Originally Posted by Kizzy

1) That is people discussing a change in the law, not terrorism.


2) That is how your post read jesus, you may have meant Mohammedans but that is not what you inferred.



3) Why is it absurd? I can only comment on your post, it was not clear what you were trying to say but that is how it sounded to me.

1) I've seen people say it would be better if person x was murdered loads of times. The case of the children being accidentally murdered in a fire started by the parents and their friend (Sorry the name really escapes me) is a prime example. If someone would have actually gone through with it and then said they'd seen James (for arguments sake) say it a few times, do we start trying to deport James?

2) Mohammedans are followers of Mohammed. There is no other thing I meant to infer. Just not every single one of them on the planet.

3) Seemed pretty clear to me, and Alex didn't read it that way.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Jesus.

1) I've seen people say it would be better if person x was murdered loads of times. The case of the children being accidentally murdered in a fire started by the parents and their friend (Sorry the name really escapes me) is a prime example. If someone would have actually gone through with it and then said they'd seen James (for arguments sake) say it a few times, do we start trying to deport James?

2) Mohammedans are followers of Mohammed. There is no other thing I meant to infer. Just not every single one of them on the planet.

3) Seemed pretty clear to me, and Alex didn't read it that way.

Well I'm not sure how most of this is relevant....
You can't equate people debating the law as a hate crime.
Once again you did not state Mohammedans only in your post though, it was as I said a bit general.
I can't speak for anyone else but like I said ninastar did post how widespread terrorism was in the middle east, I don't think she would have done that had I not questioned your post so you may be right there.