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

ancapailldorcha

Beyondgone wrote: »

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.

The overwhelming majority don't, a nuance which gets lost in such threads.

Beyondgone wrote: »

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.

The only people who come out with this are right-wing nationalists playing at victim claiming.

Yourself isit

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The overwhelming majority don't, a nuance which gets lost in such threads.

I'd say very few people actually blame all Muslims. However blaming immigration policy (which is clearly what you are upset about) is clearly fair game.

The only people who come out with this are right-wing nationalists playing at victim claiming.

Isn't this the only true Scotsmen argument in reverse?

ancapailldorcha

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'd say very few people actually blame all Muslims. However blaming immigration policy (which is clearly what you are upset about) is clearly fair game.

They probably don't blame every single Muslim but they certainly do resent Muslims being in the country. I'm not sure why you're calling me upset by the way.

Yourself isit wrote: »

Isn't this the only true Scotsmen argument in reverse?

I don't see how. I'm only commenting based on the threads I've read on this site.

Il Fascista

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The overwhelming majority don't, a nuance which gets lost in such threads.

No it doesn't, but for some reason people who are more sympathetic to Islam always seem to think that that's the case. Most people make the distinction.

Beyondgone

Yourself isit wrote: »

I'd say very few people actually blame all Muslims. However blaming immigration policy (which is clearly what you are upset about) is clearly fair game.




Isn't this the only true Scotsmen argument in reverse?

I've voted socialist since I was 18, a long time ago. But there you go. I don't fear Immigration, or different cultures, I'm vaguely indifferent tbh. I'd be concerned that a small minority, and it is a minority, attempt to import religious views they consider I have to adopt (I'm not religious) and desire to run people over with lorries/shoot them to ensure their view prevails. That, now that bothers me. I don't give two hoots what they themselves pray about or where they're from. Its the "You must do this too or else" bit that bothers me.

The sheer amount of hate that gets sprouted in those threads is bananas. It's the same kind of discussions that happen after school shootings - people become either heavily for- or heavily against- whatever is the perceived cause. I remember one such thread after a school shooting where the weaponry was discussed and, I sh1t you not, people were saying how one weapon is better than the other.

I am of the opinion that news stories like that should be locked after the first 24-48 hours unless something relevant to the news story occurs because otherwise it just becomes the same discussions over and over again by the same posters over and over again and the actual event, which is the actual discussion, becomes an after-thought to people's agendas.

Icemancometh

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.

Whatever about a perverse sense of glee (which I think is a disgusting thing to accuse people of), don't attacks by Islamists validate concerns about Islamism?

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

And I said "Some posts".

But not the person you quoted.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

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.

Eh you could say that about anything really. Using a small minority such as the UDA, which probably only had a few dozen active members at any given time, to tar a demographic of nearly a million people. Using a tiny minority, such as Stazi, to tar the entire county of East Germany. And so on.

I mean you have a point, it's a pretty sloppy way to put an argument, and I think such arguments should be framed differently, but I'd hesitate to hand wave it as baseless. To say that Islam has a problem with extremism is, to put it mildly, an understatement. More important is whether extremist elements imply something greater (or, well, significantly greater at least).

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

I get what you mean, but I think where there is directed human action it takes on greater meaning though. More people in Britain died of cardiovascular disease during WW2 than from the war itself. Does that mean the war should have been something unimportant to people living in Britain, seeing as they were more likely to die from coronary heart disease than a bomb?

Yourself isit

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

They probably don't blame every single Muslim but they certainly do resent Muslims being in the country. I'm not sure why you're calling me upset by the way.

Maybe they are upset because people are being killed by Muslims.

I don't see how. I'm only commenting based on the threads I've read on this site.

You've basically condemned anybody who doesn't agree to your narrative as a right wing nationalist.

irishgrover

Just a word of warning.... on the twitter feed some SOB posted an image of a child victim of the attack. It is horrifically graphic.......the type of image I spend my life trying to avoid....

RandomName2

Icemancometh wrote: »

Whatever about a perverse sense of glee (which I think is a disgusting thing to accuse people of), don't attacks by Islamists validate concerns about Islamism?

I think you'd have to have several thousand attacks a day for that to be the case, otherwise it could be claimed to not be statistically relevant. I'm not even joking :pac:

ancapailldorcha

Icemancometh wrote: »

Whatever about a perverse sense of glee (which I think is a disgusting thing to accuse people of), don't attacks by Islamists validate concerns about Islamism?

Islamism? Sure. Muslims? No.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Eh you could say that about anything really. Using a small minority such as the UDA, which probably only had a few dozen active members at any given time, to tar a demographic of nearly a million people. Using a tiny minority, such as Stazi, to tar the entire county of East Germany. And so on.

I mean you have a point, it's a pretty sloppy way to put an argument, and I think such arguments should be framed differently, but I'd hesitate to hand wave it as baseless. To say that Islam has a problem with extremism is, to put it mildly, an understatement. More important is whether extremist elements imply something greater (or, well, significantly greater at least).

In fairness, how many East Germany or UDA threads do you see? I know there is a problem with extremism but I hate seeing the entire Muslim community being made to take the blame for it.

RandomName2 wrote: »

I get what you mean, but I think where there is directed human action it takes on greater meaning though. More people in Britain died of cardiovascular disease during WW2 than from the war itself. Does that mean the war should have been something unimportant to people living in Britain, seeing as they were more likely to die from coronary heart disease than a bomb?

I don't know what your point is here.

Yourself isit wrote: »

You've basically condemned anybody who doesn't agree to your narrative as a right wing nationalist.

Nope.

Beyondgone

irishgrover wrote: »

Just a word of warning.... on the twitter feed some SOB posted an image of a child victim of the attack. It is horrifically graphic.......the type of image I spend my life trying to avoid....

Same. I never click in because I know what I'd be looking at - horror. But I'd argue for years to uphold that persons right to post that picture, because otherwise, what becomes of reality?

Icemancometh

RandomName2 wrote: »

I think you'd have to have several thousand attacks a day for that to be the case, otherwise it could be claimed to not be statistically relevant. I'm not even joking :pac:

Don't get me wrong, the threat of this kind of terror attack is miniscule really, and the real threat comes in the response by the state. That's the whole point of asymmetric warfare. I'm just trying to see another viewpoint, and if you're concerned by IS inspired terror, of course IS inspired attacks validate your concerns.

RayM

Deleted User wrote: »

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

I wish we'd stop describing and reporting them as 'terrorist attacks'. In so many cases, the perpetrator is a lone angry nutjob with a crap life, who latched on to Islamic extremism (if he wasn't a Muslim, it would have been something else). Calling a twat who kills people with a truck a 'terrorist' gives him a level of notoriety that maybe he doesn't deserve.

Widdershins

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.

Minority sects if Muslims are among the biggest targets of ISIS, who have a heck of a lot of targets. I'm yet to meet these right wingers Boards is supposed to be heaving with. Or to see any of this propaganda. All I have seen is people making an effort to understand a really complex situation with a more complicated religion and political situation than any most of us are familiar with. The constant barracking about political compass designation is very counterproductive and meaningless. What the heck does it matter.

RayM

RayM wrote: »

I wish we'd stop describing and reporting them as 'terrorist attacks'. In so many cases, the perpetrator is a lone angry nutjob with a crap life, who latched on to Islamic extremism (if he wasn't a Muslim, it would have been something else). Calling a twat who kills people with a truck a 'terrorist' gives him a level of notoriety that maybe he doesn't deserve.

It's terrorism

It may or may not be coherently linked to x y or z fair enough, but visiting violence on random civilian targets in order to cause fear and disruption in the everyday populace is pretty much the dictionary definition.

I can't change that soz

pangbang

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The overwhelming majority don't, a nuance which gets lost in such threads.



The only people who come out with this are right-wing nationalists playing at victim claiming.

Speaking of nuance, saw a video a while back from some conference on muslim integration. When the typical "not all muslims" was raised, the comeback was excellently put.

It went along the lines that not all germans were Nazis, yet how many people died due to the Nazis?

A small minority of Russians backed the pogroms, but how many millions lost their lives?

A small minority of Chinese backed the revolution, but how many millions died?

A small minority of Japanese backed the empire, yet how many millions died across asia?

And when you really want to get down to what "small minority" means for muslims, a combined number from intelligence agencies puts radicalisation within islam at 10 to 15%....that's approaching 300 million.....three hundred million....radicalised nutjobs.

Its a minority relatively speaking, but a population the size of the United States that's out to kill everyone and anyone not like them is a BIG problem.

ancapailldorcha

pangbang wrote: »

And when you really want to get down to what "small minority" means for muslims, a combined number from intelligence agencies puts radicalisation within islam at 10 to 15%....that's approaching 300 million.....three hundred million....radicalised nutjobs.

Its a minority relatively speaking, but a population the size of the United States that's out to kill everyone and anyone not like them is a BIG problem.

Where exactly has this number come from?

Yourself isit

Beyondgone wrote: »

Same. I never click in because I know what I'd be looking at - horror. But I'd argue for years to uphold that persons right to post that picture, because otherwise, what becomes of reality?

People are deliberately publishing it because of the publishing of the victims of the sarin gas attack. Normally the media doesn't publish these pictures. You have to ask what's their criteria.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where exactly has this number come from?

99% of the time these facts and figures are pulled from people's arseholes or from something they read on Facebook.

Also.. this image kind of sums things up fantastically .. found on Reddit & while is aimed at a certain subreddit, it is true of people here too & the logic they have.

pangbang

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Where exactly has this number come from?

Ill have a look for the video again and post it here if I can find it

pangbang

pangbang wrote: »

Ill have a look for the video again and post it here if I can find it

Instead of posting the video, post the source of the facts. Otherwise, it's just pointless numbers.

Beyondgone

Yourself isit wrote: »

People are deliberately publishing it because of the publishing of the victims of the sarin gas attack. Normally the media doesn't publish these pictures. You have to ask what's their criteria.

I don't care. As long as the picture isn't faked, they have the right to publish it. It's called freedom. It may not be palatable, but I'd defend their right to publish it to the end. My idea of "what is right" may equally not sit well with others. I'm damned if I think that allows me to try define what they can or can't do as long as it is legal.

Which is why being informed, by dint of the threat of violence, how I HAVE to live my life, really bothers me. Which is basically the radical Islamists agenda. Cut it any way you like, that's their agenda. Their way or the grave. Well oddly, I'm not cool or ok with that idea lads. Kindly get fcuked.

pangbang

Deleted User wrote: »

Instead of posting the video, post the source of the facts. Otherwise, it's just pointless numbers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

theres the video. And I'll spend a moment looking for number sources.

But honestly, common sense tells me that a number in a low range of 10-15% radicalisation is not extraordinary

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

In fairness, how many East Germany or UDA threads do you see? I know there is a problem with extremism but I hate seeing the entire Muslim community being made to take the blame for it.

Well in fairness there aren't many UDA attacks these days and East Germany no longer exists. I totally get what you mean that it is entirely perverse to scapegoat an entire religion. That doesn't do anyone any good, and for one thing, it completely misses the nuance that "Islam", like "Christianity", is an umbrella term which encompasses completely secular people who put that religion on their census as that was what they were born into, to complete basket case fundamentalists, and everything in between.

Finger pointing is instinctive, but is merely used to blame others. People who finger point at the NRA in America after a shooting merely do their own cause a disservice, because it is devised merely to make an enemy of people who take gun-ownership very seriously, as opposed to attempting to work with others with conflicting views.

Consider an intervention. Interventions aren't designed to blame people, but they are designed to highlight that a problem exists (which the person in question may be ignoring). This seems to be the case with Islam. When an Islamic protest seems more likely to feature placards that say "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" than "I don't believe in Sharia law" then I think there's probably an issue which isn't being addressed.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't know what your point is here.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Who cares about how many people drown in the bath each year, unless these were bath related assassinations, or there is some manufacturing flaw with baths than can be addressed.

Saying that the 66,000 civilians who died in the UK from 1939-1945 are irrelevant because about 300,000 died due to cardiovascular complaints in the same period would be just as silly as saying that, looking at the big picture, a dozen or so people being killed in Westminster, or a handful of people being run down in Stockholm are statistically insignificant compared to -say- accidental deaths related to garden equipment.

Deleted User wrote: »

Also.. this image kind of sums things up fantastically .. found on Reddit & while is aimed at a certain subreddit, it is true of people here too & the logic they have.

And we have a winner, come up and get your prize.

ancapailldorcha

pangbang wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s

theres the video. And I'll spend a moment looking for number sources.

But honestly, common sense tells me that a number in a low range of 10-15% radicalisation is not extraordinary

Common sense tells me that a video of a few people talking is proof of absolutely nothing.

IvyTheTerrible

Well living in France, when I hear of another attack here, I get a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach and hope no-one I care about is involved.
I'm a teacher and we did a terrorist attack drill at school a few months ago, scary stuff.

I mean, if we're throwing random statistics out there - given the population of Ireland and the number of IRA members, you could argue that an Irish person is more likely to be a terrorist than a Muslim.

But then again you wouldn't say that because it would be a ludicrous claim.

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well in fairness there aren't many UDA attacks these days and East Germany no longer exists. I totally get what you mean that it is entirely perverse to scapegoat an entire religion. That doesn't do anyone any good, and for one thing, it completely misses the nuance that "Islam" like "Christianity" is an umbrella term which encompasses completely secular people who put that religion on their census as that was what they were born into, to complete basket case fundamentalists, and everything in between.

Finger pointing is instinctive, but is merely used to blame. People who finger point at the NRA in America after a shooting merely do their own cause a disservice, because it is divised merely to make an enemy of people who take gun-ownership very seriously as opposed to attempting to work with others with conflicting views.

Consider an intervention. Interventions aren't designed to blame people, but they are designed to highlight that a problem exists (which the person in question may be ignoring). This seems to be the case with Islam. When an Islamic protest seems more likely to feature placards that say "Europe is the cancer, Islam is the answer" than "I don't believe in Sharia law" then I think there's probably an issue which isn't being addressed.

A protest isn't a suitable metric. I'm not saying that extremism isn't a problem, nor that it equally applies to people of different faiths and none. The fact that so many people from the Muslim community are radicalised is a serious issue. All I am saying is that the community as a whole can't be blamed for the actions of these individuals who act alone or in small groups.

RandomName2 wrote: »

Lies, damned lies and statistics.

Who cares about how many people drown in the bath each year, unless these were bath related assassinations, or there is some manufacturing flaw with baths than can be addressed.

Saying that the 66,000 civilians who died in the UK from 1939-1945 are irrelevant because about 300,000 died due to cardiovascular complaints in the same period would be just as silly as saying that, looking at the big picture, a dozen or so people being killed in Westminster, or a handful of people being run down in Stockholm are statistically insignificant compared to -say- accidental deaths related to garden equipment.

I didn't say any deaths were irrelevant.