Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

London terror attack confirmed by Met Police

Options
1…7576788081…114

Comments

  • Options
    #2312
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Bizarre approach to take a figure for terrorist attacks across all ideologies over a 25 year period and compare it to the figure for attacks linked by a particular ideology over a 14 year period and then claim you've somehow made a coherent argument.

    That's an astonishingly poor grasp of how figures work or a very bad faith argument imo


  • Options
    #2313
    gitzy16v
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭gitzy16v


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    said stuff

    Let me guess...lets stop talking about Islamic Terror in a thread directly related to Islamic terror because peanuts,swimming and suicide kill more people.


  • Options
    #2314
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,379 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    gitzy16v wrote: »
    Let me guess...lets stop talking about Islamic Terror in a thread directly related to Islamic terror because peanuts,swimming and suicide kill more people.

    I thought we were talking about the british?


  • Options
    #2315
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Bizarre approach to take a figure for terrorist attacks across all ideologies over a 25 year period and compare it to the figure for attacks linked by a particular ideology over a 14 year period and then claim you've somehow made a coherent argument.

    That's an astonishingly poor grasp of how figures work or a very bad faith argument imo

    Bizarre as in the ideology only matters and not the amount of dead bodies?

    Or bizarre as in you only care when it's done by Islamists in the name of some Fairytale God?

    There's nothing "bizarre" about making the point that the amount of people being killed by TERRORISTS (of all races, genders, religions and ideologies) is far lower nowadays than it once was in Europe.


  • Options
    #2316
    gitzy16v
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭gitzy16v


    pjohnson wrote: »
    I thought we were talking about the british?

    They tried hard to veer the thread off course but they failed;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2317
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    gitzy16v wrote: »
    Let me guess...lets stop talking about Islamic Terror in a thread directly related to Islamic terror because peanuts,swimming and suicide kill more people.

    How about lets stop exaggerating the scale of the problem of Islamic Terror in Europe and then I won't feel the need to point out the myriad of other things that kill far more people.


  • Options
    #2318
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Ok, you need to clarify something for the rest of us:

    Is what we're seeing (recent upsurge in Islamic terrorism, i.e. ISIS inspired attacks on Western civilians) mainly the result of the British (and Americans) bombing the ME, and if so, when do you regard this bombing to have commenced?

    Nothing to do with the sudden and recent collapse of power in the ME, namely the removal of "secular" strongman that kept in check the Islamic fundamentalists, who now, using Western technologies, are seeking to reestablish an Islamic caliphate last seen when Mehmed VI departed in 1922...

    It's a complicated serious of events. But basically, when you interfere in a country that you have no place in, try to mishmash the running of the country to suit yourself, continually bomb, kill and maim for decade after decade, arm the people that you think are on your side, leave the area in absolute ruin and then remove anyone that has any control over matters you end up with isis.


  • Options
    #2319
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,379 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    gitzy16v wrote: »
    They tried hard to veer the thread off course but they failed;)

    So now its the devil peanuts again.


  • Options
    #2320
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,379 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    How about lets stop exaggerating the scale of the problem of Islamic Terror in Europe and then I won't feel the need to point out the myriad of other things that kill far more people.

    I'm sure you will continue anyway.


  • Options
    #2321
    gitzy16v
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭gitzy16v


    pjohnson wrote: »
    So now its the devil peanuts again.

    ABI...Anything But Islam


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2322
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    mikeybrennan wrote: »
    I don't think that's totally true

    Facts don't care what you believe or your gut feelings.

    Less people die from terrorists nowadays in Europe than in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s.

    The 2010's is the safest decade so far statistically.


  • Options
    #2323
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,379 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    gitzy16v wrote: »
    ABI...Anything But Islam

    Ah now we do get Islam praise. Thats encouraged. Just don't dare critique it.


  • Options
    #2324
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    Bizarre as in the ideology only matters and not the amount of dead bodies?

    Or bizarre as in you only care when it's done by Islamists in the name of some Fairytale God?

    There's nothing "bizarre" about making the point that the amount of people being killed by TERRORISTS (of all races, genders, religions and ideologies) is far lower nowadays than it once was in Europe.

    Bizarre as in your statistical approach is flawed and the point you are making is fairly irrelevant to the main thrust of the point you think you are refuting.

    But come now, you are perfectly aware of this.


  • Options
    #2325
    wonderfullife
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,924 ✭✭✭wonderfullife


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Bizarre as in your statistical approach is flawed and the point you are making is fairly irrelevant to the main thrust of the point you think you are refuting.

    But come now, you are perfectly aware of this.

    The fact we are statistically far safer from the threat of terrorism now is irrelevant in refuting the hyperbole of the thread of Islamic Terrorists?

    What?


  • Options
    #2326
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    youreadthat wrote: »
    You live in a fantasy land.

    It's really hard to accept isn't it? The truth is that they can get away with things in the Middle East that they can't.......actually thinking about it, no, they did the exact same in this country and seem to have gotten away with it.


  • Options
    #2327
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    ilkhanid wrote: »
    Most people know the difference between innocent victims and combatants. IS don't care.

    Let's get this straight. IS and their acolytes don't think like us;they're in another mental place and it's futile to compare them to us. They don't have empathy like we do. If they did they wouldn't do what they do. They're like the Nazis and the Stalinists in that regard;they simply don't see huge numbers of other beings as being properly human. When they say things, they don't mean the things you think they saying, words mean different things to them.
    They follow a strain of Islam that emphasises the connection between Sunni Muslims above all else. To them (Sunni) Islam overrides all over other obligations,duties and loyalties. Only the Ummah matters. For a start that means that they have disconnected themselves from any community they inhabit.
    They are, in addition, takfiris, which means that they reserve the right to exclude or, excommunicate, everybody who differs from them, to pronounce them as un-Islamic.
    You've probably heard them condemn the "West" for waging war against "The Muslims" -as they put it. But to them "the Muslims" don't mean all Muslims, just a tiny percentage of Muslims. For a start, all the Shia, Ismaelis, Ahmadis, Druze , Ibadis and people of every other strain of Islam are heretic and subject to the death penalty. As are members of "Polytheist" (their notion) religions. Christians and Jews are to be humble inferiors living in fear and subjection.
    Muslims who co-operate with "Apostate" regimes, simply by paying taxes,voting or living an impious life are considered liable for death.Men have been killed for shaving, women for uncovering their faces.
    That's a considerable proportion of the population of the world. IS ultimately harbours ambitions for genocidal slaughter on a scale that would dwarf the toll of the 20c tyrants.
    Trying to ascribe righteous indignation for Muslims killed in bombings, or whatever, to people like that is nonsensical. They're beyond all that. To them Muslims are only fodder for the war that they see in their grandiose ambitions:only martyrs or the damned. Nothing else. Don't be misled by this nonsense.

    These people don't just come from nowhere! They're created.


  • Options
    #2328
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Its a great talent the protectors of Islam have to turn a conversation about the Muslim murderers into a British Murderers discussion. If you run out of excuses best switch topic completely ;)

    I don't know about anyone else but I have not defended Muslim murderers, I'm just showing how they were created.


  • Options
    #2329
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    Ok, you need to clarify something for the rest of us:

    Is what we're seeing (recent upsurge in Islamic terrorism, i.e. ISIS inspired attacks on Western civilians) mainly the result of the British (and Americans) bombing the ME, and if so, when do you regard this bombing to have commenced?

    Nothing to do with the sudden and recent collapse of power in the ME, namely the removal of "secular" strongman that kept in check the Islamic fundamentalists, who now, using Western technologies, are seeking to reestablish an Islamic caliphate last seen when Mehmed VI departed in 1922...

    You do realise don't you that the West is largely at fault for removing said 'secular strongmen' in the ME.


  • Options
    #2330
    gizmo81
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,695 ✭✭✭gizmo81


    Just watched the documentary My jihadi Neighbours someone posted here today and now they name one of the attackers from that.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40165646


  • Options
    #2331
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,379 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    neverever1 wrote: »
    I don't know about anyone else but I have defended Muslim murderers , I'm just showing how they were created.

    I agree


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2332
    gitzy16v
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,093 ✭✭✭gitzy16v


    70's 80's 90's death toll from terrorism is about 1320 deaths.
    2004-2017 death toll is a few shy of 700 deaths...
    So 30 years versus 13 years the death toll is half...funny that, how stats work.


  • Options
    #2333
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,144 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    neverever1 wrote: »
    I don't know about anyone else but I have defended Muslim murderers, I'm just showing how they were created.

    Yes we know you've been defending them.


  • Options
    #2334
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    pjohnson wrote: »
    I agree

    Edited because clearly I have been critical of these murderers from the start.


  • Options
    #2335
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    The fact we are statistically far safer from the threat of terrorism now is irrelevant in refuting the hyperbole of the thread of Islamic Terrorists?

    What?

    Again, I've taken the time to tell you where your statistical comparison is invalid.

    On the second diversionary tactic, trying to compare all terrorism in a previous historical period with Islamic terrorism recently, you are in fact arguing that the recent trend of a greater proportion of terrorist deaths being linked to this single common factor is a reason to be........less concerned about that factor. Fabulous reasoning there.

    Even if your figures were unquestionable (they aren't, including mafia figures as terrorism ffs) and your dataset criteria were identical (they aren't) and the sample period comparable (they aren't) - even giving you all of this nonsense, you still come to a completely irrational conclusion.

    I'm only engaging you because there's a certain lazy intellectual comfort in being able to take your nonsense to pieces, which is a lot more satisfying that trying to get one's head around the breadth of the problems that need to be addressed here even after you can bring yourself to state what's clear and evident to anyone with an eye to see it.


  • Options
    #2336
    Peregrine
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 26,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭Peregrine


    Here's a list of people currently banned from posting in this thread and for very good reason. We want to keep this discussion civil and don't want it overrun by trolling, incivility or people turning it into their personal hobby horse agendas. If they're posting in it again, please report the posts and let us deal with it. Ta.

    gw80
    Wheeliebin30
    LordSutch
    Junkyard Tom
    Guy Sajer
    boneyarsebogman
    Jobs OXO
    gitzy16v
    123shooter
    wonderfullife
    BalcombeSt4
    Fratton Fred

    Mod


  • Options
    #2337
    Dyr
    Registered Users Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    wonderfullife wrote: »
    The fact we are statistically far safer from the threat of terrorism now is irrelevant in refuting the hyperbole of the thread of Islamic Terrorists?

    What?

    Who's "we"?

    The population of europe or the population of Norn Iron?

    because the latter is the only "we" that your statistic holds water for

    The fact that you're actually trying to make the point shows the level of self delusion we're dealing with here?


  • Options
    #2338
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Yes we know you've been defending them.

    Calling them murdering bastards is somehow defending them? The only people defending terrorism is the supporters of British/American bombing campaigns.


  • Options
    #2339
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    neverever1 wrote: »
    It's a complicated serious of events. But basically, when you interfere in a country that you have no place in, try to mishmash the running of the country to suit yourself, continually bomb, kill and maim for decade after decade, arm the people that you think are on your side, leave the area in absolute ruin and then remove anyone that has any control over matters you end up with isis.

    jeez, it was a simple enough question...

    any chance you could answer it?


  • Options
    #2340
    neverever1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 864 ✭✭✭neverever1


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    jeez, it was a simple enough question...

    any chance you could answer it?

    Yes I just did. Also has anyone read this: https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/the-manchester-bombing-as-blowback-the-latest-evidence-83ec2127801d
    Look, maybe people don't know the truth or don't want to believe that British/American forces have caused all this with decades or murderous and underhand tactics. There is no excuse for the murder of innocents by these madmen, let's get that clear. However, there can be no excuse for British/American murder either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2341
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    gitzy16v wrote: »
    70's 80's 90's death toll from terrorism is about 1320 deaths.
    2004-2017 death toll is a few shy of 700 deaths...
    So 30 years versus 13 years the death toll is half...funny that, how stats work.
    You left out the years covering the 9/11, Madrid and Bali attacks. Funny that.


Advertisement