Gladstone and Churchill done well for being backwards didn't they !!
Because it's really hard to 'do well' when you're Eton and Oxford educated, off the back of your family's massive wealth, acquired through slavery and plantations
Gladstone and Churchill done well for being backwards didn't they !!
There's been far more muslims killed by terrorists than non-muslims in those attacks. And while the perpetrators may claim to do it in the name of Allah, what drives them has absolutely nothing to do with religion and to blame the religion itself is to completely misunderstand what is going on in an extremists mind. Let's not forget that Christianity has had it's fair share of wacko extremists sects over the years, some of whom have also indulged in terrorist acts; and here I'll say the same thing: in those cases it again had nothing to do with the religion and everything to do with some very sick minds.
Not all Muslims are jihadis, in fact very few are jihadis, but there is also a sizeable minority of the remaining Muslim population that silently support the jihadis. 10/20/30 per cent maybe, who knows? But if that 10% is of population of 2 million Muslims then that is 200,000 silent supporters, if the jihadis are only 0.5% of the same population that is 10,000 possible terrorists!
How can we identify these people in the first instance if we ignore the common denominator amongst them?
Where's the source for this? 10-30% seems unreasonably high to me. More likely to be low single digits, as per this article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34967994.
Another common denominator amongst them is that they are all human.
I don't doubt there is an issue with Islam, and clearly being Muslim is a more specific common denominator than being human, but I think it would be more productive to look at what differentiates one Muslim who is a Jihadi from another who isn't.
I love how people like to prove that comments today aren't ignorant by quoting Gladstone/Churchill etc, two incredibley backwards men whose views deserve to be left behind in the past. (Awaits to be shot down because Churchill is a war hero / doesn't mean he wasn't a nasty piece of work).
'silently support' - Go on, have a best guess.........
So it's a figure you've just made up, without any evidence? Okay... still, what you reckon is just as good as facts, eh?
So it's a figure you've just made up, without any evidence? Okay... still, what you reckon is just as good as facts, eh?
I'd really like an answer to this.
I played cricket on Tuesday night in Southampton, against a team of Pakistanis.
I'd like to know how many of them were plotting to kill me*, and how many more were silently approving of that.
And WHICH ones, importantly. The three Pakistani-speaking older guys with Moeen Ali beards who did a quick prayer to Mecca on a corner of the outfield before the game, would be prime suspects I guess, over the three young lads who played in non-regulation ( ) sleeveless tops rather than proper cricket shirts? But then that jihadi on the news was an English-speaking young guy in an Arsenal shirt
*The rapid opening bowler who came back on in the last over to bowl at me, was DEFINITELY trying to kill me, TBF.
I'd really like an answer to this.
I played cricket on Tuesday night in Southampton, against a team of Pakistanis.
I'd like to know how many of them were plotting to kill me*, and how many more were silently approving of that.
And WHICH ones, importantly. The three Pakistani-speaking older guys with Moeen Ali beards who did a quick prayer to Mecca on a corner of the outfield before the game, would be prime suspects I guess? More so than the three young lads who played in non-regulation ( ) sleeveless tops rather than proper cricket shirts? But then that jihadi on the news was an English-speaking young guy in an Arsenal shirt
*The rapid opening bowler who came back on in the last over to bowl at me, was DEFINITELY trying to kill me, TBF.
Another common denominator amongst them is that they are all human.
I don't doubt there is an issue with Islam, and clearly being Muslim is a more specific common denominator than being human, but I think it would be more productive to look at what differentiates one Muslim who is a Jihadi from another who isn't.
Where's the source for this? 10-30% seems unreasonably high to me. More likely to be low single digits, as per this article, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34967994.
When would you like the timescale to suit your arguments? The time of the Arabs in Spain? The Roman Empire? The time of the Crusades? Or some perfectly placed date that suited your argument?
I was just using recent history that is relevant to the debate, not trying to find a way to justify my clearly mistaken argument like you are.