Found any evidence for your assertions yet?

Maybe your 'off-site' book will be able to shed some light on the issue?

Even if those figures are accurate, when you consider places like Iraq and Afghanistan, those terrorist acts take place on an almost daily basis, and are often Shia/Sunni issues rather than attacks on 'our' way of life.

Even if we say that every one of those 21000 attacks was carried out by a different Muslim (which seems quite unlikely), that means that only 1.3% of all of the 1.6m Muslims on the planet have carried out a terrorist attack. This leaves a whopping 98.7% of Muslims who are not terrorists.

Edit: Apologies, I have my figures wrong. There are 1.6 billion Muslims, not 1.6 million. This means that only 0.0013% of Muslims have been involved in a terrorist attack, leaving 99.9987% who have not.

It IS a small minority, if it wasn't a small minority then this wouldn't be the first casualty of terrorism in Britain for nearly a decade. Come on, that is common bloody sense!

And it is, largely, nothing to do with Islam. The reason terrorism attacks by Muslims is so high, assuming we use the accepted western media understanding of terrorism and pretend much of our foreign policy isn't it, is because there has been an imperialist campaign and systematic oppression against much of the Muslim world for the better part of modern history.

When you systematically oppress a people then terrorism of some kind tends to follow. Similar (but certainly not the same) happened in South America when the United States waged brutal, imperialist campaigns against much of Latin America towards the tail end of last century, as well as what was effectively a war against the Catholic church, particularly in places like Colombia. Apartheid South Africa or Ireland are similar examples of terrorism happening in said scenarios.

The situations aren't the same and the response wasn't the same, granted, but they were violent and often vulgar responses non the less.

There is context to everything. The Muslim world has been under sustained economic and physical attack for a long time, that doesn't justify terrorist attacks, but it goes a long way to explaining the difference in frequency of attacks between Islamic terrorists and, say, Christian terrorists. You can't compare the figures because the situations are incomparable. Were the situations equal you might have a point, but they aren't and you don't.

Christian nations and peoples dominate the world, have done for some time. Do you think that in a society where the Islamic Middle East was the dominant power force, a society where Christian nations, people and values were under constant attack, that there would not be a marked rise in radical Christianity and terrorism committed by Christians? When Ireland was under British oppression, was there not a radical reaction? Ireland's a small place, you know. Imagine If Ireland at the time was several hundred million strong, you'd have seen a hell of a lot more terrorist attacks against Britain and its supporters then, wouldn't you?

You might not like the point, it's true non the less I'm effectively quoting American intelligence here. When Eisenhower remarked that "There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people." It was acknowledged by the NSC who said plainly that the reason being is that there's a feeling amongst citizens in the Middle East that America is self-interested and supports status quo governments that quell development and democracy there, the reason being that the USA is only interested in the oil in the region. They went on to say that the perception is correct and that it should be correct, that there will continue to be hatred against the States because they should continue with the policy of exploiting the region. That's straight from the NSC

What reasons are there for Christians to take to the streets and attack civilians? Where are the foreign soldiers on Christian soil to be attacked? Which nations are exploiting the Christian world? There's every reason for middle eastern/north african people (and Muslims who feel some sort of affinity to their brethren) to play dirty, the actions are unjustifiable and sickening that's understood, but there's still reason.

When there's a level playing field so far as the situation of the average Christian and the average Muslim then you can start comparing numbers and find out which religion is more violent. But you can't strip away the context and expect people to take raw data as indication of anything.

It may have already been linked to, so apologies to whoever linked to it or mentioned it, if that's the case – I cannot remember – but there was an analysis somewhere that was saying that there are, in effect, two levels of 'motivation', if you will, for Islamic extremists.

One is the 'everything Western is bad and we want a global caliphate' etc. But the one that is, apparently, most usually found in radicalised young people is the 'solidarity with our Islamic brothers in countries under attack' one.

There are presently plenty of reports around of young European Muslims leaving their families and heading for Syria.

The whole post ... very well said.

I thought I'd admitted I probably couldn't supply you things that were posted in social media and facebook and talk from people from a local area suggesting things like how unsafe our old manor has become etc etc. Women being threatened, followed, abused etc etc. Which never makes it to the local media for some reason. So I can't prove it to you. So maybe I should retract that and let you believe all is happy in all parts of London, never mind the UK.

As I said there was a misunderstanding and I have worded it poorly.

Anyway, anything else to get off your chest?

I am not your enemy mintball whether we agree on things or not.

I suspect that you know perfectly well what you wrote – as you do now, with your sarcy little comment: "maybe I should retract that and let you believe all is happy in all parts of London, never mind the UK", with it's quite specific and clear suggestion that, because I dared to not take your evidence-free comments as gospel, I think that everything is rainbows and puppies. And if you didn't do it deliberately, then your sloppiness is showing again.



I haven't claimed otherwise – I cannot imagine why I would.

But you do seem to be fixating rather on me, Rooster, in a way that you do not with other posters here who are every bit as forthright.

Perhaps because I'm the only woman here who contributes to these big, 'masculine' subjects like politics, and is able to give as good as she gets? Does that bother you, Rooster? Do you find strong women difficult to deal with, perhaps? Is there something you'd like to tell us?

In what way is the Islamic world "systemetically oppressed"? This is the dangerous narrative that causes terrorism.

I suppose it'l come down to oil? The reality is the West developed oil wells in certain Muslim countries. The oil just happened to be in those countries. They had neither the knowledge, technology nor will to exploit those resources. To all intents and purposes the oil was "ours" albeit located in other Muslim countries with relatively primitative tribal societies. As part of our "exploitation" we have made the main oil producing countries VERY rich and to the extent that they help support our economy - property investment, shoring up at least one major bank, etc. So, to say we systematically oppress people is a disgraceful statement.

Oh OK...

If you recognise international borders then you also recognise that what lies beneath those borders is the property of the country concerned, its not yours just because you know there is something there that you want - thats like saying that I know you have a nice 42" plasma TV within your house and I have the means to remove it from your wall whereas you are useless with a screwdriver, so "to all intents and purposes" its mine.