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.

EDIT: No, no, I'm not going to go there.

I think "This guy is fething insane" is the best explanation.

I will say, as someone who has studied Arabic and Islamic history, has several Muslim friends, and has spent several months in a Muslim country, there's some agonizingly stupid things being said in this thread.

 d-usa wrote:
This is your basic message in all your posts:

Not it isnt. Perhaps you should read clearly.

 d-usa wrote:

"I'm not saying all Muslims are jihadists who are mentally insane and hack people up with machetes, I'm just saying that he is a machete hacking mentally insane jihadist because he is a Muslim".

"I'm not saying all Muslims are jihadists who are mentally insane and hack people up with machetes, - that bit you got right. Well done!
I'm just saying that he is a machete hacking mentally insane - I will go with this also, almost there.....
jihadist because he is a Muslim" - and here you fall down. I am leaving it open to suggestion that he might have had religious motives, and even stated he might not. Also even hif he had no religious motives there is the question of societal conditioning, does the culture of machete crime in the alleged perpetrators ethnic group have any influence on his actions. Again I am not saying that it did, I only ask the issue is not swept under the carpet.

Quite reasonable if you stop to think a moment. Pity many people don't think about PC issues, its not 'appropriate'.

 d-usa wrote:

And you wonder why people might consider that intolerant...

There is no wonder. Its a regular pattern long seen and established with numerous cases, some of which have catestrophic consequences, such as at Rotherham, but even then people wont learn .

If you question whether there is a phenomena of Islamic extremism you get labeled intolerant. Because in the PC society you cant think those thoughts, its just not progressive enough.

 Orlanth wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH

Translation:

"Everyone accusing me of being a bigot is a bigot because only I have a mind open enough to completely judge on person and therefore all people that may or may not be just like him based only on one metric, that also may or may not be accurate."

 Orlanth wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Damn, he's hitting all the tropes now...

He's not a bigot, we are all just being politically correct because we aren't rushing to judge this guy based on what may or may not be his religion.

Silly us!

Silly you indeed.

I am not a bigot, you are all just being politically correct because we aren't allowing people to explore whether or not there may be a religious or cultural angle to the actions.

The UK simply didn't have a culture of open machete attacks, perhaps I believe it best to vocalise that we don't need one. Sorry if I have rocked the boat by making this point plain. Very selfish of me, maybe I should not give a feth instead, because it wasn't my town it happened in.

Oh, my fault... I didn't realize you were the supreme authority on London culture.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
This is your basic message in all your posts:

Not it isnt. Perhaps you should read clearly.

 d-usa wrote:

"I'm not saying all Muslims are jihadists who are mentally insane and hack people up with machetes, I'm just saying that he is a machete hacking mentally insane jihadist because he is a Muslim".

"I'm not saying all Muslims are jihadists who are mentally insane and hack people up with machetes, - that bit you got right. Well done!
I'm just saying that he is a machete hacking mentally insane - I will go with this also, almost there.....
jihadist because he is a Muslim" - and here you fall down. I am leaving it open to suggestion that he might have had religious motives, and even stated he might not. Also even hif he had no religious motives there is the question of societal conditioning, does the culture of machete crime in the alleged perpetrators ethnic group have any influence on his actions. Again I am not saying that it did, I only ask the issue is not swept under the carpet.

Quite reasonable if you stop to think a moment. Pity many people don't think about PC issues, its not 'appropriate'.

 d-usa wrote:

And you wonder why people might consider that intolerant...

There is no wonder. Its a regular pattern long seen and established with numerous cases, some of which have catestrophic consequences, such as at Rotherham, but even then people wont learn .

If you question whether there is a phenomena of Islamic extremism you get labeled intolerant. Because in the PC society you cant think those thoughts, its just not progressive enough.

You should really just stop, for the sake of us all.

Your rambling is not helping you prove your point.

So the revised message is "I'm not saying all Muslims do this, I'm just saying that him being a Muslim could be a factor because it's the kind of thing Muslims do"?

Why can't we all be as open minded as you...

 Smacks wrote:
The possibilities are infinite. Maybe he did it because he was overweight, did you explore that? How about because he was black? Not as topical as Muslim but always a goodie.
Have you thought maybe it was because of his mustache? Hitler and Stalin both had mustaches too, as did Saddam. Have you explored that possibility?....

Nice try to link this to anti-black racism.

 Smacks wrote:

NO you didn't, you jumped straight to the only possible possibility you can imagine, which is that because he is Muslim he must be an Islamic radical. What does that say about you?

I will start with the last part. What it says about me. Well it says I am actually thinking about motive.

If you stopped to think and then re-read the posts you commented on with an open mind you might realise I said something totally different to what you claimed I said, namely:
- There are more than one possibility, and I haven't jumped to any conclusion. You repeatedly claim I have simply because its easier to make up what you think I wrote rather than actually read what was written and comment on that.
- Also as a Moslem he need not be an islamic radical, it might still be relevant, if the person was influenced by a 'life is cheap' culture.
Of course you ought to go beyond reading my posts and actually come up with some ideas and opinions of your own.


I wasn't unclear on these point also.
However despite how often I clarify you still insist on rewriting my own posts to mean something they blatantly do not. Why?
You assume small mindedness with the 'only possible possibility you can imagine', while I imagine several possibilities posted with them clearly labeled.
You insist on a bigoted conclusion of 'because he is Muslim he must be an Islamic radical' when I gave no conclusion at all.

Why misrepresent my arguments with so much gusto, what are you so afraid of that you cannot look at the possibility of ethnic or religious problems without this fear of what you might find. You need to shake free and think for yourself.

Again I have given examples of what happens when society does not dare think and sweeps problems within minority cultures under the carpet rather than address them.

 Smacks wrote:

Reasonable questions for an open minded person willing to see that it might have a religious or cultural connection. Something you have ruled out as it doesn't match the progressive concensus.

I haven't ruled anything out. I accept that it's a 'possibility', but there is simply no evidence to support it.

There is evidence - he allegedly used a machete. A tool not in common circulation in the UK but one but with a pre-existing cultural connection to this type of street crime.

Just gone to Romper Room status

Edit

On page four

 Orlanth wrote:
I am leaving it open to suggestion that he might have had religious motives, and even stated he might not. Also even hif he had no religious motives there is the question of societal conditioning, does the culture of machete crime in the alleged perpetrators ethnic group have any influence on his actions. Again I am not saying that it did, I only ask the issue is not swept under the carpet.

If the dude is mentally ill, why do you need more reasons? That explains it 100%. Mentally ill people get triggered by lots of things, like stuff they see on tv. It's not as if non-Muslim schizophrenics never kill people.

 Orlanth wrote:

There is evidence - he allegedly used a machete. A tool not in common circulation in the UK but one but with a pre-existing cultural connection to this type of street crime.

Machete's aren't illegal to own in the UK. Ownership is not tracked or registered. So I'm confused as to how you came about this data that proves that ownership is rare.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH

Translation:

"Everyone accusing me of being a bigot is a bigot because only I have a mind open enough to completely judge on person and therefore all people that may or may not be just like him based only on one metric, that also may or may not be accurate."

Point of proof. Agasin I have not been quoted but my entire commentary has been replaceed by something else condensed into a single line which has no bearing on anything I actually said. In addition the new made up fversion forced into my mouth is rather offensive encouraging people to draw negative references without the bother of actually reading the posts.

This isn't helping.

I challenge you to copy paste where I said the stuff that supports your 'translation', without unfair editing.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Oh, my fault... I didn't realize you were the supreme authority on London culture.

Actually I am not, but I do live there, not in America. I have also known victims of machete crime, they escaped unhurt, and know that there is a lot of it below the surface.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Your rambling is not helping you prove your point.

However you cant say why, you wont attempt to address the points at all, just write it off as 'rambling'.

So far nobody has offered a single word of actual logical challenge, just condensed misrepresentation and personal attack.

Orlanth, could you explain your comment about knowing people who were victims of machete crime? How many do you know and what were the circumstances? Was it in the UK thiese attacks happened?

The modern machete is very similar to some forms of the medieval falchion, a short sword popular from the 13th century onwards. The cutting edge of the falchion was curved, widening toward the point, and had a straight, unsharpened back edge.[23] The machete differs from the falchion mainly in the lack of a guard and a simpler hilt, though some machetes do have a guard for greater protection of hands during work.

The kopis was an ancient Greek tool/weapon comparable to the machete. The makhaira was also similar, but was intended primarily to be a weapon rather than a tool.

The seax was a Germanic tool/weapon that was also similar in function, although different in shape.

The kukri is a Nepalese curved blade used for many purposes similar to the machete.

The parang was a Malaysian knife that many machetes are based on.

The grosse messer was a medieval large knife, employed both as a tool and as a weapon.

The fascine knife is a somewhat similar tool/weapon used by European armies throughout the late 18th to early 20th centuries. In fact, the Spanish Army called its fascine knives machetes.[24] Whereas infantry were usually issued short sabres as side arms, engineers and artillerymen often received fascine knives,[25][26] as besides being side arms they also served as useful tools for the construction of fortifications and other utilitarian tasks. They differ from machetes in that they generally have far thicker, tapered blades optimized for chopping European vegetation (the thin, flat blade of the machete is better for soft plants found in tropical environments), sword-like hilts and guards, and sometimes a sawback-blade.[25] Some later models could be fixed to rifles as bayonets as well.[26]

The katana, typically acquired through trade, was used by the Ainu people in a machete like fashion rather than a tool of war as it was originally intended to be.

Seems a cutlass is a form of machete

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

There is evidence - he allegedly used a machete. A tool not in common circulation in the UK but one but with a pre-existing cultural connection to this type of street crime.

Machete's aren't illegal to own in the UK. Ownership is not tracked or registered. So I'm confused as to how you came about this data that proves that ownership is rare.

I will accept that correction.

That as while it was known machetes are still legal in the UK there were omitted from the list of restricted hand tools that required legislation. I check for that list and stand corrected, as I believed they were. It is certainly the polices view that machete ownership is frowned upon. 'Machetes' are agricultural and sometimes survival tools, but still there is no culture of street use until relatively recently. Certainly they had no function in an urban setting.

Thank you for thinking about the argument rather than posting false quotes of racist bollocks and passing it off as my opinion.

 Orlanth wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
BLAH BLAH BLAH

Translation:

"Everyone accusing me of being a bigot is a bigot because only I have a mind open enough to completely judge on person and therefore all people that may or may not be just like him based only on one metric, that also may or may not be accurate."

Point of proof. Agasin I have not been quoted but my entire commentary has been replaceed by something else condensed into a single line which has no bearing on anything I actually said. In addition the new made up fversion forced into my mouth is rather offensive encouraging people to draw negative references without the bother of actually reading the posts.

This isn't helping.

I challenge you to copy paste where I said the stuff that supports your 'translation', without unfair editing.

Challenge accepted:

"You will not even allow open minded people to explore the possibility that there may be a cultural or relgious angle to this, by saying that is jumping to conclusions, when it is logically the opposite. "
"Reasonable questions for an open minded person willing to see that it might have a relgious or cultural xconnerction. Something you have ruled out as it doesnt match the progresive concensus."
"And I call you closed minded because we have so recently seen the consequences of that closed mindedness."
"I will not be labeled a bigot by closed minded politically correct types just because I want to explore the possible connections."
"Noone is judging a 'whole group of people'. Except perhaps you."
"Its a blanket catchall of our curent PC culture, and hence my comments about the only people judging a 'whole group of people' are those who spout this doctrine and label anyone who displays unorthodoxy towards progressivism."

 Orlanth wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Oh, my fault... I didn't realize you were the supreme authority on London culture.

Actually I am not, but I do live there, not in America. I have also known victims of machete crime, they escaped unhurt, and know that there is a lot of it below the surface.

But earlier you said that isn't hardly any machete crimes in the UK because they are banned and it's hard to attack someone with a knife? So now you know lots of people who have been victims of "machete crime?" Which is it?

 Orlanth wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Your rambling is not helping you prove your point.

However you cant say why, you wont attempt to address the points at all, just write it off as 'rambling'.

So far nobody has offered a single word of actual logical challenge, just condensed misrepresentation and personal attack.

That's because you are rambling. Between saying you're not blaming an entire religion and you don't have all the facts to it's the way Muslims are and you don't need the facts because you've already made your mind up then saying knife attacks are difficult but they're happening at an "alarming" rate and you know lots of people that have been attacked (all unharmed, of course) all because the UK is slipping in barbarism and losing its Anglicisation (read: not white enough anymore)... yeah, I'd say you're rambling.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

There is evidence - he allegedly used a machete. A tool not in common circulation in the UK but one but with a pre-existing cultural connection to this type of street crime.

Machete's aren't illegal to own in the UK. Ownership is not tracked or registered. So I'm confused as to how you came about this data that proves that ownership is rare.

I will accept that correction.

That as while it was known machetes are still legal in the UK there were omitted from the list of restricted hand tools that required legislation. I check for that list and stand corrected, as I believed they were. It is certainly the polices view that machete ownership is frowned upon. 'Machetes' are agricultural and sometimes survival tools, but still there is no culture of street use until relatively recently. Certainly they had no function in an urban setting.

Thank you for thinking about the argument rather than posting false quotes of racist bollocks and passing it off as my opinion.

Than that nullifies your entire argument.

You posited the idea earlier that since machetes are illegal in the UK and are connected with Islamic extremists (in your eyes), than he must have acquired it from a radical mosque.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There probably isn't anything else left to talk about.

Well to be fair we do need to provide some actual evidence to counter all the factual evidence that machete crime is a Muslim thing...

Scooty,

I was wondering also how he knew machete attack victims and where these attacks happened, but got no answers to my questions.

I second the abandon thread call and ask the mods to lock it on grounds of we have no need to plumb new depths here.

 Orlanth wrote:

Thank you for thinking about the argument rather than posting false quotes of racist bollocks and passing it off as my opinion.

If you don't want to be accused of being a racist, a good plan might be to not demand that his religious background be the first thing to be investigated. You do it all the time, and it's always about muslims, and you ALWAYS hide behind the "open minded" BS. There's no one in the thread that's saying the police shouldn't investigate whether it was religiously motivated or not. People are saying that demaning that straight away without allowing the police time to investigate anything, and despite all publicly know evidence pointing towards serious mental issues, is bigoted. I'm sure you're not doing it with the purpose of discrediting muslims or immingrants, but that doesn't change the fact that you're being bigoted.

Relapse wrote:
Orlanth, could you explain your comment about knowing people who were victims of machete crime? How many do you know and what were the circumstances? Was it in the UK thiese attacks happened?

I know of three accounts personally and several more by hearsay.

I will repeat just one and heavily edit it.

There was a young couple with children, close relatives of my best friend. They had neighbours in the same block, an Islamic family, that had taken to heart the attitude that the block should be theirs because they were the elephant in the room and no one would mess with them. This opinion is fairly common if itself and doesn't just affect some Moslems but many other minorities with an entitlement, based on the tried and tested ideology that the police and social services will back down if a minority group is mobilised enough and brazen enough. This particular family had had most of the non Moslem neighbours evicted on one trumped up charge or other, most of the rest had fled. My friends family could not flee as they had small children and if they left would be 'voluntarily homeless'. One evening there was a row and the neighbour called his friend and sixteen came around with machetes and started hacking at the door. When the police finally arrived the door was smashed in with machete slashes and the man living in the flat had defence wounds on his arms. I don't know why he wasn't more seriously injured, but i do know was that the damage was clearly dfence wounds.

The attackers were milling about the block en masse, immediately accused the couple of racism to the police (usual ploy) and just dumped their machetes on the pavement Only on, the instigator was actually arrested even though several of them used machetes and just carrying one in the street can carry a five year sentence and to appease them the man with the defence wounds whose only action was to stand in the doorway and defend his wife and two kids was arrested also. In fact it took longer to get him a bail hearing than his attacker.

Later that week there was a move to evict, for racism, but some mates pulled strings and got another social worker to look at the case, qwho rehoused the family. The first social worker was not other same ethnicity of the second, I wont say which was which, only that in cases like this that also proves relevant.

This was in Birmingham, places where you recently had the Islamic school plot etc. This type of story is not unusual.

There were ideas to got to the press with this because the husband was arrested and fifteen of the sixteen attackers were not, buit no paper wanted to grun thuis tyope of story, except one. The Daily Mail. It was considered prudent not to got o the Mail alone because the story would then be seen as a Daily Fail lie and it would not help the case to get rehousing. I have come to wonder if other daily Fail stories were actually true but other papers simply refused to carry then, but that is a discussion for another thread.

The family was rehoused in much better surroundings.

 Bromsy wrote:

 motyak wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Religiously motivated killings do not automatically equal terrorism.

Pretty much this. But I think some of you have gone further, tagging all violence done by Islamic folk as terrorism. So let's steer clear of 'all Muslim violence=terrorism', it's incredibly insulting.

To whom? Secularly violent Muslims?

I'll wait for more details, but since the current climate in Britain is to do anything, to the point of ignoring crimes, so as not to seem racist, I'll take the word of their police with a grain of salt.

I felt it very insulting.