If your first reaction on hearing about a terror attack in your city....

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

.....is to immediately use the deaths of 4 innocent people as a platform to have a go at the 'far right', you're the reason the terrorists are winning.

The Irish times has come in for significant criticism online after abusing their journalistic position to push their political beliefs on readers. The article in question was written by Irish Times journalist Philip O Connor, who is based in Stockholm. He has so far refused to apologise for the article, but has explained that his editor David McKechnie 'asked for it'.

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/850432358968811520

https://twitter.com/philipoconnor?lang=en

https://twitter.com/BlameDriver?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

These imbeciles need to be held accountable. How much longer can the mainstream media keep up this charade?

The media have now replaced the parish priest as the moral authority of the people, self appointed of course.

It's almost 100% soviet style propaganda at this point. Do you think the MSM are doing more harm than good now?

Owryan

Not seeing the "having a go at" myself. Just that so called acts of Islamic terrorism are feeding into the rise of far right politics.

Now if it was the daily mail.........

RayM

In fairness, all the right-wing extremists on Boards seem to cream themselves whenever an attack happens.

My first reaction is sadness. I wish we could put aside such divisions of left and right, centre, moderate, whatever the rest of them are. We are all human beings in this together. Lives were taken. Lives are taken every day in Syria and other conflict filled parts of the world

I am not a fan of globalism and open borders but nor do I want innocent people murdered.

RayM

RayM wrote: »

In fairness, all the right-wing extremists on Boards seem to cream themselves whenever an attack happens.

Both sides come out swinging with their tired cliches

It's just that the kneejerk reaction of the right tends to be borne out by the eventual facts, while the left (and, rather bizarrely, the board's decision making hierarchy) end up looking quite silly quite often by trying to censor debate and insist on no speculation on the sources of the attack.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Owryan wrote: »

Not seeing the "having a go at" myself. Just that so called acts of Islamic terrorism are feeding into the rise of far right politics.

Now if it was the daily mail.........

But wouldn't the more obvious reaction be something like "Sweden's controversial mass immigration policy results in terror attack"? Or even "troubling questions about Sweden's appeasement of terror suspects?"


In case you didn't know, Sweden has a program to integrate ISIS terrorists back into society by rewarding them with free housing and benefits:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-isis-fighters-city-lund-returning-jihadis-housing-job-education-benefits-reintegration-a7371266.html


A society this far gone is probably not redeemable.

Harry Palmr

My first reaction is to remember more Americans have died getting out of the bath than from terrorist actions in the last 15 years. I do not react "politically" but with the power of statistical probability

andekwarhola

RayM wrote: »

In fairness, all the right-wing extremists on Boards seem to cream themselves whenever an attack happens.

To the majority of non-aligned posters (so to speak) people that post like you are just as culpable in that dialectic but you don't see that. You actually see yourself as somehow above it which is strange.

Yourself isit

Harry Palmr wrote: »

My first reaction is to remember more Americans have died getting out of the bath than from terrorist actions in the last 15 years. I do not react "politically" but with the power of statistical probability

That's a fairly irrelevant statistic for a massacre in sweden.

fly_agaric

Don't see a problem. It is correct. Such terrorist attacks are a "boost" for far right as they provide evidence that the far right has been correct about some stuff and the political mainstream and especially the left got it wrong; although I think the "mainstream" politicians might be starting to see that in Europe IMO (going by things some of them have been saying of late).
Of course the far right is way-way wrong about a lot of other important things, even a stopped clock and all that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

But wouldn't the more obvious reaction be something like "Sweden's controversial mass immigration policy results in terror attack"? Or even "troubling questions about Sweden's appeasement of terror suspects?"


In case you didn't know, Sweden has a program to integrate ISIS terrorists back into society by rewarding them with free housing and benefits:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-isis-fighters-city-lund-returning-jihadis-housing-job-education-benefits-reintegration-a7371266.html


A society this far gone is probably not redeemable.

Aha! Now the bias shows. The Irish Times article was stating a fact. You're alternative is unfounded and politically swayed very much in one direction.

I'm out of here.

RayM

andekwarhola wrote: »

To the majority of non-aligned posters (so to speak) people that post like you are just as culpable in that dialectic but you don't see that. You actually see yourself as somehow above it which is strange.

I tend not to engage in the immediate aftermath of an attack because I find it all a bit distasteful. To be fair, I think the vast majority of people (including the non-aligned) are 'above' gleefully diving in with the "I told you so!" rhetoric as soon as news starts breaking.

Yourself isit

Raelyn Swift Pretzel wrote: »

Aha! Nit the bias shows. The Irish Times article was stating a fact. You're alternative is unfounded and politically swayed very much in one direction.

I'm out of here.

But you just came in?

The_Valeyard

The OP is spot on when he says the media has become the new parish priest at the pulpit.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Raelyn Swift Pretzel wrote: »

Aha! Nit the bias shows. The Irish Times article was stating a fact. You're alternative is unfounded and politically swayed very much in one direction.

I'm out of here.

Back to the echo chamber, is it?

You may not know this, but the only way humans have figured out how to co-operate over thousands of years is to sit down, discuss, and share information before reaching a common ground. Throwing a tantrum doesn't really solve anything.

I'm happy to continue and exchange of ideas and information with you if you'd like to try it.
Also, the IT journalist was stating an OPINION. These are not the same as facts.

Arcade_Tryer

Deleted User wrote: »

Both sides come out swinging with their tired cliches

It's just that the kneejerk reaction of the right tends to be borne out by the eventual facts, while the left (and, rather bizarrely, the board's decision making hierarchy) end up looking quite silly quite often by trying to censor debate and insist on no speculation on the sources of the attack.

Probably the single most important fact concerning Islamic terrorism is that Muslims are predominantly the biggest target. This fact is conveniently ignored by right wring propaganda which is pushed across boards and various media.

Owryan

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

But wouldn't the more obvious reaction be something like "Sweden's controversial mass immigration policy results in terror attack"? Or even "troubling questions about Sweden's appeasement of terror suspects?"


In case you didn't know, Sweden has a program to integrate ISIS terrorists back into society by rewarding them with free housing and benefits:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-isis-fighters-city-lund-returning-jihadis-housing-job-education-benefits-reintegration-a7371266.html


A society this far gone is probably not redeemable.

We have a convicted terrorist sitting in the dail. What's your point? Unless you're only targeting "furren" terrorists

Fleawuss

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The media have now replaced the parish priest as the moral authority of the people, self appointed of course.

You sound like you're grieving for the loss of position of the PP. The MSM are self appointed you say: the "moral authority" as you style it of the PP was based on doctrinal fiction so there no difference there. The IT article predicts that the far right will exploit the attack. Of course they will. As will IS. As will alt right loons to attack the MSM. As will Putin trolls. As will religious loons seeking to promote whichever flavor of "revealed" god they're peddling.

ancapailldorcha

RayM wrote: »

In fairness, all the right-wing extremists on Boards seem to cream themselves whenever an attack happens.

This is very true. There's a perverse sense of glee from some posts every time this happens because they feel it validates their narrative.

RandomName2

https://twitter.com/IrishTimes/status/850432358968811520


A part of me is inclined to think of it as simply stating the facts.

On the other hand imagine the shoe on the other foot, supose Irish Times had tweeted

Liberal Party in Hungary likely to see higher support after camera woman seen tripping migrant

or

Secular parties set to see rise in wake of Church sex abuse revelations.

It would seem a bit exploitative, surely?

I think it follows the mantra that "there's never an opportunity missed to give extremism a good kicking", which doesn't sound too bad, until you see that "extremist" can mean whatever you want it to mean. It could mean someone who likes blowing people up. Or it could mean a party which is anti-EU. A slippery slope of "the ends justify the means" I think.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is very true. There's a perverse sense of glee from some posts every time this happens because they feel it validates their narrative.

And visa-versa. Some people have barely veiled irritation at events proving a counter-narrative to that which they'd want to see. See, I said "some people" not something like "left-wing extremists", because that would be tarring with a pretty broad brush, wouldn't it?

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is very true. There's a perverse sense of glee from some posts every time this happens because they feel it validates their narrative.

The reverse is also true. Sometimes after a mass shooting in America, there's a weird information race to find out who the perpetrator is.
If it happens to be an Islamist suspect, some users take advantage of it.
If it's a white guy,sometimes there's a bunch of people that use it to score political points.

It works both ways.

Arcade_Tryer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Probably the single most important fact concerning Islamic terrorism is that Muslims are predominantly the biggest target. This fact is conveniently ignored by right wring propaganda which is pushed across boards and various media.

Not in cities in Europe they're not.

Which, let's be honest here, is the attacks we care most about. Because of normal human instincts, not gonna argue rightly or wrongly here on that topic. But it's highly relevant and totally refutes your point i think.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

Fleawuss wrote: »

You sound like you're grieving for the loss of position of the PP. The MSM are self appointed you say: the "moral authority" as you style it of the PP was based on doctrinal fiction so there no difference there. The IT article predicts that the far right will exploit the attack. Of course they will. As will IS. As will alt right loons to attack the MSM. As will Putin trolls. As will religious loons seeking to promote whichever flavor of "revealed" god they're peddling.

Bloody hell, that's the first time I've been accused of sounding sympathetic to the Church! Let me assure you, there is no love lost between me and the Catholic church. I just don't want even more extreme tyrants taking their place.

Beyondgone

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is very true. There's a perverse sense of glee from some posts every time this happens because they feel it validates their narrative.

Not sure how you perceive "a sense of glee" from words on a screen.

Is it not also true that at this stage, attacks having occurred so often, it does, in fact, vaguely validate "their narrative"?

Although I struggle to see any "narrative" in most of the related threads. It's usually just a mess of left v right point scoring and dictionary definitions of religion/skin colour with a smattering of calls to "ban" things. Like that ever worked. Ah well.

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

And visa-versa. Some people have barely veiled irritation at events proving a counter-narrative to that which they'd want to see. See, I said "some people" not something like "left-wing extremists", because that would be tarring with a pretty broad brush, wouldn't it?

And I said "Some posts". It isn't a counter narrative, it is a series of incidents by a tiny minority which certain people will use to tar a demographic over 1.5 billion people.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

The reverse is also true. Sometimes after a mass shooting in America, there's a weird information race to find out who the perpetrator is.
If it happens to be an Islamist suspect, some users take advantage of it.
If it's a white guy,sometimes there's a bunch of people that use it to score political points.

It works both ways.

It does but not to the same extent. Anyone calling for gun control will usually be shouted down pretty quickly while anyone touting the usual snide digs at multiculturalism will always find support from others and bring it up every time there is a terrorist attack.

The problem with terrorist attacks is that they bloody work, essentially

ancapailldorcha

Beyondgone wrote: »

Not sure how you perceive "a sense of glee" from words on a screen.

Easy. No time at all is wasted before someone trots out the same rhetoric and it's the same faces with a fair few reregs.

Beyondgone wrote: »

Is it not also true that at this stage, attacks having occurred so often, it does, in fact, vaguely validate "their narrative"?

Although I struggle to see any "narrative" in most of the related threads. It's usually just a mess of left v right point scoring and dictionary definitions of religion/skin colour with a smattering of calls to "ban" things. Like that ever worked. Ah well.

It is though. There are more than one but the quickest to get their opinions out are from the anti-multiculturalism brigade and it's always the same views which might as well be copied and pasted each time with maybe a mention of Tommy Robinson.

Arcade_Tryer

Deleted User wrote: »

Not in cities in Europe they're not.

Which, let's be honest here, is the attacks we care most about. Because of normal human instincts, not gonna argue rightly or wrongly here on that topic. But it's highly relevant and totally refutes your point i think.

Of course people here are going to care more about events in Europe, and even European lives. My point was in relation to the right wing narrative which arises after such events, which is that all Muslims are terrorists.

Yourself isit

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Probably the single most important fact concerning Islamic terrorism is that Muslims are predominantly the biggest target. This fact is conveniently ignored by right wring propaganda which is pushed across boards and various media.

of course sunnis and shia are at each others throats in the middle east ( all the more reason to keep secular dictators intact). The relevance of that to attacks in Europe escapes me.

Arcade_Tryer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Of course people here are going to care more about events in Europe, and even European lives. My point was in relation to the right wing narrative which arises after such events, which is that all Muslims are terrorists.

We can dismiss these morons surely though.

But more often than not i see the link between Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and....Islam handwaved away.

Fair enough, the geopolitical inputs are significant, probably moreso than the religious root cause.

But they ain't shouting "Sudan is a great little country in which to do business" as they launch their attacks either are they now

Beyondgone

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with terrorist attacks is that they bloody work, essentially

I don't know if they do.

Regarding "Multiculturalism", I couldn't care if 400 nations people come to Europe as long as they desist from running people down with trucks, give fitting in a bit of a lash and don't act the gowl. Beyond that, meh, carry on.

But to excuse the ones who do act the gowl, because to condemn them is "Racist", that, now that mystifies me. A gowl is a gowl, and I don't care where they pray or what colour they are.