it;s still not a problem in America. while sectarian violence between muslim sects is a major cause of violence in that part of the world. so it is a major difference.

That last part, I totally agree with

Anyway I can't reply properly right now, but I'll be home in a few hours and reply then...

Sadly,the Muslim fundamentalist terrorist fits a certain look and criteria which means that a huge numbr of totally innocent Muslims are going to be scrutinised because terrorists are carrying out attrocities in the name of your religion. It's not fair, but that's the way it is. And it isn't only tan-skinned Muslim people who are more closely scrutinised. I was held at immigration at JFK for hours because despite being white, I was travelling alone and had Arabic stamps in my passport. Did it make me angry? Actually... no. I'd rather they take security deadly seriously.

Yes many have now reported that his (the killer) voice
may of been edited onto to it.





ref : News and papers


http://news.sky.com/story/1322431/ho...beheading-clip

I'm not being funny, but all you need to do is look at the people who are involved in most of the terrorist all around the world. I'm not saying that ALL MUSLIMS ARE TERRORISTS!!!!!!! You will never ever hear me say that. I think that muslims (from my experience) are easily some of the nicest and most caring people I have ever met. There is a MASSIVE difference between someone who is muslim and someone who is an extremist. It's sad that muslims end up being labelled as terrorists, when it's only a small portion of them with warped views. I'm easily one of the most open minded people when it comes to religious views. But you cannot deny that a huge portion of the mishaps that go on in the world, are done by muslim extremists.

If a person has extra precautionary measures done to them in an airport, because they are muslim, is that racism? IMO no it's not. It's just unfortunate that they have to go through that, because of these people who make them look crazy. If it were Americans who were the extremists and bombing/decapitating people on a daily basis, I'd be totally understanding if I had to get checked over in an airport. I have been a few times.

Nina and Livia, you don't have to justify yourselves. what you are saying is obvious.

thanks alex! much appreciated...

It's not a problem in Whitechapel or Ilford either!

i never said it was...

Do you think you become desensitised after a while?

atleast his body will be halal.

But as we cannot see his mouth or lips moving it could well be anyone speaking these words. The fact the accent belongs to a Londoner does not mean this Londoner was present in the video clip.




.

Yes... an important point that seems to have passed most people by.

"i'd be shocked if there was an isis attack in london but not surprised sadly" :bawling: itv news

Of course not all muslims are detorists and a lot of them disagree with the action of isis but how most of them see it is that back home people get bombed, shot on a daily basis by the west. They kill one American and world wide outcry they deserve to get bombed further. If it came to siding or sympathising, most muslims here would probably side with their own because they would understand where they are coming from even if they disagree with them using religion to justify it.

So it would have cost $132m to free this man. I know the whole "we don't negotiate with terrorists" blah blah blah stuff but that absolutist view isn't really accurate or logical. For starters the US were happy to negotiate with the Taliban by exchanging five Islamists for that American soldier. I also believe that paying a ransom like that is ultimately worth it to protect the life of your citizen. It's a brutal murky war, you can't win every battle within it, sometimes sacrificing your principles and a few of your dollars is worth it to save the life of your countryman. And let's face it, $130m is a mere drop in the ocean for the US government, you might say it would contribute a lot to ISIS but I'm not so convinced, not considering they are currently in control over some of the wealthiest oil rich regions on the planet. And while the US may refuse to fork out ransoms there has already been cases of the French, the Spanish, the Germans, the Italians and the Swiss doing so in order to secure the release of their citizens. For the US not do so doesn't really achieve much at all if other Western nations are prepared to pay for the release of hostages.

I also thought this was a strong point made by Robert Fisk on the changing way that journalists are now viewed in the Middle East, seen as fair game by people of all different persuasions:

Wouldn't you get a hell of a lot more kidnappings (and not just by ISIS) if the kidnappers knew they'd get a reward of that sum though

have you done a survey across the millions of muslims? didnt think so

dangerous generalized over simplified nonsense

The kidnappers will always take any Westerner they can it seems, I don't think they're that bothered if they get the ransom or if they kill them. If the former then they get their money, the latter gives them the chance for a powerful propaganda stunt like this one, either outcome suits them really

And there's the problem that if you're gonna have the 'no negotiation' policy then you've gotta be consistent with it, but basically every Western country has paid ransoms in the past and so it still makes it worthwhile for any kidnappers. Quite a few other European countries seem to have paid them recently, and even us and the States have done it not too long ago, the US with the solider if Afghanistan and the UK with that couple who were kidnapped by Somali pirates a few years back. It's true though that if you always paid ransoms then it may encourage more kidnappings but then the focus should be on avoiding that in the first place, I don't think journalists and non-combatants should ever be in that position that they may be captured and its worrying that they are now apparently seen as fair game in a lot of conflicts

****ing scumbags! Hancuff them and leave them far out in the desert to die.

They are now saying they have another USA press man
from Time mag.

The say he is next to killed Live

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-329x437.jpg


http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-329x437.jpg

http://media.skynews.com/media/image...-1-329x437.jpg

..it's not just money demands though is it..it's also the release of 'world threats' and can that be given in to because surely that would just increase the worry of this whole thing..also it's so complicated because if a captive were to be released and demands given in to and that captive had done something similar to this beheading or responsible for deaths in other ways and the families of those victims had to see that person released to save another but then that person was killed anyway or the released went on to actively plot other atrocities then what has been solved and how does that make families who have lost feel....and see these people who have ruined their lives go on and do it again...because these are extremists and it will go on.../nothing will be 'solved' in releasing them and no lives will be saved I don't think....

..so this has given him the notoriety that was sought...it's a good point though made earlier that it could be his voice only used to 'add to the horror' of a British civilian butchering and American one...

Yes.

I 100% support the policy of not negotiating with terrorists. I feel for the family of James Foley, but people can not give in to that kind of terrorist demand.