Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
My cuz, who's just back from Afghanistan and was previously a prison guard, thinks these two are prison converts to Islam and were radicalized inside prison, he says there are Islamic kingpins operating inside the major UK prisons who convert young black prisoners to the cause and brainwash them on the inside.

It would certainly explain the accents and the 'our lands' refers to the already muslim nations.






Seriously, feth this religion.

I have seen this and heard about this happening directly as well. Not just young blacks but whites as well. I opine that with a lot of hatred already amongst prisoners for things such as law and order it is easy to nudge some of them towards radical path way. It isnt about religion either as individuals with enough problems will latch onto something to justify their own actions.

Not just in prisons is this happening either.

 Casey's Law wrote:
Like so many others this story has really, deeply upset me. I hadn't really figured out how to deal with it yet in my own mind so I figured I'd see what Dakka had to say. I was hoping for some heart felt condolences to those directly effect and a little intelligent back and forth about where we go from here.

I'm truly disgusted to my core by the misinformed and unintelligent racism, condoning of violence and entirely medieval attitudes expressed here. So much so I vomited in my mouth a little.

I'm completely shocked that all this thread has really done is made the story more depressing. -1 for my faith in the average man. I really can't express how upsetting this is. My thoughts are with the family and friends right now.

I'll remember to find another forum of discusion in future for such important and serious matters.

From your thread count I'm amazed that you are amazed at this tread.....I mean it's actually pretty tame for Dakka.

I don't see anyone here being racist. Muslims and by default Muslim terrorists come in the full rainbow of colors. The Boston bombers were Caucasian, like form the Caucuses Caucasian, you don't get much more Caucasian than that.

Now, you could say they are being ignorant, but the numbers do point to there being and overwhelmingly amount more terrorists that ascribe to being Muslim than other religions. Is it the religions fault or does it have to do more with the cultures that embrace Islam. I don't know the answer, but the numbers are the numbers.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Sebster - ah yes, ad hominem attacks. "Bonkers crazy nonsense", accusations of being unable to perform basic math etc etc.

I never said you weren't able to perform basic math, I simply pointed out that you weren't doing it. I'd love it if you were to do the maths, and figure out how, with a billion muslims, you either end up with a ratio that makes it fair to criticise all Muslims (but produces a number of total terrorists in the millions, and you'd have to wonder how lazy the must be to perform so many acts each year), or you end up with a sensible number of actual terrorists and terrorist sympathisers, and produce a ratio that makes any attempt to make this an issue inflicted on all muslims as complete nonsense.

And yeah, as long as you don't do the maths and keep pretending it isn't true, I'll keep calling your claims 'bonkers crazy nonsense', because that's what you call things that can't be reconciled with the basic numbers of the situation.

You "have" the Koran (but have not read it). You've "taken a few uni classes" (and I am assuming still are in uni).

I have read the Koran. And your assumption is out by more than ten years.

You're simply outclassed in this debate, "mate".

Wow. Normally it's only after days of debate, when the argument has completely collapsed that people try the 'nuh uh I win' thing. Trying that after like three posts might be a new low for the internet.

There are thousands of terrorist attacks committed by Muslims each year. Fortunately, most of it is against other Muslims in Muslim countries. You ought to do a little more research.

You think I don't know the numbers?

I can tell you that after the Taliban, the groups responsible for the second and third most number of terrorist attacks were the Communist Party of India, and FARC. Now, in case you know nothing about the Maoist in India or FARC in Columbia, I'll give the cheatnote version for this thead - they ain't Muslims.

And if you want to measure it by fatalities, well then you've got the Taliban at number 1 again, then two Islamic groups operating in Iraq, and then the Lord's Resistance Army and then those Maoists in India again. In case you don't know, the Lord's Resistance Army are Christian.

And in case you're actually letting any of that sink in, you should start to realise that what connects all those groups isn't religion, because two of them don't have one and another group are Christian, but the nature of the countries they are in - politically unstable countries with histories of violence and/or human rights abuses.

So it turns out there's nothing as simple as an evil book making this happen, but instead terrorism is the product of failed human systems in a complex world.

But it's ok, I've gotten into this with enough people to see that there is nothing I can do or say that will convince you where overwhelming evidence will not. All I can say is that once you are out of your early 20s, hopefully you will outgrow your blind idealism.

Really, that's it? No response to my argument that most people basically just look after their families, and that anything outside of that, for good or for evil, is unusual? Just some empty assertion that I must be an idealist in my 20s? That's just fething lazy man.

I'll leave you with this -

Yeah, well done. Never mind the same stuff exists in the bible, or any other book of faith.

 Mr. Burning wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
My cuz, who's just back from Afghanistan and was previously a prison guard, thinks these two are prison converts to Islam and were radicalized inside prison, he says there are Islamic kingpins operating inside the major UK prisons who convert young black prisoners to the cause and brainwash them on the inside.

It would certainly explain the accents and the 'our lands' refers to the already muslim nations.






Seriously, feth this religion.

I have seen this and heard about this happening directly as well. Not just young blacks but whites as well. I opine that with a lot of hatred already amongst prisoners for things such as law and order it is easy to nudge some of them towards radical path way. It isnt about religion either as individuals with enough problems will latch onto something to justify their own actions.

Not just in prisons is this happening either.

We have the same thing in the US with the Nation of Islam. Which is a whole other issue. Malcolm X was a part of the Nation of Islam, then he went to Mecca and changed his whole thought process after discovering what he called real Islam. Which for him seamed like a real positive influence, so again, I think it's hard to blame Islam for all the terrorists. Even so, there still seams to be some correlation between Islam and terrorists, but it could be a million other factors too.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
You know the first time I heard "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims." I kind of laughed at the ignorance of it. But more and more...........

But that isn't true, not all terrorists are muslims. One could say 'the only terrorist incidents that get reported in mainstream, Western media are those committed by Muslims', though.

Just read this report;
http://www.visionofhumanity.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/2012-Global-Terrorism-Index-Report1.pdf

It's sad because personally I know a lot of Muslims that would never hurt anybody.

That real world experience is probably a lot more important than the skewed image provided by single media events.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Sure, let's go toe to toe. Bible vs. Koran. Bring it on. Let's do this. I can do it all day. Go on. Find quotes from Jesus or any of the Apostles advocating violence. I'll be here waiting.

Oh look, weasel words. First you say the Bible, and then you qualify your request by saying the quote can come only from Jesus or the Apostles.

Those kinds of little tricks might fly elsewhere, but we aren't idiots here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

And, NO, I am not a Christian. But all religions are NOT equal.

No, they probably aren't all equal, but the concept of trying to assign values to one religion or another is beyond stupid, and the kind of thing someone could only try if they really, really don't understand how religion works.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Huh. Funny. I graduated with a degree in Political Science from one of the top 10 universities in the world.

Political science? Oh I am sorry. Perhaps that's why you're so angry?

Morning everyone, just a few bits of news about the story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10073910/Woolwich-attack-terrorist-proclaimed-an-eye-for-an-eye-after-attack.html

Now confirmed as a member of the Army and security is being beefed up throughout the capital.

Last night there were demonstrations by the English Defence League (EDL) and there were also several attacks on mosques in the night.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329290/Woolwich-attack-More-100-English-Defence-League-supporters-gather-near-scene-killing.html

David is leading COBRA this morning.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/23/woolwich-attack-david-cameron-cobra-meeting

That real world experience is probably a lot more important than the skewed image provided by single media events.

Oh absolutely. I've personally met more wackos and violent wackos that use the bible to legitimize their views (more so since I moved to Alabama, so glad to be leaving soon). While I wouldn't call them terrorists, they are not far off. But still even taking skewed coverage into account the are a lot of terrorists that are Muslim.

Look, any book can be corrupted. The clan uses the bible, and I can tell you Jesus was not a WASP!

Last night there were demonstrations by the English Defence League (EDL) and there were also several attacks on mosques in the night.

See now this is the crap I'm talking about.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
We have the same thing in the US with the Nation of Islam. Which is a whole other issue. Malcolm X was a part of the Nation of Islam, then he went to Mecca and changed his whole thought process after discovering what he called real Islam. Which for him seamed like a real positive influence, so again, I think it's hard to blame Islam for all the terrorists. Even so, there still seams to be some correlation between Islam and terrorists, but it could be a million other factors too.

Weirdly enough, the Nation of Islam isn't really an Islamic group. The rituals of Islam are not required (no prostrations at prayer, fasting of Ramadan is optional etc), and I don't believe there are any major Islamic groups that recognise the Nation of Islam as an Islamic group (and some that outright reject them).

Instead, the NOI can be seen as yet another hate group formed as an unfortunate by-product of oppressed people. And, sadly, it shows that once such a hate group is formed, it is likely to live on after the original oppression is largely removed.

 sebster wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
We have the same thing in the US with the Nation of Islam. Which is a whole other issue. Malcolm X was a part of the Nation of Islam, then he went to Mecca and changed his whole thought process after discovering what he called real Islam. Which for him seamed like a real positive influence, so again, I think it's hard to blame Islam for all the terrorists. Even so, there still seams to be some correlation between Islam and terrorists, but it could be a million other factors too.

Weirdly enough, the Nation of Islam isn't really an Islamic group. The rituals of Islam are not required (no prostrations at prayer, fasting of Ramadan is optional etc), and I don't believe there are any major Islamic groups that recognise the Nation of Islam as an Islamic group (and some that outright reject them).

Instead, the NOI can be seen as yet another hate group formed as an unfortunate by-product of oppressed people. And, sadly, it shows that once such a hate group is formed, it is likely to live on after the original oppression is largely removed.

Yeah that's kind of my point. A lot of stuff gets blamed on Islam. I don't believe the blame really lies there. I don't think Islam necessarily creates terrorists, more like terrorists may be drawn to it, or use it. Catcher in the rye isn't about killing people, but for some reason assassins are drawn to that book.

NOI has about as much to do with Islam as the Klan has to do with Christianity.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Oh absolutely. I've personally met more wackos and violent wackos that use the bible to legitimize their views (more so since I moved to Alabama, so glad to be leaving soon). While I wouldn't call them terrorists, they are not far off. But still even taking skewed coverage into account the are a lot of terrorists that are Muslim.

Sure, a lot of the attacks are, and the number of violent attacks even more so. But not all are, not by a long shot, and if you take the time to look at the perpetrators of the attacks, what you see overwhelmingly isn't a faith, but chronic political instability and failed states. Some Islamic terror groups have globalised and spread that violence out in to the West, and this has massively changed how terrorism and Islam is seen here, while the reality of terrorism remains crazy donkey-caves of all kinds of persuasions* blowing up unfortunate people in incidents we never even hear about.

Look, any book can be corrupted. The clan uses the bible, and I can tell you Jesus was not a WASP!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah that's kind of my point. A lot of stuff gets blamed on Islam. I don't believe the blame really lies there. I don't think Islam necessarily creates terrorists, more like terrorists may be drawn to it, or use it. Catcher in the rye isn't about killing people, but for some reason assassins are drawn to that book.

Well, you look at the middle east, and you see a load of politically unstable countries. No surprise that you'd see plenty of terrorism there. And no surprise that terrorism spikes when countries get a lot less stable, like say Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years. The LRA in Uganda and surrounding countries, or FARC in Columbia have been fed by local instability just the same.

What's different about Islamic terror, I think, is the conviction that their problems are caused by the West and that attacking us will somehow solve them, or be some kind of revenge. And so recruiting local donkey-caves becomes an organisational goal, and then setting off a bomb at the Boston marathon becomes a media event in a way that, say, derailing a train in India never would be.

And I think everyone ends up wanting to shoot Holden Caulfield by the end of that book. He's only fictional, so someone else will have to do.

NOI has about as much to do with Islam as the Klan has to do with Christianity.

Yeah, that's a really good analogy.

I guess, what iIm trying to say is blaming Islam for violence is like blaming guns for violence. Certain people in certain situations are drawn to things. It's not the "things" fault. Granted the base nature of a gun is violence, but it does not necessarily need to be used for such, and no I'm not saying Islams base nature is violence.

Well, you look at the middle east, and you see a load of politically unstable countries. No surprise that you'd see plenty of terrorism there. And no surprise that terrorism spikes when countries get a lot less stable, like say Iraq and Afghanistan over the last ten years. The LRA in Uganda and surrounding countries, or FARC in Columbia have been fed by local instability just the same.

What's different about Islamic terror, I think, is the conviction that their problems are caused by the West and that attacking us will somehow solve them, or be some kind of revenge. And so recruiting local donkey-caves becomes an organisational goal, and then setting off a bomb at the Boston marathon becomes a media event in a way that, say, derailing a train in India never would be.
.

Yeah, but its strange though that it just happens to always be Islamic countries that are so unstable. Not exclusively obviously. But Islam does seam to bring violence and chaos to regions, that cause them to be unstable. Now again it could just be other factors, but I'm just calling them as I see them. It seams that once a population becomes heavily influenced by Islam, it becomes unstable. Now it could also be the inverse, where Islam becomes a heavy influence because of instability.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Its the fact that its Islam which has allowed this to happen, would they have done this if they were not muslim?

edit: And its these conflicting opinions which is why the world is so we will never find agreement.

There are Hindu terrorists, Christian terrorists, and atheist terrorists, as well as Muslim terrorists.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I guess, what iIm trying to say is blaming Islam for violence is like blaming guns for violence. Certain people in certain situations are drawn to things. It's not the "things" fault. Granted the base nature of a gun is violence, but it does not necessarily need to be used for such, and no I'm not saying Islams base nature is violence.

True, I think when people have some things going wrong in their lives, and need for a cause, then they often find it in extremist religion.

Yeah, but its strange though that it just happens to always be Islamic countries that are so unstable. Not exclusively obviously. But Islam does seam to bring violence and chaos to regions, that cause them to be unstable. Now again it could just be other factors, but I'm just calling them as I see them. It seams that once a population becomes heavily influenced by Islam, it becomes unstable. Now it could also be the inverse, where Islam becomes a heavy influence because of instability.

Looking at the middle east, I've got a hard time saying it was a religion that's caused all that instability. There are underlying economic and social factors, and a lot of history leading to these issues.

I mean perhaps in some countries it could be argued that Islamic principles have hurt economic growth, and that decline compared to elsewhere in the world has led to a fall in power and then to instability, but I think that might even be something of a stretch (as in most cases the poor economic growth is tied to weak governments).

 sebster wrote:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Huh. Funny. I graduated with a degree in Political Science from one of the top 10 universities in the world.

Political science? Oh I am sorry. Perhaps that's why you're so angry?

I laughed a lot at this, thanks.

I'm very surprised that there hasn't been any more "revenge" attacks in the night. I think this could definitely be the catalyst that some very angry people needed. Certainly when I heard it made my blood boil, so certain elements in our country must be apoplectic.

I'm posting this again, as I think this guy made some very good points.

Muslim organisations have failed to teach young people that there is a democratic route to express discontent, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

Asghar Bukhari said that while organisations are "rightly" condemning the suspected terror attack in Woolwich, they have "washed their hands" of the youth.

But he also blamed the government for failing to admit that there is a link between foreign policy and radicalisation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634095

Good interview, thanks Medium of Death for that contribution. Why do young Muslims feel that they can't express their anger in a constructive manner? They live in our society, where every month or so there are demonstrations etc about a wide variety of social issues. The masses just get angry and less understanding and will begin to tar everyone with the same brush. The attacks on mosques being a case in point. We're on a slippery slope indeed.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Well if you cherry pick the bible and skip the whole first testament, it actually comes off as a pretty peaceful book. The old testament however.......some pretty evil stuff in there.

Yea:
Old Testament - badass angry young Dad God thats a little high strung with his first kid.
New Testament - older Dad God who's had many children, and just wants everyone to graduate high school already and get out so he can play ball with the Great Wienerdog without someone asking him for keys to the family car.

 uk_crow wrote:
Good interview, thanks Medium of Death for that contribution. Why do young Muslims feel that they can't express their anger in a constructive manner? They live in our society, where every month or so there are demonstrations etc about a wide variety of social issues. The masses just get angry and less understanding and will begin to tar everyone with the same brush. The attacks on mosques being a case in point. We're on a slippery slope indeed.

There are plenty of young muslims who don't have anger, because they are integrate into British society and have good jobs and so on.

There are plenty of young muslims who can express anger in a constructive manner. Look at the current campaign against female genital mutilation.

Conversely, if there are attacks on mosques, that would show there are non-muslim Britons who are unable to express their anger in a constructive manner.

They saying what the chances for a retaliatory killing from happening?

People see the inaction of the Muslim community as a sign of acceptance, even if it isn't. People attack Muslims not because their faith tells them to, but because of the way the radical elements conduct themselves. It's not like we have organised Christian mobs descending on Mosques. You could probably define them as "Christian" in that loose catch all sense, but they certainly aren't using the words of the bible to justify their retribution. They most certainly aren't being guided by a Priest/Minister/Bishop/Whatever. Hate, Anger and Fear are all they need.

LEO not protecting the Mosuqe?

 Medium of Death wrote:
I'm very surprised that there hasn't been any more "revenge" attacks in the night. I think this could definitely be the catalyst that some very angry people needed. Certainly when I heard it made my blood boil, so certain elements in our country must be apoplectic.

I'm posting this again, as I think this guy made some very good points.

Muslim organisations have failed to teach young people that there is a democratic route to express discontent, according to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee.

Asghar Bukhari said that while organisations are "rightly" condemning the suspected terror attack in Woolwich, they have "washed their hands" of the youth.

But he also blamed the government for failing to admit that there is a link between foreign policy and radicalisation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22634095

Ahhhhhh yes, I saw Bukhari on the BBC... I've little time for him myself.

During the Gaza War, Bukhari wrote in a Facebook thread: "Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are 'Mujahadeen' and are blessed by Allah. And any Muslim who fights and dies against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise ... There is no greater oppressor on this earth than the Zionists, who murder little children for sport."

In 2006, Bukhari had sent David Irving a £60 cheque and a letter headed with a quote from John Locke, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to stand idle".[2] This was reported in The Observer as David Irving had made statements in the past supporting Holocaust Denial.

And I noted his repeated insistence during the interview in getting a 'the west brought this on it's self' snipe in about wars in the Middle East, which is also what the fether with the hatchet was saying with his hands covered in that young man's blood.

Guys confirmed known to the security services due to their radical views, but weren't under direct surveillance.

EDIT:

I think we should remove ourselves from these conflicts, it isn't doing us any good, isn't winning us any friends and is costing an absolute gakload. Unfortunately I wasn't aware that the speaker on the BBC held some questionable views. In saying that I agreed with most of his sentiments (during the BBC interview), however I think the "we brought this on ourselves" is a bit nebulous. It could really be applied to anything, if we were to pull out of all Muslim countries the next thing would be being allied to Israel (a country we should distance ourselves from IMHO) etc. etc.

 Medium of Death wrote:
People see the inaction of the Muslim community as a sign of acceptance, even if it isn't. People attack Muslims not because their faith tells them to, but because of the way the radical elements conduct themselves. It's not like we have organised Christian mobs descending on Mosques. You could probably define them as "Christian" in that loose catch all sense, but they certainly aren't using the words of the bible to justify their retribution. They most certainly aren't being guided by a Priest/Minister/Bishop/Whatever. Hate, Anger and Fear are all they need.

The Muslim community hasn't been inactive. Their community leaders and spokesmen have been all over the serious news denouncing this kind of violence, etc.

It's not like we have organised Muslim mobs doing anything, basically. We do have the EDL threatening hate marches, though. It doesn't matter one bit to a victim what ideology their attacker might have used to justify himself.

Did you watch the interview? That's the point the guy was making, denouncing the actions isn't really the same as preventing them through dialogue.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 uk_crow wrote:
Good interview, thanks Medium of Death for that contribution. Why do young Muslims feel that they can't express their anger in a constructive manner? They live in our society, where every month or so there are demonstrations etc about a wide variety of social issues. The masses just get angry and less understanding and will begin to tar everyone with the same brush. The attacks on mosques being a case in point. We're on a slippery slope indeed.

There are plenty of young muslims who don't have anger, because they are integrate into British society and have good jobs and so on.

There are plenty of young muslims who can express anger in a constructive manner. Look at the current campaign against female genital mutilation.

Conversely, if there are attacks on mosques, that would show there are non-muslim Britons who are unable to express their anger in a constructive manner.

I haven't denied that, but i don't see any other other disaffected angry youths from any other creed or religion running down and hacking to death a soldier like a piece of meat due to our countries involvement in foreign adventures. Most stage protests, nor do i see any other faith going so ballistic over perceived mocking of their religion eg the Dutch cartoon of Muhammad or the reaction to 'Innocence of Muslims' film. That is the point i am making.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Muslim community hasn't been inactive. Their community leaders and spokesmen have been all over the serious news denouncing this kind of violence, etc.

That's the point made in the interview they give all this talk of denouncing the actions of the select few but then wash their hands down the line when it should be their responsibility to show the misguided youth how they've twisted the faith.

 uk_crow wrote:
but i don't see any other other disaffected angry youths from any other creed or religion...

So what exactly were the Irish troubles then if not angry young men attacking soldiers, torturing and in some cases trying to decapitate people while also bombing innocents?

Individuals and groups invoke Islams name in order to try and legitimize their causes.

The parallel could be made with anti abortion groups killing doctors and bombing clinics in the name of Christ.

@uk_crow our 'disaffected youth' and others have a recent history of going on the rob during riots.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dæl wrote:

 uk_crow wrote:
but i don't see any other other disaffected angry youths from any other creed or religion...

So what exactly were the Irish troubles then if not angry young men attacking soldiers, torturing and in some cases trying to decapitate people while also bombing innocents?

I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?

 uk_crow wrote:
I'm talking about this in relation to the so called war on terror, why can't they join stop the war coalition? I'm talking about how the overwhelming majority of this country can protest peacefully and democratically, whilst whenever a perceived slight is made against Islam. Eg Dutch cartoon of Muhammad and the Innocence of Muslims films, there are worldwide protests over something so trivial. which resulted in the case of the Innocence of Muslim protests resulted in over 50 deaths. All I want is the answer to that question? What is wrong with asking that?

That simply doesn't wash. You can't make a statement about how you 'don't see people from other races...' and then try and qualify it by saying you only meant about the conflicts that only involve Muslims.

Oh and have a guess how many British Muslims are members of the Stop the War Coalition, and then have a guess at how many British Muslims are, were or plan to be terrorists. Now, which do you think is the higher number?

What is your exact question? I see you complain that people protest about something you feel is trivial. But I think lots of things are trivial, like background checks and safe storage of guns, the religious based opposition to abortion or equal marriage. Just because I think those are trivial doesn't mean I don't agree with people protesting about them. The vast majority of protests regarding the Dutch cartoon, or the non existent film, or the Salman Rushdie book were peaceful, but that doesn't get reported. As sebster said, do the maths, 1 billion Muslims and 50 deaths, it's hardly prolific.

What is it with white British, every time there's a crime that might have been perpetrated by a Muslim they blame an entire religion, don balaclavas, take to the streets and attack police. Except of course, the vast majority of us don't.