Simply giving me some dates of well-known terrorist attacks is not actually an argument. I fail to see how these attacks, and the people behind them, were representative of the views held by the vast majority of Muslim people. You seem to have conveniently ignored the picture I posted a few replies up, of children holding signs saying "God hates fags". Every religion has adherents that are bastards. If your criticize Islam then you must analyse every other single religion, otherwise you're biased and demagogic.Have you ever heard of the conflict between Protestants and Catholics, in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland? And I think it's fair to say that "Muslim gang attacks" are fairly isolated. They're not widespread. They're not part of a wider campaign to force every single non-Muslim to bow down to Sharia law. Please could cite an example of these "Muslim gang attacks"? This was not a protest against the soldiers. It was a protest against the war itself. You need to clearly differentiate. They were not attempting to protest because they wanted to piss on soldiers coffins. Precisely the opposite in fact: in opposing the war itself, not the ordinary men and women fighting it, you oppose vehemently the deaths of ordinary working people. Um, no. As I previously mentioned, and which you failed to directly address, is that the Muslim population in the UK is tiny. "Unregulated" mosques should, of course, be allowed. This is a little thing called religious freedom. Freedom; do you know what it is? I know you're highly intolerant of Muslim people, but they're actually allowed (or at least should be in a fair and democratic society) to do what they want. Again, this implies racism and an anti-Islam bias. There's millions radical preacher for every religion. This is a true story: a few months ago I was in town and saw a white, middle-aged male talking rather loudly on top of a pedestal. He was preaching Christian beliefs. He was saying this along the lines of, basically: "if you don't worship Jesus, or repent from your sins, you will be punished and go to hell". This is no exaggeration. It got me quite angry because, as a white middle-aged man, he was simply ignored or dismissed as irrelevant. However, if he was even vaguely middle-eastern looking, with a beard, preaching in the name of Allah, and with a veiled woman by his side, then he would have been shouted out, abused and maybe even worse for being a "terrorist". Ironic, isn't it? Please substantiate. And don't tell me calm down, I have no tolerance, and nor does anyone else here, for your underdeveloped and ignorant views.
