Crazy scary times. Was in London earlier today (Waterloo, Westminster, Charing Cross), heavy armed police presence throughout, but thousands of people as it was such a lovely day... No doubt many many people still in the general area of the incidents.
Update: Appears to be three incidents ongoing
London Bridge: Van hit pedestrians - report of more than one fatality
Borough Market - Reports of stabbings, armed police in attendance and shots fired
Vauxhall - Officers responding to 'incident' in Vauxhall
The live feeds out of london have police clearing the streets, police basically yelling at crowds to get inside for safety and saying if you don't have ballistic protection to take shelter, there was also footage of police making an arrest of one suspect. But the vibe was very much as if there was an active shooter, and this was after the bridge incident and market. One feed of the bridge showed a significant presence of ambulances and riot police.
There are reports that one or two of the assailants was shot by police and had canisters strapped to his chest. Also reports of people hearing explosions and the police saying they're responsible the detonations, they had to do some controlled detonations of suspicious objects on the bridge itself.
Crablezworth wrote: There are reports that one of assailants was shot by police and had canisters strapped to his chest. Also reports of people hearing explosions and the police saying they're responsible the detonations, they had to do some controlled detonations of suspicious objects on the bridge itself.
Spoiler:
By controlled detonations, I'm hoping they mean the murderers' bodies. Don't leave anything of them to be buried.
Crablezworth wrote: There are reports that one of assailants was shot by police and had canisters strapped to his chest. Also reports of people hearing explosions and the police saying they're responsible the detonations, they had to do some controlled detonations of suspicious objects on the bridge itself.
Spoiler:
By controlled detonations, I'm hoping they mean the murderers' bodies. Don't leave anything of them to be buried.
In which Shadow Captain Edithae fantasize about commiting Gross Abuse of a Corpse.
They're wearing suicide vests. I hope the Police aren't going to the trouble and extreme risk of trying to remove the vests from the body/still living suicide bomber before detonating. I'd much prefer they just blow him up, even if he is still alive, than risk a Police Officer's life.
I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
Come on over to the good old US of A. We've been relatively free of these types of things
I can see why there’s no US politics topic here anymore, common sense or even basic human compassion are skills lacking in the average Murcin.
I'm old enough to remember the “troubles”, attacks will happen more people will die and nothing will change. In the end it will fizzle out, to be replaced with another group of nutters. Life for 99.99 of us will go on unaffected as always.
I know these attacks wont change us one bit, but the futility of there insanity makes me ******* furious as all the scum before them did. Don’t you know your murderous rampage will be forgotten in a week? remember those guys who came before them.....No, no one does. Their for nothing and achieve nothing. Their dead and we are still here, and not going anywhere.
cpt_fishcakes wrote: I can see why there’s no US politics topic here anymore, common sense or even basic human compassion are skills lacking in the average Murcin.
Low blow, dude, low blow.
They're dead and we are still here, and not going anywhere.
You have the stones to tell that to the victims' families?
cpt_fishcakes wrote: I can see why there’s no US politics topic here anymore, common sense or even basic human compassion are skills lacking in the average Murcin.
That is nice. Reported.
BTW, the person in this thread calling for detonating bomb vests on live suspects was a fellow countryman of yours, buddy.
cpt_fishcakes wrote: I can see why there’s no US politics topic here anymore, common sense or even basic human compassion are skills lacking in the average Murcin.
Low blow, dude, low blow.
They're dead and we are still here, and not going anywhere.
You have the stones to tell that to the victims' families?
Well tragedy always means more in person, death up close is not a fun thing, I know. But tragedy happens and the rest of us get on with our lives. It happened when the Nazis bombed us, it happened when the IRA bombed us, and it happens now when the weirdy beardys attack us. It hurts but we keep going, thats how you win, don’t stop.
cpt_fishcakes wrote: I can see why there’s no US politics topic here anymore, common sense or even basic human compassion are skills lacking in the average Murcin.
Low blow, dude, low blow.
They're dead and we are still here, and not going anywhere.
You have the stones to tell that to the victims' families?
Well tragedy always means more in person, death up close is not a fun thing, I know. But tragedy happens and the rest of us get on with our lives. It happened when the Nazis bombed us, it happened when the IRA bombed us, and it happens now when the weirdy beardys attack us. It hurts but we keep going, thats how you win, don’t stop.
Do I need to explain why conflating Nazis, the IRA and Jihadis doesn't work?
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
Just do what people in the Vasque Country did in the old-ETA days. Don't take more risk than needed, but live your live normally. Those are all horrendous attacks, but as a individual you shoudln't put in them more thought time than the most basic. Just like you aren't going by the streent thinking about the posibility of a car loosing control and killing you. Or a roof tile droping in your head from a building. You don't go to a ruined building or walk in the middle of the road, but thats the max you can do before entering in paranoia.
EDIT: Obviously, the police force should go after those terrorist, don't think I'm saying "Just live with that": I'm talkig what as a civilian you should do.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
Just do what people in the Vasque Country did in the old-ETA days. Don't take more risk than needed, but live your live normally. Those are all horrendous attacks, but as a individual you shoudln't put in them more thought time than the most basic. Just like you aren't going by the streent thinking about the posibility of a car loosing control and killing you. Or a roof tile droping in your head from a building. You don't go to a ruined building or walk in the middle of the road, but thats the max you can do before entering in paranoia.
Exactly, do not let terror consume you or else they will win. If we all come out to show off that we are not afraid they will lose their weapon and will only become more erratic and irresponsible with their power.
Do I need to explain why conflating Nazis, the IRA and Jihadis doesn't work?
I don't think that's what's happening.
And I think the futility of modern radical terrorism can be a maddening aspect that conventional warfare doesn't have. Britain could've capitulated before Nazi Germany. That's a maddening option in and of itself, and the British showed great resolve in not taking it. But how the hell do you even capitulate before radical islamist terrorism? In what scenario could enough bombings, enough knife attacks, enough crazy lone wolf compel the entirety of Western civilisation to convert to the most extreme of interpretation of a religion which, 70 years ago, was barely less alien and exotic than Maoritanga?
The aim is impossible and ridicule, and the means are barbaric and degrading. It's a pretty perfect representation of absolute nihilism.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'd much prefer they just blow him up, even if he is still alive, than risk a Police Officer's life.
Of course that means one dead guy. Getting perpetrator alive is preferred solution though. Isolate him and see if you can get him dead first. The fact he hadn\t already blown himself up says it might be possible.
There must be some thought leaders promoting and ultimately responsible for these crimes. It seems to me that the UK intelligence apparatus must get smart enough to identify these individuals and deal with them accordingly. Free speech should not be a shield for inciting people to murder.
Do I need to explain why conflating Nazis, the IRA and Jihadis doesn't work?
I don't think that's what's happening.
And I think the futility of modern radical terrorism can be a maddening aspect that conventional warfare doesn't have. Britain could've capitulated before Nazi Germany. That's a maddening option in and of itself, and the British showed great resolve in not taking it. But how the hell do you even capitulate before radical islamist terrorism? In what scenario could enough bombings, enough knife attacks, enough crazy lone wolf compel the entirety of Western civilisation to convert to the most extreme of interpretation of a religion which, 70 years ago, was barely less alien and exotic than Maoritanga?
The aim is impossible and ridicule, and the means are barbaric and degrading. It's a pretty perfect representation of absolute nihilism.
Absolutely. These "men" are just inflicting their hate and rage on us, and are revelling in the hate and rage they get in return. There's no realistic political aim, even the IRA at their most despicable had a plausible aim, but these modern "terrorists" have an aim that is so completely unachievable that it might as well not even exist.
All we can do is beef up, and properly resource, our internal security, be vigilant and stoical, and carry on with our lives.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'd much prefer they just blow him up, even if he is still alive, than risk a Police Officer's life.
Of course that means one dead guy. Getting perpetrator alive is preferred solution though. Isolate him and see if you can get him dead first. The fact he hadn\t already blown himself up says it might be possible.
Of course alive nets you far more information.
But do not risk peoples lives without need to do so.
jasper76 wrote: There must be some thought leaders promoting and ultimately responsible for these crimes. It seems to me that the UK intelligence apparatus must get smart enough to identify these individuals and deal with them accordingly.
To give them their due, the UK intelligence services are one of, if not the, most respected such institutions on the planet.
Free speech should not be a shield for inciting people to murder.
As it goes, free speech is not universal in the UK, as it is in some democracies. That may be a good or bad thing, depending on your perspective, but you aren't free to incite hatred or murder here. People do and get away with it, obviously, but there are laws there to pursue them.
All I can think about are the victims. And when and where the next one is going to happen. My brothers friend was in that area at the time and he hasn't heard anything from him and he's going crazy with worry.
Future War Cultist wrote: All I can think about are the victims. And when and where the next one is going to happen. My brothers friend was in that area at the time and he hasn't heard anything from him and he's going crazy with worry.
After reading so many first hand accounts on reddit, I don't know what to think or feel, This can't go on, it can't. The death toll at the time of writing this is 7 with a further 48 injured.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I suppose the good news is that the attackers have been shot dead, so that will save the taxpayer some money, as we won't need expensive trials.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
You must know there are bombs and shootings frequently in Northern Ireland, they're just not targeting the general public. The IRA did much worse than these attacks.
I live in London and was in Leicester Square at the time of the attacks and didn't know anything was going on. I didn't know until I was on the train home. Frankly, everyone has jobs to go to and stuff to do and terror attacks won't change that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote: Attackers shot dead by police. They were wearing dummy explosive vests hence the controlled explosions.
Extremist guides often instruct followers to commit knife attacks or use vehicles as making explosives takes some expertise.
They also instruct on using fake vests in order to provoke LE shooting.
The frequency of vehicle and knife attacks rather than bombings like that on the tube suggests that it's become a lot harder to acquire the materials and make such things covertly. But our security services don't discuss how they do this.
Yeah there's still shootings and attempted bombings here, but these car and knife attacks are something else entirely. It could happen anywhere at anytime and they'll target anyone. At least here in N.I they're more directed. Most of the people shot here are either paramilitaries themselves or prolific criminals receiving vigilante justice. It's actually more like criminal gangs fighting over drug territory. Stay out of the police and prison services, don't join the paramilitaries and don't be a serious criminal and you'll hardly encounter them.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I suppose the good news is that the attackers have been shot dead, so that will save the taxpayer some money, as we won't need expensive trials.
Good riddance to them.
I second this.
Except by doing this all you are doing is encouraging further attacks... We have to remember that these people have been hoodwinked into believing that being killed whilst killing people (that they have been hoodwinked into believing are their mortal enemy) is a "Go straight to heaven card" (not sure this is the right terminology) . As such it encourage further attacks from people that have been hoodwinked in this way because their death becomes inevitable. If you come from a poor background, in an isolated community with few propsects (that the person can see) in a world where you are bombarded with self concious messages of wealth and looks then a one way ticket to having everything you ever wanted is likely to be appealling in a twisted sort of way.
What you really want is to capture them, put them on trial and if found guilty to be put away for life. Yes it is expensive, but it sends a strong message that the glorious death they were hoping for is highly unlikely.
Ideally the terrorists should be captured for trial and so on, however the police presumably are instructed to shoot them dead as quickly as possible if they are thought to be carrying a bomb.
If the police could corner such a group in an isolated location, then probably they would try to negotiate their surrender.
jasper76 wrote: There must be some thought leaders promoting and ultimately responsible for these crimes. It seems to me that the UK intelligence apparatus must get smart enough to identify these individuals and deal with them accordingly. Free speech should not be a shield for inciting people to murder.
The Saudi royals and Gulf countries (specially Qatar as far as I'm concerned) have been behind it all for a long time.
They're super duper friends with the western economic elites and monarchies, so don't expect things to change in the short term.
I'm just going to put this here, because this is how we deal with this stuff and this is why they will never win. An old friend died on the bus in Tavistock Square on 7/7, and her loss didn't stop any of us getting out there and continuing to live our lives.
The IRA and the alphabet soup of Nirthern Irish terrorists didn't win and neither will these idiots.
Ace From Outer Space wrote: The IRA and the alphabet soup of Nirthern Irish terrorists didn't win and neither will these idiots.
The IRA didn't win? They got amnesty deals, a withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, IRA prisoners were released, and a political power sharing deal. Former members and allies of the IRA are in government or have been in government. How is that not a victory?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I'd much prefer they just blow him up, even if he is still alive, than risk a Police Officer's life.
Of course that means one dead guy. Getting perpetrator alive is preferred solution though. Isolate him and see if you can get him dead first. The fact he hadn\t already blown himself up says it might be possible.
Of course alive nets you far more information.
But do not risk peoples lives without need to do so.
If it can be fine but if not, I cannot be done.
But you would be happy with them just blowing those guys up. If blowing up is your first option then that's most definitely not possible to do.
As it is you would have preferred police to blow them up for sake of them having fake bomb vests. So your blow them up attitude would give dead terrorist with very little left to investigate from.
As it is you would have preferred police to blow them up for sake of them having fake bomb vests. So your blow them up attitude would give dead terrorist with very little left to investigate from.
But the Police didn't know the vests were fake until they'd carried out controlled explosions, did they?
I'd rather have a dead terrorist than a dead police man.
Ace From Outer Space wrote: The IRA and the alphabet soup of Nirthern Irish terrorists didn't win and neither will these idiots.
The IRA didn't win? They got amnesty deals, a withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, IRA prisoners were released, and a political power sharing deal. Former members and allies of the IRA are in government or have been in government. How is that not a victory?
Don't see a united Ireland. Do you? Do see a Northern Ireland that no
longer exports terrorism.
Ace From Outer Space wrote: The IRA and the alphabet soup of Nirthern Irish terrorists didn't win and neither will these idiots.
The IRA didn't win? They got amnesty deals, a withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, IRA prisoners were released, and a political power sharing deal. Former members and allies of the IRA are in government or have been in government. How is that not a victory?
Don't see a united Ireland. Do you? Do see a Northern Ireland that no longer exports terrorism.
So no, they lost, and we all won.
They now have political power in Northern Ireland. It might not be a complete victory, but its definitely A victory and one step closer to achieving their goal.
Hey I hope you get them all . I was watching what was going on was going on in London. I grew up in Detroit Michigan and one thing we were all taught to be aware of your surroundings. That what the saying mean treat everywhere you go like you in Detroit. Try to be safe out there.
Whirlwind wrote: What you really want is to capture them, put them on trial and if found guilty to be put away for life. Yes it is expensive, but it sends a strong message that the glorious death they were hoping for is highly unlikely.
I would agree with that as well. We tried that too, with one of the 9/11 planners - but there was political opposition to giving him a trial in federal court here, and it wound up not happening, which is a shame. I don't want to get into US based specifics but generally speaking, I think the best punishment for a would-be martyr is a lifetime with the murderers, rapists, narcotics enthusiasts, and the other common criminals that fill our maximum security jails.
You're not some magical supervillain, just a criminal.
I respect your ability to argue a point without getting personal. It's a rare trait around here.
Many thanks that is appreciated. I try to avoid being personal, even if at times I can be pretty blunt. I try and work on the principle that if I can't articulate a point and have to resort, for want of a better terminology, name calling then I really don't have a valid argument.
We can only really come to a solution by looking at all the arguments and trying to assess which might improve the situation (and what the drawbacks would be of each one).
They now have political power in Northern Ireland. It might not be a complete victory, but its definitely A victory and one step closer to achieving their goal.
To an extent, however if NI society had been more inclusive to start with then we may be still in the same position (some form of power share) but without the terrorism in between.
I am generally of the view that as human beings we all have the potential to be terrorists (biologically we are not really that different from one another). It is society that brings out the worst in us. As an animal once we are backed into a corner then generally the response will be to 'fight' because there is no other option. When all options are closed to a group of people, generally isolated then there is a risk that the only way they feel they can get their voices across is by being violent because at that point people take notice. What we must always try and avoid is the response that backs people into an even tighter corner as the result inevitably will be even more aggression.
As it is you would have preferred police to blow them up for sake of them having fake bomb vests. So your blow them up attitude would give dead terrorist with very little left to investigate from.
But the Police didn't know the vests were fake until they'd carried out controlled explosions, did they?
I'd rather have a dead terrorist than a dead police man.
General training is to treat any bomb, gun or threat as genuine until proven otherwise.
Likewise as stated above the order of day seems to be end any threat quickly and directly.
If they think they got a bomb or such they don,t sit about, and don,t worry about taking them alive if public lives in potential danger.
jasper76 wrote: There must be some thought leaders promoting and ultimately responsible for these crimes. It seems to me that the UK intelligence apparatus must get smart enough to identify these individuals and deal with them accordingly.
To give them their due, the UK intelligence services are one of, if not the, most respected such institutions on the planet.
Free speech should not be a shield for inciting people to murder.
As it goes, free speech is not universal in the UK, as it is in some democracies. That may be a good or bad thing, depending on your perspective, but you aren't free to incite hatred or murder here. People do and get away with it, obviously, but there are laws there to pursue them.
Laws only effect those who choose to be subject to them. The savages roaming the UK and perpetrating the attacks choose to be subject to another law. Those people should be made to live somewhere else, and telling them so should not be considered hate law. The subjects of the UK have hog tied themselves.
jasper76 wrote: There must be some thought leaders promoting and ultimately responsible for these crimes. It seems to me that the UK intelligence apparatus must get smart enough to identify these individuals and deal with them accordingly.
To give them their due, the UK intelligence services are one of, if not the, most respected such institutions on the planet.
Free speech should not be a shield for inciting people to murder.
As it goes, free speech is not universal in the UK, as it is in some democracies. That may be a good or bad thing, depending on your perspective, but you aren't free to incite hatred or murder here. People do and get away with it, obviously, but there are laws there to pursue them.
Laws only effect those who choose to be subject to them. The savages roaming the UK and perpetrating the attacks choose to be subject to another law. Those people should be made to live somewhere else, and telling them so should not be considered hate law. The subjects of the UK have hog tied themselves.
So you're recommending, then, that individuals in the process of committing a terrorist attack be deported?
I'm assuming you're using the term 'savages' to refer to people conducting indiscriminate killing in a manner designed to sow fear, rather than toward, say, Middle Eastern immigrants, or refugees, or Muslims in general. That'd be pretty fethed up.
Stay safe, UK. My heart goes out to all those affected.
Laws only effect those who choose to be subject to them. The savages roaming the UK and perpetrating the attacks choose to be subject to another law. Those people should be made to live somewhere else, and telling them so should not be considered hate law. The subjects of the UK have hog tied themselves.
"Savages roaming the UK"??
I'm assuming you've never been to the UK because you make it sound like there are people running in gangs causing atrocities everywhere?
The number of people committing these crimes is tiny (and insignificant) compared to the actual number of people in the population.
If there is one good thing about the UK is that it does treat everyone equally. Yes some people commit terrible crimes but that doesn't mean we should start running rough shod over everyone's freedoms - and lets face it that is what you have to do because terrorists don't run around with great big neon arrows pointing at themselves saying "Kill all humans"
Laws only effect those who choose to be subject to them. The savages roaming the UK and perpetrating the attacks choose to be subject to another law. Those people should be made to live somewhere else
Where? In the majority (if not all? I'd need to check) of cases those perpetrating Islamist terror in the UK have been UK citizens. I can only think of one (self-identified) state that would accept UK nationals who are Islamic terrorists, and I really wouldn't want to give them more troops.
Spacemanvic wrote: and telling them so should not be considered hate law.
Fear not, it isn't. Lots of people, including politicians, do it daily without legal recourse.
jasper76 wrote: There must be some thought leaders promoting and ultimately responsible for these crimes. It seems to me that the UK intelligence apparatus must get smart enough to identify these individuals and deal with them accordingly.
To give them their due, the UK intelligence services are one of, if not the, most respected such institutions on the planet.
Free speech should not be a shield for inciting people to murder.
As it goes, free speech is not universal in the UK, as it is in some democracies. That may be a good or bad thing, depending on your perspective, but you aren't free to incite hatred or murder here. People do and get away with it, obviously, but there are laws there to pursue them.
Laws only effect those who choose to be subject to them. The savages roaming the UK and perpetrating the attacks choose to be subject to another law. Those people should be made to live somewhere else, and telling them so should not be considered hate law. The subjects of the UK have hog tied themselves.
So you're recommending, then, that individuals in the process of committing a terrorist attack be deported?
I'm assuming you're using the term 'savages' to refer to people conducting indiscriminate killing in a manner designed to sow fear, rather than toward, say, Middle Eastern immigrants, or refugees, or Muslims in general. That'd be pretty fethed up.
Stay safe, UK. My heart goes out to all those affected.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out. Those committing the acts should be hunted and put down like the rabid dogs they are.
And dont kid yourself, it isnt indiscriminate killings, its targeted with the stated goal of replacing one form of law/government with another, a markedly theocratic one.
I did not mention people of a particular region or religion because, thankfully, it isnt all of them, just a savage few who happen to be rabidly muslim.
Actually, many Muslims are NOT in favor of ISIS or its methods:
The focus should be on discovering those looking for trouble, and dissuading them from doing so. Permanently. If not, the tepid response so far will only serve to embolden those hell-bent on making attacks. The UK is a small country, with a highly lauded intelligence service. This shouldnt be a herculean task for the intelligence service, especially with support from the population at large.
Now, if someone thinks this is advocating action on ALL muslims, that person should be introspective and really think why they would think this applies to all people of a given region or religion.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Even if they're not, what if country X won't take them?
Future War Cultist wrote: My brothers friend who was there at the time is ok, so there's a small relief.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Are those UK nationals advocating violence? The UK has to decide what to do with those individuals, then live with the consequences of that decision. Those who have advocated violence that others have acted upon should be dealt with as if they committed the act themselves.
Now, if someone thinks this is advocating action on ALL muslims, that person should be introspective and really think why they would think this applies to all people of a given region or religion.
Because frequently, in the wake of a horrific attack like this one, people with a particular axe to grind tend to lay blame at the feet of an entire demographic of people, couching it in terms of 'we should be doing more' and 'the government shouldn't have its hands tied by political correctness' and so forth. If that wasn't your intent, then I'm happy to hear it.
I'm well aware that Muslims on the whole don't particularly care for ISIS; they certainly don't have any problem victimizing Muslims in their atrocities.
And by 'indiscriminate', I didn't mean without a goal; more like 'not particularly caring about who they're killing'.
Now, if someone thinks this is advocating action on ALL muslims, that person should be introspective and really think why they would think this applies to all people of a given region or religion.
Because frequently, in the wake of a horrific attack like this one, people with a particular axe to grind tend to lay blame at the feet of an entire demographic of people, couching it in terms of 'we should be doing more' and 'the government shouldn't have its hands tied by political correctness' and so forth. If that wasn't your intent, then I'm happy to hear it.
I'm well aware that Muslims on the whole don't particularly care for ISIS; they certainly don't have any problem victimizing Muslims in their atrocities.
And by 'indiscriminate', I didn't mean without a goal; more like 'not particularly caring about who they're killing'.
Oh I agree. in this country, FDR used Pearl Harbor as an excuse to forcibly detain American citizens of Japanese ancestry. And George Bush and Obama used the terrorist attacks to infringe upon the rights of American citizens. Neither action directly addressed the issue at hand, it merely took advantage of a crisis (never let a crisis go to waste).
In this instance however, I think the course is clear: directly act against those who are advocating and perpetrating the terrorism. Or continue to wring your hands and do nothing except mourn those lost and wish that the violent miscreants find another avenue with which to express themselves. Either way, this problem will resolve itself. How that resolution ends will depend on what actions are taken by those affected.
Now Im off to wage a Crusade against the tall grass and weeds that have decided to take advantage of my being busy with other things. Acres turn to jungle in short order.
It's worth pointing out to people, in case they don't know, that members of Britain's Muslim community warned the police on numerous occasions that the Manchester bomber was going down a bad path.
Sadly, their warnings were not acted upon...
In the UK, there are numerous programmes that try and stop people from being radicalised, but getting results is not an overnight process.
It doesn't help that in the last 7 years, police numbers in Britain have been slashed. As a short-term fix, we need to start boosting the numbers again.
Ace From Outer Space wrote: The IRA and the alphabet soup of Nirthern Irish terrorists didn't win and neither will these idiots.
The IRA didn't win? They got amnesty deals, a withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland, IRA prisoners were released, and a political power sharing deal. Former members and allies of the IRA are in government or have been in government. How is that not a victory?
Thats Tony Blair and his bend over politics for you. It's disgusting. To watch them now parading the corridors of power laughing at their victims makes all right thinking people sick to their stomach.
History is there to teach us lessons. I hope as country we don't allow th false narrative to become history and we believe that terrorists can be talked sense and reasoned with. This didn't happen with the IRA no matter what revisionism tries to say. The truth is intelligence and the SAS had them beaten and then along came Tony with a deal that saved them face and gave them a bundle of goodies.
These new evil men need the same medicine from our excellent security services and special forces without the nasty little deals.
I know many think ISIS don't have a plan or goal, but that's not true we just don't understand it yet, it's probably changing within itself but given time it will emerge into defined goals and aspirations. A state within the UK governed by Sharia? Who knows but a plan will emerge and demands will be made. No one flew over Northern Ireland in 1969 and dropped looney gas over the place the mindset to kill was there it was an ideology, same with the Nazis and same with ISIS. Don't write them off as mad. They are what they are evil, with an evil, cleverly thought out ideology.
Also, for non-British dakka members who may not know this, we in Britain prefer our police to be unarmed.
Obviously we have specialist armed police for when the gak hits the fan, but the stereotype image of the British policeman (or woman) is a community cop walking the streets, relying on local knowledge to defuse any situations, and for a long time, the weapon of choice was a sturdy piece of wood, and a whistle to summon reinforcements if needed.
Yes, there is some myth to this image, but it's an image that is strongly part of the British identity.
So having more armed police, or soldiers on the streets, makes people uneasy, and will meet with resistance.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Are those UK nationals advocating violence?
Almost everyone (or it might actually be everyone, as I said above I'd need to check) that has been directly incolved in Islamic terrorism in the UK has been a UK national, yes. So if we should deport them, where do we send them?
As it stands now, you'd better learn to duck.
We're still one of the safest countries in the world. We'll all go on leading our lives as normal and almost every single one of us will never encounter anything like this personally. Thank goodness.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Are those UK nationals advocating violence?
Almost everyone (or it might actually be everyone, as I said above I'd need to check) that has been directly incolved in Islamic terrorism in the UK has been a UK national, yes. So if we should deport them, where do we send them?
Henderson Island? The island has a severe problem with plastic pollution, perhaps we could sentence Jihadi's to community service cleaning the island up?
Anything to get the fethers out of British society permanently.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Are those UK nationals advocating violence?
Almost everyone (or it might actually be everyone, as I said above I'd need to check) that has been directly incolved in Islamic terrorism in the UK has been a UK national, yes. So if we should deport them, where do we send them?
Henderson Island? The island has a severe problem with plastic pollution, perhaps we could sentence Jihadi's to community service cleaning the island up?
Anything to get the fethers out of British society permanently.
Not worst idea. And a tropical island is hardly worst place wr could send them...
I applaud the bravery of the lone officer who tried to stop them with just a baton. I will say though that if he had a gun he could have potentially stopped them there and then and not got injured in the process. Tradition or not, I don't think unarmed police work. Especially these days.
The average Police officer does not want to be armed. I'm inclined to agree.
What we need is MORE Police officers. We need proactive, preventative Community. That means your traditional "Bobby on the beat", officers who come from and intimately know their local community. They are the ones who feed Intel to intelligence services.
Instead what we get is a bare bones "cost effective" reactive Police force, racing from one crisis to the next but always too late, always arriving after the fact. This didn't begin under the Tories but it sure as hell accelerated with their cuts to Policing.
Im recommending that those known to have leanings that lead to terrorism be denied entry, and those incountry who are advocating violence be thrown out.
I'm not necessarily averse to such a plan, but again, when they're mostly UK nationals, where do you send them?
Where you send all undesirables, vagrants, and all around badness....Cleveland Ohio.
I hate to point this out but bullets in a crowded station or rail car is a BAD thing. Regular cops one assumes are highly trained managed to kill a bystander in this as is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: Where you send all undesirables, vagrants, and all around badness....Cleveland Ohio.
the Mistake on the Lake is bad, but if you want to go full on Thunderdome with them, I recommend Youngstown Ohio.
I hate to point this out but bullets in a crowded station or rail car is a BAD thing. Regular cops one assumes are highly trained managed to kill a bystander in this as is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
thekingofkings wrote: Where you send all undesirables, vagrants, and all around badness....Cleveland Ohio.
the Mistake on the Lake is bad, but if you want to go full on Thunderdome with them, I recommend Youngstown Ohio.
I am not that cruel, though I will make them watch the Cavs get smashed up.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Y'all could just identify where the terrorists are coming from first and stop it there.
Terrorism is like a weed. You can mow it over with police but it'll keep coming back as long as its got a root.
Pulling out humanity by the roots sure sounds viable, Mr. Dalek.
Are you saying we shouldn't investigate the causes of terrorism? We should just let it fester so more people can die?
And you think you can just go ahead and pull out that entire mess by the roots at once?
This issue is far too big for a gordian knot to fix.
By all means, nothing wrong with investigation, but this is just the symptoms of a much more widespread issue - or rather, a large number of issues.
Some folks over in Saudi Arabia fund terrorism if I recall correctly, for example. I am sure putting a stop to that will help.
...Assuming you have a way to do that.
Oh and I smell a thinly veiled agenda behind your post, but I won't make any accusations yet and instead just silently make a bet with myself if I am right.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Y'all could just identify where the terrorists are coming from first and stop it there.
Terrorism is like a weed. You can mow it over with police but it'll keep coming back as long as its got a root.
Pulling out humanity by the roots sure sounds viable, Mr. Dalek.
Are you saying we shouldn't investigate the causes of terrorism? We should just let it fester so more people can die?
And you think you can just go ahead and pull out that entire mess by the roots at once?
This issue is far too big for a gordian knot to fix.
Maybe it is just that easy, but who knows.
By all means, nothing wrong with investigation, but this is just the symptoms of a much more widespread issue - or rather, a large number of issues.
Some folks over in Saudi Arabia fund terrorism if I recall correctly, for example. I am sure putting a stop to that will help.
...Assuming you have a way to do that.
I am just a plebeian giving his opinion on the Internet. I have no power to change these things.
Oh and I smell a thinly veiled agenda behind your post, but I won't make any accusations yet and instead just silently make a bet with myself if I am right.
Not to be hostile but you should accuse me of having an agenda instead of signaling to everyone else that you think I have an agenda. It's far less passive aggressive.
Some folks over in Saudi Arabia fund terrorism if I recall correctly, for example. I am sure putting a stop to that will help.
...Assuming you have a way to do that.
The King of Saudi Arabia declares it 'political dissent'. Since that's punishable by decapitation, might make an impression. Usually the guys that fund terrorism lack the guts to blow themselves up.
What really needs to happen though is that the religious basis of these attacks needs to be cut out from under it. However, that would require Trump to stop tweeting hate BS at Muslims, so expect a continuation of the current situation.
Some folks over in Saudi Arabia fund terrorism if I recall correctly, for example. I am sure putting a stop to that will help.
...Assuming you have a way to do that.
The King of Saudi Arabia declares it 'political dissent'. Since that's punishable by decapitation, might make an impression. Usually the guys that fund terrorism lack the guts to blow themselves up.
What really needs to happen though is that the religious basis of these attacks needs to be cut out from under it. However, that would require Trump to stop tweeting hate BS at Muslims, so expect a continuation of the current situation.
You seem to have missed the part where suicide attackers is a ME trait back to the Hashashin. Blaming Trump is incredibly misplaced.
Some folks over in Saudi Arabia fund terrorism if I recall correctly, for example. I am sure putting a stop to that will help.
...Assuming you have a way to do that.
The King of Saudi Arabia declares it 'political dissent'. Since that's punishable by decapitation, might make an impression. Usually the guys that fund terrorism lack the guts to blow themselves up.
What really needs to happen though is that the religious basis of these attacks needs to be cut out from under it. However, that would require Trump to stop tweeting hate BS at Muslims, so expect a continuation of the current situation.
You seem to have missed the part where suicide attackers is a ME trait back to the Hashashin. Blaming Trump is incredibly misplaced.
Hashashins didn't use suicide attackers. They preferred to be killed by their enemy; suicide was a last resort.
I have seen a lot of people blaming Theresa May for cutting police force staffing. I can't really comment on that, I don't know anything about it. Generally speaking though, was that really a factor? The entire attack was only 82 seconds from beginning to end, and in fact, not one but 2 police officers intervened - seems like a fairly fast response, no?
Ouze wrote: I have seen a lot of people blaming Theresa May for cutting police force staffing. I can't really comment on that, I don't know anything about it. Generally speaking though, was that really a factor? The entire attack was only 82 seconds from beginning to end, and in fact, not one but 2 police officers intervened - seems like a fairly fast response, no?
There is an argument that 20+ years of neglect and change in policing within the UK has an effect on community efforts to tackle crimes including extremism and terrorism.
These recent attacks would not have been prevented by more bobbies on the beat. The knife attacks in particular were prevented from being more terrible by the intervention of Police officers.
Basically, no. Yes, police numbers have gone down, but in this case, no. Unless you employ enough police to have firearms officers stood on every street corner more police would not have stopped the attack. It's just political points scoreing as we have an election this week.
Ouze wrote: I have seen a lot of people blaming Theresa May for cutting police force staffing. I can't really comment on that, I don't know anything about it. Generally speaking though, was that really a factor? The entire attack was only 82 seconds from beginning to end, and in fact, not one but 2 police officers intervened - seems like a fairly fast response, no?
There is an argument that 20+ years of neglect and change in policing within the UK has an effect on community efforts to tackle crimes including extremism and terrorism.
These recent attacks would not have been prevented by more bobbies on the beat. The knife attacks in particular were prevented from being more terrible by the intervention of Police officers.
In this instance, I don't think it would have changed the time taken to stop the attack, as the response was pretty immediate, it's that more police might have resulted in the attack being prevented from even starting. The most obvious way is that more police = more investigators to look into hotline alerts and validate whether a threat exists (there are already claims that the local community had given warnings about the guy whose flat got raided yesterday).
The more subtle influence is that the traditional "Bobby on the beat" is/was part of the glue that holds our society together. They haven't released the names yet, but pound to a penny these will be UK citizens, which means yet again we are faced with a situation where young men born and raised in this country have become so alienated that they feel justified in lashing out against their homeland. I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers, but rebuilding respect for the rule of law and trust in authority has got to be part of it and good community policing would certainly help that.
I don't like the fact that people are using this attack for political gain.
Also, having more bobbies in this situation would do nothing. There is still too many ways people can hide for it to be feasible. Also, these people knew they were going to die regardless of how many police there were around.
Apparently reports were made about some of the attackers years ago but the people reporting were never contacted further and the impression is that little was done to follow up calls made. Thousands more police wouldn't necessarily have stopped the attack progressing any faster (8 minutes from the first 999 call to being shot dead is pretty quick), but extra police support a wider infrastructure that could have investigated and halted things earlier.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Y'all could just identify where the terrorists are coming from first and stop it there.
The cops have generally done that very quickly. And the usual answer is something like 'Bradford'.
Ouze wrote: I have seen a lot of people blaming Theresa May for cutting police force staffing. I can't really comment on that, I don't know anything about it. Generally speaking though, was that really a factor? The entire attack was only 82 seconds from beginning to end, and in fact, not one but 2 police officers intervened - seems like a fairly fast response, no?
Having more police wouldn't have stopped the attack any faster once it was underway. However, police cuts have certainly reduced the ability of the police to monitor individuals on watch lists, for instance.
In May of 2015 Police chiefs told Theresa May (then Home Secretary) that cuts to police budgets could lead to an increase in terrorist atrocities because they would not have the resources to fully investigate potential threats. She told them to 'stop scaremongering and prepare for further cuts'.
Ouze wrote: I have seen a lot of people blaming Theresa May for cutting police force staffing. I can't really comment on that, I don't know anything about it. Generally speaking though, was that really a factor? The entire attack was only 82 seconds from beginning to end, and in fact, not one but 2 police officers intervened - seems like a fairly fast response, no?
We were 'lucky' in the fact that London is heavily armed these days (a high profile target) and because of the IRA bombing campaign in the 1980s, there are long established protocols in place, which means armed officers are a priority, and they are able to get there in a few minutes, which by all accounts, saved a lot of lives.
That being said, I'll make this point to you and everybody else on the subject of police numbers.
Having more police officers won't solve every problem, but it allows more focus on community policing, and tackling this problem at source.
When she was Home Secretary, May just didn't slash beat cop numbers, she axed police sniffer dog teams which is crazy in an age of suspect packages popping up all over the place.
She also privatized the national forensics centre, which resulted in delays, problems, and evidence going missing, or being contaminated and things being fethed up.
It's a fething shambles
I live in Scotland, so we have or own version of one of your American 'state' legislators, so policing is under 'state' control in Scotland and is separate from England. it's not perfect, but we're doing a lot better up here because we didn't slash people numbers like in England.
It is concerning that one of the suspects was reported a number of times but he may well have been thoroughly investigated and deemed not a threat.
I was crossing London Bridge exactly 24 hours before the attack and Borough Market is usually my last point of call on every trip up to London so this attack has hit closer to home for me then usual.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't like the fact that people are using this attack for political gain.
Also, having more bobbies in this situation would do nothing. There is still too many ways people can hide for it to be feasible. Also, these people knew they were going to die regardless of how many police there were around.
I have to disagree with you here, because it is politics. In the 7 years of Tory government, our armed forces would struggle to protect the UK from invasion because they're been run down, and the police force in the UK has also been run down. The first duty of government is defence of the realm. The Conservatives have failed in this. It's dereliction of duty to the nation.
I read an article that suggested using 'reverse visas' for countries that are hotbeds of terrorism. It cited Libia as an example, as the Manchester bomber went back and forth there. Personally I don't see how keeping them in the country would help keep us safe. And they can just find ways around it I'm sure.
Also how are we supposed to fund the police in this current climate?
I know it's bad. But less than 100 people have died from terrorist attacks in the last ten years. It is barely a drop in the ocean.
We can start by raising corporation tax. It's amongst the lowest in the G7, and firms have taken advantage of that by moving cash away from the UK. So much for trickle down economics.
Also how are we supposed to fund the police in this current climate?
I know it's bad. But less than 100 people have died from terrorist attacks in the last ten years. It is barely a drop in the ocean.
We can start by raising corporation tax. It's amongst the lowest in the G7, and firms have taken advantage of that by moving cash away from the UK. So much for trickle down economics.
Yeah, but that will just make them move across the water to Ireland. Where they also happen to speak English. Corporations Tax is low there and they'll be able to still work with the EU.
We are in a rock and a hard place with tax.
Lower corporation tax makes us look more appealing as we are more than likely going to have to leave the single market.
Steve steveson wrote: Basically, no. Yes, police numbers have gone down, but in this case, no. Unless you employ enough police to have firearms officers stood on every street corner more police would not have stopped the attack. It's just political points scoreing as we have an election this week.
Except when Police chiefs are openly stating they can't follow up reports of radicalised behaviour (Manchester and at least one of the London attackers) because their resources have been slashed....then the woman who's job it was to tackle terrorism and extremism as home secretary for six years says 'we're not doing enough to tackle terrorism and extremism'.....well....
Also how are we supposed to fund the police in this current climate?
I know it's bad. But less than 100 people have died from terrorist attacks in the last ten years. It is barely a drop in the ocean.
We can start by raising corporation tax. It's amongst the lowest in the G7, and firms have taken advantage of that by moving cash away from the UK. So much for trickle down economics.
Yeah, but that will just make them move across the water to Ireland. Where they also happen to speak English. Corporations Tax is low there and they'll be able to still work with the EU.
If that's how it worked everyone would already be in Ireland. And we'd have lost all out business when corporation tax was over 50% when that mad socialist Thatcher was in power.
The UK has lots of positives for business that trump corporation tax. Especially London - a real shame for the rest of the UK, but it is what it is.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
Well, I would say turn off the TV, radio and social media too as soon as you know that your relatives are safe.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I suppose the good news is that the attackers have been shot dead, so that will save the taxpayer some money, as we won't need expensive trials.
Good riddance to them.
No, it's bad, it's lost intel and intel is good. Intel can save lives.
Future War Cultist wrote: I'm broken now. These attacks, all of them, are driving me to depression. I'm just gutted looking at the hopeless situation in front of us. I'm lucky. I live in Northern Ireland were this doesn't happen. I can't imagine what anyone living in London or Manchester or anywhere like that must feel like these days. How do you fight the urge to just stay indoors and give up?
Well, I would say turn off the TV, radio and social media too as soon as you know that your relatives are safe.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I suppose the good news is that the attackers have been shot dead, so that will save the taxpayer some money, as we won't need expensive trials.
Good riddance to them.
No, it's bad, it's lost intel and intel is good. Intel can save lives.
It's hard to capture people who don't want to be taken alive.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yes I agree. But not having managed to make something hard that would have had positive consequences is not good news imo.
The police have raised the homes of these attackers, so good intel will probably be found there.
Ouze wrote: I have seen a lot of people blaming Theresa May for cutting police force staffing. I can't really comment on that, I don't know anything about it. Generally speaking though, was that really a factor? The entire attack was only 82 seconds from beginning to end, and in fact, not one but 2 police officers intervened - seems like a fairly fast response, no?
It was likely a fast response because police were on foot patrol on Saturday night near a bar. It was reported that one of the early casualties was a police officer who was attacked by the perpetrators and armed with a baton
Also how are we supposed to fund the police in this current climate?
I know it's bad. But less than 100 people have died from terrorist attacks in the last ten years. It is barely a drop in the ocean.
We can start by raising corporation tax. It's amongst the lowest in the G7, and firms have taken advantage of that by moving cash away from the UK. So much for trickle down economics.
Yeah, but that will just make them move across the water to Ireland. Where they also happen to speak English. Corporations Tax is low there and they'll be able to still work with the EU.
If that's how it worked everyone would already be in Ireland. And we'd have lost all out business when corporation tax was over 50% when that mad socialist Thatcher was in power.
The UK has lots of positives for business that trump corporation tax. Especially London - a real shame for the rest of the UK, but it is what it is.
You mean banks. Well I for one don't want an economy based on banks and financial services. They have their place but not to the point were they are all that matters. That's the attitude that got us a Brexit vote.
I know that for my business I employed an extra guy on the back of corporation tax coming down and I will have to let him go if it goes we back up. My brother in law is in the same position.
Also how are we supposed to fund the police in this current climate?
I know it's bad. But less than 100 people have died from terrorist attacks in the last ten years. It is barely a drop in the ocean.
We can start by raising corporation tax. It's amongst the lowest in the G7, and firms have taken advantage of that by moving cash away from the UK. So much for trickle down economics.
Yeah, but that will just make them move across the water to Ireland. Where they also happen to speak English. Corporations Tax is low there and they'll be able to still work with the EU.
If that's how it worked everyone would already be in Ireland. And we'd have lost all out business when corporation tax was over 50% when that mad socialist Thatcher was in power.
The UK has lots of positives for business that trump corporation tax. Especially London - a real shame for the rest of the UK, but it is what it is.
You mean banks. Well I for one don't want an economy based on banks and financial services. They have their place but not to the point were they are all that matters. That's the attitude that got us a Brexit vote.
I know that for my business I employed an extra guy on the back of corporation tax coming down and I will have to let him go if it goes we back up. My brother in law is in the same position.
I'm not sure why you surmise that I specifically mean banks? Because I mention London specifically? I do that because of its level of infrastructure and its serving as a air hub for both freight and people. Not because of the city. That's clearly a major generator of income, but I have pretty fundamental issues with global banking for ideological reasons and hardly praise their contribution.
I'm simply saying that if having the lowest corporation in the G7, and the second lowest in the G20 (I think? Need to check), hardly makes us an unfeasibly expensive state to do business in. If corporation tax was the priority, we'd have lost everything during the Celtic Tiger years, if we hadn't already two decades earlier when had corproation tax at more than double the level proposed by Corbyn, whilst under a Tory government!
Howard A Treesong wrote: Apparently reports were made about some of the attackers years ago but the people reporting were never contacted further and the impression is that little was done to follow up calls made. Thousands more police wouldn't necessarily have stopped the attack progressing any faster (8 minutes from the first 999 call to being shot dead is pretty quick), but extra police support a wider infrastructure that could have investigated and halted things earlier.
On that theme.
To be fair it was recently reported that there were no reports coming from friends/family/acquaintances of the Manchester bomber even though media reports suggest that calls had been made.
Either the calls weren't logged, were lost, were destroyed or were never made.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yes I agree. But not having managed to make something hard that would have had positive consequences is not good news imo.
The police have raised the homes of these attackers, so good intel will probably be found there.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Yes I agree. But not having managed to make something hard that would have had positive consequences is not good news imo.
The police have raised the homes of these attackers, so good intel will probably be found there.
Definitely hope so.
Hope anyone who knew what they where doing gets a nice time to think in jail for not reporting at stopping this senseless attack if there are any.
People died, good people.
If someone could have maybe stopped it and did not... Sorry but your complicit.
More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders in the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform funeral prayers for the Manchester and London terrorists as a rebuke to the “dastardly cowardice” of the “vile murderers.”
The Muslim Council of Britain released a letter Monday with 132 signatories including imams, scholars and leaders of various Islamic organizations. The MCB describes itself as an institution established to “promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom,” working together with Islamic schools and mosques.
More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders in the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform funeral prayers for the Manchester and London terrorists as a rebuke to the “dastardly cowardice” of the “vile murderers.”
The Muslim Council of Britain released a letter Monday with 132 signatories including imams, scholars and leaders of various Islamic organizations. The MCB describes itself as an institution established to “promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom,” working together with Islamic schools and mosques.
Good. Glad to see them disowning the Jihadists from having any honour in life or death.
A secular, unmarked or numbered grave in place no one can make them heros,s or a quiet spit out at sea.
Still a decent burial. But no celebration or honour.
More than 130 imams and Muslim religious leaders in the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform funeral prayers for the Manchester and London terrorists as a rebuke to the “dastardly cowardice” of the “vile murderers.”
The Muslim Council of Britain released a letter Monday with 132 signatories including imams, scholars and leaders of various Islamic organizations. The MCB describes itself as an institution established to “promote consultation, cooperation and coordination on Muslim affairs in the United Kingdom,” working together with Islamic schools and mosques.
Good. Glad to see them disowning the Jihadists from having any honour in life or death.
A secular, unmarked or numbered grave in place no one can make them heros,s or a quiet spit out at sea.
Still a decent burial. But no celebration or honour.
Throw them in a ditch in the middle of nowhere and let them rot. They don't deserve a burial at all.
Good. More of that will go a long way in countering the negative image of Muslims. Perhaps the next time Islam4UK (or whatever their current incarnation is) protests a soldier's parade burning poppies and abusing our troops, moderate Muslims could counter protest? That'd be a powerful statement.
When you have a very vocal and violent minority, the majority cannot afford to remain silent.
You seem to have missed the part where suicide attackers is a ME trait back to the Hashashin. Blaming Trump is incredibly misplaced.
You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.
You seem to have missed the part where suicide attackers is a ME trait back to the Hashashin. Blaming Trump is incredibly misplaced.
You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.
Someone's completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship.
Cliff notes: rabid islam wants you dead. Denying a war doesnt make it go away. It actually makes the job easy for them. In their decrepit little minds, it is an Us v. them.
Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.
Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.
Galas wrote: Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.
The thing is, they're still making it about religion. The aggressors are who determines what a war is about. You can't really ignore their angle on this one.
Galas wrote: Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.
Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.
These extremists don't care whether you are a Christian or not. If you are not a Muslim (indeed, if you aren't the same kind of Muslim), then in their eyes you are a sub-human abomination or even a servant of Satan himself and can be exterminated at will in the name of Allah. It's right there in the Koran (source:http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx); faithful Muslims are literally called to war against non-Muslims. And the extremists take these verses from the Koran and interpret them in the absolute worst possible way to justify their actions. It doesn't matter whether or not we acknowledge the religious motives of these particular terrorists; they will continue to cause mayhem and destruction in the name or their religion regardless. Something needs to be done about these guys, and we need to not worry about being "politically correct" in how we deal with it. President Trump said something to that effect, and in this case I think he's absolutely right. Restricting travel and immigration from countries known to be terrorist havens (like Trump's original travel ban) is not an unreasonable solution despite what the media wants us to think.
Galas wrote: Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.
Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.
This thing is about religion. You cannot separate one from the other. Also, how do you propose to fight religion? Can you see it, grab it? Its something that is nebulous, it dwells in the hearts and the minds of its adherents. Even in highly oppressive atheistic socialist and communist states such as the Soviet Union and China found (find) it hard to stamp out religion.
Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done. Dont try to fight the religion, you cant. Instead, find those who advocate and perpetrate the terrorism, and deal with them with extreme prejudice. Or continue on the same path of destruction in kowtowing to the demands of political correctness. It has served the Eu so well of late.
Yeah, but that will just make them move across the water to Ireland. Where they also happen to speak English. Corporations Tax is low there and they'll be able to still work with the EU.
We are in a rock and a hard place with tax.
Lower corporation tax makes us look more appealing as we are more than likely going to have to leave the single market.
It's not impossible but it would require a change to how we collect tax in this country by taxing based on percentage sales on *global* profit. Hence if 50% of the sales were in the UK and you made pre tax profit of £100m across the world then you would be taxed at the corporation rate on 50% of the £100m (so assuming a tax rate of 20% that would £100m x 50% x 20% or £10m tax). The companies based in the UK with a global market would benefit, however those like amazon or google would no longer be able to hide behind moving money around which can happen currently because things are based on *local country* profit.
There would be no benefit from companies moving abroad because the tax would still be the same (assuming the same sales). Additionally smaller businesses would be able to compete better with the likes of Amazon because it evens the playing field.
Obviously this is a simplified version of how things would work but it's the principles that are important.
Umm... Tawhidi isn't actually an Imam or a Sheikh, he just plays one on TV, and dupes people too lazy to check credentials.
Pretty much his only place in politics or religion is to make up stupid conspiracy nonsense about Sunni plots to take over the West. His only audience are the gullible far right, eager to believe any negative thing they hear about Islam, either taking him at face value when claims horrible things about Sunni Islam, or condemning him when he makes horrible claims about what believes Shi'ite Islam should do.
Please, stop believing the crazy wingnut bullshitters that deliver stuff like this to you. At some point you need to stop letting yourself be lied to.
EDIT - credit to Ouze for getting in first, and saying the same as me with so many less words
It's not impossible but it would require a change to how we collect tax in this country by taxing based on percentage sales on *global* profit. Hence if 50% of the sales were in the UK and you made pre tax profit of £100m across the world then you would be taxed at the corporation rate on 50% of the £100m (so assuming a tax rate of 20% that would £100m x 50% x 20% or £10m tax). The companies based in the UK with a global market would benefit, however those like amazon or google would no longer be able to hide behind moving money around which can happen currently because things are based on *local country* profit.
There would be no benefit from companies moving abroad because the tax would still be the same (assuming the same sales). Additionally smaller businesses would be able to compete better with the likes of Amazon because it evens the playing field.
Obviously this is a simplified version of how things would work but it's the principles that are important.
And it would cork this way regardless of where the company is based as long as they sell in the UK, right? (Or whatever country the tax rule applies to. Why is this not globally implemented yet?
He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.
Somebody should tell the Huffington Post about this guy then:
Imam Shaikh M. Tawhidi
The Imam of Peace
Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi is an Australian Shi’i Muslim creationist, educator, speaker, preacher, thinker, researcher and author of Iraqi origin who was born in the Holy City of Qum, Iran, into a spiritual family with a history of decades in the Islamic Seminary. His father Imam Abdulmutalib Tawhidi served as the Senior Imam of the Shi’a Muslim Community in Western Australia and was the first to establish a Shi’a Mosque in the entire state. Shaikh Tawhidi’s lineage includes several Grand Ayatollahs, Arabian Legends such as Hatam al Ta’ei and Prophets Hud and Noah. He is also the maternal grandson of Shaikh Yasin al Rumaithi, a prominent eulogist and orator within the Shi’a faith. Shaikh M. Tawhidi completed his initial studies in Perth, Western Australia, and engaged in Islamic studies, Doctrine, Philosophy and Theology in the Islamic Seminary of the holy city of Qum, Iran, as of January 2007. In the year 2012, he attended the advanced lessons of the Grand Ayatollah Sayid Sadiq Shirazi in jurisprudence and principle, and was advised by his eminence to relocate to the Holy City of Karbala in the year 2013. He studied under the authority of prominent teachers in both the Islamic Seminaries of Karbala and Najaf, of them are Ayatollah Shaikh AbdulKareem al Ha’eri, Ayatollah Shaikh Fadhil al Saffaar, the Grand Ayatollah Shaikh Mohammad al Sanad and Allamah Sayid Hussain al Qazwini. Shaikh M. Tawhidi returned to Australia in 2015, after his journey in the Islamic Seminaries of Qum, Najaf and Karbala, and is considered an internationally active personality being fluent in Arabic, English and Farsi; and has delivered speeches at Hussainiyas, Mosques, Islamic centers, Churches and Universities across the Middle East, Europe, America, Australia and Canada. He has delivered university lessons in doctrine and theology examining the theory of evolution, oneness of existence and the big bang theory. Etc etc.
A Muslim leader has slammed extremists who claim he is a fraud for following Australian law over Sharia and not wanting to form an independent Muslim state.
Imam Shaikh Mohammad Tawhidi, who has openly spoken out against ISIS and extremists, confronted members of the Islamic community in a video shared online on Friday.
Imam Tawhidi said he was labelled a 'fake' Shaikh because he prioritised Australian law over Sharia law.
'I am considered a fake because I would die for Australia. I am considered a fake because I live by the Australian constitution,' he said.
For a guy who is an alleged fraud he does get around.
And those calling him a fraud are the very rabid islamists this thread is about.
If you're going to quote an article about Chloe Patton, don't forget to include this tidbit:
Chloe Patton, post-doctoral researcher, University of South Australia, on ABC online's The Drum yesterday:
BOSTON tragedy has another casualty now: Islam The US Islamophobia industry has seized on the bombing to bolster its campaign of misinformation and fear-mongering, and we would do well to pay careful attention . . . While Muslims may not have faced as many random attacks on the street this time round, they remain fixed in the crosshairs of a multi-million-dollar industry dedicated to the sole purpose of hating them.
Lets not hide who is at fault for the recent attacks. It would seem that there are those who are willing to contort themselves into a logical pretzel in order to maintain their grasp on the fallacy that is political correctness. If only they had to pay for their effort and leave the rest of us out of it.
BaronIveagh wrote: You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.
Someone's completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship.
Cliff notes: rabid islam wants you dead. Denying a war doesnt make it go away. It actually makes the job easy for them. In their decrepit little minds, it is an Us v. them.
So you are telling us about how you “completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship”? Well, thanks I guess.
What BaronIveagh is telling you is that we should frame the US versus THEM as based on a political divide instead of a religious one. Your answer basically amounts to “No the terrorist recruitment rhetoric is 100% right why are you contradicting them?”. You are free to disagree with him, I don't even know if I personally agree with him, but I'm sure you can do it a little better than that…
ZergSmasher wrote: Restricting travel and immigration from countries known to be terrorist havens (like Trump's original travel ban) is not an unreasonable solution despite what the media wants us to think.
Only if you are fed “alternative fact” is that an accurate description of Donald "Incompetent and Ignorant" Trump's plan. A ban that target Iranians but not Saudi or Pakistani!
Spacemanvic wrote: Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done.
I'd say ignorance plays a bigger part, and usually (not always but still pretty consistently), those that complain the most about political correctness are the most ignorant. I'd say the quote just above is a good example: a lot of the people that think the Trump ban is a good idea and that it's only blocked and opposed to because of political correctness don't have any idea what the actual origins of terrorists are, which countries are banned, why, and what kind of immigrationthey are actually blocking.
BaronIveagh wrote: You misunderstand. (and are actually wrong about the Nizari Ismailis) The trick to ending this is to re-frame it as a political battle rather than a spiritual one in the public's eye (Both inside and outside the Middle East). Trump is generally counter productive in this, as his rhetoric generally makes this a US/THEM, Christianity/Islam conflict. As long as he continues that, it makes things harder for the west, not easier. Conversely, radical sects have a much easier time recruiting since this gives them an easy 'Bad Guy'.
Someone's completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship.
Cliff notes: rabid islam wants you dead. Denying a war doesnt make it go away. It actually makes the job easy for them. In their decrepit little minds, it is an Us v. them.
So you are telling us about how you “completely missed the last 16 years of the dynamic Western/islamic relationship”? Well, thanks I guess.
What BaronIveagh is telling you is that we should frame the US versus THEM as based on a political divide instead of a religious one. Your answer basically amounts to “No the terrorist recruitment rhetoric is 100% right why are you contradicting them?”.
You are free to disagree with him, I don't even know if I personally agree with him, but I'm sure you can do it a little better than that…
ZergSmasher wrote: Restricting travel and immigration from countries known to be terrorist havens (like Trump's original travel ban) is not an unreasonable solution despite what the media wants us to think.
Only if you are fed “alternative fact” is that an accurate description of Donald "Incompetent and Ignorant" Trump's plan. A ban that target Iranians but not Saudi or Pakistani!
Spacemanvic wrote: Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done.
I'd say ignorance plays a bigger part, and usually (not always but still pretty consistently), those that complain the most about political correctness are the most ignorant.
I'd say the quote just above is a good example: a lot of the people that think the Trump ban is a good idea and that it's only blocked and opposed to because of political correctness don't have any idea what the actual origins of terrorists are, which countries are banned, why, and what kind of immigrationthey are actually blocking.
Spacemanvic wrote: He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.
When you front some bs and get caught, and then double down by citing the Huffington post as a reputable source, I think you should consider the first rule of holes.
Spacemanvic wrote: He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.
When you front some bs and get caught, and then double down by citing the Huffington post as a reputable source, I think you should consider the first rule of holes.
Did you read or view any of the links I provided? I used Huffpo because I was told the imam was a right wing construct. Has Huffpo changed side? How about MSNBC or ABC.au?
So you are basing your stance on one article written by a person with an ax to grind who is a known islamic apologist? Just like all the other "articles" that point to her one article? That's one hell of a house of cards.
If you're still working on research, why don't you try his own website? I suggest his press release section. BTW, almost all of his press releases are malware-laden gakfarm redirects.
First rule of holes, man. This guy is a scammer who found a niche.
Galas wrote: Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize muslism with the "Yihad" rethoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because thats makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespream as a religion.
Nobody is denying that theres a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.
This thing is about religion. You cannot separate one from the other. Also, how do you propose to fight religion? Can you see it, grab it? Its something that is nebulous, it dwells in the hearts and the minds of its adherents. Even in highly oppressive atheistic socialist and communist states such as the Soviet Union and China found (find) it hard to stamp out religion.
Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done. Dont try to fight the religion, you cant. Instead, find those who advocate and perpetrate the terrorism, and deal with them with extreme prejudice. Or continue on the same path of destruction in kowtowing to the demands of political correctness. It has served the Eu so well of late.
The choice is incredibly clear: live or die.
I don't know exactly why are you people talking about "political correctness". What I said had nothing to do with that, but probably I have just explain myself wrongly. Sorry guys.
Is obvious that to ISIS, this is a religious war. The problem is... that is good to them. They can recruit muslism with much more ease if those muslism have been previously permeated with the "religious war" rethoric.
So we can get along and call this a religious war (That isn't incorrect), but doing that we are actually helping them. Is not about negating the fault that Islam has in all of this. Is about being pragmatic.
But seeing how this thread as gone along I don't think I'm contributing anything of value. Sorry.
Spacemanvic wrote: He's actually not a fraud. A little more than a cursory web search would have proven this, as well as exposed his detractors for who they are.
Wow. I post that a guy is a nobody who's 'work' involves getting interviews with media sources who don't bother to check sources... and you respond by linking to a bunch of new stories interviewing the guy. And the who's who of prestige journalism you link to is HuffPo, the Daily Mail, and Sunrise - which to people outside Australia is a cheaper, dumber version of The Today Show.
Effectively you've tried to rebut my point that he just gets interviewed in junk media, by linking to interviews in a bunch of junk media outlets.
You then go on to try and get some mud on the journalist who pointed out that this guy isn't actually recognised within the Muslim community by anyone, by linking to a comment by the author in which she points out that in the wake of the Boston bombing Muslims were likely to come under attack. You try and make that sound shocking except that, you know, it isn't. Even if a person thinks her priorities were misplaced so soon after the attack, which would be a reasonable assessment, it's utterly ridiculous to attempt to claim that it's such an outrageous claim that we can't trust her on basic reporting.
Then you top it all off by adding in a line about political correctness, despite there having been no political correctness in the thread, unless we use the definition often used by silliest part of the right wing, where political correctness is any opinion not as right wing as their own.
My god, thats a horrifying, cluster feth of a situation. I'm not surprised an innocent bystander was hit in the crossfire. Those officers are brave, brave men and a credit to our country.
My god, thats a horrifying, cluster feth of a situation. I'm not surprised an innocent bystander was hit in the crossfire. Those officers are brave, brave men and a credit to our country.
Horrible. That guy is lucky to have survived the stabbing and the crossfire. He did survive didn't he?
Also the Saudi football team refused to do a moments silence for the victims in of this in a recent match because it's 'not in their culture'.
My god, thats a horrifying, cluster feth of a situation. I'm not surprised an innocent bystander was hit in the crossfire. Those officers are brave, brave men and a credit to our country.
Horrible. That guy is lucky to have survived the stabbing and the crossfire. He did survive didn't he?
Also the Saudi football team refused to do a moments silence for the victims in of this in a recent match because it's 'not in their culture'.
Sure.. i mean its not like your in another country with a diffrent culture... oh wait. Feth off guys, your welcome to find a flight home.
Think so, if you mean one wounded. he was seen getting med care nearby . Name/much else unkown.
and Police acted fast, they did sure bring them down quick, it was somthing like seconds from arivial, firing and tango down.
Yeah it's hard to believe that the whole incident was over in less than ten minutes.
And thankfully Australia beat them in that match but it just goes to show what disgusting disrespectful bastards they are. They could even just stand still. It's just pissing in the faces of everyone else. And honestly, their sympathies probably lie more with the attackers.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's hard to believe that the whole incident was over in less than ten minutes.
And thankfully Australia beat them in that match but it just goes to show what disgusting disrespectful bastards they are. They could even just stand still. It's just pissing in the faces of everyone else. And honestly, their sympathies probably lie more with the attackers.
They did learn from Paris though. they where not letting them get any kind of chance to maintain there attack, People baricading and rapid police action prevented any nasty hostage scenario and the media put out that SAS commando forces where being deployed who guard London.
maybe propaganda, but its not what you wanna see if your a terrorist to find forces with years of training to do said job decided that you are a target.
Yeah, its just being a gak hole in a country you are a guest.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's hard to believe that the whole incident was over in less than ten minutes.
And thankfully Australia beat them in that match but it just goes to show what disgusting disrespectful bastards they are. They could even just stand still. It's just pissing in the faces of everyone else. And honestly, their sympathies probably lie more with the attackers.
They're showing their true colours and their contempt for us.
Saudi Arabia is NOT our friend, it is our ENEMY. We should be cutting all ties with them, cancelling all arms deals, boycotting their oil.
If we even still have an "Axis of Evil", Saudi Arabia should be on it.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's hard to believe that the whole incident was over in less than ten minutes.
And thankfully Australia beat them in that match but it just goes to show what disgusting disrespectful bastards they are. They could even just stand still. It's just pissing in the faces of everyone else. And honestly, their sympathies probably lie more with the attackers.
They did learn from Paris though. they where not letting them get any kind of chance to maintain there attack, People baricading and rapid police action prevented any nasty hostage scenario and the media put out that SAS commando forces where being deployed who guard London.
maybe propaganda, but its not what you wanna see if your a terrorist to find forces with years of training to do said job decided that you are a target.
Yeah, its just being a gak hole in a country you are a guest.
The new tactical training is to go in fast and hard, presumably to prevent the targets having time to organise themselves.
One of the bright spots of the affair was that it took only a few minutes from first reports to the police of an attack, to the perpetrators being riddled with bullets.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's hard to believe that the whole incident was over in less than ten minutes.
And thankfully Australia beat them in that match but it just goes to show what disgusting disrespectful bastards they are. They could even just stand still. It's just pissing in the faces of everyone else. And honestly, their sympathies probably lie more with the attackers.
They're showing their true colours and their contempt for us.
Saudi Arabia is NOT our friend, it is our ENEMY. We should be cutting all ties with them, cancelling all arms deals, boycotting their oil.
If we even still have an "Axis of Evil", Saudi Arabia should be on it.
We're in total agreement on that, at least. Saudi Arabia has to go.
Future War Cultist wrote: Yeah it's hard to believe that the whole incident was over in less than ten minutes.
And thankfully Australia beat them in that match but it just goes to show what disgusting disrespectful bastards they are. They could even just stand still. It's just pissing in the faces of everyone else. And honestly, their sympathies probably lie more with the attackers.
They're showing their true colours and their contempt for us.
Saudi Arabia is NOT our friend, it is our ENEMY. We should be cutting all ties with them, cancelling all arms deals, boycotting their oil.
If we even still have an "Axis of Evil", Saudi Arabia should be on it.
We're in total agreement on that, at least. Saudi Arabia has to go.
I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia in the slightest, but the 1 minute contemplative silence in respect for the dead or a tragedy is a very Western, if not exclusively Western, cultural practice. There's no real equivalent of it in many other cultures. Its origin is based in the memorial services of WWI. It's entirely possible that the team wasn't entirely aware of how offensive failing to observe it would be.
I mean, Saudis are dicks in my opinion, but this doesn't damn them a whole lot more in my eyes.
I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia in the slightest, but the 1 minute contemplative silence in respect for the dead or a tragedy is a very Western, if not exclusively Western, cultural practice. There's no real equivalent of it in many other cultures. Its origin is based in the memorial services of WWI. It's entirely possible that the team wasn't entirely aware of how offensive failing to observe it would be.
I mean, Saudis are dicks in my opinion, but this doesn't damn them a whole lot more in my eyes.
According to this article the practice isn't so foreign to Saudis or Arabs.
Saudi team officials said it was not in their culture to observe silences, yet club team Al-Ahli - many of whose players represent the national side - stood motionless before a match against Barcelona to remember the footballers who died in the Chapecoense air disaster
Another Gulf nation, the United Arab Emirates, observed a minute's silence before a polo match in 2014
Humble Guardsman wrote: I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia in the slightest, but the 1 minute contemplative silence in respect for the dead or a tragedy is a very Western, if not exclusively Western, cultural practice. There's no real equivalent of it in many other cultures. Its origin is based in the memorial services of WWI. It's entirely possible that the team wasn't entirely aware of how offensive failing to observe it would be.
I mean, Saudis are dicks in my opinion, but this doesn't damn them a whole lot more in my eyes.
And yet, the Saudi Football team HAVE respected 1 minute silences in the past, which makes them liars and hypocrites. This has nothing to do with "cultural reasons".
I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia in the slightest, but the 1 minute contemplative silence in respect for the dead or a tragedy is a very Western, if not exclusively Western, cultural practice. There's no real equivalent of it in many other cultures. Its origin is based in the memorial services of WWI. It's entirely possible that the team wasn't entirely aware of how offensive failing to observe it would be.
I mean, Saudis are dicks in my opinion, but this doesn't damn them a whole lot more in my eyes.
According to this article the practice isn't so foreign to Saudis or Arabs.
Saudi team officials said it was not in their culture to observe silences, yet club team Al-Ahli - many of whose players represent the national side - stood motionless before a match against Barcelona to remember the footballers who died in the Chapecoense air disaster
Another Gulf nation, the United Arab Emirates, observed a minute's silence before a polo match in 2014
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Humble Guardsman wrote: I'm not a fan of Saudi Arabia in the slightest, but the 1 minute contemplative silence in respect for the dead or a tragedy is a very Western, if not exclusively Western, cultural practice. There's no real equivalent of it in many other cultures. Its origin is based in the memorial services of WWI. It's entirely possible that the team wasn't entirely aware of how offensive failing to observe it would be.
I mean, Saudis are dicks in my opinion, but this doesn't damn them a whole lot more in my eyes.
And yet, the Saudi Football team HAVE respected 1 minute silences in the past, which makes them liars and hypocrites. This has nothing to do with "cultural reasons".
Brazil Plane crash:
Spoiler:
Marking the death of a Saudi king.
Spoiler:
Well then yeah, feth 'em.
Every time I think the Saudis can't possibly up the ante on the gak head high jump, they do another flip.
That shredded the last remaining ounce of respect I had for the UN.
The culture excuse is an excuse because they just can't admit that they support the killers. It's as simple as that. They're cowards as well as liars and hypocrites.
The argument for it was sound enough. Putting Saudi Arabia in a position were they have to hold other nations to account on their treatment of women would, you'd think, put pressure on them to make some effort in improving their own failures there.
Clearly it didn't work, and made the UN look like a joke to boot.
Spacemanvic wrote:[Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done. Dont try to fight the religion, you cant. Instead, find those who advocate and perpetrate the terrorism, and deal with them with extreme prejudice.
And those guys get replaced with new guys, and the cycle continues. Do you want to win this, or do you want to keep sending men to the meat grinder? What I said had nothing to do with the Religion, it has to do with altering public perceptions. People are willing to die for God all the time. Politics? Not so much.
Spacemanvic wrote:
The choice is incredibly clear: live or die.
If that's how you see it, you're already dead.
Grey Templar wrote:
The thing is, they're still making it about religion. The aggressors are who determines what a war is about. You can't really ignore their angle on this one.
The idea is to beat their angle on it. Show that they're liars who are taking the almighty in vane to push their own secular politics. If half the Imams in the Middle East are talking about what hypocrites a particular group is, they're far less likely to draw recruits. The real issue is finding a voice that people will believe out of hand.
And I'll point to half a dozen wars where it was not the aggressor who decided what the war was about, but a third party.
Galas wrote: Baronlveagh was talking about how making this some kind of Religious War makes even easier for them to radicalize Muslims with the "Yihad" rhetoric. Is obvious that they want this to be a Christianity vs Islam war, because that's makes all of their recruitment process even easier, but we shouldn't enter their game.
If we eliminate that, it comes down to a political war, something that isn't as widespread as a religion.
Nobody is denying that there's a war. Is about how we present it to the public: In the way that helps the Islamic terrorist , or one that don't.
"If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected." - Sun Tzu.
Spacemanvic wrote:[Political correctness is what is causing the West to wring its hands in worry, blinding it to what must be done, to what should be done. Dont try to fight the religion, you cant. Instead, find those who advocate and perpetrate the terrorism, and deal with them with extreme prejudice.
And those guys get replaced with new guys, and the cycle continues. Do you want to win this, or do you want to keep sending men to the meat grinder? What I said had nothing to do with the Religion, it has to do with altering public perceptions. People are willing to die for God all the time. Politics? Not so much.
Spacemanvic wrote:
The choice is incredibly clear: live or die.
If that's how you see it, you're already dead.
Grey Templar wrote:
The thing is, they're still making it about religion. The aggressors are who determines what a war is about. You can't really ignore their angle on this one.
The idea is to beat their angle on it. Show that they're liars who are taking the almighty in vane to push their own secular politics. If half the Imams in the Middle East are talking about what hypocrites a particular group is, they're far less likely to draw recruits. The real issue is finding a voice that people will believe out of hand.
And I'll point to half a dozen wars where it was not the aggressor who decided what the war was about, but a third party.
The only person you are fooling by calling ISIS' fight political is yourself. They are a group that have shown time and time again how dead set they are in their motives. How many more terrorists have to say "Allahu Ackbar" before that gets made clear?
The only person you are fooling by calling ISIS' fight political is yourself. They are a group that have shown time and time again how dead set they are in their motives. How many more terrorists have to say "Allahu Ackbar" before that gets made clear?
Still not grasping what I'm saying at all, huh? Ok, let's try small, simple ideas: I'm not saying it *IS* political (Truth is it's way more complicated than just 'Political' or 'Religious'.), I'm saying that you have to change the perception of the middle eastern public to make it LOOK political.
Since you're unlikely to re-frame THEIR public image machine, you have to re-frame YOURS TO NOT PLAY INTO THE ENEMIES HANDS. (Which is what I do blame on Trump)
Change the narrative that the public is seeing. Effect change using Media. Hell, if you want half the middle east as your new besties, go in and relieve Gaza. Terrorists would have a harder time pitching 'America the Villain' in the face of US soldiers visibly aiding the citizens in that horror, in seeming defiance of Israel. It'd never happen, but it's an example of how to do things better.
The only person you are fooling by calling ISIS' fight political is yourself. They are a group that have shown time and time again how dead set they are in their motives. How many more terrorists have to say "Allahu Ackbar" before that gets made clear?
Still not grasping what I'm saying at all, huh? Ok, let's try small, simple ideas: I'm not saying it *IS* political (Truth is it's way more complicated than just 'Political' or 'Religious'.), I'm saying that you have to change the perception of the middle eastern public to make it LOOK political.
Because the US needs to keep meddling in the affairs of the Sandbox? That's definitely worked out in the past.
Because the US needs to keep meddling in the affairs of the Sandbox? That's definitely worked out in the past.
Not meddling cost 20% of the Federal Budget per year when that was policy. It still resulted in American civilians dying in what we now would call 'terrorists attacks'. 'Meddling' the dey of Algiers palace pretty hard put a halt to it.
Meddling is cheaper, but needs to be done smarter.
Tactical_Spam wrote: Because the US needs to keep meddling in the affairs of the Sandbox? That's definitely worked out in the past.
You are involved in ME politics. There are economic connections that are necessary, and a political history that can't be simply abandoned. There is no option to simply not be involved. That is fantasy.
The only meaningful question is what the best way to manage involvement.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I am pretty damned sure Portugal would do it if the other team was going to do it. It's called having a modicum of respect and decency.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I am pretty damned sure Portugal would do it if the other team was going to do it. It's called having a modicum of respect and decency.
If someone called it for a genuine and good reason. They would respect the gesture.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I am pretty damned sure Portugal would do it if the other team was going to do it. It's called having a modicum of respect and decency.
Whoops. Thought they were just playing a random game with someone else from the region.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I'm sure if the local team started observing a minute silence any western football team would join in and do the same.
That said I'm hoping it was just a misunderstanding, do the Saudi players all understand English well enough? Maybe they just didn't understand that's what was happening and weren't told beforehand that was going to happen.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I'm sure if the local team started observing a minute silence any western football team would join in and do the same.
That said I'm hoping it was just a misunderstanding, do the Saudi players all understand English well enough? Maybe they just didn't understand that's what was happening and weren't told beforehand that was going to happen.
They understand it. Theres no other way to look at it. Those football players are all douchebags. The world is full of those, sadly.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I'm sure if the local team started observing a minute silence any western football team would join in and do the same.
That said I'm hoping it was just a misunderstanding, do the Saudi players all understand English well enough? Maybe they just didn't understand that's what was happening and weren't told beforehand that was going to happen.
Future War Cultist wrote: See, they do understand the importance of a minutes silence when it suits them. Evil hateful bastards.
Playing devil's advocate here but when was the last time a Western football team held a minute of silence for a terror attack happening on Saudi Arabia or Yemen? (plenty of them around).
I'm sure if the local team started observing a minute silence any western football team would join in and do the same.
That said I'm hoping it was just a misunderstanding, do the Saudi players all understand English well enough? Maybe they just didn't understand that's what was happening and weren't told beforehand that was going to happen.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: If they knew beforehand, then yes, a bunch of d-bags. Even a primary school soccer team should be reprimanded for such pathetic behaviour.
Luckily they're nowhere near top flight, but as usual KSA gets a free pass as long as the oil for weapons program keeps flowing.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Saudi Arabia is NOT our friend, it is our ENEMY. We should be cutting all ties with them, cancelling all arms deals, boycotting their oil.
If we even still have an "Axis of Evil", Saudi Arabia should be on it.
Tell that to your politicians and watch them ignore it. Then blame it on PC culture…
One Saudi player did stop honour the minute's silence. So good on that guy. But it also shows the team as a whole would have been aware, and chose not to acknowledge the silence.
Now possibly they were resentful because we treat terror attacks in the West with great sensitivity, but show almost complete indifference to the constant attacks that occur in many places in the ME. So maybe the players were resentful about that. But while that may be a good point, the Saudis were in the home town of one of the victims of the attack, and that place was choosing to spend a minute honouring the dead. And the Saudis ignored that local rememberance, which is a total dick move even if there is a grievance at the bottom of the issue.
sebster wrote: Now possibly they were resentful because we treat terror attacks in the West with great sensitivity, but show almost complete indifference to the constant attacks that occur in many places in the ME.
How many happen in Saudi Arabia though? Frankly I don't think Saudi identify that much with Iraki or Syrians that they would care deeply about it…
sebster wrote: Now possibly they were resentful because we treat terror attacks in the West with great sensitivity, but show almost complete indifference to the constant attacks that occur in many places in the ME.
How many happen in Saudi Arabia though? Frankly I don't think Saudi identify that much with Iraki or Syrians that they would care deeply about it…
Thats true... Saudi have publicly seemed condemned little going on there and kept quiet on alot of stuff.
They have not been loudest for or against much in public statements that is anyway.
They seem to meddle is some issues, and at times condemn others.
Those they seem to ignore more of present but probably keep a careful watch on things.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: How many happen in Saudi Arabia though? Frankly I don't think Saudi identify that much with Iraki or Syrians that they would care deeply about it…
There was one earlier this year that killed two people, including a baby. Last year there was three, including the attack on Medina. There was another five or six in 2015. Mostly car bombs and suicide bombs, targeting mosques, soldiers or oil production. I don't think any of it got any media coverage in the West, outside of the Medina attack.
In the context of other ME countries it's pretty minor. It's nothing compared to Syria or Iraq. So that's possibly the context that many Saudis see the issue - a couple of people in a couple of attacks each year isn't something to that demands constant public displays of mourning. And then if you contrast that how this is dealt with in the West, where we need to give a public display of mourning, where the amount of grief is clearly linked, among other things, to how white the victims are, then I can understand to an extent some level of resentment.
Again, though, this isn't to defend what the Saudi players did, which was a dick move.
Oh, and while I agree that I doubt too many Saudis would be that personally invested in Syria or Iraq, it's natural for people to feign concern for others in order to stake a claim of being personally aggrieved. The whole region was downright cruel to the Palestinians for centuries, but once sympathy for their Palestinian arab brothers became a way of sticking it to Israel and the West, they assumed that posture. That kind of bs is just human nature, unfortunately.
sebster wrote: There was one earlier this year that killed two people, including a baby. Last year there was three, including the attack on Medina. There was another five or six in 2015. Mostly car bombs and suicide bombs, targeting mosques, soldiers or oil production.
I admit I was expecting way less.
sebster wrote: And then if you contrast that how this is dealt with in the West, where we need to give a public display of mourning, where the amount of grief is clearly linked, among other things, to how white the victims are, then I can understand to an extent some level of resentment.
That's quite true. There is also a bit of “more reaction to something that is more unexpected/unusual” (as in, people will talk more about the recent terror attack in Iran than they do about a terror attack in Irak because Iran has very few terror attack) but even then the public displays of mourning for the Iran attack was… well, not very high. Like for instance President Lapdog of the Saudi tweeted a very insensitive tweet…
It's beyond time that Britain First was declared a terrorist organisation. First Jo Cox, now this barely a year after her murder by a right wing extremist.
There are going to be pretty serious reactions if this starts being reported as lone, deranged attacker. Current official position is 'possible terrorism'.
Frazzled wrote: Another attack? This one sounds different but I hope is investigated just like the other for links etc. A terrorist attack is a terrorist attack.
Absolutely. It doesn't matter what ideas or what ideology motivates you to run a car into a group of people. It is unacceptable.
nfe wrote: Good old US media publishing details not yet announced by UK police, again. Some claiming that the driver was a Jewish American, which I really hope is incorrect. Last thing we need.
New rule.
If the source is unnamed, use truckloads of .
The media has so much egg on it's face in the last 12 months...
nfe wrote: Looking forward to Douglas Murray demanding to know which pub this man was radicalised and why his fellow drinkers didn't report him in advance.
If friends and family knew of his intentions but kept quiet, then yes, they should be held accountable.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: Now also arrested on terrorism charges, on top of murder and attempted murder.
Now can we ban Britain First and the EDL as terror groups? Or do we need them to murder a white Tory first?
Er..trying not to open a can of worms, but what are EDL and Britain First?
The English Defence League (EDL) is a far-right street protest movement which focuses on opposition to what it considers to be a spread of Islamism and Sharia in the United Kingdom
nfe wrote: Good old US media publishing details not yet announced by UK police, again. Some claiming that the driver was a Jewish American, which I really hope is incorrect. Last thing we need.
New rule.
If the source is unnamed, use truckloads of .
The media has so much egg on it's face in the last 12 months...
Old rule.
If a headline (or video title or text scroll) ends in a question mark, the answer is probably "no".
Britain First were traditionally most known for their 'dog whistle' facebook posts that were often shared and reshared around in great numbers for people who had no idea of the connotations of the group.
Sad to see ignorance begetting ignorance. Good vibes to the UK Muslims that now, more than ever, have to face this kind of behaviour.
Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
It's difficult to understand the mindset that sees it as acceptable to ram a van into a group of people because it's unacceptable to ram a van into a group of people.
Legitimately astounded with the whiteness of headlines about this terrorist. Wall-to-wall 'troubled/deranged/ill' 'loner/lone wolf'. All the journos spent yesterday morning talking about how everyone was conscious of not reducing his crime but they seem to have decided doing that's actually fine after all.
The politicians seen to be saying and doing the right things at least. On both sides.
There also seems to be a possible boycott by stores of "The Sun" in the works as a result of their headlines. "The Sun" may not have thought about just how meant Sikhs and Muslims tend to own local news agents...
Compel wrote: The politicians seen to be saying and doing the right things at least. On both sides.
There also seems to be a possible boycott by stores of "The Sun" in the works as a result of their headlines. "The Sun" may not have thought about just how meant Sikhs and Muslims tend to own local news agents...
Yeah that or the local smaller shops. One of the main places that drive newspaper sales.
Again, appalled at the sheer apologism in the press.
Lone Wolf. Mental Health. He's not Us. We're not like Him. We certainly didn't provide a fertile ground for Islamophobia.
Oh, and my favourite? Revenge Terror Attack.
Revenge. The suggestion that, just possibly, those attending the Finsbury Park mosque were somehow complicit in the various atrocities and terror attacks of recent months. Constantly going on about how Abu Hamza used to preach outside that mosque.
And why did he preach outside? Because they banned him from entering the mosque at least ten years ago.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's difficult to understand the mindset that sees it as acceptable to ram a van into a group of people because it's unacceptable to ram a van into a group of people.
While I don't agree with people who feel it's acceptable to ram a van into anyone regardless of the circumstances, I think some people view it as an us vs them war, so see it as acceptable in the same way it was acceptable to drop bombs on Berlin/Tokyo after the bombing of London/Pearl Harbour.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's difficult to understand the mindset that sees it as acceptable to ram a van into a group of people because it's unacceptable to ram a van into a group of people.
While I don't agree with people who feel it's acceptable to ram a van into anyone regardless of the circumstances, I think some people view it as an us vs them war, so see it as acceptable in the same way it was acceptable to drop bombs on Berlin/Tokyo after the bombing of London/Pearl Harbour.
Being able to clearly identify your enemy and simplify a conflict into an Us vs Them is easier to deal with, psychologically.
It's easier for people to say to say "All Muslims are a threat!" than "A minority of Muslims are a threat". How then do you distinguish between the good and the bad?
Well, if the far-right are to be believed, working in my multicultural office, I should be fighting off my Muslim colleagues in the style of Clouseau and Kato. But I'm not.
Probably because the far-right are talking absolute mince, and only moved on from constantly blaming jews and people with coloured skin because that sort of racism is not acceptable.
Lone Wolf. Mental Health. He's not Us. We're not like Him. We certainly didn't provide a fertile ground for Islamophobia.
Oh, and my favourite? Revenge Terror Attack.
....You call this apologism?
I'm seeing a lot of posts all over facebook with along the lines 'If this was a muslim, they'd be calling him a terrorist, only because he's white, he's "mentally ill"'. When the reality appears to be that everyone from the newspapers to the government is describing it as a terror attack, and him as a terrorist. He's been arrested on terrorism charges, for feth's sake. So no, I really don't see 'apologism' in the press, or indeed, anywhere else.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: It's easier for people to say to say "All Muslims are a threat!" than "A minority of Muslims are a threat". How then do you distinguish between the good and the bad?
Well, this terror attack, just like the huge, overwhelming majority of terror attack, was made by men, as opposed to women. And it's not just terror attack, just take a look at the rape statistics. So how do you distinguish between the good males and the bad males? Or would women be justified to all go Ms. 45 on us? What about blacks in the US going to shoot random cops ?
Oooooh but it's entirely different because, you know, (nebulous) reasons!
AllSeeingSkink wrote: I think some people view it as an us vs them war, so see it as acceptable in the same way it was acceptable to drop bombs on Berlin/Tokyo after the bombing of London/Pearl Harbour.
It's worth noting that bombardment that was destined to civilian target rather than military target is not considered acceptable by many, and that bombardment that had no military uses and targeted civilians is basically war crimes.
The Star, The Daily Mirror, i and the Guardian - The left, or on average more left leaning, papers of the UK.
Now let's contrast with the right leaning papers.
The Sun:
Use of terror once, use of maniac twice - this is a classic way of deflecting
The Mail:
Psychopath, drank heavily, spiralling out of control, mental health issues - all dog whistles meant to deflect.
The Express:
This paper doesn't even have the guts to call it a terror attack on the front page.
They're making the right noises, "oh, it's a terror attack", but they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.
'Jobless Lone Wolf Held Over Attack On Mosque: father of four had suffered mental health problems, say family'.
From The Times. A broadsheet. Which also sticks another two stories and a bunch of adverts on the front page. Bananas.
Contrast with their single image, title-only, one-story covers 'Massacre At The Market' and 'Assault on Westminster: Islamist mows down pedestrians and kills policeman'.
Henry wrote: The Star, The Daily Mirror, i and the Guardian - The left, or on average more left leaning, papers of the UK.
Did you seriously just call the Star left wing?
Not to mention that even if we choose to say 'Right Wing newspapers are less likely to focus on the terror connotations', that's an immediate backing down/qualification from the original premise/overarching claim regarding the entire 'media'. The concept that left/right wing papers cover things in more/less detail or from a particular angle is hardly an exclusive new revelation specific to any one issue.
Now let's contrast with the right leaning papers.
The Sun:
Use of terror once, use of maniac twice - this is a classic way of deflecting
So, they did use the word terror in the *squints* thirty odd words on the frontpage. Next.
The Mail:
Psychopath, drank heavily, spiralling out of control, mental health issues - all dog whistles meant to deflect.
Firstly, calling him a psychopath is hardly a compliment or deflecting the issue. Considering they open up with how he 'racially abused muslims'. They also vey specifically say he was 'arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and terrorist offences'' and label it as 'the fourth terror attack in three months'. Sorry, so where's the issue? Because if it's that his motivations aren't being questioned along the same lines, that's a very different accusation to 'not regarding it as a terror attack' or to use Grotsnik's phrase 'apologism'.
Heck, depending on the motivations involved, it may well even be accurate to describe it differently. If one person runs others over with a van because God is Great and he wants his twenty virgins, and the other does it because he's an alcoholic who's read too many right wing rags, it's hardly a bias to point that out. One could, perhaps, say that both were gullible as a motivation, but they're otherwise different. They're both still terrorists, and that should be pointed out (as indeed, it has been in five of the six daily headlines linked collectively above), but there's no great 'apologism' about noting differing motivations for performing terrorist attacks.
They're making the right noises, "oh, it's a terror attack", but they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.
You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.
I look forward to the day when the gutter press casually links all EDL/BF supporters in with terrorists like Osbourne they way they do with Muslims and ISIS.
Ketara wrote: You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.
No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.
Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.
Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?
Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?
I've read a few more testimonies, and the general gist seems to be 'bit of an over-aggressive weirdo but a family man'. No traceable membership of any far-right organisations as things stand, and the security services had never heard of him. Fits the 'lone wolf' pattern more than anything, in that he seems to have just been swallowing online propaganda of far-right wingers. He just separated from his wife a few months beforehand, took to drink, was regularly abusive to people in the street in that period. His mother claims he was already on medication for mental health issues and had been for months, that'll be easily traceable if the case so it's likely to be true. There's also video footage of him shouting 'Kill me' after he's been pinned down and they're fighting off the mob, he actually wanted to die at that point.
All the above speaks to me of a very deeply unhappy man with various problems, who couldn't take it anymore and decided to launch a terror attack in line with some deeply held xenophobic beliefs. He probably thought he'd get shot by the police or something, and that would be that. Most likely not out of a desire for matyrdom, but rather deep depression or suchlike. If he was on anti-depressants already but kept drinking, alcohol usually prevents the drugs from working properly, so that could be a contributing factor.
Ketara wrote: I've read a few more testimonies, and the general gist seems to be 'bit of an over-aggressive weirdo but a family man'. No traceable membership of any far-right organisations as things stand, and the security services had never heard of him. Fits the 'lone wolf' pattern more than anything, in that he seems to have just been swallowing online propaganda of far-right wingers. He just separated from his wife a few months beforehand, took to drink, was regularly abusive to people in the street in that period. His mother claims he was already on medication for mental health issues and had been for months, that'll be easily traceable if the case so it's likely to be true. There's also video footage of him shouting 'Kill me' after he's been pinned down and they're fighting off the mob, he actually wanted to die at that point.
All the above speaks to me of a very deeply unhappy man with various problems, who couldn't take it anymore and decided to launch a terror attack in line with some deeply held xenophobic beliefs. He probably thought he'd get shot by the police or something, and that would be that. Most likely not out of a desire for matyrdom, but rather deep depression or suchlike. If he was on anti-depressants already but kept drinking, alcohol usually prevents the drugs from working properly, so that could be a contributing factor.
This profile is fairly consistent with most spree killers, regardless of motivation. It's only in the alt-right circlejerk of Breitbart, Rebel media and others that there is some vast conspiracy of well connected and highly trained super killers, waiting to pounce.
Ketara wrote: I've read a few more testimonies, and the general gist seems to be 'bit of an over-aggressive weirdo but a family man'. No traceable membership of any far-right organisations as things stand, and the security services had never heard of him. Fits the 'lone wolf' pattern more than anything, in that he seems to have just been swallowing online propaganda of far-right wingers. He just separated from his wife a few months beforehand, took to drink, was regularly abusive to people in the street in that period. His mother claims he was already on medication for mental health issues and had been for months, that'll be easily traceable if the case so it's likely to be true. There's also video footage of him shouting 'Kill me' after he's been pinned down and they're fighting off the mob, he actually wanted to die at that point.
All the above speaks to me of a very deeply unhappy man with various problems, who couldn't take it anymore and decided to launch a terror attack in line with some deeply held xenophobic beliefs. He probably thought he'd get shot by the police or something, and that would be that. Most likely not out of a desire for matyrdom, but rather deep depression or suchlike. If he was on anti-depressants already but kept drinking, alcohol usually prevents the drugs from working properly, so that could be a contributing factor.
This profile is fairly consistent with most spree killers, regardless of motivation. It's only in the alt-right circlejerk of Breitbart, Rebel media and others that there is some vast conspiracy of well connected and highly trained super killers, waiting to pounce.
People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.
People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.
Is it your contention that the van attack at the mosque and the van attack on London bridge have a "very different motivation"?
People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.
Is it your contention that the van attack at the mosque and the van attack on London bridge have a "very different motivation"?
People like that come from all walks sadly, from bullied schoolboy shooters in the US, to the occasional Daesh inspired one. It's not the same as the ISIS trained/groomed extremists any more than it is the same as the IRA mortar attacks, and does, I believe, deserve a slightly different tone in the reporting. A terror attack it is, but with a very different motivation at the core. Sometimes people just have their life go so far wrong that they can't see a way out but the extreme.
Is it your contention that the van attack at the mosque and the van attack on London bridge have a "very different motivation"?
Terrorism motivated by X...
Right, X being hate/fear of the other, formented from what should be obvious lies.
Ketara wrote: You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.
No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.
Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.
Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?
Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?
Now if only when a Muslim commits a terrorist act, the press would instantly go on about them having a mental health issue...
Ketara wrote: You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.
No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.
Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.
Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?
Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?
Now if only when a Muslim commits a terrorist act, the press would instantly go on about them having a mental health issue...
Didn't that happen with the one who decapitated that elderly woman in her garden? I seem to recall there was much about him being mentally ill and not a terrorist.
Ketara wrote: You're painting your own prejudices onto the media here.
No, just seeing the same depressing predictable crap that we can expect to see from the gutter.
Considering we've gone from 'The press is demonstrating crass apologism and trying to deflect accusations of terrorism onto mental health' to 'One paper didn't run the word terror on the frontpage, and a few others mention potential mental health motivations (whilst still calling him a terrorist)? I'm not really seeing a problem here.
Your stated accusation here ' they're making damn sure they get their racist dog-whistles in to highlight he's different from other terrorists - he's mentally unstable, that's the real reason, not like them muslim terrorists! This is apologism.' is ludicrous in conception to begin with. If two people are locked up for stealing, and one did it because he's a kleptomaniac, the other because he's an immoral git, is it morally wrong to mention those differing motivations in the reports if they're true?
Your knee-jerk reaction against the evils of the press demonstrates your own symptomatic bias against them rather than any evidence presented thus far. I mean, you haven't even attempted to establish whether or not he does have mental health problems or not! For all you know, he had half a dozen severe conditions that genuinely impelled him in this direction, but oh no. Any potential mental health problems must just be a cop out by the evil media, right? Everyone knows people make up mental problems all the time, eh?
Now if only when a Muslim commits a terrorist act, the press would instantly go on about them having a mental health issue...
Didn't that happen with the one who decapitated that elderly woman in her garden? I seem to recall there was much about him being mentally ill and not a terrorist.
He wasn't shouting about killing all westerners at the time and didn't appear to have any religious or politically motivated reasoning, he wasn't even a devout Muslim a heavy drinker and gambler, and some reports saying he had converted Buddhism, not exactly Islamic terrorist material if you ask me.
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
Racist Dogwhistle Post Award of the Week goes too.....
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
I have to disagree on that. One cannot attack an entire ethnic group for the actions of a terrorist organization. To do so would mean that all Catholics and all Protestants are guilty of the terrorist attacks that occurred during the troubles in Ireland/Britain. All Muslims and all hindus would be guilty for the ethnic violence in India. All Buddhists and Muslims would be guilty for the crimes that occurred in southern Thailand.
All men would be guilty for the crime of rape, all women would be guilty of the crime of taking too long in the restroom...oh wait that last one is 100% correct...
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.
The point is, that extreme fringe is growing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feeder wrote: Racist Dogwhistle Post Award of the Week goes too.....
Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.
Spinner wrote: Well, maybe there's some racism that should be addressed.
There's clearly some apologism going on for an obvious terrorist attack.
And a great deal of enthusiastic false equivalency...
I mean, anybody who chooses to murder people on the streets is a C***, whether they're Muslim or White British. And personally, I favour bringing back the death penalty for the most extreme crimes (serial killers, acts of terror that result in fatalities, etc). If I had my way, we'd execute mass murders like Anders Breivik, or any of the rare Islamist terrorists who get taken alive. This guy who attacked the Mosque, I would have executed if there were insufficient mitigating circumstances (mental illness etc) to commute the sentence down to Life imprisonment. So I'm hardly an apologist for this latest terror attack.
But FFS, lets keep things in perspective please. So far this year we've had one Right Wing terror attack in Europe that resulted in fatalities...whereas we've had how many (fatal) Islamist terror attacks? 3 in the UK alone?
All terrorism is bad, but one is blatantly and undeniably more frequent than the other...
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.
The point is, that extreme fringe is growing.
Even if it is growing it still doesn't justify nor make it correct to say that the majority of Muslims support these attacks. The fringe element could double and it would still be a statistically tiny minority of the overall population of British Muslim's.
And either way, it wouldn't excuse driving a vehicle into a crowd of random people.
The only thing this man knew about his targets was that they were Muslim. That was enough to make him want to kill them. That is exactly the sort of gak we should be against.
Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.
Did you just lump me in with the entirety of the Dakka population while complaining about generalizations?
I don't throw around "racist" casually. But when dreck likethis gets posted, I'll call it what it is.
To be clear, "Maybe all Muslims are terrorists", is racist, and should be addressed as such.
Agreed. But Grey Templar didn't say that, did he? He said that the minority of Muslims who commit violent acts is growing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Yep, let's just ignore the social construction of gender so we can accuse people of making a straw man.
AlmightyWalrus: "DNA is a social construct!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spinner wrote: And either way, it wouldn't excuse driving a vehicle into a crowd of random people.
The only thing this man knew about his targets was that they were Muslim. That was enough to make him want to kill them. That is exactly the sort of gak we should be against.
Nostromodamus wrote: Unfortunately I know of more than a few friends and family stateside, as well as in the UK, hardening their hearts toward Muslims and condoning this kind of action as acceptable. Quite an eye-opener to see people you think you know harbouring such feelings.
It's not hard to see why they "harbor such feelings."
I know, just sad to hear them agreeing with the sentiment that driving a car into a group of Muslims somehow makes things better and was the correct course of action. I thought my friends and family were more intelligent than that, and beyond blaming a whole segment of society for the actions of fringe maniacs.
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
As of 2011 there were 2,786,635 Muslims in the UK say 10,000 of these support the terror attacks, I honestly doubt there are even that many that's less than 0.005%. Anyone with half a brain can see that its not the average Muslim carrying out these attacks but the most extreme.
The point is, that extreme fringe is growing.
Even if it is growing it still doesn't justify nor make it correct to say that the majority of Muslims support these attacks.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Are we now arguing that gender roles don't exist and that men are inherently scumbags?
They do exist and should stay that way. Call me old-fashioned. Men and women can both become scumbags. How each one manifests that is different, however.
But we aren't talking about that are we? We are talking about the rise in extremism.
Grey Templar wrote:Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
Oh give over. "Racist" gets thrown around so casually on Dakka Dakka that I just can't take it seriously.
Did you just lump me in with the entirety of the Dakka population while complaining about generalizations?
I don't throw around "racist" casually. But when dreck likethis gets posted, I'll call it what it is.
To be clear, "Maybe all Muslims are terrorists", is racist, and should be addressed as such.
Agreed. But Grey Templar didn't say that, did he? He said that the minority of Muslims who commit violent acts is growing.
That is not what he said. What was actually called out was this:
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
That is definitely a bigoted statement. Replace references to Muslims with men, blacks, Christians or something else if you need to see it in another light.
Agreed. But Grey Templar didn't say that, did he? He said that the minority of Muslims who commit violent acts is growing.
No, he said:
Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
He isn't suggesting the fringe is growing, he is flat out suggesting that it isn't the fringe people carrying out attacks.
EDIT: When three separate posters all respond independently saying the same thing, maybe you should go back and re-read what Templar actually said SCE.
Grey Templar wrote: Given the uptick in islamic terror attacks everywhere, it's becoming more and more difficult to believe it's just "fringe maniacs" who are performing these acts. You really cannot blame anybody who is becoming fed up with it. Repeating the mantra of "It's not all Muslims!" really starts to sound hollow.
Except is really IS a fringe element. Look at the number of Muslims in the UK, then look at how many have carried out these attacks. TINY proportion.
Same as it's a fringe element of gun owners that shoot up schools or a fringe element of Christians who dress up in white robes and attack Black people. Does "it's not all gun owners" or "it's not all Christians" sound just as hollow?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Are we now arguing that gender roles don't exist and that men are inherently scumbags?
No, we know men are inherently scumbags. Thats at least how I treat all the daughter's dates...
To the topic, if we assume for the moment that "the fringe" is growing, that needs to be dealt with and I believe the UK is at least attempting to do that with messaging etc.
We should remember, the VAST number of victims in terrorist actions are other muslims and they, like all Brits, have a vested interest in dealing with this, if nothing else from enlightened self interest.
When you're impugning someone's character I think its important to get your terms correct, no? Unless you don't care about people taking you seriously (see my prior remark). "Racist" gets thrown around so casually that it's lost all meaning.
Muslims aren't a race. The only people who bring race into the mixture are left leaning terror apologists who claim that being anti-muslim is racist. The irony is that they're the ones being racist when they say that. Left wingers also need to learn to actually formulate actual arguments instead of just yelling ''bigot'' or ''racist'' whenever someone has the gall to disagree with them. It just makes you look like a rabid loon.
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.
Its also highly incorrect to draw parallels with any right wing terrorism. There isn't a highly organized terror group radicalizing christians and other right wingers enmass. There isn't a growing number of right wing inspired terrorism beginning to plague western civilization.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When you're impugning someone's character I think its important to get your terms correct, no?
I regard a bigot and a racist as equally vile.
bigot ˈbɪɡət/ noun a person who is intolerant towards those holding different opinions.
You're being pretty intolerant of opposing opinions I think.
Or
bigot noun [ C ] UK /ˈbɪɡ.ət/ US /ˈbɪɡ.ət/ disapproving a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
Or
Definition of bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I think disparaging remarks against millions of people based on the actions of a couple thousand (including the whole of IS in here) fits the definition of "unreasonable", wouldn't you?
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.
You better have a source for this, right fething now.
Also, just like to point out to people who were defending what he said on the previous page as saying the fringe is growing that he is here saying that the moderates are apparently "tolerating" it.
Its also highly incorrect to draw parallels with any right wing terrorism. There isn't a highly organized terror group radicalizing christians and other right wingers enmass. There isn't a growing number of right wing inspired terrorism beginning to plague western civilization.
Well the one a couple of days ago was a right wing terrorist attack would you not say?
Muslims aren't a race. The only people who bring race into the mixture are left leaning terror apologists who claim that being anti-muslim is racist. The irony is that they're the ones being racist when they say that. Left wingers also need to learn to actually formulate actual arguments instead of just yelling ''bigot'' or ''racist'' whenever someone has the gall to disagree with them. It just makes you look like a rabid loon.
Except in this case, they were calling out an actually gakky opinion. And racism does contribute to anti-Muslim beliefs, as if the majority of Muslims were white like the majority of people holding the anti-Muslim beliefs, there would almost certainly be less anti-Muslim beliefs.
Of course, referring to people as 'terror apologists' when they call people out on having gakky and unsupported opinions, doesn't help your position any.
And while Islamic terroism may have once been a truly fringe element. It's growing, rapidly. And it enjoys at the very least toleration from many more moderate muslims. It may not be mainstream, but it's not really fringe anymore.
Replace 'Muslim' with 'Christian' and you would have just as true of statement. Just look at the lack of outrage over the Christian terrorist that shot up an abortion clinic in Colorado from the vocal representatives of Christianity.
Its also highly incorrect to draw parallels with any right wing terrorism. There isn't a highly organized terror group radicalizing christians and other right wingers enmass. There isn't a growing number of right wing inspired terrorism beginning to plague western civilization.
It's perfectly correct to draw parallels. Right wing extremist terrorism has been growing as well. And there are definitely groups that attempt to radicalize people. Operation Rescue, the KKK, various Militia/Neo-Nazi groups, etc...
They're wearing suicide vests. I hope the Police aren't going to the trouble and extreme risk of trying to remove the vests from the body/still living suicide bomber before detonating. I'd much prefer they just blow him up, even if he is still alive, than risk a Police Officer's life.
which is crazy in an age of suspect packages popping up all over the place.
.
