View Full Version : Terrorist Attacks
63 pages of this thread and now the real agenda comes out. Cricket rivalry. :facepalm:
The real agenda is set by the terrorists who keep on repeating terror attacks and perpetuate this thread . You ask your friends to stop terrorising the world and the thread will come to a dead end .
Hey D, the real issue that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war on the sub continent - cricket rivalry
http://www.postpickle.com/entertainment/5-times-indian-cricket-fans-almost-destroyed-cricket-stadiums
Hey D, the real issue that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war on the sub continent - cricket rivalry
http://www.postpickle.com/entertainment/5-times-indian-cricket-fans-almost-destroyed-cricket-stadiums
These are once in a while instances . Pakistanis destroy their own TV sets EVERY TIME they lose to india.
d_chatterley
06-05-17, 05:01 AM
Hey D, the real issue that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war on the sub continent - cricket rivalry
http://www.postpickle.com/entertainment/5-times-indian-cricket-fans-almost-destroyed-cricket-stadiums
Dang! Look at these rowdy Indians acting up after a cricket match! And here I thought they all sing Kumbaya after they lose. Little do I know.
Dang! Look at these rowdy Indians acting up after a cricket match! I thought they were all singing Kumbaya after they lose. Little do I know.
One instance is from 1967 . Others from 1999 1996 2002 etc . I suppose digging up 20 and 50 year old happenings counterbalances what pakistanis do every few months in your biased opinion .
Your attempt to try to lump all Pakistanis as hateful based on some testosterone-driven, herd mentality, misdirected aggression is ridiculous. Have you ever seen how football hooligans here in the West react when they lose their matches? It makes the bashing of TVs look rather civil. I wish the only thing they destroy here were their own TVs rather than other people's property or hurting other innocent people.
Oh yeah, can you imagine the pent up hatred of these people? :rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtOXiQToz64
But Indians don't destroy their TV sets when they lose to Pakistan. In the whole cricket world only Pakistanis behave this way .
It is not just the British that have football hooligans, i can't stand football myself, but hooligans live in other countries too.
Wplains
06-05-17, 06:35 AM
The real agenda is set by the terrorists who keep on repeating terror attacks and perpetuate this thread . You ask your friends to stop terrorising the world and the thread will come to a dead end .
The 63 pages are because terrorist attacks keep happening with frightening regularity and are now growing closer and closer together. Unfortunately, I don't believe they will stop any time soon but will continue to get worse and worse. The police need to round up every "person of interest "and either deport them or lock them up. We can't keep finding out the police already "knew" about the perpetrators of the latest attack. Let's see what they say about this latest vermin. They've already arrested 21 people so the usual platitudes about "lone wolves" probably won't stick this time.
I have to go to London next week - not looking forward to it and it used to be one of my favorite travel destinations. :(
The real agenda is set by the terrorists who keep on repeating terror attacks and perpetuate this thread . You ask your friends to stop terrorising the world and the thread will come to a dead end .
The 63 pages are because terrorist atracks keep happening with frightening regularity and are now growing closer and closer together. Unfortunately, I don't believe they will stop any time soon but will continue to get worse and worse. The police need to round up every "person of interest "and either deport them or lock them up. We can't keep finding out the police already "knew" about the perpretrators of the latest attack. Let's see what they say about this latest vermin. They've already arrested 21 people so the usual platitudes about "lone wolves" probably won't stick this time.
I have to go to London next week - not looking forward to it and it used to be one of my favorite travel destinations. :(
I have 2 cousins living in London, they say they have armed police on the streets, just be vigilant when you go, i'd certainly go given the chance😁
Movie Max
06-05-17, 08:10 AM
Soon, many countries will want to have a Gitmo, and all because of one very peaceful religion.
:idea:
The more recent examples set by Australia, will continue to be considered, discussed, replicated, etc...
Internment: Could it help fight terrorism?
In the wake of the Manchester suicide bomb attack a former assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan Police has called for the reintroduction of internment camps.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40084280
The discussion of segregation within prisons, has already begun...
Louis Caprioli – former french intelligence official
“Unfortunately, radicalisation is a historical phenomenon which goes back to the arrests of Islamic terrorists in the ninties.
“This phenomenon was not taken into account at the time because we were mixing people arrested for acts of terrorism with the rest of the prison population”.
“And from the 1990s onwards, the problem has not stopped worsening. We have seen radicalisation of “common criminals” by Islamists who had, I was going say, a certain “prestige”, an aura of having battled or of having committed terrorist attacks.
“To put an end to the phenomenon would require considerable financial resources in order to completely separate the “common criminals” from the terrorists and to give seperate cells to terrorists. So we need the financial means. We need well-trained personnel, but I do not believe that de-radicalization can start in prison because the people there are often sent for serious terrorist acts. So we have to think, not only on a French-scale, but on an international scale, or at least on a European one.”http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/05/insiders-living-with-the-threat-of-terror
Movie Max
06-05-17, 11:14 AM
Reality...
https://twitter.com/Debolye/status/871648585888276480
... and all your police officers need to be armed with more than just words.
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 11:21 AM
Reality...
https://twitter.com/Debolye/status/871648585888276480
... and all your police officers need to be armed with more than just words.
Here in NJ we have the "Jersey barrier" or the "New Jersey wall" - a highway barrier system designed to protect people from head-on collisions, named for the state since it was first developed and used here.
Perhaps someday we'll have a new terminology like the "Muslim barrier" or the "Islam wall" - a road barrier to protect people from the religion of peace?
Movie Max
06-05-17, 11:25 AM
Perhaps someday we'll have a new terminology like the "Muslim barrier" or the "Islam wall" - a road barrier to protect people from the religion of peace?
What's the unique form of attack itself going to be called, the muslim gauntlet?
Wplains
06-05-17, 11:52 AM
I have 2 cousins living in London, they say they have armed police on the streets, just be vigilant when you go, i'd certainly go given the chance😁
Of course I will go. I have a professional commitment. I will be looking over my shoulder all the time though and will definitely give the underground a miss. Uber here I come. So sad because Europe used to be so safe. Whenever I hear of a shooting or incident in the US (like the one I just read about in the news) I think: probably not terrorism - but whenever I hear of one in Europe, I feel there is a 99% probability that it is Islamic terrorism.
I have 2 cousins living in London, they say they have armed police on the streets, just be vigilant when you go, i'd certainly go given the chance😁
Of course I will go. I have a professional commitment. I will be looking over my shoulder all the time though and will definitely give the underground a miss. Uber here I come. So sad because Europe used to be so safe. Whenever I hear of a shooting or incident in the US (like the one I just read about in the news) I think: probably not terrorism - but whenever I hear of one in Europe, I feel there is a 99% probability that it is Islamic terrorism.
Mum and i were caught up in the 7/7 attack in London, we were traveling back from France,got off the ferry at Dover, and heading North via London, we were diverted away from the scenes of the attacks but it was very scary. I love traveling around Britain and Europe, but yes stay vigilant and avoid the tube and underground, anywhere you'd feel uncomfortable then don't go.
christine
06-05-17, 12:44 PM
Of course I will go. I have a professional commitment. I will be looking over my shoulder all the time though and will definitely give the underground a miss. Uber here I come. So sad because Europe used to be so safe. Whenever I hear of a shooting or incident in the US (like the one I just read about in the news) I think: probably not terrorism - but whenever I hear of one in Europe, I feel there is a 99% probability that it is Islamic terrorism.
Make sure you look up and down properly when you cross over the road. A person is far more likely to die in a road accident than a terrorist attack.
christine
06-05-17, 12:53 PM
Here in NJ we have the "Jersey barrier" or the "New Jersey wall" - a highway barrier system designed to protect people from head-on collisions, named for the state since it was first developed and used here.
Perhaps someday we'll have a new terminology like the "Muslim barrier" or the "Islam wall" - a road barrier to protect people from the religion of peace?
Perhaps someday we could build a special enclave on the other side of your wall for the people of the religion of peace, or I know, some camps with some special trains to take them there.
Wplains
06-05-17, 01:24 PM
Make sure you look up and down properly when you cross over the road. A person is far more likely to die in a road accident than a terrorist attack.
Unfortunately, those statistics are fast becoming obsolete. When do you think the next terrorist attack will occur? Tomorrow? Next week? And I say when -- not if!
Do you actually know if they're becoming obsolete, or is that a guess? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing you could tell from simply noticing attacks on the news.
Also, if it were proved that this were, in fact, still true (which I'd bet money on), what then? Would that challenge any of your current beliefs?
John McClane
06-05-17, 01:40 PM
I'm sick of reporters and newscasters "terrorizing" their audience: murder is a part of London (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/12/met-police-warns-of-sharp-rise-in-london-gun-and-knife-crime-budget-cuts).
You're more likely to be murdered by a gang member than a terrorist, but why not give them their 15 minutes of fame? I bet they hate the publicity. :rolleyes:
One potentially important distinction is who "you" are in that sentence. For example, I live in a poor neighborhood, and there's a fair bit of violent crime, but it's not random. It generally doesn't endanger people who aren't involved in the drug trade. It's reasonable that people would be more concerned about things like terrorism, where there's often no correlation between actions and endangerment, than they are about general violent crime, where I'm guessing there usually is.
Now, that's not to say that people worried about terrorism don't have to reconcile the disparities with their rhetoric, which often erroneously equate breadth of media coverage for frequency and somehow regard some things as society-threatening epidemics while more frequent things don't even merit a mention. But the apples-to-apples comparison would be to things that can happen to pretty much anyone, like the traffic incidents mentioned earlier.
One thing I would like to see is more of the Muslim population speaking out and doing more.
OK there you go
https://www.facebook.com/Reuters/videos/1516238535063164/
And Egypt has given the Qatari Ambassador 48 hours to leave.
And another interesting article
https://www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2017/mar/26/muslims-condemn-terrorism-stats
Wplains
06-05-17, 02:40 PM
Do you actually know if they're becoming obsolete, or is that a guess? Doesn't seem like the kind of thing you could tell from simply noticing attacks on the news.
Also, if it were proved that this were, in fact, still true (which I'd bet money on), what then? Would that challenge any of your current beliefs?
What I'm obviously trying to say is if the attacks continue at this rate, they will soon overtake the other statistics. Not so much a guess as a prediction unless the authorities start doing something about this other than telling us to "carry on like before", eh?
London attack: Police name Khuram Butt and Rachid Redouane as two of three men responsible – latest updates
Butt, 27, is a British citizen who was born in Pakistan. Redouane, 30, has claimed to be both Moroccan and Libyan
So, not born in the UK this time. Now all we need to hear is that they were both living off benefits paid for by the British taxpayer.....:rolleyes:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2017/jun/05/london-attack-isis-claims-responsibility-victims-named-live-updates
What I'm obviously trying to say is if the attacks continue at this rate, they will soon overtake the other statistics. Not so much a guess as a prediction
In order to say this, you'd have to have some idea of the relative frequency of both. Do you? Or this literally just "I'm watching the news and there seem to have been a lot of attacks recently"?
Also, this question, repeated from before:
"Also, if it were proved that this were, in fact, still true (which I'd bet money on), what then? Would that challenge any of your current beliefs?"
Wplains
06-05-17, 02:53 PM
In order to say this, you'd have to have some idea of the relative frequency of both. Do you? Or this literally just "I'm watching the news and there seem to have been a lot of attacks recently"?
Also, this question, repeated from before:
"Also, if it were proved that this were, in fact, still true (which I'd bet money on), what then? Would that challenge any of your current beliefs?"
Of course it's an exaggeration. I think anyone can tell that so I don't understand what the problem is, exactly?
I don't understand what you're trying to say in your second question.
Do I really need to get the third degree about such an innocuous post? :shrug:
Of course it's an exaggeration. I think anyone can tell that so I don't understand what the problem is, exactly?
The problem is that, if you remove the exaggeration, there's no longer any substance to the response. christine pointed out that you're more likely to get hit by a car, implying that the focus on terrorism is outsized to its impact. Your response was an exaggeration about how that might not be true much longer. Since you didn't actually mean that...what's left? If there's nothing left, then the point hasn't been addressed, even though the exaggeration in response serves to make it kinda look like it has.
Do I really need to get the third degree about such an innocuous post? :shrug:
If you think these simple questions are the "third degree," I'm not really sure what to tell you.
Wplains
06-05-17, 03:08 PM
So I didn't realize I had to justify comments on posts. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill but whatever floats your boat. :shrug:
Perhaps posting rules on what you are allowed to say would help?
Just a quick chart to show that the number of deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe are still lower than they were in the 70s and 80s by quite a bit. This illustrates how our media-saturated society today changes perception and reaction to events such as these.
http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-07/we-terrorism-1970-2015final.png
So I didn't realize I had to justify comments on posts. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill but whatever floats your boat. :shrug:
Perhaps posting rules on what you are allowed to say would help?
I am not seeing where you were told/asked not to post. Can you point out where it was said you weren't allowed to post? Unless you are maybe mistaking replies to your posts and instructions not to post? *Shrugs*
Just a quick chart to show that the number of deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe are still lower than they were in the 70s and 80s by quite a bit. This illustrates how our media-saturated society today changes perception and reaction to events such as these.
http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-07/we-terrorism-1970-2015final.png
Interesting. I had to look up what happened in '88
So I didn't realize I had to justify comments on posts.
You've questioned things other people have said throughout the thread. Why would you expect your own comments to be exempt from that?
I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill
Not really seeing how "hey, you didn't really address the thing you were ostensibly responding to" is making a mountain out of anything.
Perhaps posting rules on what you are allowed to say would help?
Who said anything about "allowed"? You've received no warning, and the posts in question were not removed, or even edited.
You're free to say it. And I'm free to question it.
More on Qatar. This makes me feel nervous and I'm not even sure why.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/social-media-reacts-gulf-diplomatic-rift-170605095334870.html
Just a quick chart to show that the number of deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe are still lower than they were in the 70s and 80s by quite a bit. This illustrates how our media-saturated society today changes perception and reaction to events such as these.
http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-07/we-terrorism-1970-2015final.png
The media makes a huge hue and cry about islamic terror because what is at stake here is the future of european civilization .
The native europeans have a low birth rate and compared to that the muslims have a high population growth rate. Aided by immigration as refugees , this high growth rate is going to have powerful impact in future .
These terrorist attacks are mere pin pricks but the main question is---if the muslims can do this at their current low percentage of population , then what will they do when they become a much larger percentage in future .
In my opinion the threat to europe can be rated no less than the nazi threat 80 years ago . I am basing this on my own nation's experience . Many areas of my nation like kashmir valley have become no go areas for hindus due to high muslim population there . Actually Pakistan itself is a huge no go area carved out of india just because muslims have become majority there .
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 04:15 PM
The problem is that, if you remove the exaggeration, there's no longer any substance to the response. christine pointed out that you're more likely to get hit by a car, implying that the focus on terrorism is outsized to its impact. Your response was an exaggeration about how that might not be true much longer. Since you didn't actually mean that...what's left? If there's nothing left, then the point hasn't been addressed, even though the exaggeration in response serves to make it kinda look like it has.
If you think these simple questions are the "third degree," I'm not really sure what to tell you.
On the subject of statistics, I view it as yet another deflection from the topic at hand.
Yes, chances of dying by a variety of means will probably always be greater than terrorism. Accidents will always be responsible for some of the largest percentages of deaths - but they are random and unintentional which is why we call them "accidents."
On so many moral, ethical, philosophical and legal levels we cannot compare accidents, disease & natural disasters with intentional crimes like terrorism carried out to promote an ideology.
I find the argument of statistics like telling a rape victim, "You were raped? Well that's not a big deal considering that your chances of being buried by a house during a hurricane are far greater than the chances of being raped!"
Now, in this scenario there might be a rapist on the loose that needs to be caught, or another immediate focus could be on getting help or counseling for the victim or finding ways for people to protect themselves from rape in the future... but instead the focus on the crime of rape is deflected and downplayed by quoting statistics on how rape is relatively rare when compared to being hit by debris during a hurricane since lots more people die from hurricanes than from rape, and thus rape shouldn't have much attention paid to it (even when it is happening to victims repeatedly).
Wplains
06-05-17, 04:32 PM
I am not seeing where you were told/asked not to post. Can you point out where it was said you weren't allowed to post? Unless you are maybe mistaking replies to your posts and instructions not to post? *Shrugs*
I said I didn't realize I was supposed to justify posts -- where did I say I was told not to post? Can't answer questions about something I didn't say. :shrug:
I said I didn't realize I was supposed to justify posts -- where did I say I was told not to post?
Er, right here:
Perhaps posting rules on what you are allowed to say would help?
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/06/06/were-all-londoners-solidarity-terror-vigil
Wplains
06-05-17, 04:51 PM
Just a quick chart to show that the number of deaths by terrorist attacks in Western Europe are still lower than they were in the 70s and 80s by quite a bit. This illustrates how our media-saturated society today changes perception and reaction to events such as these.
http://www.datagraver.com/thumbs/1300x1300r/2016-07/we-terrorism-1970-2015final.png
I see you include the Lockerbie bombing. If this is supposed to make me feel safer, it's not. The fact is every city in Europe is now at risk which wasn't the case before. And the countries and cities more at risk are the ones which have a high percentage of Muslims because they are much more likely to have gone off to be Jihadists. What were the numbers for Britain in terms of suspected terrorosts? 23,000? That's a staggering number. The fact is, I now look over my shoulder whenever I enter an European airport (which I do, often) whereas before the thought didn't even occur to me.
I happen to live in one of the very few countries in Europe where the Muslim population is tiny and where it rare to see a woman in a burqa in the street. It's very much an exotic sight here. So far, we have not had a terrorist attack. We are having an influx of foreigners (European and otherwise) who are actually moving here because of safety concerns. Our tourism indiustry has shot up enormously in the last two years because Europeans have stopped going to the ME, Turkey and Egypt for their holidays. But you know what? I'm expecting a terrorist attack any time in the near future precisely because we are considered a "safe destination" and the terrorists will probably want to prove nowhere is safe. So excuse me if I don't feel any safer now than I did in 1988, higher death statistics notwithstanding. One thing is for sure: the body count in Europe on account of Islamic terrorism is going to get much, much higher.
The fact is, I tippy-toe through my front lawn due to fear of WWII era tank mine proliferation. Perception is reality in the States, and I know the number of deaths related to tank mine detonations is on the rise.
Wplains
06-05-17, 05:28 PM
Er, right here:
That's not the same as saying I wasn't allowed to post, IMHO but, of course, you can think what you like. Maybe I'm taking this wrong but your attitude came across as censorious and like the head teacher calling out the recalcitrant pupil - I was surprised that's all. I don't understand why you seemed to be nitpicking and taking everything so literally but to each his own - it seemed like a very innocuous post. :shrug:
That's not the same as saying I wasn't allowed to post
Rhetorically asking what you're "allowed" to say is obviously suggesting you're not allowed to say things.
Maybe I'm taking this wrong but your attitude came across as censorious and like the head teacher calling out the recalcitrant pupil
Maybe it felt that way simply because you were being questioned rather than doing the questioning. It's easy to expect others to take our arguments in stride, yet still feel personally attacked when they argue with us. But you've questioned lots of other people in this thread, often in more forceful terms than I've questioned you.
I don't understand why you seemed to be nitpicking and taking everything so literally but to each his own - it seemed like a very innocuous post. :shrug:
I pointed out that you hadn't really addressed the thing you were replying to. There is no universe in which this constitutes "nitpicking" or "the third degree."
If you're going to make political claims and argue with people, be advised that they get to argue back. And when they do, you shouldn't be shocked, or try to spin those arguments as some kind of uninvited interrogation.
Wplains
06-05-17, 06:31 PM
Rhetorically asking what you're "allowed" to say is obviously suggesting you're not allowed to say things.
Maybe it felt that way simply because you were being questioned rather than doing the questioning. It's easy to expect others to take our arguments in stride, yet still feel personally attacked when they argue with us. But you've questioned lots of other people in this thread, often in more forceful terms than I've questioned you.
I pointed out that you hadn't really addressed the thing you were replying to. There is no universe in which this constitutes "nitpicking" or "the third degree.
If you're going to make political claims and argue with people, be advised that they get to argue back. And when they do, you shouldn't be shocked, or try to spin those arguments as some kind of uninvited interrogation.
Your logic escapes me but whatever. It doesn't bother me one bit of people argue back as I don't take any of this personally - this site is just someplace to come for amusement and nothing else. Oh and as to the 3rd degree comment, do you take everything in life so literally?
I still don't understand what you were on about though -- must be because English is my second language....:).
You speak English very well (well enough that I didn't realize it was your second language), and I think everything I've said is pretty straightforward, so I think you're certainly capable of following it, though you may not be inclined to.
Oh and as to the 3rd degree comment, do you take everything in life so literally?
Do you always say things you don't mean? ;)
Wplains
06-05-17, 06:46 PM
I mean everything I say. Irony is a part of life - at least in my world - :)
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 06:46 PM
I'm sick of reporters and newscasters "terrorizing" their audience: murder is a part of London (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/apr/12/met-police-warns-of-sharp-rise-in-london-gun-and-knife-crime-budget-cuts).
You're more likely to be murdered by a gang member than a terrorist, but why not give them their 15 minutes of fame? I bet they hate the publicity. :rolleyes:
This issue was discussed on several news shows recently (as it usually is after terror attacks and after various mass killings). It's a heavy question.
I heard one commentator say that to NOT report these things (and deny the killers of notoriety) would be yet another alteration to our standard modes of operation and thus allowing our society to be reshaped by terrorists. It would also be seen as keeping the public in the dark as to what's going on (beyond the extent that is already occurring) and could be seen as an attack on freedom of the press.
I guess that's one way to look at it.
This issue is always something of a Catch-22 situation.
My suggestion would be to incorporate humiliation - hire some psychologists to say that these attacks are really all linked to some sort of small penis syndrome and that any man involved in any such actions is really upset over his sadly small penis, sexual inability, unresolved mother issues and cowardice-based insecurities compounded by extremely weak-minded stupidity! And from now on that reputation and label will be applied to any terrorist and all their associates.
cricket
06-05-17, 06:55 PM
You're more likely to be murdered by a gang member than a terrorist
This is true, but which is more likely to eventually get nuclear or chemical weapon capability, and attempt to wipe several countries from the face of the earth without hesitation?
christine
06-05-17, 07:22 PM
So, not born in the UK this time. Now all we need to hear is that they were both living off benefits paid for by the British taxpayer.....:rolleyes:
now that would really be beyond the pale.
On the subject of statistics, I view it as yet another deflection from the topic at hand.
It wasn't a deflection at all, it was a comparison of risk and how perception of danger to the public is skewed by disasterous events. Comparing the risk with the more commonplace, and much higher death resulting events, like vehicle accidents that don't get media coverage.
I see you include the Lockerbie bombing. If this is supposed to make me feel safer, it's not. The fact is every city in Europe is now at risk which wasn't the case before. And the countries and cities more at risk are the ones which have a high percentage of Muslims because they are much more likely to have gone off to be Jihadists. What were the numbers for Britain in terms of suspected terrorosts? 23,000? That's a staggering number. The fact is, I now look over my shoulder whenever I enter an European airport (which I do, often) whereas before the thought didn't even occur to me.
I happen to live in one of the very few countries in Europe where the Muslim population is tiny and where it rare to see a woman in a burqa in the street. It's very much an exotic sight here. So far, we have not had a terrorist attack. We are having an influx of foreigners (European and otherwise) who are actually moving here because of safety concerns. Our tourism indiustry has shot up enormously in the last two years because Europeans have stopped going to the ME, Turkey and Egypt for their holidays. But you know what? I'm expecting a terrorist attack any time in the near future precisely because we are considered a "safe destination" and the terrorists will probably want to prove nowhere is safe. So excuse me if I don't feel any safer now than I did in 1988, higher death statistics notwithstanding. One thing is for sure: the body count in Europe on account of Islamic terrorism is going to get much, much higher.
I'm not being funny here, but you are the person who seems the most worried and feels the least safe and you live in a country that's never had a terrorist attack? I don't know which country it is you live in but shouldn't you be more worried about stuff like environmental concerns, education, the economy, your health service and global things like poverty. It's always struck me that it's people who don't live in big multicultural cities that stress more about our way of life here than we do ourselves.
I mean everything I say.
Oh, I'm sure you mean them when you say them. It's just that when they're questioned, some of them seem to transform into things you "obviously" didn't mean "literally."
Irony is a part of life - at least in my world - :)
Hmmm, not seeing any examples of irony. Maybe it's that language barrier you mentioned.
(If you actually wanna drop the issue, that means foregoing these little digs you keep sliding into otherwise diplomatic responses. Just FYI.)
Wplains
06-05-17, 07:43 PM
now that would really be beyond the pale.
It certainly would considering they are killing Brits.
It wasn't a deflection at all, it was a comparison of risk and how perception of danger to the public is skewed by disasterous events. Comparing the risk with the more commonplace, and much higher death resulting events, like vehicle accidents that don't get media coverage.
I'm not being funny here, but you are the person who seems the most worried and feels the least safe and you live in a country that's never had a terrorist attack? I don't know which country it is you live in but shouldn't you be more worried about stuff like environmental concerns, education, the economy, your health service and global things like poverty. It's always struck me that it's people who don't live in big multicultural cities that stress more about our way of life here than we do ourselves.
I travel all over Europe almost every month. My husband travels all over Europe almost every week - you know, he goes through airports and train stations - places which have been attacked most often? I have very close family living in the UK. Do you think I only worry for myself? Or do you think I am stuck in one place and never go anywhere? And you may feel all this is blown out of proportion but the people I speak to who live in Europe do not. We all feel less safe and more worried about travel. Most of us have children living abroad and we all worry about them. Glad you feel so safe - guess you must live in Canada or Australia then?
Wplains
06-05-17, 07:47 PM
Oh, I'm sure you mean them when you say them. It's just that when they're questioned, some of them seem to transform into things you "obviously" didn't mean "literally."
Hmmm, not seeing any examples of irony. Maybe it's that language barrier you mentioned.
(If you actually wanna drop the issue, that means foregoing these little digs you keep sliding into otherwise diplomatic responses. Just FYI.)
Tut, tut, tut - little digs.....oh my, how un PC of me, lol!
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 07:57 PM
It wasn't a deflection at all, it was a comparison of risk and how perception of danger to the public is skewed by disasterous events. Comparing the risk with the more commonplace, and much higher death resulting events, like vehicle accidents that don't get media coverage.
But what is the point of that, Christine?
My guess (and I'm not accusing you) is that these statistical arguments are a conditioned response to take the focus and relevance off the terrorism and identifying the ideology behind it by trying to draw comparisons to things like random accidents and natural disasters.
If our topic was the Holocaust, should we remind everyone that more Jews were killed by accidents, diseases and natural disasters than were killed in the Holocaust? What would that mean in regards to the Holocaust? It seems pretty obvious that it would be an attempt to downplay the event which was neither random nor unintentional like accidents, diseases & natural disasters. Instead of "never forget, never again" the message would be seen as "forget the Holocaust and so what if it happens again since far more people are killed by car accidents, cancer and tsunamis - why bother talking about the Holocaust when car crashes, cancer and tsunamis are killing more people than anything?"
Tut, tut, tut - little digs.....oh my, how un PC of me, lol!
Nah, not un-PC at all; just not subtle. If you're trying to get in some cheap parting shot, you have to be less obvious about it.
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 08:14 PM
Nah, not un-PC at all; just not subtle. If you're trying to get in some cheap parting shot, you have to be less obvious about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGYUfPiKZMI
Aye. So uncouth (dare I say...un-PC?) to try to have the last word after someone else has already tried to sneak it in unnoticed.
Wplains
06-05-17, 08:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGYUfPiKZMI
LOL,LOL, LOL -- yummy, Star Trek TOS - my favorite!!
William Shatner when he was young and gorgeous....:D
Wow Christine lives in UK and is one of the most sensible posters in this thread. And I guess you're not aware there was a terrorist act in Australia last night.
Wplains
06-05-17, 09:16 PM
http://news.sky.com/
http://edition.cnn.com/
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 10:20 PM
http://news.sky.com/
http://edition.cnn.com/
Another rather astounding aspect of the London attack...
"London Terrorist Was Featured In TV Documentary"
http://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2017/06/05/london-terrorist-featured-tv-doc-about-jihadis/
Captain Steel
06-05-17, 10:37 PM
Somebody saw something, somebody said something.
Authorities did nothing... all because of political correctness and fear of being called an "Islamophobe."
Politicians and heads of law enforcement seem to prefer scores of dead children and murdered bodies in the street rather than suffer the possibility of being called a name (that might cost them potential votes).
It's always struck me that it's people who don't live in big multicultural cities that stress more about our way of life here than we do ourselves.
Maybe they are right . You are living in dreamworld where muslims are supposed to get westernised after they live in europe for a while....not gonna happen in my opinion .
At least in my country muslims never got indianised inspite of living for centuries in India . And Indian culture is much more conservative and therefore more easy for muslims to assimilate into .
I wonder how come muslims are going to be westernised considering the fact that western culture is a much more radically modern culture . Are their women going to stop wearing the head to toe hijab and lie practically naked on the beach like western women ? Not gonna happen . Instead western women will be forced to cover themselves as muslims around them grow in numbers and they they start to frown on western women who wear revealing clothes .
Direct imposition of sharia law in muslim majority areas will start when their percentage in the population increases .
John McClane
06-05-17, 11:18 PM
This is true, but which is more likely to eventually get nuclear or chemical weapon capability, and attempt to wipe several countries from the face of the earth without hesitation?Da Cribs. Bloods gettin an atom split.
Cricket - Covfefe - Niqab. Nothing to do with terrorism but keep going.
I said I didn't realize I was supposed to justify posts
Shouldn't we all have to when we claim something? If you only ever want to post in this side of the site then you should expect people to question what you are saying since you are so prominent here.
If our topic was the Holocaust, should we remind everyone that more Jews were killed by accidents, diseases and natural disasters than were killed in the Holocaust?
Not in the time that the Nazi's killed them. If the 6 Million figure is accurate then about a Million European Jews were killed per year which was at least 4 times (but most likely much more) than Jews were naturally dying, plus you have to factor in the dire conditions for the jews who went into hiding, the majority of them died in horrific ways.
Tut, tut, tut - little digs.....oh my, how un PC of me, lol!
It's amazing that anyone who mentions something being offensive is a 'snowflake' yet people like you are so ridiculously sensitive.
Somebody saw something, somebody said something.
Authorities did nothing... all because of political correctness and fear of being called an "Islamophobe."
Politicians and heads of law enforcement seem to prefer scores of dead children and murdered bodies in the street rather than suffer the possibility of being called a name (that might cost them potential votes).
What is any of this based on?
How do you know authorities did nothing because of political correctness?
We have no clue why this stuff wasn't followed up on (and i'm completely with you it should have been, i'm p!ssed), i have my own theories that have just as much evidence as your across the ocean based: constantly reading debunked sources self.
I definitely think this site has gotten ridiculously white supremacist-y. This thread is only missing the slurs. Think that's an appropriate response for a teenager after a terrorist attack but adults shouldn't be earnestly suggesting nuking the ME, deporting all muslims, monitoring all muslims when they themselves have a serious reaction to threads on this site being closed or even the suggestion of one being closed.
I guess i should just not read this thread but it's pretty fascinating.
Iroquois
06-06-17, 03:44 AM
I agree with locking up anyone who went to Syria etc. but we all know what is going on: spreading hate and terror and chaos. We need to stop with the "tolerance" else many more people will be killed in the name of the pc.
Totally agree with this guy:
https://youtu.be/v4vWR5BpDdQ
Hoo boy, not more Paul Joseph Watson videos. I am so sick of this guy.
I don't like members quotes in signatures but this is tempting:
We need to stop with the "tolerance"
I fully approve of this becoming this sites motto.
Iroquois
06-06-17, 04:05 AM
Nah, if you have to cut it down then you can be accused of taking it out of context and damaging your credibility in the process (though not as damaging as sincerely linking to Paul Joseph Watson, of course).
If we're going to talk signatures, then Yoda's signature has definitely been thrown into sharp relief.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 04:17 AM
I definitely think this site has gotten ridiculously white supremacist-y. This thread is only missing the slurs. Think that's an appropriate response for a teenager after a terrorist attack but adults shouldn't be earnestly suggesting nuking the ME, deporting all muslims, monitoring all muslims when they themselves have a serious reaction to threads on this site being closed or even the suggestion of one being closed.
I guess i should just not read this thread but it's pretty fascinating.
To say that muslims/Islam are a problem doesn't make us racists just realists.
I personally don't have a problem with people from most other areas of the world coming and living here in the UK. I wouldn't import from Romania either though given a higher likelihood of criminality that I've experienced several times where I work in the last couple of years.
I don't recall anyone in this thread calling for deportation or monitoring of ALL muslims though. Just locking up the 23,000 identified as a risk, and imposing much more strict immigration law till we can figure out who is a risk.
I didn't "earnestly" suggest nuking the middle east I just asked would the world be better off without it.
Iroquois
06-06-17, 04:34 AM
The reason it sounds racist is because you generalise a billion people based on a comparatively small number carrying out acts of terror. Would I be as justified in saying all white men are a problem because most mass shootings and hate crimes are committed by white men?
I'm also not sure how locking up identified (identified by who, exactly?) Muslims as a risk doesn't count as "monitoring" them either.
I didn't "earnestly" suggest nuking the middle east I just asked would the world be better off without it.
This is amazing.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 05:28 AM
The reason it sounds racist is because you generalise a billion people based on a comparatively small number carrying out acts of terror. Would I be as justified in saying all white men are a problem because most mass shootings and hate crimes are committed by white men?
I'm also not sure how locking up identified (identified by who, exactly?) Muslims as a risk doesn't count as "monitoring" them either.
It's not just the terror, sharia law, the eternal sunni vs Shia battle, refusal to integrate, honour killings, support for ISIS, cruelty to animals so they can have halal meat, having women as second class citizens who must "obey" their husbands. Under Sharia law a man must simply say divorce 3 tines and that's it, a woman is left destitute with no comeback.
My problem is more with the devout followers of Islam rather than all 1.3 billion muslims.
Wplains
06-06-17, 05:34 AM
Somebody saw something, somebody said something.
Authorities did nothing... all because of political correctness and fear of being called an "Islamophobe."
Politicians and heads of law enforcement seem to prefer scores of dead children and murdered bodies in the street rather than suffer the possibility of being called a name (that might cost them potential votes).
Spot on! Hurt feelings are much more important to them - forget about the dead children.
Wplains
06-06-17, 05:41 AM
Another rather astounding aspect of the London attack...
"London Terrorist Was Featured In TV Documentary"
http://www.redstate.com/prevaila/2017/06/05/london-terrorist-featured-tv-doc-about-jihadis/
It's nothing new though. I was sure the terrorists would turn out to be "persons of interest" already watched by the police. Yet, they still do nothing and people get slaughtered in the name of PC. When will the next one happen and how many of the next terrorists will turn out to already have been known and watched by the police? What to they "watch" them do? Buy explosives? It's a depressingly familiar scenario.
Spot on! Hurt feelings are much more important to them - forget about the dead children.
Yep, it's only you who cares about the dead children that's why your first thought is always about the most efficient way to get rid of the muslims.
I know there's definitely ways i could morally one up you here by my actual real life actions in relation to the Manchester attacks but i'd rather just leave you being extremely self-satisfied in this thread because you've mentioned the dead children in every 12th sentence after your 'let's get rid of muslims' sentiment in every other one. Well done.
Wplains
06-06-17, 05:57 AM
Maybe they are right . You are living in dreamworld where muslims are supposed to get westernised after they live in europe for a while....not gonna happen in my opinion .
At least in my country muslims never got indianised inspite of living for centuries in India . And Indian culture is much more conservative and therefore more easy for muslims to assimilate into .
I wonder how come muslims are going to be westernised considering the fact that western culture is a much more radically modern culture . Are their women going to stop wearing the head to toe hijab and lie practically naked on the beach like western women ? Not
gonna happen . Instead western women will be forced to cover themselves as muslims around them grow in numbers and they they start to frown on western women who wear revealing clothes .
Direct imposition of sharia law in muslim majority areas will start when their percentage in the population increases .
Totally agree with you. What will happen, if we let it, is not assimilation but imposition of their fascist values on our society. A survey carried out in the U.K. actually found Muslim women who thought the UK was a mostly Muslim country since they live in ghettos where they not only do not speak English, they come into no contact with any British person and never leave their own areas. So much for enlightened Western Muslims. Once their numbers grow enough, their culture will start to be imposed on the rest of us. It's amazing how people deny reality and try to convince themselves most Muslim countries don't treat women like dirt. And if they come to the West where the laws protect women, what do they demand? Why Sharia law so they can go on happily oppressing them with the tacit approval of our so very PC politicians.
the head to toe hijab
What on earth is that? Something to do with the most boring sport in the world involving a ball and some sticks? This thread would be hilarious if if wasnt so ridiculous
Iroquois
06-06-17, 06:19 AM
It's not just the terror, sharia law, the eternal sunni vs Shia battle, refusal to integrate, honour killings, support for ISIS, cruelty to animals so they can have halal meat, having women as second class citizens who must "obey" their husbands. Under Sharia law a man must simply say divorce 3 tines and that's it, a woman is left destitute with no comeback.
My problem is more with the devout followers of Islam rather than all 1.3 billion muslims.
It's not just the hate crimes, ethno-nationalism, the eternal Christian vs secular battle, refusal to accept others, mass shootings, support for KKK, and getting away with not treating white Western women equally "because women are treated much worse in Muslim countries so stop complaining".
My problem is more with the white men who buy into or tolerate white supremacy rather than all however many white men are out there.
It's not just the hate crimes, ethno-nationalism, the eternal Christian vs secular battle, refusal to accept others, mass shootings, support for KKK, and getting away with not treating white Western women equally "because women are treated much worse in Muslim countries so stop complaining".
My problem is more with the white men who buy into or tolerate white supremacy rather than all however many white men are out there.
White supremacy is not going to be such a big problem in the future . The entire white race is dwindling in number all the way from the atlantic ocean to the ural mountains . Whites are going to be minorities in many nations where they are in a majority today .
The tidal wave of history is not in favour of white or christian or even nonmuslim people . The tidal wave of history is in favour of muslims who have got the population growth rate in their favour . Most importantly , muslims are unencumbered by political correctness like we nonmuslims are . They are 100 percent confident that their islamic way of life is superior to everything else . And it is this islamic supremacy that must be countered more than anything else .
Wplains
06-06-17, 06:41 AM
It's not just the hate crimes, ethno-nationalism, the eternal Christian vs secular battle, refusal to accept others, mass shootings, support for KKK, and getting away with not treating white Western women equally "because women are treated much worse in Muslim countries so stop complaining".
My problem is more with the white men who buy into or tolerate white supremacy rather than all however many white men are out there.
Yes because there are so many Christian terrorists killing people in the name of Christ, flying planes into buildings, bombing planes, trains and stations, shoving gays off tall buildings, stoning women for adultery and *gasp* having the temerity of being raped,
cutting off women's genitals and sexual organs, etc. and. And as we all know, the West is the one place in the world where women are most oppressed. They are so much freer and so much more equal....where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? China? Asia? Oh wait.... the Women's right movement and the Gay Right's movements started where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? Asia? China? Oh wait....Sexual harrassment and pedophelia was brought to the world's attention first, where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? China?Asia? Oh wait.....
PS- perhaps you don't realize "white men" are not exclusive to the US and, as far as I know, the KKK does not exist anywhere outside said US.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 06:57 AM
It's not just the hate crimes, ethno-nationalism, the eternal Christian vs secular battle, refusal to accept others, mass shootings, support for KKK, and getting away with not treating white Western women equally "because women are treated much worse in Muslim countries so stop complaining".
My problem is more with the white men who buy into or tolerate white supremacy rather than all however many white men are out there.
Bit tenuous to say the least. I mean we were like ISIS centuries ago, burning witches at the stake, women were second class breeders, the inquisition etc etc but we have become more civilised and are moving past religion. The followers of Islam are stuck in this medieval mentality and have no place in the modern civilised world.
Don't know why you keep mentioning White supremacy, I sincerely hope that one day the Liberal Utopia comes to pass and we can all live together in peace, but I fear this is hundreds or thousands of years away.
Iroquois
06-06-17, 07:46 AM
White supremacy is not going to be such a big problem in the future . The entire white race is dwindling in number all the way from the atlantic ocean to the ural mountains . Whites are going to be minorities in many nations where they are in a majority today .
The tidal wave of history is not in favour of white or christian or even nonmuslim people . The tidal wave of history is in favour of muslims who have got the population growth rate in their favour . Most importantly , muslims are unencumbered by political correctness like we nonmuslims are . They are 100 percent confident that their islamic way of life is superior to everything else . And it is this islamic supremacy that must be countered more than anything else .
I'd certainly hope white supremacy isn't going to be a problem in the future, but that means solving the problem in the present. There's a symbiosis between white supremacy and Islamic extremism where they feed off each other - if terrorist attacks lead to extreme vetting, then that leads to discrimination, which feeds into increased radicalisation of the discriminated, and so the cycle begins anew. Meanwhile, white supremacy feeds off the disillusioned whites by giving them an arbitrary reason to feel superior (i,e. being born into the "right" race) and encouraging the enforcing of that superiority through an established end goal of subjugating and eliminating all other races. If white populations are already dwindling, then they're just going to fight even harder to maintain the semblance of superiority granted by hundreds of years of Western imperialism.
Also, do you seriously think that Muslims are the only ones who are "unencumbered by political correctness"? There are so many people in this thread and elsewhere complaining about how political correctness prevents them from saying what they really think, when really it's their opposition to political correctness that tells us everything. Even the U.S. President complains about it frequently. If being politically correct really is the one thing that separates non-Muslims from these hypothetical Muslims you describe, then why do you want to get rid of it so badly?
Yes because there are so many Christian terrorists killing people in the name of Christ, flying planes into buildings, bombing planes, trains and stations, shoving gays off tall buildings, stoning women for adultery and *gasp* having the temerity of being raped,
cutting off women's genitals and sexual organs, etc.
I specified "Christian vs atheist" because white supremacy isn't limited to religion - white atheists will shoot up and bomb POC churches. Also, there's a difference between acts carried out by small numbers of terrorists and those enacted by fundamentalist politicians on the areas they govern. By your logic, I would be justified in comparing a Christian murdering an abortion doctor at church to Mike Pence defunding Planned Parenthood and causing a HIV outbreak. Both are motivated by strong religious convictions and both have negative effects on vulnerable people.
And as we all know, the West is the one place in the world where women are most oppressed. They are so much freer and so much more equal....where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? China? Asia? Oh wait.... the Women's right movement and the Gay Right's movements started where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? Asia? China? Oh wait....
What part of
getting away with not treating white Western women equally "because women are treated much worse in Muslim countries so stop complaining".
was not clear to you?
Sexual harrassment and pedophelia was brought to the world's attention first, where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? China?Asia? Oh wait.....
The Boston Catholic Church.
PS- perhaps you don't realize "white men" are not exclusive to the US and, as far as I know, the KKK does not exist anywhere outside said US.
Perhaps you don't realise that white supremacy is not limited to the KKK.
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 08:05 AM
What is any of this based on?
How do you know authorities did nothing because of political correctness?
We have no clue why this stuff wasn't followed up on (and i'm completely with you it should have been, i'm p!ssed), i have my own theories that have just as much evidence as your across the ocean based: constantly reading debunked sources self.
It's based on a lot of things - the words of politicians, the words and actions of progressive movements, the inactions of governments, the political environment over the last 2 decades, the way many countries' justice systems have been rendered ineffective toward preventing Islamic Terrorism by political correctness, immigration policies, the revelations of apostates, the testimonials of former terrorists, the testimonies of witnesses and whistleblowers who were utterly ignored, the admission of people who are more afraid of being called a name than taking action, the testimonies of police, on-the-ground law enforcement and military personnel, the boasting of the terrorists themselves about which liberties they love to take advantage of to further their goals of destroying all liberties, the opinions and advice by terrorist & security experts, and just through the observation of the pattern that terrorist attacks keep occurring which turn out to have been committed by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists which authorities knew about or were warned about while the clamor from the PC camps is to continue the flood of Islamic fundamentalist refugees, to allow Muslim monocultures to establish footholds & utilize Sharia law in formerly western cultures.
It's also based on the words of certain leaders who, in one breath say all Muslims are peaceful & rational people that represent a peaceful and beautiful religion, but then say they CAN'T use the words "Islamic Terrorism" because stating such a fact will suddenly cause these same peaceful & rational Muslims to suddenly become radicalized and want to surround villages with children's severed heads on spits! As if certain words will "trigger" intelligent Muslims to become mass murderers due to some inherent mechanism built deep within them all, as if they are all some kind of Manchurian candidates! In their attempts at bending over backwards to appease Political Correctness, some leaders contradict themselves saying they are so afraid of using accurate language because what they REALLY think of Muslims is that their religion makes them all some kind of ticking time bombs that will become terrorists triggered by one word rather than being peaceful, rational, intelligent people who can deal with reality.
My post was obviously an opinion editorial, a hypothesis, a theory as to the reasons why known terrorists are overtly allowed to slip through the cracks - but it's a theory like gravity - the theory is in the "how" it works, but the observable result is that things keep falling to the ground regardless of the details.
Iroquois
06-06-17, 08:06 AM
Bit tenuous to say the least. I mean we were like ISIS centuries ago, burning witches at the stake, women were second class breeders, the inquisition etc etc but we have become more civilised and are moving past religion. The followers of Islam are stuck in this medieval mentality and have no place in the modern civilised world.
Don't know why you keep mentioning White supremacy, I sincerely hope that one day the Liberal Utopia comes to pass and we can all live together in peace, but I fear this is hundreds or thousands of years away.
I have trouble believing that we have become that much more civilised. Western society may have grown more secular in a way that mitigates fundamentalist influence, but that same old-fashioned tribalism still bubbles underneath. I keep bringing up white supremacy because it's so comparable to radical Islam in that it's about enforcing an end goal of superiority over anyone else who isn't like them to the point of effectively being the extreme at the other end of the spectrum from radical Islam. The difference is that they use different tactics that are less to do with acts of physical violence (though they're not averse to that, if Portland is any indication) than to do with influence on an intellectual and emotional scale, appealing to the centre's senses of reason and compassion.
christine
06-06-17, 08:07 AM
Spot on! Hurt feelings are much more important to them - forget about the dead children.
I'm at work at the moment so don't have the time to say much, but this statement was really unnecessary unkind.
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 08:18 AM
The reason it sounds racist is because you generalise a billion people based on a comparatively small number carrying out acts of terror.
Is it generalizing when you say forty-three per cent of followers of the religion living in the UK believed that Sharia law should replace British law. Researchers also found "deeply worrying" levels of belief among British Muslims in conspiracy theories such as blaming the US government or “Jews" for the 9/11 terror attacks on America
A total of 13 per cent were inclined to oppose the idea while 9 per cent "strongly" opposed it.
The findings were revealed in one of the biggest surveys of opinion among Muslims ever carried out in the UK by polling firm ICM
I am not afraid of terrorism
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 09:15 AM
.
Tacitus
06-06-17, 09:18 AM
FromBeyond - Are you going to attempt a debate or are you intending to troll?
Wplains
06-06-17, 09:31 AM
I'd certainly hope white supremacy isn't going to be a problem in the future, but that means solving the problem in the present. There's a symbiosis between white supremacy and Islamic extremism where they feed off each other - if terrorist attacks lead to extreme vetting, then that leads to discrimination, which feeds into increased radicalisation of the discriminated, and so the cycle begins anew. Meanwhile, white supremacy feeds off the disillusioned whites by giving them an arbitrary reason to feel superior (i,e. being born into the "right" race) and encouraging the enforcing of that superiority through an established end goal of subjugating and eliminating all other races. If white populations are already dwindling, then they're just going to fight even harder to maintain the semblance of superiority granted by hundreds of years of Western imperialism.
Also, do you seriously think that Muslims are the only ones who are "unencumbered by
political correctness"? There are so many people in this thread and elsewhere complaining about how political correctness prevents them from saying what they really think, when really it's their opposition to political correctness that tells us everything. Even the U.S. President complains about it frequently. If being politically correct really is the one thing that separates non-Muslims from these hypothetical Muslims you describe, then why do you want to get rid of it so badly?
I specified "Christian vs atheist" because white supremacy isn't limited to religion - white atheists will shoot up and bomb POC churches. Also, there's a difference between acts carried out by small numbers of terrorists and those enacted by fundamentalist politicians on the areas they govern. By your logic, I would be justified in comparing a Christian murdering an abortion doctor at church to Mike Pence defunding Planned Parenthood and causing a HIV outbreak. Both are motivated by strong religious convictions and both have negative effects on vulnerable people.
What part of
was not clear to you?
The Boston Catholic Church.
Perhaps you don't realise that white supremacy is not limited to the KKK.
Don't get what you are trying to say about the Boston Catholic Church? It seems to me incidents carried out by what you call "white supremacists" are few and far between and condemned by the vast majority of the public be they religious or non religious. There is no organized movement in Western countries where these people go about planning killings and shootings and blowing up buildings or plowing cars into crowds (while the same cannot be said for our Muslim pals). Seems to me the West has been more than open and tolerant in welcoming in vast amounts of people from other continents and other cultures often at the expense of our own as we are now beginning to realize. So don't know what you are on about when you talk about a non-existent "white supremacist" movement. I've certainly never come into contact with it and it is certainly not "white supremacists" who make me look over my shoulder when I enter an airport or walk in a crowded public square in an European city.
BTW, you were the one who mentioned the KKK not me.
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 09:32 AM
What debate?
I'm at work at the moment so don't have the time to say much, but this statement was really unnecessary unkind.
Unfortunately, I think this is seen as a feature and not a bug. Things like kindness (or, you know, tact) are vaguely reminiscent of political correctness, so not saying clumsily provocative or incendiary things is apparently a form of giving in. The only free minds are those living in a State of Nature, don't ya' know?
Regardless, this is the final warning I'm going to issue in this thread: it's going to be civil, or it's going to be closed.
Movie Max
06-06-17, 09:51 AM
... or it's going to be closed.
Might as well. You know it's only going to get worse, subject-wise. Innocent sheep will continue to get slaughtered, while wolves in sheep's clothing will continue to get attacked and defended. I only see topic escalation ahead.:indifferent:
What on earth is that? Something to do with the most boring sport in the world involving a ball and some sticks? This thread would be hilarious if if wasnt so ridiculous
Are you seriously saying that I started this thread because India has a cricket rivalry with Pakistan ? And what do you find hilarious about this thread where killings of human beings by terrorists is being discussed?
Wplains
06-06-17, 10:32 AM
Might as well. You know it's only going to get worse, subject-wise. Innocent sheep will continue to get slaughtered, while wolves in sheep's clothing will continue to get attacked and defended. I only see topic escalation ahead.:indifferent:
Was expecting that. Seems to me the people who most shout for "tolerance" are the ones who cannot stand to hear any opinions that are contrary to their own. The ones going around calling others Fascists and xenophobes. Me, I don't care what anybody says - you can say whatever you like because I know it's just an opinion and we all have those. We all look at the world through our own eyes and experiences. It does not bother me one whit what others say and what opinions they hold as the last thing I would do is shut them up or tell them to be quiet. Alas, the world we live in is not like that anymore and people seem to expect to be protected from whatever it is they don't like or want to hear.
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 10:35 AM
Yes but if you close this thread somebody will just make a new one when the next Islamic terror attack in Europe happens soon.
Was expecting that. Seems to me the people who most shout for "tolerance" are the ones who cannot stand to hear any opinions that are contrary to their own.
If they were trying not to hear contrary opinions, it sure is strange that they keep trying to discuss them. Or that this thread has 1,300 posts and contains all manner of stark opinions which have not been removed or edited. This is what you think suppressing contrary opinions looks like? :skeptical:
On the other hand, broadcasting opinions and then saying you didn't expect to have to justify them? That seems like a much better fit for what you're describing.
The ones going around calling others Fascists and xenophobes.
How about the ones saying other people want children to die and are facilitating the downfall of society?
Alas, the world we live in is not like that anymore and people seem to expect to be protected from whatever it is they don't like or want to hear.
Yup. And lots of people just want little back-patting societies where they can talk about how right they are, without the unpleasant interruption of questions.
Wplains
06-06-17, 11:14 AM
If they were trying not to hear contrary opinions, it sure is strange that they keep trying to discuss them. Or that this thread has 1,300 posts and contains all manner of stark opinions which have not been removed or edited. This is what you think suppressing contrary opinions looks like? :skeptical:
On the other hand, broadcasting opinions and then saying you didn't expect to have to justify them? That seems like a much better fit for what you're describing.
How about the ones saying other people want children to die and are facilitating the downfall of society?
Yup. And lots of people just want little back-patting societies where they can talk about how right they are, without the unpleasant interruption of questions.
Excuse me, am I the one saying this thread might be shut down? Does it sound like I'm the one who cannot hear different opinions? I think with my own mind, not yours or anyone else's so have no idea what you deem "permissible" to be said or not said. You seem to be offended because I didn't respond to the way you wanted me to to whatever it was you said about my post. Frankly, I'm still scratching my head at what you were trying to say. I told you : your logic escapes me so maybe it's just me who's stupid?
And sorry, I do believe from the bottom of my heart that the idiotic appeasement policies and PC stance of European politicians are fast bringing about the downfall of our civilization. So if that is offensive to you -- what can I say? It's my opinion and you are in no way obliged to agree with it. :shrug:
gandalf26
06-06-17, 11:24 AM
No need to shut the thread down, those who don't wish to participate or view the thread need not enter it.
Excuse me, am I the one saying this thread might be shut down?
Nope. But you are the one saying that shutting it down would be an example of shutting out contrary opinions, even though it's almost a year old, has over a thousand posts, and all those contrary opinions are already filling it to the brim and have been discussed over and over. Doesn't really make sense.
Does it sound like I'm the one who cannot hear different opinions?
Well, seeing as how you were shocked when asked to justify your own...kinda, yeah.
You seem to be offended because I didn't respond to the way you wanted me to to whatever it was you said about my post.
Er, no, I wasn't offended. I realize you want to shoehorn every disagreement onto the PC/un-PC spectrum, but it doesn't follow that anyone disagreeing with you is offended, or suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to say it. Sometimes they're just saying they think it's wrong, or that you should have good reasons for saying it.
And sorry, I do believe from the bottom of my heart that the idiotic appeasement policies and PC stance of European politicians are fast bringing about the downfall of our civilization. So if that is offensive to you -- what can I say? It's my opinion and you are in no way obliged to agree with it. :shrug:
Didn't say it was offensive, and I didn't ask you to justify those beliefs, either. What I did do was point out that, if calling people "fascist" is somehow an example of them wanting to suppress disagreement, then accusing people of wanting children dead must be, too.
No need to shut the thread down, those who don't wish to participate or view the thread need not enter it.
And those who wish to express an opinion need not be glib or uncivil about it.
christine
06-06-17, 11:33 AM
Look, I'm speaking for myself, but I think Dani, Camo and Iro have taken part in this thread simply because we cannot sit back and read views in these posts that reflect only one view. Luckily we have Yoda and Tacitus here to try and keep it civilised.
People here all agree that bombing, stabbing, running over people is wrong, but being accused of not caring about dead children when you're trying to see the bigger picture is just not on. We have to have a tolerant society, I'm proud of living in the UK where I see Somali refugee kids playing on the swings at the bottom of my road. I would never leave this country in order to 'feel safer'. I feel safe now.
Why is the word tolerance so abhorrant to some of you? You love to see the world as being too 'PC' , but this generation has worked hard to combat racism, sexism and homophobia. If it's strayed a little too far in its constraints then society will eventually balance this out. This is a new movement only 50 or so years since it started, a drop in the history of mankind. Have some perspective, and don't go with the divide and conquer mentality of media like the Daily Mail in the UK which whips up outrage and distorts the facts to sell newspapers
Don't forget we are commenting on media news, not facts. There will be investigations to see if some of the terrorism suspects were known, and if they were steps will be taken to deal with that intelligence to help the security services better deal with the same situations next time. These are new situations that need to be learned from. We need to live in a country that doesn't rush out and intern innocent people and make new laws reducing everyones rights thus incubating further problems.
FYI Wplains, you asked in the last page if I lived in Australia or the USA, no I live in a British city, in the inner city as do my kids. My family live in another innercity, I've lived all my 60 years in English cities including London. I've never looked over my shoulder in fear. I've never been worried about my kids safety except when they used to walk home from town by the docks when they'd had a few scoops. ;D
and Yoda if you want to shut the thread, I'm happy with that.
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 12:14 PM
If they were trying not to hear contrary opinions, it sure is strange that they keep trying to discuss them. Or that this thread has 1,300 posts and contains all manner of stark opinions which have not been removed or edited. This is what you think suppressing contrary opinions looks like? :skeptical:
1300 + posts is a good reason to allow the thread to remain and only remove posts you feel are in violation (JMO).
How about the ones saying other people want children to die and are facilitating the downfall of society?
I'm afraid the origin of this may come from one of my posts and the context must be taken into account - it was on the topic of letting known terrorists slip through the cracks and I said "Politicians and heads of law enforcement seem to prefer scores of dead children and murdered bodies in the street rather than suffer the possibility of being called a name (that might cost them potential votes)."
The word "seem" means give the appearance of. And that's the way it does appear after the fact (as demonstrated by so many articles criticizing governments over it) when we hear authorities had knowledge and information about these radicalized individuals and did nothing about them before they committed murder for their ideology.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/40178183
Is this another small terror attack?
gandalf26
06-06-17, 12:22 PM
Look, I'm speaking for myself, but I think Dani, Camo and Iro have taken part in this thread simply because we cannot sit back and read views in these posts that reflect only one view. Luckily we have Yoda and Tacitus here to try and keep it civilised.
People here all agree that bombing, stabbing, running over people is wrong, but being accused of not caring about dead children when you're trying to see the bigger picture is just not on. We have to have a tolerant society, I'm proud of living in the UK where I see Somali refugee kids playing on the swings at the bottom of my road. I would never leave this country in order to 'feel safer'. I feel safe now.
Why is the word tolerance so abhorrant to some of you? You love to see the world as being too 'PC' , but this generation has worked hard to combat racism, sexism and homophobia. If it's strayed a little too far in its constraints then society will eventually balance this out. This is a new movement only 50 or so years since it started, a drop in the history of mankind. Have some perspective, and don't go with the divide and conquer mentality of media like the Daily Mail in the UK which whips up outrage and distorts the facts to sell newspapers
Don't forget we are commenting on media news, not facts. There will be investigations to see if some of the terrorism suspects were known, and if they were steps will be taken to deal with that intelligence to help the security services better deal with the same situations next time. These are new situations that need to be learned from. We need to live in a country that doesn't rush out and intern innocent people and make new laws reducing everyones rights thus incubating further problems.
FYI Wplains, you asked in the last page if I lived in Australia or the USA, no I live in a British city, in the inner city as do my kids. My family live in another innercity, I've lived all my 60 years in English cities including London. I've never looked over my shoulder in fear. I've never been worried about my kids safety except when they used to walk home from town by the docks when they'd had a few scoops. ;D
and Yoda if you want to shut the thread, I'm happy with that.
So all views in thus thread not in line with your own fall under one category "rascist" I'm guessing.
The very things that you ve described as defining tolerance in the UK tend to be the things that Muslims/Islam are completely intolerant towards, how many supposed homosexual s have been thrown off buildings in Syria, and by British Muslims who have returned.
The suspects were known to the authorities but I don't expect them to be clairvoyant and know who will attack and who won't.
Movie Max
06-06-17, 12:23 PM
I guess we have to do something, to fill the minutes and hours between attacks.
What's this hammer attack stuff coming out of Paris, in front of the Notre Dame?
gandalf26
06-06-17, 12:25 PM
Better not upset Christine with racial prejudices as to the ethnicity and motives of the attacker until all the facts come in.
Movie Max
06-06-17, 12:29 PM
As mentioned earlier in the thread...
Australian PM says Melbourne siege 'a terrorist attack'
"This terrorist attack by a known criminal, a man who was only recently released on parole, is a shocking, cowardly crime," Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull told reporters in the capital, Canberra.
"It is a terrorist attack and it underlines the need for us to be constantly vigilant, never to be deterred, always defiant, in the face of Islamist terrorism," he said.
Police also said they were investigating the siege as act of terrorism after Islamic State claimed responsibility for the attack via its Amaq news agency. They identified Khayre as a 29-year-old Australian of Somali heritage.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-siege-police-idUSKBN18W2PX
So all views in thus thread not in line with your own fall under one category "rascist" I'm guessing.
Why would you guess that? Did she say it, or is this just the kind of thing you think someone "like her" would say?
People disagree all the time, but where these exchanges become pointless and irredeemable is when people start using individuals as proxies for other groups. For example, by not responding to what they literally say, but putting words in their mouth because it's what you think someone like them might say.
Better not upset Christine with racial prejudices as to the ethnicity and motives of the attacker until all the facts come in.
It's odd that this is sarcastic, because I can't imagine what part is actually supposed to be objectionable. You think speculating before facts come in is good?
1300 + posts is a good reason to allow the thread to remain and only remove posts you feel are in violation (JMO).
That's all well and good, but the point is that the implications of censorship or suppressing contrary viewpoints are manifestly silly.
As to what you're saying, though: it's true, but only to a point. There's not much reason left when incendiary posts start to outnumber constructive ones. If a thread needs to be constantly monitored, and posts constantly deleted, to stop it from devolving into a flame war, then it shouldn't be open.
I'm afraid the origin of this may come from one of my posts and the context must be taken into account - it was on the topic of letting known terrorists slip through the cracks and I said "Politicians and heads of law enforcement seem to prefer scores of dead children and murdered bodies in the street rather than suffer the possibility of being called a name (that might cost them potential votes)."
The word "seem" means give the appearance of. And that's the way it does appear after the fact (as demonstrated by so many articles criticizing governments over it) when we hear authorities had knowledge and information about these radicalized individuals and did nothing about them before they committed murder for their ideology.
I wasn't thinking specifically of your comments when I said that; I was speaking more generally. I don't mind someone saying it, either, whether I agree with it or not. But someone can't say something like that, and then turn around and point to terms like "xenophobe" as evidence they're being shouted down or unfairly insulted.
Basically, the vibe I'm getting from some of these exchanges are that there are people in this thread who love to dish it out, but can't take it.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 12:39 PM
Well she says that there is her view and one other possible view, wonder what that coukd be.
Also not sarcastic at all, genuine heartfelt concern for christines feelings.
cat_sidhe
06-06-17, 12:41 PM
Better not upset Christine with racial prejudices as to the ethnicity and motives of the attacker until all the facts come in.
Can you please refrain from the personal nonsense? Or was Yoda not speaking plain English?
Well she says that there is her view and one other possible view, wonder what that coukd be.
Saying there's another "possible" view is not the same thing as endorsing it, dude. Maybe you should just ask. Unless you trust her to randomly (and uncharitably) speculate as to your motives correctly.
Also not sarcastic at all, genuine heartfelt concern for christines feelings.
Doubling down on sarcasm isn't really responding to what I said, and is, frankly, pretty juvenile.
If you think it's good to speculate without facts about serious matters, then say so and own the statement. If you realize it isn't, then your sarcasm was (and is) misplaced.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/europe/notre-dame-incident-paris-france/index.html
Police are opening anti terror probe in Notre dame attack.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 12:55 PM
Saying there's another "possible" view is not the same thing as endorsing it, dude. Maybe you should just ask. Unless you trust her to randomly (and uncharitably) speculate as to your motives correctly.
Doubling down on sarcasm isn't really responding to what I said, and is, frankly, pretty juvenile.
If you think it's good to speculate without facts about serious matters, then say so and own the statement. If you realize it isn't, then your sarcasm was (and is) misplaced.
You could copy and paste your previous post about my assumptions and apply it to your own about my sarcasm.
You could copy and paste your previous post about my assumptions and apply it to your own about my sarcasm.
Really? You're seriously pretending this isn't sarcastic?
"Better not upset Christine with racial prejudices as to the ethnicity and motives of the attacker until all the facts come in."
gandalf26
06-06-17, 01:01 PM
I wouldn't go that far :) but you criticise me for making assumptions then do the same. Both assumptions are right on the money.
Movie Max
06-06-17, 01:03 PM
Police are opening anti terror probe in Notre dame attack.
It's either some crazy Frenchman who didn't get his fresh baguette this morning, or the usual freedom of practicing one's religion and stuff.:modest:
I wouldn't go that far :) but you criticise me for making assumptions then do the same. Both assumptions are right on the money.
Technically, nobody can prove a statement is sarcastic, and you're obviously using that fact to imply an equivalence that isn't there. But what you said was plainly sarcastic and no real "assumption" was necessary to interpret it as such.
But either way, this still applies:
If you think it's good to speculate without facts about serious matters, then say so and own the statement. If you realize it isn't, then your sarcasm was (and is) misplaced.
https://www.google.co.in/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/06/06/europe/notre-dame-incident-paris-france/index.html
Police are opening anti terror probe in Notre dame attack.
The attacker attacked with a hammer. Interestingly , the great saviour of France ( Charles Martel ) drove out the Arabs from France by attacking them with a hammer. How things have turned around...
Movie Max
06-06-17, 01:06 PM
I would just like to point out, that you are both failing to capitalize the first three letters of "ASSumption", and I'm just not used to that.:D
cat_sidhe
06-06-17, 01:13 PM
I wouldn't go that far :) but you criticise me for making assumptions then do the same. Both assumptions are right on the money.
All that aside, the threat to close the thread is because of people being seemingly unable to stop with the personal attacks, and not because of dissenting opinions.
So could everyone please stop with that. That request to be civil should be easy enough to follow.
All that aside, the threat to close the thread is because of people being seemingly unable to stop with the personal attacks, and not because of dissenting opinions.
So could everyone please stop with that. That request to be civil should be easy enough to follow.
It's very easy to follow. And the fact that it keeps falling on deaf ears is, I think, very telling as to what people are really trying to get out of posting in here. If they take this stuff seriously, and want to discuss it seriously, nobody would stop them from doing so. The fact that they'd rather tweak other members or complain sarcastically suggests they're in it for other reasons.
Either way, everyone's been amply warned. There's nothing to stop people from having an adult discussion about this admittedly serious topic. If the thread is closed, and they want to complain about it, I'd direct them to the nearest mirror.
christine
06-06-17, 01:33 PM
So all views in thus thread not in line with your own fall under one category "rascist" I'm guessing.
I did not call anyone here racist. Islamophobia is being stirred up by speculation and inflammatory posts here.
The very things that you ve described as defining tolerance in the UK tend to be the things that Muslims/Islam are completely intolerant towards, how many supposed homosexual s have been thrown off buildings in Syria, and by British Muslims who have returneD.
and that makes it ok for the rest of us not to remain tolerant? Two wrongs don't make a right I was always taught.
Well she says that there is her view and one other possible view, wonder what that coukd be.
Also not sarcastic at all, genuine heartfelt concern for christines feelings.
and I was also taught that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but honestly please don't worry about my feelings tho, I'm fine. :) seriously.
cat_sidhe
06-06-17, 01:34 PM
Yoda If it does happen it's clear (to me at least) that it wasn't to squash opinions, but sadly, that people couldn't argue without getting personal. It's the only time there's been warnings.
christine
06-06-17, 01:59 PM
ok so let's get sone facts in here.
The terrorist hotline in the UK had 22,000 calls last year.
That's 60 calls a day which are all followed up.
The UK has no 'money tree' according to Mrs May
Resources are limited.
Operating a round-the-clock undercover team to follow one suspect is believed to cost more than £500,000 a year.
There are at present 500 very complex active and ongoing cases
It's going to be interesting to see how many of these recent murderers have actually been under investigation.
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 02:13 PM
The attacker attacked with a hammer. Interestingly , the great saviour of France ( Charles Martel ) drove out the Arabs from France by attacking them with a hammer. How things have turned around...
Adult conversation: so the Notre Dame attacker told police "this is for Syria!"
Well, isn't that a convoluted statement!
What part or what side in Syria?
You've got the Assad government, you've got the anti-government rebels, you've got the anti-rebel rebels, there's the Al Qaida contingent of the insurgents, there are various militia forces and mercenaries on various sides, the cause could be for or against Russia or Iran (Assad's backers), it could be against the "Great Satan" (the U.S. - pretty much the enemy of all players on the Syrian Monopoly board) or could be for or against the Christians that have been wiped out in Syria as part of the holocaust against Christians occurring in various Middle Eastern & African Islamic countries... and then, of course, there's ISIS / ISIL / DAESH.
...and then there's Maude.
P.S. I'm glad they got this one alive - always so much more information (leading to more Islamic Terrorists) when they get one alive.
Wplains
06-06-17, 02:14 PM
No need to shut the thread down, those who don't wish to participate or view the thread need not enter it.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Never did understand why people demand something be shut down just because they don't agree with certain content. Surely it's easier to just avoid it altogether?
BTW, just saw some news about another attack in Paris today.
Why would you guess that? Did she say it, or is this just the kind of thing you think someone "like her" would say?
I've never seen Christine use the term in this thread since I've been in it. Islam is not a race anyway so she wouldnt use that term in that context.
Yes, my thoughts exactly. Never did understand why people demand something be shut down just because they don't agree with certain content.
This doesn't appear to describe anybody in this thread.
I realize it sounds better to pretend this is just about dissenting views, rather than the hostile personal remarks that are often appended to them, but that idea is blatantly contradicted by the length and content of the thread.
Wplains
06-06-17, 02:39 PM
Nope. But you are the one saying that shutting it down would be an example of shutting out contrary opinions, even though it's almost a year old, has over a thousand posts, and all those contrary opinions are already filling it to the brim and have been discussed over and over. Doesn't really make sense.
Did I not understand that you were threatening to shut down the thread or did I get that wrong?
Well, seeing as how you were shocked when asked to justify your own...kinda, yeah.
Do I have to tell you again that I didn't understand what you were on about? And it's hardly my fault you if cannot make yourself understood. But let's forget it because we've been over it and I still don't get what you want....:shrug:
Er, no, I wasn't offended. I realize you want to shoehorn every disagreement onto the PC/un-PC spectrum, but it doesn't follow that anyone disagreeing with you is offended, or suggesting you shouldn't be allowed to say it. Sometimes they're just saying they think it's wrong, or that you should have good reasons for saying it.
I think you are wrong but you are entitled to your opinion. And seriously, this is NOT a school and I don't really feel I have to justify anything. They can say what they like - I'm quite happy with that - but I don't have to respond if I don't want to.
Didn't say it was offensive, and I didn't ask you to justify those beliefs, either. What I did do was point out that, if calling people "fascist" is somehow an example of them wanting to suppress disagreement, then accusing people of wanting children dead must be, too.
I'm saying calling someone a "fascist" is the standard PC response to anyone who opposes mass immigration into Europe (don't know about the US) or who happens to be a nationalist who defends their country and culture (no matter what country). This is gleaned from comments on various national and international press articles - at least, that has been my experience. And I think you didn't understand what I meant by the the "dead children" comment. I was quoting the Paul Joseph Watson Youtube video who accuses the authorities of not doing enough to protect the populace because of their fear of being called racists or of their PC convictions. I agree with him 100% so hence, the quote.
Wplains
06-06-17, 02:43 PM
, I've lived all my 60 years in English cities including London. I've never looked over my shoulder in fear. . ;D
No, neither did I - the difference is: now I do!
PS - And I also lived in London during the 70's.
Wplains
06-06-17, 02:52 PM
1300 + posts is a good reason to allow the thread to remain and only remove posts you feel are in violation (JMO).
I'm afraid the origin of this may come from one of my posts and the context must be taken into account - it was on the topic of letting known terrorists slip through the cracks and I said "Politicians and heads of law enforcement seem to prefer scores of dead children and murdered bodies in the street rather than suffer the possibility of being called a name (that might cost them potential votes)."
I've already explained: it comes from agreeing with Paul Joseph Watson when he says "tolerance" is more important than dead kids being blown up. Totally agree with him. Tolerance brought FGM, Sharia law, forced marriages, underage marriage and honor killings to Europe. Why should I be happy about that?
The word "seem" means give the appearance of. And that's the way it does appear after the fact (as demonstrated by so many articles criticizing governments over it) when we hear authorities had knowledge and information about these radicalized individuals and did nothing about them before they committed murder for their ideology.
It's been borne out again and again. This latest terrorist (not the one in Paris today) from London was even in a video about radicalized Muslims for Christ's sake and still he was allowed to do what he liked and wander about at will. They only seem to do anything about them when they go out and kill people. Would anyone be happy if it was a family members who was stabbed multiple times because no one wanted to do anything about this scum?
Did I not understand that you were threatening to shut down the thread or did I get that wrong?
Nope, you got that part right. The part that doesn't make sense is your speculation as to the reason for it. I made this pretty clear already, but I'll reproduce what you just replied to and bold the relevant part:
But you are the one saying that shutting it down would be an example of shutting out contrary opinions, even though it's almost a year old, has over a thousand posts, and all those contrary opinions are already filling it to the brim and have been discussed over and over. Doesn't really make sense.
I think you are wrong but you are entitled to your opinion.
Great, but that doesn't explain why you arbitrarily assume any disagreement means the person is "offended." I haven't suggested I'm offended in any way, so it seems like you're just eager to frame every argument in PC/non-PC terms, whether they fit or not.
And seriously, this is NOT a school
It's also not a blog. It's a discussion forum, and the act of posting on a public discussion forum implies an interest in discussion.
They can say what they like - I'm quite happy with that - but I don't have to respond if I don't want to.
Aye, you don't have to. But when you don't, other people can (and usually will) conclude that it's because the opinions are not particularly well-founded, and/or that you're just here to vent and disparage people.
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 03:05 PM
No, neither did I - the difference is: now I do!
PS - And I also lived in London during the 70's.
There's nothing wrong with being cautious in the face of an established threat - and I think it's safe to say that after 9/11, 7/7 and thousands of other attacks, that Islamic Terrorism in the west is an well established and intentional threat that derives from a single ideology (yes, not as large as accidents & cancer as the statistical arguments bear out, but a threat nonetheless).
Fearlessness is great, but it bugs me a bit when people speak of it as if they are fearless because there is nothing to be concerned about - that seems to be when fearlessness crosses over into denial.
Wplains
06-06-17, 03:07 PM
It's either some crazy Frenchman who didn't get his fresh baguette this morning, or the usual freedom of practicing one's religion and stuff.:modest:
http://news.sky.com/story/live-canadian-woman-named-as-first-victim-10903581
Met Police say one attacker was known to them but probe had been downgraded]
British police have named the third London attacker as Youssef Zaghba, a Moroccan-Italian who police in Italy say had been put on a security watchlist.
Butt, who also used the name Abdul Zaitun, appeared in a 2016 documentary called "The Jihadis Next Door," which told the story of Abu Rumaysah, the Londoner who has appeared in recent ISIS propaganda. At one point in the documentary, Butt can be seen unfurling a black banner in Regent's Park.
So someone please tell me what good does it do to put someone on a "watch" list when they can bloody well do what they like and go where they like? What possible use is this?
http://news.sky.com/story/paris-police-warn-public-to-stay-away-from-notre-dame-cathedral-10906298?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter
man armed with a hammer and kitchen knives attacked police officers outside Notre Dame cathedral in Paris http://trib.al/VlxSMLw
French interior minister Gerard Collomb says the attacker cried "this is for Syria" as he targeted officers outside the landmark.
I suppose we should be grateful they now shoot to kill these bastards where they stand. Though if I were a police officer in the UK, I'd be scared to shoot anyone lest I be accused of murder. They put their own soldiers on trial and jail them for killing the enemy in a war scenario. That's how ridiculous the situation has become - common sense has flown out the window.
Wplains
06-06-17, 03:19 PM
Nope, you got that part right. The part that doesn't make sense is your speculation as to the reason for it. I made this pretty clear already, but I'll reproduce what you just replied to and bold the relevant part:
But you are the one saying that shutting it down would be an example of shutting out contrary opinions, even though it's almost a year old, has over a thousand posts, and all those contrary opinions are already filling it to the brim and have been discussed over and over. Doesn't really make sense.
Huh? Did I say this?
Great, but that doesn't explain why you arbitrarily assume any disagreement means the person is "offended." I haven't suggested I'm offended in any way, so it seems like you're just eager to frame every argument in PC/non-PC terms, whether they fit or not.
That's because I don't arbitrarily assume any disagreement means the person is "offended": I was very specifically talking about you. I said you seemed offended - that's how it came across to me. See the difference? And like I said - you keep making a mountain out of a molehill and I'm still totally confused about what you want.
It's also not a blog. It's a discussion forum, and the act of posting on a public discussion forum implies an interest in discussion.
Aye, you don't have to. But when you don't, other people can (and usually will) conclude that it's because the opinions are not particularly well-founded, and/or that you're just here to vent and disparage people.
Well that seems a bit extreme in my view - it seems like jumping to conclusions. I already told you, I was surprised by your tone in demanding I explain something when I had no idea what you were talking about. I don't think I've insulted anyone here or called anyone any names. You do seem to be extremely suspicious about people's motives. I have to say, I don't feel the same about any of the rest of the posters on this forum. As far as you yourself are concerned, I find you totally confusing.
people on this thread are guilty!
What does that even mean?
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 03:37 PM
Butt, who also used the name Abdul Zaitun, appeared in a 2016 documentary called "The Jihadis Next Door," which told the story of Abu Rumaysah, the Londoner who has appeared in recent ISIS propaganda. At one point in the documentary, Butt can be seen unfurling a black banner in Regent's Park.
And praying towards it with his associates. He is the second killer to have appeared on The Jihadis Next Door!
That two terrorists were declaring their love for Islamic state on national TV and went on to murder people
Shows like this shouldn't even exist, the minute somebody declares support for Islamic State, they should be dropped in Syria without a passport... oh wait they'll just get a dingy and we'll let them back in and give them a house and an income
The liberal left have blood on their hands. I hope to god there will be a reckoning.
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 03:37 PM
What does that even mean?
Not sure, but I know I'm guilty of a lot of things! ;)
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 03:49 PM
What does that even mean?
It means the biggest enemy is not Islamic state it is the liberal left love.
It means the biggest enemy is not Islamic state it is the liberal left love.
I think something must be in the mofo water cooler of late. I still have no idea what point you're trying to make. I'm sorry. Is this 'catholic guilt' you're talking about or something else entirely?
I havent seen her 'on this thread'. You said people in this thread are guilty. Guilty of what?
FromBeyond
06-06-17, 04:08 PM
Yeah if I continue I will probably get banned
Yeah if I continue I will probably get banned
Well I wouldnt want that because normally I enjoy your posts, but if you're going to claim we're guilty at least don't run and hide. Am I guilty of living peacefully with my neighbours who fled Iran many years ago and have been upstanding members of their community ever since, including being administrator of the nearby Seventh Day Adventist Private Hospital nd giving to the less privileged? If so I should be arrested forthwith. Shackle me and take pity on my catholic guilt soul. TIA. Just let me cook them some food for Eid this evening first.
Movie Max
06-06-17, 04:43 PM
He has never lied in his life, that's believable...:rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFqoC7IQz8Y
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 04:59 PM
He has never lied in his life, that's believable...:rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFqoC7IQz8Y
I didn't get your headline as I started watching, but now I see you were mocking the apologist Imam engaging in taqiyah from Sydney who denies what his religion teaches, and not the one from Melbourne who was delivering facts.
People should start listening to Imam Tawhidi.
christine
06-06-17, 05:00 PM
I suppose we should be grateful they now shoot to kill these bastards where they stand. Though if I were a police officer in the UK, I'd be scared to shoot anyone lest I be accused of murder. They put their own soldiers on trial and jail them for killing the enemy in a war scenario. That's how ridiculous the situation has become - common sense has flown out the window.
If you were an armed police officer in the UK you would not be scared to shoot anyone. They're trained to deal with situations and know when to shoot to kill. Hence the rapidlity and effeciency of what happened in Borough Market and High St.
They put their own soldiers on trial and jail them for killing the enemy in a war scenario
"They" meaning the UK?
Yes we put soldiers on trial for crimes committed during wars. Crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court are also crimes in domestic law. Committing a war crime has to be tried under the Geneva Convention.
As for the particular soldier I presume you're talking about the Alexander Blackman case? He has been released released after serving 3.5 years after being convicted of murder.
He shot a seriously injured insurgent who was lying on the floor in the chest at close range with a 9mm. He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."
Let's deal in facts. You really want soldiers who act like this serving your country?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4290435.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/01/military.iraq
Now either we have laws and international conventions we stick to or we have anarchy.
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 05:11 PM
Now either we have laws and international conventions we stick to or we have anarchy.
I understand and agree with your point, Christine, but I can't help noticing the irony of your last sentence.
Your country has Muslim-controlled zones where some emergency responders & citizens fear entering and where people are practicing Sharia law, you have an alleged 23,000 terrorists known to authorities loose in your country, you have family and community networks of operating killers in your cities, you have elected Islamophile politicians telling the populace that Islamic terror attacks are now just a part of life, and now you have regular suicide / homicide bombings, vehicular massacres and knife murders in your streets by ISIS supported terrorists.... it seems anarchy has already arrived.
Wplains
06-06-17, 05:15 PM
He has never lied in his life, that's believable...:rolleyes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFqoC7IQz8Y
Wow, I'm flabergasted....😳
So I think if what the cleric from Melbourne said had been said by a white, Christian Australian he would have been immediately called an Islamophobe and a racist not to mention xenophobe and probably a Fascist! Give that guy a medal - he certainly deserves one for telling the unvarnished truth. He is also extremely courageous because there is a high probability some radical from his community will probably shoot him within the next couple of months. Well done brave man! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
christine
06-06-17, 05:21 PM
I understand and agree with your point, Christine, but I can't help noticing the irony of your last sentence.
Your country has Muslim-controlled zones where some emergency responders & citizens fear entering
This isn't true
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 05:32 PM
This isn't true
That's an opinion since some contend differently:
Masood returned to England from Jeddah about seven years ago.
By the time of Wednesday’s attack on Westminster Bridge, he had seamlessly gravitated to Birmingham, a city increasingly enveloped by sharia enclaves that, to varying degrees, have become “no-go zones” for non-Muslims and agents of the state, including police.
There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.
Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western. Like the conversion of Masood, the conversion of Birmingham has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance.
As Soeren Kern relates in a comprehensive Gatestone Institute report on Islam in Britain, the metamorphosis of Birmingham, along with several other U.K. population centers, signifies this resistance. When the Islamic presence in a Western community reaches a critical mass, Islam’s hostility to Western mores and demands for sharia governance result in non-Muslim flight. Marriages between Muslims resident in the Western community and Muslims overseas tend to result in childbirth rates and household growth that dwarfs that of the indigenous population. Arranged, intra-familial, and polygamous marriages, endorsed by Islamic mores, drastically alter the fabric of communities in short order. Birmingham, in particular, has been ground zero of “Operation Trojan Horse,” a sharia-supremacist scheme to Islamize the public schools. Kern repeats an account of life in “inner-city Birmingham” by the wife of a British clergyman, first published by Standpoint in 2011. She explained how the neighborhood in which she’d lived for four years had become a “police no-go zone,” in which the large number of newly arrived Somali immigrants now approached that of Pakistanis already resident. Then she recalled her husband’s encounter with an immigrant who had just arrived from Belgium — on an EU passport, like an increasing number of Muslims these days. The migrant was surprised when the clergyman asked why he had chosen to move into their neighborhood. Finally, he replied, “Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446101/westminster-attack-khalid-masood-islamic-europe-mosques-no-go-zones
Huh? Did I say this?
"Never did understand why people demand something be shut down just because they don't agree with certain content."
There are a couple of other similar insinuations, but that's the most direct.
That's because I don't arbitrarily assume any disagreement means the person is "offended": I was very specifically talking about you. I said you seemed offended - that's how it came across to me. See the difference?
Sure, but I don't see where I've indicated offense. So I'm simply adding up the evidence: you've shoehorned other little things onto the PC/anti-PC spectrum, you talk about political correctness all the time, and now you're reading "offense" where none was suggested. Thus, I conclude that you see things through that lens whether it's applicable or not.
And like I said - you keep making a mountain out of a molehill and I'm still totally confused about what you want.
I think calling a simple question "making a mountain" is, itself, making a mountain.
Well that seems a bit extreme in my view - it seems like jumping to conclusions.
It's forming conclusions based on evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time, but I won't hold my breath. I've argued with lots of people, and "I don't have to explain myself" is generally something people say when they can't, but still want to exhibit some kind of defiance.
You do seem to be extremely suspicious about people's motives.
Nah; I just notice really obvious patterns when they present themselves. And I don't have a lot of patience for people who make claims they can't or won't defend. I think that's lame in any context, and I think it's downright bizarre on a public discussion forum.
I have to say, I don't feel the same about any of the rest of the posters on this forum. As far as you yourself are concerned, I find you totally confusing.
Well, nothing I've said is the slightest bit confusing. And since you've made little effort to elaborate on which part is confusing, and I have no reason to doubt your intelligence, I assume you're either not trying very hard to understand, or else just saying this to get me off your back.
Wplains
06-06-17, 06:01 PM
If you were an armed police officer in the UK you would not be scared to shoot anyone. They're trained to deal with situations and know when to shoot to kill. Hence the rapidlity and effeciency of what happened in Borough Market and High St.
They put their own soldiers on trial and jail them for killing the enemy in a war scenario
"They" meaning the UK?
Yes we put soldiers on trial for crimes committed during wars. Crimes subject to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court are also crimes in domestic law. Committing a war crime has to be tried under the Geneva Convention.
As for the particular soldier I presume you're talking about the Alexander Blackman case? He has been released released after serving 3.5 years after being convicted of murder.
He shot a seriously injured insurgent who was lying on the floor in the chest at close range with a 9mm. He then turned to comrades and said: "Obviously this doesn't go anywhere, fellas. I just broke the Geneva Convention."
Let's deal in facts. You really want soldiers who act like this serving your country?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4290435.stm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/may/01/military.iraq
Now either we have laws and international conventions we stick to or we have anarchy.
Yes I mean the Blackman case. I read the man was in an extreme war situation ,left for months a time isolated and with no back up. I wonder how you'd have reacted in a situation like that? War is a very dirty business and anyone who thinks it's all sweetness and light is living in la-la land. And frankly, I'd rather have any kind of soldier "serving my country" rather than none. Because if you continue to persecute policemen and soldiers for things like this, one day, when you really need them to defend you and yours, they will tell you to shove it and refuse to do so.
As to the Brit police, if I were them I'd want to be armed all the time. The time has come to stop this nonsense of unarmed police officers who have to wait for the armed backup to arrive instead of shooting the terrorists wandering the streets murdering people. Wonder how many people could have been saved in these latest terrorist attacks if that had been the case?
Wplains
06-06-17, 06:03 PM
"Never did understand why people demand something be shut down just because they don't agree with certain content."
There are a couple of other similar insinuations, but that's the most direct.
Sure, but I don't see where I've indicated offense. So I'm simply adding up the evidence: you've shoehorned other little things onto the PC/anti-PC spectrum, you talk about political correctness all the time, and now you're reading "offense" where none was suggested. Thus, I conclude that you see things through that lens whether it's applicable or not.
I think calling a simple question "making a mountain" is, itself, making a mountain.
It's forming conclusions based on evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong at any time, but I won't hold my breath. I've argued with lots of people, and "I don't have to explain myself" is generally something people say when they can't, but still want to exhibit some kind of defiance.
Nah; I just notice really obvious patterns when they present themselves. And I don't have a lot of patience for people who make claims they can't or won't defend. I think that's lame in any context, and I think it's downright bizarre on a public discussion forum.
Well, nothing I've said is the slightest bit confusing. And since you've made little effort to elaborate on which part is confusing, and I have no reason to doubt your intelligence, I assume you're either not trying very hard to understand, or else just saying this to get me off your back.
Not going through all this again. We'll agree to disagree. I don't need to get you off my back - it makes no difference to me where you are.
christine
06-06-17, 06:13 PM
That's an opinion since some contend differently:
Masood returned to England from Jeddah about seven years ago.
By the time of Wednesday’s attack on Westminster Bridge, he had seamlessly gravitated to Birmingham, a city increasingly enveloped by sharia enclaves that, to varying degrees, have become “no-go zones” for non-Muslims and agents of the state, including police.
There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.
Islam, thus understood, is not non-Western. It is anti-Western. Like the conversion of Masood, the conversion of Birmingham has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into your melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance.
As Soeren Kern relates in a comprehensive Gatestone Institute report on Islam in Britain, the metamorphosis of Birmingham, along with several other U.K. population centers, signifies this resistance. When the Islamic presence in a Western community reaches a critical mass, Islam’s hostility to Western mores and demands for sharia governance result in non-Muslim flight. Marriages between Muslims resident in the Western community and Muslims overseas tend to result in childbirth rates and household growth that dwarfs that of the indigenous population. Arranged, intra-familial, and polygamous marriages, endorsed by Islamic mores, drastically alter the fabric of communities in short order. Birmingham, in particular, has been ground zero of “Operation Trojan Horse,” a sharia-supremacist scheme to Islamize the public schools. Kern repeats an account of life in “inner-city Birmingham” by the wife of a British clergyman, first published by Standpoint in 2011. She explained how the neighborhood in which she’d lived for four years had become a “police no-go zone,” in which the large number of newly arrived Somali immigrants now approached that of Pakistanis already resident. Then she recalled her husband’s encounter with an immigrant who had just arrived from Belgium — on an EU passport, like an increasing number of Muslims these days. The migrant was surprised when the clergyman asked why he had chosen to move into their neighborhood. Finally, he replied, “Everybody knows. Birmingham—best place in Europe to be pure Muslim.”
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446101/westminster-attack-khalid-masood-islamic-europe-mosques-no-go-zones
Not a picture I know of Birmingham. My sister in law lives there, I've been shopping in areas where lots of muslims live. Didn't feel like it was anything different from shopping in any other area where there's lots of immigrants. I note the website you quote from is a 'leading light on the American right' so I'm immediately alerted to an agenda. But, I still tell you that I seriously, seriously doubt that the police and emergency services fear to enter those areas.
Not a picture I know of Birmingham. My sister in law lives there, I've been shopping in areas where lots of muslims live. Didn't feel like it was anything different from shopping in any other area where there's lots of immigrants. I note the website you quote from is a 'leading light on the American right' so I'm immediately alerted to an agenda. But, I still tell you that I seriously, seriously doubt that the police and emergency services fear to enter those areas.
Amazing that.
Christine, was there any update on the police divers? A young Australian woman is still missing and seems to be speculation she's one of the victims who went over the bridge. Her poor family not getting any feedback because it's just not available. How freaked out would you be.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 06:16 PM
This isn't true
Fancy videoing yourself taking a stroll through some of these areas and letting us know how you get on.
Fancy videoing yourself taking a stroll through some of these areas and letting us know how you get on.
What is your ongoing problem with Christine? Mind boggling. She's never rude to anyone on here; just speaks from her own knowledge and experience.
christine
06-06-17, 06:21 PM
Yes I mean the Blackman case. I read the man was in an extreme war situation ,left for months a time isolated and with no back up. I wonder how you'd have reacted in a situation like that? War is a very dirty business and anyone who thinks it's all sweetness and light is living in la-la land. And frankly, I'd rather have any kind of soldier "serving my country" rather than none. Because if you continue to persecute policemen and soldiers for things like this, one day, when you really need them to defend you and yours, they will tell you to shove it and refuse to do so.
As to the Brit police, if I were them I'd want to be armed all the time. The time has come to stop this nonsense of unarmed police officers who have to wait for the armed backup to arrive instead of shooting the terrorists wandering the streets murdering people. Wonder how many people could have been saved in these latest terrorist attacks if that had been the case?
Sorry, no one is beyond the law. This is how society keeps it together in democratic countries.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 06:24 PM
What is your ongoing problem with Christine? Mind boggling. She's never rude to anyone on here; just speaks from her own knowledge and experience.
What ongoing problem. Suppose its bullying now to challenge what people claim to be fact.
I do agree that Emergency services would go to those areas but not general population of the wrong colour.
What ongoing problem. Suppose its bullying now to challenge what people claim to be fact.
.
Did I claim you were bullying?
Yep, definitely something in the mofo water cooler.
christine
06-06-17, 06:26 PM
Amazing that.
Christine, was there any update on the police divers? A young Australian woman is still missing and seems to be speculation she's one of the victims who went over the bridge. Her poor family not getting any feedback because it's just not available. How freaked out would you be.
I've been following that news Dani. So sad, there's no news. Your heart breaks for her family. And the family of brave Aussie nurse Kirsty Boden killed running towards London Bridge to help the people injured by the van.. her family must be heartbroken but what a hero.
I've been following that news Dani. So sad, there's no news. Your heart breaks for her family. And the family of brave Aussie nurse Kirsty Boden killed running towards London Bridge to help the people injured by the van.. her family must be heartbroken but what a hero.
There are just constant updates saying she's still missing, nothing else. I think her mum is on the way over there at the moment. What a horrifying flight that would be, Christine. For any parent.
gandalf26
06-06-17, 06:31 PM
Sgt Blackman and his fellow soldiers were simply stupid for keeping the video recording of the incident.
No one cares that he offed some Taliban fighter who was most likely gonna die anyway, but when a video of such an incident falls into the hands of the LAW he MUST be punished because the law is blind, you cant just say oh well ok then we'll let you off. Hopefully it serves a s a wakeup call for other soldiers keeping battlefield recordings.
christine
06-06-17, 06:43 PM
There are just constant updates saying she's still missing, nothing else. I think her mum is on the way over there at the moment. What a horrifying flight that would be, Christine. For any parent.
Oh for sure, you'd want to be there tho wouldn't you ? The news can't be good now after this amount of time. So sad
Oh for sure, you'd want to be there tho wouldn't you ? The news can't be good now after this amount of time. So sad
Yes to both. Very strange that no one saw what happened to her and the other people still missing. I mean if they were on the bridge at the time someone must have seen something. Looking pretty ominous.
Edit to add - this just came through.
A second Australian has been confirmed dead following the London Bridge terror attack.
More to come
Tacitus
06-06-17, 06:49 PM
Not a picture I know of Birmingham. My sister in law lives there, I've been shopping in areas where lots of muslims live. Didn't feel like it was anything different from shopping in any other area where there's lots of immigrants. I note the website you quote from is a 'leading light on the American right' so I'm immediately alerted to an agenda. But, I still tell you that I seriously, seriously doubt that the police and emergency services fear to enter those areas.
Me neither. I lived there for 8 years, my ex wife and family still live there.
I'm shaking my head at this thread now, but keeping a close eye on it.
Wplains
06-06-17, 07:20 PM
What ongoing problem. Suppose its bullying now to challenge what people claim to be fact.
I do agree that Emergency services would go to those areas but not general population of the wrong colour.
Not in Sweden they don't. And when they do, they are pelted with rocks and shot at. Firemen and ambulances won't go there any more without police protection.
https://youtu.be/T_C4NDVTPr8
Imams refuse to bury the terrorists. Same hppened here after the Sydney Siege. Toss them all in a mass grave I say.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/06/06/more-130-imams-refuse-perform-funeral-prayers-london-attackers
Movie Max
06-06-17, 07:59 PM
Can you say, "I'd rather be shopping on-line"?:eek:
Woman accused of threatening Canadian Tire employees with knife pledges allegiance to ISIS in court
https://i.cbc.ca/1.4148747.1496784551!/fileImage/httpImage/image.JPG
A woman accused of assault and threatening people with a knife in a Canadian Tire store in Scarborough, Ont., on the weekend swore allegiance to an ISIS leader at her court appearance on Tuesday.
When officers arrived, they were told a woman had threatened store employees and a customer in the paint section with a golf club and a knife.
Police said employees and customers were able to restrain the woman, while another store employee was able to get the knife away from from her.
At her appearance today in a College Park courtroom, Dughmosh wore a black niqab, a prison green sweatshirt and pants, and running shoes. She addressed the court through an Arabic-language translator, and declined her right to a bail hearing.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/incident-canadian-tire-rcmp-toronto-police-islamic-state-1.4147750
Wplains
06-06-17, 08:21 PM
Sorry, no one is beyond the law. This is how society keeps it together in democratic countries.
Lol, you are totally naive if you think that. You'll learn I guess....:D
Yes I mean the Blackman case. I read the man was in an extreme war situation ,left for months a time isolated and with no back up. I wonder how you'd have reacted in a situation like that? War is a very dirty business and anyone who thinks it's all sweetness and light is living in la-la land. And frankly, I'd rather have any kind of soldier "serving my country" rather than none. Because if you continue to persecute policemen and soldiers for things like this, one day, when you really need them to defend you and yours, they will tell you to shove it and refuse to do so.
I really don't understand this type of comparison. I imagine she is a civilian. I could be wrong on that assumption, but I think I have more leeway in that possible error that one would have to compare a civilian's reaction to that of a trained soldier. Apples to ...scissors (?).
A soldier is trained for such stressful encounters. Maybe not that exact specific type of encounter, but they are taught to handle encounters through rules, regulations, and drills, both physically and psychologically. There are rules of engagement for a reason. There are laws for a reason. Respect it, or don't. That is the individual's decision, but the end of that particular path leads to consequences---consequences that are made apparent during the soldier's training and teaching of those rules and regulations.
War is very dirty business. On that, I think we can all agree, but no one is claiming it is "all sweetness and light." No one is "living in la-la land." Why make a false comparison as if that is the argument at hand? It is clearly not, and only serves to justify an emotional opinion. I would rather have a soldier of principle and restraint that knows the difference between right and wrong (at least to the standards of the society and military that that soldier is part of), than one whose principles are fluid and suspect to one's own self interests.
I also do not understand the logic to create a broadly generalized statement as if there were no other preexisting contexts that already negate such a statement. A soldier is a soldier, and carries with him or her the training, experience, and responsibility that a soldier is required to have by definition of being a soldier to begin with. Otherwise a soldier is not a soldier, but instead a person with a gun and without restraint of all that makes a soldier a soldier. To make such a statement suggests to me either a complete lack of awareness of what a soldier is (which is possible), or a willful exclusion of what a soldier is to lend more gravity to a knee-jerk emotional bias.
And the choice is not between having an army of "any kind of soldier" or "none." Again with these false comparisons! It is simply having an army of well-training and disciplined soldiers protecting the rights of civilians they swore to support and defend. It is not persecution when a law is broken. If the law itself is wrong, then challenge the law I guess.
Do we agree on what a soldier is and on the training required to become one? Or do we pretend that definition does not exist for sake of making an illogical, emotional claim? Then argue that someone is offended for simply pointing out the shortsighted attempt at making a point, rather than address the original argument?
...
meh. I probably went too far into all that. end of day jitters and the handful of dark-chocolate covered espresso beans I downed earlier aren't helping. still though, we can all just throw around unsupported opinions as facts, then color it with any straw men within reach to smack around, but that's silly. stand by it. back it up. prove something. or don't be surprised when people call you out to clarify these broad generalizations. it's the basis of communication. on a fundamental level.
just sayin'
[I]*twitches*
ok. I gotta go home. later, gators.....
hugs n luvs, n peace in the middle east (ok, that was a jab . sorry!)
<3
*EDIT*
wooooooahhh!!!
that was a long reply to a single line of bold!!!! ermahgurd!!!
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 11:01 PM
Not a picture I know of Birmingham. My sister in law lives there, I've been shopping in areas where lots of muslims live. Didn't feel like it was anything different from shopping in any other area where there's lots of immigrants. I note the website you quote from is a 'leading light on the American right' so I'm immediately alerted to an agenda. But, I still tell you that I seriously, seriously doubt that the police and emergency services fear to enter those areas.
I'll cede the point. Others are taking it out of context - I just put up one of the first articles that came up in a Google search only to demonstrate my point that the contention about Muslim-controlled zones in Britain is a matter of opinion. I'm sure semantics draw into it as well (involving the words: controlled, some, fear, emergency responders and citizens).
As long as there are ANY articles contradicting your claim that the idea is untrue means others are perceiving it differently and thus have a different opinion. And my point was: it's a matter of opinion (which is based on people's personal experiences and perceptions).
But I don't live there & I don't follow U.K. politics closely so let's, for a moment, consider my original post with that item removed...
If the other things I listed are true, or even if only a couple of them are true, it is still anarchy. Just the multiple, mass casualty terror attacks alone within a short time span is anarchy (and, of course, we could debate what constitutes "anarchy").
And I know, Christine, that you were talking about anarchy amongst the general populace and within the legal system, but my comment was based on the irony that a different state of anarchy has already arrived and currently does exist in Great Britain, as confirmed by the recent & increasing pattern of Islamic Terror attacks.
...or it's an opinion with an agenda to incite fear, anger, and division?
Captain Steel
06-06-17, 11:42 PM
...or it's an opinion with an agenda to incite fear, anger, and division?
I don't know. I've heard it reported on, discussed and debated on various TV and radio shows and in articles.
If it is true - what does it say about Islamic terror attacks in Great Britain and other countries in Europe where the claim has been made? If it is false - what does it say about Islamic terror attacks in Great Britain and other countries in Europe where the claim has been made?
What I do know is most online comments made about Islam (including the rampant ongoing global terrorism driven by the ideology's fundamentals) are countered with the accusations that the analysis, criticism or condemnation of said ideology represents an Islamophobic agenda to incite fear, anger and division.
Can people criticize ideologies that promote terrorism and terrorism itself without having an agenda to incite fear, anger and division? Can someone just be so appalled by the results of terrorism that they condemn it? Is having an agenda that condemns and desires to prevent & stop Islamic terrorism a bad thing?
Iroquois
06-07-17, 12:33 AM
Don't get what you are trying to say about the Boston Catholic Church?
It was in reference to the scandal where it was revealed that not only was there a prolonged history of Catholic priests molesting children but also of the Church covering up for said priests, which eventually came to reveal similar cases all across the globe. My point is that you said this:
Sexual harrassment and pedophelia was brought to the world's attention first, where exactly? The Middle East? Africa? China?Asia? Oh wait.....
which purposefully disregards how sexual deviancy has existed for about as long as humans have, so there's literally nowhere where it could actually be "brought to the world's attention first". I brought up Boston because when I actually decided to take your question seriously, the first place I thought of was...Boston. You're the one who's asking "where are all the Christian acts of terror" so I'm pointing out one of the most prominent examples.
It seems to me incidents carried out by what you call "white supremacists" are few and far between and condemned by the vast majority of the public be they religious or non religious.
They don't necessarily get reported with the same level of alarmism as your typical ISIS attack. An ISIS attack on a Western country feeds into people's existing preconceptions that (consciously or unconsciously) think of foreigners (especially those of a different race/creed) as some untrustworthy other who could always be working to undermine their "free society" or whatever. Those details get lost in the mix when a white person commits a similar act of terror because the narrative tends to shift to the idea that this white person is a disgruntled loner with mental illness who is solely responsible for their actions just because there's no big organisation to pin the blame on. That allows the ones acting out of genuine hatred to slip through the cracks and just become more "crazed loner" types when the media reports on them.
There is no organized movement in Western countries where these people go about planning killings and shootings and blowing up buildings or plowing cars into crowds (while the same cannot be said for our Muslim pals).
Just because it doesn't involve a single easily-identifiable organised movement like ISIS doesn't make it less of a threat. If an Islamic terrorist claims an act of terror for ISIS, that's easy enough to certify; a white terrorist carrying out a similar act but not claiming it for a certain organisation leaves enough room for doubt that some people can just shrug it off as another person going postal or whatever.
Seems to me the West has been more than open and tolerant in welcoming in vast amounts of people from other continents and other cultures often at the expense of our own as we are now beginning to realize.
Yeah, well, I contend that the West is going to suffer for being more than open and tolerant in allowing white supremacist ideology to influence political discourse in subtle ways (such as through the creation of the "alt-right" and taking advantage of the liberal concept of free speech to spread their ideology). It doesn't help how much they threw their previously unorganised support behind Trump's candidacy because he promised stuff like travel bans and border walls that fed into their pre-existing biases, so their influence contributed to the election of a leader whose political incompetence poses its own risks to the free world anyway.
So don't know what you are on about when you talk about a non-existent "white supremacist" movement. I've certainly never come into contact with it and it is certainly not "white supremacists" who make me look over my shoulder when I enter an airport or walk in a crowded public square in an European city.
It "seems to me" that you don't know a lot of things. If you are truly unaware of any kind of white supremacist hate crimes but keep flooding this thread whenever any act of terror that might plausibly be connected to Muslims happens, that's on you. Meanwhile, ever since the Portland stabbing incident I'm now more worried about what would happen to me if someone starts screaming racial abuse in public than if there were any "terrorists" around. One angry guy with a knife seems like a far more plausible threat to me than a terrorist cell with a bomb - and I say that as a white person.
BTW, you were the one who mentioned the KKK not me.
To demonstrate how white supremacy is a problem that's bigger than any one organisation. Don't know why you're acting like I spoke out of turn for mentioning them in passing.
It is a bad thing if the agenda is not to actually condemn and stop terrorism, but instead to use an obvious emotional trigger point to incite fear, anger, and division.
Is the point to truly understand the "enemy" or to paint stereotypes to rile emotions in fear, creating some panicked group-think? As distraction? As a means to profit? To sell ad time during talk radio or editorial news where it's exciting (heightened emotion, good or bad) to hear fearful things from angry men to then become fearful and angry too? To feel part of something? To feel less fear by associating with other like-minded individuals, feeling helpless and victimized by evil? To reinforce one's assumptions by pursuing other like-minded individuals and groups, or articles and forums that confirm one's beliefs?
Propaganda is propaganda. Burn the witch!
Iderno. I'm thumbing this out on my phone right now. Surely reasonable skepticism has a role in this, no?
Also, you MUST be discerning in where you find your sources. That is not a new topic here. Everyone has an agenda.
https://youtu.be/g_UdpSNccfI
Just fyi, the caller is describing a video game. It's really too easy anymore when people are satisfied with top Google results from loaded search requests.
Captain Steel
06-07-17, 12:57 AM
Everyone has an agenda.
I agree. I've analyzed this I can't tell ya how long and the conclusion I've come to is that about 87% of my overall agenda including sub-agendas revolve around obtaining food. Even all this debating about terrorism doesn't seem to have any direct link to food, but will ultimately culminate in that direction.
Should this (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40162989) be considered an act of terrorism?
Should this (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40162989) be considered an act of terrorism?
No.The motives for this act seem to be personal .
Should this (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40162989) be considered an act of terrorism?
Of course it is but he'll just get palmed off as going postal because he flew under the radar of a crappy mental health system. He'll get excused because...you know...god didn't get mentioned.
christine
06-07-17, 02:38 AM
I'll cede the point. Others are taking it out of context - I just put up one of the first articles that came up in a Google search only to demonstrate my point that the contention about Muslim-controlled zones in Britain is a matter of opinion. I'm sure semantics draw into it as well (involving the words: controlled, some, fear, emergency responders and citizens).
As long as there are ANY articles contradicting your claim that the idea is untrue means others are perceiving it differently and thus have a different opinion. And my point was: it's a matter of opinion (which is based on people's personal experiences and perceptions).
But I don't live there & I don't follow U.K. politics closely so let's, for a moment, consider my original post with that item removed...
If the other things I listed are true, or even if only a couple of them are true, it is still anarchy. Just the multiple, mass casualty terror attacks alone within a short time span is anarchy (and, of course, we could debate what constitutes "anarchy").
And I know, Christine, that you were talking about anarchy amongst the general populace and within the legal system, but my comment was based on the irony that a different state of anarchy has already arrived and currently does exist in Great Britain, as confirmed by the recent & increasing pattern of Islamic Terror attacks.
Thank you for your consideration :)
I can assure you a state of anarchy does not exist in the U.K. Acts of terrorism have occurred , but the UK as a country is not in a state of anarchy
Definition of anarchy:
a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.
absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
I've been following that news Dani. So sad, there's no news. Your heart breaks for her family. And the family of brave Aussie nurse Kirsty Boden killed running towards London Bridge to help the people injured by the van.. her family must be heartbroken but what a hero.
Now confirmed, Christine. So sad for all the loved ones of innocent people killed.
christine
06-07-17, 03:50 AM
Now confirmed, Christine. So sad for all the loved ones of innocent people killed.
That's really sad Dani. When you see all those bright young faces in the photos you can't imagine the pain their families are suffering.
Some gunmen have stormed Iran parliament .
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-40184641
d_chatterley
06-07-17, 04:48 AM
More on Qatar. This makes me feel nervous and I'm not even sure why.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/06/social-media-reacts-gulf-diplomatic-rift-170605095334870.html
The plot thickens....
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/06/politics/russian-hackers-planted-fake-news-qatar-crisis/index.html
Wplains
06-07-17, 06:20 AM
Should this (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40162989) be considered an act of terrorism?
terrorism
Also found in: Thesaurus, Medical, Legal, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
ter·ror·ism (tĕr′ə-rĭz′əm)
n.
The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.
Draw your own conclusions.
Movie Max
06-07-17, 06:26 AM
Getting off their high horse...
Muslims must do more to stop terror attacks from happening again, a senior British police chief has said, claiming there’s ‘‘alarm and concern’‘ that the Islamic community gave no warning of Saturday’s terrorist strike in London.
Making a statement alongside Muslim community leaders, Commander Mak Chishty said: “The Muslim community appeals to all sections within their own communities to root out the scorge of terrorism that hides among their own people and masquerades as Islam……Terrorism and extremism is hurting Islam, Muslims must do more to stop such attacks happening again and we want to know how we can play a greater role in the future.”
Mak Chishty, who is the highest-ranking police officer of the Muslim faith in the Met has said those close to the assailants must have known something about the plot.
While the government’s Communities Secretary Sajid Javid, himself a Muslim, has also said the UK’s Islamic community must do more than simply condemn terror attacks, echoing Prime Minister Theresa May’s belief that Britain has been far too tolerant of extremism.
London’s mayor Sadiq Khan, who has faced flak from US President Donald Trump, has also said the ideology that the three attackers followed has no place in Islam.
“These three men who committed this act of terror, these terrorists who killed a number of people, injured many others, they believe in a perverse, twisted, poisonous form of Islam, which I don’t recognise and doesn’t represent the faith that I know,” Khan said.http://www.euronews.com/2017/06/06/london-attack-muslims-must-do-more-to-stop-terror
Acknowledgement that it is a form of Islam. Just because you don't recognise it and just because it isn't the faith you know, does not mean it is not a part of Islam. It is.
Wplains
06-07-17, 08:18 AM
It was in reference to the scandal where it was revealed that not only was there a prolonged history of Catholic priests molesting children but also of the Church covering up for said priests, which eventually came to reveal similar cases all across the globe. My point is that you said this:
which purposefully disregards how sexual deviancy has existed for about as long as humans have, so there's literally nowhere where it could actually be "brought to the world's attention first". I brought up Boston because when I actually decided to take your question seriously, the first place I thought of was...Boston. You're the one who's asking "where are all the Christian acts of terror" so I'm pointing out one of the most prominent examples.
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said: I said sexual harassment and pedophilia were first brought to the world's attention in the West as crimes. They were the first to have laws against it. Because you may not remember (but I do) when I even first heard about sexual harassment let alone know they were enacting laws against it . There were no laws against it before and now there are. And these laws were not first enacted in Asia or the ME or India or China. So I don't get what the Boston pedophile scandal has to do with this? Of course pedophilia has always existed and, unfortunately, it probably always will but the Boston scandal (and many others around the world) have absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
They don't necessarily get reported with the same level of alarmism as your typical ISIS attack. An ISIS attack on a Western country feeds into people's existing preconceptions that (consciously or unconsciously) think of foreigners (especially those of a different race/creed) as some untrustworthy other who could always be working to undermine their "free society" or whatever. Those details get lost in the mix when a white person commits a similar act of terror because the narrative tends to shift to the idea that this white person is a disgruntled loner with mental illness who is solely responsible for their actions just because there's no big organisation to pin the blame on. That allows the ones acting out of genuine hatred to slip through the cracks and just become more "crazed loner" types when the media reports on them.
Just because it doesn't involve a single easily-identifiable organised movement like ISIS doesn't make it less of a threat. If an Islamic terrorist claims an act of terror for ISIS, that's easy enough to certify; a white terrorist carrying out a similar act but not claiming it for a certain organisation leaves enough room for doubt that some people can just shrug it off as another person going postal or whatever.
So let me see if I understand what you are saying: there is a shadowy global network out there somewhere which inspires and encourages "white extremists" to commit terrorist acts in Western countries on a similar scale to the attacks we have witnessed since 9/11? And the media colludes with this network in trying to confuse the public as to their origin? Could you let me know exactly how many and where all of these "white supremacists" atrocities occurred because I certainly must have missed reading the news that day? Apart from the Norwegian attack (2011?) I can't think of a similar one in Europe that has had the same impact as all the terrorist attacks in France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, the UK, etc. There are shootings in the US certainly, but then there have always been shootings in the US way before terrorism started on a global scale (maybe more to do with the fact that guns are so easily available to all?) so perhaps the media reports them as "crazed loners" because that's exactly what they are?
Yeah, well, I contend that the West is going to suffer for being more than open and tolerant in allowing white supremacist ideology to influence political discourse in subtle ways (such as through the creation of the "alt-right" and taking advantage of the liberal concept of free speech to spread their ideology). It doesn't help how much they threw their previously unorganised support behind Trump's candidacy because he promised stuff like travel bans and border walls that fed into their pre-existing biases, so their influence contributed to the election of a leader whose political incompetence poses its own risks to the free world anyway.
Are you saying Trump was elected by white supremacists? Hmm, perhaps you'd better complain to the huge number of your countrymen who voted for him then, huh? Because I truly don't believe anyone in Europe is seriously bothered by terrorism from "white supremacists" - at least, no one that I've spoken with lately and that includes people from several countries. Whereas Islamic terrorist attacks certainly seem high on everyone's list of fears.
It "seems to me" that you don't know a lot of things. If you are truly unaware of any kind of white supremacist hate crimes but keep flooding this thread whenever any act of terror that might plausibly be connected to Muslims happens, that's on you. Meanwhile, ever since the Portland stabbing incident I'm now more worried about what would happen to me if someone starts screaming racial abuse in public than if there were any "terrorists" around. One angry guy with a knife seems like a far more plausible threat to me than a terrorist cell with a bomb - and I say that as a white person.
I have no idea what the Portland stabbings are. Mind you, I don't live in the US so perhaps what happens there is not always reported on an international scale ? You see, whenever there is a terrorist attack in Europe I can't open a newspaper, website or TV without being bombarded by news about the event - whichever event it is because they are now happening at such a dizzying speed and so close together that it's difficult to enumerate them all by heart. I can't say I even recall seeing anything about Portland stabbing any time in the past but maybe my news outlets just didn't talk much about them.
And you may be worried about being stabbed in the street by these shadowy "white supremacists" but believe me, when I head to London next week, they are not even on my radar in relation to fear of terrorist attacks. I think I will be quite safe from "white supremacists" there....whereas to the other variety, well let's just say the probabilities of another one occurring is much, much higher in the light of recent events.
Iroquois
06-07-17, 09:38 AM
Perhaps you didn't understand what I said: I said sexual harassment and pedophilia were first brought to the world's attention in the West as crimes. They were the first to have laws against it. Because you may not remember (but I do) when I even first heard about sexual harassment let alone know they were enacting laws against it . There were no laws against it before and now there are. And these laws were not first enacted in Asia or the ME or India or China. So I don't get what the Boston pedophile scandal has to do with this? Of course pedophilia has always existed and, unfortunately, it probably always will but the Boston scandal (and many others around the world) have absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.
Then you should have specified that you meant "as crimes" in the first place. You can't expect me to understand if you're not clear about it. Besides, it's not like the West gets to be all high and mighty about it when the grab-em-by-the-pussy guy still gets to be President because (ironically enough) he's seen as the best option in order to combat these other "less enlightened" nations.
So let me see if I understand what you are saying: there is a shadowy global network out there somewhere which inspires and encourages "white extremists" to commit terrorist acts in Western countries on a similar scale to the attacks we have witnessed since 9/11? And the media colludes with this network in trying to confuse the public as to their origin? Could you let me know exactly how many and where all of these "white supremacists" atrocities occurred because I certainly must have missed reading the news that day? Apart from the Norwegian attack (2011?) I can't think of a similar one in Europe that has had the same impact as all the terrorist attacks in France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, the UK, etc. There are shootings in the US certainly, but then there have always been shootings in the US way before terrorism started on a global scale (maybe more to do with the fact that guns are so easily available to all?) so perhaps the media reports them as "crazed loners" because that's exactly what they are?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. The main difference is that they don't really need to pull off the same kind of large-scale attacks that ISIS prefers to carry out - like I said before, ISIS attacks are effectively a propaganda tool for their cause. The media...that's its own subject, but what they do and do not communicate all serve whatever agenda they see fit and whichever demographics they rely upon to support their business. These kinds of events can all happen, but the media coverage can differ depending on the outlet deciding what elements of the story to emphasise or downplay (and that's assuming they go to the effort of collecting all the facts).
Are you saying Trump was elected by white supremacists? Hmm, perhaps you'd better complain to the huge number of your countrymen who voted for him then, huh? Because I truly don't believe anyone in Europe is seriously bothered by terrorism from "white supremacists" - at least, no one that I've spoken with lately and that includes people from several countries. Whereas Islamic terrorist attacks certainly seem high on everyone's list of fears.
I'm not an American, and trust me, I've complained to just about every American on this site who has had even an inkling of supporting him. I'd wonder about people not being bothered, though - if white supremacy exists in direct opposition to radical Islam, then they can easily be disregarded by other whites since they don't seem to pose a more immediate threat. The only way a white person would ever be in danger from a white supremacist is if they
I have no idea what the Portland stabbings are. Mind you, I don't live in the US so perhaps what happens there is not always reported on an international scale ? You see, whenever there is a terrorist attack in Europe I can't open a newspaper, website or TV without being bombarded by news about the event - whichever event it is because they are now happening at such a dizzying speed and so close together that it's difficult to enumerate them all by heart. I can't say I even recall seeing anything about Portland stabbing any time in the past but maybe my news outlets just didn't talk much about them.
I don't live in the U.S. either, but I still heard about it. Long story short - white supremacist starts yelling at Muslim girls, three white men intervene, supremacist pulls a knife and kills two while wounding the third. The speed of the news cycle does mean that this kind of thing does get lost in the shuffle, which does make me wonder if that's part of the plan - if you don't draw attention through an immediate sizable death toll and massive amounts of damage, you can effectively get away with it.
And you may be worried about being stabbed in the street by these shadowy "white supremacists" but believe me, when I head to London next week, they are not even on my radar in relation to fear of terrorist attacks. I think I will be quite safe from "white supremacists" there....whereas to the other variety, well let's just say the probabilities of another one occurring is much, much higher in the light of recent events.
It's nice that you can feel safe from them. Not everyone can be so fortunate.
Wplains
06-07-17, 10:12 AM
Then you should have specified that you meant "as crimes" in the first place. You can't expect me to understand if you're not clear about it. Besides, it's not like the West gets to be all high and mighty about it when the grab-em-by-the-pussy guy still gets to be President because (ironically enough) he's seen as the best option in order to combat these other "less enlightened" nations.
Ok right, my bad. Should have explained it better. Umm, I wasn't talking about Trump's "colorful" statements - I was talking about laws which protect women and children enacted in the West. What does one thing have to do with the other?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm getting at. The main difference is that they don't really need to pull off the same kind of large-scale attacks that ISIS prefers to carry out - like I said before, ISIS attacks are effectively a propaganda tool for their cause. The media...that's its own subject, but what they do and do not communicate all serve whatever agenda they see fit and whichever demographics they rely upon to support their business. These kinds of events can all happen, but the media coverage can differ depending on the outlet deciding what elements of the story to emphasise or downplay (and that's assuming they go to the effort of collecting all the facts).
Right - " they don't really need to pull off the same kind of large-scale attacks" - I see, so what attacks do they acutally pull off? And where? And with what frequency? And if they are not reported by the media then we cannot know about them and therefore the "agenda" would not be publicized. What use is that then? And you still haven't told me where all these comparable attacks to Islamic terrorism have happened?
I'm not an American, and trust me, I've complained to just about every American on this site who has had even an inkling of supporting him. I'd wonder about people not being bothered, though - if white supremacy exists in direct opposition to radical Islam, then they can easily be disregarded by other whites since they don't seem to pose a more immediate threat. The only way a white person would ever be in danger from a white supremacist is if they
"if white supremacy exists in direct opposition to radical Islam" - so I'm confused here - does it exist or not?
I don't live in the U.S. either, but I still heard about it. Long story short - white supremacist starts yelling at Muslim girls, three white men intervene, supremacist pulls a knife and kills two while wounding the third. The speed of the news cycle does mean that this kind of thing does get lost in the shuffle, which does make me wonder if that's part of the plan - if you don't draw attention through an immediate sizable death toll and massive amounts of damage, you can effectively get away with it.
So you are saying the media deliberately hides and plays down these attacks because they are sheltering "white supremacists"? Hmm, seem a bit far fetched considering that most media outlets are somewhat left wing but could be so and I've just never realized this.:D
It's nice that you can feel safe from them. Not everyone can be so fortunate.
Well, considering that you mentioned the Portland incident I thought you lived there and it was pretty much a regular occurrence. So where do you live that you feel so threatened by white supremacist attacks (what with you being a white person.....)?
One angry guy with a knife seems like a far more plausible threat to me than a terrorist cell with a bomb - and I say that as a white person.
Yup totally agree with you . Guys with knives are very dangerous indeed…..
https://youtu.be/7ITBLtxO56I
Iroquois
06-07-17, 10:51 AM
Ok right, my bad. Should have explained it better. Umm, I wasn't talking about Trump's "colorful" statements - I was talking about laws which protect women and children enacted in the West. What does one thing have to do with the other?
It just struck me as a sign of inconsistent priorities, like this man and his history of sexist behaviour were considered an acceptable choice as long as he made good on his promise to crack down on The Terrorists. He's just a symptom of the West's own inconsistencies regarding its treatment of women and children - the West may not necessarily be as harsh as certain Muslim countries, but that doesn't put them beyond reproach either, so I figure that's worth keeping in mind when attempting to criticise Islam over these same issues.
Right - " they don't really need to pull off the same kind of large-scale attacks" - I see, so what attacks do they acutally pull off? And where? And with what frequency? And if they are not reported by the media then we cannot know about them and therefore the "agenda" would not be publicized. What use is that then? And you still haven't told me where all these comparable attacks to Islamic terrorism have happened?
The agenda comes through in the responses to attacks more so than carrying out attacks. It's not really meant to be publicised in the same way that ISIS is since the goal is to progress quietly without drawing undue attention, so it's effectively the opposite of ISIS trying to publicly assert their will on the world. Pinning a "crazed loner" narrative to any white supremacist terrorism fits that agenda since it's supposed to divert attention from the true motive. By keeping the crimes small in scale, they don't draw too much attention from the mainstream media. This admittedly explains why they don't commit as many high-publicity attacks as ISIS - ISIS demands fear and outrage from the public, whereas these groups ask for quiet compliance.
"if white supremacy exists in direct opposition to radical Islam" - so I'm confused here - does it exist or not?
It does, the "if" is meant to be about what is true rather than a question of whether it exists.
So you are saying the media deliberately hides and plays down these attacks because they are sheltering "white supremacists"? Hmm, seem a bit far fetched considering that most media outlets are somewhat left wing but could be so and I've just never realized this.:D
"Most" being the operative word. Strongly right-wing media organisations like Fox News or Breitbart are the ones most likely to do this deliberately since it serves their particular agendas, but in the cases of more centred and left-wing networks it can still come about either intentionally or unintentionally yet still have a similar impact e.g. the "crazed loner" narrative alternately playing into and disregarding certain biases over what causes a certain type of person to carry out an attack.
Well, considering that you mentioned the Portland incident I thought you lived there and it was pretty much a regular occurrence. So where do you live that you feel so threatened by white supremacist attacks (what with you being a white person.....)?
Earth.
Movie Max
06-07-17, 10:58 AM
Interesting approach, as long as there is still a body left to bury.:idea:
We cannot allow more evil terrorists the luxury of a Muslim funeral after the London Bridge attack
In the past, too many attackers have been given the luxury of an Islamic funeral
THE London Bridge terrorists didn’t live as Muslims so why should they be allowed to die as Muslims?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3741637/we-cannot-allow-more-evil-terrorists-the-luxury-of-a-muslim-funeral-after-the-london-bridge-attack/#comments
Tacitus
06-07-17, 12:13 PM
Is copy/pasting snippets of tabloid newspaper Op-Eds really adding to the discussion or just serving to keep the pot simmering?
Wplains
06-07-17, 01:09 PM
It just struck me as a sign of inconsistent priorities, like this man and his history of sexist behaviour were considered an acceptable choice as long as he made good on his promise to crack down on The Terrorists. He's just a symptom of the West's own inconsistencies regarding its treatment of women and children - the West may not necessarily be as harsh as certain Muslim countries, but that doesn't put them beyond reproach either, so I figure that's worth keeping in mind when attempting to criticise Islam over these same issues.
So you’re saying Trump’s track record of sexist behavior and Muslim’s countries’ treatment of women are comparable? Hmm, how does that work out since the women Trump comes into contact has to be a tiny, tiny portion of the millions of women who live under Islamic misogynist regimes? And can we really compare a sexist remark (which is more vulgar and in bad taste than anything else) with FGM, child marriage, honor killings, stoning women and jailing and condemning them to death for being raped? I think there may be a little bit of an “inconsistency” in that comparison right there.
The agenda comes through in the responses to attacks more so than carrying out attacks.
Hmm, slightly confused here - the attacks are not carried out but there is a response to them and that's when the "agenda" comes through? How does that work out? :shrug:
It's not really meant to be publicised in the same way that ISIS is since the goal is to progress quietly without drawing undue attention, so it's effectively the opposite of ISIS trying to publicly assert their will on the world.Pinning a "crazed loner" narrative to any white supremacist terrorism fits that agenda since it's supposed to divert attention from the true motive. By keeping the crimes small in scale, they don't draw too much attention from the mainstream media. This admittedly explains why they don't commit as many high-publicity attacks as ISIS - ISIS demands fear and outrage from the public, whereas these groups ask for quiet compliance.
So these white supremacist attacks are carried out quietly with no publicity? What’s the use of an agenda if no one knows it exists? I would think they would want as much publicity as possible. So basically, no one knows they actually happen (with the possible exception of yourself)?
Oh and BTW, still waiting for a list of these attacks: When? Where? How many dead? Who was responsible? What proof that they were committed by “white supremacists”?
"Most" being the operative word. Strongly right-wing media organisations like Fox News or Breitbart are the ones most likely to do this deliberately since it serves their particular agendas, but in the cases of more centred and left-wing networks it can still come about either intentionally or unintentionally yet still have a similar impact e.g. the "crazed loner" narrative alternately playing into and disregarding certain biases over what causes a certain type of person to carry out an attack.
Wow, it’s hard to believe media outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post and the BBC are intentionally hiding white supremacist terrorist attacks. Surely they would feel it their duty expose these heinous attacks and whom is responsible for them? You know, to make the public aware of what's going on and turn public opinion against them?
Earth.
Oh right....earth. That’s the whole danger area covered then. My daughter lives in Africa - I´ll be sure to tell her to be on the lookout for these white supremacist attacks. :D
Movie Max
06-07-17, 01:44 PM
Is copy/pasting snippets of tabloid newspaper Op-Eds really adding to the discussion or just serving to keep the pot simmering?
The pots keeps exploding, anything in here is just residual splatter.
Tacitus
06-07-17, 01:50 PM
I get it, yeah. Punchlines.
Grow up.
Movie Max
06-07-17, 02:22 PM
Are you seeing a lot of good ideas that can discourage these ongoing attacks? I'm not. I don't care if the right idea comes out of Trump's ass, as long as it has some positive effect. In this case, I think such a suggestion should have gov't backing and be advertised through the media, as long as there is a body worth picking up.
FromBeyond
06-07-17, 02:26 PM
Interesting approach, as long as there is still a body left to bury.:idea:
We cannot allow more evil terrorists the luxury of a Muslim funeral after the London Bridge attack
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3741637/we-cannot-allow-more-evil-terrorists-the-luxury-of-a-muslim-funeral-after-the-london-bridge-attack/#comments
I disagree, give them full honors of an Islamic funeral with all the trimmings.. they truly deserve it.. as they do a place in paradise.
Movie Max
06-07-17, 02:29 PM
Grow up.
I've seen your earlier posts putting down ideas that EU governments are currently contemplating, discussing or acting on. There are no great options out there on how to deal with this ongoing threat. (voluntary edit)
I disagree, give them full honors of an Islamic funeral with all the trimmings.. they truly deserve it.. as they do a place in paradise.
You're kidding right? OK I'll bite if you're serious - why give them any acknowledgment and 'martyr' them?
Wplains
06-07-17, 03:01 PM
Are you seeing a lot of good ideas that can discourage these ongoing attacks? I'm not. I don't care if the right idea comes out of Trump's ass, as long as it has some positive effect. In this case, I think such a suggestion should have gov't backing and be advertised through the media, as long as there is a body worth picking up.
Might be a start....
Kurdish security boss: UK terror laws 'too soft'
"The laws should be changed in Europe.
"It is not for me to say but the laws are too soft on some of these people that go and join the ranks of ISIL and they are allowed to come back into the country and run around freely and they put them on the watch.
"You cannot put 3-4,000 people on the watch 24 hours a day. So I think first they need to retake a look at some of the laws that exist in Europe.
"If we are suspicious of somebody that poses a threat for the stability of this region - then we have to arrest them and until we are 100 per cent sure, these people should not get out, to be honest with you
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/kurdish-security-boss-uk-terror-laws-too-soft-020200759.html
FromBeyond
06-07-17, 04:57 PM
You're kidding right? OK I'll bite if you're serious - why give them any acknowledgment and 'martyr' them?
They are justified in their actions by what is written in the Quran so let them be martyred by their religion for following the word devoutly, they are good Muslims.
The question is should cultural Muslims be given an Islamic burial.
They are justified in their actions by what is written in the Quran so let them be martyred by their religion for following the word devoutly, they are good Muslims.
The question is should cultural Muslims be given an Islamic burial.
They're being condemned worldwide for not being good muslims, especially during ramadan. I think it's the right stance to take and it's nothing new, and as I said earlier, I think they should be dumped in a mass grave, or even better, take them out to sea like was that real or fake Osama.
Oh dear, and so it begins. Not sure if this link will work because it keeps snapping but will give it a try. Iran is blaming Saudi for the attack on parliament.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/07/middleeast/iran-parliament-shooting/index.html
Captain Steel
06-07-17, 09:51 PM
Is copy/pasting snippets of tabloid newspaper Op-Eds really adding to the discussion or just serving to keep the pot simmering?
What pot is that? The "PC Islamo-terror apologist fascists" vs the "Islamophobe white-supremacist fascists" pot?
I really don't know what my post is supposed to mean, just some sort of commentary on the various names the different sides in these arguments sometimes throw at each other.
My problem is after I grew up I started growing down. ;)
Pussy Galore
06-07-17, 11:09 PM
They are justified in their actions by what is written in the Quran so let them be martyred by their religion for following the word devoutly, they are good Muslims.
The question is should cultural Muslims be given an Islamic burial.
That doesn't mean anything, you can take any religious text and justify anything with a particular passage.
Captain Steel
06-07-17, 11:51 PM
That doesn't mean anything, you can take any religious text and justify anything with a particular passage.
No you can't.
"Love your enemy"
You're stuck with that. You can't do **** with it. What are you supposed to do with that?
"Well, he's my enemy, I'll get a club with spikes and I'll... no it says 'love' ...um, I guess spiked clubs are kind of out... um poison? Yeah poison! I'll get a goblet and force him to... uh, but forgot the love thing again so no to the um...poison... so then what can I? How about a card? I can get him a card and... and throw the corner RIGHT AT HIS EYE!!! Ha-ha! Yeah,
his eye and... uh... but, aw no, the love thing, can't take out his eye with the love thing there.... hmmmm... give?.... I could... give him the card and say... 'I'll Kill Y..." no, that's not love. Maybe something like, 'Here... is a... a card... um.... for um... for you... and uh... I ... well...I hope um... you... uh... like it... the card that is. Yeah! That'll work!"
The teachings of Jesus from the New Testament Gospels are kind of unique in that you really can't "justify" anything with them, except exactly what they say! :)
Luke 19:27
Exactly what it says then?
Man will find any way to twist anything to our selfish gains.
Nostromo87
06-08-17, 12:04 AM
Iroquois sounds like Theron
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Iau3R3yMIr4/RgQOhgG7_iI/AAAAAAAAAWY/dlQynZndDZs/s320/300+antagonist.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIFeCPvyQs
Oh sweet jesus, like this thread couldn't get any worse than 'head to toe hijab' nd Cricket. What a bloody joke! This thread is a disgrace. Bloody trolls.
Captain Steel
06-08-17, 01:23 AM
Luke 19:27
Exactly what it says then?
Man will find any way to twist anything to our selfish gains.
I've seen this quoted as the one command of violence coming from Jesus - it is not.
It is a parable (a story, a fable, a fairy tale) told by Jesus. The King in the story who commands violence is a fictional character - he represents the tough breaks of reality for people who are too foolish or who play it too safe and will take no necessary risks with what they are provided or tasked to work with. This King isn't put forth as an example to follow - he's obviously a merciless and brutal character, but he represents the hand of fate that shows no mercy - we call this reality. This is a potential outcome for those who deny god, do not use what god has given them wisely and thus end up having no protection from reality.
The parable boils down to investing and doing the best with what we are given rather than burying it to keep it safe. But the story is a metaphor- it is not a tenet or commandment authorizing any human being to kill another human being, nor is it a call for capital punishment for stock brokers who don't make you any money.
Nostromo87
06-08-17, 01:25 AM
Engineering a Civilization (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JfocKPxD2Qc)
Luke 19:27
Exactly what it says then?
Man will find any way to twist anything to our selfish gains.
I've seen this quoted as the one command of violence coming from Jesus - it is not.
It is a parable (a story, a fable, a fairy tale) told by Jesus. The King in the story who commands violence is a fictional character - he represents the tough breaks of reality for people who are too foolish or who play it too safe and will take no necessary risks with what they are provided or tasked to work with. This King isn't put forth as an example to follow - he's obviously a merciless and brutal character, but he represents the hand of fate that shows no mercy - we call this reality. This is a potential outcome for those who deny god, do not use what god has given them wisely and thus end up having no protection from reality.
The parable boils down to investing and doing the best with what we are given rather than burying it to keep it safe. But the story is a metaphor- it is not a tenet or commandment authorizing any human being to kill another human being, nor is it a call for capital punishment for stock brokers who don't make you any money.
The point was to give an example of how someone can take something out of context to misrepresent it as something bad. Even a verse from the new testament can be twisted. The point here is not the contextual meaning based on further reading, but the distortion of a line from a book to mean something different that its intended purpose.
Man can twist even the Bible to mean something else. You suggested it couldn't be done with New Testament. I just did it.
Now. Imagine the potential damage a false *prophet could create, deliberately misquoting the bible to a group of people so poor and uneducated to read and comprehend the text as a whole. All it takes is a charismatic personality, a basic understanding of human psychology, and desire to take advantage of those around you. A wolf in sheep's clothing, if you will.
"Now Imagine she's white."
Thanks, Matthew Mcconnaughey.
Alright, alright, alright.
*EDIT*
Also: irony.
*typo thumbing this out on my phone.
Iroquois
06-08-17, 03:11 AM
So you’re saying Trump’s track record of sexist behavior and Muslim’s countries’ treatment of women are comparable? Hmm, how does that work out since the women Trump comes into contact has to be a tiny, tiny portion of the millions of women who live under Islamic misogynist regimes? And can we really compare a sexist remark (which is more vulgar and in bad taste than anything else) with FGM, child marriage, honor killings, stoning women and jailing and condemning them to death for being raped? I think there may be a little bit of an “inconsistency” in that comparison right there.
Because he's a symptom of America's deeper problems regarding treatment of different races and genders - he didn't get to be President on his own, after all. For various politicians and people, his character flaws are considered genuinely agreeable at best and an acceptable compromise at worst. If your concern is over entire countries being willing to go along with and even enforce sexism and misogyny because that's what the people in charge believe should be the law of the land, then it's not like the West is completely blameless either (and it does go beyond one thing said by one guy). Using Muslim countries as your worst-case scenario and thinking that anything less is automatically acceptable in comparison is its own issue.
By the way, remember to vote Labour.
Hmm, slightly confused here - the attacks are not carried out but there is a response to them and that's when the "agenda" comes through? How does that work out? :shrug:
I've explained it already but one more time - they want to exploit the public's fear of Islamic terrorists in order to assert their own ideology by encouraging moderates to take actions against terrorists that are more in line with their own generally xenophobic goals. If ISIS wants to make people afraid of their attacks, then these other groups want people to feel afraid enough that they'll do anything to alleviate the fear of being attacked by ISIS - including siding with white supremacists because they're the lesser of two evils.
So these white supremacist attacks are carried out quietly with no publicity? What’s the use of an agenda if no one knows it exists? I would think they would want as much publicity as possible. So basically, no one knows they actually happen (with the possible exception of yourself)?
Because they're playing a different game to ISIS altogether. Terrorism can take more forms than just blowing stuff up.
Oh and BTW, still waiting for a list of these attacks: When? Where? How many dead? Who was responsible? What proof that they were committed by “white supremacists”?
Here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#White_supremacy) (see also the "antisemitism" and "right-wing" sections since there's some overlap).
Wow, it’s hard to believe media outlets like The Guardian, The Washington Post and the BBC are intentionally hiding white supremacist terrorist attacks. Surely they would feel it their duty expose these heinous attacks and whom is responsible for them? You know, to make the public aware of what's going on and turn public opinion against them?
Well, I did throw in an "unintentionally" to account for the fact that not every media outlet may be doing this on purpose - it's right there in the block you're quoting. Besides, you're still working under the assumption that media outlets operate solely out of some duty to the truth and nothing else, but that's not necessarily true. Media outlets are still businesses that are run by people for not just people but profit. One problem with treating news as a business is that a story's worth can be dictated by its economic value as much as its importance e.g. extremists appearing on centrist shows because it's good for ratings. Even after accounting for unconscious biases towards or against certain groups, media's ability to influence public opinion doesn't necessarily mean that it will always be used the "right" way. Publicly acknowledging white supremacy as a continued threat is more difficult when your core audience is white (if not necessarily supremacist) - if you alienate your consumers, your business fails. You might as well ask why more Western media outlets aren't actively calling for harsher measures to be taken against any and all Muslims if Islamic terrorists keep carrying out attacks - because, aside from whatever other reasons they may have for not doing it, it's almost certainly bad for business. Even Breitbart will fire people that they think go too far in that regard.
Oh right....earth. That’s the whole danger area covered then. My daughter lives in Africa - I´ll be sure to tell her to be on the lookout for these white supremacist attacks. :D
Yeah, nothing racist ever happens in Africa.
Iroquois sounds like Theron
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Iau3R3yMIr4/RgQOhgG7_iI/AAAAAAAAAWY/dlQynZndDZs/s320/300+antagonist.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIFeCPvyQs
"This video is not available."
Nostromo87
06-08-17, 03:15 AM
Iroquois sounds like Theron
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Iau3R3yMIr4/RgQOhgG7_iI/AAAAAAAAAWY/dlQynZndDZs/s320/300+antagonist.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIFeCPvyQs
"This video is not available."
Must be bc it nailed you.
Iroquois
06-08-17, 03:26 AM
Why, did you make sure it worked first before you linked it?
Nostromo87
06-08-17, 03:34 AM
Hmm, leftists blocking the right links, not shocking
Iroquois
06-08-17, 03:43 AM
That wasn't a "yes".
Wplains
06-08-17, 06:25 AM
Iroquois sounds like Theron
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Iau3R3yMIr4/RgQOhgG7_iI/AAAAAAAAAWY/dlQynZndDZs/s320/300+antagonist.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axIFeCPvyQs
All I got was "this video is not available"....:D
Movie Max
06-08-17, 07:26 AM
What do you know, another special treatment request. Does this sound reasonable?
Andrews troubled by Muslim ‘rage areas’
Premier Daniel Andrews says he’s “very troubled” by the Islamic Council of Victoria’s suggestion for safe spaces where Muslim youth “could be radical”
The council made a submission asking for taxpayer-funded “safe spaces” where young Muslims can express themselves openly, even if those views are “inflammatory”.
“I am very troubled by the suggestion that we might have a space where people could be radical as part of a deradicalisation program. That makes no sense to me whatsoever.”
The submission says young people are unable to express anger or use certain facial expressions without becoming a target for surveillance.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-leaders-want-taxpayerfunded-space-to-rage-for-young-men/news-story/bc7aff371df6c07b190a3bddb21bfa03?nk=3440bebdf51c24dde0c94874159bc7d6-1496916693
I call this the freedom to see a shrink, you know, the kind that would assess if you are a danger to yourself and others.:idea:
Wplains
06-08-17, 09:42 AM
What do you know, another special treatment request. Does this sound reasonable?
Andrews troubled by Muslim ‘rage areas’
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/muslim-leaders-want-taxpayerfunded-space-to-rage-for-young-men/news-story/bc7aff371df6c07b190a3bddb21bfa03?nk=3440bebdf51c24dde0c94874159bc7d6-1496916693
I call this the freedom to see a shrink, you know, the kind that would assess if you are a danger to yourself and others.:idea:
I particularly like the part about it being "tax payer funded". Yup, let's fund spaces where Muslims youth can act out killing the people who fund them....:rolleyes: The world has gone crazy.
Movie Max
06-08-17, 11:00 AM
Changing values...
Theresa May has declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects, as she sought to gain control over the security agenda just 36 hours before the polls open.
The prime minister said she was looking at how to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and how to increase controls on extremists where it is thought they present a threat but there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.
TheGuardian
I've seen this quoted as the one command of violence coming from Jesus - it is not.
It is a parable (a story, a fable, a fairy tale) told by Jesus. The King in the story who commands violence is a fictional character - he represents the tough breaks of reality for people who are too foolish or who play it too safe and will take no necessary risks with what they are provided or tasked to work with. This King isn't put forth as an example to follow - he's obviously a merciless and brutal character, but he represents the hand of fate that shows no mercy - we call this reality. This is a potential outcome for those who deny god, do not use what god has given them wisely and thus end up having no protection from reality.
The parable boils down to investing and doing the best with what we are given rather than burying it to keep it safe. But the story is a metaphor- it is not a tenet or commandment authorizing any human being to kill another human being, nor is it a call for capital punishment for stock brokers who don't make you any money.
I would also like to point out how easy it is to defend something we value against someone who might try to distort and manipulate whatever it is that we value; while at the same time, take part in distorting others' values. As if they were different things.
You cannot find anything in MY book that can be twisted!
Here is an example right here.
No... there is context to that! It does not mean what that one line, out of context, suggests. I know this because I am familiar with it and I am willing to study this matter to prove my view!
Good job.
Yet here we are, witnessing other men distort intent from other books. What of that?
Well. Their book is evil. I am not willing to study that matter because that would argue against my point.
...
People are people are people. It is human nature to trust your ingroup and fear any outgroup. I would like to think we are beyond instinctive natures by now, at least enough to recognize this reaction when it plays out and use our intellect to rise above it all. Granted, the entire world is not at the same level of awareness and understanding, but we ....we.... have access to knowledge to help mitigate some of these issues. I know emotional knee-jerk reactions are more fun and all, but we are better than that. There's a responsibility there, whether we accept it or not.
Pussy Galore
06-08-17, 01:42 PM
No you can't.
"Love your enemy"
You're stuck with that. You can't do **** with it. What are you supposed to do with that?
"Well, he's my enemy, I'll get a club with spikes and I'll... no it says 'love' ...um, I guess spiked clubs are kind of out... um poison? Yeah poison! I'll get a goblet and force him to... uh, but forgot the love thing again so no to the um...poison... so then what can I? How about a card? I can get him a card and... and throw the corner RIGHT AT HIS EYE!!! Ha-ha! Yeah,
his eye and... uh... but, aw no, the love thing, can't take out his eye with the love thing there.... hmmmm... give?.... I could... give him the card and say... 'I'll Kill Y..." no, that's not love. Maybe something like, 'Here... is a... a card... um.... for um... for you... and uh... I ... well...I hope um... you... uh... like it... the card that is. Yeah! That'll work!"
The teachings of Jesus from the New Testament Gospels are kind of unique in that you really can't "justify" anything with them, except exactly what they say! :)
I'm not saying that everyone is a good theologian, I'm saying that religion relies on the principle that in the holy book lies truth.
Hence, it is possible for people who hold this belief (that in the holy book lies truth) to take a passage out of the holy book and act according to it even if there are other passages saying otherwise (which is the whole irony, the book in which lies truth has lots of contradictions). I'm sure you're aware that during slavery in the US slave owners justified their actions y religion. The movie The Birth of a Nation (the recent one by Nate Parker). I'm not a biblical scholar and am not that much interested in it, but if you tell me that you can't find any contradictory passage even in the new testament then I'd be really surprised.
I'm pretty sure that in the quran there are beautiful sourat (verses) that promotes peace. For instance, I've heard some muslim intellectuals talking about djihad, not in the way we usually see it (violence, etc.) but as an inner struggle toward greatness, etc. My point is that religion relies on interpretation and you can't have an essentialist position on a religion based on books that say this religion is X or Y, it is X according to such an interpretation based on such passage, but it is Y according to that other passage. Theology is the study of which passage has authority on the other and it's not an easy task at all and you have a multitude of interpretations.
Captain Steel
06-08-17, 01:54 PM
I would also like to point out how easy it is to defend something we value against someone who might try to distort and manipulate whatever it is that we value; while at the same time, take part in distorting others' values. As if they were different things.
You cannot find anything in MY book that can be twisted!
Here is an example right here.
No... there is context to that! It does not mean what that one line, out of context, suggests. I know this because I am familiar with it and I am willing to study this matter to prove my view!
Good job.
Yet here we are, witnessing other men distort intent from other books. What of that?
Well. Their book is evil. I am not willing to study that matter because that would argue against my point.
...
People are people are people. It is human nature to trust your ingroup and fear any outgroup. I would like to think we are beyond instinctive natures by now, at least enough to recognize this reaction when it plays out and use our intellect to rise above it all. Granted, the entire world is not at the same level of awareness and understanding, but we ....we.... have access to knowledge to help mitigate some of these issues. I know emotional knee-jerk reactions are more fun and all, but we are better than that. There's a responsibility there, whether we accept it or not.
As a general point, I agree. There's no argument that context is always important and people will omit it to skew the messages of others.
But within the topic of global Islamic Terrorism, these debates have been exhausted. Yes, there are plenty of Muslims who do not follow their scriptures literally and for them religion is just a facet of life as for many other moderate believers in other religions - a familial tradition, cultural reinforcement and social obligation.
But we know what the Islamic scriptures say and the context is clear. It's not metaphor or parable or even a set of suggested ethical guidelines to help one optimize their ability to prosper or get along with others, but a standing set of abrogated instructions. And, unfortunately, we have global Jihadists following those instructions to kill the infidel and establish Islamic supremacy over the Earth.
Captain Steel
06-08-17, 02:03 PM
I'm not saying that everyone is a good theologian, I'm saying that religion relies on the principle that in the holy book lies truth.
Hence, it is possible for people who hold this belief (that in the holy book lies truth) to take a passage out of the holy book and act according to it even if there are other passages saying otherwise (which is the whole irony, the book in which lies truth has lots of contradictions). I'm sure you're aware that during slavery in the US slave owners justified their actions y religion. The movie The Birth of a Nation (the recent one by Nate Parker). I'm not a biblical scholar and am not that much interested in it, but if you tell me that you can't find any contradictory passage even in the new testament then I'd be really surprised.
I'm pretty sure that in the quran there are beautiful sourat (verses) that promotes peace. For instance, I've heard some muslim intellectuals talking about djihad, not in the way we usually see it (violence, etc.) but as an inner struggle toward greatness, etc. My point is that religion relies on interpretation and you can't have an essentialist position on a religion based on books that say this religion is X or Y, it is X according to such an interpretation based on such passage, but it is Y according to that other passage. Theology is the study of which passage has authority on the other and it's not an easy task at all and you have a multitude of interpretations.
I agree. I have an interesting little book called "The Bible Tells Me So" which illustrates how those scriptures have been used to both justify and oppose virtually every controversial issue.
Bottom line: actions speak louder than words. 1400 years of Islamic war, invasion, conquest, mass-murder, torture, intolerance, misogyny, slavery and now GLOBAL LEVEL non-stop terrorism with the ultimate stated goal of absolute supremacy via genocide speaks pretty loudly as to how a significant portion of Islam is interpreting their religion and attempting to carry out what is actually a political ideology of domination that wears religion as a facade.
As a general point, I agree. There's no argument that context is always important and people will omit it to skew the messages of others.
But within the topic of global Islamic Terrorism, these debates have been exhausted. Yes, there are plenty of Muslims who do not follow their scriptures literally and for them religion is just a facet of life as for many other moderate believers in other religions - a familial tradition, cultural reinforcement and social obligation.
But we know what the Islamic scriptures say and the context is clear. It's not metaphor or parable or even a set of suggested ethical guidelines to help one optimize their ability to prosper or get along with others, but a standing set of abrogated instructions. And, unfortunately, we have global Jihadists following those instructions to kill the infidel and establish Islamic supremacy over the Earth.
Thank you for your reply.
Honest question:
Do you truly know, or are you taking hearsay at face value and parroting?
So that we're both being honest and transparent, I do not know one way or the other. I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. That, and to make sure another perspective is represented here. I may be wrong. But I did prove that misinterpretation is not found in other sources alone. Christian history is peppered with events just as disgusting, yet it is the same Good Book that you defended earlier. I do not really argue that point of yours. It's more the wilful blasphemy of misinterpretation to influence selfish gains that I'm trying to point out. That is HUMAN nature. Not God's. There is a difference here.
Do you truly know what Islamic scripture says in full context? Enough to speak to the level you did when countering my Biblical reference earlier? Do you know Islamic scripture says this absolutely, or could it be a history of people deliberately bastardizing scripture for their own personal agendas? As men have used distortions of the Christian faith throughout history. As I did earlier in my reference to Luke 19:27.
*EDIT*
I guess it's important to note that just because we no longer burn people alive, stone, or torture in the name of God, it is still a part of our history. So we may be a bit further along in our development. Doesn't change where we come from.
I'm pretty sure that in the quran there are beautiful sourat (verses) that promotes peace. For instance, I've heard some muslim intellectuals talking about djihad, not in the way we usually see it (violence, etc.) but as an inner struggle toward greatness, etc.
Yes, and exactly what jihad during ramadan means - the purging of sin from the self - but so many non muslims automatically misinterpret it as commanding violence towards others.
Chypmunk
06-08-17, 02:44 PM
I do love a good purge.
Had quite a pleasing one this morning as a matter of fact :yup:
#nothreadissafe #canbuymoredvdsnowtofillthegaps
Pussy Galore
06-08-17, 02:59 PM
I agree. I have an interesting little book called "The Bible Tells Me So" which illustrates how those scriptures have been used to both justify and oppose virtually every controversial issue.
Bottom line: actions speak louder than words. 1400 years of Islamic war, invasion, conquest, mass-murder, torture, intolerance, misogyny, slavery and now GLOBAL LEVEL non-stop terrorism with the ultimate stated goal of absolute supremacy via genocide speaks pretty loudly as to how a significant portion of Islam is interpreting their religion and attempting to carry out what is actually a political ideology of domination that wears religion as a facade.
I think your reading of history is quite selective.
The period between around the years 900 and 1200 (if I remember correctly) was the golden age of islam where they were a lot more educated, peaceful than their middle age european counterparts. For instance, if it wasn't for their transcriptions we wouldn't have much of the ancient greek texts.
Also, according to your logic of ''action speaks louder than words'' witch hunt, slavery, crusades, inquisition, censorship (books being put in the index) is all the fault of the catholic religion which would also make it ''evil''. I don't think you can disregard the text when you talk about a whole religion as opposed to a particular individual.
This guy must be my thought twin.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/terrorists-crave-the-attention-of-those-they-claim-to-despise-20170606-gwlbk6.html
I could not agree more. Bravo, John!
Wplains
06-08-17, 06:30 PM
Because he's a symptom of America's deeper problems regarding treatment of different races and genders - he didn't get to be President on his own, after all. For various politicians and people, his character flaws are considered genuinely agreeable at best and an acceptable compromise at worst. If your concern is over entire countries being willing to go along with and even enforce sexism and misogyny because that's what the people in charge believe should be the law of the land, then it's not like the West is completely blameless either (and it does go beyond one thing said by one guy). Using Muslim countries as your worst-case scenario and thinking that anything less is automatically acceptable in comparison is its own issue.
By the way, remember to vote Labour.
Did anyone ever say the West was perfect? Nope. But, as a woman I know where I'd rather live and where I can have a free life and do whatever I want. Hint: it's not in a Muslim country. When you find a perfect society - let me know - I'll be happy to move there.:D
I'm not a Brit but if I were Loony Labour is the last thing I'd vote for.
I've explained it already but one more time - they want to exploit the public's fear of Islamic terrorists in order to assert their own ideology by encouraging moderates to take actions against terrorists that are more in line with their own generally xenophobic goals. If ISIS wants to make people afraid of their attacks, then these other groups want people to feel afraid enough that they'll do anything to alleviate the fear of being attacked by ISIS - including siding with white supremacists because they're the lesser of two evils.
Because they're playing a different game to ISIS altogether. Terrorism can take more forms than just blowing stuff up.
The reason I don't understand it is because your reasoning is so convoluted that it makes no sense. Why shouldn't moderates take action against terrorists who maim and kill innocent people?
Here (see also the "antisemitism" and "right-wing" sections since there's some overlap).
Ok so I had a look at our statistics. I found them to be very interesting. So let’s see if your fear of white supremacy attacks all over the world is justified. According to the site you linked there were 6 white supremacy attacks in 66 years (from 1951 to 2017); 5 antisemitism attacks in 56 years (from 1958 to 2014). Hmm, doesn’t seem like an awful lot, does it? Then I noticed they also have a list of Left-wing extremism and anti-government attacks – those came out to 15 attacks in 101 years . Which is more than the white supremacy and Anti semitism attacks put together…… yet you don’t seem to be scared of those?
And then I had a look at the Islamic terrorist attacks – which turned out to be 487 attacks in 47 years – from 1970 to 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks
So I don’t know about you but I know which attacks are scarier and far more likely to happen and they certainly aren’t white supremacist attacks!
I’m not surprised then that media outlets don’t really report a lot of white supremacy attacks – it’s for the simple reason that they are very, very few of them. Whearas Islamic terrorist attacks? They seem to happen on an almost daily basis now, don’t they?
I particularly like the part about it being "tax payer funded". Yup, let's fund spaces where Muslims youth can act out killing the people who fund them....:rolleyes: The world has gone crazy.
It's got nothing to do with your taxes so what are you complaining about. And it is NOT about youth acting out 'killing the people who fund them' so keep your eyerolls to yourself. My taxes, you know, because I pay them in this country, have no problem with disenfranchised youth being given a safe place to be heard if, IF this incentive goes through. And I dare say it wont be limited to Muslim youth but ll youth.
Far out.
People going on about No-Go Zones in Birmingham should read this - http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/nogozones.asp
These claims are constantly retracted including by Fox News when they are made aware of the reality. There are of course problem majority muslim areas in the UK, France, etc, largely due to poverty; nowhere near as many as majority white areas though. And the idea that they are operating under their own law (if they are breaking the law just like any criminal in the world then i guess technically they are) and that police are afraid to enter is frankly stupid and i'd be embarrassed to peddle that nonsense. I have friends in Birmingham that find this idea hilarious, and there's more than one area here in Glasgow that regular citizens probably shouldn't enter because of gangs, crime, etc: obviously that's not a problem because the problem residents of said areas are white. :rolleyes:
Captain Steel
06-08-17, 09:41 PM
Thank you for your reply.
Honest question:
Do you truly know, or are you taking hearsay at face value and parroting?
So that we're both being honest and transparent, I do not know one way or the other. I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing. That, and to make sure another perspective is represented here. I may be wrong. But I did prove that misinterpretation is not found in other sources alone. Christian history is peppered with events just as disgusting, yet it is the same Good Book that you defended earlier. I do not really argue that point of yours. It's more the wilful blasphemy of misinterpretation to influence selfish gains that I'm trying to point out. That is HUMAN nature. Not God's. There is a difference here.
Do you truly know what Islamic scripture says in full context? Enough to speak to the level you did when countering my Biblical reference earlier? Do you know Islamic scripture says this absolutely, or could it be a history of people deliberately bastardizing scripture for their own personal agendas? As men have used distortions of the Christian faith throughout history. As I did earlier in my reference to Luke 19:27.
*EDIT*
I guess it's important to note that just because we no longer burn people alive, stone, or torture in the name of God, it is still a part of our history. So we may be a bit further along in our development. Doesn't change where we come from.
If you're asking if I've read the Koran... yes.
I've also read the Bible (New & Old Testaments, and, no offence to Hebrews, but the only part I'll "defend" as having nothing really bad to say is the New Testament - specifically the Gospels - the alleged actual words of Christ - and if anyone brings up the book of Revelation, honestly, no one knows what that's about.) I've read the Bhagavad Gita and the Tao Te Ching.
Now, when you ask "Do you truly know what Islamic scripture says in full context?" that's a very subjective question that could be posed to any Imam. And as you know, most would answer "yes" and then be able to debate each other (depending what branch of Islam they follow) as to the words truly, know, and full context. ;)
The Koran is the only Islamic text I've read in full. As far as written versions of the Sunnahs, I've only read them piecemeal, online.
As said, I have no argument with your statements about distorting scripture of any kind to back agendas. It's always been a part of history.
Captain Steel
06-08-17, 09:48 PM
I think your reading of history is quite selective.
The period between around the years 900 and 1200 (if I remember correctly) was the golden age of islam where they were a lot more educated, peaceful than their middle age european counterparts. For instance, if it wasn't for their transcriptions we wouldn't have much of the ancient greek texts.
Also, according to your logic of ''action speaks louder than words'' witch hunt, slavery, crusades, inquisition, censorship (books being put in the index) is all the fault of the catholic religion which would also make it ''evil''. I don't think you can disregard the text when you talk about a whole religion as opposed to a particular individual.
I've read books that have parts debating the historical accuracy of the golden age of Islam (as with most aspects of history, maybe golden for some, not so golden for others).
You'll get no argument from me regarding the corruption and abuses of the Holy Roman Catholic Church (especially during the middle ages), but it is a different subject from modern day global terrorism in that neither Catholicism nor any other major religion except Islam is currently producing terrorism on a global level.
Please see this related topic: New Rules for Controversial Threads (https://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?t=49561).
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/manchester-airport-terminal-evacuated-over-unattended-bag/articleshow/59076001.cms
manchester airport terminal cleared over unattended bag
I wish this crap would stop being posted by the media. Unattended bags have been a thing for years now suddenly it's sensational because of the current climate. It's stirring up hysteria and division. Same with notes left in plane toilets and shopping centres. Just getting too much, and it encourages more people to do it because they get 15 seconds of fame. Bloody hell, left bags and bodgey phone calls brought bomb squads into my court house last century as a matter of protocol and it never made headlines because...it wasnt news.
Tell me why you have such a low opinion of cricket that you called it a boring game in this thread. Actually in your country Australia cricket is quite popular and Australia have won the world cup 5 times---far more than any other team. An Australian who hates cricket must be a quirky character indeed .
What does cricket have to do with terrorism? You keep hijacking your own thread. You do the same with your commentary on the veil. Jaysus this thread is infuriating.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4OJOSPN7UTM/TZTA1DE3wZI/AAAAAAAAAYc/zpg0giW2mUo/s1600/ghoonghat2.jpg
Calm down!
An Australian who hates cricket must be a quirky character indeed .
Are you attempting to insult me yet again? Maybe check the forum owner's new guidelines.
Captain Steel
06-09-17, 04:51 PM
Jaysus this thread is infuriating.
This thread is like an infuriating magnet!
What does cricket have to do with terrorism? You keep hijacking your own thread. You do the same with your commentary on the veil. Jaysus this thread is infuriating.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-4OJOSPN7UTM/TZTA1DE3wZI/AAAAAAAAAYc/zpg0giW2mUo/s1600/ghoonghat2.jpg
Calm down!
Are you attempting to insult me yet again? Maybe check the forum owner's new guidelines.
On page 67 of this thread you called cricket the most boring game in the world involving a ball and some sticks . I wonder why such hatred for cricket given your own country's wonderful performance in the game.
You brought up cricket in this thread. What does it have to do with terrorism? Oh that's right...
Well while we're on sports. I'm an American and absolutely hate baseball. OMG it is so slow! Going to an actual game is a step up because you're there taking part, so to speak and you can do the wave and all, but then you have the mosquitoes. And drunks. And that gosh-awful armpit/ass odor that eventually creeps in from the seats a row or two back, in just the 4th inning. *cries*
ok sorry. i saw an opening so i took it. please continue. don't mind me.
Captain Steel
06-09-17, 05:17 PM
Well while we're on sports.
LOL! :D
(Is this part of the new rules for controversial topics that Yoda was talking about?)
Rule 1. When things get heated, just switch to sports! ;)
LOL! :D
(Is this part of the new rules for controversial topics that Yoda was talking about?)
Rule 1. When things get heated, just switch to sports! ;)
Pure coincidence ;)
The topic of Cricket came up. Honestly, when I first read it I thought they were talking about the user Cricket and some older post. Now that I know it's the sport they were referring to I had to jump in.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.