I think banning all Muslims is a bit extreme if you ask me, but I can certainly see a case for banning any that have carried out suicide-bombings.

-Can often be found on HOL Radio chatting Palace-related nonsense:

Catch it here, Sunday Nights 8pm: [Link]

HOL Radio Twitter: [Link]

Me on the Twitter: [Link]

"You don't own a dog & bark yourself, do you?"

The point,Stirling,was in response to Danny's rather sweeping assertion that Christian terrorism was something from 200 years plus ago...

We indeed have a current issue with salafist jihadist-inspired terrorism...that doesn't mean we don't need to keep things in perspective and keep in check a seeming desire in some quarters to lump it in with a general antipathy towards those of a particular religion...anymore than christians in the US should be lumped in willy nilly in with terrorist nutters like Timothy McVeigh.. most religions,including judaism and christianity have had extremist adherents at the margins in recent/current times who have engaged in terrorist violence...

As for knowledge of "Christian" terrorism in the US such as the Oklahoma bombing ,the only lack of knowledge would appear perhaps to be in your direction?McVeigh was seemingly disillusioned with catholicism ,rather than christianity and there is evidence he was inspired,at least in part,in his actions by the writings of the Christian Identity movement in the US...

Edited by legaleagle (26 Jul 2016 9.03am)

I wasn't going to bother replying but seeing as you got all sanctimonious and took the typical stance of I'm of the left persuasion so I am right and your wrong, I felt to compelled to answer your "cut and paste" wikipedia post with some of my own personnel observations of the above.

Firstly all of your examples are US based, not the UK or even Europe, they are home grown religious nut cases granted, but from the US. They are US idiots causing US problems, they are not exporting a religious ideal of murder and oppression.

Secondly, At the risk of turning this into terrorist top trumps, add up the death total, (minus Mcviegh as it is tenuous at best to suggest this was a radical Christian Bombing) that spans decades and that becomes a very small figure compared to say ...ohhh let me think ....9/11.

The irrefutable fact, is that whilst Islamic countries do have their own religious nut bags, the nut bags are now, (apart from oil) their only mentionable export across Europe, and unbridled immigration by certain EU countries is now showing to be and invitation to Ahemd and co, to come over for a spot of it's a knock out involving Heavy Goods vehicles, small arms and Semtex.

Your Christians are just as bad nonsense, is to be frank bollicks.

Edited by dannyh (26 Jul 2016 11.36am)

"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'"

While I feel that the Islamic texts.....I've read a bit of them now....make it the most problematical religion I know of...well in terms of integrating into western societies (for those that take their religion, in any sense seriously). I take what I feel is your implicit point....that all things being equal humanity is the same regardless of which nonsense they fill their heads with and that most Muslims aren't interested in aggressive jihad.
I'd agree, ..I think most of us agree that peaceful people shouldn't be tainted by the actions of others.

However I don't accept the idea that are religions are the same and that this is just 'Islam's turn' so to speak. Some religions adapt more easily to different cultures than others. It's a reality that there are quite a few passages in Islam that cause problems (for those that wish to use them).

I would agree though that all religions can be...and probably have been used as justification for terrorism. Extremism is a apart of the human condition and people can come to believe all sorts of things and justify just about any behaviour....in that sense the religious aspect of it can be a convenience.

On IS...I thought the goals of IS are to have a world wide caliphate?....unless I'm getting this wrong.....Sure, they want a state and a foothold but I thought they had made their goals quite plain.

Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Jul 2016 12.36pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Within just a week of starting this thread I have already changed my view from a ‘no -not yet’, to a ban on citizens from certain countries.

I would seriously look at banning any asylum and would also look at implementing a visa ban for certain countries.

Any action this or any other government take will not be popular but in my opinion will be better than taking no action.

The current strategies are now working so drastic action will be required very soon.

"It feels much better than it ever did, much more sensitive." John Wayne Bobbit

The United Nations has been trying to move us toward a world government for some years. That is what the man made globing warming lie is about and now we are under pressure if we dare to consider closing our borders to nationals who harbour terrorists among their number.

Even now you still imply that the call for immigration restrictions are part of some sort of Right wing conspiracy. If there is a conspiracy at play, it is by the puppet masters of our governments and the UN who wish to control all of us for their own gain.