that any of you genuinely believe that the next London suicide bomber is going to be a Christian. Yet you all feel you have to pretend that it might be.
Thick or what? Even Harry’s Place has some people with more brain cells than that.
No, OP, it’s you who are thick. No-one has suggested that the next terrorist attack in London will not be by Muslims (well, maybe things in Ireland could go South rapidly, but I doubt it). The argument is other whether the correct response is to demonise Muslims in general (who are 99.9999% not involved in terrorism) or whether to realise that this is much more to do with criminals, nutters and politics and respond in a suitable manner. For example, Eric Rudolph was arrested, tried in a court, and sent to prison just like a "normal" mass-murderer. I think this would be the correct way to deal with terrorists; you’d rather smear a whole section of the population.
The next suicide bomber in Britain is unlikely to be Christian. However, the next bomber in Britain may well be Christian. Immediately before 7/7, the security forces rated the risks from Islamic bombing to be similar to the risk of another attack by the IRA. And that’s even without taking into account nutters who bomb gay pubs and the like.
While the security forces who are charged with trying to prevent terrorist bombings have had their failures, at least they are not daft enough to imagine that the only significant terrorist threat comes from fanatical Muslims.
you’d rather smear a whole section of the population.
Wrong again. I’d happily ‘smear’ a whole religion. However, I’m more suspicious of, say Muslim men between 18 and 40 than I am of elderly nuns. Yes. And so are you unless you’re really dozy.
Iain – not the only threat, but they know full well that the most likely bombers will be Muslim. And so do you, unless you’re really dim.
The original post suggested that because this one nutter has been convicted of the Atlanta bombings, we should look critically at all Churches, Christian community leaders etc.
Erm, I don’t like to speak for other people and John should obviously correct me if I’m talking shit, but I interpreted the original post as suggesting that treating all Muslims as though they’re responsible for the actions of self-declared-Muslim lone nutters is as silly as treating all Christians as responsible for the actions of self-declared-Christian lone nutters, while pointing out the hypocrisy of doing the former but not the latter.
It doesn’t really matter, since about 30 comments from now OP will give up all attempts at reasonable debate and just start responding with childish monosyllables as though she’s the only person who’s noticed it’s a long thread, but I just thought I’d say.
OP: if you’re going to pursue this line of argument, at least get your facts right.
<EM>For British Muslims, who are nearly all originally from Pakistan</EM>
No they aren’t. Not even half of them are. This is admittedly trivial, but if you’re not bothering to check your basic assertions before you make them, I’m not sure why you think anyone should take your opinions seriously.
The deafening silence or equivocation of British Muslims, the fact that 6% of them support a terrorist attack on Britain, the fact that what few leaders they can muster that we call ‘moderate’ exhibit blatant anti-Semitism and favour the Rushdie fatwa, suggests that there is something a little more problematic about the Muslim community than there is about Christians.
Lorna, you’re pretty naive, but not even you really, honestly believe that the next terrorist attack in London will be from a Christian, do you?
Simon – OK then, the Indian sub-continent. That’s what I meant really.
Obviously neither you, nor any of the other Muslim apologists posting here, can actually answer my point.
Muslims are supposedly committing terrorism in Britain because of Iraq. An analogy was made with Hindus who, hypothetically might do the same thing if Britain invaded India.
1 This is hypothetical
2 India is a democracy. If Britain invaded India to get rid of a brutal dictatorship, would British Hindus necessarily object. Iraqis in exile living in Britain seem to have been conspicuously absent from anti-war protests.
3 Above all, and are you all really as stupid as you seem, what the hell has Iraq got to do with BRITISH Muslims? They weren’t born there, they haven’t got relatives there, with tiny, non-terrorist exceptions. The only common factor is Islam. They are angry because the stupid Koran tells them that they should feel the ‘pain’ of their ‘Muslim brothers and sisters’ all over the world.
Even if they are angry about Iraq, so bloody what? Lots of non-Muslims are too, and they don’t blow themselves up.
It’s the religion, stupid.
*Hits backspace over about a bazillion immoderate responses*
*Breathes*
Look, just go back and read what I wrote and respond to that, okay?
I have, Lorna, but you’re just too dozy to understand what I wrote.
Kindly explain it to silly little me, then. Because to my poor fluff-addled brain, it looks an ickle bit completely irrelevant and an automatic repetition of your previous points, which were based on (I think) a misunderstanding.
No, because it’s obvious what I meant, and you are indeed fluff-addled.
Also, hey, since last time you provided statistics about Muslims you turned out to have excluded a sentence which was essential to the context, please get into the habit of providing links, since I won’t be taking any numbers you provide at face value.
So you’re not prepared to explain or back up your point, and I should just take it on trust that you’re right and I’m wrong. Don’t think so, somehow.
you turned out to have excluded a sentence which was essential to the context,</o>
I explained that. Muslims know they can’t bring in stoning and so on, but if, as you fatuously asserted, all they wanted was those aspects of sharia that are already compatible with British law, they wouldn’t be wanting to change British law to make it accept sharia.
This basic, obvious point, made also by Irshad Manji in connection with the proposal to introduce sharia courts in Canada, is too logical for fluffy minds to take in.
In any case, how anyone who claims to be a lefty can possibly countenance any form of sharia law in Britain whatsoever is just beyond me.
Stupid or what?
You didn’t explain it, you got very paranoid. There’s a difference. And it doesn’t alter the fact that you spent time beforehand citing that number without that qualifying statement, which was kind of dishonest.
(switching off italics)
Regarding the Sharia Law thing, OP. I’m fairly certain that everyone who responded to that thread made it clear that they did not support the implementation of Sharia in Britain. They merely objected to your misrepresentation of it.
It’s perfectly possible to be against something without needing to lie about it.
Not really. The extra bit doesn’t change anything, which is why I didn’t think it significant.
I note that neither of you have been able to answer two points I’ve made repeatedly.
Why to British Muslims blow themselves up over Iraq, when Iraq has nothing to do with them? Clue: Islam
Why do 60% of British Muslims want sharia law – yeah, yeah, with British penalties, supposedly – but it would still mean that things now legal because in a civilsed society they should be, would be illegal?
One thing that would be covered by the ‘only British penalties’ fudge that you naively and stupidly set so much store by is polygamy. Muslims have already made some headway with this as the Inland Revenue considered allowing additional wives for inheritance tax purposes.
But Lorna, as a feminist, I suppose you have no objection to a system which allows a man to have up to four wives, but a woman only one, or maybe one quarter of a husband?
No, move along, nothing to see here, just like the Quakers, aren’t they?
Also, OP, with regards to:
how anyone who claims to be a lefty can possibly countenance any form of sharia law in Britain…
Not only was nobody suggesting Sharia should be implemented, but some of us objecting to your misrepresentations aren’t even ‘lefties’.
It wasn’t a misrepresentation – I didn’t, for the reasons clearly explained in my last post, see the qualification as significant.
It is sharia by the back door not the front door, but it’s still sharia. And 60% of British Muslims want sharia. Sharia is abhorrent. So Islam is abhorrent, and 60% of British Muslims don’t fit in here.
Lorna, you’re pretty naive, but not even you really, honestly believe that the next terrorist attack in London will be from a Christian, do you?
Nice thing is that for the past 30 years we’d have pissed ourselves laughing at anyone suggesting that the next bomb wouldn’t be from a "Christian". Now of course we’d never have labelled all Catholics as the scum of the earth despite the killings in London and Birmingham and Warrington and so forth. Does it make it better that those nice IRA chappies were at least white?
The current wave of terrorists no more reflect the Muslim faith than their bretheren from Ireland or the Basques or any other murdering scum.
The IRA had specific demands and genuine grievances. British Muslims have none, unless you count the bollocks about their ‘brothers and sisters’ in Iraq or ‘Palestine’. The situation is completely different as it related to territorial matters, arguably negotiable, rather than religion.
Catholics are not commanded in the Bible to kill unbelievers, wherever they are. Muslims are thus commanded.
I promised myself I wouldn’t respond to racist, offal-spouting trolls from Harry’s Placewherethebrainshouldbe, but this is so stupid I can’t resist:
"what the hell has Iraq got to do with BRITISH Muslims"
Er: what the hell has Iraq got to do with Britain or the US at all? No WMD, no threat to Britons or the United States, so why invade? Why kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians? Why create, in the words of the US State Dept, a state based on the sharia law you despise, not to mention an incipient civil war and the next al-Qaeda training ground?
So if you claim grounds for invasion, op, then why shouldn’t muslims here or anywhere else react angrily to it?
Who said that I support the Iraq war? That’s a complete red herring. Regardless of whether or not the Iraq war was right, what has it got to do with British Muslims. British Muslims, to repeat myself, but you don’t seem to have understood this obvious point, were not born in Iraq, they have no relatives there, no connection with Iraq that British non-Muslims have.
Except – Islam. Non-Muslims British who are angry about Iraq are angry about Iraq. Some, too many British Muslims who are angry about Iraq committed mass murder on the tube. Common factor – Iraq. Difference – Islam. Simple.
Christians in Muslim countries are treated like crap. In Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and now, of course Iraq.
So I await with interest the next angry Quaker, blowing himeself up in protest.
No, not "regardless of whether or not the Iraq war was right". Now read carefully. I am contesting one of the points you repeatedly make in attacking muslims. I am NOT agreeing with people who think it’s OK to blow up tube trains.
Imagine (and you’ve obviously got a vivid imagination) the situation were reversed. You were an xtian living in Iraq. Iraq and a much bigger ally, let’s say Saudi Arabia, invaded France, or Ireland or Germany. It applied diplomatic pressure on Britain to ally itself with Iraq and Saudi. Meanwhile xtians – that’s you by the way – were demonised in the press, on the web, you started getting dirty looks in the street. Attacks on xtians in Iraq went up several hundred per cent after a fellow Brit blew themselves up in the middle of Baghdad’s main bus terminal. New laws were introduced restricting freedom of speech, banning membership of certain associations. Churches, other places of worship and meeting places were the target of arson attacks, security service surveillance, etc. You kept reading about how people like you were the enemy within, and you were challenged to declare your allegiance to Iraqi values.
How would that make you feel? And please restrict your response to that question and that question only…
If you’re saying that, as a Christian in those circumstances, I would suffer an equivalent to the ‘Islamophobia’ that Muslims in this country whine about, while living in a democracy with full equal rights, including employment protection, freedom of worship, right to whinge and whine to the media about next to nothing whenever I felt like it, a whole bunch of lefties concerned about my delicate sensibilities….
how would I feel….
compared to Christians in ‘Christian’ countries? Using your analogy, Christian countries are cesspits, poor oppressive without even of the fraction of the rights that, under your spuriouss parallel I enjoy in Iraq?
how would I feel…
Fucking grateful, that’s how!
Something I’m not understanding here, OP… You labelled Rudolph as ‘just a nutter’. Why can’t all the suicide bombers be ‘just nutters’?
Oh, and could you please give a source for the ‘60% of British Muslims want sharia law’ assertion?
Much obliged, Miss.
Oscar Wildebeest:
She gave a source for that before. (The actual article can be found here. It turned out she was missing off a sentence along the lines of "where the penalties don’t contravene British law". Hence me growling at her about her use of statistics further up the thread.
OP:
In any case, how anyone who claims to be a lefty can possibly countenance any form of sharia law in Britain whatsoever is just beyond me.
Well, you’re just going to have to live in willful ignorance until you learn to tell the difference between ‘I don’t necessarily think anyone remotely associated with this – and by the way this is the context, which you are dishonestly not mentioning – is a potential terrorist’ and ‘yay this is a fabulous goal I support it now.’ Sorry, but that ain’t my fault or my problem.
Why to British Muslims blow themselves up over Iraq, when Iraq has nothing to do with them? Clue: Islam
Quite possibly. But that’s "Clue: Islam gives them a sense of common ground so they get more pissed off about political developments than they otherwise might", not "Clue: Islam tells people to blow themselves up so they do", which is what you’re implying. It ain’t unique to Islam; Islam is simply the common-ground that could probably be replaced by another common-ground that gets people sufficiently bothered.
But Lorna, as a feminist, I suppose you have no objection to a system which allows a man to have up to four wives, but a woman only one, or maybe one quarter of a husband?
Well, obviously I want equal polygamy for those who want it, if we must operate within the current institution of marriage and not give the whole thing a serious rethink and take it apart and put it back together on more sensible and egalitarian lines with preferably a new name to avoid all the old connotations. But please tell me, what is the likelihood of unequal polygamy becoming legal here? Be serious: we haven’t even managed gay marriage yet, and AFAIK, transsexuals marrying in their true gender was only allowed recently with the Gender Recognition Bill. Can’t see unequal polygamy kicking in any time soon. And while you’re at it, kindly prove that all British Muslims want unequal polygamy, and that no other member of another religion does. Ooh, and for a bonus, prove it’s related to terrorism. Otherwise, best leave the subject alone.
Ah, crap. I meant to close the brackets after the linked "here".
Islam is simply the common-ground that could probably be replaced by another common-ground that gets people sufficiently bothered.
Yawn. Wake me up when the Quakers get at it.
Idiots.
You’re yawning? I’m the one who’s had to see you make that point over and over again when I knew the Quakers were pacifists to start with. Jeez.
Yawn bears an interesting total non-resemblance to addressing any of my other points, by the way.
when I knew the Quakers were pacifists to start with. Jeez.
Like you knew Islam was a religion of peace and all.
zzzzzzzz. Back to sleep, mush for brains.
*Sigh* Since you don’t believe Islam is a religion of peace, are you implying that the Quakers are not pacifists? Which would be a bit odd, since you seem to have picked the only (at least, after the late-17th-century – I think they were a bit crazier in the 1640s and 50s, though I guess riding Jesus-like into Bristol on a donkey doesn’t strictly speaking contradict pacifism) pacifist religious group I can think of off the top of my head for the sake of making a cheap, repetitive point. (Are Jains pacifist? They’re all about the preserving living things, IIRC.)
Hmmm, those last two sentences are all monosyllabic and contribute very little. Are we getting towards the point where you start saying "hee hee" and not much else?
The problem with arguing with very stupid people is that they don’t realise when they’ve lost.
You’re missing the point, dope. People say Islam is a religion of peace, as if they are like the Quakers, but in the case of Islam that is utter bollocks.
As well as not understanding much about Islam you dozy lefties clearly don’t understand sarcasm.
Anyway, I’m done here. You can’t talk to stupid people, and lefties are some of the stupidest people around. Even the jihadis are brighter than you lot, as they know how to exploit your stupidity.
The difference between Ian Paisley and Abu Hamza?
Working hands and eyes
Lorna – thanks for putting me right about the source. Oh, and Jains are completely pacifist, FWIW.
It’s tiring work, arguing with the pub bore, isn’t it?
Abu Hamza needs to change his image. Or possibly I need to lose my pirate fixation. One of the two. Yarrrrrr.