Or the attackers in Paris, more contemporarily...

Indeed, though I was hoping to make the idea more domestic, as the French are pretty much foreign to some people.

We also have to remember that people can convert to Islam, so Caucasian Jimmy Britain can become a Muslim, take the name Jim Al-Britain, and practice his religion in this country. Now, he could be come radicalised, seeing how his fellow Muslims are treated, or he could just carry on as he was, but with a different philosophy governing his normal, peaceful British life.

or we can remove them all from the UK diminishing the threat from a certain religion home grown or otherwise also by tightening our borders and refusing entry to any and all of the same religion. this is the more peaceful way there is an alternative (my preferred) but i dont think you would like it.

i have no doubt there will be cries of HR and international LAW but they dont count when you are at war ...

Not so long ago, it was Irish extremists who were attacking us. We survived.

Maybe, just maybe, we should think about the causes of the kind of social disconnection that allows someone to do something like this, and then also think about how we refer to people as "foreign", "extreme" or "radical".

the Irish were fighting for their believed independence these of a certain religion are fighting for world domination and anybody/anything different will be exterminated.
as of social disconnection they do this by 'their' choice a bit of a fundamental difference me thinks ...

So the Irish terrorists were not of a certain religion? They didn't kill people who didn't share that religion?

You understand the roots of that conflict were in the persecution of the catholic minority by protestants, and the minority victims eventually became the aggressors? Sounds quite similar to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict too, no?

a civil war between elements of the same. this is no way the same. this is dominance.
if you can not, do not, see the difference then you will lose the war ...

Riiiight.

The Troubles were the same as most conflicts - the scum hid amongst the decent people and used them as shields when they weren't warping their minds with propaganda.

We had a guerilla war because it suited everyone involved for a time (IRA, MI5, the Loyalists, you name it), and for many it still does because the 'threat from the other side' means sticking around making millions on the side in any way possible.

An Irishman might starve himself to death out of sheer stubbornness, but they've never intentionally blown themselves up. Religion is just an excuse to draw players in with the Irish, nothing more. Though they are/were as interested in expendable pawns as ISIS.

Just to be clear, I believe we need a government that will actually tackle social division and disillusionment as a result of elites running and ruining everything whilst simultaneously fannying about in the Middle East. The security issue is almost seperate from that because there's yet more vested interests there. Oh, look, the press are saying the Brussels bombers were known to the security forces...

Why be so coy? We already assume you mean gas chambers.

Because the first rule of genocide club is...

"This is how we pronounce 'shibboleth'?"

Never apply for GasSafe accreditation.

Presumably he was getting away with it until the follow-up tweet.