No, what you provide has no direct relevance at all to the specific case in point. You need to prove that all other terrorists could not possibly have had anything at all to do with this case for your "logic" to have specific relevance.... and you can't do that.

Seaton,

A reasonable voice would provide specific evidence directly relevant to the case in point before making wild and inflammatory public statements.

Most forecasters in any field 'predict' trends to continue and after 3 attacks in 2 days the security services are just following that norm.

In my view two things are more significant:
1. The intelligence services had no indication of an imminent attack prior to Friday - i.e. they picked up no "chatter". (This observation should not be taken to detract from the excellent work the security forces have done to thwart other terror attacks).
2. It is only by the hand of God that these 3 attacks have been thwarted without any loss of life. God has been very merciful.

May we pray our Father in heaven to continue to thwart and restrain wickedness.

"The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice; let the multitude of isles be glad thereof."

You may well call that pompous and pedantic, so be it.

You have made a very serious charge from under your cloak. Now, be specific, and say exactly who you are accusing of being "Paisley haters".

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."

Who are your alleged "Paisley haters on this thread"?

That's a very serious charge you are making and accordingly you are under a duty to:-
1. Be specific as to who you are (and are not) addressing so as not to cause unnecessary division.
2. Prove your allegation of "hate" with specific quotations of their statements, show the statements were made without biblical warrant, and season your response with scripture that you may seek to win your erring brethren.
3. Repent if you do not do 1 and 2.

"Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good."

"Perhaps our friend in America Rev Stephen Hamilton would explain the history and reasons behind the betrayal of truth by Rev Ian Paisley and other ministers who support him, I believe you do not support Rev Paisley in this decision."

Given, as you say, that Stephen Hamilton has NOT supported Ian Paisley in the specific issue of entering government with Sinn Fein, why would you look to him to "explain the history and reasons" of those who did make that decision? Demand that from the people concerned.

Stephen Hamilton,

Please, no praying to Papa Pius for the answer. If he didn't tell you infallibly when he had the infallible opportunity he must have had infallible good reason. And necromancy is witchcraft after all.

"look up all of the Greek Orthodox churches with the word 'Assumption' in their names."
Is that Assumption Paris Texas or Assumption Paris France? It makes a huge difference when they are totally different.

GG - hint, there is more to research than doing a google. I can do my own Google searches, thank you very much. Will your priests be immersing babies three times now?

Thank you for the reply. Good to see you finally woke up to the issue after I posted the key question in plain English.

The Greek Orthodox believe that Mary DIED and was buried in a tomb.

Papists infallibly believe Mary was assumed "having completed the course of her earthly life".

So GG based upon the infallible teaching of Papa Pius do you believe Mary DIED and was buried?
Yes or No will suffice for your opinion.
But it will not settle Papist controversy on this matter.

Yes, a fitting name indeed. Help me out by clarifying your own assumptions please.

Do you believe that Mary, DIED and was buried in a tomb and then resurrected and assumed into heaven?