You said that there was no evidence, I'm just proving that there is.

Do you have the same data for non Islam related attacks?

Can we have it broken down by "caused by western governments interfering for their own benefit" please?

Oh, it's just the full list.

Unless its longer back than I thought, I dont believe the Paris attack is on your list.

Please could you redo it.

I've broken it down into list of people who were killed and had any involvement in the cause that the specific nutter carried out his attack on behalf of. I came up with zero.

No, what was asked for was evidence for statements like:

1. All (or most) Muslims support Islam terrorism.

2. In the Koran, there are incitements to kill non-believers, therefore Muslims all believe that this is what they should do.

Where is the evidence for either of these opinions (both of which you've stated several times).
Listing a heap of Islamic terrorist incidents, isn't evidence for either. It is only evidence that a heap of Islamic terrorist incidents have occurred.

Not understanding what counts as evidence is very dangerous. It can lead to violence against innocent people. You have to say what your evidence is for (1) and (2), not simply give evidence for Islamist terrorist attacks.

Well, that is just not true, I'm afraid. I remember them and others will.

How could the Nice thread possibly have been a dispute about what you're now claiming, when no-one at all ever asked for proof that ISIS-related atrocities had occurred? I distinctly recall your making the comment about 'what all Muslims would answer', and Fatman replying :"You don't know what they would answer. That's the point"

Why don't you do the decent thing and say you no longer believe what you once did, if that's true? Everyone makes mistakes after all.

You previously stated that there were far more Muslim extremists than people on here would give credence to. How many do you think there are and have you got evidence to back that up.

You also cherry picked a quote from the Qur'an on the previous Nice thread.

I'm not claiming anything, you are misrepresenting what I have said. You're not the first.

For example:

I said ' A majority of uk Muslims would support Britain being a islamic state under sharia law'
Twisted version: Most UK muslims support Islamic state.

And your point is? you would have preferred an entire chapter would you?

Implied? Subjective accusations again. No, I have not said that, I have said that they support Britain being an Islamic state, not to be confused with 'islamic state'

I would have preferred similar passages from many of the other religious texts which also espouse violence toward non believers.

What evidence do you have that a majority of Muslims would like the UK to be an Islamic state under Sharia Law?

Mr I
1) could you please make your list more readable by transposing it onto an Excel spreadsheet, and ensure the Macro's and Googlebumps are set correctly so the Data is legible! Then we can all have an unreasoned argument!
2) Nothing is a fact in the Interweb unless it is a (highlighted) FACT. FACT!!!

How do you fancy this statement:

100'000 British Muslims believe that Suicide bombing is a justified way to fight perceived political issues and sympathise with Jihadi attacks.

Not my words, the words of this

https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content ... opline.pdf

For fucks sake, talk about bastard football, he said, she said bollocks, who gives a shit, the season starts soon and we have the ups and downs of that to chunter about.

I believe higher twats hartlepool is the place for politics, religion etc hth.

Or food, soup dejoure, fave films etc

That survey has been heavily criticised as it was poorly implemented and s

http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_570ba ... 55639d65a9

Even then it says a quarter, not a majority.

That survey also disputes your theory that "A majority of uk Muslims would support Britain being a islamic state under sharia law"... According to that survey only 23% of British Muslims would support the introduction of Sharia law.

Plus those who wouldn't oppose it.

What about the 100'000, don't they matter and of course it would be heavily criticised, it doesn't fit in with the accepted view.