Credo

I'll start by saying that I haven't got a clear idea of how many Muslims are terrorists or support Muslim terrorism. Of "evidence" presented, it can be said that most assessments are crude and, to a degree, reflect a bias, one way or the other. Opinion poles are also somewhat suspect, as they are quite easy to be faulted for phrasing and cultural differences.

So while repeated assurances that "they are not the majority" are probably correct, this is hardly the claim that needs to be countered. A dedicated minority can trump a passive majority. Furthermore, things are probably not as clear cut as that - there are many ways to express support, sympathy, approval and the like. People may be for one thing, but not for the other and so on and so forth. Not necessarily a state of dichotomy with pro/con terrorism being the only options and only shades existing. So when something like "Are you seriously suggesting that 392.5 million of them are terrorist murderers or supporters of same?" is brought up, might as well retort with "are you seriously suggesting that 1.175 billion of them are humanistic pacifists...etc?".

Excuse me if I do not buy into that as well. IMO, most references to this question are either based on unreliable assessments, posters anecdotal experience and sheer bias (all cut both ways).

What is considered as "radicalizing" for ordinary Muslims? Relating that there are terrorist attacks carried out by Muslims? Ignoring that there are Muslim institutions and leaders facilitating this? We do not talk about Fight Club. Right.

Now lets see how this works the other way around, non-Muslims are attacked, some of the are even being attacked for crimes of other non-Muslims, they are being demonized ("Racists!","Bigots!", "Islamophobes"), and marginalized (criminally, politically and socially). Keeping at it will only "radicalize" more of them etc......do you really want to act as a recruitment sergeant for UKIP?

There were and there are many immigrants in Europe who did not turn to terrorism even after being attacked, demonized and marginalized. How come suddenly signing up with IS (or the current flavor of the month terrorist outfit) became a default option?

I have quite a few Muslim friends and a lot of them do support terrorism. The situation is that they only support terrorism against whom they perceive as their enemy. Most of them aren't very political, so they didn't support the 9/11 attacks or the British bombings. They do support terror attacks on Israel and on Jews. They also support terrorist attacks against Shiite Muslims and Mosques.

These are people who are relatively moderate in their religious practices. Personally, they would not be involved in terrorism. They just don't see anything wrong with these things happening to their enemies.

How many are like that, I don't know, but I suspect a lot.

I certainly hope that the intelligence services of a lot of countries are watching very carefully.

They can drive everyday, but on even days they drive on the left side of the road and on odd days on the right side.

I think the global travel alert has greater significance for those in the airline industry and other transport companies and probably means increased screening etc..

Leaving the Muslims to it in their own land is not a workable solution. First of all, we don't live in that kind of a world. We don't live where isolation works well. It's a fast moving world with airplanes and the internet.

From a demographic point of view, the Muslim lands are usually rocky, arid, relatively unproductive regions that cannot feed themselves in light of the massive population growth they experience. Even huge numbers leaving and emigrating elsewhere along with some of the most deadly wars (Iran-Iraq war, for example) do not dent this huge growth.

In many of the countries now experiencing tension, and I do mean tension, because not all of them are a major conflict area, the population growth is very unequal between Muslims and other religions.

Some of the root problems have to be addressed. Either an understanding of how to live together or a harsher approach. Neither side feels particularly inclined to leave each other alone. We aren't set to leave the ME alone (support for Israel by the US and support for Palestine by countries from the EU) and they aren't inclined to leave us alone as we are infidels.

I think until there is a large reduction of human numbers, we are in for a protracted problem.

I would really prefer to be a liberal. But in the face of Islamic Jihad being a liberal makes you dead. It's time for Europe to wake up to that. It's probably TOO LATE though.

I don't think this is a liberal vs. conservative situation. I am pretty liberal and I believe in freedom of speech. People that don't respect the basic liberties should be dealt with under the law.

If they need to be deported, then deport them, if possible. If they need to be incarcerated, then jail them. If you can't jail them, then get them the mental health services that they need, preferably in a locked institution. Those inciting violence, preaching violence and encouraging violence should be held accountable, including charges for assisting in the commission of a crime.

All people are equal. It's just that some are more equal than others.

The French should sell the ships to China and China can sell them to Russia.....oh, wait....Russia doesn't have any money.

So, you don't even have to be a country to join?

They might want to be careful. I can't wait for the Kurds to decide they want to join. There was Kurdistan at one point in time.

I am sure there are others that will be happy to join as well.

I wonder if he had as much fun as Harry did in Las Vegas.

I haven't driven in the US for quite a while, but while traveling through the US and Canada, it's pretty safe. Good roads, well designed and reasonably good law enforcement.

Mexico is not nearly as nice for driving.

But this is about guns deaths which seem steady and car accidents which seem to be decreasing. At least amongst the 15 - 24 year olds. That is a pretty dangerous age range to begin with. Young people, especially men, tend to die at high rate during those ages.

The well armed groups I was referring to are the drug dealers. I very much doubt that the majority of illegals crossing in search of work are what would be considered as well-armed. They may be desperate and the organizers are often well-armed. It's difficult at night to figure out if they are drug dealers or not.

Mexico is most certainly not the cause of the US drug problem or the problem of guns. They are the transit area for many factors that contribute to a dangerous situation.

What country should you compare it to. I don't know. Most countries are unique and even if you do find a reasonable comparison, it won't change the minds of many of the people posting here nor the majority of the people in the US.

Prince Andrew may have been secretly filmed with underage girl he is alleged to have abused

By Matthew Drake

Prince Andrew’s tycoon pal may have taken compromising photos of him with the underage girl he is alleged to have abused.

Details buried in original court papers filed against pervert Jeffrey Epstein, 61, reveal that he recorded the sordid orgies he threw for VIPs at his luxury homes using cameras hidden in the walls of guest bedrooms.

Read More: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-andrew-been-secretly-filmed-4915421

--Daily Mirror 2015-01-03

I can hardly wait for his video collection to make it to the internet.

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

They are very different countries with very different populations. The US is diverse and includes numerous ethic and racial groups. Japan is relatively homogeneous. The US is connected to Mexico on the South and Mexico is a well armed country with a fair number of illegals crossing the border. Japan is an island. Drugs being smuggled into the US are done so with well armed groups, this is less of a problem in Japan.

If you have fewer guns, at least if you could have a lot fewer guns, then there would most likely be fewer gun deaths, but the comparison you are using is not the best.

So it's all the fault of those nasty Mexicans; you need your guns to defend yourselves from them?

I see you can't have a reasonable discussion on any subject. At no time did I make a statement that Mexican's were the problem.

<snip>It would be interesting to do a non-emotional and logical/mathematical analysis of benefits and costs of private weapons by sourcing figures from a country with reasonable gun control, i.e. concealed and home weapons granted only to "responsible good citizens". Do the US qualify?

Japan has one of the toughest gun control regimes in the world; so let's have a look.

Country vs country: Japan and United States compared: Crime stats

You will see that in almost every category; especially violent crimes such as homicide, rape, assault, etc., the US comes of worse.

So maybe there is something in the American psyche which makes them violent and so Americans do need their guns to protect themselves from their violent fellow citizens; or perhaps the fewer guns people have, the less violent crime there is.

I think it's the latter.

They are very different countries with very different populations. The US is diverse and includes numerous ethic and racial groups. Japan is relatively homogeneous. The US is connected to Mexico on the South and Mexico is a well armed country with a fair number of illegals crossing the border. Japan is an island. Drugs being smuggled into the US are done so with well armed groups, this is less of a problem in Japan.

If you have fewer guns, at least if you could have a lot fewer guns, then there would most likely be fewer gun deaths, but the comparison you are using is not the best.

If they didn't have permission to fly, then how did they get permission to take off and why did they ask for permission to deviate from a flight path that they didn't have permission to have.

A ridiculous 'mistake' to make from a 'top' UK publisher!!! Denying the truth (facts), never helped anyone's 'education'!

It's only a matter of time until they start publishing for the Thai Ministry of Education.

You mean all this talk about taking Israel to the ICC and they hadn't gotten around to joining yet?

Does this mean that the Palestinian controlled areas will follow the rules of the ICC?

It is sad, but not unexpected, to see that the usual suspects are showing their lack of compassion for people, many of whom are refugees fleeing for their lives, seeking a better life who have been taken advantage of by unscrupulous people smugglers.

I hope that those posters never find themselves in a similar position.

You mean like some of the people in Thailand who use illegal means and bribery to get a visa?

Oh, no, that's different, isn't it?