The Horror in Brussels

[threegee]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/654528/Terrorism-fears-after-explosion-Brussels-airport

I think Mrs threegee is in for an interesting flight tomorrow. 

If the estimates of the number of terrorist already in Europe are only partly correct we are in for terrible times. These times won't be over until Germany comes to its senses and stops being controlled by Frau Merkel's massive guilt complex. The recent elections offered some hope here, but one has to wonder about Frauke Petry too, she certainly frightens the German left.

If we really had any of that mythical influence stuff in Brussels we'd be putting our foot down about issuing fast track visas to 77 million Turkish Muslims as part of Turkey's blackmail deal.  But - like everything else EU - Dave is going along with it.  And, as for Dave's worthless promise that UK funds wouldn't be used:  well... £500M of our money says he lied again!

 

[Steve]

Had a guy in here getting his computer repaired earlier. This morning he had been on a flight to Brussels, 15 mins from landing the pilot alerted them that Brussels airport was closed so they had to divert. So of course his business meeting was cancelled meaning he had to fly back.

Of course the religion of peace thinks it's all good and acceptable, and of course WE have to put up with it thanks to our eu dictators.

I have to wonder if todays events were to do with the terrorists they got at last week, or is it because our eu dictators have finally decided to return some of the travelers to Turkey - some of which we can be sure were up to no good.

[mercuryg]

How sad that we see people resorting to blaming, and I quote, 'Muslims'. They're all to blame, aren't they? Every single one. I find it hard to understand how intelligent persons can be so quick to jump on a bandwagon; this isn't about religion, it's about extremist fanaticism, and the two must be distinct. Ordinary people, with ordinary lives, are being branded by others with extraordinary views. It doesn't take more than a little thought to see this.

should add, not an attack on anyone personally, more continued annoyance at the general response.

Edited March 23, 2016 by mercuryg

[Canny lass]

I couldn't agree more about the sadness at seeing people tarring everybody with the same dirty brush. However, I don't find it hard to understand. I just put it down to plain old fashioned ignorance garnished with a dollop of laziness on the part of the, thankfully, small minority who spout such rubbish. I would be tarring myself and my fellow countrymen with an even dirtier brush if I thought for one minute that this lot represented the whole of Britain. 

[moe19]

Its an argument that will go on and on and on, but I do find it sad that anyone who has an opinion that is not liked is called racist  or a bigot,

while I may not agree with what many people say I strongly believe we are all entitled to have views and to the right of free speech.

So many of the UK news programs are sterilised and bland  I have gave up watching them.

   

.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by moe19

[Canny lass]

My point exactly Moe! It's all too easy to give someone a label - like 'terrorist or 'racist'' for instance - and then transfer that label to everybody else who has anything at all in common with them. In this case it needn't be racism or terrorism that's the common denominater. In fact, it's usually not. It's more ususlly something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even, God forbid, sexual habits! It happens all over the world. We've all done it. How many of us have opinions about the basic characteristics of a nation, as a whole, that are based on our subjective experience of a few examples we've met whilst on holiday (and usually under the influence of alcohol)? 

You don't need to be a racist just because you happen to be open, up front and speak your mind. Neither do you need to be a terrorist just because you happen to be of the muslim persuasion. I don't remember any of the IRA gang as being muslim.

[threegee]

11 hours ago, moe19 said:

Its an argument that will go on and on and on, but I do find it sad that anyone who has an opinion that is not liked is called racist  or a bigot,

while I may not agree with what many people say I strongly believe we are all entitled to have views and to the right of free speech.

So many of the UK news programs are sterilised and bland  I have gave up watching them.

It gets worse than that moe!

Croydon man arrested after confronting Muslim woman and telling her to 'explain Brussels'

Some of the current slanted BBC output makes my blood boil, but just occasional they lose control, and it can get interesting - like tonight's Moral Maze where they took a really unexpected broadside! 

[threegee]

12 hours ago, Canny lass said:

My point exactly Moe! It's all too easy to give someone a label - like 'terrorist or 'racist'' for instance - and then transfer that label to everybody else who has anything at all in common with them. In this case it needn't be racism or terrorism that's the common denominater. In fact, it's usually not. It's more ususlly something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even, God forbid, sexual habits! It happens all over the world. We've all done it. How many of us have opinions about the basic characteristics of a nation, as a whole, that are based on our subjective experience of a few examples we've met whilst on holiday (and usually under the influence of alcohol)? 

You don't need to be a racist just because you happen to be open, up front and speak your mind. Neither do you need to be a terrorist just because you happen to be of the muslim persuasion. I don't remember any of the IRA gang as being muslim.

Question to CL:  If the things like clothing and religion are "silly and subjective" then why are they such an enormously big deal to Muslims?

Supplementary questions:

Why did your harmless Muslim friends choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe?  What is so special about Europe to them that they had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the many Muslim countries closer to where they came and with a similar climate/culture?

You mention the IRA, though the IRA were not suicide bombers and generally warned about bombs in order to create maximum disruption and reduce casualties, and certainly didn't machine gun innocent people.  The IRA had a clearly stated purpose to their bombing (a point at which they were pledged to stop) and were operating on "home territory"; what is the clearly stated purpose of Islamic terrorism on "away" territory?

Behind every IRA terrorist stood thousands on republicans from whom the terrorists were drawn, most of these people made no bones about their support - they sheltered the terrorists.  Are you telling us that this is an entirely different phenomenon here?

[moe19]

 

 

[Canny lass]

3g. If you are looking to have your knuckles rapped AGAIN then you are going in the right direction.

I do not claim that clothing and religion are silly and subjective. I claim that their being percieved as a common denominator in the context of terrorists and their distinguishing characteristics is silly and subjective. Let's have another look at those sentences you quote - this time from a syntactical point of view.

It's quite normal in text or speech to manifest coherence by means of repeated reference to the same thing or person. To make such a reference we use grammatical devices such as, but not only, pronouns. Instead of repeating words or phrases we substitute a pronoun. Despite its name, a pronoun can replace not only a noun but even a noun phrase (you may know that better by the older term, nominal phrase). 

Very typical for pronouns is that they  refer to something in the preceding text and therefore known, at least in context, to the reader. Because of this, the use of a pronoun is very closely related to the definite article - 'the'. The word 'the' can only be used with something that is known to the reader. Let me try to demonstrate this with a typical noun phrase - a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs.

Now' I'll put that noun phrase into a sentence

Mary had a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs. The little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs followed Mary to school one day.

Note in the first sentence the absence of 'the'. The reader has never heard of this lamb before. Note the presence of 'the' in the second sentence. The reader has already been told about this lamb.

Leaving aside the definite article, you have to agree that it's a repetitive. Because of this it's also boring but it's simple to understand. Fortunately, we can do something about the repetition and thereby prevent the boredom. We do this, however, at the cost of simplicity and we do it by removing the repetitive noun prase and inserting a pronoun in its place:

Mary had a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs. It followed her to school one day.

By using the pronouns it and her we are assuming that the reader has at least  two grey cells functioning to know just what it and her are referring to. It's here that context, and possibly access to a third functioning grey cell, can help. We've only just mentioned Mary and her little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs so in this context it can only be those we are referring to.

And - hold on to the edge of your seat, this is riveting stuff - we can prove that the reader knows what it means by replacing the noun phrase. We can't replace it without using the definite article the which we've already learned can only be used with something known to the reader! So, as a general rule of thumb a pronoun is preferable when a unique referent, such as a little, white, fluffy lamb with three legs or, for that matter, a common denominator, is recoverable from the preceding context.

One of the interesting things about the use of pronouns is that the relevant theory can be applied in reverse. Believe me, having that knowledge can quell riots and save lives! We can, should we wish - when talking to functionally challenged patients for instance - reverse the process. We can make a sentence simple. The down side is that it becomes repetitive and boring but it has the advantage of reinforcing the message.

Let's go back to my sentence:

In this case it needn't be racism or terrorism that's the common denominator. In fact, it's usually not. It's more usually something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even [ … ] sexual habits.

Here's the same sentence with pronouns replaced by their referents (underlined):

In this case the common denominator needn't be racism or terrorism. In fact, the common denominator is usually not.The common denominator is more usually something as silly and subjective as clothing, religion or even  [ … ] sexual habits.

Were it not for the context and the fact that clothing, with its inherent lack of affect, lacks the ability to be subjective, I may just have been inclined to concede a minor degree of lexical ambiguity. However, the context is quite clear as is the referent to the pronoun it.

[Canny lass]

“Why did your harmless Muslim friends choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe?  What is so special about Europe to them that they had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the many Muslim countries closer to where they came and with a similar climate/culture?”

 

Most of my harmless muslim friends didn’t choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe. They were born in Europe as were most of their harmless parents. Some of my muslim colleagues, also harmless, did choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe. They’d heard that Britain was a democracy that there were equal rights for men and women and that the Brits were a friendly race.

What was so special about Europe that they had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the many muslim countries closer to where they came from and with a similar climate/ culture?

For some of those who did come to Europe it was a case of any port in a storm. They fled from war and oppression and were placed in Europe as refugees. They didn’t ask to come to Europe. They only asked to be taken to a place of safety.

Some of them were fleeing from Islamic fundamentalists who were deemed, by the majority of harmless muslims, to be anything but harmless. They couldn’t, and still don’t, accept the fundamentalist interpretation of the holy book. Much the same way as I (and I suspect you) don't accept the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of the Christian holy book.

A couple of them came because they were invited by the British Government in 1947. Now there’s a surprise!

In all cases they, like me, couldn’t give a jot about what religion other people have. They, like me, know that everybody in Britain has the right to choose and follow their own belief. The law says so.

Of those who weren’t born in Europe, all say that they didn’t need to go to any trouble or great expense. They had money enough because they’d worked and saved and, after experiencing the horrors of war or fundamentalism, a plane, train or boat journey was no trouble at all.

Even culture hasn’t been a problem. They accept us as we are – warts and all. They respect our culture and, like me and most other immigrants, they adopt those bits of it which suit and stay away from those bits that don’t.

Supplementary questions:

Why did you choose to go to a (predominantly) Catholic Italy? What is so special about Italy to you that you had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the other countries who share your religious beliefs, closer to where you come from and with a similar climate/culture? (I’m thinking first and foremost of Northern Ireland but I could stretch it to Byker or Blagdon).

[Canny lass]

And, on the subject of questions ….

You have a few outstanding yourself …

For instance  from...   December 27 2015 Topic title: Petition to call a temporary halt to all immigration. Page 3

“So, just to recap, what I'm asking for is, apart from an explanation as to how I recognise a muslim soley by his appearance (perhaps you missed the question?):

• a clarification of what is your understanding of the Word ghetto
• a clarification as to why we British can't succeed with the present wave of refugees just as we did with the Ugandan Asians or the boat-people
• one (1) example of how any aspect of the British Culture has been replaced by a Group of refugees
• a source of the given definition for "true refugee"
• a clarification as to whether Sharia law has, or has not, already been imposed in Britain. With any possible answer in the affirmative, a wink in the direction of the appropriate paragraphs would be very much appreciated.”

Still waiting.

Oh, I can add one more:

• How many muslims do you actually know? Really know - name, adress, job where they came from, are their parents still alive, how many children, which schools they go to, husband's/wife's job, hobbies, furnishing tastes ... that sort of thing.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Canny lass

[threegee]

OK thanks for the extensive syntactical analysis, but how about expending a lot lot less time in actually answering my questions - thus not massively obfuscating.

This tiny majority of radicalised Muslims of yours now seems to be in the tens of thousands (Sky is claiming to have received a USB stick with the detailed ISIL database.  It's understandable why Sky should come up with this intelligence as Europol is currently far too busy trying to sell the mythical security benefits of being in the EU to actually do anything positive, or indeed even read the warning about the named individual Turkey sent).

Of course this database doesn't include the up-and-coming ones, like those school classes cheering at news of the Brussels slaughter - they haven't been cheering in your classes, I hope?  Funny that the guy who tweeted this observation was visited by the police and told to keep his mouth shut; I wonder what the authorities were fearing?!

[Canny lass]

22 minutes ago, threegee said:

OK thanks for the extensive syntactical analysis, but how about expending a lot lot less time in actually answering my questions - thus not massively obfuscating.

This tiny majority of radicalised Muslims of yours now seems to be in the tens of thousands (Sky is claiming to have received a USB stick with the detailed ISIL database.  It's understandable why Sky should come up with this intelligence as Europol is currently far too busy trying to sell the mythical security benefits of being in the EU to actually do anything positive, or indeed even read the warning about the named individual Turkey sent).

Of course this database doesn't include the up-and-coming ones, like those school classes cheering at news of the Brussels slaughter - they haven't been cheering in your classes, I hope?  Funny that the guy who tweeted this observation was visited by the police and told to keep his mouth shut; I wonder what the authorities were fearing?!

• Your welcome! I just knew you were one of those 11 year olds who sat at the back of the class paying no attention during grammar lessons. I've answered two of your questions already jut 18 hours after being asked. How about answering some of mine, I've been waiting 3 months.

• I'm pleased there are only 10s of thousands on the list. It proves my point that the greater majority are not radicalised - 10s of thousands must be a minimal percentage of all the millions of muslims in the world! I'll get hubby on to work out the actual percentage and I'll get back to you. It should do a lot to ease your worried mind.

• I'm afraid I don't have classes. I work with only one or two at a time.

• So i was it you who sent the USB stick to Sky? How else would you know who wasn't on it?

• Maybe the authorities were concerned about right wing activists making mountains out of mole-hills as they usually do?

• Sky really does come up with a lot of rubbish sometimes!
• Sorry about the obfuscating. It was not my intention to either stupefy or bewilder you.
   

 

 

Edited March 24, 2016 by Canny lass

[Canny lass]

Goodnight!

[threegee]

1 hour ago, Canny lass said:

• Your welcome! I just knew you were one of those 11 year olds who sat at the back of the class paying no attention during grammar lessons. I've answered two of your questions already jut 18 hours after being asked. How about answering some of mine, I've been waiting 3 months.

I regularly failed my English Language because I spent a lot of time standing in the corridor having been thrown out of class. Though, what really gutted the English master was that I was the only one in the form who got anywhere near top marks in GCE Literature without turning in any class (or homework) that he in any way rated.  I think he thought I must have had pre-exam tuition, but the reality was I actually enjoyed many of the set books and studied them in MY way; whereas the rest of the kids looked on them as a chore - because he was such a p'poor teacher, and taught by prescription and wrote!

I will skip the first question because you've worn me down, and I'm not prepared to wade through the above to examine the possibility of my quoting you out of context.  BUT - in true Paxo fashion - I'm going to try again on:

Quote

Why did your harmless Muslim friends choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe?  What is so special about Europe to them that they had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the many Muslim countries closer to where they came and with a similar climate/culture?

You mention the IRA, though the IRA were not suicide bombers and generally warned about bombs in order to create maximum disruption and reduce casualties, and certainly didn't machine gun innocent people.  The IRA had a clearly stated purpose to their bombing (a point at which they were pledged to stop) and were operating on "home territory"; what is the clearly stated purpose of Islamic terrorism on "away" territory?

Behind every IRA terrorist stood thousands on republicans from whom the terrorists were drawn, most of these people made no bones about their support - they sheltered the terrorists.  Are you telling us that this is an entirely different phenomenon here?

Now, the answers to these questions are actually important, so let's skip the obfuscation this time.  And, if I've failed to answer any of your questions on other threads, then simply link me to the tread and I will answer there - no more waiting!

And... the Sky link (which certainly doesn't look like a load of rubbish):   http://news.sky.com/story/1656777/is-documents-identify-thousands-of-jihadis

 

[mercuryg]

I think the above few posts are among some of the best I have ever read; especially the wonderful - and hugely amusing - grammar lesson from Canny Lass. The fluffy white lamb had me almost spit my coffee. Although a writer myself, I'm not as up to speed as that, so it was a - once again, amusing - education. I shall remember it when writing SEO text on how to find a fluffy white lamb, how much they cost, and where you can get the best one for the right price (and, of course, in the meta tags that Google so loves). There is, however, one problem, Canny Lass, that I fear you must address (and far more important, I should stress, than clarifying how many Muslims are harmful or harmless (and, by the way, how do you tell? Should I, on spotting a Muslim in the street - if one can spot one, that is, at a distance - simply ask 'Sir, are you a terrorist'?) and it is this: you say the lamb had only three legs. How come it didn't fall over? What happened to the other 'leg of lamb', I wonder?

Edited March 25, 2016 by mercuryg
removed erroneous 'd'

[mercuryg]

..."This tiny majority"....

Surely one means 'tiny minority'? A tiny majority would imply there are very few Muslims to start with. Last time I looked there were quite a few. Unless, of course, all Muslim terrorists are surprisingly short?

 

[Malcolm Robinson]

"What happened to the other 'leg of lamb', I wonder?"

 

Seems if Turkey is the traditional Xmas dish then Lamb is the Easter equivalent?  

Maybe the one I cooked?  

[mercuryg]

33 minutes ago, Malcolm Robinson said:

"What happened to the other 'leg of lamb', I wonder?"

 

Seems if Turkey is the traditional Xmas dish then Lamb is the Easter equivalent?  

Maybe the one I cooked?  

Delicious, nothing better than lamb!

[Maggie/915]

Good reading.

i think I need to back to school and pay more attention.

Lamb for Easter , not sure I could ever be vegetarian. 

[Canny lass]

2 hours ago, mercuryg said:

I think the above few posts are among some of the best I have ever read; especially the wonderful - and hugely amusing - grammar lesson from Canny Lass. The fluffy white lamb had me almost spit my coffee. Although a writer myself, I'm not as up to speed as that, so it was a - once again, amusing - education. I shall remember it when writing SEO text on how to find a fluffy white lamb, how much they cost, and where you can get the best one for the right price (and, of course, in the meta tags that Google so loves). There is, however, one problem, Canny Lass, that I fear you must address (and far more important, I should stress, than clarifying how many Muslims are harmful or harmless (and, by the way, how do you tell? Should I, on spotting a Muslim in the street - if one can spot one, that is, at a distance - simply ask 'Sir, are you a terrorist'?) and it is this: you say the lamb had only three legs. How come it didn't fall over? What happened to the other 'leg of lamb', I wonder?

I blame the Italians, Mercuryg, with all that agnello here and cacciatore there. There must be millions of the poor blighters hobbling around the hills of Rome - 3-legged lambs, not Italians.

[threegee]

3 hours ago, mercuryg said:

... I should stress, than clarifying how many Muslims are harmful or harmless (and, by the way, how do you tell? Should I, on spotting a Muslim in the street - if one can spot one, that is, at a distance - simply ask 'Sir, are you a terrorist'?) and it is this: you say the lamb had only three legs. How come it didn't fall over? What happened to the other 'leg of lamb', I wonder?

The answer (from a random hijab in the street) has already been supplied to the man who ended up being arrested for asking the question. The answer is a standard "nothing to do with me".  Technically and legally it's a faultless answer, because it is all to do with my mindset and the people I slavishly obey (including my father/husband).  It's perfectly managed duplicity!

Mosque leader who condemned Brussels attacks sent messages calling extremist ‘true Muslim’

Duplicitous Dave - who is off on a solo trip to Lanzarotte (after heading up a publicity campaign urging us proles to holiday in flood-torn Northern England) has gone for some thinking time, away from the family and the unprecedented revolt in his party - must be eating his heart out at how easily it comes to the religion of peace.  Odds on that George had better watch his back, as Dave has a long record of throwing his friends to the wolves in a most un-eatonian fashion.

 

[threegee]

Most of my harmless muslim friends didn’t choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe. They were born in Europe as were most of their harmless parents. Some of my muslim colleagues, also harmless, did choose to come to a (nominally Christian) Europe. They’d heard that Britain was a democracy that there were equal rights for men and women and that the Brits were a friendly race.

So.. they continue to practise a belief set where there is anything but "equal rights for men and women", and set up courts which impose a law which is anything but democratically derived?

For some of those who did come to Europe it was a case of any port in a storm. They fled from war and oppression and were placed in Europe as refugees. They didn’t ask to come to Europe. They only asked to be taken to a place of safety.

There goes that some again!  And did they really?  The compass has eight principal directions and Europe is only one, and are you sure that it wasn't them actually doing the persecution (of Christians).  Why can't the oil-rich Muslin nations do something for them - they have the space, they have the money, and Arab hospitality is legendary.  And, why don't the persecuted Christians in those regions come here in volume?  They choose to stick it out for better times - well those who have survived Islamic persecution.

Yes, some of them are brilliant: the ones who have confronted the scourge of Islam. http://ex-muslim.org.uk/ 

Some of them were fleeing from Islamic fundamentalists who were deemed, by the majority of harmless muslims, to be anything but harmless. They couldn’t, and still don’t, accept the fundamentalist interpretation of the holy book. Much the same way as I (and I suspect you) don't accept the Jehovah's Witness interpretation of the Christian holy book.

I can see exactly where Jehovah's Witness are coming from, and I haven't noticed them ghettoising in our cities or altering or architecture, or setting up a parallel justice system, or any terrorist acts in the name of Christ.  In fact I'm open to persuasion on this Armageddon thing of theirs; maybe Armageddon starts around Dabiq?

A couple of them came because they were invited by the British Government in 1947. Now there’s a surprise!

A couple of them was never a problem.  In fact 30,000 immigrants per year wasn't too much of a problem.  This is twenty times that and more, and it threatens our culture.  And, on this score, I'm not even singling out the scourge of Islam: these levels of immigration are truly crazy!

In all cases they, like me, couldn’t give a jot about what religion other people have. They, like me, know that everybody in Britain has the right to choose and follow their own belief. The law says so.

Which law would you be talking about there?  We aren't talking about a religion as we've come to know religion; we are talking about a medieval belief set that doesn't broker any dissent. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1023001/pg1

Even culture hasn’t been a problem. They accept us as we are – warts and all. They respect our culture and, like me and most other immigrants, they adopt those bits of it which suit and stay away from those bits that don’t.

The key words there are "hasn't been".. well if you ignore the few minor misunderstandings like Brussels.  So they are going to stop building shining monstrosities in our cities and do what other religions do?  That's great, and it's really nice that they accept us in our own country!

Supplementary questions:

Why did you choose to go to a (predominantly) Catholic Italy? What is so special about Italy to you that you had to go to such trouble and expense compared with settling in one of the other countries who share your religious beliefs, closer to where you come from and with a similar climate/culture? (I’m thinking first and foremost of Northern Ireland but I could stretch it to Byker or Blagdon).

This is easy, and in fact I get asked this all the time!  And, as far as I know, no one has been arrested for asking me.

It's the climate, the food, and the health aspects.  But underlying this is the fact that I can relate to the locals Romano-Judaic belief set.  I'm not a churchgoer (and neither are many here), but if the community were in any way threatened I'd be there in a local church showing my support, and indeed I do modestly help the local church charities.

Of course the reverse question is also valid: why would anyone want to move to the UK climate if it wasn't on purely economic grounds, as there are those other points-of-the-compass?  Why make a tiny crowded island any more crowded?  Our own civilisation broke out of here for more living space, and generally did rather well by that.

[Canny lass]

“I will skip the first question because you've worn me down, and I'm not prepared to wade through the above to examine the possibility of my quoting you out of context.  BUT - in true Paxo fashion - I'm going to try again on:”

I’m not really sure to which of my many previous, as yet unanswered, questions you refer. Please repeat the question. However, I’m quite happy to accommodate your trying again with the following. I agree, the answers are important and I’ve already responded to this part of your enquiry (see above).

As for the second paragraph:

“ You mention the IRA, though the IRA were not suicide bombers … and they certainly didn’t machine gun innocent people”

No they were not suicide bombers and perhaps they didn’t use machine guns (I personally don’t know) but they did have other methods of killing and torturing innocent people (this I do personally know).  So let’s call a spade a spade shall we. It is killing we are talking about not the methods used.  

“ and generally warned about bombs in order to create maximum disruption and reduce casualties,.:

Go tell that to anybody working in the casualty departments of the major hospitals at the time! Believe me, it was the not knowing that it was about to happen which caused the most disruption. Though I do remember one warning about a planned attack in London and when all resources were nicely concentrated in London they detonated a bomb in … Manchester, I believe it was. Didn’t greatly reduce the number of casualties that warning!

And another warning issued 90 minutes before the bomb detonated. What good was that? How long do you think it takes to get a bomb squad in place? Once in place, how long does it take to find and defuse the bomb? That warning didn’t reduce the number of casualties either.

“The IRA had a clearly stated purpose to their bombing (a point at which they were pledged to stop) and were operating on “home territory”; what is the clearly stated purpose of Islamic terrorism on “away” territory?

The IRA, as far as my memory serves me, had one purpose – the reunification of Ireland.

IS, to whom I think you refer when speaking of Islamic terrorism, would also appear to have only one purpose – the reunification of Islam, by establishing a new Islamic caliphate across the middle east. At least that’s how I’ve understood it. Perhaps you have understood something else?

“Behind every IRA terrorist stood thousands on republicans from whom the terrorists were drawn, most of these people made no bones about their support- they sheltered the terrorists. Are you saying that this is an entirely different phenomenon here??”

I’m not really sure what you mean here. I think that behind the IS terrorists there are supporters, maybe not thousands behind each one but supporters never the less. I haven’t seen anything in news reports or media which would make me believe that IS terrorists are not sheltered by their supporters. If you could clarify your question maybe I can give you a more substantial answer.

“Now, the answers to these questions are actually important, so let’s skip the obfuscation this time. And, if I’ve failed to answer any of your questions on other threads, then simply link me to the thread and I will answer there – no more waiting.”

You may have missed my point when I apologized for my earlier “obfuscation”. When I said that it wasn’t “my intention to either stupefy or bewilder you” I was being sarcastic. Obfuscation embraces the notion of deliberate action. I was not deliberately attempting to confuse you, quite the opposite. Any incurred confusion must have been of your own making.

You have most certainly failed to answer to several of my questions – and those of others, I’ve noticed.  I thought I was being helpful in copying and pasting some of those questions from the thread I mentioned. However, if you prefer a link then I’m only too happy to oblige:

 

 

first post, page 3

Naturally, I’m still interested in the answers, not only to these to these but even to the questions posed on this thread. Would you like me to compile a list or would you prefer a lnk?