You're good at throwing these bombs. Less good at what I have had occasion to call "debate." *I would express some sympathy for the motives of the bombers. That is, to escape oppression, poverty, etc. It's these silly surveys you quote which give you the answers you're always seeking.
"Scoring a goal is better than sex" - Whoever said that was sticking it to the wrong woman
Why on earth would one like a Muslim? Have you any idea what these people believe?
Oh, and the Nation of Islam has nothing to do with actual Islam. It’s a lunatic cult of angry black men who think white people are devils created by a mad scientist. So they’re even madder and less credible than real Muslims.
Hang on. You have ‘sympathy’ with the motives of British Muslims who have grown up amongst tolerance, comfort and opportunity deciding to murder and maim hundreds of their innocent fellow citizens in tunnels hundreds of feet underground?
What ‘oppression’? What ‘poverty’ justifies that, you ridiculous, ignorant, arrogant Yank cùnt?
Total debate-team dodge, for which I commend you. It's clear that I meant sympathy for the motives of the terrorists. Yes, one has sympathy for someone's motives, in many cases, even when one deplores their actions. I have sympathy for the motives of Adolph Hitler. Dissed by the artistic establishment (he wanted to be an acclaimed painter), jacked up in WW1, economically shat upon, he wanted to get his own back. I am sympathetic. Now, do I think he took it too far? Also yeah.