Manchester bombed by goat fuckers

There have been a shit load of mass murdering rulers from Islamic backgrounds. The first one was the goat fucker Mohammed himself.

The United Methodist Church, as part of its ongoing mission to bring Christ to all the world, also has an ongoing mission to embrace diversity and tolerance. We would never bomb our filthy, ignorant heathen brothers and sisters who believe that the Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles.

• Joseph Stalin: studied for the priesthood in a Georgian Orthodox seminary
• Joseph Goebbels: studied for the priesthood in a Catholic Jesuit seminary
• Adolf Hitler: raised Catholic, if haphazardly
• Pol Pot: early education in a Buddhist monastery; secondary Catholic education

I think I see a trend here…

It's amusing that you think comic book references make you more badass.

I don't think it, I know it.

Stop pretending tabloids are real news. Unless you actually believe Batboy is real.

If this is true, find a more credible source than a rag running the headline "Hawaii is Preparing for NUCLEAR WAR ".

Not to mention Rich and Quest's claims that speaking out against the evils inherent in Islam some how makes one the same the same as Islamic terrorists is utter nonsense. He wants to parse "good" muslims from "bad" muslims yet has no idea how to tell one from the other and is as retarded as trying to tell "good" Nazis from "bad" Nazis. You can't reliably do it and worse supposedly "good" muslims all to frequently have "bad" muslim kids.

The hard truth is Islamic terrorism increases directly proportionally to the increases in Islamic population. The only way to truly effective control it is to control and limit the Islamic population. Thank God Quest isn't a doctor because his dumb ass would be telking us to let contagious virus carriers out in public to spread the disease.

There are dozens of other sources reporting the same story, you mentally limited mongoloid. Discuss the facts and stop resorting to shooting the messenger because you dislike the facts brought up.

Then why don't you cite them?

It should be easy enough to provide a link to a legitimate news source then, you liver-pickled jaundice victim.

It's not illegal in the US, although some states are trying to make it so. Link
There's no reason to prevent people from entering into contracts under Sharia if that's what they wish.

No, it's really not given that the vast majority of Muslims are able to make the compromises. You're being absolutist against something that is a spectrum.

I'm tolerated by quite a number of Muslims, and I tolerate them

I've also been non-tolerated, albeit by a lot less and usually physically.

And I'm not particularly noble, I'm a pragmatist at heart, I just know the absolutist view you're promoting is bullshit. Sure, it fits a few Muslims quite nicely, but by no means a majority in the UK.

Why? It's been an aspect of law here since, IIRC, the tenth century. It predates most nations, and has been successfully used to mediate problems and still allows any party to use UK law.

Given that only a small subset of Sharia can be used in such a way whilst remaining within UK laws, the only real argument against is the peer pressure argument which is a valid one I share. You don't go chucking babies out with the bathwater though.

Truth.

Hoho, Corbyn's made an ass of himself.

There is a definite question about UK foreign policy and how it feeds into issues at home, however it really isn't the biggest issue in tackling extremism and something of a strawman when making direct links between it and terrorist attacks.

There are times and places to discuss it in the political arena, and a few days after the event really is not the time, nor is during an election campaign, yet here he is, at a point where May is looking more and more flawed, sticking both feet into his mouth.

The fact is there are a number of extremists who'd cheerfully go after the West regardless of foreign policy, failing foreign policy is used as a clarion call and an entry point of debate to twist minds and making direct links feeds into that.

It's also going to give a Press, who are no fans of Corbyn, the freedom to unleash the hounds.

Much as I dislike Corbyn and his circus of useful idiots, can't say I'm keen on how the Press treats him, but any sympathy is very much tempered by much of it being his own idiocy.

Well, damn. I wish people like you existed before the bible was used as justification for slavery and the White Man's Burden.

I dunno if it's as bad for him as you think. Yes, the press and the Tories will go after him for it, but they were doing that anyway. And we've had a LOT of "we shouldn't be wasting our soldiers' lives on America's prick-waving" sentiment since Blair, that the Iraq inquiry showed is still there. He hasn't (though the Tories and tabloids won't focus on this) said we shouldn't engage in overseas operations against Islamic groups, only that we should be smarter about it - no vendettas like Iraq (don't make this "Crusades v3" and offer the Islamics easy Us v Them propaganda), clear objectives that lessen the threat to us AND don't destabilise the lives of innocents, and set parameters for withdrawal going in. There are a ton of Labour and Lib Dem voters who will agree with that.

As for the "crass timing" argument, well - there's just over a week of campaigning left, and if you feel this point needs making, it's not going to be any better timing a week from now. Let's fucking have the debate.

What spectrum? The concept of the infidel is central to Islam, in the same way Jesus as the Messiah is central to Christianity. One cannot be a Christian if he does not accept Jesus as such. Likewise, one cannot be a Muslim if one does not disregard the humanity of nonbelievers, something Christianity does not demand.

Psychopaths tolerate not being able to gouge out your eyes. Rapists tolerate not being able to tear your mother a new one. What's your point?

So, because Christians were ignoble at one time gives license to Muslims to be that way today? Interesting.

You don't read too good, and that's sad.

You don't write too well. Or use logic.

Just writing to your level.

Security is a weak point for him - and I remain unconvinced at how serious he is about any engagements, his compromise over Trident rings rather hollow as it was a political calculation, and I feel this is the same, and the electorate isn't that stupid - his voice becomes rather unconvincing when he steps on territory he's had to compromise on the keep the lid on the Labour Party's internal issues.

I suspect his clear objectives rule would rapidly start to look familiar to Lando Calrissian. Oh, it's changed. Again. His declarations that we need a political solution with Syria doesn't fill me with confidence - these things always end with a political solution, you've got to slog through a lot of depressing stupidity first to get there, otherwise the various vested interests don't see the benefit of getting round a table.

His untruths over his role in the Peace Agreement (his opposition to it is recorded in Hansard, does he think the press isn't aware of that?) and dealings with the IRA also indicate he's aware of it being a problem and had prepared for it.

It's not going to be a debate at this point, it's going to be vote farming by taking positions and vocally shouting down the opposition.

The spectrum that exists in the real world. You can rail against it as much as you like, but a chunk of the week I get to actually live and see a wide range of Islamic views.

Typing out your belief that what I'm experiencing isn't real is just quite entertaining to see.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/810212/claims-FBI-UK-security-services-Abedi-plot-attack-UK

The US FBI had shared information with the UK warning that the man who committed the terrorist attack in Manchester was an Islamic extremist who intended to carry out a terrorist attack in the UK.