If You Were Not Concered About ISIS Support In the Muslim Mjaority World? You Should Be Now

I am not even bothered to copy or post any of the crap the Inderpendent tries to claim with the worst appeasement possible, because it is far removed from understanding how troubling this Poll is. If you are interested then read the Link.I have just done a rough guess on how many Muslims this represents that support ISIS.





http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/jakarta-attacks-chart-shows-isis-hated-in-indonesia-and-Muslim-majority-countries-around-the-world-a6813651.html


Egypt represents roughly 1.6 millions Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
UAE represents roughly 276,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Kuwait represents roughly 60,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Jordan represents roughly 170,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Saudi represents roughly 760,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Indonesia represents roughly 7.6 million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Iraq represents roughly 1 million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Palestinian represents roughly 600,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Yemen represents roughly 900,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Libya represents roughly 350,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Turkey represents roughly 5.5 Million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Burkino Faso represents roughly 800,000 Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Pakistan represents roughly 16 Million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Malaysia represents roughly 1.9 million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Senegal represents roughly 1.3 Million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Tunisia represents roughly 1.3 Million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Nigeria represents roughly 16 Million Muslims with a favorable view of ISIS
Syria is a tad difficult to work out based on the displacement of Syrians but is one in 5 Muslim Syrians, which really is concerning based on refugees.



This of course does not show how many of the Millions in India, Bangladesh, China etc, but the numbers are staggering.


Its only a few

People have told this truth before Dodge. .. only to have you arguing against it...!


"It's only a few" was one of your favourite denials in the past... followed by accusations of being 'racist' and 'far right' aimed at people who dared to post such things...

That is what is important to you here, which shows why people like you are viewed with much amusement, and considering this is only out this week and shows thrier support has grown stronger the above by you makes no sense at all

But does anything when you post Tommy?

There have been numerous articles over the last few years about large numbers of Muslim popilations with sympathies and support for al-qaeda...


When any of these have been posted before... you were one of the first to start with denials and excuses!!!


I don't know why your position has now shifted... but I'm glad you are now more in touch with reality!!!


And me being considered an idiot by lefties is a compliment!!!

Show me anywhere where I have denied there has been a proportion of Muslims that support extremism? Well the left are spot on about you being as you are against all Muslims, which I am not and I am all for progressive Muslims to reform Islam, so again miles removed from your repellent views lol

lol Let me know how you get on Tommy

Tommy, are you against law-abiding, peaceful and integrated Muslims?

You never denied it... you just kept trying to claim it was "only a few" in total numbers...


You have previously been faced with the findings that significantly large percentages of many national Muslim populations actually admitted to having sympathies for or support for al-qaeda...


Smelly bandit raises this point many times to you on flap... and this has also been raised on here previously too!!!


Plenty of posters will know this is true!!!


But as you delete your accounts so often and start new ones... your weasel words of the past are harder to find... which is exactly why you do it!!!

eddie wrote:Tommy, are you against law-abiding, peaceful and integrated Muslims?

For the record Tommy

Tommy always seems to be in the firing line when it comes to accusations of being anti Muslim, but nobody seems to pick up on Victor's aversion to Muslims.

You do not need the posters names to find threads on this topic and anyway the history os posts is limited it keeps on the status of posters, so that is a poor excuse Tommy

As to smelly he is a vile Nazi, who wants to start a war with all of Islam and thus all Muslims, his views on islam are also taken from hate sites where he even gets many of those wrong also. So no I am miles removed from smelly on every level possible Tommy, I want to see Islam like Christianity reform, where Muslims are progressing. He wants to eradictae Islam altogether and would not care how many hundreds of millions persished. The only thing I was wrong ever to do was apppeasement myself which I freely admit to..

Now you are very much more comnparable to smelly, both racists, anti-homosexual, anti-immigrants etc and both of you are driven by negative hate, which thnkfully I am not, as I look and base my views to progesss, where as you look to go backwards.

So move on you child you once or twice get something right, give yourself a pat on the back, but when it comes to views with you, I share zero of your backward repellent views

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy always seems to be in the firing line when it comes to accusations of being anti Muslim, but nobody seems to pick up on Victor's aversion to Muslims.

Because Victors views are miles removed from Tommy on a great many things

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Tommy always seems to be in the firing line when it comes to accusations of being anti Muslim, but nobody seems to pick up on Victor's aversion to Muslims.

Because Victors views are miles removed from Tommy on a great many things

He said he would disown his son merely for converting to Islam. I think that's more extreme than Tommy's views.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Because Victors views are miles removed from Tommy on a great many things

He said he would disown his son merely for converting to Islam. I think that's more extreme than Tommy's views.

Then you do not know Tommy that well I am afraid Rags

Again the difference is that in general most of Tommy's views are repressive, negative, hateful, prejudice etc

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

He said he would disown his son merely for converting to Islam. I think that's more extreme than Tommy's views.

Then you do not know Tommy that well I am afraid Rags

Again the difference is that in general most of Tommy's views are repressive, negative, hateful, prejudice etc

I think Victor's posts are becoming more and more like that actually. Anyway, I'm not getting into a drawn out discussion about it - it was just an observation.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Then you do not know Tommy that well I am afraid Rags

Again the difference is that in general most of Tommy's views are repressive, negative, hateful, prejudice etc

I think Victor's posts are becoming more and more like that actually. Anyway, I'm not getting into a drawn out discussion about it - it was just an observation.

Well I disagree as I have known Victor a very long time, he maybe pessimistic, but he is about the most intelligent poster on here alongside me Lord.

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:Tommy, are you against law-abiding, peaceful and integrated Muslims?

For the record Tommy

I am very much in favour of Muslims being peaceful, and of them being fully respectful of and compliant to national and international laws, and of THEM integrating into the society and culture of the country that THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO MOVE INTO!!!


However... a condition of being a Muslim means that they must follow their guide book... Unfortunately this tells them that they must follow islamic law... tells them that they are superior to all other non Muslims... it tells them not to take Christians or jews as friends... it tells them to fight the non Muslims and force them to submit to Islam or die...

So can a Muslim really be peaceful, law abiding and integrated while still being a Muslim...!?

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

eddie wrote:Tommy, are you against law-abiding, peaceful and integrated Muslims?

For the record Tommy

I am very much in favour of Muslims being peaceful, and of them being fully respectful of and compliant to national and international laws, and of THEM integrating into the society and culture of the country that THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO MOVE INTO!!!


However... a condition of being a Muslim means that they must follow their guide book... Unfortunately this tells them that they must follow islamic law... tells them that they are superior to all other non Muslims... it tells them not to take Christians or jews as friends... it tells them to fight the non Muslims and force them to submit to Islam or die...

So can a Muslim really be peaceful,  law abiding and integrated while still being a Muslim...!?

So you don't hate Muslims for being Muslims?
And you don't dislike people of a different colour or race to you?

For the record Tommy, please
Just those two questions

In fairness, the poll still confirms that the vast majority of Muslims oppose IS. The most is in Syria, and that's less than quarter, in Iran its 0!

Of course the numbers are still concerning; but I imagine similar figures or greater would have been shown had we polled the Irish about IRA support during the troubles. Its a matter of perspective.

can we assume from that then that some 20% of these "refugees" are Isis supporters???????

Eilzel wrote:In fairness, the poll still confirms that the vast majority of Muslims oppose IS. The most is in Syria, and that's less than quarter, in Iran its 0!

Of course the numbers are still concerning; but I imagine similar figures or greater would have been shown had we polled the Irish about IRA support during the troubles. Its a matter of perspective.

Hi Eilzel

Say again?

Are you seriously making comparable the population of less than around 4 million people and the percentage of Irish support for the IRA to their vile bombings. To the total populations of Muslims over 1.5 billion Muslims to the tune of tens of millions actively supporting a group that advocates and pratcies slavery, rape, child abuse, executions of homosexuals, adulters, beheads people for sport etc?

Seriously mate?

Yes I am very glad the vast majority of Muslims are actually aginst this, that is very encouraging, what is not is the millions that do actually back and support all the vile things I have just said. Clearrly the narative in showing Islam is seperate from extremist Islmaism is failing and its concerning that Muslims themselves are not winning the war of what to them is the right Islam, they are losing badly, as more and more are being drawn to supporting ISIS

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I am very much in favour of Muslims being peaceful, and of them being fully respectful of and compliant to national and international laws, and of THEM integrating into the society and culture of the country that THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO MOVE INTO!!!


However... a condition of being a Muslim means that they must follow their guide book... Unfortunately this tells them that they must follow islamic law... tells them that they are superior to all other non Muslims... it tells them not to take Christians or jews as friends... it tells them to fight the non Muslims and force them to submit to Islam or die...

So can a Muslim really be peaceful,  law abiding and integrated while still being a Muslim...!?

So you don't hate Muslims for being Muslims?
And you don't dislike people of a different colour or race to you?

For the record Tommy, please
Just those two questions

I don't dislike anyone of a different colour or race to me because they are a different colour or race to me.

And Muslims tommy?

^didge, I was comparing in terms of % of population who support IRA/IS

Eilzel wrote:And Muslims tommy?

^didge, I was comparing in terms of % of population who support IRA/IS

Which again is not conmparable based on what they believe


They are miles removed mate

One backs violence against a civillian population over nationalism, the other backs and tried to emulate stories written about muhammad to bak them having slaves, rapining women and girls etc. Its not a comparrieon based off an actual real simularity, People backing violence is far removed from religious people backing things that have no reasoning at all, but a belief that they have a free pass to violate every human right possible

Sorry mate you would have to comparee nazi support of killing people in concentration camps to then have some comparability to the vileness of support for ISIS

Now I am tired so will catch up tomorrow

Night Eilzel

'And Muslims' what!?

Didge wrote:

Eilzel wrote:And Muslims tommy?

^didge, I was comparing in terms of % of population who support IRA/IS

Which again is not conmparable based on what they believe


They are miles removed mate

One backs violence against a civillian population over nationalism, the other backs and tried to emulate stories written about muhammad to bak them having slaves, rapining women and girls etc. Its not a comparrieon based off an actual real simularity, People backing violence is far removed from religious people backing things that have no reasoning at all, but a belief that they have a free pass to violate every human right possible

Sorry mate you would have to comparee nazi support of killing people in concentration camps to then have some comparability to the vileness of support for ISIS

It's a totally valid comparison based on two different extremist groups. You always do this, you look right past the point to seize on some difference that's immaterial to the argument someone's trying to make.

Tommy Monk wrote:'And Muslims' what!?

They have a different religion to you -- unless you have a stunning announcement to make ...

Do you dislike people of other religions?

I don't really have a religion... but I will dislike people who knowingly and willingly follow any evil ideology...

So tommy, when eddie asked:

"So you don't hate Muslims for being Muslims?"

You didn't give a direct answer because?

Define "Muslims"...?


Define what constitutes as "being Muslims"...?

Tommy Monk wrote:Define "Muslims"...?


Define what constitutes as "being Muslims"...?

Nobody can do that, you should know better. Nobody can define what it means to adhere to any religion, because everybody has a different (if only slightly) idea.

Welcome to the grown-up world.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which again is not conmparable based on what they believe


They are miles removed mate

One backs violence against a civillian population over nationalism, the other backs and tried to emulate stories written about muhammad to bak them having slaves, rapining women and girls etc. Its not a comparrieon based off an actual real simularity, People backing violence is far removed from religious people backing things that have no reasoning at all, but a belief that they have a free pass to violate every human right possible

Sorry mate you would have to comparee nazi support of killing people in concentration camps to then have some comparability to the vileness of support for ISIS

It's a totally valid comparison based on two different extremist groups. You always do this, you look right past the point to seize on some difference that's immaterial to the argument someone's trying to make.

It has zero comparrison, as already explained, where supporting a nationalist cause to the tune of supporting terroirism is vile, is far removed from supporting people who rape, enslave and behead people
So no Eilzel knows he made a ridiculous point, where again  the only comparability would be to poll the Germans during WW2. This is where the left are so cluless on, ISIS and its ideology, which is so far removed from anything like the IRA, who at least would in cases warn the public of ant attack, where as ISIS would not give a care in the world to shooting women or children. Do not get me wrong, as I more than anyone hate the IRA and have good reason to, but to compare them to ISIS is clutching at straws

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Which again is not conmparable based on what they believe


They are miles removed mate

One backs violence against a civillian population over nationalism, the other backs and tried to emulate stories written about muhammad to bak them having slaves, rapining women and girls etc. Its not a comparrieon based off an actual real simularity, People backing violence is far removed from religious people backing things that have no reasoning at all, but a belief that they have a free pass to violate every human right possible

Sorry mate you would have to comparee nazi support of killing people in concentration camps to then have some comparability to the vileness of support for ISIS

It's a totally valid comparison based on two different extremist groups. You always do this, you look right past the point to seize on some difference that's immaterial to the argument someone's trying to make.

It has zero comparrison, as already explained, where supporting a nationalist cause to the tune of supporting terroirism is vile, is far removed from supporting people who rape, enslave and behead people
So no Eilzel knows he made a ridiculous point, where again  the only comparability would be to poll the Germans during WW2. This is where the left are so cluless on, ISIS and its ideology, which is so far removed from anything like the IRA, who at least would in cases warn the public of ant attack, where as ISIS would not give a care in the world to shooting women or children. Do not get me wrong, as I more than anyone hate the IRA and have good reason to, but to compare them to ISIS is clutching at straws

You know as well as I do that extremism takes on different forms. While the IRA might have been purely nationalist in its face, you know as well as I do there was an undercurrent of religious strife that plenty of them tried to stoke. There were those who wanted to make it Catholics vs. Protestants; the major difference is that it wasn't successful, whereas in Islam, they've had more success in convincing dumb people that it's about religious differences.

Perhaps due to the vocal nature of our own dumbasses who say it's about religious differences?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


It has zero comparrison, as already explained, where supporting a nationalist cause to the tune of supporting terroirism is vile, is far removed from supporting people who rape, enslave and behead people
So no Eilzel knows he made a ridiculous point, where again  the only comparability would be to poll the Germans during WW2. This is where the left are so cluless on, ISIS and its ideology, which is so far removed from anything like the IRA, who at least would in cases warn the public of ant attack, where as ISIS would not give a care in the world to shooting women or children. Do not get me wrong, as I more than anyone hate the IRA and have good reason to, but to compare them to ISIS is clutching at straws

You know as well as I do that extremism takes on different forms. While the IRA might have been purely nationalist in its face, you know as well as I do there was an undercurrent of religious strife that plenty of them tried to stoke. There were those who wanted to make it Catholics vs. Protestants; the major difference is that it wasn't successful, whereas in Islam, they've had more success in convincing dumb people that it's about religious differences.

Perhaps due to the vocal nature of our own dumbasses who say it's about religious differences?

Stop talking nonsense, no IRA supporter would have backed beheading people, enslaving people, raping little girls ect. Can you not see how far removed that is? It has little to do with an religious doctrine either the IRA, where as ISIS is fundementally backed up by Islamic doctrine, hence why they are so far removed and why to even make a comparrison is in effect trying to down play the vileness of ISIS itself. The IRA were scum, but for people to support terrorism is disgusting, for people to support enslaving and raping girls, is another level altogether, and even worse actually be.lieve it is divenly approved. To the point again this is not in one country but support of millions in many Muslims countries. So the only real comparrison here would be to do so off catholics and if Catholics would have supported the IRA in the millions in Catholic countries and off a doctrine that allowed for terrorism.

In both cases there was no such situation, hence the claim to compare is beyond a joke

Sorry but it is and to compare somthing that is not comprable is attempting to excuse in my book

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


It has zero comparrison, as already explained, where supporting a nationalist cause to the tune of supporting terroirism is vile, is far removed from supporting people who rape, enslave and behead people
So no Eilzel knows he made a ridiculous point, where again  the only comparability would be to poll the Germans during WW2. This is where the left are so cluless on, ISIS and its ideology, which is so far removed from anything like the IRA, who at least would in cases warn the public of ant attack, where as ISIS would not give a care in the world to shooting women or children. Do not get me wrong, as I more than anyone hate the IRA and have good reason to, but to compare them to ISIS is clutching at straws

You know as well as I do that extremism takes on different forms. While the IRA might have been purely nationalist in its face, you know as well as I do there was an undercurrent of religious strife that plenty of them tried to stoke. There were those who wanted to make it Catholics vs. Protestants; the major difference is that it wasn't successful, whereas in Islam, they've had more success in convincing dumb people that it's about religious differences.

Perhaps due to the vocal nature of our own dumbasses who say it's about religious differences?

Stop talki nonsense, no IRA supporter would have backed beheading people, enslaving people, raping little girls ect. Can you not see how far removed that is? It has little to do with an religious doctrine either the IRA, where as ISIS is fundementally backed up by Islamic doctrine, hence why they are so far removed and why to even make a comparrison is in effect trying to down play the vileness of ISIS itself. The IRA were scum, but for people to support terrorism is disgusting, for people to support enslaving and raping girls, is another level altogether, and even worse actually be.lieve it is divenly approved. To the point again this is not in one country but support of millions in many Muslims countries. So the only real comparrison here would be to do so off catholics and if Catholics would have supported the IRA in the millions in Catholic countries and off a doctrine that allowed for terrorism.

In both cases there was no such situation, hence the claim to compare is beyond a joke

Sorry but it is and to compare somthing that is not comprable is attempting to excuse in my book

I'm just going to let what I said stand, we'll have to disagree on this point.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Stop talki nonsense, no IRA supporter would have backed beheading people, enslaving people, raping little girls ect. Can you not see how far removed that is? It has little to do with an religious doctrine either the IRA, where as ISIS is fundementally backed up by Islamic doctrine, hence why they are so far removed and why to even make a comparrison is in effect trying to down play the vileness of ISIS itself. The IRA were scum, but for people to support terrorism is disgusting, for people to support enslaving and raping girls, is another level altogether, and even worse actually be.lieve it is divenly approved. To the point again this is not in one country but support of millions in many Muslims countries. So the only real comparrison here would be to do so off catholics and if Catholics would have supported the IRA in the millions in Catholic countries and off a doctrine that allowed for terrorism.

In both cases there was no such situation, hence the claim to compare is beyond a joke

Sorry but it is and to compare somthing that is not comprable is attempting to excuse in my book

I'm just going to let what I said stand, we'll have to disagree on this point.

There is nothing to be glad about, I would be in your case and Eilzel embarressed over how it hardly even compares andc more to the point how people deflect to try to downplay these problems is what is actually problematic

My comparison was not ridiculous, nor am I embarrassed. Both IS and the IRA are terrorist groups. One is bigger and more barbaric but both are terrorist groups nonetheless.

I bet a considerable % of Irish people supported the IRA, even if not the majority. And a % of those supporting IS will do so for anti-western, anti-Assad reasons too. Not just religious. The comparison is fair then.

Eilzel wrote:My comparison was not ridiculous, nor am I embarrassed. Both IS and the IRA are terrorist groups. One is bigger and more barbaric but both are terrorist groups nonetheless.

I bet a considerable % of Irish people supported the IRA, even if not the majority. And a % of those supporting IS will do so for anti-western, anti-Assad reasons too. Not just religious. The comparison is fair then.

Sorry but it is tottally embarressing to compare a Catholic group to a Muslim group, whilst not including all Catholics into the equation. Not only that you are again failing to see the vast differences in views, where we see terrorism committed by many groups around the world, you will struggle though to find groups that also back slavery, child rape, sex slaves, etc. So there was little to no comparability in your claim, it is again  the worst regressive appeasement going failing to understand how and what is the motivating factors in each case.

Was I comparing size or deeds? Erm, no.

I'm comparing the number of people who would express sympathies or support for terrorists.

I doubt 21% of people in Syria actually support child rape and slavery didge. But you can express support for IS's military actions (which is still disgusting), without condoning child rape.

Eilzel wrote:Was I comparing size or deeds? Erm, no.

I'm comparing the number of people who would express sympathies or support for terrorists.

I doubt 21% of people in Syria actually support child rape and slavery didge. But you can express support for IS's military actions (which is still disgusting), without condoning child rape.

First point the comparrison would have to be based off religion for similaraity and comparability, so you would have to show how many Catholoics were sympathetic. As you are stacking the decks in your favour going off a nationality on its own and thus a small pool of people. You did not say compare Syria to Ireland on terrorism, which again the former would easily over shadow the later. So your first failing is off comparing one terrorist group based off nationality to compare to another based on religion

That is fundementally flawed

If you think they do not Eilzel it shows how far removed you are from again failing to understand that most of these aspects are being backed up by Islamic text in hadiths, so yes they will fundementally support all these acts and its not stopping people flocking to them either.

So if you want to make a true comparrison, if would have to be off an equal footing, nationality to nationality and religion to religion

"it's only a few"?

The bull shit statistics game?




"It says so in the Quran and must be modified"

Exactly the same words and tactics use by Mentor and Smelly Bandit.

That's just a fact. Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:"it's only a few"?

The bull shit statistics game?

Exactly the same words and tactics use by Mentor and Smelly Bandit.

That's just a fact. Lol!

That is the problem though its not a few but millions and again you use points on other postersnot here who are so far removed from my views to deflect away from this issue.
Millions is very problematic indeed

So not  a fact you just do as you always do, try to demonize the poster in the vain hope that will win the debate when not actually debating anything on the topic

Well you said earlier a fair comparison would be with Nazi Germany.

How so? When now you say it must be religion to religion or nationality to nationality.

I disagree regardless. All three can be compared in terms of looking at what % of people (in Ireland, Germany or Islamic nations) support terrorist actions.

Eilzel wrote:Well you said earlier a fair comparison would be with Nazi Germany.

How so? When now you say it must be religion to religion or nationality to nationality.

I disagree regardless. All three can be compared in terms of looking at what % of people (in Ireland, Germany or Islamic nations) support terrorist actions.

Becuase the German hate of the Jews was fundementally based off lutheranism.
You would then have a religious connection being that Germany was fundemnetally a Christian country and aspects of lutheranism is found in Nazism. Plus the fact many Christians were complicit in the Holocuast, with Romania Slovakia, Croatia etc

You can disagree all you like mate, you have not been able to either back up your point or even reason it with any rationality. Again we are talking about Muslims with no connection to Syria itself supporting ISIS and its barbaric ways, which shows you would have to show the same off catholics with the IRA, which if you did attempt to do, would show no comparrison at all. This is what happens when people try to downplay something with poor reasoning by deflecting off other terrorism, which does not even come close to the level or deaths and barbarity from Islamic terrorism

I have backed it well enough you are just being argumentative in an attempt to make this into your usual 'regressive appeasing leftie' routine.

There was, as Ben has mentioned, a major Catholics vs Protestants element to the Irish troubles too in any case.

Tommy Monk wrote:

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:


I am very much in favour of Muslims being peaceful, and of them being fully respectful of and compliant to national and international laws, and of THEM integrating into the society and culture of the country that THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO MOVE INTO!!!


However... a condition of being a Muslim means that they must follow their guide book... Unfortunately this tells them that they must follow islamic law... tells them that they are superior to all other non Muslims... it tells them not to take Christians or jews as friends... it tells them to fight the non Muslims and force them to submit to Islam or die...

So can a Muslim really be peaceful,  law abiding and integrated while still being a Muslim...!?

So you don't hate Muslims for being Muslims?
And you don't dislike people of a different colour or race to you?

For the record Tommy, please
Just those two questions

I don't dislike anyone of a different colour or race to me because they are a different colour or race to me.

Thank you Tommy

SO CAN EVERYONE PLEASE STOP SAYING THIS GUY IS A RACIST.

Thank you

If people don't say racist things no one will call them racist.

Those you perceive as racists are indeed PATRIOTS.

Those who keep spouting the racist word are a big danger to our island

Eilzel wrote:I have backed it well enough you are just being argumentative in an attempt to make this into your usual 'regressive appeasing leftie' routine.

There was, as Ben has mentioned, a major Catholics vs Protestants element to the Irish troubles too in any case.

No as seen I completely have shown why your reasoning is flawed. Either you learn to accept being wrong or you dot not Eilzel but you certainly made a regressive argumengt trying to downplay the siginicance of millions supporting a group that is enslaving women, rapint women and girls, throwing homosexuals off roofs, beheading people. You place that on a equal footing to supporting the IRA. Not only was it about the most ridiculous thing you have ever said, it fundementally is trying to deny that the vast difference what each groups aims and beliefs are. For you to say those who support ISIS may not back other things they do really shows how little you understand Islamic text that is fundementally being used to back their stance. All those who support such a group knowingly support everything about that group as this was on those favorable of ISIS.

Never read some much regressive babble in all my life

Stormee wrote:Those you perceive as racists are indeed PATRIOTS.

Those who keep spouting the racist word are a big danger to our island

You are a racist and a danger to society to have and hold such views.
You are what is classed as an extremist who holds dderisive views that wish to divide society
In my book you are no different to any other extremist