Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I begin to suspect you don't actually know what racist means.

So someone automatically equates a person of color with being a radical muslim and that isn't racist, but calling out automatically equating the two is the real problem? I'm wondering if the questionable knowledge isn't quite where you think it is.

Don't be fething obtuse. We know that what the person who initially made the rhetorical question was referring to the actions of the perpetrator being in line with the actions of general violence carried out by muslims in oh say the last little while. Muslim is not a race. Noting that the article said that the person's skin color and using that to logically extrapolate that someone who would do something well in line with muslim extremism as opposed to say some random crazy person is a supportable supposition and not inherently racist. Once again, try a bit harder.

 Ahtman wrote:
The title makes it sound like this was a targeted attack against a serviceman but the article makes it sound like a random attack by an insane person.

Looks like it was a bit of both really.

 Bromsy wrote:
Muslim is not a race.

Of course Muslim isn't a race, but Black and Asian are, which is all they knew to make the leap to them being Muslim. It isn't the Muslim part that riled others, it is the assumption that they have to be Muslim because they are Black or Asian.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I begin to suspect you don't actually know what racist means.

So someone automatically equates a person of color with being a radical muslim and that isn't racist, but calling out automatically equating the two is the real problem? I'm wondering if the questionable knowledge isn't quite where you think it is.

Don't be fething obtuse. We know that what the person who initially made the rhetorical question was referring to the actions of the perpetrator being in line with the actions of general violence carried out by muslims in oh say the last little while. Muslim is not a race. Noting that the article said that the person's skin color and using that to logically extrapolate that someone who would do something well in line with muslim extremism as opposed to say some random crazy person is a supportable supposition and not inherently racist. Once again, try a bit harder.

I am not sure you read what the man said.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
I begin to suspect you don't actually know what racist means.

So someone automatically equates a person of color with being a radical muslim and that isn't racist, but calling out automatically equating the two is the real problem? I'm wondering if the questionable knowledge isn't quite where you think it is.

Don't be fething obtuse. We know that what the person who initially made the rhetorical question was referring to the actions of the perpetrator being in line with the actions of general violence carried out by muslims in oh say the last little while. Muslim is not a race. Noting that the article said that the person's skin color and using that to logically extrapolate that someone who would do something well in line with muslim extremism as opposed to say some random crazy person is a supportable supposition and not inherently racist. Once again, try a bit harder.

I am not sure you read what the man said.

Oh trust me, I did.

The problem you guys are having is that you automatically default to something being racist because it 1) tangentially involves skin color and 2) is something you don't personally like.

No one is assuming this person is a Muslim because they are dark skinned. They are however - fairly reasonably - guessing that this person is motivated by Islam because of all that attacking of people in western military garb by somewhat crazier than normal people who are motivated by Islam that has happened recently. At the least it's simply another fact noted in the article, at most using the point of his skin color is prejudiced. But why create a nuanced counterpoint when you can simply trot out winning arguments like

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Is young adult a religion? Because a dark hooded top sure sounds like a Hoodie to me.

Let's jump to racist conclusions! Woooo!

That is a bad response because it isn't a response that furthers any sort of dialogue or discussion. It is an attempt to paint someone as a racist for saying something you don't agree with either in content or tone so they will shut up.

So once again, try harder.

Bromsy wrote:The problem you guys are having is that you automatically default to something being racist because it 1) tangentially involves skin color and 2) is something you don't personally like.

Or maybe what they said was actually a bit racist and you are being purposely contrarian or trolling us.

Bromsy wrote:No one is assuming this person is a Muslim because they are dark skinned.

So then you don't know what he wrote and Dreadwinter was right. You seem to be building a fantasy in your head of what might have been said or what they might have meant, but that isn't what was actually said. The actual statement had nothing to do with all the other stuff you mention, and specifically targeted their race.

Bromsy wrote:That is a bad response

You are essentially describing yourself here. I would congratulate you but you probably don't realize how useless you yourself have been by ignoring the actual statement made and parroting "Try harder".

 Ahtman wrote:

Bromsy wrote:The problem you guys are having is that you automatically default to something being racist because it 1) tangentially involves skin color and 2) is something you don't personally like.

Or maybe what they said was actually a bit racist and you are being purposely contrarian or trolling us.

Bromsy wrote:No one is assuming this person is a Muslim because they are dark skinned.

So then you don't know what he wrote and Dreadwinter was right. You seem to be building a fantasy in your head of what might have been said or what they might have meant, but that isn't what was actually said. The actual statement had nothing to do with all the other stuff you mention, and specifically targeted their race.

Bromsy wrote:That is a bad response

You are essentially describing yourself here. I would congratulate you but you probably don't realize how useless you yourself have been by ignoring the actual statement made and parroting "Try harder".

Or maybe I am capable of even the most basic deductive reasoning. Using the actual quote

 Daemonhammer wrote:
"The offender, who walked off without saying a word, is described as being black or Asian, 5ft 8in and wearing a dark hooded top."

Hmm i wonder which major world religion he belongs to.

the exact same emphasis is placed on his height and wardrobe. But only the skin color aspect that you can emphasize to make yourself feel better and more enlightened by calling someone else a racist was brought up. And yet you question my reading comprehension?

Are you really this incapable of seeing things in an unbiased manner? Do you really feel the need to reduce reasonable inference to "fantasy" and attack me for having the audacity to "parrot" that people should make more reasoned and reasonable arguments?

Man, I am becoming quite the board warrior lately.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Random in the sense that it was a black/asain guy attacking a uniformed cadet. Probably Muslim.

He assumes that because this person is black/asian and attacked a Uniformed Cadet, they are Muslim. Right there, that is racist. He does it in this quote, you can see it clearly. Right in the first sentence. He took the persons skin color and equated it to a specific group of people. I am not sure how only using ones skin color to determine their Religion without ever meeting or talking to said person is not racist, but, I am waiting for reasonable argument against it.

Fascinating as this tangent is, it ends here.

Further posts on this irrelevancy will be treated as spam.

Anyways, looks like this kid wasn't the only one attacked on the job-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-201378/Hammer-attack-poppy-seller-79.html

This poor old guy got attacked too bless him. Seriously wtf is wrong with people?!

Hammer attack on poppy seller, 79
An elderly man selling Remembrance Day poppies in a busy supermarket was attacked with a claw hammer.
The 79-year-old was taken to hospital after being struck with the weapon as he sold the poppies for the Royal British Legion in a Safeway store in Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.
A Thames Valley Police spokeswoman said: "The man was attacked three times with a claw hammer and was taken to Stoke Mandeville Hospital with head injuries."
He was released later.
A 29-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm and released on police bail pending further inquiries.
Both the Royal British Legion and Safeway said they could not comment on the incident.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-201378/Hammer-attack-poppy-seller-79.html#ixzz3I6S2kQoJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I can't believe they let the hammer guy out on bail.

Relapse wrote:
I can't believe they let the hammer guy out on bail.

Welcome to Western Europe. Anything short of that would have been "police brutality"

Is this some bizarre plan to make it so that ww1 causes MORE casualties?