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

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 09-04-2017 4:32pm #1

.....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 · 09-04-2017 4:37pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:37pm

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

09-04-2017 4:39pm

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.

09-04-2017 4:44pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:45pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:46pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:51pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:51pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:53pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:54pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:56pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:56pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:59pm

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

Biggest lickspittle on boardz · 09-04-2017 4:59pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:59pm

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 · 09-04-2017 4:59pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:03pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:03pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:08pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:09pm

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.

09-04-2017 5:11pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:12pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:12pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:15pm

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.

09-04-2017 5:18pm

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

ancapailldorcha · 09-04-2017 5:18pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:20pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:23pm

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.

09-04-2017 5:24pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:24pm

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.

ancapailldorcha · 09-04-2017 5:27pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:33pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:37pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:39pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:40pm

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.

09-04-2017 5:41pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:44pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:45pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:46pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:47pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:49pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:51pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:51pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:52pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:53pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:54pm

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.

09-04-2017 5:56pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:56pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:57pm

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 · 09-04-2017 5:58pm

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.

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

Comments