Did I say non-muslims should be spared? No. It's just extremely unlikely that it would be a non-muslim. Wake up.
You said ‘muslimsattacking armed police at an airport should be shot dead.’ If you didn’t mean just Muslims there was no need to use the word, you should have said anyone attacking armed police… it’s a bit odd you didn’t.
So a lone wolf with mental illness then. At least that'll be the message to salve the egos of the hard of thinking.
Like the three "doctors" with mental illness that tried to drive into Glasgow airport with a bomb loaded car a few years back.
I couldn’t picture non-muslims being that stupid but if it did happen: they would be shot dead. Well, white ones would. This is two-tier Britain.
Again says a lot about how you think of individuals as a group, how would you have felt if someone had said the same thing but rather than the Muslim factor had chosen to say heterosexual men, which they are, and definitely as a demographic, commit more violent crimes. Weird how people like to point the finger at demographics that don’t include themselves, but totally ignore and refuse to acknowledge the relevance when demographics are pointed out that does. As I’ve mentioned proportionately heterosexual men commit more violent crimes percentage wise comparing women and the LGBT+ community, than Muslims over non Muslims, surely that would indicate gender and sexuality are a bigger contributor?
Dont worry not a terrorist act, the driver just took a wrong turn, so the loser left will tell us https://x.com/TPointUK/status/1870192877219049801
You’re choosing a group to suit your agenda. Most Islamic terror attacks are indeed carried out by heterosexual males but belong to a subset of that group. The secret ingredient is … islam.
