[LeatherTrumpet]

Perhaps the way forward is to realise that any religion based on a fictitious and expansive book will always be open to any interpretation you care to apply and that because of that we shut down churches and mosques and start educating children that gods do not exist?

just a thought

[AnnieK]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Perhaps the way forward is to realise that any religion based on a fictitious and expansive book will always be open to any interpretation you care to apply and that because of that we shut down churches and mosques and start educating children that gods do not exist?

just a thought

Because the minute you drive religion underground more and more of these religious extremist groups will appear...

[coffee]

I have to change what I said out of fear lol

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There's plenty of resentment and denouncement towards Isis from the Muslim community and it's no wonder, Muslims have suffered at IS' hands more than anyone.

It annoys me when people say that Muslims aren't vocal enough against Isis, they are it's just that the media, by large, are not interested in making muslims look sympathetic. The sad thing is, if the mainstream media isn't covering a story than a large part of the public will simply believe it's not happening.

I do actually agree with Farage, Gadaffi and Saddam were evil but by removing them (and not setting up stable replacements) we've created a power vacuum in the Middle East which has given rise to Isis. There's very little point in blaming Islam as a whole when we're largely to blame for Isis' current position of power in the world. Isis would still exist without Islam but they wouldn't exist as they are today if it weren't for our help.

Good post Dezzy, its time we stopped trying to pass the buck. Most people with more than a couple of brain cells fully understand that Islam does not = ISIS and those that don't wouldn't bother reading what British Muslim Clerics have to say. Muslim people over here are no more accountable for what is going on in Syria than the rest of us and they certainly don't need to justify their faith to us.

My sister lives in Leeds and tells me that many Muslim women are abandoning the head scarf because they fear being treated like a pox on this country.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

There's plenty of resentment and denouncement towards Isis from the Muslim community and it's no wonder, Muslims have suffered at IS' hands more than anyone.

It annoys me when people say that Muslims aren't vocal enough against Isis, they are it's just that the media, by large, are not interested in making muslims look sympathetic. The sad thing is, if the mainstream media isn't covering a story than a large part of the public will simply believe it's not happening.

I do actually agree with Farage, Gadaffi and Saddam were evil but by removing them (and not setting up stable replacements) we've created a **** Iraq and Syria. wer vacuum in the Middle East which has given rise to Isis. There's very little point in blaming Islam as a whole when we're largely to blame for Isis' current position of power in the world. Isis would still exist without Islam but they wouldn't exist as they are today if it weren't for our help.

Two points:

No one on this forum has ever blamed Islam as a whole for ISIS or terrorism.

There is no way that ISIS could exist without Islam. It actually means; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Two points:

No one on this forum has ever blamed Islam as a whole for ISIS or terrorism.

There is no way that ISIS could exist without Islam. It actually means; Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Quite a pedantic point, they would still be the same group but with a different name. The Islamic angle is just for control and recruitment, if Islam wasn't a thing they would just pick another religion to use to justify their actions and radicalise people into joining them.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed

Good post Dezzy, its time we stopped trying to pass the buck. Most people with more than a couple of brain cells fully understand that Islam does not = ISIS and those that don't wouldn't bother reading what British Muslim Clerics have to say. Muslim people over here are no more accountable for what is going on in Syria than the rest of us and they certainly don't need to justify their faith to us.

My sister lives in Leeds and tells me that many Muslim women are abandoning the head scarf because they fear being treated like a pox on this country.

Ordinary Muslims all over the world, are not culpable in the inhuman atrocities being carried out in the name of Islam by IS, ISIS, or ISIL, or Boko Haram, Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group, so it is immensely regrettable that some Muslim women in Leeds are abandoning the head scarf because they fear being treated like a pox on this country Demo.

To put this fact into perspective though, I feel that they are fortunate to be living in a democracy where their only fear is the imagined derision or rebuke by the odd mindless moron who may perceive all Muslims to be to blame for terrorism, and thus far, there is no evidence that any such feared rebuke has occurred.

Unlike the Christians in Syria and Iraq and Nigeria, who are being beheaded and crucified in their thousands by Islamic extremists simply for being Christians. They do not have the freedom to simply remove a piece of clothing in the hope that it will render identification of their faith more difficult, and the penalty for being identified as Christian is not mere rebuke or insult, but torture and death.

These Christians are living, breathing, human beings with families, who have done no wrong to anyone, but who are having their heads severed and being crucified by terrorist demons who are, after all, Muslims.

The Muslim women in Leeds - and elsewhere in the UK - can at least move around freely and live their lives without fear of being abducted and sold as sex slaves by Muslim terrorists as in Nigeria, or raped and slaughtered by their Muslim brothers simply for belonging to the wrong branch of Islam as in Syria and Iraq.

And what of Jews?

Whilst I see repeated condemnation on this forum for anyone who is even (wrongly) perceived to be tarring "all Muslims with the extremist brush", I do not witness the same principle being applied to the poor innocent Jewish people throughout the world who are now suffering verbal and physical violence at the hands of anti-Semitic thugs and cretins, who are blaming them for the actions of Israel.

Yet, non Israeli domiciled Jews are no more to blame for what is occurring between Israel and Hamas/Hezbollah in Israel/Palestine, than ordinary Muslims are for the acts of ISIS.

Another very relevant fact is, that Israeli military actions - no matter whether one views them as offensive or defensive - fall within the parameters of recognised and accepted orthodox 'warfare' and is strictly confined to that tiny area of the Middle East which is Israel/Palestine, whereas the actions of all Islamic terrorist groups exceed even the hitherto accepted definition of the word 'terrorism', and its malignancy spreads all over the world like a cancer.

Further, of course, the barbaric slaughter by Islamic Jihadists of innocents is not merely confined to Christians or Jews, but other Muslims, other religious groups and even atheists, or indeed any other humans who do not fit in with their ideologies.

So the imagined fears of some Muslim women living in Leeds, is regrettable, but let's keep it in perspective.

[InOne]

So are people tying to say this is absolutely nothing to do with Islam?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Perhaps the way forward is to realise that any religion based on a fictitious and expansive book will always be open to any interpretation you care to apply and that because of that we shut down churches and mosques and start educating children that gods do not exist?

just a thought

Are you seriously suggesting LT, that the Judeo Christian bible is on a par with the Quran? Or that its text can be wrongfully interpreted today to cause Jews or Christians to become extremist and embark on a catalogue of terrorist inhuman atrocities similar to IS, ISIL, ISIS, Boko Haram or Al Qaeda?

Do you really think that if Christianity and Judaism disappeared overnight along with all Synagogues and Churches, and Jews and Christians, that IS, ISIL, ISIS, Boko Haram or Al Qaeda terrorists would just as suddenly down weapons and cease their mission to Islamify the entire world?

And I have posted lengthy and factual posts which prove that wars fought because of religion account for less than 12% of all recorded wars, and half of this figure is made up of Islamic wars, so only 6% is attributable to other religions. Obviously, this means that 88% of all recorded wars have secular causes. So where would the eradication of all religion lead to a more peaceful or even rational world?

Why mention Christianity in the same breath as Islam anyway? And why close churches?

It is not Christians who are shooting hundreds of innocent little schoolchildren, setting innocent schoolteachers ablaze, beheading thousands of terrified innocent non-combatants, crucifying Christians, and abducting and raping hundreds of schoolgirls then selling them off as sex slaves.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Are you seriously suggesting LT, that the Judeo Christian bible is on a par with the Quran? Or that its text can be wrongfully interpreted today to cause Jews or Christians to become extremist and embark on a catalogue of terrorist inhuman atrocities similar to IS, ISIL, ISIS, Boko Haram or Al Qaeda?

Do you really think that if Christianity and Judaism disappeared overnight along with all Synagogues and Churches, and Jews and Christians, that IS, ISIL, ISIS, Boko Haram or Al Qaeda terrorists would just as suddenly down weapons and cease their mission to Islamify the entire world?

And I have posted lengthy and factual posts which prove that wars fought because of religion account for less than 12% of all recorded wars, and half of this figure is made up of Islamic wars, so only 6% is attributable to other religions. Obviously, this means that 88% of all recorded wars have secular causes. So where would the eradication of all religion lead to a more peaceful or even rational world?

Why mention Christianity in the same breath as Islam anyway? And why close churches?

It is not Christians who are shooting hundreds of innocent little schoolchildren, setting innocent schoolteachers ablaze, beheading thousands of terrified innocent non-combatants, crucifying Christians, and abducting and raping hundreds of schoolgirls then selling them off as sex slaves.

Yes, if you don't think that the Bible isn't as brutal as the Qu'ran then you must not have read it very well. Any religion has the potential to be used to justify radical and terrorist actions. For all we know the next big terrorist threat in the future could be from an extremist Christian or Jewish group. Any and all the religions have the potential to be misused to create the next Isis, religious terrorism is not a new thing and it did not begin with Islam and it won't end with it either.

You are purposely misrepresenting his point to suit your own argument. LT said ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism so it's downright silly just to focus on those two to discredit him. You would still get groups like Isis because even now, they only use Islam to radicalise the jaded and because it benefits them. Isis weren't created by Islam, they were created by our actions in Iraq and Syria. Aside from that though, a world without organised religion would largely be a better place to live.

It's not just about war, Religion is a big reason why homophobia exists and why not everyone in this world is equal and all religions have been used to justify crimes at some point. Organised Religion is the root of most of the evil in this world.

It's not the Muslims either, just an extreme minority of them so why are you trying to tar them all with the same brush? Do you think all Catholics should be held accountable for the actions of a few priests? Should all Christians have to answer to terrorist attacks by White Supremacist groups who often use the slavery related passages in the bible to justify their cruelty? I'm guessing you don't so I don't know why you think it's okay to pick and choose. All religions are ultimately the same, just worded differently, so you can't pick or choose which ones are 'evil' and which ones are 'good'. It's all or nothing.

[Livia]

This isn't about religion. ISIS are not Muslims, they're fascist Islamic terrorists... religion has very little to do with it.

[Kizzy]

'It is not Christians who are shooting hundreds of innocent little schoolchildren, setting innocent schoolteachers ablaze, beheading thousands of terrified innocent non-combatants, crucifying Christians, and abducting and raping hundreds of schoolgirls then selling them off as sex slaves.'

It's not like it's never happened though is it?... All throughout history it'd peppered with atrocities committed in the name of Christianity from Tudor times to the Victorian colonialists.

[Josy]

Originally Posted by Livia

This isn't about religion. ISIS are not Muslims, they're fascist Islamic terrorists... religion has very little to do with it.

Yep, I said pretty much the same thing on the first page of this debate.

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Whilst I see repeated condemnation on this forum for anyone who is even (wrongly) perceived to be tarring "all Muslims with the extremist brush", I do not witness the same principle being applied to the poor innocent Jewish people throughout the world who are now suffering verbal and physical violence at the hands of anti-Semitic thugs and cretins, who are blaming them for the actions of Israel.

As the far right grows across Europe, unfortunately we are going to see more and more of this. Jews, Muslims, blacks and Asians will all be targeted. I was talking about Muslims here because this is what this thread is about.

what I was referring to in my last post was about British Muslims taking more responsibility for what is happening in Syria. Muslims have spoken out but for some here its not enough, they want to see more. My initial argument was and still is; no main stream media will give these people prime time tv spots or tabloid space. When I recently mentioned a Muslim cleric at Speakers Corner, it was scrutinized and condemned as irrelevant. If the media won't give these people the space for expression, what are they to do?

Lets not name deaths by a persons religious following but by the word "human" many thousands of humans have been killed at the hands of ISIS and Boko Harem rebels. Both ISIS and BH are evil terrorists who need to be stopped. Religion doesn't put more value on a life; murder is murder...life is life.

All of us who live in a democracy are fortunate but some of us are more fortunate than others during this conflict in Africa and the Middle East. As unrest in the west escalates we will undoubtedly witness more anti-Islam attitudes. As a none Muslim I don't wake up in the morning worrying if my family are safe back in Syria or Nigeria; nor do I wonder if I can ever go back to the country I or my mother was born in. I would have to accept an amount of hatred towards me if I was a Muslim or a Jew living in Europe.

If you google papers written on the sudden growth of far right Britain, there is plenty of documentation regarding fear of Muslims and fear from Muslims living here.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yes, if you don't think that the Bible isn't as brutal as the Qu'ran then you must not have read it very well. Any religion has the potential to be used to justify radical and terrorist actions. For all we know the next big terrorist threat in the future could be from an extremist Christian or Jewish group. Any and all the religions have the potential to be misused to create the next Isis, religious terrorism is not a new thing and it did not begin with Islam and it won't end with it either.

[COLOR="red"]



It's not the Muslims either, just an extreme minority of them so why are you trying to tar them all with the same brush? Do you think all Catholics should be held accountable for the actions of a few priests? Should all Christians have to answer to terrorist attacks by White Supremacist groups who often use the slavery related passages in the bible to justify their cruelty? I'm guessing you don't so I don't know why you think it's okay to pick and choose. All religions are ultimately the same, just worded differently, so you can't pick or choose which ones are 'evil' and which ones are 'good'. It's all or nothing.

What are you talking about? This post is yet an other example of hysterical over reaction, which barely suppresses an irrational anger, and is littered with fallacies and misrepresentation. For example:

FALLACY No. 1) "You are purposely misrepresenting his point to suit your own argument. LT said ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism so it's downright silly just to focus on those two to discredit him."

FACTS: I am quite certain that LT is intelligent enough to answer for himself, and to know that I have made no attempt to "discredit" him. I responded civilly and intelligently to his post with valid points based strictly upon what he said.

His "we shut down churches and mosques" can mean nothing other than Christianity and Islam because ONLY Christianity has churches and ONLY Islam has Mosques. Therefore, by including these two in the same sentence, LT was "mentioning them in the same breath". THEREFORE, WHEN I WROTE:

"Why mention Christianity in the same breath as Islam anyway? And why close churches?"

My response and the question in it, are perfectly reasonable and not "silly" as you falsely claim.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No.2: "LT said ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism".

FACTS: LT most certainly did NOT say ALL religion; he actually said;

" Perhaps the way forward is to realise that any religion based on a fictitious and expansive book will always be open to any interpretation you care to apply"

And 'ALL RELIGION', and "ANY RELIGION BASED ON A FICTITIOUS" book are completely different in intent, meaning and implication, because the former means ALL religion, whilst the latter specifically means ONLY religion based upon a Holy Book, which, given the FACT that LT includes only CHURCHES and MOSQUES in the latter part of his statement, can ONLY MEAN that "ANY religion based on a fictitious book" is CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM, and CAN ONLY MEAN that the Holy Books referred to are The Judeo Christian HOLY BIBLE, and the Islamic QURAN.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No. 3: "It's not just about war",

FACTS:

In the context of this thread IT IS ALL ABOUT WAR. In their own words and by their own declaration, a war started against the rest of humanity by Islamic Fundamentalist demons inspired by both their religion and the un-corrupted words of Allah directly received by their Holy Prophet Muhammad from the Arch Angel Gabriel.

So we can hypothesise all we want, but it is redundant and ridiculous to do so when we have the Jihadist's own repeated testimony that is that this is indeed a war.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No.4: "Organised Religion is the root of most of the evil in this world."

FACTS: There are no facts to corroborate your statement but plenty which refute it:

From R. J. Rummel’s work ‘Lethal Politics and Death by Government’:.

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost
• Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
• Pol Pot - 2,397,0003

Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”

What of Non-State murders?

Abul Djabar killed 65 men and boys in Afghanistan by strangling them with turbans while raping them and was suspected of over 300 murders.

Javad Iqbal Mughal killed 100 boys Lahore, Pakistan.

Luis Garavo killed 172 children in Colombia but suspected of over 400 murders.

The historical list totals many thousands and include many more familiar names, from Americans such as Gary Ridgeway (90 victims) and Jeffrey Dahmer, to home-grown monsters such as Harold Shipman (up to 297 victims) and Peter Sutcliffe and Fred and Rose West, and all with not a religious motive in sight.

But hey, let’s not stop here; perhaps our streets and homes would be safer if we rid the world of all religion?

Let’s just look at a couple of statistics from The Office of National Statistics for 2014:

• Latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that, for the offences it covers, there were an estimated 7.0 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 16 and over) in England and Wales
• The numbers of rapes (24,043) and other sexual offences (48,934) are the highest recorded by the police since 2002/03.

7 Million Incidents of crime in one year, and this is just ‘reported’ crime AND NOT ONE RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED CRIME IN SIGHT.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No. 5: "Isis weren't created by Islam, they were created by our actions in Iraq and Syria".

FACTS: As I - and others - have already stated many times; the West's interference in Libya, Syria and Iraq, did create a 'power vacuum' which aided ISIS's growth, but it is totally ridiculous and dangerous, to claim that WE CREATED ISIS. Islam did not even create ISIS - rather that ISIS claimed Islam to excuse its barbaric and demonic war on the rest of humanity - including Muslims.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No. 6: "It's not the Muslims either, just an extreme minority of them."

FACTS: Extreme or not, ISIS ARE MUSLIM.

So NEXT:

FALLACY No. 7: "so why are you trying to tar them all with the same brush?"

FACTS: Please stop accusing me of this ridiculous CLICHED crap that I am "tarring all Muslims with the same brush" It is thoroughly dishonest and unfair and - once again - I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME AND OTHER READERS OF THIS THREAD JUST WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID THIS OR DONE THIS, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT. THEREFORE IT IS DISGRACEFUL TO KEEP REPEATING THIS SAME LIE.

So NEXT:

FALLACY No. 8: "Yes, if you don't think that the Bible isn't as brutal as the Qu'ran then you must not have read it very well. Any religion has the potential to be used to justify radical and terrorist actions."

FACTS: I have read the BIBLE and the QURAN, own my own copies of both, and still read both almost daily.

The Old Testament of The Judeo Christian Bible does contain violence, but I have posted very detail FACTUAL posts on this subject on other threads which you have subscribed to, so why do you persist in trotting out this same fallacy? Ah well; an excerpt:

"NOWHERE in the New Testament is there any incitement for followers to go out and maim, kill, or subjugate other races, creeds or non-believers and I defy anyone on here to provide evidence to the contrary.

Even the violence within the Old Testament is solely bound by historical context and specific only to the era in which the text was written, as distinct from the open-ended commands throughout the Quran which compel faithful Muslims to to go out and maim, kill, or subjugate other races, creeds or non-believers. These commands are not era specific, and have no predetermined time limit, so are as relevant and applicable for faithful Muslims today as they were to faithful Muslims in Muhammad's time. Which explains the demonic atrocities still being perpetrated in Allah's name after 1500 years."

Big difference uh?

[Tom4784]

Yeah, not gonna read all that noise.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

Yeah, not gonna read all that noise.

Why not I was forced to read through all the 'noise' and fallacy which prompted my 'noise' in response. Debate and discussion is impossible without a thorough knowledge of all the relevant facts, so your response above is typical, and confirms my suspicions that you do not know what you are talking about because you do not actually read and understand the posts which you continually criticise, and have not even read the Quran or Bible.

Nuff said.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

What are you talking about? This post is yet an other example of hysterical over reaction, which barely suppresses an irrational anger, and is littered with fallacies and misrepresentation. For example:

FALLACY No. 1) "You are purposely misrepresenting his point to suit your own argument.[/COLOR] LT said ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism so it's downright silly just to focus on those two to discredit him."

FACTS: I am quite certain that LT is intelligent enough to answer for himself, and to know that I have made no attempt to "discredit" him. I responded civilly and intelligently to his post with valid points based strictly upon what he said.

His "we shut down churches and mosques" can mean nothing other than Christianity and Islam because ONLY Christianity has churches and ONLY Islam has Mosques. Therefore, by including these two in the same sentence, LT was "mentioning them in the same breath". THEREFORE, WHEN I WROTE:

"Why mention Christianity in the same breath as Islam anyway? And why close churches?"

My response and the question in it, are perfectly reasonable and not "silly" as you falsely claim.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No.2: "LT said ALL religion, not just Christianity and Judaism".

FACTS: LT most certainly did NOT say ALL religion; he actually said;

" Perhaps the way forward is to realise that any religion based on a fictitious and expansive book will always be open to any interpretation you care to apply"

And 'ALL RELIGION', and "ANY RELIGION BASED ON A FICTITIOUS" book are completely different in intent, meaning and implication, because the former means ALL religion, whilst the latter specifically means ONLY religion based upon a Holy Book, which, given the FACT that LT includes only CHURCHES and MOSQUES in the latter part of his statement, can ONLY MEAN that "ANY religion based on a fictitious book" is CHRISTIANITY and ISLAM, and CAN ONLY MEAN that the Holy Books referred to are The Judeo Christian HOLY BIBLE, and the Islamic QURAN.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No. 3: "It's not just about war",

FACTS:

In the context of this thread IT IS ALL ABOUT WAR. In their own words and by their own declaration, a war started against the rest of humanity by Islamic Fundamentalist demons inspired by both their religion and the un-corrupted words of Allah directly received by their Holy Prophet Muhammad from the Arch Angel Gabriel.

So we can hypothesise all we want, but it is redundant and ridiculous to do so when we have the Jihadist's own repeated testimony that is that this is indeed a war.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No.4: "Organised Religion is the root of most of the evil in this world."

FACTS: There are no facts to corroborate your statement but plenty which refute it:

From R. J. Rummel’s work ‘Lethal Politics and Death by Government’:.

Non-Religious Dictator Lives Lost
• Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000
• Mao Zedong - 37,828,000
• Adolf Hitler - 20,946,000
• Chiang Kai-shek - 10,214,000
• Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000
• Hideki Tojo - 3,990,000
• Pol Pot - 2,397,0003

Rummel says: “Almost 170 million men, women and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed or worked to death; buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed or killed in any other of a myriad of ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people. It is though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power, not germs.”

What of Non-State murders?

Abul Djabar killed 65 men and boys in Afghanistan by strangling them with turbans while raping them and was suspected of over 300 murders.

Javad Iqbal Mughal killed 100 boys Lahore, Pakistan.

Luis Garavo killed 172 children in Colombia but suspected of over 400 murders.

The historical list totals many thousands and include many more familiar names, from Americans such as Gary Ridgeway (90 victims) and Jeffrey Dahmer, to home-grown monsters such as Harold Shipman (up to 297 victims) and Peter Sutcliffe and Fred and Rose West, and all with not a religious motive in sight.

But hey, let’s not stop here; perhaps our streets and homes would be safer if we rid the world of all religion?

Let’s just look at a couple of statistics from The Office of National Statistics for 2014:

• Latest figures from the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) show that, for the offences it covers, there were an estimated 7.0 million incidents of crime against households and resident adults (aged 16 and over) in England and Wales
• The numbers of rapes (24,043) and other sexual offences (48,934) are the highest recorded by the police since 2002/03.

7 Million Incidents of crime in one year, and this is just ‘reported’ crime AND NOT ONE RELIGIOUSLY MOTIVATED CRIME IN SIGHT.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No. 5: "Isis weren't created by Islam, they were created by our actions in Iraq and Syria".

FACTS: As I - and others - have already stated many times; the West's interference in Libya, Syria and Iraq, did create a 'power vacuum' which aided ISIS's growth, but it is totally ridiculous and dangerous, to claim that WE CREATED ISIS. Islam did not even create ISIS - rather that ISIS claimed Islam to excuse its barbaric and demonic war on the rest of humanity - including Muslims.

So, NEXT:

FALLACY No. 6: "It's not the Muslims either, just an extreme minority of them."

FACTS: Extreme or not, ISIS ARE MUSLIM.

So NEXT:

FALLACY No. 7: "so why are you trying to tar them all with the same brush?"

FACTS: Please stop accusing me of this ridiculous CLICHED crap that I am "tarring all Muslims with the same brush" It is thoroughly dishonest and unfair and - once again - I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME AND OTHER READERS OF THIS THREAD JUST WHERE I HAVE EVER SAID THIS OR DONE THIS, BECAUSE YOU CANNOT. THEREFORE IT IS DISGRACEFUL TO KEEP REPEATING THIS SAME LIE.

So NEXT:

FALLACY No. 8: "Yes, if you don't think that the Bible isn't as brutal as the Qu'ran then you must not have read it very well. Any religion has the potential to be used to justify radical and terrorist actions."

FACTS: I have read the BIBLE and the QURAN, own my own copies of both, and still read both almost daily.

The Old Testament of The Judeo Christian Bible does contain violence, but I have posted very detail FACTUAL posts on this subject on other threads which you have subscribed to, so why do you persist in trotting out this same fallacy? Ah well; an excerpt:

"NOWHERE in the New Testament is there any incitement for followers to go out and maim, kill, or subjugate other races, creeds or non-believers and I defy anyone on here to provide evidence to the contrary.

Even the violence within the Old Testament is solely bound by historical context and specific only to the era in which the text was written, as distinct from the open-ended commands throughout the Quran which compel faithful Muslims to to go out and maim, kill, or subjugate other races, creeds or non-believers. These commands are not era specific, and have no predetermined time limit, so are as relevant and applicable for faithful Muslims today as they were to faithful Muslims in Muhammad's time. Which explains the demonic atrocities still being perpetrated in Allah's name after 1500 years."

Big difference uh?

He didn't care for the Pharisees and Sadducees much.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

He didn't care for the Pharisees and Sadducees much.

Not caring for and slaughtering and beheading are poles apart.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Not caring for and slaughtering and beheading are poles apart.

Who's to say this wasn't the precursor to anti-semetism?

[DemolitionRed]

The right and wrong be the bitches that conspire to bring about BLAME. What an ugly thing, that.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Who's to say this wasn't the precursor to anti-semetism?

You are confusing the facts though;

Jesus was a Jew - his followers were initially Jews, then as Christianity spread, his followers included non-Jews who still followed a Jew, and his pacifist teachings, and his Judaic beliefs, and the New Testament - which is specifically all about Christ - contains no violence nor any incitement to hatred or violence to others, so how can Christ's teachings logically be the precursor to Antisemitism?

I mean; why would a Jew be Antisemitic ie; against himself?

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

Why not I was forced to read through all the 'noise' and fallacy which prompted my 'noise' in response. Debate and discussion is impossible without a thorough knowledge of all the relevant facts, so your response above is typical, and confirms my suspicions that you do not know what you are talking about because you do not actually read and understand the posts which you continually criticise, and have not even read the Quran or Bible.

Nuff said.

You weren't forced to do jack ****.

I didn't read through your post because it was overly long and self indulgent. If you really cared about having a debate you'd present your argument in a concise and direct manner. Nobody has time for a ****ing thesis on the subject.

You've accused me of bullying for less than what's been bolded. Don't be a hypocrite now, Kirky.

Also, I've got more knowledge of the Bible than you at least as you don't think it's as violent as any other religious text. Have you not heard of the Old Testament?

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

You weren't forced to do jack ****.

I didn't read through your post because it was overly long and self indulgent. If you really cared about having a debate you'd present your argument in a concise and direct manner. Nobody has time for a ****ing thesis on the subject.

You've accused me of bullying for less than what's been bolded. Don't be a hypocrite now, Kirky.

Also, I've got more knowledge of the Bible than you at least as you don't think it's as violent as any other religious text. Have you not heard of the Old Testament?

There is no "Self-Indulgent Thesis" just a comprehensive destruction of a critical response which is riddled with fallacy and misrepresentation.

So you say what you want, because this forum - like all forums - is a microcosm of the real world -- a world where the aggressive minorities who are active such as your good self, spew propaganda at the cost of truth, believing, that because the passive majority largely remain silent, that they are succeeding in convincing with such propaganda.

The truth is, however, that no one is being fooled - out there or on here - people can read and follow argument, and people have the intelligence to see where an uncorroborated lie or misrepresentation has been exposed as such by corroborated logical response. They may not rush to their keyboards to state as much - probably because they realise the futility of doing so - but pm's are another matter.

So carry on.

For myself, I will debate and discuss with those whose posts are reasoned and intelligent and civil, and whose views are built upon integrity.

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

There is no "Self-Indulgent Thesis" just a comprehensive destruction of a critical response which is riddled with fallacy and misrepresentation.

So you say what you want, because this forum - like all forums - is a microcosm of the real world -- a world where the aggressive minorities who are active such as your good self, spew propaganda at the cost of truth, believing, that because the passive majority largely remain silent, that they are succeeding in convincing with such propaganda.

The truth is, however, that no one is being fooled - out there or on here - people can read and follow argument, and people have the intelligence to see where an uncorroborated lie or misrepresentation has been exposed as such by corroborated logical response. They may not rush to their keyboards to state as much - probably because they realise the futility of doing so - but pm's are another matter.

So carry on.

For myself, I will debate and discuss with those whose posts are reasoned and intelligent and civil, and whose views are built upon integrity.

So basically what you're saying if you cut out all the bull**** posturing which let's be honest, forms of 99% of this post, is that anyone that disagrees with you or DARES not indulge you in one of your endless thesis posts is an unintelligent ranting moron.

The truth is that you aren't interested in having a discussion, you just want people to faun over your opinion which is why you can't handle it if it gets challenged. That's why you keep trying to come for me in topics because you can't stand that I'm not giving you the approval you crave, that's why you've been posting little snipe-y comments about me about you being 'warned if you share your opinion' (complete and utter bull****) and why you've been filling your sig with painfully unsubtle digs at me. You can't get my approval so you're gonna make me out to be a bad mod so you can try to get rid of me. News flash, I never mod topics that I'm personally involved in. I'd never warn or infract you for anything we've discussed and if you have been punished then it's been by another mod.

Since we're going off topic I'm gonna be the mature adult and put you on ignore since you'll do nothing but snipe at me otherwise. Don't bother replying to this because i'm not gonna read it and it'll be seen as posturing for these imaginary PM buddies of yours.