Branyy

I also think it must've been targeted. Same thing happened to my neighbour last year, tools stolen, 2 men in some jeep, 4am on weekday, S6 area. Parking lot was locked behind the gate. Anyway, write a list of missing things and post it here if possible.

Apparently, that's just your interpretation. One of many. And sadly, many are contradicting your.

Attacker is 27 yo Syrian who was refused asylum a year ago.

Another sad story from France: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36837108 And again, attacker is 37 yo Mohamed and has a police record for petty crimes over the past 15 years. "Some media reports suggest the family was targeted for being too lightly dressed."

Attacker came to Germany as a refugee (alone), was shouting "Allahu Akbar" during the attack and ISIS flag has been found in his room. Source: Die Welt.

However, "clinically proven" (as the ad says) seems like a false statement.

Yes. But this particular religion was related to the original topic.

I see where this discussion is going so I will post a summary: "Sunni: Shia are not true Muslim Shia: Sunni are not true Muslim. Sunni & Shia : Ahmadi are not true Muslim. Sunni & Shia: Suffis are not true Muslim. Salafist Sunni : Every Muslim should be a terrorist. Sunni Jihadi : Shia Jihadi are not true Jihadi. Shia Jihadi : Sunni Jihadi is not a true Jihadi. Moderate Muslim: Jihadis are not true Muslim. Jihadis: Moderate Muslim are not true Muslim. Conclusion: No Muslim is a true Muslim, and no Muslim represents real Islam, and every Muslim thinks himself the true Muslim while the other is not. And finally what the real Islam is? Nobody knows. But when you say something negative about Islam, All kind of "muslims" will tell you how dare you criticize the faith of 1.6 billion Muslim? ... They suddenly become 1.6 billion Muslim? I wonder how many of those 1.6 billion are considered "True Muslim"?"

I haven't spend much time here but I'm already tired of this forum. Deleting posts without obvious reason and moreover - no explanation. Whoever is moderating this, he does very poor job. The posts above were constructive (or at least very informative) and both sides of the argument contributed to the discussion.

Yeah, but then one would have to arrange, organise, advertise and pay for <removed> Yelling Lessons" and that's too much of a hassle

Just a thought - would be a sterilisation such a bad thing to consider? I know it's extreme but there already have been cases of law ordered sterilisation of men.

I don't know why my comment has been removed (mod, please explain) but I'll try to rephrase what I wrote: I've already reached that point - I don't react to them, I don't take harassing personal and actually I can't be less personal, since I don't care about their lives at all.

I totally agree with this.

I personally think that Omar's Mateen claims of "membership" to any of those organisation isn't that significant. The problem is their common ideology which they all (including Omar) share. And I have many reasons to believe that it was this ideology which finally has led him to the attack.

What is your suggestion then? To give them enough money to keep their habit (and eventually keep increasing the dosage)? Also, they are violent while sober AND drunk. Actually, they are more reckless while drunk.

I think that was his point, wasn't it? If terrorists among US muslims pose a threat why increase the risk by allowing more muslims into US?

I will repeat myself, but check the crime rates. These are facts and no one can blame it on prejudice Now some say that few streets are better, few streets are worse. But I personally would be interested in the area as a whole. It's not much of a win if I live on a single nice street and have to walk through dump to get there.

I'd stay away from that. I really don't think it's typical suburban area. "Bad area" might be relative, let's just look at the crime map statistics then. That also tells something.

Well, all of them have been suspended/resigned so it seems that the party actually despises those views.

I guess their criticism isn't targeted at specific race/religion rather than individual issues (which happen to be characteristic for muslims).

I think the most important bit of that equality law article is this one: "...the hairdresser cannot refuse to do this unless the hairdresser reasonably believes it would be impracticable. " So I guess it's up to him to provide reasons for why he thought so.

I just want to point out that safety is not just about the risk of terrorist attack. At least to me. It is also about the principles and laws that country holds. Most importantly about the respect for human rights in the country. For this reason, I personally can't acknowledge any muslim country as safe, even just to holiday. (Including Saudi Arabia).

Yes, you're probably right. We don't posses any official claim from NHS Trust. And it has been stated the the incident hasn't been made public (in 2013). So what we have are Rogosov's allegations, you call it unreliable. And then we have some Mr. Culik's allegations. Are these supposed to be reliable? Well, NHS confirmed those, as the investigation against Dr. Rogosov is ongoing. But NHS hasn't deny or confirm Rogosov's allegations yet. My question is - if the incidents reported by Dr. Rogosov have happened, should have NHS (or hospital) made them public? Should they make comments (confirm or deny) on this incidents now? I think they should make a clear statement. What do you think?

Here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/nhs/12185567/Hospital-suspends-consultant-who-stopped-surgeon-operating-while-wearing-headscarf.html

... sigh... I wasn't mentioning suspension. I was talking about the headscarf issue. So, consultant Rogozov is also a doctor with good reputation and excellent achievements. But you don't trust his complaints. But you trust complaints of some other guy against him. I see you trust only information which already support your opinion and discard everything else. You shouldn't be so bigoted and prejudiced.